Random thoughts on 'Game'

I beg Gentle Reader's indulgence if "Game" is unfamiliar (*) ... one hasn't missed much, I'm thinking. This post is meant primarily as a response to someone on another blog. But, I figure that if I'm going to take the time to answer the fellow, I might as well post it on my own blog.

Also, this may be another of "those posts" ... the sort Cathy doesn't want her nephew even to see. 'Cause there is probably going to be some "language" in it.

(*) For instance, one of my sisters is finally reading some of my posts, and I'd just bet that she's never heard of "Game."

First, the background --

Recently, the blogger at 'Haley's Halo,' whom I understand to be a relatively young Christian woman who nonetheless pays attention to "Game," as though it and its aficionados have anything worthwhile to say about human beings, put up a post called Hypergamy and the stigma of being the back-up plan. Now, it's a fairly good little essay, in spite of its anti-Christian presuppositions.

Skepticism seemingly being my nature, I made a comment questioning one of the "givens" of "Game" that she accepts and asserted: namely that women are naturally "hypergamous."

Haley: "Given women’s hypergamous natures, …"

Ilíon: Do women really have a hypergamous nature (any more than men have a promiscuous nature (*) )? Or is that largely, or mostly, social conditioning or expectations? - women certainly seem, on average, to have a sheepish nature with respect to the expectations, no matter how odd, of their social circle.

And, whether women do have a hypergamous nature, doesn’t the nature of what constitutes “marrying up” vary by social conditioning or expectations? And, if it is women’s nature to “marrying up,” how can societies in which women are expected to “marry down” last from generation to generation? (many American Indian peoples, including the Aztecs and Mayas) I mean, how can a society fundamentally at odds with the natures of either women or men endure?

And, if women have hypergamous natures, considering that in modern-day America most black-white interracial pairings are between a white woman and a black man, does that mean that in modern-day America black men generally have higher status and better prospects than white men? Or, does it mean something else … like say, that the “social elites” constantly portray that pairing as most desirable … and women tend to do what they’re told they’re expected to do?


Haley: "Given women’s hypergamous natures, however, I started wondering if more church women would say yes to a date with a man who had just been out on a date with another woman from the same church group."

Ilíon: Women are competitive with other women. Also, they’re humans … and as humans, they tend, especially when more immature, to most want what someone else already has. So, a man that no other woman seems to desire will be seen by most women as undesirable … it has next to nothing to do with his qualities, but rather with the perception, which doesn’t even need to reflect reality, that *other* women want him.

By the way (in reference to my claim that women are generally sheepish), that sister who finally sometimes reads my blog is a most unsheepish woman. Without going into details, most woman can be made to say or do just about anything, including confessing to terrible crimes of which they are innocent, if one convinces then that one has the ability to take away their children if they do not "cooperate." This didn't work when a young (female) prosecutor-on-the-make tried to use my sister as one of the bodies on which she built her career.


In case the term is unfamiliar, "hypergamy" is a sociological/anthropological term referring to marraige patterns in a given society whereby persons of one sex typically (and/or by social expectation) marry persons of higher social status. In common terms, it means "marrying up."

So, if women are naturally "hypergamous," then women would always, or near enough as makes no difference, seek to marry men of higher social status than themselves.

However, when "Game" aficionados claim that "Women are naturally hypergamous," what they mean, bluntly, is "Women are sluts by their very natures." Or, to be less direct about it, they mean, "By their very natures, women *always* have their feelers out for a "better deal" than the man with whom they currently have sexual relations."

Now, I won't deny that there are women like this -- hell! some of them are even my relatives, whom I painfully love, and can I assure Gentle Reader that it is no picnic seeing and trying to live with the damage they pointlessly inflict upon themselves, their (passing) men and their children -- but to claim that *all* women are like this, and by their very natures? I'm sorry, but that's bullshit.

Moreover, the new man is almost never a "better deal" than the discarded man -- but, and this is the important thing, he is generally "more exciting" than the discarded man. And I don't mean that he's better in bed (and even if he were, how would a woman know that *before* she has dumped her man), I mean that he brings emotional "drama" into her life.

There are many factors which go into explaining why so many contemporary women are so willing to make of themselves sluts, but "hypergamy" is not one of them.

Later, 'Y81' commented:

Y81: Ilion’s point about competitiveness (as opposed to hypergamy) reminds me of how I started dating my wife. I was at a party, and, as the party was breaking up, I said to another girl, “why don’t we have lunch sometime.” (The other girl wasn’t really a romantic interest, but I was trying to get married, so I was on a campaign to have dates with everyone. You have to kiss a hundred frogs to find a prince, you have to have a hundred lunches to make a sale, etc.) Anyway, my wife was piqued that I hadn’t asked her. I actually didn’t know her very well, which is why. So she said, “What about me? Why aren’t you asking me to have lunch?” So I got her number and later I called her, because obviously a girl you don’t know very well is a better prospect than a girl you have already written off as a romantic prospect. The rest is history.

As my wife said later, her original motivation was not a strong feeling for me, much less a hypergamous impulse, whatever that would mean in this context, but pure competitiveness, that a guy was asking another girl out, and not her.

To which 'Cane Caldo' responded:

And that is why they call it Game. A textbook example.

To which I quipped:

But “Game” is still BS, including its textbooks.

To which 'Cane Caldo' replied:

On another thread, here, I asked what you meant by “Game is BS”, and you declined to answer…unless you waited several days.

I ask again.

So, at last, Gentle Reader, we come to my response to 'Cane Caldo,' which is the prompting of this post.

"... and you declined to answer ..."

1) Did I, now?
2) Do I answer to you -- do I stand at your beck-and-call? (Do you agree to stand at mine?)


"On another thread, here, I asked what you meant by “Game is BS” ..."

I mean precisely what I said (I guess I just roll that way) -- on whatever level one cares to analyze it, "Game" is BS. Given the fondness of "Game" aficionados for deploying acronyms -- which ought in itself to be a strong clue that "Game" just might be BS -- perhaps saying it is "BS" was too simple or direct. Perhaps I ought have said that "Game" is WCBS and had left it up to you to ascertain whether the "WC" stands for "world-class" or "water closet."


Let’s look at one aspect, the constant whinging of the wannabe “Alphas” (*) that “I’m a nice guy -- really I am -- but I *have* to act like an asshole to get the girls! 'Cause girls just don't notice nice guys, these days!!!” (All the exclamation marks are because "Game" aficionados strike me as actually being pussy-whipped girly-men, and as such surely must write like junior-high girls.)

Look, any fellow who is trying to “get the girls” is *not* a nice guy; he’s a cad or an unsuccessful wannabe cad. So, these “Game” aficionados are not merely dishonest, they’re also pathetically dishonest with themselves.

(*) That ranking system, by the way, is another aspect of the intense bullshittery of “Game,” as though a man’s worth as a man is measured by how much pussy he gets … and, moreover, by the diversity of it. Or that a woman's worth as a woman is measured by how "hot" she is; that is, by how many cads and wannabe cads currently (for time stops for no "hottie") desire to use her as though she were nothing more than a masturbation machine.


Or, let’s look at another aspect of it, Roissy’s [for Gentle Reader's benefit, 'Roissy' is one of the main "Game theorists"] characterization of women as “hypergamous” by nature and his theories and techniques on how to use that to one’s advantage. Hypergamy is about marriage, but “Game” is all about avoiding marriage while doing one’s best to indulge oneself, at the expense of other human beings, in the sexual benefits of it.

"Game" is all about using other persons, and ultimately oneself, as mere things, as means to the end of getting one's rocks off. Marriage is about something wholly different than using other human being as mere things.


Or, let’s look at another aspect of it, the risible claims of Roissy and his followers that they long for a society of traditionalist virtue, but that they, poor things, simply must make do and make their way in the feminist-dominated anti-virtuous society in which they find themselves. Is this not like the man throwing kerosene into the burning theater asserting that he longs for a society in which people do not yell “Fire!” in crowded theaters?

A virtuous man is virtuous all alone, if needs must; and he certainly does not consciously and intentionally add to the anti-virtue of his society.

"Game" aficionados are liars and hypocrites -- contrary to their constant assertions, they are not opposed to feminism and the destruction it necessarily inflicts upon our society as a whole (and which must ultimately lead to the total collapse of the society and the nation) and upon all the individuals who comprise the society. Rather, they intensely desire to freely and fully partake of the libertinism which is the natural, and intended, result of feminism; while, at the same time, whinging that no one has thought to keep for them a stash of "pure" women reserved on some upper shelf for when they are finally ready to "settle down."


======
Look, if you're all about "getting pussy" (or "getting cock," if you're a woman), then "Game," despite its essentially false and wholly inadequate anthropology, may be of some utilitarian value to you. But stop calling yourself a Christian, and stop calling yourself a "good person," for you are neither. And stop whinging that there are no good women (or good men, if you're a woman) left any more -- there are no good women (or men) in your purview because that's not what you're looking for.