Tuesday, July 27, 2010

A Clarification on Game


A long time denizen of the comment sections of the MRA Blogosphere, Deansdale, finally decided to start his own blog. He's s been a regular commenter at many of the usual hangouts for us masculinist-minded folks - Roissy's Chauteau, Seasons of Tumult & Discord, The Spearhead et al...and has frequently commented here as well. His comments have always been well-thought out and insightful, so it's good to see him finally start wielding his keyboard for his own space on the internet. Welcome to the party, D! Hope you stick with it.

His first substantive post is a good one: My Clarification on Game and it's Sceptics


Game is a box of tools, with manuals on when and how to use them. Actually it can not “not work”. It can be misused in a number of ways but that’s the user’s fault. If you’re an apprentice in – let’s say – blacksmithing, and you know only how to operate the bellows, your success as a blacksmith will be very limited. If someone gives you a hammer and tells you how to use it then it’s up to you how you manage, but simply saying that the hammer “does not work” is foolish.

Great analogy...one for which I'd like to expand on a little: seems to me that a lot of the criticism of "GAME" comes from people who look at the majority of it's proponents - the PUA - and say that it's bad. To use Deansdale's analogy, a hammer can be used for more than just pounding nails, no?

Same thing with this tool we call "game."

Understanding what women find attractive has so many more applications than simply trying to seduce hotties into bed. See what happens when you "run game" on a waitress, or a bartender, or some other woman you interact with for which you have no romantic or sexual interest in. I'm talking about playful negging (cocky and funny), DHV's, comfort and rapport building, acting confidently and assertively, etc. while dealing with ANY women...including relatives.

Even women who are not interested in you in a sexual way will still eat it up, and you'll find that this "tool" of Game will serve as a social lubricant that can get you a freebie dessert from an amused waitress, or perhaps some banter with a receptionist might find her able to "slide you in" an overbooked schedule...or a female bartender might give you a drink "on the house." Furthermore, if you do this in front of a women you actually do want to seduce, you will also increase her own attraction for you as well, as it will validate to her that you are authentic, and not just putting up a front to get into her panties. As I've said before, understanding the concept of game is life changing, not just sex-life changing.

You see, just as a woman with a pretty face, a great rack and a plump ass finds such favors are regularly given her simply by men who find her physical appearance easy on the eyes...

...so too do women react to men who use the tools of "game" in a no-sexual-intentions sort of way.

As for the rest of his initial post, Deansdale lists various categories for the various skeptics and detractors of game that he's encountered in his time as a regular blog commenter.

1. The ones who are repulsed by the idea of it or say it’s “immoral”.
2. The ones who read a few sentences and decide it’s BS.
3. Those who say there’s no need for game.
4. Those who say game can’t be learned.
5. Those who say it’s “manipulation”.
6. Those who tried game and say it does not work.
7. Those who say that game is abuse, coercion, rape.

He's gives some pretty good details for each category...feel free to drop on by and give him some comments...after all, if you're a Masculinist-Blogosphere Blogger, he's been doing it for years now at your blog!


19 comments:

Deansdale said...

Thanks a lot :) This means so much to me I can't put it into words :)

Before someone misunderstands my enthusiasm I'll say that HL is something like a hero for me along with Rob Fedrz and Angry Harry (and a few others). I consider them "lighthouses" for the many-many men lost at the misandrist seas of the western world.

Michael Ejercito said...

Is there any data on the effects of using Game?

globalman100 said...

Michael Ejercito, yes...it works...what more data do you want?

I don't use 'game' so much as I already know most of it. Learned it as a kid but didn't want to use it. Now I don't need it as I am a very 'attractive man'...for which you should read I have plenty of money, was a great family man for 20 years, and am now single. I have a bit of a q so I don't need game.

Young guys could do with a bit of game to get laid. I am all for it for the young guys. I tell young guys not to marry or have kids in these misandrist times.

Thursday said...

Great post.

Having some game really smoothes thing over with fellow female employees or female bosses. Once you learn how to handle women, it makes your life so much easier.

Keoni Galt said...

Deansdale, my pleasure. You've been a great commenter here for a long time, and I always wondered why you didn't have a blog of your own. It's about time.

Michael, you don't need "data." Just real world experience.

And if you yourself don't want to try it, simply watch how the apparent "alpha" men interact with ALL people, not just the women they are bedding.

Thursday...thanks.

For me, the real aha! moment for me came with watching my Father-in-law doing it to my sisters-in-law and my aunts. No pick up intended...but cocky funny, assertive and DHV was his basic frame...and all the women in the family just eat it up.

Keoni Galt said...

gman - Young guys could do with a bit of game to get laid. I am all for it for the young guys. I tell young guys not to marry or have kids in these misandrist times.

Same here. I'd only recommend it when I know the woman in question personally and judge her character and morals to be worthy of such a dangerous commitment.

globalman100 said...

HL, I knew my ex since I was 12, I was her brothers best friend at school. I knew her for 18 years before she ran off the rails and 32 years before we were divorced. In divorce both her father and son did all they could to help me. I was still robbed of 95% of the proceeds of my 25 years of labour.

There is no way to 'know' a woman 'well enough'. All western women are poison now. Those who are not? They will not stop their sistas from destroying a man and that makes them culpable. Spread the word.

Anonymous said...

"Even women who are not interested in you in a sexual way will still eat it up, and you'll find that this "tool" of Game will serve as a social lubricant."

wow. That is a real gem. I really like this tool analogy. Seduction might be considered one thing you can build, but the same set of tools can be used for lots of other things, like getting better service or getting more respect. I'd love to see a post about the different tools and how/when they should be used, not just in seduction but in rather mundane social situations.

Anonymous said...

And let's not forget, giving women exactly what they want has worked so well for us in the past...

Vincent Ignatius said...

I've created more value by using game for things other than seduction than I have using it for seduction. Girls in the service industry are probably the most common recipients of my game charm. Understanding AMOGing has also helped me deal with other men in situations where it's best not to hurt their egos e.g. a recruiter at a company I want to work for.

I've also used game on my grandmothers. It makes them happy and that's enough for me.

Anonymous said...

Are men really so naive as to think they've discovered something their fathers and all the fathers before them couldn't see?

Let's accept first then that Game works, so we don't have to confuse ourselves with that argument. Examine instead its place in history, and what it could resemble.

Remember that there was a time when women responded positively to gentlemen, and that's what they got.

There was another time when women swooned at men in uniform, and hissed and booed at any man who thought the whole military patriotism thing was a load. What did men do? They enlisted by the millions and ran off to get themselves blown up in France.

Oh yes, there was another time when women wanted reliable provider types and a house in the suburbs. Men gave them that.

And then there was the time they wanted rebellious anti-establishment types, and men grew hair down to their navels and dressed like they were in a very bad dream.

Then women wanted sensitive, new age men, and what do you know? men starting shouting out their feelings and crying in public.

Now we have Roissys and Rooshes telling us what women want, and imploring us to dance to the new tune. Anyone else spotting a pattern here?

Now like I said - I'm not arguing that what they say is effective. What I'm saying is that in accepting and practicing Game, you are doing nothing more than what men before you have done throughout history, ie putting vast effort and time into finding out what women want, and then giving it to them. You could be doing something else with your time - none of us has an infinite supply of it.

If you can't think of any better way of using your time, then go ahead. But don't count on all your efforts holding much currency for long. Once the success of game spreads past the first few million, it'll be useless. Just like great-grandma's new bonnet or great-aunt Martha's silk stockings are useless compared to the latest young female flesh promotion tool. Cocky and funny will become oh so yesterday. Negs will be detected a mile off and derided by the newly weary. Did I mention women bore easily? But of course, you knew that.

Oh, and if women really like it, they'll start copying it thinking it makes them sexy. You'll be getting hit on by obese, plain janes with soldier hair negging you and pulling the Charley Harper on you, only women aren't that funny.

Then some new guy will suddenly discover a new way of presenting to women that gets their attention and the whole bandwagon gets rolling again.

Game may be the new word, but there's a much older word that describes it better, and there's an entire industry making billions off people just like you.

It's called 'Fashion'. Women love it.

Deansdale said...

"Are men really so naive as to think they've discovered something their fathers and all the fathers before them couldn't see?"
Nobody said game was anything "new". In the post HL linked I state that game is a box of "tools" for seduction, including _smiling_. Are you saying I think I invented smiling?

"there was a time when women responded positively to gentlemen...
men in uniform...
reliable provider types... [etc]"
Except they didn't. The alpha vs beta dichotomy was always in the background. If what you say were true, those women of times past would have never cheated on their gentleman/provider/whatever husbands. What you talk about is NOT what women lust but social norms. Mothers always wanted their daughters to marry a "fine man" and what was considered fine differed from time to time. This has no effect on who or what women desire.
What you say is also contradicted by the existence of PUAs of old times, ie the Casanovas. Women always desired these alpha males, only their chances of pursuing them were MUCH more limited before the sexual revolution.

It might seem to you that we think we invented flirting, but this is actually a complex problem. In the old times alpha behaviour in men were encouraged socially and so men just did what came to them naturally, and that was perfectly fine for their wives too because their hypergamous instincts were sated. Nowadays - thanks to feminism - we have the opposite trend. Alpha behaviour is discouraged. Men are mislead into believing that they can make their wives happy by acting beta, but the instincts of women ensure that no good beta deed goes unpunished. Also many alpha acts are made illegal or regarded as barbaric.
Many, if not most men are shell-shocked by all this and keep on wandering what went wrong over the ruins of their lives.
So yeah, game is "new" for them. They are just beginning to (re)discover that alpha behaviour is what women lust. And no offence but the likes of you are not helping.

globalman100 said...

Deansdale,
you are, of course, correct. In times past men competed for women based on status and looks etc. However, what WAS very different is that the girls FATHER was heavily involved in this process and, in general, would not allow his daughter to have sex much (if at all) prior to marriage. The FATHER knew that he needed to get the young man to take his daughter off his hands as the liability she is. So 'game' in the past was as much about 'meeting the parents and impressing the father' as it was impressing the girl. I still recall my first serious gf. I knew her parents well. But when I did the 'meet the parents' as 'the boyfriend' it was different. Indeed, with my ex, I knew her family very well. When I visited them for the first time as 'the boyfriend' my FIL showed me his gun, sword and bayonett collection again. He explained 'I want you to see these in a whole new light now you are dating one of my daughters'. Point taken. He was protective of his daughters. So. In days gone past 'game' was a LOT about status and finanical success and FAR less about 'alpha-male' behaviour because most fathers whould not let a 'thug' near their daughter. Indeed, with my ex her parents tried so hard to keep her away from her first 'thug' boyfriend that she deliberately got pregnant. A small fact she omitted to mention to anyone. I only learned that pregnancy was deliberate 15 years into our marriage.

Today women are 'liberated' and they do not listen to their fathers. Hence they are sluts. They have the 'man selection' skills of a retarded wombat. Therefore, today, 'game' plays a FAR greater role than it did in days gone past. Without the benefit of her father to sort the wheat from the chaff women are totally clueless and are easy prey for any man who bothers to learn even the basics. I am amazed at just how stupid women are. My fav#1 was whining about how one 'artist' boyfriend she had would not work and sponged off her for FOUR years! I was like "Why did you allow a man to sponge off you for four years?" Usual story, he was an 'artist'....ergo presented as alpha. Her life has been one relationship disaster after another because she is totally clueless about selecting a decent man. And even funnier? I'd be quite happy to take care of her as I really do like her but she's chasing the dream of 'love-man-slave' with more babies.

So yes. 'Game' was an element in the past but a man who was from an honest family, worked hard, and looked like being a solid and permanent provider for a woman would get the nod from the FATHER and mother. So men in my era knew that one of the best ways to find a 'good woman' was to be further up the pile in terms of status. This could not be 'short-circuited' by 'game' in the past so easily as it is now.

Thursday said...

Are men really so naive as to think they've discovered something their fathers and all the fathers before them couldn't see?

Uh, yes. Even 30-40 years ago, just being a provider used to work. Really well. It doesn't anymore. Most older guys are just incredulous at how hard it is for some guys to get a wife these days.

I discuss a lot of this here.

**** ***** said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Traditional Medication said...

Yea... im agree with you, War is just a racket!

Naturopathy said...

I must admit this is a very nice blog, keep up the good work. =D

**** ***** said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.