I’ve come across AlekNovy on several other Manosphere blogs, notably the hard core PUA blogs like Roissy. Back in July, AlekNovy posted a very compelling criticism of Game. While the post is long and well worth reading, here’s a very salient quote:
In fact I believe, and have believed for a long time that the church of game excels at rewarding bad behavior in women. It rewards bitchiness, game-playing and manipulative women.
From my perspective, I find it interesting how gamers believe they’re (supposedly) all about male-empowerment – when in truth, game is all about doing and perform certain things so that you earn a shitty woman’s desired response.
In fact, game says if certain women treat you like shit (bitch shields, cutty remarks, flakey behaviour) that you need to change your behaviour so that these women start acting less crappy around you.
GameChurch says “Just do the right behaviours, and you’ll “trigger” the right responses in women”. It has you ACCEPT shitty behaviour as the DEFAULT. A main belief in the church of game is that “all women are like that” – thereby excusing shitty behavior in bad women.
Game has you ignore hot women who don’t act shitty and unreceptive. Game tells you “all women are shitty”, so you end up ignoring the good ones and go around looking for shitty women who’s hoops you learn to jump over.
But objective reality is different. In objective reality there’s a ton of hot, sassy women who don’t shit test, manipulate or act like they have a broom stuck up their ass. But again, game tells you to ignore the hottie who ALREADY wants you as you are. Game says you need to find a woman who’s challenges you need to overcome.
Basically, game is all about YOU getting positive reinforcement from shitty women. Game is all about being an excellent dog, so that your master (bad women) throw you a bone for a well done job. You perform the trick, you get the cookie.
He’s right. While I rarely meet women who are actively bitchy (it’s an age thing), I have seen – and recently experienced – young women who are incredibly rude and abrasive with men when they are approached. As AlekNovy correctly points out, standard Game tactics dictate that the man continue to engage this type of woman. Such attention serves to reinforce the bad behavior. It’s important to know that attention is the emotionally currency of women.
He’s talking about the dance, monkey, dance phenomenon that can too easily infect any interaction with women. I suspect we’ve all done that just to get attention from women, especially the attractive ones. By doing so, we’re encouraging manipulative behavior in women.
AlekNovy, being the clever and clear-headed fellow, offers a solution that he calls “anti-game”. Fundamentally, anti-game is a shift in thinking that results in a man becoming far more willing to simply stop dealing with a woman’s bad behavior. If she’s being bitchy, walk away, even in mid-sentence. If she’s being flaky, walk. If she comes back to your place and pulls a cock-tease manuever, she’s ejected, really ejected. In all these scenarios, there is no PUA tactic to address her behavior. The problem with Game is that there is supposed to be a response, a line, a change-up in offense.
In my world of online dating, the bad behavior in women is almost always flakiness. Women start corresponding and then stop. They cancel dates without countering. They don’t call or don’t take calls despite assurances to the contrary. This is why I have adopted the practice of blocking profiles of women who don’t respond to my messages or who act flaky online. Roosh backs me up on this in this post: Never Let A Girl Reject You Twice. It’s anti-game.
Sometimes anti-game is necessary. For the younger generation, it’s probably more necessary than Gamers would care to admit. I do recommend everyone read AlekNovy’s complete anti-game post.
johnnymilfquest
/ August 9, 2011AlekNovy writes:
“In objective reality there’s a ton of hot, sassy women who don’t shit test, manipulate or act like they have a broom stuck up their ass.”
I’m stuck here on planet Earth unfortunately, where that is definitely NOT the case.
AlekNovy
/ August 9, 2011Perception is reality. What you believe, you will see evidence of.
And no, this isn’t just some new-age mantra, it’s also scientifically backed up and has been known for 30 years, as well as demonstrated in hundreds of social-psychology experiments.
Studies in rejection sensitivity for example prove that people who fear rejection, actively and unconsciously cause rejection from others. In fact, they (HRS people) find a world full of harsh, rude and rejecting people.
It’s like a feedback loop. The Game-Paradigm is an incredibly efficient feedback loop at attracting shitty behaviour from women – and then going SEE SEE SEEE GAME THEORY WAS RIGHT, hot women do act shitty. But you fucking caused it in the first place.
theprivateman
/ August 9, 2011Good to have you aboard.
johnnymilfquest
/ August 10, 2011“Perception is reality.”
No. Objective reality exists outside of my head and it will continue to exist after I’m dead.
“What you believe, you will see evidence of.”
Yes, confirmation bias exists. And?
“And no, this isn’t just some new-age mantra”
On the contrary, it sounds exactly like “The Secret” or “A Course In Miracles”.
“it’s also scientifically backed up and has been known for 30 years, as well as demonstrated in hundreds of social-psychology experiments.”
Confirmation bias exists. I get that.
“Studies in rejection sensitivity for example prove that people who fear rejection, actively and unconsciously cause rejection from others.”
I would call that “having no Game”.
“It’s like a feedback loop. The Game-Paradigm is an incredibly efficient feedback loop at attracting shitty behaviour from women – and then going SEE SEE SEEE GAME THEORY WAS RIGHT, hot women do act shitty. But you fucking caused it in the first place.”
If poor social skills, neediness, putting up with crap and other interpersonal factors played a big role in a man’s failure with women I would say “this man has no Game”.
However, you would seem to say “this man is running Game”.
I say “POTATO”. You say “ANTI-POTATO”.
If you are bashing Game, but advocating something that is essentially…ah…Game, then Michael Marks already got there before you.
AlekNovy
/ August 10, 2011There’s no better evidence that game is a cult, just like feminism, then its fuzzy borders. Game refuses to define itself and has an always shifting, always-changing and never clear definition. It refuses to be examined in any systematic or specific, measurable and repeatable manner.
This is so that it can take credit any time something good happens, and distance itself any time something bad happens. Just like feminism. Any time you attack them on specifics, they just refer to the vague fuzzy dictionary definition.
Reference: http://counterfem.blogspot.com/search?q=fuzzy+borders
AlekNovy
/ August 10, 2011So you’re saying you have absolutely no game? Because you’re the guy who said (effectively) that there are no hot women that don’t shit-test, manipulate or act rude.
If you have such poor game, then why aren’t you working to improve it then?
AlekNovy
/ August 10, 2011If game is everything, then game is nothing. Game refuses to be defined and have a specific, measurable definition imposed on it, because the moment it has borders, it dies, for it is a faith-based article used by people of faith to better burden the realities of the numbers-game.
AlekNovy
/ August 10, 2011Nope. Let me dumb it down for you. Confirmation bias is about you only getting knowledge that fits your beliefs.
This is about causing a feedback behaviour loop. An RS person believes that people are rude, mean and rejecting, and HENCE he goes out and subconsciously causes people to be rude and reject him, without even knowing it. He then uses that as evidence that people are rude and mean.
If you believe women are rude bitches that shit-test, you will TRIGGER shit-tests and rudeness in women.
Jennifer
/ August 22, 2011“In objective reality there’s a ton of hot, sassy women who don’t shit test, manipulate or act like they have a broom stuck up their ass”
Shit testing is something that may very well come up sooner or later; it’s a emotional reflex asking for some kind of reasurance or validation. But if it’s done at an excessive level, it’s time to walk.
NMH
/ August 9, 2011I think there are a bunch of statements in his essay that are incorrect, for example:
“Game tells you “all women are shitty”, so you end up ignoring the good ones….”
I really dont think game tells you to ignore nice women if you are sexually attractive to them.
Other than that, I think his definition of game and his view of how it abdicates power to women is too narrow. What game is, first and foremost, is a contingency plan to manipulate badly behaved women so that you can have sex with them. In this case, I see how it might be abdicating power to women if you dont call them on their bad behavior. However, game becomes inner game when practiced enough, and the result of inner game is acting in ways that will be personally/professionally successful that happen to also give women the tingle— having good inner game is not abdicating power to women.
AlekNovy
/ August 9, 2011Obviously the “game tells” isn’t a literal and spelled out message. It is indirect. It doesn’t literally say “ignore nice girls”, but does so by proxy.
How? It fear-mongers the fuck out of you with pseudo-scientific bullshit like “ALL WOMEN SHIT TEST YOU. BE READY AT ALL TIMES!” But we know from science that this can and does create a perception-inducing-behavior feedback loop.
Studies in rejection sensitivity for example prove that people who fear rejection, actively and unconsciously cause rejection from others. In fact, they (HRS people) find a world full of harsh, rude and rejecting people.
For fuck’s sake have some self-respect man.
Jennifer
/ August 22, 2011The fact that you’d WANT to manipulate women or have sex with badly behaved women is problematic by itself.
Noo Wei
/ September 13, 2011No, because women aren’t intelligent operators capable of independent thought. They are like sheep–morons, in effect. So using them for their beauty may entail jamming their poorly functioning logic units. They (you) are _legally_ and culturally considered responsible actors, but in reality you just do what your friends imply you should. Your primary value is as a sex object.
P Ray
/ February 4, 2012@Jennifer: would a man getting regular sex from a woman everybody else thought was badly behaved, care, if he was treated well by her?
That’s why the idea that “only bad women fall for players”, is BS.
After all, if women get married to men for a variety of reasons, one of them being “I want to fix him up” …
how can the idea of “only bad women fall for players” be realistically considered?
ruddyturnstone
/ December 6, 2011I
n this case, I see how it might be abdicating power to women if you dont call them on their bad behavior. However, game becomes inner game when practiced enough, and the result of inner game is acting in ways that will be personally/professionally successful that happen to also give women the tingle— having good inner game is not abdicating power to women.”
“Inner game” is even more of a croc than plain old regular game. It totally proves AK’s point. A guy has succes with women who doesn’t practice any of the standard, approved game techniques. How can that be, oh Mr. game guru? Why, it’s simple, grasshopper, he has “inner game.” Inner game, apparently, means anything that turns women on that isn’t already included in regular game. In other words, “game” has no meaning at all, as it includes all the regular game techniques, but equally includes all other techniques, including contrary techniques, and also equally includes the absense of techniqe entirely!
Either that, or inner game means a tall, fit, handsome, confident, rich, successful, well dressed, well spoken, witty, well educated man. He gets women and doesn’t have to use game to get them, right? Oh no, says Mr. game guru, sure he does, he just has “inner game.”
If the term game has to have any meaning at all, it has to be mean the regular game techniques, and only those techniques. Otherwise, it’s just means “be a desirable guy, as desirability has been defined by women forever, long before game came along.”
Blissex
/ August 9, 2011AlekNovy is just stating something that it is at the same time obvious and irrelevant. For example Citizen Renegade/Heartiste has pointed out several times that game is about giving girls what they really want (arousal, entertainment) in exchange for getting laid, as they are in control of sexual access to themselves.
Game is solely about improving the chances of getting laid, usually from zero to small. If one wants something else, game is probably not the answer.
«But objective reality is different. In objective reality there’s a ton of hot, sassy women who don’t shit test, manipulate or act like they have a broom stuck up their ass.»
I think that this a ridiculously optimististic statement. Citizen Renegade/Heartiste have said that if you don’t like the underlying assumption of game you can try and find a woman that is not addicted to gina tingles, but that these are extremely rare. I agree with that. Also, they may not get you laid with the same chances as the others.
Again, the purpose of game is to improve the chances of getting laid, not to have a good or happy relationship; and getting laid means also addressing girls that are willing to put out, and if this means gina tingle addicts, then people who choose game will go after those, even if they were a minority (instead of the overwhelming majority) of girls.
«anti-game is a shift in thinking that results in a man becoming far more willing to simply stop dealing with a woman’s bad behavior.»
A similar concept is the key of game: that to improve the chances of getting laid one has to play a numbers game, and just skip girls not willing to put out. As soon as they give no indication of interest, bye bye.
Game is *only* applied to girls who have signaled that they are interested, and it is about maximizing the chances that the interest turns into getting laid, which means also appeasing “bad” girls who put out driven by gina tingles.
Now, perhaps women who are not driven by gina tingles are more numerous and more willing to put out than girls who are driven by gina tingles, but overwhelming experience shows the opposite, and thus men who simply want to maximize the chances of getting laid will deal with the gina tingle driven girls, however annoying that is.
My own attitude to game is similar to that of AlekNovy, that game is basically about being an enabler for gina tingling addiction in girls, and if one does not want a relationship based on enabling addictions then game is not a good idea; but also that this means targeting a very small audience, as nearly all girls willing to put out are gina tingle addicts looking for an enabler.
AlekNovy
/ August 9, 2011Can you please explain to me why not one single gamer EVER has beaten placebo? You do realize that every single gamer who has ever admitted their success-rates in cold-approach – quotes a 50-80% approach-to-number and a 10% number-to-fuck ratio? (mystery, paul janka etc…)
DO YOU REALIZE that we have scientific studies where they take random dorks, send them to just ask women for it on the street, and they get comparable results as the best game gurus on the planet?
That’s right, taking a random dork and having him go “hey, you look cute, let’s go out” – he gets the date 50% of the time.
And if he asks random women on the street “Hey, want to come over to my apartment” he gets a yes a full 10-20% of the time.
Blissex
/ August 10, 2011Yes, success rates seem plausible as you mention. That is as I wrote «improving the chances of getting laid, usually from zero to small».
But the key of game, why it is useful, is that it most people learning it have essentially zero chances, and game gives them small but much bigger chances.
They have near zero chances because they have a wrong idea of why girls say yes to whom, and they have near zero chances because accordingly they use wrong approaches.
«random dorks, send them to just ask women for it on the street [ ... ] “hey, you look cute, let’s go out” – he gets the date 50% of the time. [ ... ] “Hey, want to come over to my apartment” he gets a yes a full 10-20% of the time.»
But that is already game! It is not placebo, it is already the very core of game. All the elements are there: understanding that women want sex, getting over oneitis, playing the numbers, being confident and cocky, being somewhat aloof/indifferent.
To a very large extent game is about telling dorks that they can and should ask random girls out, not worry too much about girls who say no, that playing numbers means a good chance of getting laid, not to care about which one, and to change one’s attitude and looks.
Most dorks don’t do any of that and thus have much lower chances than those given by what you call the “placebo”, so game also means having at least the “placebo” chances.
Basically game is about removing all the “pretty lies” that give most men a zero chance of getting laid and opening their eyes to the reality that for most post-pill women sex is just entertainment, using men for orgasms and gina tingles, and that you can just go for it.
Thus the extreme sadness of some occasional posts by game “philosophers” when they realize that while it is fairly easy to get into a girl’s pussy (if one is willing to be her two-legged dildo), it is nearly impossible to get into her heart.
Blissex
/ August 10, 2011«while it is fairly easy to get into a girl’s pussy (if one is willing to be her two-legged dildo), it is nearly impossible to get into her heart.»
That was poorly worded, a slight rephrasing: “while it is fairly easy to get into *some* girl’s pussy (if one is willing to be her two-legged dildo for both tingles and gina), it is nearly impossible to get *any* girl’s heart”.
Now as to the latter, most guys who are interested in game were trying to get into a (specific) girl’s pussy via her heart, hoping that by sucking up to her they would get laid, so not really because they actually loved her (except perhaps in a solipsistic way), but to bribe her. For a girl realizing that is a heartbreak of course, just like for a man to realize that a girl has been using him.
However as I am a very determined and willful person, in my past cases of near-oneitis I have managed to get some woman to fall in love with me (as I was with them, which is required), so that is, however improbable and difficult, possible; but the consequences are horrifying and extremely sad, so I am rather more understanding than others of game practitioners who only want to get laid (from zero chances to small ones), or MGTOW converts.
Which reminds me of the old joke, that capitalism is the delusion that you can win the rat race, socialism is the delusion that you can draw, and buddhism that you can quit it.
AlekNovy
/ August 10, 2011The only reason the typical gamer has “zero chances” is because he hasn’t left the house. And the only reason he gets his first results when he tries out game is because it’s the first time he leaves his house and talks to women on any decently frequent level.
It’s Success-by-proxy:
http://lifestylejourney.blogspot.com/2011/08/pua-methods-create-little-attraction-if.html
GVChamp
/ August 10, 2011“That’s right, taking a random dork and having him go “hey, you look cute, let’s go out” – he gets the date 50% of the time.
And if he asks random women on the street “Hey, want to come over to my apartment” he gets a yes a full 10-20% of the time.
”
Man, I don’t understand, because I absolutely have never gotten or even seen these numbers.
I must be uber-repulsive or something. Or these studies are using above-average quality men.
Jennifer
/ August 22, 2011Wow. Loose women are easier to get than I thought.
ruddyturnstone
/ December 6, 2011Blissex:
<<random dorks, send them to just ask women for it on the street [ ... ] “hey, you look cute, let’s go out” – he gets the date 50% of the time. [ ... ] “Hey, want to come over to my apartment” he gets a yes a full 10-20% of the time.»
"But that is already game! It is not placebo, it is already the very core of game. All the elements are there: understanding that women want sex, getting over oneitis, playing the numbers, being confident and cocky, being somewhat aloof/indifferent."
Total nonsense. Sending a "dork" out to randomly ask girls out is game? Well then, again, anything and everything is game. Where are the techiques? Where is the neg and the amplify and expand and the kino, and the shit test responses, and all the other bullshit? Nowhere. That's game and the dork doesn't know any of it. Yet he scores numbers and dates at the same rate as Mr. game guru himself. If that doesn't falsifiy the efficacy of game then nothing does, or can. And who said the dork is confident or cocky? Who said he was aloof and indifferent? You did. Not AK. He said dorks were sent out to try cold pick ups, with no notion that they were, or acted, or were even told to act, confident, cocky, indifferent or aloof.
"To a very large extent game is about telling dorks that they can and should ask random girls out, not worry too much about girls who say no, that playing numbers means a good chance of getting laid, not to care about which one, and to change one’s attitude and looks."
Again, you are just sticking the last part in. Who said the dorks changed their attitudes and looks? You did. Not AK. He said they were sent out, in all their dorkitude, to ask girls for their numbers and for dates. He said NOTHING about them changing their looks and attitudes. Indeed, that was kinda the whole point, as their looks and attitudes are what makes them dorks in the first place. No one coached them. No one mentored them. No one fashion advised or body language instructed them. And they were dorks. But they scored at the same rate as the gamesters, who had all of that, plus specific training in game techniques.
As for the first part, if all game means is that, duh, you are much more likely to get girls to give you their numbers and/or go out on a date with you if you ask them than if you don't, then, uh, you win.
"Most dorks don’t do any of that and thus have much lower chances than those given by what you call the 'placebo,' so game also means having at least the 'placebo' chances."
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Game, according to your fall back, back peddle position now, means doing just as well with women as you would do if you simply, with no training, with no study of game whatsoever, just asked a lot of women for their numbers and dates. OK, great, again, you win. But, instead of talking about game, and all its techniques, why not just advise guys to simply go out there and ask a lot of women out? What's the difference?
"Basically game is about removing all the 'pretty lies' that give most men a zero chance of getting laid and opening their eyes to the reality that for most post-pill women sex is just entertainment, using men for orgasms and gina tingles, and that you can just go for it."
Blah, blah, blah. All the buzz words, "pretty lies," "gina tingles," etc, etc. Lots of fancy talk for a series of techniques that works no better than random approaches by dorky guys!
PermanentGuest
/ August 9, 2011“What game is, first and foremost, is a contingency plan to manipulate badly behaved women so that you can have sex with them.”
And this would mean tolerating, if not rewarding bad behaviour, just for sex. What does that say about a person when they would suspend their own sense of self worth for an outcome, pursuing the woman through the bad behaviour (thus reinforcing her attitude)?
Really, its pathetic. Men are taught to “soldier on” in the face of insults and tests just so they can “get laid.” What we should really question is why these men (boys) have such a deep need to get laid in the first place.
AlekNovy
/ August 9, 2011QFT
Blissex
/ August 10, 2011«Men are taught to “soldier on” in the face of insults and tests just so they can “get laid.”»
That is a complete and grave misrepresentation of game. It is almost malicious.
Game is based on two premises:
* IF you want to get laid, follow game. IF you don’t want to get laid, do something else. very few people in the game community says that one SHOULD get laid; it is entirely a free choice; if a man wants to avoid getting laid they can do the opposite of game, and indeed some gamesters who got stalked recommend reverting to betaness to get rid of the stalkers.
* To get laid one MUST do whatever it takes that girls need to give sexual access. If this was (to make an absurd example) having green ears, then game would be about how to paint ears green. It just so happens that almost all girls will fuck almost only men who tingle their gina (attraction) and don’t scare them (rapport/confort), and that men who tingle their gina are those who are unflappable and cocky/funny in the face of provocation and have more status than they do.
«question is why these men (boys) have such a deep need to get laid in the first place.»
Well, many men do have a deep (physical and psychological) need to get laid (even if somewhat less so than most girls), and many if not most of them just don’t get any for long periods of time.
Therefore game: which is in some ways a “least bad” option, at least for some; not an optimal option, because it requires considerable effort, finesse and a really thick skin and lack of scruples. I read some time ago the plausible summary that girls get turned on by men who are both higher in status and psychopathy than themselves, and game is essentially about becoming more of a psychopath and projecting more status. Perhaps because most men are less psychopathic than most women, and most women have a highly inflated impression of their status.
PermanentGuest
/ August 10, 2011«IF you want to get laid, follow game. IF you don’t want to get laid, do something else.»
Do you see how silly this is? As if everyone who follows game gets laid, and those who don’t follow game don’t get laid?
Remember from your logic class that correlation /= causation, and as AlekNovy pointed out, there’s no evidence to suggest the game is any better than no game.
«To get laid one MUST do whatever it takes that girls need to give sexual access.»
Again, do you see just how silly this is?
Ever considered that maybe these men 1) don’t know what girls need, or 2) don’t realize that all women are different in terms of security level and needs, or 3) have a deep insecurity because they value a law over their self-worth?
«Well, many men do have a deep (physical and psychological) need to get laid»
Generalization aside, it depends on what these men do to obtain it. Instead of projecting status, why not develop character? If you think women (intuitive creatures) won’t sniff guys out as players of the game, you’re kidding yourself.
Moreso, if you think women don’t give pity sex to men who try too hard, then add another mark to the ‘you-gotta-be-kidding-me’ box.
Typical scenario: Guy is a socially inept, learns game, approaches woman who disrespects him, he soldiers on and hangs around like his life depends on it, then she obliges to sex because she feels sorry for him (its not persistence, its desperation). He feels like a king..that is until she goes cold on him and doesn’t call. He insults her, then she truthfully tells him he’s a loser and bad in bed. Enter damaged ego.
There’s a better, more solid way to “get laid” if you must. Start by respecting yourself.
Blissex
/ August 10, 2011«As if everyone who follows game gets laid, and those who don’t follow game don’t get laid?»
That’s a stupid and ridiculous idea that directly contradicts what I have written and the experience of most gamesters. The purpose of game is to increase the chances of getting laid from (near) zero to small. People without game do occasionally get laid (usually for opportunistic reasons), and people with game have to work hard and for a long time to materialize the increased but still small chance it gives them of getting laid. BTW, game not only increases the chances of getting laid, it also increases the chances of getting laid with a girl of comparable attractiveness, or even, for really cool men, with a girl of slightly greater attractiveness. Some marketing material greatly exaggerates the benefits of game, but then YMMV is an old principle.
Game is entirely about improving odds, not either/or, and it is a stupid misrepresentation to write something like the above.
« Instead of projecting status, why not develop character?»
If developing character got men laid more easily, then it would be game to develop character instead of projecting status and developing psychopathy. However overwhelming evidence is that girls fuck most easily the men who enable their gina-tingle fixes by projecting status and developing psychopathy (and not scaring them).
It is very sad for men that this be the case (and some gamesters do write as much), as their self esteem as persons is usually based on developing character and achievement, but if they want to get laid with (much) higher chances they should instead develop pimp-hand (status and psychopathy) based on “street-cred” and “respect”.
«If you think women (intuitive creatures) won’t sniff guys out as players of the game, you’re kidding yourself.»
Well, part of game theory is that girls surely do sniff out gamesters (natural or learned) and fuck them, as they feel turned on by them, and that’s what matters to them.
You seem to think that “game” is somehow a underhand trick that men play on girls to get them to fuck bad people, a kind of mind rape; it is mostly the opposite, it is a sad jumping through hoops defined and controlled by (most) girls determined to satisfy their neurotic needs for high-psychopathy and high-status flesh dildoes.
Blissex
/ August 10, 2011«approaches woman who disrespects him»
You really have no idea about game. Shit tests are not “disrespect”, they are not even conscious or deliberate for the most part, they are just instinctive challenges/tests. The girls then disrespect the guys who fail the shit tests by being conciliating, and respect the guys who handle them coolly.
«he soldiers on and hangs around like his life depends on it»
You really don’t get it, that’s what suckers do. Gamester learns that there is no point in insisting with a girl whose gina is not tingling for them (no indications of interest) quite soon (some game variants have a 2-5 minute rule), and that to find one who does they have to play a numbers game.
«then she obliges to sex because she feels sorry for him»
The vast majority of girls seem utterly sexually disgusted by men they feel sorry for as they get perceived as needy losers, and very few have the saintly altruism and willpower to fuck someone they find quite revolting solely for his own sake.
When a girl fucks some needy loser it is usually either because she was very drunk, or she is even more of a needy loser than the man (the “more psychopathic” principle), or the man has some opportunistic advantage (e.g. the girl is 40 and the man is willing to go LTR with them) because of which they can hold their noses for a while.
PermanentGuest
/ August 10, 2011«If developing character got men laid more easily, then it would be game to develop character instead of projecting status and developing psychopathy»
If your whole focus in life is about getting laid, then you’re already at a loss. This means one’s sole existence revolves around women, and they have to be completed by them. This is problematic.
«You really have no idea about game. Shit tests are not “disrespect”»
I don’t know where I mentioned shit-tests, but if a girl is disrespecting me (calling me a loser, not acknowledging my existence) then she doesn’t deserve MY attention. You shouldn’t be operating to gain her respect; you should be operating from your own self-respect. If you respect yourself, then so will others.
«When a girl fucks some needy loser it is usually either because she was very drunk, or she is even more of a needy loser than the man (the “more psychopathic” principle), or the man has some opportunistic advantage (e.g. the girl is 40 and the man is willing to go LTR with them) because of which they can hold their noses for a while.»
Having girl friends in this situation, a lot of them have done so out of pity. That scenario was actually pulled from a story I received, and I’ve heard similar cases from my buddies.
You might also want to check out this story: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/seriously-tho-ur-pussy-rocks/
Blissex
/ August 11, 2011«if a girl is disrespecting me (calling me a loser, not acknowledging my existence) then she doesn’t deserve MY attention. You shouldn’t be operating to gain her respect;»
Well, the first lesson of game is never ever to get fixated on a girl (“oneitis”), and at the first indication of lack of interest (never mind insults) to stop interacting with her. A gamester will never try with a girl who is not interested in him. Not worth the time, there are lots of other girls seeking to fuck if they get their gina-tingle fix.
You seem to have an insanely distorted and perhaps malicious views of game principles. Again, the first one is to learn to play the numbers and give up immediately on uninterested prospects.
«If your whole focus in life is about getting laid,»
That’s again entirely against game attitudes. It is neediness. For those to whom game is addressed, getting laid is just a good thing for which it is nice to have some chances. For some men getting laid is a necessity like eating (most people do it 2-3 times a day, does that mean that the whole focus of most people lives is about food?) and for others it is entertainment like going to the movies (many people go to watch one with friends once a week, does that mean that the whole focus of many people lives is about movies?).
For other men it is the expression of a desire to be intimate with someone they like, and these men usually go for the extremely few girls who are not gina-tingle addicts and see men as fun company and nice lays instead of enablers.
Blissex
/ August 9, 2011«a contingency plan to manipulate badly behaved women so that you can have sex with them»
Quite different: it is the *main* plan on how to cope with being willingly *manipulated by* girls, if necessary, so as to increase chances of getting laid. As Citizen Renegade/Heartiste have said many times, if girls did not reward with putting out almost only the men tingling their ginas, men who want to get laid would not be learning to tingle their ginas, and game would be about something else entirely. Game is not synonymous with gina tingling; it is synonymous with whatever works to get laid; and many people don’t get that, just as they don’t get that game’s “alpha” does not mean “leader of the pack” but instead “man who gets laid a lot systematically”, whatever it takes, and regardless of which other qualities or lack of qualities the man has.
detinennui32
/ August 9, 2011AlekNovy said: “In objective reality there’s a ton of hot, sassy women who don’t shit test, manipulate or act like they have a broom stuck up their ass.”
That doesn’t ring true. Before I married 15 years ago I dated dozens of women. Every single one of them fitness tested, or put me through her paces. Every. Single. One. And I know hundreds more women. I’ve never met one that did not fitness test or at least try to manipulate, to see if they can get away with it. It’s just what they do. Even the kindest of them put me through at least one test. I’ve been with my wife 17 years. She still runs tests and tries to manipulate. The difference now is that I know what to do.
Women test and manipulate because they want to find out if he can stand up to her, if he can tell her no when need be. She wants to find out if he won’t put up with her shit, her capricious emotions and unreasonable demands — and is secretly thrilled to find out that he won’t.
Blissex
/ August 10, 2011«Women test and manipulate because they want to find out if he can stand up to her, if he can tell her no when need be. She wants to find out if he won’t put up with her shit, her capricious emotions and unreasonable demands — and is secretly thrilled to find out that he won’t.»
That’s the “evolutionary psychology” explanation. Mine is rather different: that girls get fixated on daddy when they are about 13, and seek men who give them the same type of behaviour. What you describe is indeed how typical daddies deal with capricious, unreasonable little girls. There are several other similarities between how a daddy handles a 13yo girl and what tingles the gina of most older girls. The payoff for almost all little girls is to see their daddy smile at them occasionally, and this works awesomely on older girls too (not too often, because daddy usually does not pay a lot of attention and does not take too seriously 13yo little girls, who are insecure and then use capriciousness and unreasonableness to make daddy pay attention to them).
To same extent game could be summarized as “treat all girls as if they were attention seeking 13yo girls and you were their daddy”.
Jennifer
/ August 22, 2011Sounds like that’s a good explanation for insecure girls, but it’s revolting that they’d want behavior that so closely matches “daddy’s”. I think the evo-psych explanation is better.
detinennui32
/ August 9, 2011AlekNovy has a point when he offers a prescription for simply laughing in a bitchy girl’s face and walking away midsentence. But there are several things going on:
1. H/T Blissex above: Alek only obliquely addresses IOIs. The tightest game in the world is worthless if you have no IOIs. Game is after you have some IOIs from the girl. If you have IOIs after you open a set, then you can start running game. Were I in the scene I would adhere to the Badger rule: one IOI in five minutes or I’m gone. Three in 15, or I’m gone. If a girl is a total bitch to you after an opening, you probably won’t get IOIs, so you’re better off laughing and walking. In fact, game advocates exactly that — you walk away with your dignity intact if you get shut down.
2. Alek seems to be advocating inner game. Some in the manosphere have pointed out that inner game (being the best man you can be, improving employment and body image) should lead to the attitude of “I am the prize”. Inner game also addresses the fact of rejection — that rejection happens all the time, and you have to get out there and approach. And rejection is not a measure of a man’s worth or value. So much of inner game is to get men out of oneitis and teaching them not to care about or invest so much in a girl at the outset. Small investment, small risk of loss.
3. Mike at Crime and Federalism had a good post up about a month ago that talked about blowing women out. Let’s say you’re with a woman and you say or do something really wrong. She goes cold and her facial expression changes. Soon after you get the “LJBF” speech or the “I don’t want to date anymore”. When that happens, she has just “blown you out”.
Mike advocates being like a woman. She does something you don’t like? You blow her out. You don’t return her phone calls or texts, you don’t see her, you ignore her. She won’t do things you like to do? Blow her out. She runs a nasty fitness test or flakes? Blow her out. I do this with my wife. She fitness tested me, so I just walked away. No response. No protesting. No complaining. Just walk away. Blow her out.
4. Check out Solomon II’s New Year’s Resolution (solomonreborn.wordpress.com):
“I will not take an ounce of shit from a woman in 2011.”
AlekNovy
/ August 9, 2011Inner-game is a marketing term that the game-community invented when people started waking up to the bullshit of the game-community.
It’s a way to keep people stuck to the game-cult for a little while longer, a way to keep selling guys products for a little while longer.
The path goes a little something like this.
1) First you buy into overall society’s bullshit (you know, kiss ass, buy flowers, beg with dinners)
2) Then you discover game which says “society sucks, they have it wrong”, and you then buy into the over-complicated outer-game bullshit (mystery, RJ, DeAnushole)
3) Then when you wake up to the bullshit of mystery-type-shit, you’re offered less complicated bullshit like sixty, naturalgame, realgame, teddybeargame, butterfly game and what-the-fuck-else-game
4) Then when you WAKE UP and realize, shit, I don’t even need any of this shit, all that matters is personal development, you know SOCIAL SKILLS and overall CHARACTER, and at this point, the fuckers come and sell you on “inner-game”
The dirty little secret is: Mainstream personal development products are far superior to “inner-game” products created by 25-year old fuck-heads playing psychologists.
You know what the best way to improve your inner-game is? Stop reading “inner-game” shit. Go to a qualified adult source of personal-development content.
detinennui32
/ August 9, 2011In my previous world of meeting and dating around the bar scenes in my midwestern city, the bad behavior was almost always flaking and teasing. Girls would make a date and then stand you up. I also went home with some girls (or got invited over) and then she puts up LMR or says “I’ve never done this before”. Many times when this happened I simply got up and left, or kicked her out.
Blissex
/ August 9, 2011«Girls would make a date and then stand you up»
That’s not a shit test. That means “get lost”. If she made the date and then stood you up it means “fuck off and die die die”.
wingman
/ August 9, 2011Cynical advice from a friend in the know: if you’re going for a 32+ woman, hold out the LTR carrot, then flake on it. For a 21 to 25 woman, just pay for it – they’re not worth the hoops.
P Ray
/ February 4, 2012Why not. I’m betting to get to the point of being 32+ and unattached, those women had to either turn down proposals or break good relationships.
Hard to be sympathetic towards a thief that gets stolen from.
whiteboykrispy
/ August 9, 2011Some thoughts:
I read his entire article, and I don’t really think his idea is very original or even “anti” game. What he writes about is pretty much a good way to view things in order to have solid inner game. Having dignity is an important part of game and will cause you to not waste your time with bitchy girls. By not accepting over the line behavior, you will find that the girls you do decide to dedicate time to are nicer and much better human beings.
Quite a few things I have read have even stated that having rock solid inner game is practically the end point.
Roosh is a pretty big advocate of not putting up with bitchy behavior, and while I can’t remember any specific post I do know he tells you not to take shit from a girl and that he’ll reject girls who are shitty.
What I think is often hated on in PUA advice and strategies are the tactics, but in my view you must know who these are being marketed to: Men who suck with women.
Perhaps some of these tactics do indeed have some of these men putting up with too much to get pussy, but in my opinion that’s only in the beginning. If the dude starts to get pussy more regularly, his standards will increase, he’ll put up with less shit, and so forth. I know for a fact I don’t put up with shit anymore, but I also know I used to back when I began this journey. It’s called neediness and the quiet desperation of balls that need draining.
AlekNovy is right, you must see yourself as the prize. But how many dudes who have nothing but failure to show for their experiences with women can really, truly believe that in full confidence? A lot of PUA advice must be seen as training wheels, shit to get you going until you do get that prize mindset.
That being said, I don’t see anything wrong with a ONS with a bitchy girl. I get mine, and I don’t ever have to talk to her again. I battled her shit tests, came out on top, but decided I didn’t want to put up with her after the encounter. The way I see it, that’s not a win for me, not her.
Also, co-signing detinennui about shit tests. They happen. It’s up to you to determine how much you want to put up with.
AlekNovy
/ August 9, 2011Going left is game. Going right is game. Standing in place is game. Oh, moving is game, but so is not moving. AND OH BTW existing is game, but not existing is also game bla bla bla…
There’s no better evidence that game is a cult, just like feminism, then its fuzzy borders. Game refuses to define itself and has an always shifting, always-changing and never clear definition. It refuses to be examined in any systematic or specific, measurable and repeatable manner.
This is so that it can take credit any time something good happens, and distance itself any time something bad happens. Just like feminism. Any time you attack them on specifics, they just refer to the vague fuzzy dictionary definition.
Reference: http://counterfem.blogspot.com/search?q=fuzzy+borders
Looking Glass
/ August 10, 2011@ AlekNovy:
You have legitimate critiques, but “Game” has a meaning in the specific spheres, so just define it and argue against them. You seem to have a problem doing that.
You also complain that “Game”, in the PUA community’s functional understanding of the term, isn’t good for society. I’m not sure they’ve ever much argued that. It’s simply a way to get into a woman’s pants and the techniques they use to figure out which women are willing to respond. While I fully back the thought it isn’t good for society, that isn’t what most men that are looking to use it are actually on about. They just want the sex. If you want to argue they should have a higher purpose than that, I’m supportive. But, seriously, most guys do just want the sex. It’s kind of the way a lot of them work.
Using the random-approach testing argument doesn’t work too well, as it shows you really don’t know that much about proper social research. Relational mappings are highly self-selecting for location and standard actions. You invalidate any applicability of the experiment but directly biasing against the data set. Only way to test PUA Game would be in a random bar setting on Friday/Saturday nights.
Another point I have is that there are plenty of terms that have functional meanings without having a completely workable definition. You see it more in politics, but if I said the “Chicago Way” and you’re from that region, you have a general idea what is meant. Or if you watch any of the Pro scouting (doesn’t matter the sport), they say a player has a “good body” or “soft hands”. The full definition of those concepts are bio-mechanical in nature and not fully understood in the technical sense, but they are concepts that can be well understood in the practical sense. So, that complaint isn’t too useful.
As a whole, I think what you’re running into is something Badger was discussing, as an aside, here: http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/reflections-on-frosts-analysis-of-the-sexual-revolution/
There’s really two fields of “play” for relationships: short term & long term. Your main issue seems to be that playing for the “short term” is bad and corrosive on society. I’m not sure I disagree with that at all. But humans have a large tendency to focus on what they can get “now” more than what they can get and have “later”. This is known as “why is it so damn hard for people to plan for retirement?”. I think you’ll have to change humans for that to change too much.
Blissex
/ August 10, 2011«There’s really two fields of “play” for relationships: short term & long term.»
Uhmmm, there are two theories of game, and under one of them there is no difference between short and long term:
* The “weak” game theory is that in order to achieve getting laid with relative strangers in a shorter time what works in doing whatever turns on women, which is gina-tingle etc., and who knows (or cares) about what works for longer term, deeper relationships involving more than just getting laid.
* The “strong” theory of game says that there is no fundamental difference between short term and long term game, because the ONLY thing that almost all women care about is getting turned on (what they call “chemistry” or “connection”), and a long term relationship from the point of view of a girl is just a series of short term relationships, and she will get “bored” and cheat/dump a long term partner that no longer turns her on by keeping her gina tingling at least occasionally.
To me and many others (I think that Citizen Renegade/Heartiste believes that) the “strong” theory seems more plausible than the “weak” theory.
The only case where “game” is redundant is then not the long term, but the case where a woman has matured beyond addiction to thrills, and no longer rewards with sexual access only those who tingle their gina, but uses a different logic, like feelings of intimacy and confidence.
These women seem to me extremely rare in the wild; helping a gina-tingle addict to grow out of it can work but is very difficult and can be very sad (speaking from experience).
«Your main issue seems to be that playing for the “short term” is bad and corrosive on society.»
Many gamesters think that female hypergamy, especially in the form of gina-tingle driven long term relationships, is extremely corrosive to society and will even cause the collapse of civilization, as men get ruthlessly trained or selected for higher psychopathy in order to get laid. I think that this will be counteracted by the tendency of the many gina-tingle addicted girls to end up childless, and in 2-3 generations only girls who have a very strong instinct to have children will be left, and this will change the situation a lot.
But the overall outcome could still be similar to that in the african-american (and many african and southamerican) cultures, with men competing on status and psychopathy (“street cred”, “respect”) and girls raising single parent families.
whiteboykrispy
/ August 9, 2011that’s a win for me*
NMH
/ August 11, 2011This thread is chock-full of fantastic posts.
theprivateman
/ August 11, 2011There are quite a few very intelligent and thoughtful fellows in the Manosphere.
andyc
/ August 11, 2011Iam a English man white yes, i do not live in England,but my family telling me negros arabs asians looting ,for god sake why are people too afaid to speak now,sorry forgot to say eastern europeans as well,we let to many bloody 3rd world crap holes come in and thats what we will end up being.I dont have a white wife because i live in Asia but i never have seen a country as stupid as England oh sorry usa and the aussies have started .Look if you lot causing all the trouble we lived in your countries we would be shot or in prision or something else,please dont, no human rights person come on here tell me what to do,At the end of the day everybody wants a nice easy life,except people that want to make there own rule and at the end of the day thats where they have come from,i say no more,anybody wants to tell me off or agree my email is andy2yar@aol.com.please i only see what i have seen when England.you cannot have to many countries living togther.It just does not work.By the way i was in England 80s 90s i got caught up in Brixton riots i saw what i saw ,negros were attacking whites,i went to school in London negros attack the whites in school as well.THANKYOU everybody in England you have no have free speach anymore like the amercians you all let your goverments get away with what they wanted.god bless everybody now let people have there free speach back.
Jennifer
/ August 22, 2011Very wise post! Thank you. Game should be used as good social skills and confidence boosters, not as a means to manipulate women or put up with nasty ones.
P Ray
/ February 4, 2012The idea that there is no social interaction involving manipulation, is a pipe dream.
It’s just some types of manipulation are more acceptable to the observing public than others.
I hope it’s not only bad when men manipulate women, but not the other way around.
Jennifer
/ August 22, 2011“The “strong” theory of game says that there is no fundamental difference between short term and long term game, because the ONLY thing that almost all women care about is getting turned on (what they call “chemistry” or “connection”), and a long term relationship from the point of view of a girl is just a series of short term relationships, and she will get “bored” and cheat/dump a long term partner that no longer turns her on by keeping her gina tingling at least occasionally”
There must be some very, very immature women out there just looking for thrills. That’s what helped cause Rome to fall: women became like many men and everyone became promiscious. Thank God I have some hope in humanity as a Christian; no wonder we have so many limits.
Blissex, you have some of the most honest comments about game. I deeply hope you’re right, that sexually shallow men and women will eventually be bred out; I think they will. In the meantime, Alek is right that game can be very hard to pin down; people take the basic concept and make SO many branches of it based on their own beliefs/experiences. Basically, men need to be strong and confident; this is a universa truth. They also need character if they want LTR’s. Other than this, the definitions vary from person to person.
P Ray
/ February 4, 2012If sexually shallow men and women are the ones that get around the most, it’s very unlikely that they will be bred out.
I noticed you required something from men; I hope you also require something from women too.
“Men need character if they want LTRs” … I snort at that statement, men in demand (like women in demand) need do nothing but just show up to be fawned over.
P Ray
/ February 4, 2012Dalrock has done a very good writeup about how “religious” girls are no different from secular ones, but I’m pretty sure you know about that, seeing as your comments pop up there too …
johnny appleseed
/ September 13, 2011After a year of reading “manosphere” blogs, and not getting laid despite best efforts, or no effort at all, and thousands of $$ wasted, I mostly just want to run away and grow cabbage somewhere.
Life really ought not to be so fraught with pitfalls and controversy. I understand competition is ineluctable, but it leaves no time for enjoying the air, petting cats or reading books. The casuistry of game / anti-game has sucked what little joy life held for me out and spat it in my face.
Max
/ February 4, 2012Just read this thread now. Bottom line is that there are some good elements to the seduction community, such as the idea that it’s okay to approach women, but there are also tons of destructive elements to the seduction community. Destructive because of the negative attitudes so prevalent in the community against women, i.e. the need for “Negs” assumes that just because a woman is attractive she must be “negged”.
Michael Marks long ago realized all this, and created a positive alternative, that has only the constructive elements of “pua” without the destructive elements, and he also incorporates the use of human knowledge and progress in various other fields, from human communications and psychology to health and fitness, all as applied to improving men’s success in getting a great girlfriend.
Yes, he’s not about the endless lays, as even rock stars and Hugh Hefner usually end up wanting to be with one great woman instead of sleeping with different women. Hence, the name of Michael Marks’ site, which is called “Get A Great Girl”.
P Ray
/ February 4, 2012The example of Hefner and “wanting a great relationship” is funny, and merely underscores the fact about why the player lifestyle is now becoming more appealing:
they get great sex in the beginning, great sex in the middle, and a great relationship at the end (since they’re really good at pumping and dumping, they are less likely to be led on by thrills so can more objectively evaluate a relationship than most men, and since they have been preselected by many women previously, more women are prepared to step up to a relationship with them).
A stable relationship with someone attuned to your sexual needs probably earns more lays per unit of time than a player lifestyle … however, a player has more preselection going for him and it is possible with the previous social proof he can get more interactions with women “hotter than the one he’s with” vs. the decent guy.
In the end, everybody has to choose for themselves.
Max
/ February 4, 2012It’s also important to realize that Mystery himself was against the abuse of the “Neg” but the seduction community embraced it with over-zealousness, and also embraced “cocky and funny” and other arrogant tactics that all assume that women will not be attracted unless you treat them this way.
These attitudes might work on some women, but they definitely don’t work on a lot of women, especially the women who are genuinely seeking a healthy, respectful relationship. Of course, though, for many years, the seduction community refused to believe that such quality women even existed in the first place, which is yet another sign of it’s lack of emotional maturity.
Michael Marks doesn’t try to “convert” a woman with a destructive personality into a good woman, he just focuses on how to attract the kind of women who already are women of great character. Once again, it’s about getting a great woman, not about just getting some women naked. Many of his programs at his “Get A Great Girl” site are under $20, including his well-researched method on how to obliterate approach anxiety, which is not just a “pump up talk” but an actual method with tons of evidence that shows it works.
He also teaches how to detect a quality woman, and how to quickly detect if a woman is the kind of woman you want to avoid, so that you don’t waste your time, energy, and emotions on the wrong women.
P Ray
/ February 4, 2012All that may be doing is detecting the woman who at the moment is “most attracted to you”.
After all, most of the women the men taking Marks’ programme will encounter are those with a “past”.
Given that the more sexual experience a woman has before marriage, the less stable the marriage is likely to be, it’s very likely that all Marks’ programme is doing is working to get more women wanting marriage … married.
But not all women who want marriage (at the time) should be married.
some of them want to GET married, not BE married.
Max
/ February 4, 2012Re: “however, a player has more preselection going for him and it is possible with the previous social proof he can get more interactions with women “hotter than the one he’s with” vs. the decent guy.”
This may be something that a lot of men in the seduction community don’t want to believe, but indeed the desire for both sex and love and not just sex is something that is quite natural and human. I know the seduction community likes to “poo-poo” on anything that mentions the emotion of love, but it doesn’t change the fact that raw sex is not everything to everyone. But of course, the seduction community will like to call any man who uses the word love in a non-cynical way some kind of “beta male” or “afc” or loser or clueless, even if his name is Brad Pitt.
Yeah, I feel so sorry for Brad Pitt, he’s not using the online internet world of the seduction community.
Or, the community will twist reality and somehow say that when a man like Hugh Hefner does get married, it is really somehow still an act of being a player.
So technically, with this kind of distortion, perhaps Mother Theresa really is a rockstar slut and the players are really old fashioned types since Mother Theresa was really good at “gaming” the whole concept of not NEEDING a man, and the players are really just trying to show how much they appreciate LOVE since they are so terrified of it they just pretend it doesn’t exist, it’s too powerful of an emotion for them, they actually are that sensitive to it, they actually love LOVE more than others to the point they must avoid it all for fear of being hurt.
You can distort anything.
Re: “all that may be doing is detecting the woman who at the moment is “most attracted to you”.
No, it is about actually detecting a woman with a healthy personality and who also shares core values with you so that you are not in conflict in the relationship, AND it’s about attracting her as well.
Re: “most of the women the men taking Marks’ programme will encounter are those with a “past”. Given that the more sexual experience a woman has before marriage, the less stable the marriage is likely to be”
I find this statement to be questionable. Who made these stats? What is the evidence? Does every woman who has sex report it to a survey? Does every marriage that succeeds report it to a survey? Are men and women even honest about what they say on these surveys? Sex is such a natural thing that it seems pretty hard to believe that people who have sex, men or women, are somehow going to be at a disadvantage of anything.
It’s almost like saying women who eat or breathe before marriage are more likely to have problems in marriage. Sex is almost as natural as eating or breathing.
Re:”it’s very likely that all Marks’ programme is doing is working to get more women wanting marriage … married. But not all women who want marriage (at the time) should be married. some of them want to GET married, not BE married.”
Again, a huge part of what Michael Marks is doing is helping men detect which women are the RIGHT ones for a long term relationship, it’s not just about getting “a” relationship, but getting a great one.
Michael Marks fully acknowledges the RARITY of women who have their act together, who have great values and healthy personalities and who are ideal for a long term relationships, he also acknowledges that such types of MEN are also just as RARE, so the truth is there is no problem of supply since there are also so few MEN who do the work on themselves to make themselves FREE from insecurites and also from warped distortions of reality that lead to destructive behaviors that destroy relationships.
So a great woman meets a great man, and they both realize how precious each other actually is.