Is Game Adversarial?

“My biggest problem with the Ro writers is that Game is by definition adversarial. It’s us against them, don’t let the bitch win. That is most definitely Rollo’s approach, yet he commands respect from men here. I can only assume that good men read a lot of Roissy, Roosh or Rollo, incorporate some small fraction of it, and use it to improve their relationships, rather than for nefarious means.”

Aunt Susan came up with this little gem and it got me thinking over the weekend. Is Game adversarial?

I can certainly understand how women with a vested interest in maximizing the dictates of their hypergamy would think so. It’s not in the collective best interest of women’s sexual selectivity (e.g. the feminine imperative) that men be educated in how best to access their vaginas. For the same reason porn and prostitution is socially stigmatized, any medium that makes for easier resolution of a man’s sexual demand necessarily devalues women’s most valuable agency – her sexuality. So from Aunt Sue’s side of the equation I can certainly see how Game could be considered adversarial, but is it really that malicious? Do we “not wanna let the bitch win?” I don’t think so.

Whenever I consider reasonings for Game I have to begin from the perspective of why Game developed in the first place. Game is the logical response, the inevitable countermeasure, to feminization and female primacy. In the foggy days of emerging internet proto-Game there wasn’t some diabolical PUA who thought “Ha! At last I’ve discovered the secret psychology to make those bitches pay for all their lies and wrongdoing!” There might be an MRA guy who has such a vendetta, but it’s not the PUA community. Game developed because men began to see the code in the Matrix. They used simple behaviorism, observable results and modified their social experiments until they could get to a relatively predictable, usable technique. The internet then gave them a global access to compare notes and develop their own approaches. Thus we have Game.

Firestarter

Now that Prometheus has stolen the fire of Game from Aphrodite and given it to mortal men, what will they do with it? Warm the hearts of women by knowing exactly what a man should be, or will they burn their homes to the ground in hedonistic pursuits? Let me allay some fears here first; it’s been my overwhelming experience that men would rather see Game as some, often underdeveloped, expedient to getting with their Dream Girl than to exact some revenge upon womankind. When they first become aware of Game, most chumps reject it wholesale – they’re too insulated in their feminization programming to accept it. Of those who don’t, the first tendency is to use it to get that one elusive girl who’s been forever out of reach, even if she’s just an idealization. Finally, there are the select few Men who really understand the mechanics of Game, internalize it and use it like an art.

For all the rationalizations against Game, very rarely is it used as a weapon. In fact Game doesn’t even approach the same level of weaponization with which women have classically used their sexuality as against men. Game’s been around for a decade, women have been wielding the power of the V for millennia. We take women weaponizing their vaginas as a matter of fact – men using Game, well that’s a major threat.

Now then, for the record, and to make Aunt Sue a bit more comfortable, let me express that I in no way believe that the sexes were meant to be adversarial. On the contrary, it is the adamant view of this blog’s proprietor that the sexes we’re, and are, meant to compliment one another. It is just in this belief that Game becomes a necessity as a logical step forward for masculinity in the face of the overwhelming feminization of the past 40 years. Game is only viewed as a retaliatory threat when it is interpreted from the perspective of  female imperative interests. True misogyny and misandry are both exceptionally rare social outliers, but a female imperative, cautious of protecting its eminence and control, will fling accusations of misogyny against anything it perceives as a threat to it. In fact the liberty with which misogynistic accusations are thrown about is the best evidence of the control female primacy exerts in society. If anything is adversarial it’s the deliberate 40 year push of feminization that imbalances the genders. Feminization has become so embedded and acculturated into society at this stage that anything that attempts to tip that scale back to the masculine side (i.e. Game) is automatically ridiculed at best or legally eradicated at worst. Ultimately, my intent is that Game – real, internalized, personality changing Game – will restore that complimentary balance to gender dynamics.

Aunt Sue’s beef isn’t about the utility of Game so much as what it’s used for. If I announced that there was this great new way of thinking that makes men want to be the best man possible to facilitate better committed relationships for women I could start my own cable channel and become a celebrity psychologist. Oddly enough, this is what most men want to do with Game; do exactly what women keep telling them is expected of them and man-the-fuck-up. Only when they do they’re called misogynists. All that being what it is, the root of the point of contention is that Game places men in a better position to facilitate their own sexual interests. If a technique could be developed that would virtually guarantee a desired sexual behavior from women it destroys their sex as the ultimate commodity for men. The root of every social convention women develop and normalize can be found in protecting the valuation of their sexuality. Take that away and they cease to become the ‘protected sex’ and join the ranks of the ‘disposable sex’.

Ladies, thank your lucky stars for Game. With any luck the strong, masculine, decisive, confidence necessary for applied Game will become internalized by men, thus giving you the Men you really want – the Man Up guys you love and hate so much, but really love all the more. Worry less about a guy using Game to create his personal harem and more about a guy not fully realizing what Game can really teach him.


18 responses to “Is Game Adversarial?

  • Mike C

    Aunt Sue’s beef isn’t about the utility of Game so much as what it’s used for. If I announced that there was this great new way of thinking that makes men want to be the best man possible to facilitate better committed relationships for women I could start my own cable channel and become a celebrity psychologist. Oddly enough, this is what most men want to do with Game; do exactly what women keep telling them is expected of them and man-the-fuck-up. Only when they do they’re called misogynists. All that being what it is, the root of the point of contention is that Game places men in a better position to facilitate their own sexual interests.

    I won’t presume to say exactly what Susan’s thoughts/intent are here, and if she is reading here, maybe she will really clarify her position and put a stake firmly in the ground, but what you allude to here is something I’ve been pondering/chewing/mulling over as this discussion has evolved in various blogs, and it is this:

    To the extent that some women support Game or some development of Game within men, it is really to the end that they become sexually attractive “husband material”, not really that they acquire a high level of agency/power over their sexual/relationship options. To the degree women are sexually attracted to a particular set of male attributes/traits, the underlying motivation is to make the “beta Dad types” more competitive with the “alpha cad” types. The hope is to create a man who is much more sexually attractive than the typical beta Herb, but who retains the strong desire for a monogamous committed relationship rather than a full exercise of the full menu of options that comes with being a sexually attractive male in this particular culture in this particular time.

    In other words, the main reason for a guy to get some “Game” is to benefit the female preference for hypergamous serial monogamy rather than the male preference for polygamous variety. Now I see nothing wrong with. Naturally, women are going to be more interested in the female interest, just as men are going to be more interested in the male interest, just as African-Americans are going to be more interested in black issues like affirmative action instead of reverse discrimination. Ultimately, we human beings somewhat color our views based on the groups we identify with.

    And interesting question for women who are mothers with BOTH sons and daughters. Whose interest do you find yourself spending more mental energy concerned with. That the daughter finds a good husband to commit? Or that the son finds a good wife who is loving, loyal, and genuinely sexually attracted to, and that he doesn’t settle for a woman out of a lack of options? And I’d flip that question on you Rollo. How does being the father of a daughter (I believe you mentioned that) influence your views on male versus female interests? Obviously, there is some irreconciliable different in interests that nature programmed into us..

  • (R)evoluzione

    Indeed–game is manning the fuck up, but it’s doing so on men’s terms.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    I get that question a lot. Generally it’s couched in absolute terms, would I want my daughter to get hustled by some PUA running Game? In all honesty I’d be more concerned with her getting saddled with a faithful loser only to ditch him for a better guy after she’d had kids with the loser. It’s my job to teach her to know the difference by living the example.

    Perhaps the best compliment I’ve ever received was from my wife when she told me she hoped our daughter would be blessed with a Man like me. My girl is already showing the signs that she knows the difference between the behaviors of a Man and those of feminized men. She see it in her teachers and in other boys she knows (she’s 13) and she asks me if I think so-and-so is a chump.

    I think there’s this disingenuous sudden shock for parents awakening to the idea of having their kids grow up and get married in a post-Game world. When I was doing the semi-pro music thing in the late 80′s early 90′s I can tell you that what was going to become Game was alive and well, just no one called it that. Of the 40+ women I’ve bedded the majority of them were between the ages of 20 and 24 for me. So in that 4 year period I had the most sexual encounters of my life. It’s not as if the parents of today don’t have any concept of ‘hooking up’. We just didn’t have the internet to compare notes with other people then. It’s only now that we pretend to be shocked by the scale of it.

    The Kay Hymowitzs of the world would have us believe that we should empathize with them for their poor unprepared daughters plight to marry a ‘decent man’. What they’re really bemoaning isn’t the lack of preparation, but rather the results of 40 years of feminization in society. Were finally seeing the results of all that gender reprogramming, and the New Women are wondering why there are no ‘real men’ available and why aren’t they attractive in their masculizing business suits. Even the Kate Bolick’s of the world are fearful for the future daughters they’ll likely never have. That’s just part of the pseudo-concern they have about themselves and their own predicament – it’s too late for me, but maybe you can spare your daughters from my horrible fate.

    Trust me, Bebe Tomassi will be far and away better prepared for the rigors of the 2020′s SMP if for no other reason than we’ve seen the never-married horrors of where this feminization has led us to. Make no mistake, I’m preparing her to understand men’s motives, but I’m also equally preparing her to see the poison in the motives of feminization.

  • Eyecontact

    When women talk about men “manning up”, they are not interested in average beta men becoming more alpha and attractive. The concept of personal transformation is alien to them. A beta is a beta. Any attempt for him to appear more attractive to women is purely trickery.

    Women want the alphas that they love to be more commitment minded, more beta… that is what they mean by “manning up”.

  • ASF

    Excellent point.

  • Mike C

    The concept of personal transformation is alien to them. A beta is a beta. Any attempt for him to appear more attractive to women is purely trickery.

    Funny you say that. Just recently, over at Susan’s HUS, we got into the discussion about Game and men learning and adopting it for about the zilliionth time, and one of the female commenters made a series of comments that are basically indicate the above is spot on.

  • Dan Fletcher

    Love how women bemoan game as trickery then spend an hour putting on make-up.

    Game is no more adversarial than make-up and cleavage.

  • Eyecontact

    No-one likes to be tricked. But the thing is, the man practicing game will eventually become the real deal, as he imbibes a new mindset.

    On the other hand, it’s just so disappointing when that padded, shaped bra finally comes off… do women have any idea how that feels? To invest time and effort into a woman based on a false premise. I submit this is the real reason men don’t call the next day…

  • susanawalsh

    FWIW, I am on record as being pro-Game, for the exact reason you describe: it increases the pool of sexually attractive men. I also believe that Game is amoral – only as good for men and women as its application.

    I do not consider Game misogynistic in the least, though again, it can be promoted that way easily by misogynistic bloggers. Overall, men realizing their own agency in pursuing their own sexual interests is beneficial to women, as long as they can filter out the cads from the dads.

    The quote from me here specifically addresses the kind of advice I have seen offered here and at the other Ro blogs. The tone is most definitely competitive rather than collaborative. Men gain, women lose, it’s winner take all. The now notorious “sex or dump on the third date” is the primary example, but the tone is pretty consistent.

  • Johnycomelately

    “Women want the alphas that they love to be more commitment minded, more beta… that is what they mean by “manning up”.

    As of yet I have only known one beta to become an alpha (oddly only to women, his male friends still think he is a shmuck) and it took a lot of steroids and human growth hormones to accomplish it.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    You’re not nearly familiar enough with my posts to make that judgement.

    Neither did you really get the take home message in Wait For It? You predictably took it as an ultimatum (sex or else) because the feminine reality is your only reality. If it serves the feminne it’s “correct.”

    The reason what I, or Roissy, or Roosh, write about resonates with men is because it is SO reliably consistent with other men’s experiences and observations – and now we have a global forum to compare notes. I realize how threatening that is to female primacy, so the first presumption is to take it as adversarial. You see, in a feminine reality it’s always presumed that whatever directly benefits a woman necessarily benefits a man. Yet whatever directly benefits a man is characterized as assumed selfishness, shallowness or adversarial to a woman – even if indirectly she would benefit from it in some way.

    Wait for it was warning for men, not an ultimatum for women. It was a warning meant to dissuade guys from over-investing in women with less than an optimal interest in them. It was a warning against whiling away their efforts and time warming up in a woman’s bullpen while other hitters got their turn at bat. In other words, it was a warning that directly benefits men, and as such it’s a threat in woman-world.

    The idea that it might serve both men and women’s interests to be involved with a partner they’re both enthusiastically interested in doesn’t even enter the equation in woman-world. Hypergamy necessitates that women need to retain social dominance in sexual selectivity. Ergo, anything that would marginalize that is viewed as adversarial.

  • susanawalsh

    I realize how threatening that is to female primacy, so the first presumption is to take it as adversarial.

    Well, that’s a binary view. I do not believe in female primacy, or male primacy. I believe in the differences between the sexes, and that mating is a negotiation between two parties with conflicting mating strategies.

    There are bloggers who use Game to acquire, sustain and increase attraction in LTRs, e.g. Keoni, Athol Kay, Vox Day. By definition, their view focuses on the give and take between the sexes. It’s the Captain/First Officer model, which I suppose is a male primacy model, though not as drastic as others. I happily subscribe to that approach, as I believe it recognizes and rewards sex differences while promising the greatest chance of LTR success.

    There are other bloggers who are less focused on the collaborative model, where Game is deployed primarily as a method of getting something for oneself, usually in the short term, rather than as a method of sharing a relationship over a long period of time. Certainly Roosh and Roissy fall into this latter camp. If I have mischaracterized your approach as similar, I apologize. It is true that I have not read through all of your posts.

    In any case, the short-term approach to Game, i.e. get it in asap, inevitably leads to a combat dating culture, as divergent mating strategies collide. The only winner is the alpha who seeks to P&D.

  • Mike C

    Wait for it was warning for men, not an ultimatum for women. ***It was a warning meant to dissuade guys from over-investing in women with less than an optimal interest in them. It was a warning against whiling away their efforts and time warming up in a woman’s bullpen while other hitters got their turn at bat.**** In other words, it was a warning that directly benefits men, and as such it’s a threat in woman-world.

    The idea that it might serve both men and women’s interests to be involved with a partner ****they’re both enthusiastically interested in**** doesn’t even enter the equation in woman-world.

    Well said. And the thing is…this isn’t just pie in the sky theorizing. This speaks to an on the ground reality that becomes many men’s lives unfortunately. I don’t read Athol Kay regularly, but I happen to check in yesterday and he had a post that SPEAKS EXACTLY TO WHAT YOU ARE GETTING AT HERE.

    http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/2011/11/when-you-discover-that-you-were-her.html

    “I’ve come across this scenario three times in the last few days. ****For whatever reason, it comes out that the husband is in fact the wife’s Plan B for choice in partner.**** She may like him, she may love him, they may have a great life with house, kids and careers, ***but he simply doesn’t occupy her head-space of hotness. Someone else does.***

    I understood (at least to me) that one of the primary intents of the Wait for It was to make sure you don’t end up as some woman’s Plan B which really is a sad place to end up for any man. At the risk of overstating it/engaging in hyperbole, I think most men would rather spend a lifetime jerking off to Internet porn or going to prostitutes than knowingly commit his resources, emotion, and loyalty in a women who sees him as a Plan B option.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    This is a riff off another comment, but I may do a full post on this:

    Even if your goal is to be in a long term relationship/family and to be a successful provider for your wife and offspring, it is better to take the “lover” (Alpha) approach. It is not difficult at all for a guy who has attracted a woman and slept with her to later decide “I want to provide for you”. That option is always available, and there’s nothing contradictory about an Alpha deciding to pair bond with a woman.

    However, the opposite is not true. Its VERY difficult for a man who has interested a woman as a “provider” (beta) to later convert that interest into primal attraction. Alphas who insist on pre-commitment sex and then do transition into commitment and monogamy still retain that Alpha cred into their LTR (5 minutes of Alpha trumps 5 years of beta). Betas on the other hand must fight a constant uphill battle to be taken seriously as primal, Alpha ”lover” when they try to convert from the patient, reliable guy willing to wait for sex in an LTR.

  • Good Luck Chuck

    You aren’t going to convince modern women that game isn’t adversarial because the same women you are trying to convince are the ones diving into the cock buffet while claiming they would prefer a romantic candlelit dinner.

    The mating game on the other hand is very much adversarial. This adversarial nature is of course sugar coated with things such as “love”, but make no mistake; the nature of two people coming together to form a sexual bond is rooted in individual survival instincts. Love is transient and is only there to facilitate the transaction.

  • samseau

    Of course game is adversarial. People have known this since the dawn of time.

    “All’s fair in love and war.”

    Go read a Greek play. This is old news.

  • loveiseasy

    Cheers, well put.

  • My advice to Susan, my advice to myself « Rivelino in Spain

    [...] also reminds me of a post by rollo, how most men want to learn game to bag their “dream girl”, not to turn into [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,645 other followers

%d bloggers like this: