“All’s fair in love and war.”

Go read a Greek play. This is old news.

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.

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.

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.

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.