Game Changers

game-changer

Whenever I consult teenage guys or young adult men I’m always reminded about how my ‘Game’ has changed over the course of my lifetime. The 17 year old Rollo Tomassi would be be appalled at the mindset of the 46 year old Rollo Tomassi.

Granted, much of that shock would probably be attributed to the lack of experience my younger self had with regards to female nature, human nature and, if I’m honest, I suffered from the same naiveté most young men do when it comes to judging people’s character. In fact, at the time, my belief was that I shouldn’t ever judge anyone’s character, nor did I, nor should anyone really, have the right to.

Part of that assumption was from an undeveloped religious learning, but more so it was due to a youthful idealism I held – I’d been conditioned to believe not only that you “can’t judge a book by its cover”, but also that you shouldn’t do so, and ought to be ashamed for considering it.

I’m flattered that people might think I’m some phenomenal interpreter of psychology, the nature of women, intergender relations and a model upon which men should aspire to in order to get laid and still have a great (now 18 year) marriage. It has not always been so.

If I have any credibility now it’s not due to my getting everything miraculously right, but because I had everything so horribly wrong more often than not.

One of the most valuable lessons I learned in my time studying psychology and personality studies is that personality is alway in flux. Who you are today is not who you will be in another few years. Hopefully that’s for the better after learning something and applying it towards your own personal progress, but it could equally be a traumatic experience that changes you for the worse.

For better or worse, personality shifts – sometimes slowly, sometimes suddenly – and while you may retain aspects of your personality, mannerisms, talents, past experiences and beliefs into the next iteration of yourself in a new phase of your life, rest assured, you will not be who you are now at any other time.

Game Changes

I’m sorry if this sounds all fortune cookie to you at the moment, but it’s a necessary preface to understanding how Game changes for men as their life situations and circumstances change during different phases of their lives and the shifts in their own personalities and learned perceptions change as they age.

It’s an easy step for me to assume that, were I to find myself single tomorrow, I wouldn’t approach Game in any degree as I would were I the 26 year old version of myself. Indeed, the primary reason I’ve involved myself in expanding the Preventative Medicine series into the next volume of The Rational Male is to help men at different phases of their own development understand what to expect from women (and themselves) during these periods of their life.

About two weeks ago I broached the subject of how Game should be a universal knowledge-tool for the everyman. My intent in Game and Circumstance was to shine some light on how Game and red pill awareness is (should be) a benefit for men regardless of their circumstance.

As I expected, the comparisons of Looks vs. Game was the inevitable discussion in the comment thread, because the presumption is that a man’s most evident condition is how he looks and how women are or are not aroused / attracted to their perception of him. I’ve written more about this Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks arousal dynamic than I care to review at the moment, but suffice it to say I do place a high importance on a man’s physical bearing.

However, my intent wasn’t to engage in a debate over the importance of looks, but rather that Game and red pill awareness is applicable for men of every social or personal condition – even the short, pudgy guy who empties the trash in your office. He may not have the potential to enjoy sex with a swimsuit model, but the tenets of Game can help him improve his life within his own circumstances.

Game Beyond PUA

When I was writing The Rational Male I specifically wrote and published a post on the Evolution of Game to be included in the book in order to demystify an impression of Game which I still think people (particularly the blue pill uninitiated), sometimes intentionally, misconstrue as some magical panacea to their ‘girl problems’. My definition was thus:

For the unfamiliar, just the word ‘Game’ seems to infer deception or manipulation. You’re not being real if you’re playing a Game, so from the outset we’re starting off from a disadvantage of perception. This is further compounded when attempting to explain Game concepts to a guy who’s only ever been conditioned to ‘just be himself‘ with women and how women allegedly hate guys “who play games” with them. As bad as that sounds, it’s really in the explanation of how Game is more than the common perception that prompts the discussion for the new reader to have it explained for them.

At its root level Game is a series of behavioral modifications to life skills based on psychological and sociological principles to facilitate intersexual relations between genders.

Game has more applications than just in the realm of intergender relations, but this is my best estimation of Game for the uninitiated. Game is the practical application of a new knowledge and increasingly broader awareness of intergender relations – often referred to, for convenience, as Red Pill awareness, by myself and others in the broader manosphere. Game begins with red pill awareness and using that awareness to develop Game.

The body of infield evidence collected by 15 years of PUA is far more reliable and valid than anything social science has produced on seduction – Nick Krauser

As I’ve written in the past, everyone has Game. Every guy you know right now has some idea, methodology or system of belief by which he thinks he can best put himself into a position of relating to, and becoming intimate with, a woman.

From even the most rank Beta plug-in to the 14 year old high school freshmen boy has some notion about what he, and by extension all men, should do in order to become intimate with a girl. I described this a bit in Beta Game where I outlined the Beta plan of identifying with women’s “needs” and adopting a feminine-primary mental point of origin in order to become more like the target(s) of his affection.

What ‘formalzed’ Game comes down to is what genuinely works for the betterment of his life. Men don’t seek out the manosphere because their Beta Game works so well for them.

 

I’ll admit, this was my own Game when I was in my late teens. Like most properly conditioned young men,I subscribed to the idea that men needed to be more empathetic and sensitive to women’s experience (rather than putting priority on his own) as the most deductive means to getting a girlfriend who’d appreciate my uniqueness for being so ‘in tune’ with the feminine.

If you’d have asked me at the time (the mid 80’s), my belief was that the best way to ‘get the girl’ was to take women at their word, use their “advice“, be their friend, make her comfortable, sacrifice your own (chauvinist) self-importance and support her importance, and mold your incorrect male self into a more perfect feminine ideal. The idea was that the lesser you made yourself, the more you made of her, and the more likely she was to reciprocate intimacy in appreciation.

That was my Game up until I learned through trial and painful error that women loath a man who needs to be instructed on how to actually be more attractive to women. I didn’t understand that by my subscribing to this spoon-fed feminization Game and overtly advocating for it I was only advertising to the very girls I wanted that I Just Didn’t Get It.

This was simply the first stage of Game changing for me, and I’m fairly certain that you’d read a similar story from most of the manosphere’s heaviest hitters. I’m peripherally familiar with the early histories of the likes of Roosh, Nick Krauser and even Mystery, so I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that the Game they practice today would be foreign to their younger selves.

When I moved into my rock star 20’s I began practicing a new form of Game, one based on social proof and demonstrating higher value (DHV).

Of course I had no idea I was practicing any Game at the time. I had reinvented myself and my identity shifted into that of a guy who was Spinning Plates, being more self-concerned and enjoying the benefits of that social proof and DHV; but if you’d asked me what I’d done to effect that change, or how my Game was affected by it, I wouldn’t have been able to give you an answer then – Game was just instinctual for me.

Now in my married years, as a husband and the father of a teenage daughter, and my professional life in the liquor and casino world where I interact with beautiful women on a weekly basis, I still employ Game when I don’t realize I am.

However, that Game is the compounded, internalized result of what I’ve learned and used since the days I believed in the “be nice for girls to like you” teenage Game. Amused Mastery, Command Presence and a few other principles became much easier to employ as a mature man, but also a new grasp of how women’s lives have a more or less predictable pattern to them.

Thanks to my time studying behavioral psychology I understand the methods women use to prompt and provoke men (shit tests). Thanks to my red pill awareness and simple understand of how women’s biology influences hypergamy I now understand why they do so – and more importantly, how to avoid the traps of falling into the worst aspects of women’s dualistic sexual strategy.

All of this influences my ‘Game’ in the now. As before, I don’t play a constant, conscious game of mental chess in my dealings with women (and even the men in my social and professional life), I just live it.

So, in closing, it’s important to consider that the concept of Game you might be struggling with now was probably some other man’s experience before you encountered it. What is Game for me at 46, will most likely not have the exact same utility for me at 56, but if I stay sharp and learn along the way I’ll develop a new Game for that phase of life.

In Roosh’s most recent book, he has a quote in it that struck me (I paraphrase): There are a lot of men who tell me they wish they knew back then what they know now, but in all likelihood that knowledge wouldn’t serve them as well as they believe it would. They’d simply make new mistakes (and hopefully learn from them) based on the things they never had any experience of in the now.

There is always additional knowledge a man can know even when he possess the highest level of knowledge.

 

 

228 comments

  1. There are a lot of men who tell me they wish they knew back then what they know now, but in all likelihood that knowledge wouldn’t serve them as well as they believe it would.

    One reason for this would also be their ability (or lack thereof) to actively apply this knowledge. Knowing about, say, pre-selection for example wouldn’t necessarily help an 18-year old man who has no money, no female “acquaintances” he can pull in to boost his status and no status of his own. While the knowledge of socio-sexual behaviors of men and women would be useful/helpful, he would need to find a way to adapt that knowledge to his present surroundings.

  2. The me at age 17 would be sickened and disgusted by the me of now – he was so thoroughly Beta-ised.

    The me now simply accepts the current person for what works.

    The me of the future, I have no clue about. He’ll be interesting though.

  3. There is always additional knowledge a man can know even when he possess the highest level of knowledge.

    a new grasp of how women’s lives have a more or less predictable pattern to them.

  4. This is a bit long but I’ll demystify “game” for you guys here. Seeing as how this is a red pill blog, I’m pretty sure some will appreciate it:

    I’ve stated before that human females aren’t that different than males with respect to their mating criteria, in that their choices are strongly weighted for physical features (and always exclusively aesthetic signs on their short-term criteria). The danger is that these scammers (more specifically Game PUAs) pretend to be benefactors creating a pseudoscience who “supposedly” have nothing to gain from dispensing their “knowledge” (onto some unwary men); while they are making their business (peddling advice-tricks on books, DVDs, seminaries) and gain fans and traffic to their websites.

    As I have said before – there are only two quantities of value females consider in mate choice, genetic benefits (indicated in physical attractiveness), and direct benefits (indicated in investment strategies with respect to material resources, and paternal investment). So, the onus is upon the ‘game’ community to unify agreement with either of these quantities (beyond a circular argument). And there are obvious reasons why physical traits are an obvious confounder of ‘seduction’ competencies (ie. because relative deviations in physical characters can reliably signal developmental incompetence, from which sensory biases become fixed by evolutionary success). In order to advance a similar argument (unified in a broad evolutionary synthesis) for vague (independent) seduction competencies (ie. ‘Game’), this scammers would have to show their basis in evolutionary success beyond a circular argument (ie. how did female bias for these seduction systems *evolve* – what advantages did they confer *before* they became correlated with male reproductive success).

    Until gamers can show this, they are leaning on naive premises (and, dare I say, unmitigated bullshit). Game’s core premise relies upon ‘confidence’ (given the ‘congruence’ apology that is regularly appealed to when game techniques/methods are demonstratedly falsified). The parsimonious interpretation is that ‘confidence’ is a dependent variable, adapted from justified expectations (with a basis in some history of prior outcomes). In other words: confidence is the subjective consequence of an ‘expected value’ – derived of an obligate heuristic motif. But, correlation does not imply causation. So, ‘confidence’ doesn’t just spontaneously organize within an empirical vacuum, and thus cannot be trivially acquired outside of ‘experience’.

    So, what gamers (and their apologists) are truly observing (but apparently not intelligent enough to infer), is not that women are attracted to ‘confidence’ per se (as an independent variable). But, rather that the men who tend to be successful with women in the first place (for whatever reason), also have a high confidence (justified expectation) of future (continued) success. By any meaningful definition, confidence is not an a priori quantity – it cannot be disentangled from its dependencies. Confidence exists only so far as to say something about these other variables. So, when one observes confidence correlated with a given outcome, it can only say something about these dependencies.

    To elaborate – in applying the ‘handicap principle’, it tells us that those whose success threshold is lower in terms of ‘game’, are displaying greater indications of genetic fitness, given that this greater effort will allude to a fitness handicap. This is because fitness signals have evolved to be energetically costly to display, where the quality of signals are handicap limited – where these handicaps can be manifest through differentials in observable ‘effort’ (or any other kind of relative energetic liability). What game really is, is a display of sexual confidence – which is circular to it’s justification (ie. those who are justifiably confident of continued future success, need expend less effort – in terms of handicapping – in trying to embellish themselves through ‘game’).

    But, since game is not a ‘skill/trait’, liable to be adaptive, but rather a system of knowledge, the question is not whether or not it ‘works’ so much as which parts of this system are justified, and which parts are spurious. An adaptive signal must be honest convey quality. For a signal to be a valid indicator of male quality at equilibrium, a reliable relation between the signaler’s quality and the signal strength must persist.

    It assumes that individuals of the choosing sex (females) with a sensory bias non-adaptively applied to mate choice pay a cost for it, and, hence, have lower reproductive success than those who are “resistant” to the bias. Both men and women discriminate the desirability of potential mates mainly on the basis of physical qualities. Any preferred feature has to be correlated with quality prior to their evolution as signals. Again, honest signaling of quality can evolve through either benefits that directly enhance reproductive success (e.g., food, protection, lack of contagious disease) or genetic benefits passed on to offspring. In some instances, both may account for the preference. For instance, ales in a multi-male primate group better able to protect offspring than others and hence providing direct benefits to choosers may well possess genes associated with quality as well.

    Female preferences (i.e. choice bias for sexier guys) co-evolve with male sexual signals (i.e. male good genes); it makes no sense that some behavioral techniques (e.g. neuro-linguistic programming) had ever been developed to exploit non-existing female “sensory bias”. The evolution of female preference must be promoted by genetic covariance. And selection for the male sexual trait will cause a proportionate increase in female preference and both traits will increase together in a runaway. As I said “Game” would be a sort of knowledge system, not a phenotypic trait onto which directional sexual selection can act. Moreover selection on phenotypes will have no evolutionary consequence if the traits do not genetically covary with fitness. The nature of this genetic covariance determines if phenotypes will evolve directionally or whether they reside at an evolutionary optimum.

  5. @Sirtyrion, most likely evolutionarily the big guy just dragged her to the cave and had his way with her.

  6. @jf12:

    Either way, It still shows that women want the biggest, strongest, most aesthetically appealing men because these overt traits are honest signals of his genetic stock. Also, his ability to over power her (and other men) display his worthiness of being her mate.

  7. re: other men. Other men don’t actually matter. The second of the two big lies about women that psychologists and others in this field are furiously spinning is that women care what men think i.e. women care what other men think about a man. These lies are useful smokescreen/chaff, for the time being.

  8. Here’s something else I’ve written to keep in mind:

    I would also like to question ‘shit-testing’, as any kind of a fitness test. In order for a fitness test to be reliable, it must screen for ‘honest’ signals. And in order for a signal to be ‘honest’, it must entail high and differentiable costs while communicating some quantity of evolutionary/fitness value (thus, resisting falsification). The problem with the shit-test-as-a-fitness-test, theory, is that it fails to specify what quantities of evolutionary value a shit-test is effective in screening for (in a way that eliminates obvious confounders). Is it a question of energetic investment? If so, then the successful negotiation of these ‘tests’ should be strongly mediated by differential investment in a ‘particular’ female (and thus begs the question of why ‘stalking’ is not seen as a fitness display). Or, is it ‘wit’, or general sociality? If so, then this theory likewise begs for a more rigorous test methodology to support it (given that shit-testing is not obviously suited to screening for sociality in a way that incurs enough cost to justify its relative scrutiny).

    It occurs, that shit-testing is not a test at all, but is either a strategic bluff in embellishing female sexual value (in context of a male approach).

    Or, an expression of resentment in being entangled in a LTR, which poses obvious trade-offs in short-term goals (ie. she resents having a long-term mate who ‘tingles’ her less than other prospective mates). Thus, I believe that many cases where a husband purports to be successfully ‘gaming’ his wife, is nothing more than a spurious observation in ego validation (ie. after a period of anxiety and ambivalence over conflicting, time-variant, evolutionary concerns, *she* makes a value-judgment to preserve his long-term investment at the cost of *obvious* extrapair mating/carousel riding). And this all underscores my main issue with game, in that it has an unfortunate tendency to circulate fashionable *nonsense*, at the expense of knowledge (even amongst those in the manosphere who, I would think, should know better).

    I mean, if you want to appreciate the subtleties of probability and statistics, should you necessarily inquire upon someone who won the lottery? Of course not! Likewise, if one wants to appreciate behavioral phenomenon with a basis in sexual evolution, don’t inquire upon some scammer PUA, but rather make inquiries into a synthesis of scientific basis (like honest signalling theory, zoology, sexual evolution, etc).This suggests that shit-testing should be trivially negotiated by the average male.But it raises a further question, in how is ‘shit-testing’ a relatively efficient, and reliable measure of evolutionary value, beyond its circular premise of a fitness-test (ie. how did these male traits under scrutiny *evolve* – what advantages did they confer *before* they became correlated with female ‘shit-testing’)?

    But, allow me to further clarify my position. The only male fitness test mediated by female-choice, is *reproductive success*(obviously correlated with sexual success). The amount of bullshit a male has to wade through (ie. where factors in sexual conflict mediate the frequency of successful males who ‘pass’ the test), is simply a proxy measure of *handicapping load*. Thus, less energetically liable males (those for whom sexual-conflict-mediated handicaps are mitigated by indications of genetic quality, like physical attractiveness, etc), are displaying *higher* fitness. This explanation also unifies the observation that men can get laid without incurring any obvious form of shit-testing (again, unless we stretch definitions to where they become meaningless – which seems to be an unfortunate requirement of reconciling ridiculous PUA notions about the way evolutionary systems actually work).I really think the Manosphere would have more credibility if it stopped pandering to demonstratedly spurious PUA conventions.

    I meant to imply, that a man who is displaying sufficient value (for example, through genetic quality indicated in physical attractiveness), will not be hindered/handicapped by ‘shit-testing’. It is also important to note that ‘shit-testing’ is not a test per se, in cases where it is not a determinant of sexual success (which I contend is the general case). But rather it is a symptom of handicapping, where ‘shit-testing’ is communicating something about a male’s disposability (in a relationship), or is an affectation for the purpose of embellishing a female’s sexual value (in the context of an approach), or an outright repudiation (again, in the context of an approach).

  9. re: shit tests. I’ve come to recognize that a woman’s shit tests are 99.44% merely an invitation to force her to stop, to show her who’s the boss of her. I’m not saying I’ve acted on that recognition.

  10. Consider: “A new study of romantic attraction by two Northwestern psychologists suggests that men and women are equally inspired by physical attraction.”

    http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2008/02/partners.html

    “When it comes to romantic attraction men primarily are motivated by good looks and women by earning power. At least that’s what men and women have been saying for a long time. Based on research that dates back several decades, the widely accepted notion permeates popular culture today.

    But those sex differences didn’t hold up in a new in-depth study of romantic attraction undertaken by two Northwestern University psychologists.

    In short, the data suggest that whether you’re a man or a woman, being attractive is just as good for your romantic prospects and, to a lesser extent, so is being a good earner.”

  11. To know at 17 what I now know though game…would have simply validated my behaviour and made me feel better about banging all those chicks. It would have allowed me to simply go further. No doubt I would have abused the knowledge as I always go too far.

  12. cosign agent p.

    I probably wouldn’t have felt so guilty about simply giving those college women what they wanted.

  13. @jf12 I’m so disappointed in G. Miller. Tucker Max… has made a job for himself. For a little while. Anyway, the posted prolog to the C. Ryan interview (which I’ll probably not bother listening to) states “Provide a safe, comfortable space where she can trust you, and she’ll let her freak flag fly.”

    Yeah, the freak flag is high-flying for an approximate 18 – 36 months, then is lowered to half-mast if it stays up much at all. There’ll be a spreadsheet 😉 full of excuses for this — none of which acknowledge that she just wants to switch poles. haha

  14. @ agent p – I agree. I’m fairly certain that if I knew in my 20’s what I know now, I would abuse my power and be spinning top-shelf poon.

    @ jf12 – that’s why I said before in a previous post that I ‘want’ to be shit tested by women…it just means they want to see how alpha you actually are.

    @ sirtyroin – are you “demystifying” game or a game denialist?

    Similar to Rollo, I think up until I unplugged, internalised Game and embraced Red Pill awareness, I had ‘some’ natural alpha traits (physically dominate, athletic prowess, fairly good social dominance, play a mean guitar) but, it wasn’t until I applied Game in all aspects of my life that I understood how to use what I have to my full advantage.

    In other words, I was unwittingly apologetic and self depreciating about being a natural alpha, which ‘made’ me beta.

    Game / Red Pill simply has simply turned me into being aware of my full potential.

  15. Sirtyrion

    “Either way, It still shows that women want the biggest, strongest, most aesthetically appealing men because these overt traits are honest signals of his genetic stock. Also, his ability to over power her (and other men) display his worthiness of being her mate.”

    It is not nearly that simple

    There are other factors.

    A hunter that had lots of free time conveyed fitness because he was so good at hunting he could screw around. These days the dregs of society have lots of free time.

    And there was a study done using game theory (not game pua, but game theory) that posited that women would prefer the best mate genetically but would have to pick one at some point, and parents invest in their children and grandchildren.

    What they found was that over time the women that picked the first joe that would sex them up did better regardless of his “fitness” (ie had children sooner, had more children) even if it was just a small percentage of women at first, even better if he was a bad boy because she relied on her parents to take up the slack in rearing her children and eventually the preference for less fit men that would mate quickly overwhelmed the more picky women.

    R selection over k is a female preference.

    Having ten children with a loser and having society support them, as opposed to say 4 children from a good hunter. by the time she has grandchildren, there is a hundred of hers versus 16 of the woman that picked the “good genes”

    So they idea that women pick for “fitness” or the best man is really nebulous.

    What they are picking is the best strategy for their genes to triumph and one of those strategies is to have sex early and often with cads/bad boys. social outliers. Of course they’re not “picking” they just feel attracted to a certain type that is hardwired

    We see that currently with welfare societies writ large.

    If you really wanted to produce women that picked strong dependable men and had a preference for them, you would have to eliminate all social support for women and children outside of their husband. That’s never going to happen.

  16. “Provide a safe, comfortable space where she can trust you, and she’ll let her freak flag fly”

    Yeah, because that is exactly how Tucker Max did it…

    By spreading safety and comfort all around him, not by being a puerile, drunken douchebag with high social proof at least in some venues…

  17. If it is all about guaranteeing reproductive success and continuing a blood line, women should be evolving to look for intellectual traits in a man. When you consider the recent advancements of machines and artificial intelligence and where they are headed, quality physical genetic traits alone will not get you far.

    No where do I see any mention of this in any RP discussion. Maybe it doesn’t matter in humanity’s current state, but it will certainly matter in the near future.

  18. I’m thankful every day I didn’t know game 20 years ago, today I would be married to a woman who ended up divorcing her husband, trafficking drugs and spinning tricks on the side.

    Thank sweet merciful Jesus for dodged bullets and game ineptitude.

    On a side note, I’m swimming in a sea of desperate single mothers and post wall women, how does one rebuff advances from women in the work place without losing face or causing a commotion? Ignoring them seems to have an opposite effect (another game tenet validated).

  19. “Just to be clear, you’re advocating Build-a-Better-Beta when it works for the man?”

    I think the build a better beta was about making a beta more alpha/less beta for her enjoyment but not to the point of him becoming too self actualized. Or self realized if that’s the correct term. Don’t want him realizing how much he has going or how much he can have. He might exercise options that don’t include(benefit) her.
    This is more of build a better life that you live, as opposed to a continuous looking up the correct preplanned audible to the formation the defense has lined up in at the moment.
    Regarding shit test. I see those as the girls who need to always have some kind of input from somebody on their iphone, just to make sure that what they’re doing or where they are at the moment isn’t less fun, even in the slightest, than what somebody else is doing or where they are.

  20. Great post. My own introduction to game was 4 years ago. It’s been a series of successes and setbacks.

    There are two things I find hardest: 1) the disappointment when I understand the TRUE female nature ie hypergamy, lack of empathy etc —it’s like someone telling you there is no Santa Claus—you want to believe all that bullshit you were fed growing up about how special women are. The reality is much different.

    2) The external pressures to conform to a feminist/female imperative. When I refuse to take a girl’s bullshit, when I laugh off or push back on some girl’s shit-test….there is always some white knight ready to come forward and say those 3 words that burn my ears: “be a gentleman”.

    We know chicks dig jerks.

    Krauser has been an inspiration. He’s preaching the idea of learning game so that you can adopt it as something natural—kind of like learning a language. At first you’re struggling with pronunciation, you’re mispronouncing, you use the wrong words. Eventually you become fluent. Then you develop your own accent or pattern.

  21. “but in all likelihood that knowledge wouldn’t serve them as well as they believe it would. ”

    I partially disagree with this statement.

    At it’s core Game is the awareness of all women’s central natures.
    This Red Pill awareness is something that is useful in all stages of a mans life. Being aware of the “feral nature of a woman” is something that most would say has to be experienced not learned.

    But in many fields like Airline Pilots train “worst case scenarios” constantly in simulation to prepare for the terrible.
    In actuality the realization that the “worst case scenario” is a strong possibility in male-female relationships is wisdom that CAN help young men.

    Much like a pilot cannot get his ATP without being able to recover from a simulated engine failure. A young man should not be allowed to date seriously with out knowing female shit tests may well take out one of his engines of destiny.

    A young man should watch “As Good as it Gets”, “Gone with the Wind”, “Taming of the Shrew” and many other sources of Non-Feminist dating lore.

    Otherwise we are continuing to send yet more young men into the dating world against very well taught young women. With the result of a crushed male ego on the young man’s first solo flight.

  22. jf12, that’s already a given, I apparently have beta bucks tattooed on my forehead.

  23. Good game does change upon one’s circumstances, but I believe the core principles of it remain the same in any circumstance. This is true because the red pill, for me at least, has not been so much about learning productive behavior nearly as much as it has been about unlearning destructive behavior i.e. beta conditioning.

    I have learned several new and very productive behaviors via the manosphere, for certain. I have learned much more here about the nature and wiles of female behavior. But most of the insight that I have gathered from this community has felt like permission to behave how I have always wanted to behave as opposed to constructing a new identity.

    This is why I agree with the Roosh quote only to a certain extent. It is true that my 15 year old self would not have the frame of reference to instill everything I know now into his life. I think that naive boy would have been overwhelmed.

    However, I still think there would have been a way to teach that boy the core principles of the red pill in a way that he could have understood it. If there was a strong man in that boys life (A good father) that told him to “Quit catering to women… Be strong, brutally honest, and independent… Focus on improving yourself and the girls will come to you,” then I think that boy would have listened attentively. Not because he was smart or wise, but because that type of advice would have felt liberating to him then just as it is liberating to me now.

    I constantly recognize now how easy it is to attract women to me. The regrettable part of this situation is that I am not trying harder now than I used to, quite the opposite. I am acting now how that 15 year old boy wanted to act. The only reason that boy didn’t act that way is because he had been miseducated on how to be intimate with women.

    The red-pill does not shackle men, it removes the shackles. It puts men in touch with their true nature.

    Yes, we must learn constantly to improve ourselves and others because the game does change. However, the basics of game, regardless of the individual are always there. They just have to be liberated.

  24. In view of Roosh’s quote, I believe this sums up in a nutshell why so many young men (18 to 23), but older men too, stay in blue pill mentality rather than opt for red pill adaptation. Even with the aid of blogs of this kind, I would estimate that a high percentage of men, up until a certain point after numerous failures, still disregard the points put forward in favour of listening to the “validity” of what women tell them. In an ideal world, they would have a crystal ball illustrating all the wrong deliverables made. Even if they asked their own mother about an issue regarding female emotional psychology, I doubt many would be told the truth. Women have an inner force to protect and conceal their weaknesses or/and obvious bizarre choices.

    On the point of women hating men “who play games”, once more this runs on a similar theme. Women’s verbal discussions will let their mind believe that they want a nice, genuine man who puts her first and never incorporates interaction strategy within a relationship. Let’s face it, most women marry these guys – simply because >80% of men are this way inclined. But women – the complex species as they are (especially when they have options in men – hence, they are decent to look at females) – have a need for drama and intensity that just cannot be found with male traits of this nature. They need to be challenged, and if this means a man jumping outside of his natural persona, then so be it.

    Women don’t want to date jerks, but they are drawn to them due to the need of something that matches up to their innate character. It would be easy for average Joe to simply sit back and be convinced these women eventually grow out of the bad boy necessity, but don’t be too sure of this. Women who tell a man these words are really saying they need a bit of edge to his game.

  25. @Sirtyrion You are an Omega of the first order. Rebutal of your garrulous jibbering’s is entirely unnecessary as your entire dogma is built on foundation’s of porridge.:- You expect women to use and think with logic in their choices and selection process.
    The stench of INCEL emits strongly from you.

  26. @ Thug

    I do not think that this is what he is doing.

    What he wants is an airtight, science based explanation for female attraction, because otherwise….. well, I dont know what would or would not happen otherwise.

    The fact that all models are wrong but some are more useful than others apparently eludes him.

    @Sirtyrion

    Me no care whether it be totally valid yo, cuz it gets me laid brah !

    And gives me a framework for what happened in my life and has an astonishing power to predict by and large how she will react to my actions in the future and while Newtonion physics were all so wrong and incomplete, those bridges still stood, those planes would still fly and sometimes good enough is good enough.

  27. I am always depressed about my life, i have been cheated upon many times and lost complete trust in relationship, i started to focus on my career and i am trying to make some money

    I still feel like loser in life

  28. @vikingnorse, re: woe.

    Hence you see the need for doing something completely different, amirite?

  29. @vikingnorse

    Focusing on your career and making more money can be fulfilling and empowering, but those factors won’t change the nature of your relationships, brother. If you’re depressed due to your poor experiences with women then I would do the hard work of introspection. If you can change the way you view women and yourself, then you can change your relationship dynamics tremendously. It will be hard but it can happen.

  30. @vickingnorse

    On the plus side, you picked a good masculine screen name. There is hope for you. Welcome aboard.

  31. Sirtyrion,

    remove those self limiting beliefs, profit.

    looks beyond symmetry…..DO NOT MATTER. a man is, has, and always will be judged on the continuum of his utility which can be diverse but only are focused on looks if he has no other re-deeming utility.

    a woman’s utility is defined by her looks primarily, actions/behaviors/etc second.

    really simple, simple concepts here my friend.

  32. Sirtyrion

    July 30th, 2014 at 5:31 pm

    “Consider: “A new study of romantic attraction by two…”

    The phenomenon of women going increasingly for alpha fucks has been dealt with on these pages before. Since various ‘social innovations’ in the last 50 years has resulted in women being much less dependent on beta bucks from any individual man, what part of their dualistic mating strategy remains? It follows predictively from ‘game’ theory, no matter how flawed you may think it is.

    A general comment for you:
    Your posts look erudite, but even with considerable parsing on my part, I have difficulty extracting any kind of useful or actionable take home.
    Would it be possible for you to present your supposed improvements and corrections of spuriosties to PUA theory in language that does not require a rigorous academic training in evolutionary biology?
    Thanks.

  33. I am continually amazed at the depth of analysis Rollo provides us and with the comments that flesh out his ideas. I think his definition of “game” will become the dictionary definition someday.

    @jackelbear- I often say Rollo takes a graduate degree to fully understand so allow me to mediate. The take home message he is giving us is that “game” changes with your position in life even for an individual person so it cannot be reduced to a static set of checklists that you can cross off in sequence.

    Disagree however that knowing then what I know now would have just led to other errors and not a much different and probably much better outcome. Knowing what I know now, unplugged from the feminine matrix, I would have gone through boon like the bulls of Pompalona through a crowd and my overall life would have been much, much happier. Unplugging and learning game are not without consequence. They are, in fact, very consequential.

    @Sirtiour- You have some interesting ideas but not all are thought through fully: “a man who is displaying sufficient value (for example, through genetic quality indicated in physical attractiveness), will not be hindered/handicapped by ‘shit-testing’.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You have got to be kidding me! It is true DHV’s help ward of Shit Tests but this is so wrong it is laughable. Shit tests are used, year after year, to wear down the man and I have seen PLENTY of men strong enough to stand up to them, year after year. I have NEVER seen a woman who does not throw them.

  34. I need to correct something I wrote about how a highly rational man might behave:
    “Of course that hyper-rational orientation might tend to lead by default to trying to negotiate desire or otherwise appeal to a woman’s reason.”

    The above applies mainly if the man also believes that women are like men. i.e. she is like me and I am swayed by reason, therefore she will be too.
    So internalizing one of the most basic tenets of game, that men and women are different, gets rid of a major self defeating behavior of highly rational men in relating with women.

    That one simple red pill truth enables implementing the wisdom of M Simon:
    “Women are more of an engineering problem than a mystery.”

  35. Bluepillprofessor

    July 31st, 2014 at 3:55 pm

    Thanks for offering to mediate.
    I am able to understand Rollo; it is Sirtyrion’s style that I was complaining about.

    In defense of Sirtyrion, I believe men have written here that when a woman has the tingles for an obviously HV man, she will shit test him less until she gets cock. In the long run though…

  36. Shorter Sirtyrion:

    Women’s mating habits are no different from men’s. For short-term fun, women, just like men, will choose predominantly good-looking and sexually adventurous men.

    For marriage and family, women, just like men, will look for somebody more sexually restrained and reliable, though still best looking among available options.

    Also: if she wants to stay with you, she will stay with you.

  37. Should have read:

    “Women’s mating habits are no different from men’s. For short-term fun, women, just like men, will choose predominantly good-looking and sexually adventurous partners.”

  38. Just so we’re all on the same page in this thread, Mart is Barb / Shel the same troll Dalrock had to ban last week.

    Feed the troll at your own discretion.

  39. Mart

    July 31st, 2014 at 5:25 pm

    Should have read:

    “Women’s mating habits are no different from men’s. For short-term fun, women, just like men, will choose predominantly good-looking and sexually adventurous **partners**.”

    Right. Women and men are the same and heteronormativity is banned.

    I realize now why ‘heteronormative’ has been demonized.
    Because hetero (different) amongst people is unacceptable to the left. The specter of HBD threatens SJWs’ utopian fantasies.

  40. NOTE: My other comment didn’t post (or it was probably eaten due to the embedded tweet) so if the mod can delete the other one, and keep this one, that will be just fine.

    @ Ras Ah Gul
    Post the study. I, myself, have many studies (dozens in fact) that disprove your assertion. I don’t know about you but If I saw multiple studies proving something one way and a single study proving another, I’ll go with the conclusion that the multiple studies affirm.

    @ LiveFearless

    “Will ‘Sirtyrion’ wake up too?”
    Wake up by deluding ones self to the idea that ‘game’ can overide thousands of years of honest sexual selection? Pfft, yeah right. We’ve currently reached a point where enough men have sufficiently applied ‘game’ and realized that most of their efforts were for naught simply because they were not blessed genetically. Mind you, while many different parts come into effect to in order to deem a man ideally attractive, some qualities are more sufficient than others. Most successful “PUAs” have something going for them aside from their “tight game”.
    I’ve woken up to the realities of the sexual market place. Perhaps you need to as well.

    As for that guy (Chris), he instinctively knew something was up. Hopefully he still reads this blog as I’m sure I’ve given him the answer he was looking for in my past comments. Or, at the very least, I gave him some guidance for where he could start looking.

    @ Thug

    Wait, “dogma”? You can’t be serious right now. Did you even bother to read what I wrote?
    My man beef with ‘game’ is that it cannot be defined as an independent variable, and thus must always be speaking to some unspoken “determinant” (conveniently rendering it unfalsifiable). Thus, appealing to game in unspecified terms is not useful, and often indicative of cargo-cult reasoning.

    “You expect women to use and think logic in their choices and selection process.”

    Women do in fact use logic in their sexual selection process. Rollo himself acknowledges this in a recent tweet of his:

    “For all of women’s emotional intelligence, hypergamy is one logical bitch.”

    As many others have stated multiple times, Hypergamy is logical and dualistic. Here’s something I’ve said a couple of comments back, seeing as how you probably just skimmed through it: “There are only two quantities of value females consider in mate choice, genetic benefits (indicated in physical attractiveness), and direct benefits (indicated in investment strategies with respect to material resources, and paternal investment).”

    Succinctly put, Alpha Fucks; Beta Bucks. A dirty red pill secret is Alpha Fucks is completely inherent. If you didn’t know before, now you know.

    It’s honestly a shame that many men still do not get this. Some men even call hypergamy sociopathic or psychotic by nature when really, it was completely necessary and it pushed forth and made the human race for what it is today.

    Also, as far as being an “incel” goes. I’ve been in a relationship for 2 years now and even before then, I had a decent amount of pulls. I attribute this mostly to my height and social circle but the end result here is the same. I’m very much aware about the realities of the sexual market and this has helped my life in more ways than I can count. I also have a strong background in science and because of this, I question everything especially ‘game’ with meticulous research. Even I place my personal experiences aside and see what reigns as truth by objective studies.

    @ Tilikum
    I fail to see how my comments above are limiting beliefs. They reflect the reality of the Sexual Market Place and that of biology. Sexual Evolution is continuous and it uses various methods by both sexes in extracting the best mate possible (mainly by aesthetic appeal) at any given time. Here’s a quote by Darwin:

    “Both sexes,if the females as well as the males were permitted to exert any choice, would choose their partners not for mental charms, or property, or social position, but almost solely from external appearance.” Descent of Man, 1871.

    I highly recommend the book and if you want to read something related to my comments, just read chapter 20.

    @ Jacklabear
    Thank you. Sure, the take home of my comments above in plain english are:

    In a simple way, I would say that the context in which game is most popularly appealed (a determinant factor in sexual success), is where game demonstrates of negligible utility, and thus, operates more as knowledge than skill. That is key. It operates more as a KNOWLEDGE than SKILL.

    Since game is knowledge and not liable to be adaptive (as only skills and traits are), the question it raises is whether or not it ‘works’ but by seeing which parts are justified and which parts are simply spurious. You also have to keep in mind that a adaptive evolutionary signal (trait/skill) must be honest to convey real QUALITY.’Game’ does not do this.

    @ Bluepillprofessor
    You mis-read me completely. Jacklabear responded to you and understood what I was getting at. A woman will ‘test’ a HV man less than the average joe. I’m not saying that a man who’s the aesthetic ideal of women will immediately have them spread their legs for him in an instant. Some basic social pleasantries will be exchanged but eventually, in the long run, he will be successfull.

    @ jf12
    Peacocking?
    Wearing something stupid or acting in a way that just seems quite ridiculous are phenotypic honest signals of genetic quality? Think about it. May a person compensate a lack of physical attractiveness displaying a non-biologic signal (i.e. wearing quirky clothing)? The optimal male phenotypic is the one that maximizes net benefits under the constraints. For instance, female optimal strategies are contingent on the male condition or phenotype of the individual (conditional or phenotype limited optima). Less appealing males are culled in mating courtship, and for reasons others than his phenotype. Selection is on phenotypes, (because genotypes are masked). Guys ostentatiously dressed are not hiding their phenotype, and they cannot reverse the preferential bias for certain male phenotypes, since each sex has a bias to prefer individuals of particular qualities because that bias has advantages.

    @ Mart
    Yes, that’s exactly what I was getting at. I didn’t know some people here had short attention spans. I’m keeping all further comments (much like this one) in plain english and void of other scientific terms seeing as how I might only confuse people.

    As for all other doubters, eventually there will come a time where men everywhere will reconcile to the fact that there really is no personal solution to systemic problems – the ones who can only resolve over evolutionary time. The solution that “game” entails comes from steep trade-offs, in that much like females, males can’t have their cake and eat it too – a prosperous population of deferred ecological pressures, without an expectation that this prosperity will increase the mating latitude of females (dramatically perturbing the breeding population, to the point of near evolutionary instability). I hold science, much like all good men in the manosphere, as truth.

    If this hurts you or makes you feel uneasy in anyway, remember that much like hypergamy, I don’t care about how you feel. I’m just laying out the truth for you to accept.

  41. Why is mart a ”troll?’ Because he sees game for what it is? A marketing tool for men who want make money from the male desire, or to attract attention like those reddit/redpill casanovas?

    Red-pillers have worth. They help young men acknowledge the nature of women, but where they fail is that they plant in these young guy’s fragile minds the ridiculous belief that they can get laid. Women’s biology is set in stone. They are wired to only want men who are physically attractive(and what makes a man attractive is height or a handsome face).

    You can have status and money, but the women who go after such men are doing it to capitalize on the $$, nothing more, and I’ve met many PUs and the vast majority of them fail at gaming average or below average, but somehow there are plenty of ”PUA’s in the mansphere with average looks who games 7’s and 10s.

    Come on. I would expect this obsession with women from men aged 15-22, but it seems that the majority of the red-pillers are in their 30s and older. Control your desires. Its not hard. Become something more than what your dick commands you to do. Women aren’t special, not even the Germanic women, so your American women aren’t worth a a glance, let alone to be gamed.

    And the men who are attractive, sometimes its not that all, banging hot women left and right. I know two guys who are tall, handsome, have money, even have you guys fabled ”bodybuilder body means pussyyy everyday” and they’re stuck sleeping with obese women because the women these guys want, aren’t interested in hot guys or ”PUas”.

    They want cash in the bank, a lot of it, and a 2014 mercedes-benz. But you lot attract women like this with game? lol 😉

    As for game helping the young men who go to college and find themselves surrounded by women. Look, most men aren’t supposed to reproduce or to even have a girlfriend. Get over it. Life continues and can be highly enjoyable without either wanting to stick your dick in crazy(all women are problematic sooner or later) or actually putting it in.

    Lets recap.

    Roissy gets laid because he’s tall and handsome and has all of his hair at the age of 45.

    Rollo gets laid because he’s handsome.

    Roosh V gets laid 6 times a year(he confessed to this) and only because he flies down to the poorer areas of Europe and grovels a lot for it.

    Tyler from RSD doesn’t get laid, he pays women to show up in his videos and to pretend to be attracted.

    Neil Strauss got laid because he was famous. The women weren’t attracted to him.

    And Mystery is remarkably tall, and even him is stuck paying child-support and married to a rather average-looking woman(compared to women outside of the states).

    As feminism moves onward and more and more women earn the ability to provide for themselves, more and more men are going to be unable to find a girlfriend, and gradually, slowly, most men won’t get laid, at all. That is how it is. Evolve past your groins.

  42. Rollo, you said it yourself in your looks topic. From age 14 to age 24 all women care about in a man is how he looks. Now think about it. Why are women who are 14-24 only interested in how hot the guy is? Because daddy is supporting them. Daddy begins to remove his financial support when the woman enters her mid 20s, that is when she enters wallet-seeking mode, the life stage the non-hot guys have a shot at her, that is if the guy doesn’t mind paying out of his eyes for low-quality sloppy seconds.

    I have met many a woman with good-paying jobs and their husbands and boyfriends are all, good-for-nothing Orlando-bloom lookalikes. Women with money are going to get themselves a boy toy to reproduce with, they have no interest in average men, and the only chance the average-looking/not Brad Pitt men have with women, is with women from poor ass countries, which is what many PUAs are doing – expating to Mexico and other shitholes to have sex with women.

  43. ”As for all other doubters, eventually there will come a time where men everywhere will reconcile to the fact that there really is no personal solution to systemic problems – the ones who can only resolve over evolutionary time. The solution that “game” entails comes from steep trade-offs, in that much like females, males can’t have their cake and eat it too – a prosperous population of deferred ecological pressures, without an expectation that this prosperity will increase the mating latitude of females (dramatically perturbing the breeding population, to the point of near evolutionary instability). I hold science, much like all good men in the manosphere, as truth.”

    The breeding population won’t suffer. For a decade or so more the world’s governments will try to motivate(and to force) men to marry and to reproduce, but as the birth rates plummet more and more with each year they’ll have no choice but to use genetic engineering or selective breeding, which will lead to people only selecting the best genes for their construction of their babies, resulting in only Brad Pitts and Angelina Jolies being given to life, there. The average man and woman disappears and the future generations will be perfect-looking. Its evolution, its destiny. It cannot be stopped. Do I care about it? Life is pretty grand when you aren’t spending it trying to get laid, or getting laid.

  44. Let’s clarify a few things:

    Rollo gets laid because he’s handsome.

    I also have all my hair at 46.

    From age 14 to age 24 all women care about in a man is how he looks.

    Been there, wrote that:
    https://therationalmale.com/2012/10/08/balancing-sexual-pluralism/

    Short Terms

    As I outlined in Schedules of Mating, hypergamy dictates women secure (commitment from) the best male exhibiting the traits of both genetics (short term breeding) and parental investment (long term provisioning), but rarely do the best of these traits exist in the same man. Then it hit me as I waited in that car line; these westernized teenage girls and their college age sisters, to a greater degree, have this long term part of their sexual plurality accounted for – or at least accounted for well enough that their primary sexual strategy focus is mostly fixated the short term breeding model.

    Under such conditions ‘gina tingles preempt long term security concerns. So the logical next step is for girls to develop a sexually competitive strategy with other girls around hooking up with the highest value Alpha their looks can arouse. That isn’t to disqualify the attractiveness of intrinsic qualities (especially as a woman approaches the Wall), only that extrinsic qualities hold a higher prioritization. Thus, with the long term side of sexual plurality almost a non-issue, we see girls at earlier and earlier ages, learn to eroticize (not sexualize) themselves to be better prepared for that competition.

    I understand the hostility a lot of guys have with their lack of success using PUA scripts in the hopes that they might find some sustainable way to get laid above their SMV, but read what I’m saying here; Game is more than PUA. Game started with PUA, but it’s evolved from there into a broader awareness of intergender relations and offers men a much more realistic perspective of the SMP they’re truly involved in.

    If I dispel a man’s misguided belief in the fallacy of the ONE, the soul mate myth and make him aware of the social conditions he’s been conditioned to believe by a fem-centric acculturation, is he better off for it? Can he alter his behavior in accordance with this new understanding and be more successful with women because he’s been made aware of it?

    I think so.

    We can contextualize the circumstances of Roosh or Krauser or Mystery, but the fact still remains that because of their interests and efforts in understanding women’s nature beyond that which a feminine-primary social order want’s men to accept, they have a better grasp of women, their circumstantial sexual market place, and how they’ve learned to excel in it.

    Is their personal set of practices going to work for ANY man? Probably not, but any man is better off knowing how the Game is played than keeping his blue pill head in the sand.

  45. @Siirtyrion

    July 31st, 2014 at 6:28 pm

    “Selection is on phenotypes”

    Yes, and behavior is a phenotype, including behavior informed by knowledge.

    “You also have to keep in mind that a adaptive evolutionary signal (trait/skill) must be honest to convey real QUALITY.’Game’ does not do this.”

    Actually, nature has an arms race of deception and deception detection.

    Let’s try a reductio ad absurdum here. Consider a man who was raised by a radical feminist lesbian couple, home schooled and never been on a date with a woman. A second man is a ‘player’ with an n in the 3 figures. They have different knowledge.
    Now suppose these two men in identical bodies (to eliminate genotypic variables) went to a bar and tried to seduce a woman. Are you telling us that they would be equally likely to succeed with the woman?

    You wrote: “I’m keeping all further comments (much like this one) in plain english and void of other scientific terms seeing as how I might only confuse people.”

    Despite that claim, the post from which it came is more of the same.

    Here is your message I see stripped of the obfuscation: “what you ‘game’ guys believe is all bunk”.
    That is not much of a message, hence the need for obfuscation to provide bulk. May I suggest writing your posts in iambic pentameter? You might come up with Taming of the Shrew.

    Your position reminds me of a feminist book I read claiming that testosterone has nothing to do with muscularity.
    Try telling that to a professional bodybuilder. He’ll laugh in your face.
    And a female bodybuilder might show you her irreversibly huge clit if you exhibit the optimal behavioral phenotype.

  46. “The me at age 17 would be sickened and disgusted by the me of now – he was so thoroughly Beta-ised.” As would mine. I’m still learning but I’m leaps and bounds ahead of where I was at 17.

  47. Women with money are going to get themselves a boy toy to reproduce with, they have no interest in average men, and the only chance the average-looking/not Brad Pitt men have with women, is with women from poor ass countries, which is what many PUAs are doing – expating to Mexico and other shitholes to have sex with women.

    I think we’ve come across the German version of Whiskey.

    Seriously, in the United States at least what you have written is not even close to being true. Women with $$$ (I know a crapton of them, as I have worked around such women for 20+ years now) tend to be highly educated, and they tend to marry other highly educated men who also make $$$. It’s true that the best looking of that bunch marry the best looking of that bunch in an assortative way, but I have not come across one single woman in this group who was married to a good looking boytoy who was less educated or less earning than she. I’m sure there are a handful of cases out there, but it isn’t common here in the US. Here in the US, that social class has the highest marriage rate and the lowest divorce rate, and most of them are decidedly average looking — they make $$$ and they are very smart and well educated, but most of them are average looking married to other average looking people, and, for the most part, staying married to them.

  48. Sirtyrion/Siirtyrion Most successful “PUAs” have something going for them aside from their “tight game”.
    I’ve woken up to the realities of the sexual market place. Perhaps you need to as well.

    I do not consider myself a PUA,
    I believe in constant improvement.

    More than a decade of research has been done by Rollo via the forum and through this blog (seven million readers per month). Academic studies limit the sample size.

    Constant improvement is done by learning from those that have been the most successful at what you strive to accomplish.

    Realities of the SMP are beautiful. I changed those with new habits. If I had relied only on the more popular academic journals, I would have remained obese. Doing the impossible is one of my specialties.

    I lost 86 lbs in less than six months for my show years ago. I am genetically predisposed to morbid obesity. That’s not good in the work I do. So I got to know people that have figured out how to maximize body fat loss and muscle gain. I chose to get to know NASA Researcher Ray Cronise. Since I needed to have a certain physique, I also hired the one trainer that had a track record at creating it with others that had to look a certain way for their show.

  49. @Siirtyrion

    “. You also have to keep in mind that a adaptive evolutionary signal (trait/skill) must be honest to convey real QUALITY. ”

    No, it does not.

    You can put longer feathers on birds and they get laid like tile.

    It simply has to appear honest for long enough to get laid.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-tailed_widowbird

    In a fairly limited environment, within a limited time frame, the original hunting grounds of PUAs, there is no reason why those signals could not be faked.

    And you know this, because despite you knowing about wonder bras, fake eyelashes, high heels and make up they can still cast their spell on you, if done the right way.

  50. @jacklabear “Selection is on phenotypes”
    Yes, and behavior is a phenotype, including behavior informed by knowledge… May I suggest writing your posts in iambic pentameter?

    Still laughing… The MacBook Pro is reads the comments to me (audibly) … it SOUNDS like iambic pentameter.

  51. @jacklabear @8:08 pm
    https://therationalmale.com/2014/07/30/game-changers/#comment-48874
    re: “behavior is a phenotype, including behavior informed by knowledge”

    Tha winner of this thread, and all similar threads. How is it that so many men, I guess they’re men because they say so, pretend to be smart but pretend they don’t know this truth?

    Don’t you especially love when they deceptively claim authority to declare that signals must be honest?

  52. @liveFearless , thanks for the link to the R cronise “metabolic Winter” hypothesis. Very interesting reading. Congrats on the weight loss. I’ve never had a problem with weight but have know a lot that do. Good info.

  53. “Game started with PUA, but it’s evolved from there into a broader awareness of intergender relations and offers men a much more realistic perspective of the SMP they’re truly involved in”

    its mutually exclusive and collective exhaustive to all facets of life, from subjective experience, I’m not skinny fat anymore, have landed a great job I really enjoy (acquired through networking, I was a wall flower with inner issues previously), a couple of plates who hang out when I have free time, now have a plausible explanation why all 30+ woman in my office throw themselves at me, loving and living life, working towards an MBA, it’s getting better every day, I’m not where I want to be just yet but I will get there eventually. Thank you Rollo for the bias free, objective analysis, you’re doing god’s work. Godspeed…

  54. I look at it like this: Outer game is minimizing the negatives. Inner game is maximizing the positives.

    Minimizing negatives in outer game is learning how to get rid of those habits that would cause you to be dismissed out of hand by potential mates. Examples are things like poor hygiene, submissive posture, mumbly speech, and other avoidant behaviors. I look at classic pua techniques basically as learning how to not shoot yourself in the foot with women. It isn’t about a guarantee of success, it’s about not being a guaranteed failure. The rest is up to you.

    Inner game is about the rest being up to you. It is about developing your identity by improving those things that make you a fully self-actualized person. Working on your knowledges, creativity, experiences, education, career, and what have you. It’s about cultivating those things that make you who you are and who you want to be. Your value as a man and as a human being.

  55. “wonder bras, fake eyelashes, high heels and make up … cast their spell on you…”

    Ran across the following quote attributed to Hillary Clinton:

    “You may not agree with a woman, but to criticize her appearance — as opposed to her ideas or actions — isn’t doing anyone any favors, least of all you. Insulting a woman’s looks when they have nothing to do with the issue at hand implies a lack of comprehension on your part, an inability to engage in high-level thinking. You may think she’s ugly, but everyone else thinks you’re an idiot.”

    Here is the FI at work. The harshest critics of women’s looks I have ever known are OTHER WOMEN (and gay men). Yet this statement paints things differently, and is designed to send the message that men are by default horrible people. Women should be entitled to use every trick in the book to get ahead, while men should not be allowed to even THINK about how a woman chooses to present herself, or what calculations and expenditures go into her appearance.

    This is 21st century thought policing.

    It may get worse before it ever gets better.

  56. ill tell you what form my personal experience.

    From 15 to 30 , i was model like handsome , rich , eith a phd and an amtuer bodybuilder body ( morel ike a 100 meter sprinter) who had 4 cars and hundreds of thousands in bank.

    I got pussy without doing anything , they just came on me.

    then i had a serious health problem , lost my hair , due to cortizone my face got swallen up ( a bit ) and all the hundreds of thousands gone ( the beach house i bought helped that too ).

    What do you think happened ? Yea no pussy at all. then i red all about game and such. Thing is i always had game in the sense of charisma and never did long time relationships , never care nor i suppicated any women and spend all my money on me.

    Still when looks gone pussy goes too. Now at 39 i do steroids and hgh im back in my 20 ‘s terms of fitness , my face got way better due to hgh and i lost the cortisone moon face , i look 10 year old younger ( but still have the health problem)
    im also really well connected in my town and have lots of friends , dress well spending money etc.

    guess what again this time , women dont throw their selves up but i get lot of ios and when i talk to them they relaly open. Heck i even have 17 year old come at me.

    So yea look matter , also social status and you money and thats it. At least for short term realtionships with 8’s+

  57. btw heres a tip , the easiest way to be masculine is taking exogenous testosterone , period.

    All natural alpha males i know had the highest testosterone levels at their 20’s , this also holds true at their 30’s

    its not that hard to test your testosterone and estradiol levels , most men nowdays have hypogonadism especially compared to our grandparents.

  58. @gregariouswolf, re: “It isn’t about a guarantee of success, it’s about not being a guaranteed failure.”

    This. But good luck getting deniers to even consider this truth.

  59. re: testosterone. For any normal male with normal levels (e.g. blood levels above 600 nanograms per deciliter), any amount of extra testosterone, include extreme body-builder abuse levels of 20 times, 50 times, 100 times natural production, produces no observable changes in behavior (although it will put *many* pounds of pure muscle even on couch potatoes).

    In contrast, behavior will affect testosterone levels (a little). Not vice versa, though.

  60. re: swole. I have mentioned before about guys I call XM for extra-medium. Most often seen in skinny teen dudes who started working out, I’ve also seen it a lot lately in pretty boys who are trying to alpha-up, maybe to convince themselves they are more than a (moisturized, plucked, having to shave almost twice a week) pretty face. They try to do the swole walk with chest out and elbows up, and EVERY older man thinks they look stupid and EVERY woman think it’s cute that they’re trying because, well, because he’s cute facially.

    Lately, though, the extra-mediums have added the shoulder swing to their swole walk, exaggerating it further. They twist side to side with every step as though their almost 38″ chest at 145 lbs was as hard to move as a 50″ cheat at 300 lbs. And the girls do NOT like the added twist, let me tell you.

  61. Amit. You should meet Mike in person. He is the person he says he is. Here’s how he does it… Alpha Male Posture Building Exercises – Dumbbell and Kettlebell Variation:

  62. “Why is mart a ”troll?’ Because he sees game for what it is?”

    No because he:

    1) Has an agenda which is not about “spreading the truth” even as he claims he is “spreading the truth”.

    2) He has no interest in actually debating the issue he supposedly came here to debate.

    3) Most importantly, he refuses to defend statements he makes, instead relying on more wise-ass commentary.

    Seems rather trollish to me. But then he seems to be in good company lately around.

    It seems like this blog has had a recent flood of Game Nay-sayers, whose entire mission is to deny Game has ANY validity despite any arguments, studies, personal observation and experience to the contrary.

    It is almost as if there is concerted disinformation campaign being mounted to flood the zone with anti-Game propaganda. Hmmm. The Feminine Imperative Strikes Back?

    Oh, some try to dress it up all nice and proper looking with fancy words and the sort of convoluted academic babble, but sorry, folks, it reeks of agenda and not honest debate.

    And honest debate would be great, truly. Any field of study, any important concept should be able to stand up to rigorous scrutiny. Game is no different.

    However, what I seeing around here lately is not an honest attempt to challenge its assumptions, but simply a barrage of “it’s all bullshit, you fucking losers, I don’t care what say.” As others have pointed out, at least some critics try use arguments which have already been addressed by Rollo or other theorists, which leads me to believe those critics do not know as much about Game as they claim, or they do not care for contradictory evidence.

    So, let do an experiment, Game deniers. A poll. Line-up.

    In 4 sentences or less (some of you are tediously verbose), tell us if you believe Game is 100% bullshit.

    If you believe most, but not all of it is bullshit, tell us what part of it you consider valid.

    Failure to answer or to dodge the question means you’re a troll and a mendacious wanker.

    Cheers.

    Oh, and there will be a follow up question or two, so please consider your answers carefully. Broo-hah-hah!

  63. Just thought I’d point out to the detractors that game is not zero sum.
    While a man using game may get more of what he wants, it doesn’t follow that women get the short end of the stick. Game actually gives women what they want in a man.

    While as elsewhere there may be 2% of sociopathic types, normal men with a conscience exercise responsibility along with authority. Long term as well as short term relationships are improved. The experience of men has been that the women appreciate their game frame and tell them so, both verbally and non-verbally.

  64. My comment is less about the issues that have taken the conversation off track (in my mind), and more about the original issues raised by Rollo’s initial article.

    My takeaway from this is that manliness, like Game, is not a destination but an evolutionary process. We evolve toward our inner masculine core through reflection, discussion, trial and error, field testing, etc. All of this takes hard work, and it’s not a short process. Some of us are learning about and picking up these tools later in life, while other men have the benefit of learning it now with youth and energy on their side. Any positive change is good, and anything that will bring you closer to your goals – learning a language, success with women, starting a new business venture – is a worthy tool to have.

    Am I the same guy I was at 18? Hell no; I’m not even the same guy I was last January, when my 3+ year relationship slid into the dumpster and I was replaced like a watch battery. In the year and a half since then, these principles have helped me reboot mentally, and where the brain leads, the body will follow. And what’s remarkable to me, at least, is that these tools are out there, hidden in plain sight, and they’re begin discredited and you’re being shamed for picking them up because THEY WORK. Pure and simple.

    Your own evolution, in the service of you own dreams and achievement, is your highest calling. Go to it.

  65. “The Feminine Imperative Strikes Back?”

    “The Hamster goes Hyper!”

    At this point I think they may have gone to plaid…

  66. @LiveFearless

    Indeed, it would be great to meet Mike in person but alas I am situated in London, UK right now. When I make to the states, I will make it point to look him up.

  67. Just to clarify a bit more, Mart / Barb / Shel and more are all recreated gmail accounts from the same IP.

    Dalrock’s banned her on several occasions, and I say her because all but one appear to use female names in the gmail address and her arguments stem primarily from a fem-centric perspective and derogatory of men, the manosphere and red pill truths. So I assume she’s obsessively familiar with the manosphere – enough to create repeated gmail accounts in order to involve herself after getting banned.

    I’m a bit more charitable than most of my contemporaries in that I’ve always had an open, unmoderated forum for comments (despite my being a “narcissist” cult leader), but I also believe in full disclosure.

    Mart/Barb is an established troll, but so was LivingTree and I thought her lack of insight was woth engaging for a bit. Feed at your own discretion.

  68. Rollo,

    Was NOT aware of that. I see now you found out about it last thread. Sorry to feed such a noxious troll, but I feel pretty good about pegging he/she/it early on.

    And so, I guess I am pretty on point with the whole orchestrated propaganda blitz. DAMN I’m good.

    I made a joke of it, but I guess it really is an aspect of the Feminine Imperative trying to fight back. Does it seem it all a little surreal for you that in their attempt to discredit you, they are validating some of your previous posts?

    Heh.

  69. @Magent,
    https://therationalmale.com/2013/11/25/nursing-power/

    A handful of my male readers often ask why I don’t moderate comments, or that the message of Rational Male would be better served if I banned certain commenters. I’ve mentioned on several posts and threads as to why I won’t ever do that (except for blatant spamming), but in a nutshell it’s my fundamental belief that the validity of any premise or idea should be able to withstand public debate. People who aren’t confident of the strength of their assertions or ideas, or are more concerned with profiting from the branding of those weak assertions than they are in truth, are the first to cry about the harshness of their critics and kill all dissent as well as all discourse about those assertions.

    That’s the primary reason I’ve never moderated; if people think I’m full of shit I’m all ears – I’m not so arrogant as to think I’ve thought of every angle about any idea I express here or on any other forum. However, the second reason I don’t censor, ban users or delete comments is that I believe it’s useful to have critics (usually women or fem-men) provide the gallery with examples of exactly the mentality or dynamic I’m describing in an essay. With a fair amount of predictability, a blue pill male or an upset woman will just as often prove my point for me and serve as a model for what I’ve described.

    I never intentionally try to make rubes out of the critics I know will chime in about something, but I will sometimes leave out certain considerations I may have already thought about something, knowing it will get picked up on by a critic. I do this on occasion because the I know that the “ah hah! I got him, he forgot about X,Y, Z” moment serves as a better teaching tool and confirms for me that a critic does in fact comprehend what I’m going on about.

  70. ” We evolve toward our inner masculine core through reflection, discussion, trial and error, field testing, etc”

    Well said MikePhil.

    I haven’t made a study of PUA routines myself; it doesn’t feel like my style. Maybe I’ll get around to it someday.

    I have learned things of value from hanging around these parts.
    As I pointed out, internalizing some basic RP truths can have far reaching effects on sweeping away self defeating attitudes and behaviors.

    A big part of it has been giving up those not so pretty lies that caused self censorship of what natural alpha I have.
    In that way, my new behaviors are a genuine expression of who I am, and inasmuch as they are attractive to women, they are not a deception or emulation of desirable traits.

  71. Everyone have a look at this: https://vine.co/v/M2Hmue7xjxq

    There’s many more on here: https://vine.co/Badoo

    Sure it’s made as a joke but I can definitely see this happening more often in the future, just look at the success of Tinder to give you some perspective. I recall seeing a comment saying something along the lines of, “Technology will only further skew the SMP in favor of good looking Alphas in the future.”

    Looks like they’ll soon be proven right.

    It will only get harder for ugly and average guys, tight game or not. Roosh himself acknowledges this in one of his recent posts.: http://www.rooshv.com/is-night-game-really-dead-in-america

    Technology will only strengthen the female imperative and hypergamy will reign freely without any judgment.

  72. @ Rollo

    How did you know!?!

    According to the one German Amazon review of your book that ruins your otherwise perfect 5 star rating you are a “brown” (i.e. nazi) wannabe cult leader.

    I wish I could translate the actual arguments that were made that would support this, alas, there were none.

  73. For me, the focus has always been on self-mastery in every part of my life. The focus is on always maintaining an optimistic, flexible mentality to life. To the degree that it relates to women, my frame is irontight. However, nothing in that behavior is wired specifically toward my girlfriend. It is just how I want to live. She likes living in that world and wants to follow.

    Outer Game only works to the degree that it is backed by an inner purpose. Otherwise, you will find yourself living a life that is not really yours and that is very sad.

  74. @jacklabear
    “Yes, and behavior is a phenotype, including behavior informed by knowledge.”

    First, nobody said otherwise. It should be valued as important for assessing a long term potential partner. But we are talking about capture the female attention on courtship interactions, and it’s the physical appearance what is culling male frequencies. True that once a partner is obtained, personality acts in ways to ensure the continuation and exclusivity of a long term relationship. You should note that behavioral traits are a dependent variable. It is something that depends on other factor (independent variable, i.e. attractiveness). Since women are skewing their choices towards highly physically attractive targets (This can be inferred from data/research of internet dating, speed dating, etc).

    “May I suggest writing your posts in iambic pentameter? You might come up with Taming of the Shrew.
    Your position reminds me of a feminist book I read claiming that testosterone has nothing to do with muscularity.
    Try telling that to a professional bodybuilder. He’ll laugh in your face.
    And a female bodybuilder might show you her irreversibly huge clit if you exhibit the optimal behavioral phenotype.”

    First off, I’ve never felt the need to insult anyone because I know I can carry my arguments without resorting to personal attacks. You would be wise to do the same. That last paragraph is laughable. I have a strong scientific background and I don’t deny anything that’s biologically true, which is what you’re assuming in your last paragraph.

    @ orion
    “No, it does not.
    You can put longer feathers on birds and they get laid like tile.
    It simply has to appear honest for long enough to get laid… In a fairly limited environment, within a limited time frame, the original hunting grounds of PUAs, there is no reason why those signals could not be faked.”

    Ok, the long-tailed widowbird does use an indicator mechanism by which females can accurately assess the quality of potential mates. BUT you’re confusing some zoological phenotypes with human ones, where is operating other primary signals for sexual attraction.

    @Magnent
    “It seems like this blog has had a recent flood of Game Nay-sayers, whose entire mission is to deny Game has ANY validity despite any arguments, studies, personal observation and experience to the contrary.”

    Can you tell us where we may find any PUA tests of game hypotheses, via longitudinal follow-ups by experiment, conducting their own speed-dating studies, courtship-field research, etc? Can you offer any study/data proving that male behavior (after controlling for physical attractiveness ratings) is a reliable indicator of mating distributions?

    “Oh, some try to dress it up all nice and proper looking with fancy words and the sort of convoluted academic babble, but sorry, folks, it reeks of agenda and not honest debate.
    And honest debate would be great, truly. Any field of study, any important concept should be able to stand up to rigorous scrutiny.”

    Says the guy who uses circular arguments to make a point. You prove nothing by your comment. My comments up above can be backed up by science (namely that of sexual biology). But what do you have on the other hand? Anecdotal evidence?

    My arguments don’t depend on any anecdotal evidence. My point in referencing studies/ data (study of a group of individuals taken from the general population) is to show that women hold physical attractiveness as a dominant consideration (just like men), when making a choice. Physical attractiveness is a limiting factor for BOTH sexes, and women are MORE selective in assessing attractive males – women are MORE likely (than men) to cull prospects according to assessments of physical attractiveness. This is supported by scientific evidence, and these outcomes are not derived from my own personal experiences (which really fits with overall population landscape within the scientific research). The difference, of course, is that women are less likely to consider any given man (physically) attractive, than the reverse.
    But let’s give others the opportunity to draw their own conclusions.

    “However, what I seeing around here lately is not an honest attempt to challenge its assumptions, but simply a barrage of “it’s all bullshit, you fucking losers, I don’t care what say.” As others have pointed out, at least some critics try use arguments which have already been addressed by Rollo or other theorists, which leads me to believe those critics do not know as much about Game as they claim, or they do not care for contradictory evidence.”

    I’m getting tired of repeating myself but my main point is that ‘game’ is not a primary factor in attracting mates (contrary to what any PUA or gamer says) and the fact that it holds no comparable value to honest markers of Alpha Fucks (good looks) or even to a lesser extent, Beta Bucks (material resources).

    “In 4 sentences or less (some of you are tediously verbose), tell us if you believe Game is 100% bullshit.
    If you believe most, but not all of it is bullshit, tell us what part of it you consider valid.”

    ‘Game’ is entirely dependent on other ‘gina-tingling’ variables that have nothing to do with game – it is *not* a proxy for attraction. So, all ‘game’ can conceivably do, is ‘maximize’ a man’s opportunities on a case by case basis (no Gina tingle, no ‘game’ optimization opportunities). Dominance simply doesn’t factor into this assessment, in any shape or form (beyond spurious, tingle-mediated attribution affects). Game merely tries to indoctrinate males on how to establish psychological leverage (by bluffing females, and learning to appreciate subtleties in female duplicity). Ergo, for the vast majority of low (mating) status males, it is game of negligible value.

    Gave you five sentences but I take it you can read one more.

    “Oh, and there will be a follow up question or two, so please consider your answers carefully. Broo-hah-hah!”

    As long as you answer and state your own positions, but something tells me you won’t and you’ll just ask question after question while claiming you’re getting the better end of the debate. Go ahead; it’s your move now. Make it count.

  75. Now for some studies:

    Life History of Female Preferences for Male Faces:
    A Comparison of Pubescent Girls, Nonpregnant and Pregnant Young Women, and Middle-aged Women

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3226692/

    “The main findings are as follows: (1) Preference for sexy-looking faces was strongest in young, nonpregnant women. (2) Biologically more mature girls displayed more adultlike preferences. (3) The intragroup consistency for postmenopausal women was relatively low. (4) In terms of the preference pattern, pregnant women were more similar to perimenopausal women than they were to their nonpregnant peers. (5) Preference for youthful appearance decreased with the age of the women. I argue that the life history of female preferences for male faces is, to a large extent, hormone-driven and underpinned by a set of evolutionary adaptations.”
    ___________________________________________________
    Sexual selection, redundancy and survival of the most beautiful.

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02702619

    “This leads to the conclusion that sexual selection and sexual attraction should be based on beauty rather than utility, and explains the common observation in nature that it is the most beautiful that survive.”
    ___________________________________________________
    Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes

    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/266/1431/1913.short

    “Cues of phenotypic condition should be among those used by women in their choice of mates. One marker of better phenotypic condition is thought to be symmetrical bilateral body and facial features… Moreover, the relationship between facial attractiveness and symmetry was still observed, even when symmetry cues were removed by presenting only the left or right half of faces. These results suggest that attractive features other than symmetry can be used to assess phenotypic condition. We identified one such cue, facial masculinity (cheek–bone prominence and a relatively longer lower face), which was related to both symmetry and full– and half–face attractiveness.”

    I didn’t post too many because I know most of you won’t take the time to read them all. But I did pick some good ones to read.

  76. @Siirtyrion

    “Ok, the long-tailed widowbird does use an indicator mechanism by which females can accurately assess the quality of potential mates. BUT you’re confusing some zoological phenotypes with human ones, where is operating other primary signals for sexual attraction.”

    Yeah, my long tail feathers never got me laid, granted.

    However, now that we have established that such signals can be faked, who says we cannot fake human signals?

    At least for short term mating success, it seems to me that identifying those signals and emulating them is a very real possibility.

  77. Dominance simply doesn’t factor into this assessment, in any shape or form (beyond spurious, tingle-mediated attribution affects).

    Don’t be so sure about that. You want a study? I’d be interested to read your take on this:

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/study-dominance-not-looks-predicts-mens-mating-success/

    It’s not that I don’t agree with the importance of, and priority women give to physical arousal cues, but dominance IS one of those arousal cues.

  78. Have any studies regarding the importance of physical appearance ever taken the test group and conducted both a sober and drunk test? How about before or after a big meal? Or maybe before and after watching certain types of movies? Maybe one should be done where those being surveyed are made to evaluate a group under different lighting conditions, like a blue vs. amber filters.

    Is it possible perceived physical attractiveness is influenced by environmental conditions? If so by how much? And in what way?

  79. “learning to appreciate subtleties in female duplicity”

    Ha. Some kinda sugar and spice?

    Nah, women are never liars, fakes, scammers, opportunists, manipulators, narcissists, histrionics, etc… we just need to “appreciate” their “subtleties”.

    You mean, uh, DETECT subtle SIGNS of duplicity?

    I see game as a survival skill.

  80. Sirtyrion,

    “But we are talking about capture the female attention on courtship interactions, and it’s the physical appearance what is culling male frequencies.”

    The primacy of appearance has been discussed and no clear consensus emerged because there are many exceptions and the contributions of other factors are significant. The studies show an aggregate effect and beauty is in the eye of the individual beholder. It doesn’t matter if even 100% of women prefer a particular face because most won’t get him. If only 10% of men are chosen as the most attractive, does that mean that 90% of men and women will be celibate? No, the next most important and convenient indicators will be assessed.

    “You should note that behavioral traits are a dependent variable. It is something that depends on other factor (independent variable, i.e. attractiveness). “

    The idea has been presented that confidence is a proxy for success indicators. I doubt that appearance is the only one. I believe that there are things men can do to build confidence by succeeding, such as strength training, martial arts and business. The former also increase desirable costly physical traits such as muscularity, and masculine gender signals like vascularity and leanness as well as improved posture.
    Doing these things has been called inner game. I suspect that this debate is a bit of a straw man with elements of fruit salad since game as discussed here means something different than on some PUA and other sites and we have not defined our terms rigorously.

    Perhaps what you are questioning is the value of PUA script game.
    It has been suggested that they are a placebo, that the only value it offers is getting men to actually interact with women. That of course is not trivial. Indeed, it is the sine qua non of starting relationships. Even if that is the only benefit, it is of great value for many men.

  81. Sirtyrion

    “I’m getting tired of repeating myself but my main point is that ‘game’ is not a primary factor in attracting mates”

    Not everyone would argue that it is primary.

    Myself, I’m not going to sit crying and hungry by the cookie jar because I can’t pull out a fist full but can only pull out one or two at a time .

  82. Siirtyrion contradicts himself/herself “again: First, nobody said otherwise.” Siirtyrion, you did so say otherwise, and you keep doing so. EVERY post is you saying otherwise; you literally have no other point to make.

    So, you lose.

  83. As a professional scientist, I dominantly assert that Siirtyrion is no scientist, much less a good one, and further that (s)he is a social justice warrior concern-troll, pretending to be one of the cry baby types “I’m sooo uncuute!”, in order to make some point about which we do not care. The deadest giveaway are bald assertions that his/her feewings are so important that their truthiness impacts the whole world, e.g. “Game’ is entirely dependent on other ‘gina-tingling’ variables that have nothing to do with game – it is *not* a proxy for attraction. So, all ‘game’ can conceivably do, is ‘maximize’ a man’s opportunities on a case by case basis (no Gina tingle, no ‘game’ optimization opportunities). Dominance simply doesn’t factor into this assessment, in any shape or form (beyond spurious, tingle-mediated attribution affects). Game merely tries to indoctrinate blah blah blah blah.”

  84. I asked my friend the other day how many women he thinks he’s slept with in his life.

    “Oh, hundreds.”

    He said he knew he was never good looking, and he was always thin as a rail. I don’t think he’s set foot in a gym a single day in his life. He was in a popular local band, which got him a lot of exposure, but the real kicker was when he said “I just felt like I had the right to do it.”

    That was the only explanation he could come up with, and that speaks volumes.

  85. The twitter link to the Jezebel article about the wife loosing attraction with her husband sounds like she’s regretting creating the man in the garage.
    http://groupthink.jezebel.com/traditional-masculinity-and-sexual-preferences-1614373452
    He used to hang out with male friends when they dated, now he doesn’t see them anymore.
    He keeps a broken computer, maybe because he has only one place to put his stuff. And his stuff has mostly been vetoed away on her opinion. But she doesn’t mess with anything computer related, so he holds on to it.
    May have gotten out of shape because he doesn’t do things on his own anymore.
    She even hints at the atmosphere at home may be restricting to him being him. She may have worn him down and not regrets it.
    A combo of man in the garage and game changers.

  86. “In 4 sentences or less (some of you are tediously verbose), tell us if you believe Game is 100% bullshit.

    If you believe most, but not all of it is bullshit, tell us what part of it you consider valid.”

    “‘Game’ is entirely dependent on other ‘gina-tingling’ variables that have nothing to do with game – it is *not* a proxy for attraction. So, all ‘game’ can conceivably do, is ‘maximize’ a man’s opportunities on a case by case basis (no Gina tingle, no ‘game’ optimization opportunities). Yadda-yadda-verbosity-verbosity…”

    This, my friend is a dodge. Your verbosity does not hide the fact you are trying to keep from taking a clear and definitive position someone can argue with. In fact, your voluminous and convoluted response is the camouflage. You ask that I state my positions. I do. You cloak yours in Byzantine paragraphs.

    The reason why I asked you to stick to 4 sentences was I KNEW one of you would pull this very thing. I asked you and your ilk a very simple question.

    I gave you a simple task. Give me a percentage. You refused.

    Why?

    In your own words:

    “As long as you answer and STATE YOUR OWN POSITIONS…”

    You want me to state my positions (I do) but you don’t want to be tied down to particular positions, because then they can be argued with (Mart…is that you?).

    Here’s how someone who is NOT trying to cloud the issue MIGHT answer.

    ‘Game is 80% bullshit. It ignores the preponderance of weight that basic physical attractiveness carries in everyday human interaction. If the penis does not lie, neither does the vagina. When it comes down to it, outward physical appearance will dominate all sexual interactions. No amount of mindset, personal confidence, etc will be able to compete.”

    I allow there is 20% validity in Game in that certain basic concepts like X will improve a man’s chances through…”

    See how that works?

    So, perhaps the percentage question was too difficult. Math is hard.

    Let me try again.

    Do you, Siirtyrion, believe that every single concept of Game is invalid?

    If NOT, please list which 3 Red Pill Theory concepts you view as valid.

    All I need is:

    1 – Yes or No.

    2 – A list of three things.

Speak your mind

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