Zelcorpion totally has me figured out, guys:
[Quoting me] “EVEN IF you teach people to go to Rollo and Roissy to strengthen their marriage, by trying to popularize them you are also going to popularize a lot of techniques to help men get no-strings attached sex without marriage. How many are going to listen when you say “Wait! It’ll hurt society in the long run!””
Of course that is where all manosphere-guys agree – MRA,MGTOWs,Traditionalists,PUAs and Game-aware guys. It is destructive, but the first destructive force now is not in rampant Alpha-female-hoarding. It is in hypergamy and feminine imperative going on crack. Women are even encouraged to sleep around with Alphas and psychopathic Dark Triad guys in their 20s while the nice guys should wait around until she ages and bestows her fat ass upon him at the tender age of 35.
All guys – even the most hardcore PUAs know that it is best for civilization to marry young and stay monogamous. But how are the few guys with Game going to change that? The media, the economic powers that be, the entire academic world and most women nowadays blast away at this religious doctrine called feminism non-stop. Good luck fighting the entire US navy armed with a crossbow.
But you – denying ALL THE FEMINIST CRAP and just accusing men for using Game in marriage or even in hedonistic behavior – you are the biggest hypocrite. It is fine for women in their prime fucking around from ages 18 to 27, but if men are doing it for a longer time period as their SMV decays slower, then they are monsters. You want them to use Game to become strong married men in conventional relationships in an ever decaying world – some of them will do so, but yes – more will just continue fucking around, since the end goal is a Brave New World of constant fornication without attachment.
I’m going to translate this for you guys:
Women have Cosmo and feminism! To even the score we should have resources that also teach men to have sex with no strings attached. Luckily we have the pick-up artists, our very own male version of Cosmo. Thanks to them we can take advantage of all of the sluts, because frankly fuck morality. It’s 2014! Get with the times.
Oh, and by the way:
1) I never denied “ALL THE FEMINIST CRAP”, and he thinks I ever implied that is laughable. But hey, game cures cancer. What, you don’t think game is a good thing? You must really love cancer then, huh?
2) I don’t think it’s fine for females to be having lots of no-strings attached sex.
3) I’m not sure how telling me that game isn’t going to help things, and is just going to teach guys how to be more effective cads, is supposed to convince me that I’m totally wrong and game is a good thing.
4) I’m not sure how I can be “…just accusing men for using Game in marriage or even in hedonistic behavior”, since I accused no men of anything.
This is not a healthy attitude for people to take, this pseudo-worship of game as a revenge tool. This despite having no clear definition of what game actually *is*. It’s just there, man, and feminists are EVIL so why do you HATE MEN???
It’s disturbing.
Malcolm the Cynic 
The gamers *are* feminists … and feminized males (*). The pretend to be opposed to feminism, but in fact, what they’re doing is whining because feminism isn’t working out as they had been led to believe: they aren’t getting all the free-no-strings-attached it-just-falls-into-your-lap-without-you-even-trying nookie that feminism/leftism and their “Sexual Revolution” promised.
(*) they certainly aren’t men
Feminism confuses me. The latest wave of feminism. that is. Some say feminism is misunderstood and that it supports both men and women (not what I’ve read & experienced). Some say it’s about the supposed patriarchy and the support for women’s rights. Some say it’s about expanding the definition and reality of what constitutes gender. Then there’s gender studies. *rubs forehead* Then there’s women who don’t like it when other women express support for traditional/conventional roles e.g. house mom, femininity & masculinity/yin & yang.
Then there’s this crazy biotch, Zelcorpion.
Maybe this is how atheists feel when trying to learn about Christianity let alone Catholicism. : D
The main problem with your theory is that “Game” (which I have always considered a very stupid name) is a broad study which does not necessarily mean becoming a cad. It’s just that the more popular ones are indeed cads. There is a rift in the movement.
In other words. “game” is an amorphous concept that means whatever people who use game want it to mean.
I won’t speak for Drew, but I don’t think having a “broad study” necessarily means the topic is amorphous, anymore than ‘psychology’ is necessarily amorphous if you just see it as a field of study rather than as a way to manipulate people into buying more things you’re selling. And my reading of Game has, with some exception, largely been that – there is a whole lot of talk about what women do, what women think, how women react, and yes, a lot of ‘If you want X then behavior Y will yield the best results here’. But that’s an if and a then. Chemistry tells you if you want mustard gas then you should follow recipe Y, but Chemistry isn’t terrorism 101.
That said, the OP response to you misfired badly. Yep, unless I missed something major here, you didn’t defend feminist behavior. And here’s why my problem with Game advocates and some MRAs comes into play: some of them have good points. But a share of them whine in a way that’s just off-putting to me. It’s bitch behavior.
And my reading of Game has, with some exception, largely been that – there is a whole lot of talk about what women do, what women think, how women react, and yes, a lot of ‘If you want X then behavior Y will yield the best results here’.
The problem is that to define game we need to look at two things:
1) What in game can you not get from anywhere else?
2) What do all of the major and earliest teachers of game have in common?
The answer: Teaching men how to get sluts.
All of this stuff about game being used in marriage and game just being about confidence or understanding women is missing the point. The game people contradict themselves, and Roissy’s sixteen commandments are an excellent example of why.
And then you get people like Rollo, who I’m supposed to accept as an expert on relationships because he used many women as a sexual toilet. We’re learning how to be men from perverts. This is a bad idea.
Malcolm,
I disagree, but instead of explaining why for now, let me ask – what have you read regarding Game? If you tell me what you’re basing your views on, I’ll have a better idea of where you’re coming from. In fact I may agree in context.
The following links are from a retired blogger who not only failed to teach the cad lifestyle, but also sometimes attacked it.
Click to access book_of_pook.pdf
http://dapook.blogspot.com/
I don’t think there is just an issue of broadness versus specificity, as Crude described. The different groups also give conflicting advice. The main commonality is that the different groups supposedly promote the common goal of improving “success” with women. And they sometimes advocate similar tactics. But your criticism of the whole “game” concept is like critiquing “medicine” because of the flaws in acupuncture or homeopathy.
You say that people can learn confidence and manliness elsewhere? Well, where? I don’t see the churches teaching it.
See, that’s the funny thing. Have you ever really looked for good alternatives? Here’s a pretty good source.
http://donalgraeme.wordpress.com/
Also, a problem is what we’re calling “success with women”. If your idea of game contradicts Roissy’s 16 commandments, then well…it’s not game, is it?
[NOTE: The first blog I linked to, while good in its own right, is actually not what I meant to link. Supposed to be this one: http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/%5D
And I want to be clear: what I’m asking for here are links to article examples, sites, etc. I just want to read what you’re reading so I know what page we’re both on.
I’ve read some (not a lot) of Rollo, some (not a lot) of Roissy, Vox Day and Alpha Game (fairly regularly, since I have a lot of respect for Vox), and Just4Guys (probably my favorite “game” site as far as those go).
For critiques of game I read Zippy quite a lot (he has an excellent series of posts on the subject – I’d start off with his “Game Cures Cancer” post, and I suggest reading the comments) and I think Cane Caldo has a lot of excellent thoughts on the subject (canecaldo.wordpress.com).
If you want to get a good idea of how I feel about game you can do worse than start off with this post from Cane: http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/cyphers-problem/
(Which leads me to point out that I read Dalrock a lot, who is excellent, but his position seems to be that with proper biblical headship game is unnecessary, and I think his posts that are actually about game are easily his worst.)
Thanks. I’ll check some of these sites and maybe write up my own views sometime soon.
John 3.