Does Game Entail Promiscuity?

Some more discussion coming off the Dalrock post I referenced in my last post about Basic Skills for Game. As usually happens, the “what is game” discussion turned towards moralism, which itself brought out a series of arguments from people who either appreciate game in an intellectual sense while eschewing it for themselves, or insisted they wanted to separate game writ large from “ethical applications” of the Venusian Arts.

Many in the religiously-oriented communities that overlap with Dalrock’s readership (and also overlap with the conservative alternative lifestyle blogs that deal with “traditional” family relationships, paleo eating, or homeschooling) have a strong aversion to premarital sex. Therefore, the potential of game to empower a man to lead a sexually active lifestyle makes game itself morally suspect. It’s also worth noting that some non-religious critics of game are decidedly critical of sexual promiscuity as a life goal or as a point of lifestyle which normally manifests as a blustering superiority in the vein of “I don’t have to bang a bunch of sluts to feel like a man.”

As this came up in the comments, I provided some thoughts on the matter I expand upon here.

1. Game is not necessarily about promiscuity, but I am glib in saying that; most young guys get into game because they want to have sex. Let’s not beat around the bush here. Sex drive is a base, and at times all-consuming, motivation for young testosterized men. It’s really something that is difficult for women to understand, as they normally don’t have the ever-present and undifferentiated desire men do. To a young virile man, the desire to have sex, more sex and more sex with more partners is on the order of eating or breathing.

It’s easy for women, who have sex basically available when they want it, or men who have a lot of sexual options, to say in a vaguely shaming manner “there’s more to life than sex,” as it’s easy to tell a hungry man there’s more to life than food when you are well-fed.

Now, that sexual desire is a base drive, one often moderated by other life pursuits or by a moral or constitutional sense of order. In essence, many men sublimate and override this impulse due to a personal self-concept of a guy who isn’t ruled by his libido. The important thing to understand is that the drive is there.

Another group of men getting into the game is married/LTR people who get into game to improve their relationships with their wives, usually for more sex but often for the collateral benefits of a less quarrelsome home. They aren’t seeking extra sexual partners, but as per Athol Kay’s Male Action Plan, sometimes the end game is to find another partner who’s more in sync with your sexual desires you thought were going to be satisfied in marriage.

I don’t see any point is positing game as some kind of abstract male self-improvement operation whose benefits happened to include sex. Game was developed by men who wanted to get better at having sex.

So, game is about having sex in some form, and is often about getting sex from new partners. The next point builds on this.

2. In the West, only an extreme minority of people have 0 or 1 sexual partners throughout their lives. Western society is already promiscuous, in all of its subcultures and classes; poor, rich, white, black, educated, uneducated, every group has a sexual marketplace where active trading is happening.

IOW we’ve established what society is, game is just haggling over the price. Game is a way to get a better deal for yourself for the promiscuity society already sanctions. To add to this, you may not feel your manhood increase because you are bagging new quarries, but preselection means that women sure do. Part of the game is flexing preselection, or at least faking it well enough, and much field work has found that even among those professing chastity, declaring your own can be a ladyboner killer.

To say game is bad because it involves promiscuity is looking at the finger instead of the moon.

3. Now let’s explore how promiscuity itself fits into the quest for game. I have made this point many times on my blog and other places: most guys who get into game are not trying to get the highest notch count possible – most guys are jealous of their player friends’ abilities with girls, but don’t necessarily want to be them. They want to be able to get a girlfriend, keep her, get a new one if she doesn’t work out, and keep their future wife sexually interested in them. Most guys do not want to be tomcats all their lives and desire a partner and family. This has been surveyed and researched fairly conclusively. As I said in the previous post, it’s not the abundance as much as the abundance mentality these guys are seeking – it’s a real bummer to have the rest of your life together (good health, good career, respect of your peers) but feel unable to attract women and out of control of the love and family aspect of things.

Speaking as one of those guys, the problem from our side is that women seem to be specifically attracted to men who don’t want to commit, and so the commitment-minded men find they have to put on a show of non-commitment to attain a woman’s interest. Now women complain about screening “fake assholes” in additional to real ones; the market has given them what they demanded, so that’s their own problem as far as I’m concerned.

A good dose of game gives these men that sense of control over their own sexual fate, that they don’t have to be at the mercy of their woman’s choices and out if the cold if she loses interest. In fact, many men who DO get into game specifically to bang a lot of women find they get bored with that, and look instead for one high-quality woman they can depend on instead of a series of floozies. There was a commenter in the Dalrock thread named Anthony who stated he has no intrinsic interest in being a dominator or a player, and he finds running game exhausting and outside of his own personality – but he tolerates it enough to keep his relationships going.

3b. To back away from the specifics a bit, I agree with commenter J R: “I think the Roissysphere debate has become sterile and needlessly polemical.” Roissy is an affected intellectual (clearly a sharp thinker but also putting on an intentionally puffed-up academic persona), and his geosexualpolitics are interesting if you’re into that sort of thing, but most guys don’t give a crap beyond the game basics he is continually pointing out. I don’t at all mean to pick on Roissy himself; Roissy’s vision and sheer volume of output helped make him the number one most cited figure in the Manosphere (and the namesake of the pre-Manosphere game-writers’ collective dubbed the Roissysphere); however the powerful appeal of his candlelight-revolutionary frame and style, which was duplicated or aped by dozens of game writers and cultural analysts, has passed.  It is one reason that Ferdinand Bardamu, followed by a bevy of Manosphere heavyweights, quite resolutely gave up the ghost. There is also something to the idea that Roissy had the master’s touch as the initiator of a format that his admirers could not successfully emulate, but Roissy himself stopped being that long ago anyway.

Not to mention that the nature of the ideas we are discussing means that an aggressive, combative posture alienates potential allies and induces the keepers of the status quo to marginalize and crush our members. We can be resolute and committed without being abrasive and disagreeable.

This is one place where, to take a notable example, Athol Kay’s work stands out by contrast: he’s a practical realist, focused strongly on action, and doesn’t spend a lot of time waxing philosophic without moving towards an explanation, motivation or action path forward. Even by Manosphere standards, his is a very active-masculine approach that aims to produce results and disarms critics in the process.


This last item was inspired by the general snipey, “you show me yours” attitude on the Dalrock thread. There is a certain point beyond which arguing all this stuff on the Internet is beta – you gotta get out and live your real life. If you think game is a big fraud and whatever mating strategy you have is yielding you optimal results, knock yourself out; I’ve lost the will to try to convince you otherwise. If you’re down with an alternate way of thinking about dating and society, maybe some stuff on my blog will help you move forward and I hope you enjoy it. So many posts and words have been written on this stuff, and almost every point or quibble raised by critics, haters, trolls, bots and even genuinely curious fellow travelers and skeptics has been hashed out and answered somewhere already. As I mentioned, you’ve seen a lot of good Manosphere writers fold up in the last few months, and this is another big reason it’s happened – most people don’t have the patience to discuss the same thing more than a few times before they decide they’re done arguing.



Filed under Uncategorized

36 responses to “Does Game Entail Promiscuity?

  1. OffTheCuff

    According to the CDC, 33.5% of women 15-44 have 0 or 1 partners. That is a minority, but it doesn’t seem so extreme. When I first saw this chart, I was shocked the high N’s were as common as they are. Worth reading in detail, especially tables 1-4:

  2. Deli

    Okay, I’ll be very simplistic and throw my thought out here:

    The Game as a tool set (not as an ideology or life view) specifically mentions different tools for different stages. And if we go by the more or less classical stages of “approach, isolate, escalate, seal the deal”, the thing is – the last stage can’t be practiced without having sex (I can almost here the thundering “Well, duhh!”). With different partners.

    I can imagine a guy going all the way to the last stage and stopping there just to hone his skill, repeatedly blowing off girls of various hotness and leaving a track of female blue balls in his wake. First 3 stages – yeah, you can have target practice and not fire the live ammunition.

    But the tools Game suggests for the last stage can not be practiced in the “safe controlled environment” – last stage is life ammo and an actual opposing force.

    So I don’t see how a person who “practices game” – as in tries to get better in it for what ever reason – can do so without having sex with different partners.

  3. taterearl

    Most men cans sense that the Disneyfied version of nice guy romantic jumping through hoops to get the princess doesn’t cut it in the real world. The problem is that the media keeps spoon feeding that garbage to most guys that they don’t know any other way to relate to women.

    With game I’ve not only found how to relate to women…when then do something that seems “illogical” in my mind, game makes it logical. I can tell you now every screw up I had with women was because I went overboard with the “nice guy-beta-supplicating” traits. If I was a woman, I’d dump me or not respond too.

    In a sense, game has stopped me from having unnecessary anger toward women when they don’t follow the logical script I have in my mind. Now I have a clue of what to do, how to do it, and the why behind it. Peace of mind to me is just as or moreso important than sex.

  4. Matthew

    15-44 is a useless cohort for this purpose, wrong at both ends. A study covering 18-32 would be less wrong.

  5. Pingback: Critcs of Game part 1 « M3

  6. Ospurt

    Sexual Morality is fluid. Biology drives, society controls/molds and religious/spirituality helps us understand and feel better about the disconnect between biology and society.

    As a newcomer to the Manosphere, I find the core concepts of why it is necessary for men follows self differentiation theory, much like the ones espoused by psychologists such as David Schnarch and Edwin Freidman. Both men are spiritual (Friedman was a Rabbi), but they are very non-judgemental about human sexuality and what it brings about. Oddly enough, one central idea is that monogamy actually wins out as you become more differentiated, but like pointed out above, it sometimes leads to the destruction of the current or previous choice in sexual partners. Basically, when you figure out who you are, what you want, and employ tools be be you and get what you want, you seek quality, not quantity.

    Since I’m 42, childless and recently divorced, it would seem that I am the prototypical guy for game to help me drive up a massive notch count if I wanted. Yes, the manosphere put a name to my natural alpha traits, and expose the Massive Beta White Knight I had become through all my marriage strife/trauma, but picking up sluts in bars every couple of days wasn’t on my radar. I really just needed to able to move past all that Beta fear and worry of being lonely and pining for sexual affection, and be enough alpha to get what I wanted.

    Scoring someone points higher than what you left, and knowing you can do it again if you had to is what makes the difference in my life.. not the notch count.

  7. deti

    “most guys who get into game are not trying to get the highest notch count possible – most guys are jealous of their player friends’ abilities with girls, but don’t necessarily want to be them. They want to be able to get a girlfriend, keep her, get a new one if she doesn’t work out, and keep their future wife sexually interested in them. *** As I said in the previous post, it’s not the abundance as much as the abundance mentality these guys are seeking”

    I am seeing a meme developing that what’s really driving the manosphere is the notion that the men who are getting into game are resentful because they didn’t get picked to be one of the horses on the carousel. This presupposes that all men who get into game want to be PUAs, and there will be roving bands of Roissy/Roosh wannabes deflowering women from coast to coast. This is never, ever going to happen even if men wanted that, and I see few men in the ‘sphere even calling for that. Most men can’t pull off hardcore PUA, and most men don’t want it.

    I’m also seeing the argument that male sexuality is just as rampant and out of control as female sexuality is. The difference is that most men aren’t benefiting from sex with DTF sluts, so men getting into game and commenting on manosphere blogs are full of resentment because they aren’t as desirable as the horses on the carousel. This seems to ignore the truths that there are a lot of men who are “together” and still can’t generate interest. It seems to admit the truth that there is a small number of very attractive men who are getting a good piece of the action to the exclusion of many other men. It also seems to be just a sophisticated way of saying “you are all bitter, angry losers who can’t get laid!”

  8. M3

    Brilliant as always Badger!

    I find the hardest part is when trying to apply game and it doesn’t work on one specific type of woman.. and then that woman will try and talk you out of applying what you’ve learned and just be ‘nice’ and stuff.

    The greatest counter to that is ‘Would you date me then if i was nice?’ Chances are she’ll say no, offering any number of reasons why it wouldn’t work between you two, in which case you can say that you’ll take your chances with self improvement and attraction triggers over being a doormat and LJBF bait.

  9. Jacob Ian Stalk

    Game is so short-sighted. It puts foolish and ignorant men on the fast-track to the sacrificial altar of the sacred feminine. Using what is essentially a female tactic to attract men for (primarily casual) sex is to behave in the manner of women without the procreative purpose. Turning men into rutting goats can only lead to an abdication of male leadership and undermine their primacy in the serious business of life. When you think on this deeply, the practical consequences of the widespread adoption of Game are no different to those under feminism: Alpha males as controlled breeding stock.

  10. Agree with Taterearl – it’s much easier on my soul to live in a world grounded in understandable and identifiable principles than it was to live in the capricious and irrational world of my blue-pill dating life.

    On the polemic nature of manosphere content: I think, to an extent, it’s useful for those new to game. It’s inherently harsh stuff compared to blue-pill world, so the natural impulse is to tone things down if you apply it in practice. I think that more balanced approaches might get further moderated into ineffective half-measures, and that real-world success, not general palatability, is the lifeblood of the manosphere.

    On top of that, people still don’t find this corner of the internet unless you’re really trying, usually trying to improve their dating outcomes; they’re often the most in need of some of the toughest love the ‘sphere gives.

    Of course, treating the internet as serious business, adopting bluster to sell snake oil, or just doing it out of investing too much ego in one aspect of life is still no good.

  11. Anonymous Reader

    Females age 15 – 44 is a nice example of “How To Lie With Statistics”. By averaging in all the mid-teen girls who are not yet sexually active with sexually active 20-somethings and 30-somethings, etc. the “average” can be brought down. I’m sure the number of women who have had 0 – 1 partners is even lower if “women” is defined to include 10-year olds, but that might be too obvious. As previously noted, the N for women over 18, especially the 18-32 year old group, is much more relevant. There is a group of women in that cohort with 0 – 1 sexual partners, but it is not 40%, and probably is not even 30%.

    Badger: I believe that many anti-Came tradcon / socons are just angry that someone outside of their in-group learned more about women than they did, and is teaching other men the truth. Remember, they are supposed to have all the truth about men and women. Except they clearly do not (divorce rates prove it) and their world view is threatened by the ideas inherent in Game. Hence the anger. Note how often socons / tradcons argue like women , in purely emotive terms, dispensing with fact entirely, and employing passive-aggressive discourse. They come to the argument totally unprepared for it, and when this is shown, resort to snark, sullen whining, and eventually leave. I can list by name several of them who have passed through Dalrocks (a couple likely are the same person posting under different handles). Their frame is almost entirely in terms of group-think, and boils down to “YOu are not of my in-group, if you were you would not have trouble with women”. Again, see the divorce rates…in addition to the legions of Nice Guy churchgoing men who could not even get a female fly to land on them until they learned some Game, the scads of churchgoing Average Married Chumps who went from sexless “companion marriage” (chumpage) to something better via some form of Kay’s MAP, and so forth. The socon/tradcons are fighting a losing battle against reality, in my opinion, in their tirades against Game.

    All: For fun, take any anti-Game argument and reformat it in terms of public speaking. Thus PUA’s becomes Toastmasters, “attracting women” becomes “effective speaking”, and so forth. See how absurd any anti-Game argument becomes – “no one can actually teach another man how to speak to a crowd”, “just be yourself”, “it doesn’t matter how you speak”, and so forth.

  12. Infantry

    I’m definitely past the point of trying to convince blue-pillers of the validity of my life choices. People have just invested too much emotional time and energy into their paradigms. I’ll only ever have a quiet conversation with men who are starting to question the status quo.

    For me I spent a few years in nightclubs training as a PUA, which I think may have been a mistake because I’m an INTP and don’t function the best in the sanguine nightgame environment. I traded a modicum of game knowledge for a massive amount of cynicism. The reason I got into PUA was that there was not the ‘middle ground’ of the manosphere game blogs. It was either hardcore PUA counter-culture or blue-pill dating advice. I’m glad guys getting into game now have a sliding scale of options that can be suited to their own temperaments.

    When I do talk to other guys about game, I make sure to frame it as a skillset or toolbox and equate it to makeup or pushup bras. Men don’t want to be socially extracised by being labelled a PUA or player (ironic as owning the label will act as preselection with a certain type of woman).

    I’ve done my time as a keyboard jockey trying to push red pill truths on blue pill dating advice sites, but I just don’t have the time or energy these days. The good news is that I don’t have to; there are plenty of other men taking up that banner.

  13. Dr. Eric Stratton

    Such arguments about morality tend to treat game as an end rather than a means. It’s like arguing about the morality of a hammer. The opponents focus on abstractions rather than what truly perturbs them.

  14. You know, the sexually fulfilled Alpha shaming the sexless Omega is certainly very similar to the well-fed man shaming the hungry man. Both are at the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

    This is why feminists shaming men for wanting sex gets to me greatly. It doesn’t effect my personal life, I don’t give a damn what feminists say, but in a sense of brotherhood I feel like this needs done.

    I know what it is like to be a loser in the SMP, so I know what so many men are going through.

    I agree that most men simply do not want to be promiscuous, they just want a girl they are sexually and emotionally compatible with, and they really don’t want to go through many girls to find it. These men need helped, they do not need told by society that the right girl will ‘come along.’ Then again, the tools are here, they have to find them on their own.

    Some will, we are thusly active, others will find it then leave, still more will reject out of hand.

  15. OffTheCuff

    Good point, but did you guys even look at the PDF which breaks it down by age bracket? For ALL age brackets the women with n=1 is over 20%. Table 3, page 19.

  16. Vicomte

    I’m going to keep saying this until people listen:

    A study of the self-reported sexual habits of women will NEVER be accurate. They will lie, rationalize, and unintentionally misrepresent. We all know why and how.

    Also, such studies, flawed as they already are, will never be useful for our purposes as men until they are controlled for physical attractiveness.

    This is because ugly women, for our purposes, do not exist.

  17. Wudang

    “of women 15-44”

    What is the number for women AT 44?

  18. tj

    Good post, Badger

    Find myself in agreement with you – whatever works – awesome. Looking at my own journey, I learned game elements so I could move past being a blue pill nice guy – and that’s not the same thing as desiring to get laid constantly.

    Never had quite understood why so many get hung up on these issues and definitional requirements.

    Keep on with the keen insights

  19. Anonymous Reader

    OffheCuff, I have known churchgoing girls who proclaimed themselves to be virgins, because they had never had P in V sex. Their high school boyfriends reported good BJ skills – chrome right off of a tow hitch, yep – but the girls were still virgins, in their own minds. And that’s all that matters.

    Because if one defines “sex” as P in V intercourse, then BJ’s are not sex, as in “I did not have sex with that woman” and therefore the men BJ’s are done to are not “sex partners”. So those girls who had done oral with some number of young men could report “0 – 1” and claim to be honest, even though their count might be 1 – 3 or so. College aged women who provide oral and even anal sex to a series of LTR’s could claim the same, all that is needed is the rationalization that “sex” means “penis in vagina” and nothing else counts. Rationalization is a powerful thing.

    Self – reported sex polls likely have pretty big margin of error. As I’m sure you are aware, if the error margin is too big, the data has no meaning.

  20. didn’t even read the post, but i know the answer.

    for a man in his 20’s…YES. and man in his 30’s and above…NO, it just helps you screen future with more discretion. in my 20’s i was a beast.

    now, i still love women, but the desire to fuck everyone of them i’m attracted to has waned. it’s a natural progression i think. game simply allows me to interact with them and make them tingle. if i wanna eat, i escalate. if not….i simply make her smile laugh and carry on.

  21. RG3

    Perhaps it would be helpful to re-classify Game as a subset of a higher discipline?

    Re-name it Charm, and all of a sudden it becomes useful for handling your boss, your co-worker, your teamate, the hot flight attendant, your kid’s teacher, your mother-in-law…in addition to attraction targets.

    One would be hard pressed to find opposition to being more charming.

    Game is only relevant for a modest portion of our lives, regardless of what Viagara and Cialis commercials tell you. Men, if lucky, outgrow their desires. Males aged late teens through early mid-life benefit the most from game; that’s a third of life.

    Becoming a Man in Full, charming, strongly masculine, reflective, decisive, grounded, helps in every lifestage and arena of life. Considered from this broader perspective, its no suprise then that many Gamers end up focusing on Inner Game. Game, to me, is merely a useful sub-component in my strategy and goal for living a full life. Its effectiveness should be judged purely on those grounds. Game, essentially romantic ninjitsu, is only made moral in its application, not its formulation or effectiveness.

  22. The Private Man refers to game as “Charisma” to take away some of the stigma and to emphasize its larger purpose.

  23. Isaac Jordan


    I can understand the average blue-piller’s disbelief in the efficacy of game. When your parents, your friends, your teachers, your pastor, your television, your culture, and most importantly your own mind are all telling you what you believe to be true (what you WANT to be true), it takes a monumental amount of effort to even BEGIN questioning the world around you. And IF you make it that far, you still need the intelligence to piece together and understand the concepts, the will to change your thoughts and behaviors, and the commitment to continue practicing your newfound beliefs until you see results. It’s no wonder most guys can’t handle the red pill.

    Like you were saying the other day: humanity has never had more accurate and abundant information on health and fitness available (not to mention cheap and convenient access to gyms, fresh fruits and vegetables, etc.), yet never before have we seen so many fat, disgusting slobs. Attempting to persuade these people to be healthier, with either logic or rhetoric, carrots or sticks, will yield no results. They are plugged in, and it is no use trying to unplug them. Game is much the same way: better to focus on helping those who have escaped the Matrix, rather than attempting to convince those living in the Matrix that it does not exist. And for many of us, the help and advice dispensed in blogs like this one have been invaluable.

    Yet at the same time, our little corner of the Internet seems to wilting. Most major ideas have been thoroughly fleshed out, and all that’s left to discuss is minutiae. Some of us have left. Many of us, having settled for living in a bubble of red amidst a sea of blue, are content with using just enough game to get what we want and then relax. The rest of us continue to play with the same basic ideas dressed up in slightly different outfits. While that may not be a bad thing (there’s a reason most sermons are slightly altered renditions of the same core moral concepts), it has certainly become difficult to move forward at the same pace. Unless there is another Big Idea (akin to, say, hypergamy) floating around out there that we have somehow left undiscovered, it seems that the Manosphere may be peaking.

    There will always be a need for intelligent discourse, and I hope that writers such as yourself will continue to lead the way. But there is only so much that can be accomplished through words; eventually, action will have to take their place. The next step for the Manosphere is not a new blog or two; it is moving away from the Internet and INTO THE REAL WORLD. It is getting all of these intelligent, passionate, creative men together in a room and having them do what men do best: build something. I don’t know what that something will be. A business. A PAC. A community. Whatever it is, it’s important that we not get caught up in online bickering and trivialities. Yes, we have swallowed the red pill, and we have seen just how far down the rabbit hole actually goes. But now we have to do something about it.

  24. Looking Glass

    One side point to the Promiscuity aspect. You see this in any younger female focused fiction (not just Twilight, but everyone would probably think that way). And it’s this: Once a guy has “won” the girl over, sex happens *almost wholly on his terms*. Women that are “in love” (read: actually just in heat) are ready to sleep with a guy.

    This is why most of the responses to Game are “he just wants to get laid all the time”. It’s to deny the reality that getting sex from a woman is a “clear the bar” system. Once you clear it, the only reason sex isn’t happening is the guy chooses not to.

    So, to most men, what they’re looking for is information for learning how to actually jump (since we see other guys that must be Olympic high jumpers for how easy they have it with women), from which point the guy’s natural tendencies would take over. To women and white knights, having a larger group of men suddenly know what the “jump height” actually is in the new SMP is terrifying, since women have very little self-control taught to them anymore. (When it used to be: get job/money/stability then get laid, notice how productive our society was?)

    Food for thought.

  25. Few points:

    Even if men are getting into game to sleep with more women, what is wrong with that? I do not see little angels holding out for “The One” out there. Girl comes by says hello to the guys on the table, then one mentions, me and four of my friends have banged her. He, handsome, four friends, douches. On the same table you have good guys who had not have sex even once in the last three years, or again good guys who have had one partner in the last year; drunk. Same girl walks around as if the is the little innocent diamond.

    No, men learning to game women to get laid more often is like a man worker learning to get water in a bottled water factory.


    0-1 partners for 30% of women.

    “I’ve only been with ten guys”; from a girl who considers herself chaste
    “I’ve only been with 16 guys”, a girl who mentions her father’s shotgun
    “I am a virgin”, a girl who’s been assfucked by her highschool classmate when three other classmates watching
    “I am a virgin”, from a girl who give pro blowjobs….

    I would not even believe the 3% at this point if they said they had only one partner. (no partner I would believe)

    On Deti’s comment;

    “I’m also seeing the argument that male sexuality is just as rampant and out of control as female sexuality is. ”

    That argument totally ignores the point that no matter how rampant and out of control male sexuality is, it’s outlet is female sexuality and that is on a strictly controlled supply, by women, concerning majority of men.

    Male sexuality, barring the few instances of rape, and the little percentage of men who are the choosers, is fully controlled by female choice in who she shares her sexuality with.

  26. Höllenhund

    “Like you were saying the other day: humanity has never had more accurate and abundant information on health and fitness available (not to mention cheap and convenient access to gyms, fresh fruits and vegetables, etc.), yet never before have we seen so many fat, disgusting slobs. Attempting to persuade these people to be healthier, with either logic or rhetoric, carrots or sticks, will yield no results. They are plugged in, and it is no use trying to unplug them.”

    The main reason for their attitude isn’t them being plugged in. It’s that humanity has never had fewer incentives to stay fit and healthy. The causes are many and I’m sure you’re aware of them: the sedentary lifestyle enabled by the marginalization of hard physical labor and technological progress, the gradual marginalization of social roles where physical fitness is a distinct advantage, plus the gradual disappearance of Hobbesian environments where physical fitness is a must.

    The causes for Game not spreading are the same. Average female quality has pretty much bottomed out throughout the West, and therefore men never had fewer incentives to pursue women and invest in them in any way. They simply cannot be bothered, because the potential prize is too small.

  27. Höllenhund

    I’ll have to slightly disagree with you about Roissy. One main reason he has become so famous is his excellent and unorthodoy social commentary. I believe that has pulled in at least as many men as his Game posts. Lots of people eagerly consume that sort of commentary.

    Ferdinand Bardamu was simply not an outstanding blogger. He was above average in terms of intelligence, but that alone simply won’t cut it. He eventually ran out of things to say, and that was it.

  28. sunshinemary

    Anonymous Reader wrote:

    I believe that many anti-Came tradcon / socons are just angry that someone outside of their in-group learned more about women than they did, and is teaching other men the truth. Remember, they are supposed to have all the truth about men and women […] in addition to the legions of Nice Guy churchgoing men who could not even get a female fly to land on them until they learned some Game, the scads of churchgoing Average Married Chumps who went from sexless “companion marriage” (chumpage) to something better

    That is really an interesting observation and clears up some confusion for me. One of my readers is a Christian man who has learned some (non-promiscuous) game and has been trying to share it with men in his church; only he now has to have a disciplinary meeting the pastor of his church because he’s got these formerly extreme beta guys comfortable initiating and controlling conversations with girls in the church, and the church leadership suspects he is working some kind of voodoo or something. It didn’t make any sense to me why they should be upset, but I think you are right, it must be some kind of jealousy or something.

  29. “The causes for Game not spreading are the same. Average female quality has pretty much bottomed out throughout the West, and therefore men never had fewer incentives to pursue women and invest in them in any way. They simply cannot be bothered, because the potential prize is too small.”

    Making a lot of sense as always, Mr Hell Hound. If Relationship/Marriage Game were an entirely different kettle of fish to Sexytime Game, I’d never learn the former, because there is zero incentive for me to get into LTR or marriage. If I didn’t live in a highly cosmopolitan area with lots of attractive young girls, I’d never learn Game at all. Two third of women in this country are fat, and once you eliminate the uglies and crazies from the rest, for an average bloke in other areas, there is fuck all incentive to game them.

  30. Pingback: Game and the Single Christian Man « Free Northerner

  31. madvillian

    Good article, but I see I’m seeing these sort of obituaries for the manosphere as if there’s nothing really left to talk about involving men and relationships with women, or the lives of men in general. The discussion of men and masculinity from the red-pill, non-feminine-imperative perspective is ongoing, as it should be indefinitely.

    There’s this strange thing about men where some of them want to shut down conversation about men (not saying you’re doing that). Only a small minority of men are even aware of the manosphere or game. I see game (relationships with women, not just sex) and masculinity evolving, and eventually some sort of successful and profitable on-line magazine that has a manospherian viewpoint.

    Roosh already has a good title: Return of Kings. If that amounts to anything I don’t know, but there’s a market for it in my opinion. This has just begun.

  32. Pingback: Badger Hut Tackles Game And Promiscuity « 22to28 :: Don't screw up

  33. Excellent post, Badger. I attempted to write up some commentary in response to this post on my own blog, but quickly discovered that you’d covered all the bases and there was nothing to add. So, I just posted a link.

    This is very relevant to some of the recent discussion over in my corner of the Internet, so I very much appreciate you posting this.

  34. I got into game because I got rocked by a BPD girl, and broke my heart. I fell into this, and for a while used my power for sex, and was amazed at the results. But now…meh. Game is useful to dominate social dynamics but as far as just getting sex, i saw it could be done, and have moved onto new ‘games’ so to say.

  35. RG3

    For some reason, WordPress decided to re-send half the comments from this post to my email this morning. Being the day after Christmas, I naturally had nothing better to do that think up more responses to what is somewhat a silly topic.

    To assert that game directly leads to promiscuity robs Mens of their free will. Just because I can talk a girl out of her virtue doesn’t mean I’m robotically compelled to in every social engagement. Seems silly to have to state the obvious, but the rhetorical questioned phrased in the title demanded it.

    I earlier commented that game is a subset of broader social dynamics. Calling game a broader name such as charm, or another commenter’s submission, charisma, easily makes the point.

    Game is also Social MMA. It combines Anthropology, Psychology, and other Social Science and Humanities disciplines. Mystery’s greatest contribution to furthering game was probably the addition of Evol Psych. To think that dorky gamers everywhere are getting laid, standing on the shoulders of such intellectual giants Richard Dawkins (leading Evol Psych evangelist and father of meme theory), Edward Hall (father of Framing), Susan Blackmore (mother of meme theory), Jerome Barkow (academic who married Evol Psych andn Sex), David Buss (academic who popularized Barkow’s ideas in “The Evolution of Desire”), etc.

    Nearly all game concepts can be traced to these old stodgers. Roissy’s love of the Dark Triad? Check. Style and Mystery’s Peacocking? Check. Real Social Dynamic’s Body Language Nuance’s? Check. The Mirror Neuron? Check. Tyler D’s Eye Contact management? Check. Psycho/Social Dominace? Check.

    Moving from silly to ironic, is the embrace of game by Conservative Christian bloggers.. Aunt Haley and Sunshine Mary (whom I love) have armies of dedicated readers and commenters using game theory to tear down satanic feminism, rid the church of pussification, and re-build traditional Godly chaeuvinism (sp?). Perhaps the end justifies the means, but they are somewhat ignorantly, IMHO, and ironically, using the hardest of hardcore athiest orthodoxy, that being evolution, to do so.

    God bless em.

  36. RG3

    Back to the theory of game.

    One of these academics I referenced in my last comment does a good job of placing game in its broader social context. From a 1976 compliation of academic papers called “The Social Structure of Attention,” British researcher chick writes in her paper “Attention, Advertence, and SocialControl.” Apologies in advance for her wordiness. She probably got paid by the word.

    “A broad principle is needed governing the relatedness of biological and cultural phenomena and it can be found in the general tendency of complex systems to incorporate and put to new purposes component systems and the elements thereof. This is, of course, a very general property of systems and is familiar to us within the field of biology under a number of guises such as in the evolutionary transformation of a primarily sexual response, such as presentation in a primate, to one whose significance lies in the complex network of relationships surrounding and incorporating the individual. Thus many, and perhaps all, systems of behavior [like game] have a capacity for multi-level operation. They are used and re-used over and over again at a number of levels of behavioral and social integration. Therefore, in a socially organized animal such as man, they become available to the social process and are chanelled and moulded to social purposes which may be only minimally related to survival functions [like mating] which the behavior in question originally served. The more complex the social capacities of the species under discussion, the more sophisticated we can expect these uses and re-uses to be….complex moral systems, such as those underlying codes of female modesty [lol what?] and male honour [brits spell stuff wrong], are based on systemic transformations of behaviourial capacities such as those subserving the allocation and management of attention.”

    She later illustrates her point that social attention, or game, is quite useful in settings like an embassy cocktail party. The Cold War was raging at her time of publication. Can you imagine the international consequences if the American ambassador’s young, dashing Attache for Cultural Affairs seduced the Russian Ambassador’s wife? She could have spied for us, and helped end the Cold War a decade or two earlier, saving us the cost of the Reagan Build-up.

    Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People” is a game stand-by. For decades, the Dale Carnegie institute has trained business people in social dynamics so they can get an edge. The same stuff can help a college geek get laid for the first time. “Uses and re-uses…”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s