As I’ve covered in recent posts*, Focus on the Family (FotF) teaches that in order for men and women to marry men must first approach women and boldly state their romantic intentions. The woman’s job is to wait around for men to formally approach her and declare their intentions, and then decide which men she wants to allow to take her on a date. As FotF’s Director of Family Formation studies complains, this isn’t happening (emphasis mine):
At lunch with some colleagues the other day, some of the women—ladies in their 20s—were discussing how rare it is for men their age to step up, approach any feminine peers, and ask for a date, much less show any interest that could be seen as a move toward romance…
It’s passivity, not toxicity, that is the real male problem today. Ask any young woman how she vets all the nice young men who approach to decide who will advance to the bonus round of an actual date. She will ask if you rewind your VHS tapes before returning them to Blockbuster, or just pay the fee.
The problem with this obsession is not only is it totally out of step with current culture, it isn’t in line with how social interactions work in the first place. Every day we interact with the people around us in subtle but meaningful ways. Think about your best friends. How did you come to meet them and become friends? Did they boldly approach you and declare their intention to become your best friend?
Hi I’m Glenn Stanton, and I want to be your best friend! Don’t worry if you don’t want to be my friend right away, I just know I’ll win you over! Will you have dinner with me tonight?
This is the epitome of terrible social skills. If someone approaches you this way chances are you will feel initially repulsed, although that may change to compassion as you recognize the nature of their affliction. Other times it won’t come off as awkward, but as suspicious. What is this weirdo after? Is he trying to rob or con me?
There are of course exceptional situations where the approach wouldn’t feel awkward or creepy. If the man introducing himself as your new best friend is effortlessly cool, owns a great boat and has access to the best hunting and fishing land around, chances are you will think to yourself what a genuinely friendly fellow! But this is a corner case, an exception to the rule.
In real life we are constantly meeting and evaluating people in a multitude of ways. There is no formal path to friendship because it isn’t how real social interactions work. We meet people and strike up conversations, and if there are common interests we learn that organically. Most of these interactions aren’t particularly consequential, and very few turn into true friendships. But the ones that matter end up mattering a great deal. We just don’t tend to know that up front when we are making a first impression. The women complaining to Stanton are being evaluated by potential husbands on a regular basis, but either aren’t making much of an impression on these men or are being quietly rejected by the men as not a good candidate for marriage. Stanton pretends the women are all fabulous potential wives, and that there is nothing they could do or change to make themselves more attractive to the men they are failing to attract. He says the problem with the women who are failing to attract husbands is they are just so awesome that men are too intimidated by their perfection:
The social opportunities open to women today are making them better catches and thus increasingly intimidating to too many young adult males, who approximate a mole.
This is a cruel lie.
This doesn’t mean that a society can’t have accepted rules about courtship, but that isn’t what is going on. Modern Christians are pretending that a specific set of social conventions are in place, with the implicit claim that these conventions are from God. Neither is true, and as a result they are throwing stumbling blocks between men and women at a time when it is already difficult for them to meet and marry.
This isn’t about the Bible or an agreed upon social convention. It is about a group of people trying to rework the culture to the conventions of a stunted love-struck teenager. For what else is the courtly love model that they are basing this “tradition” upon? Consider the first 7 stages of courtly love:
Stages of courtly love
(Adapted from Barbara W. Tuchman)[41]
- Attraction to the lady, usually via eyes/glance
- Worship of the lady from afar
- Declaration of passionate devotion
- Virtuous rejection by the lady
- Renewed wooing with oaths of virtue and eternal fealty
- Moans of approaching death from unsatisfied desire (and other physical manifestations of lovesickness)
- Heroic deeds of valor which win the lady’s heart
I don’t mean to be cruel to stunted teenagers. They are suffering as it is, and hopefully they will go on to live happy well adjusted lives. But we can’t mine their fantasies for wisdom on how Christian men and women should meet and marry. To do this is cruel to everyone, especially the stunted teenagers who are most taken in by the fantasy.
H/T Novaseeker
*See Also:
I just realized there are parallels between courtship and being emo
So are you suggesting that men never approach?
Or are you saying to be subtle about your intentions when you do?
Pingback: When “traditional” means socially awkward. | @the_arv
@frank632
Not at all. I’m saying don’t pretend a convention exists where it doesn’t, and don’t base your day game on absurd romantic poetry from the middle ages.
When you openly approach a woman, and are shot down, you are creepy. When you don’t approach a woman, you are pathetically passive. When you subtly express interest in a woman and SHE IS NOT INTERESTED, you are awkward and pitiable. So, then, where is the happy medium? I know that we are supposed to worship women and let them be our guiding lights and blah blah blah (at least according to them), but can these people honestly not see the hipocrisy in their own words? The two-faced expectations?
So are you suggesting that men never approach?
Or are you saying to be subtle about your intentions when you do?
Interact naturally. Look for IOIs. Flirt, see how she responds. If she responds consistently coolly and uninterested … she isn’t interested. If she’s interested, she will toss out an IOI, and then you move on from there. It’s just a natural interaction, and it’s fine to approach women and talk to them, but the idea that you put looking for a date as your “intention” on the table the moment you open your mouth is beyond socially awkward — it’s borderline socially autistic. Just interact with the person, see if she responds positively and look for an IOI or two. If there aren’t any IOIs, she’s not interested. There’s no need to “state your intentions” … women damned well know when a guy is chatting them up and that he’s interested in her, trust me.
It all boomerangs back to Christianity being replaced with Uteroanity and the courtly love model. Review of Boundless.org’s emasculating drivel proves to me they (Evangelical PTB) prefer FI to marriage. Yes, finally got it.
Well put Novaseeker. Thank you.
Hence why courtly love isn’t biblical.
Perhaps the whining that men don’t do it anymore is because a larger segment of the male population is rejecting the ‘all women are goddesses’ mindset society is placing upon them.
I often see on TV the two dynamics described by Dalrock.
Guys that approach girls (or even look them over) are often described as “creepy” or “perverts.”
Women are described as “awesome” and “incredible” for doing small things. Or even for just existing. They even describe themselves like that, to applause.
Given the big role of TV in creating frames for the behavior of young people in America, this is training women to become single with cats. Can’t end well.
Lol WTF!
@feministhater
The funniest part is Stanton is trying to show how with it he is while he is insisting on a convention that is entirely disconnected to the times.
Stanton must have copied and pasted from some manuscript he had lying around since 1990.
Eh, if some rich guy suddenly tries to make friends and then invites you to go hunting with him on his isolated acres, I’m thinking something else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Dangerous_Game
The funniest part is Stanton is trying to show how with it he is while he is insisting on a convention that is entirely disconnected to the times.
My jaw dropped when I saw this. The activity he describes has not been a part of mainstream life since about 2002 or so.
Well, at least he truly is a conservative.
“If I ask you out on a date will you accuse me of being creepy, of an unwanted advance I.e. harassment, will you Facebook shame me, will your cartoon father point firearms at me, will your safe space feel invaded, will you judge me for being toxicly masculine, will you suggest that I am a part of the patriarchial oppression of women and the non-cisgendered, or should I roll the dice and hope that you are of that minority of females that are not narcissistic sociopaths and with out an entitlement chip on your shoulder?”
Gee, why are men reluctant? Why indeed?
@Anon
This is his point though. If you think kids these days are following the script we pretend people followed in the 1950s, you are clearly stuck in the 1990s!
This is Stanton showing how “with it” he is, while carping about the fact that kids these days aren’t acting out his favored embodiment of the courtly love script.
Dalrock,
I thought you just found an old post (since I didn’t click through). Finding that was just posted is amazing. And I thought I was socially clueless. He definitely has me beat there, by a large margin.
What is even worse is that in the 400+ comments under Glenn Stanton’s article, most seem to agree with him, with plenty of cartoonish fathers bloviating and showboating in there.
“The social opportunities open to women today are making them better catches…….”
What social opportunities is her referring to? Serious question.
He says the problem with the women who are failing to attract husbands is they are just so awesome that men are too intimidated by their perfection:
It is astounding to witness the mental malpractice exhibited by the likes of Stanton, where a person could actually persuade themselves to believe such a thing.
In the *most* traditional cultures (i.e. which has not existed in America since the 1920s), men have considerable MMP power, and the parents of a girl will act pretty desperately if a top-quality young man was attainable to their daughter but then slips out of her grasp.
Bruce,
What social opportunities is her referring to? Serious question.
Stanton is asserting that social media attention-seeking by women has made them MORE suitable to be superb wives, not less.
Remember that when he truly believes women can do no wrong, everything can be rationalized as making women better and better. He already praises single mothers to a cartoonish degree.
We live at a time when so many seem to have hundreds if not thousands of Facebook Friends. In his book How Many Friends does one person Need?, Robin Dunbar, Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at Oxford explains that the most friends a person might have are a mere five. Attempts to increase that number must he explains fail. What you might wonder happens when a man acquires a significant-other of the opposite sex? Does he then have six friends? Apparently he will lose two friends and thus (including the girlfriend) drop to four.
We know from our friend Krauser PUA what the stats are (even if you are good at it and no matter whether you are handsome or otherwise) that should you make One Thousand approaches in a year you will receive phone-numbers one-third of the time and of those Three-Hundred or so, only one in ten will lead to coitus (though in the main that is both the highlight and end of the budding relationship). I always found that from a group of thirty females only three would be of interest and of those three two would come to nothing, which pretty much tallies Krauser’s figures.
Blockbusters? ROFL
One Thousand approaches in a year you will receive phone-numbers one-third of the time and of those Three-Hundred or so, only one in ten will lead to coitus (though in the main that is both the highlight and end of the budding relationship).
His numbers were much better :
1000 approaches.
60 dates
27 converted to sex (and that does not mean having sex just once).
Success requires the ability to push through many failures Opus. That is why anti-game stuff is so silly. They think the number of failures inherently prove an effort is worthless, when that is the entire point.
Talent helps, but persistence is required as well, far more than most are willing to put in. This is true even if the goal is not as immoral as with most PUAs.
A lot of churchgoing people have poor social skills. They can’t make small talk about anything other than sports or the weather. Many have no real interests outside of work and maybe church functions. Once the few commonalities are spoken, conversation fades out. I see / hear it all across age cohorts, from tongue-tied teenagers to awkward nearly retired Boomers. The lack of semi-organized social events doesn’t help. It’s easier to chat people up at a potluck, just talk about food.
My personal suspicion is some people are just shy/awkward and no one ever assists them in making the effort to improve social skills, but the “virtualization” of reality now is making things worse. It’s not just 20-somethings who have their head stuck in the phone all the time.
The fact that some churchgoing people speak in “churchese” a lot probably doesn’t help.
What social opportunities is her referring to? Serious question.
He means that the social disapproval of women pursuing high powered careers and so on has disappeared, which gives them more opportunities, and which therefore makes them “better catches”. So many wrong things here, of course, it beggars belief.
First, women pursuing opportunities hasn’t been socially disapproved since at least the 1970s. That was almost 50 years ago. It didn’t change the market, or men’s behavior, until later, when women started to behave unreasonably. He either doesn’t know this (if that’s the case, he’s simply ignorant — which is possible) or he doesn’t think it’s important, but either way, it’s silly to suggest that this is something new for women *today*. It is simply the world they grew up in and expected.
Second, in no way does this make women “better catches” from the perspective of marriage, other than for people in the upper middle class who mate assortatively, where the women have their “feminist merit badge” (as Dalrock quite well dubbed it), and men in that social class generally want that in their wives. In the rest of the demographic, it doesn’t work that way. Men are not intimidated by women’s achievements, but they may (again, outside that small UMC professional bubble) not want to be married to a woman who prioritizes her career, because that may not be the kind of marriage he wants to have. At the very best, outside the UMC bubble it’s neutral — it certainly doesn’t make women a “better catch”.
But, again, not to drag out the already well-beaten and quite dead horse from the last thread, the reason for this is that this is exactly how the dads/uncles view their daughters/nieces — they evaluate them the way women evaluate men, because they have done their best to make them into female versions of men from the time they were young. Since they’ve worked so hard to encourage their daughters and nieces to be pretty (at least in some cases) men with vaginas, of course they tout these aspects as making them “better catches”. This is merely doubling down on their overall approach to raising young women, and of course it reveals that the ultimate substance here is feminist to the core, with a thin, almost posturing, “Christian” veneer. The mask is exposed finally for what it is.
Novaseeker
…the idea that you put looking for a date as your “intention” on the table the moment you open your mouth is beyond socially awkward — it’s borderline socially autistic.
Yes. Many churchgoing people are socially awkward and some are borderline socially autistic. They also tend to be solipsistic. “This worked for ME!” (in 1986) “It should work for YOU!”. Combine that with revering a past that never was, and we get ridiculousness such as Stanton suggests. It’s like those TradCons who insist that all we need to do is return to the days of courting on the front porch while Dad cleans his shotgun by the front door, etc.
Socially autistic. The really annoying part? I know a few high-performing autists (diagnosed in childhood) who have adequate social skills that enable them to function at conventions, in private practice, etc. They persevered to learn a mental flowchart, a rule-based system, that enables them to laugh at jokes (sometimes after a pause to evaluate) and even tell jokes sort of. Someone with a strangely wired brain can, with persistence and coaching, function better than the awkward robots Stanton wants to program.
There’s no real excuse for a neurotypical person not knowing at least basic social skills. However if no one ever teaches them, and they don’t pick it up on their own, a shy man or woman may just be self-isolated for years. If they make the mistake of paying attention to the likes of Stanton, that self-isolation will almost certainly get worse. Stanton is causing harm handing out such socially autistic advice. It’s not just stupid, it’s mean.
BillyS
That is why anti-game stuff is so silly. They think the number of failures inherently prove an effort is worthless, when that is the entire point.
Indeed. They claim that unless Game has a 100% success rate on every approach, it is worthless. Note that these anti-Game nuts don’t present any alternatives either. They then try to glorify being an incel, yet quite often, someone trolls them on their blog (sockpuppeting as a woman), and they get giddy that a woman showed up on their blog. Even when the sockpuppet ‘female’ was revealed to be Matt Forney or someone, the anti-Game incel falls for it a second and third time after that.
I have a copy of Dunbar’s book and thus casually again opened it at Chapter One. It begins with the usual Darwinist boiler-plate – Evolution is now no longer a rather shaky theory but fact, so I turned to Chapter Two which is much more interesting. Apparently monogamy requires large brains; those with smaller brains mate promiscuously. Correct me if I am wrong but is it not the case that women have smaller brains? Would that at least in part account for their hopping from marriage to marriage?
BillyS
Success requires the ability to push through many failures Opus. That is why anti-game stuff is so silly. They think the number of failures inherently prove an effort is worthless, when that is the entire point.
It is binary thinking, and it is childish. “Wah, (technique) doesn’t produce 100% immediate success, I quit!”. The irony? Many men who complain that way are quite persistent in other areas of their life.
All that said, there are men with messed up neural pathways due to various factors who really need a bit more than just some PUA bootcamp. We live in the age of frivorce, and young men raised by bitter feminist mothers have probably got more baggage in their headspace regarding women than just Approach Anxiety.
“It is about a group of people trying to rework the culture to the conventions of a stunted love-struck teenager.”
Damn, that is exactly what it was. That was me until I found this blog and rational male 7 or so years ago.
And now I’m seeing girls hit 30, still stunted in a teenage mindset. Schools had them conform to an adolescent mindset from ages 12-22 and now its so ingrained they can’t get out.
In fact, as an alternative to Stanton’s mooing, hand young men a copy of “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. Hey, it’s originally from the 50’s so nostalgia. Plus Dale Carnegie taught people social skills that actually worked….
Off topic but I thought you’d be interested: this article https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/opinion/columnists/great-recession-economy-gdp.html
especially the graph comparing the official unemployment rate to the number of men not working and given up looking for jobs..
“Ask any young woman how she vets all the nice young men who approach to decide who will advance to the bonus round of an actual date. ”
No need to ask. Science gives the answer! See the famous experiment: “Picking Up Girls In A Lamborghini Without Talking.”
Girls would say that a guy trying this in a Chevy is a creep or a fool.
Stanton’s article is so poor. It is filled with straw men and assertions. Plus, it isn’t Christian or even conservative as the assumption that women do not need any moral guidance, they just are, is ridiculous and incompatible with Christianity.
I often wonder whether those here (and elsewhere) who speak so positively about Game are Armchair Lotharios? – let us hear their figures for last twelve months – but we never do. I don’t think I can be said to be anti-game for I am not even sure what it really is and it would stupid and pretentious to criticise what one does not understand. Either way: Stanton (if I understand him) thinks men should approach women.
Game is a subject that could and should profitably be addressed by Dunbar.
Krauser??? Never heard of the guy before someone brought up his name here.
What does he mean by approach? Is he tapping every woman that walks by on the shoulder and flinging some lines at them? When I was immersed in the pickup world, I knew guys like that. They were the ones who would “Burn down the club” and in an hour they’d “approached” every woman in the place and want to bounce to the next bar.
Just like the blind pig and the carrot, occasionally, those guys would by pure happenstance run across a woman looking to get laid, and they’d achieve their goal of masturbation with a live woman.
Then, there were other guys who stepped up to a specific woman and engaged her in conversation. It might not go anywhere, but those guys did much better than 33/1000.
There is massive projection among church leaders. The worship leader guitar guy and the seminary grad on the path to be a pastor will say from their high status position, “just approach girls, brah. Its easy.”
More street science showing how some (many?) 21st C American women “vet the nice young men who approach …”
Trigger alert! These are crude and vulgar, as usual for men doing research on the frontiers of the gender revolution.
“The social opportunities open to women today are making them better catches and thus increasingly intimidating to too many young adult males, who approximate a mole.”
I find this line of thinking very backwards. What Glen and these girls view as making them better catches, actually lowers their value in the eyes of those men that they want pursuing them. It’s not that the “success” of woman creates intimidation, it creates disinterest. Men typically want a woman who wants to be a wife and mother, not a grad/doctorate student with a “successful” career.
I thank God that I am not trying to find a spouse in today’s environment. it would be discouraging beyond belief.
Novaseeker —
“But again, not to drag out the already well-beaten and quite dead horse from the last thread, the reason for this is that this is exactly how the dads/uncles view their daughters/nieces — they evaluate them the way women evaluate men, because they have done their best to make them into female versions of men from the time they were young.”
Please drag that hoss out and beat it just as often as you like. Every day would not be too much, because what you describe really is at the heart of the death of the West. These people think they’re gonna MAGA . . . it is ludicrous. Won’t happen. CAN’T happen — the very policies they insist upon preclude it.
You cannot have both Progs and ‘Conservatives’ grooming their female children to be ‘better than men’, which is precisely what they do. Then pat one another on the back for their treachery against God and nation. Then go to church to spread the Feminist Gospel some more.
The State colludes fully in this, again, for self-serving, self-perpetuating, and self-enriching reasons. The incentives for daughter-dads to follow the Feminist Gospel are massive — too much for most people, including ‘Christians’, to turn down. Satan has it set up perfectly. After all, it’s not rebellion against God to want what’s best for my little girl, is it? How can God not want that?! And etc.
It’s increasingly common at state universities to offer short-term zero credit courses in table manners. Typically of interest to students approaching graduation who wish to make a good impression during corporate interviews. Churches and parachurch orgs could offer basic teachings in social skills; simple conversation, active listening, basic Dale Carnegie stuff. . Of course that would require having enough teachers who already have social skills, but who at the same time resist any temptation to AMOG or otherwise dominate the room for their own purpose.
If Glenn Stanton, John Piper, etc.are any indication, that part might be a problem.
Anon, Billy —
LOL. Nobody but me challenges Game and the Game Lords here.
Really? ONE person not going along with The Group discomfits you boys that much? Indeed, that’s part of what I dislike about the Game Group. Do as we do, think as we think, or you’re the next target. Much like the fembots, come to think.
Seeing as it aggravates folks here so much, I will keep it right on up. Count on me! :O)
Novaseeker is right. Inside the church these guys are the real adversaries. Worship women, vilify men. These are a few Stanton quotes from previous Dalrock posts:
Women want to marry and have daddies for their babies. But if they can’t find good men to commit themselves to, well… Our most pressing social problem today is a man deficit.
The majority of women want marriage and babies, and usually quite dearly. They don’t need to be talked into them and never really have. Ask women today their biggest obstacle to achieving this goal. It’s not a shortage of males, but of responsible adult males. Men. If they cannot find marriageable men, they often go with other choices.
And to go with that perfect Lamborghini video posted by Larry K:
…women left to themselves will develop into good women, more responsible women, just naturally…
Woman is the most powerful living force on the globe. She creates, shapes, and sustains human civilization.
While there have been rare examples – such as the Flapper of the Roaring Twenties – female sexuality remains largely stable from culture to culture and age to age, requiring little cultural control
This is Stanton. The Director of Family Formation.
If he thinks all men need to do is approach women to fix the current situation…he has no clue what the problem is. It’s the rebellious, unsubmissive nature they have. A man approaching and dating them doesn’t fix the fact they’ve had bad programming.
Besides if women are so much better at being a man than men like their boomer trad dad loudly proclaims she is…why can’t they approach.
@AR
And few churchgoing people have any kind of willingness to discuss anything relating to sexuality, female roles, proper doctrine, etc. without virtue signalling and conflict avoidance.
Telling a group of female teenagers that their highest calling to to have a family and children, and that they should not go to college is tantamount to the worst kind of rape. What’s more fun is the tantrums would come from the parents…
Yes…he is also part of the problem. Women who think they are goddess and men who promote women being goddesses are two sides of the same corrupt coin.
Men don’t “boldly” approach women anymore, because the don’t want to be reported to HR, called creepy, or experience an atomic no.
I’m not sure what the church version of HR is, but once you’ve been accused of hitting on women in the congregation, you can bet it will kick into high gear making you persona non grata.
Lost Patrol,
female sexuality remains largely stable from culture to culture and age to age, requiring little cultural control
Sheesh. It is hard to be this delusional. Anything other than tight control of women has been a proven disaster in all cultures across all centuries.
Glenn Stanton of FotF* is perhaps the most cartoonish mangina ever.
*Faggot on the Faggot.
She will ask if you rewind your VHS tapes before returning them to Blockbuster, or just pay the fee.
What’s a “VHS tape?”
Pingback: When “traditional” means socially awkward. | Reaction Times
What’s a “VHS tape?”
Something Glenn Stanton used to rent 20, 25 or so years ago. It’s a clue that tells us some or all of his story is made up. Bogus. False. Not true.
Some religions prohibit lying. Obviously Stanton’s doesn’t. Draw conclusions…
I’ve seen this played out with both men and women. I’m sick of it.
Years ago I was developing a rapport with this cute girl who was an acquaintance who I had tons of mutual friends with and she was giving me all sorts of positive nonverbal signals. Nothing overt like touching my arm when she laughed at my jokes or something, more like if we were at a party we would always just somehow end up in a conversation just the two of us even though I was never chasing her down to try and talk to her (and I wouldn’t see her ever in a one-on-one conversation with any other guys). Or if we were in a group setting with many conversations happening at once, she would always pay attention to me when I spoke up even though many other people were talking. It really was artful how she did it. Conversations between me and her always seemed like the just randomly happened.
Then all of a sudden she went cold and would act like she had no interest in talking to me or didn’t even notice when we were in the same room. I ended up asking her out anyway based partly on the initial positive signals (even though she completely stopped sending those) and because many of our mutual friends told me that she liked me. It turned out that she did like me. After we started dating I asked her why she all of a sudden got icy towards me before. She told me that it was because her friends told her that she needed to stop showing interest or else she would “scare me away” and that she should just wait for me to approach. Basically, they were advising her to be socially awkward, to fix something that wasn’t broken (the rapport we were developing), and to follow some BS script about how relationships are supposed to form. I laughed when she told me that and told her that I almost didn’t ask her out because of that and that she shouldn’t take dating advice from a bunch of dumbass girls who can’t get boyfriends themselves (they were mostly single girls who didn’t get asked out much).
I still see this today with single guys I know. They seem to think that what women really want is for guys “to make their intentions known” and ask them out on dates and make sure you actually use the word “date” so that they know it’s a date. I gag when I hear this shit. The worst part is that they couch all this bullshit in such a way as to make it sound like they are being no-nonsense, un-PC dating realists. Kinda like “you just need to stop being a little bitch by trying to see if she’s sending positive signals and just MAN UP and GROW SOME BALLS” (by making a bold declaration of romantic interest to that girl who has given you zero reason to believe that she likes you and has given you every reason to believe that she would rather date a slug than you).
I’ve tried to explain to them before from a Game perspective why this is a bad idea- that it would kill attraction, that if a guy is that obviously eager to go out with a girl then she might conclude that she could do better, that a girl’s anxiety/uncertainty about whether a guy is into them or not actually makes it all more exciting for them and if everything is clearly verbally stated then that would make the whole dance boring, etc. It’s all lost on them. Even those basic truths about game are too over their heads, so recently I started to try and break it down to make it more basic by pointing out exactly what is being pointed out here: That the “traditional” way of “pursuing” a girl is dorky as shit. Even *if* that’s how things worked in the good-old-days 1950’s (which of course is false), it’s not how things work now. A guy trying to LARP the 1950’s in 2018 is just going to elicit an “aww how sweet you’ll make some other girl really lucky someday” at best and at worst is going to be the subject of mockery between her and her friends later on.
test
[D: I found the comment askimet spammed and restored it above.]
@JRob
It all boomerangs back to Christianity being replaced with Uteroanity and the courtly love model. Review of Boundless.org’s emasculating drivel proves to me they (Evangelical PTB) prefer FI to marriage. Yes, finally got it.
Damn skippy. At this point it’s gotten so blatant that I’m wondering how long it is before we see them post an article titled “Why God Made Men to Worship Women” and then claim it was perfectly consistent with what they’d been teaching for years (sadly, they wouldn’t be wrong about that).
In the meantime we can just rely on pieces like this one they posted last week. Its author proudly preaches the message of the divine feminine even if he prefers not to admit as much in the title:
Link for the piece is here: https://www.boundless.org/blog/gentlemen-dont-finish-last/
While there have been rare examples – such as the Flapper of the Roaring Twenties – female sexuality remains largely stable from culture to culture and age to age, requiring little cultural control
It’s hilarious isn’t it. Obviously he knows nothing about the behavior of women under 40 in 2018. Not a single solitary thing.
My kids are now in their twentys, but I remember two similar examples:
1. My ex-wife was watching an old TV show that was black-and-white, and they asked her what was wrong with the TV.
2. My ex-wife got a vinyl LP out to play on the turntable, and my kids said “That’s a funny-looking CD.”
TL;DR Glenn Stanton would be out-of-date in an old folks home.
Uteroanity.
I now have a new favorite word.
There is a third way:
Dalrock, I don’t mean to be that guy, but I don’t think that a reasonable equivocation can be made between friendship and romance here. Indeed, Stanton’s model is forced and unnatural, and if that’s the only point you wanted to make, so be it, but to a degree, game is also a bit forced and unnatural. It’s not something that comes easy to most men and there’s a lot of insistence on there being only one “correct” way to respond to a question (hold frame, keep her on the defensive, etc.) Even if it does actually work, it works because we can give it the illusion that it’s not a borderline autistic, methodical system of inputs and outputs, unlike the courtship model. But the fact remains that it more or less behaves that way.
@Darwinian Arminian
Just ask your grandma and watch a movie adapted from a Jane Austen novel. That’ll learn ya! /s
Courtship and game are all about what a man should do and how the woman *should* react…from what I can tell after lots of failure and some success if the woman already digs you that’s how things get going. The Hollyweird model where she virtuously rejects you and you have to jump through hoops to win her heart doesn’t work so much in reality.
BaboonTycoon
I don’t think that a reasonable equivocation can be made between friendship and romance here.
Why do you say that? What reason do you have for this assertion?
Indeed, Stanton’s model is forced and unnatural,
It is socially autistic, not to mention foolish. It sets men up for failure.
Is it a good thing to set men up for failure, BaboonTycoon?
and if that’s the only point you wanted to make, so be it, but to a degree, game is also a bit forced and unnatural.
Is Dale Carnegie forced and unnatural?
What is your approximate age? Over 30 for sure, over 40? Over 50? Over 60?
He had the common sense advice to be interested in the other person during a conversation.
Which is not so common in the ‘me, me, me’ generation.
Considering that dating means porking in today’s vernacular, we are back to not dating and going steady. Guys are not asking girls to go on dates. Dating culture doesn’t exist. If you like someone and she reciprocates, this should mean you’re beyond the first date and there’s potential, but women are blowing it because rejecting a man for trivial reasons means there may not be another opportunity for quite a long time.
@BaboonTycoon
It isn’t a perfect analogy, because seduction is different than friendship. But with both there is a subtle negotiation that goes on. Part of what people with good social skills naturally do in both situations is avoid unnecessarily raising the stakes. How many people have declined your offer of friendship? I would guess very few, if any at all. Because someone who declines your offer of friendship tends to become an enemy. It is somewhat different with romantic interests, but depending on the context the risks associated with formal rejection can be non trivial, and the risks tend to be higher for rejection when marriage is under consideration than with a casual hookup. These risks are incidentally for both parties. A socially competent woman will prefer to not have to formally decline offers by men to court for marriage if the same message can be delivered more subtly.
But Stanton and company really like the idea of raising the stakes. It makes for exciting fantasy. So they pretend that this is what real men do, and what God insists that they do. Men with excellent social skills will understand that this is nonsense and simply ignore it. But men with poor social skills will be suckered in by the fantasy. This is cruel. And it is all done to stroke older men’s egos. It is obscene.
1) No where have I argued that you must accept Game to recognize the nonsense of the courtly love model. Note that none of the commenters arguing against game believe that the courtly love model is how to build attraction. If (for sake of argument) you believe that attraction is magical and occurs totally randomly, so be it. We can still agree that it is foolish to tell men they must ask women on paid dates to see if the woman will feel attraction for him.
2) Don’t confuse the process of teaching/learning something with the thing itself. Good Game is anything but paint by numbers. It is highly intuitive. But when you teach something highly intuitive that tends to require experience to “get” the intuition, you tend to break it down into scripts, or create exercises for students to practice. Think of teaching someone how to swim, ride a bike, drive a stick, or (I imagine) play jazz. I’ll add that I don’t really try to teach Game. Nearly all of my writing on Game is tangential to Game (like this post).
3) As for people arguing on the internet on the “correct” way to use Game, this is like any other topic people have passion about on the internet. You will find the same heated arguments about guns, computers, barbecue, you name it.
Stanton’s fantasy vs. reality:
Yes…just because a man raises the stakes doesn’t mean the woman is going to be anymore wooed over to marriage. In these times she has to be the one more or less wanting to for a marriage to be possible since it isn’t the OT patriarchal times anymore where the father did it.
Courtly love, game, really any relationship advice I’d start with this rule….she has to dig you first.
@Dalrock
Quite interesting observations on raising stakes. I never thought of it that way, but it’ll be helpful to remember in future interactions.
As for me, I think I might have read a bit too much of Roosh’s blog to think the way I do. You get the sense that he really does feel that what he does is a completely mechanistic process that seems artificial and fake to him. A lot of the difference between your perspective and his likely comes down to you being married and him not being married. I’d actually kind of like to see you write about game some more given that. None of the major PUA types tend to hold marriages as long as you have if they even get married at all.
Regarding game itself, I see it as simply a necessary thing resulting from a very unnatural set of circumstances. I’m not arguing against its effectiveness and I certainly don’t see a better model for men to follow. My disgust lies in the way this whole situation is framed, the fact that a Christian pastor of all people would be spewing this nonsense instead of trying to build community by having his parish arrange marriages with each other. The awkwardness of seduction shouldn’t even be a thing, game, courtly love or whatever model you want to go by. And game dictates that love comes naturally from a lack of options regardless. But of course, that wouldn’t be the “feminist” thing to do.
@BaboonTycoon
One advantage I had was observing a “natural” player friend/roommate in college. When I met my wife I had been observing him for a few years, and was mimicking parts of what I saw him do with women I came into contact with. It was playful and fun, and because I had been doing this with other women at work I ended up with pre-selection that worked in my favor regarding my now wife. Years later when I read Roissy it gave me a frame of reference to better understand what he was describing. I wrote about that here.
As for me teaching Game more in depth, I don’t think I’m the right man for that. I don’t claim to be a master, but I’ve used and seen enough of it to know how well it can work. I also think it is harder for married men to teach Game, because the examples you will have to use are very personal. Even when it wouldn’t be inappropriate to share something, it is very private. There was one goofy game/exchange that my wife and I have repeated over the years that I thought about writing about, but my wife didn’t want me to share it because it is “ours”.
The best married writer on Game that I’ve read is Hawaiian Libertarian, but he doesn’t write much on Game either. If you aren’t familliar with Roissy’s famous post collating him on this topic, you can check it out here.
I share your disgust. It is truly tragic.
If Christians would simply take headship and submission seriously the need for husbands to learn Game would all but disappear. Women are sexually attracted to men they submit to, which is why so many women cheat with their bosses.
I remain perplexed by Game. What I would like to see is a double-blind test as to its efficacy if such could be devised. There is all too often for me the feeling that the man doing the gaming is effectively a performing monkey. We all like women but is female approval worth having to go through such hoops? Of course this could all be because I am a natural at Game – yet surely tailoring ones response to the woman’s behaviour is second nature; even so, a friend of mine once said to me that he could never get away with the things that I say to females from which I take it that he sees me as a natural neg-spewing machine – I, however, lack his high-pitched-voiced smiling charm – but then when you are vertically challenged as he is, negging wont get you far – so when you are tall and good looking (as he says I am) charm can be a bit too sweet and sickening. One must play to ones strengths.
The men who score most effortlessly with women (of which I am not one) seem oblivious to what is attractive to women in them, have never heard of Roosh or Roissy and have no pre-thought idea as to how to go about producing the desired result. Practice may make perfect but as with any skill people seem to be born with innate ability or the lack thereof and the same goes for being attractive to women.
I suspect that game is merely another version of self-help for those who can’t and never will – a St Elmo’s Fire fix to keep one going when life seems tough.
I followed the “Stanton” strategy to find my wife (although I actually never read his material — it was simply a common teaching 20 years ago). And here’s why it was (and probably still is) necessary: evangelical women don’t offer IOI’s or any indication of receptivity. I’m not particularly social skilled, but I tried to read women and pick up on cues, and yet it never worked. Most of the time I saw nothing at all, and in the rare times I saw an objectively obvious IOI, it turned out to be a false. I thought I was downright autistic, but later on I heard from several sources (including my wife) that the problem was not my failure to pick up on signals; instead, it was that evangelical women did not provide signals — no flirting, subtle or otherwise, no positioning to be nearby, nothing. So I did it the socially awkward way, because waiting for an IOI would mean waiting forever. It’s a miracle that any evangelicals get married.
“But when you teach something highly intuitive that tends to require experience to “get” the intuition, you tend to break it down into scripts, or create exercises for students to practice.”
Compare teaching Game to teaching Sales.
There’s a reason sales scripts are so common. 80% of people simple simply don’t have the native skills to make a living as a salesman. Sales scripts are popular, because they allow sales dunderheads to make sales. I’ve heard people make fun of sales scripts, but they work.
Most guys think it’s looks as the only reason why some guys are effortless with women…it probably plays a part but I think it’s more what their internal attitude is. And usually guys can’t teach other guys what their internal mechanisms are because everyone has a different mental makeup.
It’s like that in the work environment. I like to get projects done early because that pressure is enough to get my mind going regardless of time…another guy I know likes to procrastinate because his mind works better as the time deadline approaches. For whatever reason that’s what works best for us.
BaboonTycoon,
In addition to the link Dalrock provided for the Dave from Hawaii article at Roissy’s (Heartiste) you can also go to Hawaiian Libertarian and search for “Game”:
https://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/search?q=game
Also do a search for “John Ross”:
https://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/search?q=John+Ross
I was never taught how to “lead” a marriage. Applying game to my marriage resulted in a big improvement.
Another concept…IMO… these toads, Glenn et al, have to be actively vetted and hired by the FI Borg because they have no redeemable male qualities. Supplicating draft animals to keep training up draft animals for the next generation of wymnz. Keep the breeding stock unattached. Uteroanity 101.
Comparing game to sales is probably the best comparison I’ve ever seen.
In the sales realm, some people are never going to be more than order takers. They will occasionally get the sale in spit of themselves. Similarly, there are men who will get laid because they are the last man to interact with her at closing time and she wants to have sex.
Then, there are some people who will intuit from the sales training how the scripts work, and they will create their own scripts, or learn to create the appropriate scripts in the moment, and they will become successful at sales. In that same way, some men will take the canned routines and behaviors of the pickup artists and realize from them the principles, incorporate them into their own manner of interaction, and become a created natural.
And, some people never have to be taught either.
Opus
I remain perplexed by Game.
Not getting enough bites anymore?
Try trolling with some other bait.
Purple Tortoise
I followed the “Stanton” strategy to find my wife (although I actually never read his material — it was simply a common teaching 20 years ago)
It’s not 1998 anymore. Please bear that in mind.
For example:
20 years ago the entire social media space did not exist. Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr, SnapChat, Tinder – none of it existed. Human nature has not changed, women still crave attention from men they are attracted to, and social media enables a lot of “attention”.
That’s just one change in the social environment, they are others. Your experience from 20 years ago is not nearly as relevant now as you believe.
. And here’s why it was (and probably still is) necessary: evangelical women don’t offer IOI’s or any indication of receptivity.
You couldn’t see them, therefore they did not exist? That’s really odd, because as far as I can tell, churchgoing women are women just like other women. Even socially inept women give off indications of interest, because it is an unconscious action. I see it all the time, now that I know what to look for. Put on The Glasses and you can see them, too.
When Rollo Tomassi says the churches are Beta factories, he’s not kidding.
A gal was recanting a story where she was in church and there was a fellow she was interested in. Know what she said her IOI was…sticking her head in a bulletin and reading it. She was disappointed he didn’t make any attempt to talk to her.
Here I was teaching this woman if she’s interested in a guy to smile at him, eye contact, or even say ‘hi’…he probably thought she was either busy reading or didn’t notice her at all and she agreed. Don’t underestimate their social awkwardness…especially in this era of smartphones.
@Dalrock:
[He says the problem with the women who are failing to attract husbands is they are just so awesome that men are too intimidated by their perfection:
“The social opportunities open to women today are making them better catches and thus increasingly intimidating to too many young adult males, who approximate a mole.”
This is a cruel lie.]
It’s a cruel lie but it’s a lie too many young men are served up by the Church and contemporary Evangelicalist culture in America. I know, because I bought it myself in my teens and twenties as The Way Things Are. Granted, it was never phrased that way, but the whole expectation of pursuit was laid on the boys, and the decision (responding to his pursuit) was the girls’ affair entirely. On the other hand, the overt pursuit of a man by women was not only discouraged, it was condemned as whorish and “controlling” for her daring any initiative (as the lady who showed up in a skirt he liked and asked “Can I help you?” did). Ruth chapter 3 was scandalous and confusing, and glossed past in a hurry. When the young man is fundamentally awkward already, only the grace of God averts complete disaster.
earl
Don’t underestimate their social awkwardness…especially in this era of smartphones.
Interesting point, Earl. I’ll speculate that she was trying to show how serious she is about church, by looking attentive to the bulletin, hoping to impress him with her seriousness. Because she wants a man who is serious about religion, therefore she projects her own preference in IOI onto men. Is she introverted? It would not surprise me[1].
Women do this all the time. All. The. Time. A standard experience now, and I wish you to confirm or contradict: woman in her 20’s suddenly starts listing off her degrees, her work experience, what job she does now, while making eye contact. Like she’s interviewing…it’s projection, pure projection.
[1] Meta rabbit trail time. Talked with an older relation a while back and it came up that in our part of flyover back in the 60’s and 70’s everyone went to some church or other. The question one asked wasn’t “Do you go to church” but “what church do you go to?”. Since churchgoing was normative and a majority of people did so, a larger cross-section of society would be found in some church on Sunday, and so any given church would be a mix of shy and not shy, introvert and extrovert, etc.
Churchgoing is not as normative as it was then. In the more urbanized areas it’s even less so. I am wondering if this means that churches are more likely to contain introverted people than before? That alone would explain a whole lot of social awkwardness that can be seen in various places.
I’m not sure…she’s quite open on the internet blog she has…but it is possible she could be tight lipped in meatspace.
I’m just saying don’t assume they even have the subconscious cues down. I’m usually initiating eye contact and smiling with women…otherwise most would have RBF or not even notice you exist. And I’m certainly not going to do it if they are staring at a phone or reading something because for some odd reason I assume they are busy doing something else.
This is Stanton showing how “with it” he is, while carping about the fact that kids these days aren’t acting out his favored embodiment of the courtly love script.
Yeah, he updated a 1980s script to a 1990s script. Thanks, Stanton!
Opus — “Practice may make perfect but as with any skill people seem to be born with innate ability or the lack thereof and the same goes for being attractive to women.”
There’s a small minority of guys who are ‘innately attractive to women’. In grade school and jr. high, there always was a couple doods that all the ‘hot’ chicks dug. Often washed-up and washed-out by thirty, tho. Too much too soon is unhealthy and dangerous.
Males develop much later than females (despite what the Western gynarchies sell about princess) and few have such an innate ability. My experience is much more common with males — female attraction comes in the late twenties or so, when guys have some accomplishments behind them, that draw female attention. Nothing is faked, it’s all on the table.
After the military I had a late college career, and got no interest from females until in a class that showed one of my strengths (fiction analysis) a v attractive girl, 21 or 22, showed appreciation for an essay. Things progressed quickly from there. But it certainly wasn’t my looks etc. that drew her.
We started hanging with each other, holding hands between classes etc., and here’s the lol, the very NEXT class I had with her, a knockout blond chick — who sat in the back of the room and never said squat to anyone — changed her seat so as to be on the other side of me from my new squeeze. :O) I do believe some of the folks here will be nodding at THAT consistency in female behavior.
One of the reasons I reject game is because boys/men do develop late, in accordance with God’s good time, and it is an error to weaponize them with artificial techniques before they’ve even begun to develop themselves in life. Now you’ve got a nineteen y.o. kid who is sarging around and trolling for trollops, and he doesn’t even know who he is yet. But never fear! he’s got Mystery and Roosh and Fuzhat there to guide him through the world. Yeah, that’s really great all right . . . for Mystery and Roosh and Fuzhat.
@ray
I don’t reject Game; I just rather doubt that it exists.
I agree with you that those who are attractive to women as teenagers are often washed out by thirty and that men develop later than women – or to put it more bluntly women stop developing at eighteen. Pre-selection is also as you explain a real thing.
The reason why I reject game is because nothing gets going unless the woman digs you first. If a young man wanted my advice on how to get a girl…I’d tell him just do what you like to do and when one shows interest ask her out.
BUT BUT…fuzzy hats, better seduction skills…please it didn’t matter if I was a smooth talker or a bumbling idiot…if she liked me things went somewhere. If she didn’t there was no line to make her change her mind.
Cold opens often go nowhere because she has no interest. And I never really counted interest from a girl if she was under the influence of alcohol. I don’t need to spend a lot of time going through 1000 women to hopefully get 30 or so…I just do what I like to do and when a woman shows interest, I go for it. A lot less women, but a more successful rate.
Opus,
The idea that particles evolved into people is more of a myth than believing what is in the Bible. They make up all sorts of reasoning to justify anything, changing it as needed to account whenever the “theory” is undermined by reality.
I will stick with “your desire shall be to rule over your husband” myself.
AR,
But that is the prosperity gospel and God wants everyone but the one preaching to be poor, right?
Ray,
I am far from being a game lord or even a game apprentice for that matter. My one and only LTR/marriage blew up spectacular. Game would not have helped, though it probably made things last longer than they would have since I inherently have so many of the traits. You have no good alternative, so just keep being Debbie Downer….
Though you continually show you cannot read and comprehend so well, which makes it reasonable you beat your strawman game so hard.
But when you teach something highly intuitive that tends to require experience to “get” the intuition, you tend to break it down into scripts, or create exercises for students to practice. Think of teaching someone how to swim, ride a bike, drive a stick, or (I imagine) play jazz.
Indeed. If, say, you are learning to play the guitar, at the beginning there are a lot of things to learn by rote — scales, chord shapes and so on. Techniques. You learn them and you practice them. When you get better at it, it’s intuitive and you aren’t using the “rules” any longer, the play just flows from you because you have practice at it. The person who could barely sound a couple of notes can now play songs fluidly, and intuitively. But it doesn’t *start* intuitively.
However, for some reason, when you apply this reasoning to the skill of relating to other people, including especially women, everyone goes crazy and loses their minds — oh, no, you either know how to play the guitar naturally, or you don’t, and no manner of trying to learn it by rules of playing will ever get you to playing the guitar well — you’re either born Jimmy Page or you aren’t, sorry mate.
It’s a very odd way of thinking, but apparently lots of people believe this when it comes to interpersonal relations. I don’t know — like you, I had a close college friend who was a natural (back in the 80s before there was any of the current terms), so I observed what he did and how it worked. It’s a combination of things to be certain — looks, physique, charm, persistence. But it can be learned. It’s very puzzling why people think it can’t be learned when the same folks spend tons of time learning other things from scratch. Puzzling.
Let’s be clear, Stanton has an extremely limited experience with women and certainly has never been on the receiving end of genuine attraction. This blind elephant continues to march the congregation off the cliff, all while ensuring his boomer audience gets in a few chuckles each sunday at the expense of those damn millennials. Don’t take advice from men who get pity sex twice a month.
Novaseeker,
It’s very puzzling why people think it can’t be learned when the same folks spend tons of time learning other things from scratch. Puzzling.
Not just that, but anyone who is an outright Game denialist, by definition, cannot truly be red pill. They are merely purple pill.
The reason there is so much resistance even from some people in the ‘sphere, is that they can’t face up to the fact that with just slight changes and a moderate amount of practice, the last 20 years of their lives could have been very different. They are stuck in ‘sunk cost mourning’ rather that recognize that tomorrow is the first day of the rest of their lives. That sort of proves how powerful Game is, even if one is only half-way decent at it.
One of the reasons I reject game
is because it’s your little favorite strawman, ray. Plenty of us here can discuss the issues Dalrock posts without ever mentioning the “g” word, but you can’t..because its your little hobbyhorse. Give it a rest, ok?
No. One. Cares.
I will say this…if I knew at 20 how bad things had gone in the female sphere with their feminist rebellious hatred of men tendencies…I wouldn’t of wasted so much time wondering what I was doing wrong. Turns out if there’s a sex that needs to learn ‘game’ it’s that side.
The not so awkward approach. Watching this, I couldn’t help but wonder if it even make a dent in the all-men-are-pigs, feminist narrative.
I have to say that I am STUNNED at the amount of game denialism here. Given Dalrock is a Red Pill master for Christians like myself, I am surprised and somewhat shocked to read some of the comments I have seen regarding Game (if you prefer, call it “startegies for delaing with women”). 😮
First, Game is NOT some sort of “mind trick” where you say some key words and women swoon to a man and jump in bed with him. It is not some “secret trick” men can use on women. It is not hypnotism or magic.
Game is a collection of Red Pill knowledge, man-tested strategies to approach, ideas on topics of conversation, style/hygiene, and other learnable skills men can use to become better at approaching women. Game is also shared knowledge of what men who suffered and dealing with frustrations over the years dealing with women have learned. Once these strategies began being shared online back in early 1990s in AOL-type forums, this was called “PUA” (Pick Up Artistry movement), which later became a worldwide movement, which later morphed into The Red Pill, a realistic look at life, marriage, daring, women, and more.
PUA forum discussions = bunch of men sharing their experiences with women, what works, what does not work, and more. Men tested it out and reported back. This led to some to compile a series of reports from different men across the world, which later became Game, a series of concepts and strategies to deal with women.
Game = shared and tested knowledge about a series of things that benefit men, from women’s true nature to style/fitness/appearance, to good ideas to be conversationalist to manipulation to small things like using Negs on women to lower the Bitch Shields to enable men to start talking to them and have an actual opener.
Think about Game this way (whether or not you call it “game”). When you were 17 or 23 or even 30… how much did you REALLY understand about women, especially single women?? Now that you are 35 or even 40, maybe 50, how much do you look back and say “man I wish I had known ____ back then!” With age and experience, men learn and improve.
How many times did you say to a woman you met on the street or at school “wow, you are very pretty!”. 🙄 Before Game, men did this a lot, without realizing, that adds NOTHING to the dialog, in fact, you have surrendered some of your value as a man by letting the woman know she already has you on the hook due to her beauty. Game taught young men NOT to say that to a woman, because she hears this so often, it has negative effect on her! If you say “that dress looks cute”, that is a more engaging way, because you said NOTHING about her physical beauty. It instantly creates a small amount of intrigue in her mind (“does he think I am pretty?”) type thing. It allows for futher discussion with her, which may or may not lead to her phone #, etc.
Another example: how many times you heard from an older relative, maybe a parent who grew up and/or married pre-1960s Feminist Hellvolution “women like nice guys”??? I heard that millions of times from my Mom, aunts, friends and I was born in early 1980s!!! Game teaches men that women like a$$holes, they like players, they like men who other women want (pre-selection). Game teaches strategies to APPEAR to be a player or pre-selected, even if you are not, by doing things like posting right photos on Internet sites/apps with other women or to have fresh flowers in your house, when she asks “where did you get these flowers?” you say “they are form your competition” and grin. Pre-selection and even post-selection works.
Game involves also a lot of mind games and “turning the tables” on single women. Women in Western world NEED AND WANT drama in their lives, because they already live in safe, comfortable countries. Drama is living as if they are a Kardashian or whatnot. This is another aspect of Game.
Before about 6 years ago, I never understood the concept of Dread, which is absolutely essential in relationship management with woman. No matter how submissive your Christian wife may be, if you start showing weaknesses in life or she begins to come off the rails because of bad influences at work or whatever, Dread can do wonders to restore balance. It is a way for a man to re-instill Headship and dominance in a relationship/marriage. I already employed some form of Dread in my own relationships before that, but once I studied up on it, I became much more effective in applying it, shortening the need for it and increasing effectiveness.
The issue about some of the Game denialists here is that you are doing yourself a dis-service by denying that a series of strategies, manipulative behaviors, and/or self-improvement concepts WORKS for men. It does not guarantee success, but it helps tremendously. Working out daily does not guarantee you will beat some guy up in a fight, but being in shape/increasing strength helps.
Yes, some concepts of game today are “common sense things” for men over 30, but for many Millennials, who grew up in a clueless world of Safe Spaces and Cry Rooms in schools, Helicopter Parents, and 24/7 online connectivity, these are foreign concepts.
Denying Game (whether you call it that or not!) is like denying Christianity. There are some things in life that are obvious and Game is part of a toolbox of things men can do to improve success with women and to be better men overall. Clothing, style, fitness, mindset, Machiavellianism, approaching strategies, relationship management…. all parts of Game (knowledge).
The downside of Game is that it will be almost impossible to go back and un-do the effects of better understanding things like women’s dual sexual strategies (bang Alphas until their epiphany phase ages 30-40 then seek beta provider), the True Nature of Women ( http://www.rooshv.com/the-true-nature-of-women ), and the War Briude Syndrome (https://therationalmale.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/ ) and more. Once you understand these concepts completely and begin observing women around you, you will see this clearly and will change how you see and think about women. ❗ Once eat the fruit of knowledge and you see good and evil, there is no going back. Once you start studying a woman’s true nature from Roosh to Rational Male to Dalrock to Heartiste, you cannot un-learn this. Every time you see a woman behaving in certain ways or their schemes, you will see right through them because you will get it instantaneously. You will find yourself saying “ohhhh” to woman’s actions, schemes, and more. Knowledge changes everything!
Start reading here on Game concepts. But be warned, sometimes going down this road of learning too much Game will weaponizes a man and Red Pill him all the way.
https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-42283.html
If you do not understand Game, please check out Chateau Heartiste or Return Of Kings and do a little reading. It will help you understand Game, what it is, what it is not, and how you can improve yourself, not only with women, but for your own life as well.
Denying the truth does not erase its existence. Game (knowledge) is a real thing.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A5-6&version=NABRE
Time to get out of framing your will towards women.
Billy — “You have no good alternative, so just keep being Debbie Downer….”
Talk about reading comprehension projection. I gave you the alternative in writing — to immerse yourself in whatever activity/field God placed before you as a young man, to develop yourself as a man, and then the girls will come to you. Which is how things have always worked, until the Game Group showed up to run things for men and boys, and to instruct us all on how to do it.
You don’t want that alternative, you want Game, or more precisely, you want to be part of the Game Group because you already rely on these self-promoting dildos to fill your belonging/psychological needs.
Ain’t my problem boyo you go right on ahead.
The blue pill knowledge is thinking women are all goddesses put up on the pedestal and men need them as a savior to worship which is what one part of the lie of feminism is. Well any little deep dive into Scripture shows that’s false.
If a man needs to go immoral and rebellious to gain or keep a woman and calls that ‘truth’…he’s on the wrong track like Adam.
Opus says:
September 14, 2018 at 1:00 pm
I often wonder whether those here (and elsewhere) who speak so positively about Game are Armchair Lotharios? – let us hear their figures for last twelve months – but we never do.
—————
Answers for Opus:
Everybody who knows knows: The game denier’s manual of ego saving
If someone did this…next thing you get from game deniers is “lol u liar neva true hurr durr!”, then comes the usual AFC acusation of “that only works with evilbadskankysluts who have daddy issues and are totally drunk and drugged out”…now, if you then were to post pictures of obviously NOT drugged, not drunk and not skanky women of middle class or higher in your presence, obviously clinging to your pouchy, non-good looking body …”thats no proooof hurr durr!”… now let us assume you were to post very explicit pictures willingly and enthusiastically(!!) taken with your oinky in their doinky, lets say with a nice dog collar around their neck…”thats stolen from a porn site”…
To cut a long story short:
I stopped short before videotaping/smartphoning sexual encounters…because you can’t force anyone to believe anything.
Some central points, though:
– its not about investing in 1000 approaches, because that is hard work and you use pick up TO AVOID MAKING MATING A CHORE, not make it even more stressful…you just go through your day and spray all the girls you like with low-effort openers, costing you neither time nor money. Pick up is made to cheat women out of their damned hoops, bc they should do what men want. Why practise pua if you have to work even more for female access? Would be pretty stupid!
– an ounce of true inner game (read as “truly being non-needy, because most women are just defective men with a vagina for you, not just simulating it”) beats a ton of muscles and money
– as soon as you know (read as “being able to do it WITHOUT BEING IN YOUR HEAD”) one type of women and get results in one niche/hunting ground…you always get more and more women, even from spheres or styles far removed from your own.
Doing sarging or using one routine with 100 women…that is for beginners (or professional pu authors to develop new products), to get into practise and develop your own style. To internalize that women are nothing more than a complex problem with an irrational filter mechanism.
Me, I like irony and sarcastic, funny and verbally intelligent/challenging in a fun way women…so my verbal game often consists of absurd or layered statements…which you will find in no pua manual bc most women are plain stupid in that arena – but for my style it works great, even though I kick myself out with some HBs with that…because they feel stupid, as some even told me. Trade-off happens.
Oh, and the only time I sarged through 100 rejections…I did that as part of a forum challenge and yes, I got exactly zero lays out of it. 😁 As is to be expected from a inexperienced beginner who has to detox from pedestaling by doing pua forum challenges.
@Earl
As insightful as your commentary is and has been many times, what does John 14:5-6 using the New American Bible (Revised Edition – NABRE) have to do with Frame?
Game = knowledge of approaching women, understanding their True Nature, taking steps as a man to improve oneself, understanding the frustrating nature of approaching women/flirting, etc. It is not magic, it is not using a series of “key words” or whatnot. Game is simply knowledge and tested techniques to meet, date, and even marry (in some cases) women.
Frame = ability to hold steady and do not flinch when a woman tests a man. In the past, a woman would test a man’s ability to hunt, fish, forage, build, and fight to see if he was a suitable mate for her and able to help her produce and keep alive quality children. Today, although I do hunt, lift heavy weights, and have a lot of skills, none can be easily demonstrated to a woman. It has become a “gift of gab” and good personal appearance thing this day and age. You either do it in person or online. I do NOT appraoch in MY own church due to problems I have had in the past..
So what women today do is give man “shit tests”. That is to test to see if he can withstand her barrage of insanity (and often insulting) questioning and see if the man is the real deal or just a talker. This is a well-known concept of dealing with modern women, tried and true after tens of thousands of men debated this at length in forum. She is not “just being a bitch” or “being rude” to men – this is how she does her initial screening of a man. Using verbal tests to see if she can shake her man or not.
Again, if you ever cold approach women (as I do VERY often when I am single), you know what I am talking about when I say “shit tests”. I have to disclose one advantage that I have: my Mom is a purebred Italian, with roots in northern Italy, so I am naturally good at talking in general, very extroverted and I am good especially talking to women and flirting in public. After my opener, which totally direct, without raising my voice at all, just cool and casual like it is no big deal, I go straight into what I perceive her “type” to be. Yes, I do have an advantage of being a pretty-boy type with a boyish charm (so I have been told), but I have to do many cold approaches (often happens when I am not even trying to meet anyone, I see some girls and approach). It is hit or miss, and yes, it is a bit time consuming, but also very good at becoming calm under pressure. The first 20 or 30 approaches are the worst, though. After a while, it is easier and easier and you get used to rejection fast and the faster the rejection, the more time you save. The calmer you are, the less you raise your voice, the more open she will be to the approach.
Earl, understand that Game is a mix of persistence, knowledge/understanding of women/life, and male self-improvement. Frame is holding steady when she tests the man or starts to get out of line, so I am confused about your Bible verse reference above…?
You make game out to be ‘truth’ which means going off what ‘women’s nature’ is…women’s nature was to listen to the serpent and then get the man to listen to her.
The Bible verse points out what truth actually is…that’s the frame a man needs to hold.
.
You can learn this type of skill if you are not shy naturally, has lived an interesting life, or are persistent enough. My ROI (Return On Investment) on cold approaching is between 0% and 10% at best, depending, but often it is 0% if I seem anxious, in a hurry, or annoyed/tired. It sometimes can hit 100% if I have a great day and do 5 approaches that connect 5 times with 5 women who are open to it. It averages out.
I only cold approach in venues like supermarkets/grocery stores, mall, store, coffee shops, library, museum (in rare instance I am in one), at ice cream shop, etc. I sometimes feel bored and start-up conversations with random people at checkout lines at supermarkets just for fun and to keep chatting skills honed and this is good way to practice talking skills. BTW, I do NOT cold approach on street due to living in suburban area and working in semi-urban area. Since I never use public mass transit, never approach there either. I do not do it in gym because women there have their Bitch Shield up to maximum setting. I do NOT go to bars either, so my strategy to approach is just having a talk in stores or public places (outside of sidewalk).
@ray said: “I gave you the alternative in writing — to immerse yourself in whatever activity/field God placed before you as a young man, to develop yourself as a man, and then the girls will come to you. Which is how things have always worked, until the Game Group showed up to run things for men and boys, and to instruct us all on how to do it.”
I agree, things we men did for last 6,000 years, heck things to develop ourselves as men last 50 years STILL work today. But they have to be “tweaked” to better suit the corrupted modern woman mindset. Simply being a “Quality Christian man” today does NOT work, even within church context, with women. They want a guy who can “hold frame” (take her s#it tests and not seem phased), keep her interested (relationship management, from Dread to Gaming Your Wiufe by our very own Dalrock), and others.
@earl
Blue Pill knowledge is also DENYING Game knowledge exists and is real. It is about removing women from pedestals our society (and churches) have put them. One aspect of Game is de-pedestalization of women. In fact, some (incorrectly) will say Game is about seeing women as less than human, in order to become more confident around women.
@447
Funny story: my late wife thought I was a player, specifically a Lothario (since I am 1/2 Italian) on our first date. She was worried about it because I was too cool under pressure and too suave. LOL 😆
You SHOULD videotape sexual encounters with women because they LIE so freakin’ much all the time and make false criminal accusations very often. I use Arlo 1.0 cameras to do so, since they have no sound and I only turn on cameras when needed. I hate the idea of cameras inside my home, but they are a necessity today. Women lie and make false accusations often, and this is not new; this is started the Ancient World too, one of the first false rape accusations were with Joseph in Potiphar’s house.
I fully agree, 447. Going out for sole purpose of doing cold approaches is a lot of work and exhausting if you do not get results from it. I had to learn this the hard way myself doing about 30 times in order to get used to rejection and to test some openers. 😉 My cold approach technique is casual, when at store or coffee shop or often in grocery store, I see a potential girl, so I approach. It is a few minutes on the side, and I enjoy it a lot, actually.
Yes, very true. Most women are psychologically damaged from riding the Carrousel too long or are addicted to prescription anti-depressants and are DANGEROUS (see best guide on subject here: http://www.returnofkings.com/76872/never-date-a-woman-who-takes-one-of-these-prescription-drugs ). You need to screen these out of your life. But understand that as man, when you approach a woman, you have upper hand, even though SHE is one to say “yes or no” to initial approach. Women only decide if relationship will start with a man or not; the man decides if it will continue or go further after initial “match”, for lack of better word.
A friend said to me “the most sane woman is an unstable man” and that is very true. You are the man, think and behave accordingly. Do not let her emotional roller-coaster affect you.
A man with options = a man of value. Desperate man is a loser. If you are desperate, FAKE not being desperate, it will help tremendously doing in-person approaches. That is FRAME CONTROL (see my link about to the Roissy Reader links for info on Frame control). Easy skill to learn.
Yes, 447 speaks the truth and nothing but the truth here about cold approaches, especially the need to pick a type. You need to pick a style that works for you; sarcastic/witty type; clown game (make her laugh); cool and suave, but friendly (that is me); aggressive super-Alpha (that is my natural player friend who was jacked on ‘roids in high school); etc.
447 seems to also use a strategy called “agree and amplify”, which is to agree with stupid stuff women say, make it bigger, and laugh at it. She says “I only like good-looking guys”, you respond “hey I only like really hot women” and she will likely be surprised you had the balls to say that to her, so continue “I once dated Pamela Anderson when she was single” and grin. The absurdity of your statement can put HER off-guard and allow you to continue talking (never stop)…. she may later say “come on you never dated Pam Anderson!” you say “nah, I was kidding” and keep talking about whatever you want.
That “Agree and Amplify” strategy works for me when dating a woman and she says something dumb to test me, I agree, amplify, and laugh at her absurdity. That defuses her and shows her you are not tasking her seriously. Even when my beloved late wife would get into an insane topic or want something absurd out of me, I would say to her “that is so adorable” (not taking her seriously) and for some reason, she and almost every woman I have met before, gets indignated about not taking her seriously and for some reason, that makes them turned on. Go figure! Not taking her seriously in a lighthearted way seems to make them upset and more interested. Women are illogical beings.
I confess, I once went out and tried to do 30 approaches in a single day. I became tired and frustrated quickly and failed miserably, so I stopped. Cold approaching needs to happen naturally and some days you will strike out 100% of the time. Some days you will see 0 potential targets and other days you will see 50 potential women. Some days I get 0 results from many approaches; other times I did 3 approaches and got 3 dates from them. Best way is natural, do NOT raise your voice, act cool and calm.
But you will have to try different styles of cold approaches. It is persistence and self-awreness too. if you are short, fat and bald and keep approaching girls of appearance 8 or 9, you will likely have almost universal fail rate. If you are self-aware and approach within 1-2 points of your own appearance as a man, then your success rate will go up considerably. 😉 You as a man should be aware of your age and personality too. I am 36 now, so dressing like a douchebag Millennial hipster will make me look stupid. 🙄 I wear suit jacket for work and sometimes go to grocery store in work clothes and get crazy positive reactions, since everyone else is in jeans and T-shirt.
Try some random cold approaches and some different techniques and see what works for you, There is no “magic combination”, every man is a stone, we are all different and unique. Actually doing it is only way to go.
And putting yourself on the pedestal…which is still not right. Removing women from the pedestal is the start…but half of what is really going on.
Christ->man->woman->children
See where guys like ray get it is a man’s focus and who is on the pedestal is God. Trying to replace God with women, yourself, or things is still not full truth.
@earl
No one is replacing God with self. We are just learning better techniques to deal with women.
Frame simply means holding steady as a man and not allowing her moods and tirades to affect you.
As for a woman’s nature, it is all based on a survival mechanism which has been honed by females over the last 6,000 or so years. Men are physically stronger than women, so women have to use cunning, lying, and deceit to try to overpower the man and fight him for Headship. The struggle created by The Fall in Genesis is not sexual in nature as some misunderstand it; it is a power struggle for leadership and control.
A woman is malleable in every way imaginable. Haven’t you noticed these women out there that completely changes her likes/dislikes, political views (used to be possible more before our country became ultra-hyper partisan), she can change her level of enjoyment of watching sports, even her clothing and hairstyle, etc for a guy??? How often do you meet women disinterested in sports that in order to “better suit her man’s sports addicted lifestyle” become a “sports girl”?
Why do you think The Serpent was able to so easily trick the woman, whom had seen God, walked with God, and knew God?? Because women are malleable. They are easy to deceive and they are changeable.
Understand that women adjust to survive; men rather die than adjust to being whom he is not. That is why so many men would jump fence in a Concentration camp and get shot dead rather than be abused and ridiculed. How many women did that? Not nearly as often as men did. This has been described as the “War Bride Syndrome” (see: https://therationalmale.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/ ).
Haven’t you noticed how a woman becomes cold and evil during a break-up, often seeking to inflict the man maximum pain?? Same in divorce…. That is because she can flip a switch anytime and turn on her man easily. This is done to survive captivity as a War Bride. The modern woman has not yet adjusted her worst natural instincts from the War Bride period, that is why there is so much turmoil dealing with modern woman. Understanding this Syndrome can clarify a lot of issues men have with women, including the divorce rape epidemic.
A woman is like water; she takes the shape of the container you put her in. If you take your woman, who is a good Christian woman, into a group of people who are junkies, swingers, etc and she lives in such an urban hellish environment, she will become like that. Same if you move that same woman into a Conservative suburb where a large part of your social group of friends are also form church and you attend weekly. She takes that shape and adapts to that group to “better fit in the herd” (almost like peer pressure from grade school). Please read this http://www.rooshv.com/the-true-nature-of-women and you will understand my point.
Very very very few women have a “solid core” like men do. Women adjust to better suit the man in her life at any given time. This is a survival mechanism by women, not because they want to be deceitful.
@Christian Cool
Could you please write much longer comments with more words?
Also, RooshV is not a very good source of information for men who read here.
Please reconsider your constant
pimpingpromotion of his site.@Anonymous
🙄 😆
I actually like Roissy (Heartiste) better for Game to be honest. I do post on RoK sometimes too and the older stuff on RoK is much more focused on Game than today.
earl says:
September 16, 2018 at 3:49 pm
It is about removing women from pedestals our society (and churches) have put them.
And putting yourself on the pedestal…which is still not right. Removing women from the pedestal is the start…but half of what is really going on.
Christ->man->woman->children
___________________________________________
“Doing that” would mean that total victory would already have been achieved.
Though I agree that removing women from the pedestal is half the way.
____________________
“Very very very few women have a “solid core” like men do. Women adjust to better suit the man in her life at any given time. This is a survival mechanism by women, not because they want to be deceitful.”
Yes ,it is natural/genetic predisposition toawards an evolutionary strategy. War Brides – dynamic.
But so is (to choose a crass example) banging and/or raping every underage female teenager you can get your hands on.
–>
Men are constantly required to check their natural/base dispositions to enable civilization. Which is ok.
Women on the other hand are never asked to check their natural dispositions. Which is mega-bad for western civ.
@447
Christ -> man -> woman -> children -> country. 😉
Heartiste has this post about the Western pedatalization of women has created an imbalance in relationships. Removing God and replacing it with woman has created and enabled FemiNazism. What an idiotic idea to worship a creature physically weaker, mentally flawed to an extreme, and
Heartiste has this scheme where you make the woman in your life (if not Christian) be “jealous of God” and by putting God at top of the priority list has massively positive effects for men. 🙂 Your Christian faith (or if you choose to fake it) can be a way to use mind games on woman and make her put more effort for you. LOL
Check it out: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2017/10/19/god-game/
When I read the War Bride Syndrome on RationalMale I was like “ohhhhhhhhhhhh….”. Massive red pill for a problem I had noticed but could not figure out why women did that. The whole War Bride explanation made sense, and by understanding it, I can counter the coldness women are able to conjure up suddenly when they break-up, cheap, or divorce-rape a man. Learning how to counter the negative effects of her irrational behavior helped a lot.
By the way, even Roosh was coldly dumped by a woman after dating her for a year in Odessa (Ukraine) and he tried to be sad and in the end could not. Why? He is desensitized to an extreme when it comes to women. In fact he has been warning younger guys about this, now that has happened to him. This is how Game continues, it is knowledge and information men share with one another. Knowledge grows.
Oh absolutely! Man or woman, once you spend so much time in bed with so many random men and women, you lose the ability to connect emotionally, to have and feel love, and to truly love someone else. Women pass this threshold very early in life. There IS a reason why for thousands of years, women were married off young, sometimes as young as 14 or 15. If they ride the Carrousel (which in ancient world would be like what…. 2 or 3 dudes, unless a hooker), she would become damaged. Now we have women admitting banging over 50 dudes…. imagine the physical and psychological damage that does! 😮
Yes, this is why I am currently struggling to figure out what to do about having kids or not. I, as a man, am forced to consider long-term consequences of my decision, as I understand the civilizational consequences of my decisions. I read this a few months back, that is what got me thinking of whether or not to have kids: https://illimitablemen.com/2016/01/22/the-choice/
Women only worry about scheduling Brunch on Sunday with her BFF and making sure she has enough booze, condoms, and antidepressants to get her through another spin on the Carrousel that weekend.
One law professor here said the first day of Family Law class: “Men have all the duties and obligations. Women have all the rights and privileges”. A truer statement cannot be made.
How come we shoulder the burden or civilizational continuity, provisioning, savings, and planning when women just waste away their whole paychecks at Gucci and DSW shoes?
Sheesh…. *sigh*
Purple Tortoise
I followed the “Stanton” strategy to find my wife (although I actually never read his material — it was simply a common teaching 20 years ago). And here’s why it was (and probably still is) necessary: evangelical women don’t offer IOI’s or any indication of receptivity. I’m not particularly social skilled, but I tried to read women and pick up on cues, and yet it never worked. Most of the time I saw nothing at all, and in the rare times I saw an objectively obvious IOI, it turned out to be a false. I thought I was downright autistic, but later on I heard from several sources (including my wife) that the problem was not my failure to pick up on signals; instead, it was that evangelical women did not provide signals — no flirting, subtle or otherwise, no positioning to be nearby, nothing. So I did it the socially awkward way, because waiting for an IOI would mean waiting forever. It’s a miracle that any evangelicals get married.
Evangelical women are just women, but it’s true that they won’t show interest…if they’re not interested (like any other woman). If they genuinely are interested, though, then they may not show interest at first, but it’s inevitable that they eventually will, and conversely, they’ll also show indicators of disinterest if they’re not interested but are afraid you are. Also, one needs to keep in mind that interest can fade or even disappear in an instant, so when you saw obvious IOIs that seemed to turn out to be false, they actually might have been true the week before. However, she might have found something out about you or met some other guy in the meantime.
Hank Flanders says:
September 17, 2018 at 2:13 am
Purple Tortoise
”I followed the “Stanton” strategy to find my wife (although I actually never read his material — it was simply a common teaching 20 years ago). And here’s why it was (and probably still is) necessary: evangelical women don’t offer IOI’s or any indication of receptivity. I’m not particularly social skilled, but I tried to read women and pick up on cues, and yet it never worked. Most of the time I saw nothing at all, and in the rare times I saw an objectively obvious IOI, it turned out to be a false. I thought I was downright autistic, but later on I heard from several sources (including my wife) that the problem was not my failure to pick up on signals; instead, it was that evangelical women did not provide signals — no flirting, subtle or otherwise, no positioning to be nearby, nothing. So I did it the socially awkward way, because waiting for an IOI would mean waiting forever. It’s a miracle that any evangelicals get married”.
-In other words, evangelical women are no different to the women of the secular culture they inhabit: same disdain for young marriageable men, same ”focus on career” not family, same disinterest in fertile years, same delay of marriage until 5 minutes to midnight on the reproductive clock, same frantic ”baby rabies” in the late 20s/early 30s, same mismatches due to desperation, same divorces, same contribution to social dysfunction, same contribution to the narrowing of the tax base and population aging, same contribution to requiring mass immigration to shore up labor.
After a great deal of rejection, I turned to courtship outside the church with a woman who was at least nominally Christian but not a churchgoer. Immediately it sent tongues clucking: ”Why not us”? ”Tut tut, how much of a Christian is she? Or he”? etc.
I found someone with a marital endurance ethic. Yes, I have had my ups and downs and frequently mentioned those here. At least, 30 years down the track, I have an intact marriage and grown Christian children.
It’s a really bad look especially for those of whom Scripture demands ”to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God” (Titus 2:5)
I found someone with a marital endurance ethic.
——
I agree strongly.
Also agree to the “men get desisiticed”(? Spelling?) to women.
The great and cruel irony is this:
IF you get that anti-sensibility to females (which was by far the hardest part about all that pu-journey for me)…wonderful, feminine women begin to appear in your life who cling to you like mad.
Sadly, I can’t take ’em serious anymore.
Laughing, crying, talking about their big small problems and …”challenges”…there is simply less substance as human beings to them.
Seems to be god’s plan that you only get what you earn (though no guarantees apply, ofc).
Manning up is real – it’s just not the twisted “betamax up” variant:
You want that hot, perfect wife (for you personally, YMMV), who turns some heads?
Well, you got to progress as a man beyond her combined power level (sexually, psychologically, etc.)
It’s like farming virtual monsters for rare treasures – first you got to be max level. Before, it is a chore, makes no sense or is even unhealthily obssessive.
Christian Cool —
Hey could you write a little bit longer of an opus about how Game Denialists (lol, talk about trying too hard) are messing up the world? Took me awhile to scroll through your last compendium.
Oh and btw I don’t just reject Game, and the Gamesters, I actively despise most of them, starting with your buddy Roosh de Doosh, and his pal Teddie the Supreme Dark Lord. There’s plenty of others but those two punks always come to mind.
Both of those scumbags hate ‘the Jews’ and hate ‘Israel’ in all its forms. Now that’s a completely hypocritical position for a supposed Christian, like Teddie. Perhaps he could take time out from self-promotion to read the Bible, concerning ‘Israel’ in all its contexts and meanings? Because both Father and Christ love Israel, in all its contexts, including the nation-state, despite its sins and failings.
Rooshie Dooshie is easier to grok, seeings how he’s an Iranian whose website is chock-full of hatred for The Evil Jews etc. But, but . . . he’s a Game Genius! So, all good with the ‘Christians’.
Likewise, your advocacy of this child of Belial confirms you are neither Christian, nor Cool. You’re just another internet-thug who tries to shame and harass others from having convictions and opinions counter to your Game Lord hero.