To Game or Not To Game?

This is some rambling that started out as a comment at Dalrock’s and got way too long.  It started with this quote from Dalrock (my emphasis in bold):

The focus should be on returning to the Biblical model of marriage. Right now I think it is painfully clear that the churches and pastors are with very few exceptions ambivalent at best and outright hostile at worst to the biblical definition/frame of marriage. If you fix that problem how much “game” is actually needed?

Probably not much. Some guys might still use game to compete over the prettiest girls, but you wouldn’t need it to get a wife and stay married.  I always look to the example of my grandfathers, because both had long, happy marriages to women who were devoted to them until their deaths (and since). Yes, they had some natural game in the sense that they were reasonably confident and masculine, like most men of their era. But they were also mild-mannered and kind, with plenty of the “beta” traits (in the sense that some writers use that term in a positive sense).  I doubt anyone would have called them “dominant.”

However, they married women who had been taught to appreciate (if not tingle for) those traits and see marriage and children as a worthy vocation, and they lived in a society that backed that up. So they didn’t need the kind of swaggering, peacocking, overwhelming game that’s required today to keep girls from giving you fake phone numbers. The level of swagger that you get from an average 18-year-old man who hasn’t been taught to apologize for his existence was plenty. Could they have found wives and sustained life-long marriages today? I don’t know, but it certainly wouldn’t have been as sure a thing.

A man today hasn’t just lost the support of the churches and other institutions; they’ve gone over to the other side. So to win, he has to become that much stronger, more powerful, more dominant. He — I, as someone who inherited a lot of my grandfathers’ niceness — can’t afford to play as if those groups were still on my side. I’ll get trounced. Those qualities they handed down to me aren’t enough by themselves without all that backup. I have to overcome that new opposition by learning to be (or at least act) more dominant than comes naturally to me. Enter Game.

Should I need game? No, and in a reasonably virtuous, Christian (though fallen) society I wouldn’t need any more masculinity than I was born with. But I was born a couple generations too late for that world, and we’re not going to fix this one before I’m gone (more on that below). I’m stuck with the current situation, where, if I want a woman to tingle for me and stay that way, I have to be dominant enough not just to overcome her innate defenses and satisfy her natural hypergamy. I also have to trump all the Go-Girl and Special-Snowflake programming she’s received over the years, plus everything she’s been taught about women being more spiritual, plus everyone telling her to focus on her career, and so on. I have to outrank all of those influences in her mind, if I hope to hold her attraction.

Now, obviously her virtues and principles matter too, so I don’t want to discount that. A woman with a good set of innate traits who’s been raised well will combat those harmful influences to some extent. But they’re still there, still impinging on her awareness every day, so they can’t help but have some effect on her, and that effect I have to overcome. So my job will be easier if I pick well, but still not as easy as if I had those churches and other institutions on my side.

Then there’s another question: Perhaps we can’t fix the churches and society in my lifetime, but I’d like for them to be fixed, and I wouldn’t want to damage them further. So, if I use game to improve my personal situation, am I making it harder for that fix to happen someday?

I don’t think so, as long as I always keep it within a Christian framework. When I first learned about game, like a lot of guys, I took advantage of it for a while to get laid. That obviously did further damage to society, because it raised those women’s N’s and made them just a bit less suitable for marriage. I might even have created some alpha widows. (Ok, probably not.) So game applied sinfully will certainly make the situation worse.

But some men argue that even using game only in non-sinful ways, as in to keep a wife tingling, is harmful because it raises women’s expectations even further, and because of the competitive nature of women, it makes it that much harder for that man’s wife’s friends’ husbands to keep up. I see their point, but I don’t see a better alternative that isn’t fantasy. Yes, the ideal solution would be to bring women’s expectations back down to the level of my grandmothers’, but how do you do that — how do you return “to a Biblical model of marriage” — when every freakin’ societal institution is driving those expectations through the roof? The only way I see that happening is through a major economic and political collapse (possibly something involving brimstone) that makes the Go-Girl lifestyle impossible again. And if that happens, women will go back to appreciating providers regardless of whether some men today game their wives or not. So it seems to me that using game for licit purposes won’t prevent the problem from being fixed if the circumstances come along that could fix it, so I’m in the clear.

Incidentally, I’m not suggesting that men sit poolside and wait for the crash either.  I don’t think we can fix society as a whole without a crash, but I do think we can have a positive effect on the people near us.  Every time I don’t supplicate to a woman, I’ve done one very small act to lower her pedestal a little.  By sharing the red pill with men (and especially boys) in little ways, I hope to save them some of the agony I went through.  We can still get back to that Biblical model of marriage in individual families and small churches, and that’s worth doing.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “To Game or Not To Game?

  1. A man today hasn’t just lost the support of the churches and other institutions; they’ve gone over to the other side. So to win, he has to become that much stronger, more powerful, more dominant. He — I, as someone who inherited a lot of my grandfathers’ niceness — can’t afford to play as if those groups were still on my side. I’ll get trounced. Those qualities they handed down to me aren’t enough by themselves without all that backup. I have to overcome that new opposition by learning to be (or at least act) more dominant than comes naturally to me. Enter Game.

    This encapsulates so much of the present situation in a single paragraph I wish that I had been the one to write it. To live a “normal” life these days is an abnormal thing, because so much more is demanded of men. Many can’t meet that demand, and others don’t view it as worthwhile. But worst of all- even if you can meet the demand, and do find it worthwhile, you still might not be able to get what you want.

  2. Saw your comments on Steve Sailer’s blog.

    Yes, it is societal. If girls knew that pleasant, serious young men would talk to them at, say, conferences and events, those would be the places to go and not clubs. A blood donation drive should be a great place to meet someone nice! Things like that should put clubs out of business. Clubs are horrible for girls but no one comes over to you at a nice event. Why is that? How did your grandparents meet each other?

  3. “If girls knew that pleasant, serious young men would talk to them at, say, conferences and events, those would be the places to go and not clubs. A blood donation drive should be a great place to meet someone nice! Things like that should put clubs out of business. Clubs are horrible for girls but no one comes over to you at a nice event. Why is that?”

    Because men who frequent “nice events” have been programmed from birth that their sexuality, which is naturally assertive, forward and direct, is in fact evil, bad, violent, predatory, and borderline criminal.

    Most men are also programmed to avoid rejection as much as possible, Though we as men learn that rejection is a fact of life for us, we still try to minimize it. Most men face a 90% rejection rate when approaching girls.

    Most men are also programmed that talking to girls at “nice events” during the day is flirting or “coming on” to a girl, and that’s bad bad bad, according to feminist overlords. If she thinks the guy is unattractive or isn’t in the mood, she’ll invariably refer to him as “creepy”, which is a code word for “sexual behavior by a man I find unattractive”. It’s viewed as sexual aggression and oppression, and feminists and white knights consider it to be socially unacceptable. Some localities have passed “public harassment” laws, which make it a crime to stare at a woman, look a little too long at a woman, or try to talk to an unknown woman in public.

    All of this is an attempt to control, limit, restrict, and ultimately eliminate sexual conduct by unattractive men from all of public life. Because, of course, only the unattractive, “creepy” guys will be so restricted.

  4. As for how Cail’s grandparents met:

    I’d venture a guess that Grandpa Cail was a young factory worker or farmhand with a little money and wanting to marry and start a family. He was young, strong, not fat, and probably well read. He knew how to fix a car, shoot a shotgun, row a boat, mend a fence, and build a barn.

    I’d guess Grandma Cail was a young, pretty, thin, modest virgin who’d been on a couple of dates with some boys but none she liked all that well, and she too was in her late teens or early 20s and looking to get started in life. She knew how to cook, clean, keep a house, fix clothes, and speak in public without saying “f*ck” or “shit”.

    She was probably a couple of years behind him in high school; or they met at a county fair; or their parents knew each other in town. Or they met at college – he to work as an engineer; she as a teacher. Or she was his friend’s cousin’s little sister visiting from Kalamazoo.

    He wasn’t looking to ravage her body on the first meeting; she wasn’t telling him she was a DTF girl. He wasn’t running aloof game; she wasn’t twerking on his dick. He probably said “Hi. My name is Grandpa Cail.” She probably said “Hi. I’m Grandma Cail.” And they took it from there.

  5. Deti, pretty close on all counts. I don’t actually know how either set met, but probably church, family, or neighborhood. That’s how most people met back then, especially in the country. As you say, the men didn’t run a bunch of game, and the women didn’t require it. But the men weren’t obsequious doormats, and the women weren’t immodest harpies. The men were masculine and didn’t take too much crap; the women were feminine and marriage-minded. So it just worked without a bunch of angst and manipulation, and the main attitude about marriage seemed to be that you got on with it so you could start living your life. That’s just the opposite of today’s belief that life ends with marriage, of course.

  6. Pingback: Market Failure | Donal Graeme

  7. The more rebellion is present, the more game is required.

    In marriage or an ltr, its kind of like insurance. Christians must know about game, recognise and be able to apply basic principles, or risk being blindsided.

    If a woman requires the pickup game skills of a chateau or roosh to begin with, seeking an ltr with her may not be the be wisest of choices.

  8. Awesome post. I’ve been lurking around the mano- and orthospheres for a while. The intersection of Christianity (particularly Catholicism, to which I am converting) and Game never made comfortable. I’d be lying if I said it did now, but this was a help. So, much appreciated.

    The hardest thing for me is sifting through the chaff of Game, and knowing when to jettison certain parts of it. For example, to assert dominance, but still have humility.

    I’m also perhaps hampered by the fact that, I just plain enjoy being nice. In Phillip Pullman’s antithesis to Narnia, “His Dark Materials,” people have “daemons” connected to them from birth – animal familiars that, in puberty, lose the ability to transform into any animal, and settle on a form that mirrors the personality of their human partner. The servants and soldiers all had dogs. I’d definitely have a dog. I like that about myself, and I don’t want to change it, even if it nets me a 4/10 wife than an 8/10.

    Anyway, again, thank you. It is fascinating to me, to see the present situation we’re in. Male sexuality and power demonized, young people encouraged from an early age to take immense amounts of debt. Abortion and porn. If I were the Enemy, s’probably what I’d do to bring lots of souls to Hell. Shit will hit the fan soon, though. We’re living in untruth. I pray to St. Joseph (who many in the manosphere would call a beta – raising another dude’s kid and marrying a consecrated virgin, what a chump, right?) that we can all rise up and be patriarchs capable of rebuilding the patriarchy.

  9. Jordan, thank you. I know what you mean about liking to be “nice.” Something that helped me with that was coming to understand that, while I may genuinely be a nice person, some of the niceness — especially that shown to girls I was attracted to — wasn’t entirely honest. Yes, I honestly wanted to be nice, and wanted to be their white knight, protecting them from dangers and all that. But when a girl said she just wanted to be friends and I lied and said I was happy with that, was that nice? When she cried on my shoulder about her jerk boyfriend and I said she was welcome to anytime, while inside I was seething with resentment that she would choose him over me, was that really nice?

    I realized that while much of the niceness was real, some of it was an act, done either for manipulation (try to win her over with niceness even when I’m not feeling it) or out of fear (if I’m honest with her, it might scare her away). So now when I’m tempted to be “nice” to a girl, I try to stop and ask myself: would I be doing this if she were ugly, or unavailable, or a guy? If so, then go ahead. But if the situation would call for something less nice with one of those, it should with her too.

  10. Probably not much. Some guys might still use game to compete over the prettiest girls, but you wouldn’t need it to get a wife and stay married. I always look to the example of my grandfathers, because both had long, happy marriages to women who were devoted to them until their deaths (and since). Yes, they had some natural game in the sense that they were reasonably confident and masculine, like most men of their era. But they were also mild-mannered and kind, with plenty of the “beta” traits (in the sense that some writers use that term in a positive sense). I doubt anyone would have called them “dominant.”

    However, they married women who had been taught to appreciate (if not tingle for) those traits and see marriage and children as a worthy vocation, and they lived in a society that backed that up. So they didn’t need the kind of swaggering, peacocking, overwhelming game that’s required today to keep girls from giving you fake phone numbers. The level of swagger that you get from an average 18-year-old man who hasn’t been taught to apologize for his existence was plenty. Could they have found wives and sustained life-long marriages today? I don’t know, but it certainly wouldn’t have been as sure a thing.

    I discussed something similar to this, last year on the blogosphere. I didn’t understand why American Christian women seemed to admire thuggish traits in men, and found Biblical values in men unattractive. As a half Japanese woman raised with Japanese values, my concept of “Alpha” was a decent, law-abiding man with a full-time job, devoted to providing for his family.

    I argued that instead of Christian men learning game, perhaps Christian women should be taught to appreciate Biblical male values. I was pregnant with a son at the time (unfortunately I suffered a stillbirth) and I was worried he’d grow up living in a country where Christian women didn’t love men for being good, responsible Christians.

    I theorized MGTOW is the automatic response of Christian men, who are told their values are not wanted by American women.

    (*Sorry for commenting on an old thread. Its just lately I’ve been wondering about reasons why Christians are abandoning organized faith, especially men. I think its because Christian culture sends out the conflicting message that Biblical values are irrelevant)

Comments are closed.