Game denialism is something that started off as a reaction to the PUA bullshit of the 2000’s, where it was discovered that No-it’s-not-worth-$3000-to-learn-how-to-approach-girls, but slowly evolved into a more insidious force of angry beta males who were insistent that their failures with women were because of something outside of their control. In order to support the lie that they had no power over their sex lives, they deny that game exists.
In this blog post, I’d like to discuss the more popular criticisms of game while trying to show the more academic and psychological side of game.
Denialism #1: What you say barely matters
This criticism focuses on the passive vs. active side of game and denies that active game exists, or has little to zero impact on the seduction process. For the layman, this is the most popular criticism of game. They will argue that the only reason a man like George Clooney gets women is because he is famous, or that rich men with ugly women like Mark Zuckerberg are just weirdo’s who are outliers in the grand scheme of things.
All else being equal, they say, the man with the best looks, most money, most fame, or best connections will score the hottest chicks.
The first counter-response to this is that anyone who believes this hasn’t seen much of the world. He has not seen the countless doctors who spend all their time in the lab with no pussy to show for it, or the lawyers who make six figures in NYC but have extreme difficulty bringing girls back to their apartment, or the investment bankers who spends all of their hard earned cash on hookers. They have not seen the loser drug dealers who bang young hot skanks, or the broke musicians with their many groupies, or the salsa dancer who smashes more hot pussy in two months than most men will touch in a lifetime.
But more importantly, the philosophical problem with denialism #1 is that it denies a very influential and important school of psychology called behaviorism. Behaviorism, which starts with the premise that our thoughts do not matter in guiding our actions (a controversial, but useful, premise), believes that how animals act are largely based on what sort of stimulus it was exposed to.
Likewise, game, whether or not its adherents understand this, operates on the principle that a woman’s actions toward a man are based on what the man has previously said or acted toward her. That is, if a man approaches a woman with confident body language and speaks with gusto and charisma, the woman will be far more receptive to him than had he approached otherwise. This is behaviorism. Active game, in essence, is understanding how one’s behavior influences others. Behaviorism is also the guiding philosophy behind the sales business, whereby salesmen carefully craft their pitches to successfully pursuade their customers into buying their product.
So denialism #1, in addition to contradicting everyday experience, also denies a very powerful school of psychology which has proven itself extremely useful. It is for these reasons people should reject the idea that our behavior does not influence the results we have in our social interactions.
Denialism #2: Game is not geninue attraction, it’s just a bunch of tricks
This denialism is an interesting one. Rather than deny that game works, instead it is denied that game is as powerful as its adherents claim it to be. Game is merely a set of tricks that guys can use to con women into sleeping with them, rather than earn the love of a woman for the long haul. Other variants of denialism #2 include “game is mostly not fucking up,” or “game is just a placebo men use to give themselves confidence.”
In all cases, the denialist is appealing to some sort of moral code whereby a truly attractive man would not need game; indeed, he would be self-sufficient enough such that women would be drawn to his personality due to his raw masculinity. He would have no need to study behaviorial psychology in order to get laid – game is just for the loser men who aren’t manly enough to get laid without resorting to tricks.
This argument is equivalent to saying “game isn’t fair.” For example, if two men agree to a knife-duel and one man pulls out a gun to shoot the other man then it wouldn’t be a fair fight. And you know what? No one gives a shit. Because in the game of love, like war, the outcome is zero-sum. Some men will get more pussy than others. In every relationship, one will always like the other more, so either the man or the woman will have more power over his/her partner.
Thus if the only criticism of a gamer is that he’s not playing fair, here’s what I have to say…
Game is more than tricks. Game is knowledge of women. Knowledge is power. Game is power over women. Thus by learning game you do more than trick women — you control them.
Denialism #3: Game is a fad
I admit, I used to believe this one when I was first learning game. I thought that game was the product of a decadent culture, and when Western Civilization collapses so too will game lose its usefulness.
But once I learned game, I realized this was wrong. Game is nothing more than a euphemism for knowledge of behaviors that attract women. Certainly, the passive side of game will never change — women will always like being with successful and handsome men — but also, the active side of game will remain even if the language in which we speak changes or the venues in where men meet women change. The active side of game will always be culturally relative, but the principles of game will always remain the same (click this link to read some excerpts from Ars Armorata, by Ovid).
What is unique to our time, and what surely will not remain in place forever, is the “endless dating” that is inherant to our decadant culture. Casual sex is seen as normal, and women forgo childrearing in favor of careers and sexing as many alphas as they can before they hit menopause. Although it is extremely doubtful if this can last (I certainly do not think so), I will concede to the game denialist that it is our slutty times which have given rise to the science of game. Without the ability to approach and bed countless women, it would be impossible to develop and refine man’s understanding of women in such a scientific way as the modern gamesman has.
Read Next: Game Does Not Need Science
Agree with (2) and (3), but not so sure about (1).
There are things that are outside of our control, but which are often hidden at first. For example, if the chick you’re trying to seduce is too introverted, too hung up about things other than sex, too afraid, too stuck-up and shot through with an entitlement attitude . . . you get the picture. Gaming her will likely be more difficult, and the outcome is uncertain. Still, this doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t try at all.
Where the PUA bullshit has failed a lot of men is in making things too prescriptive. That is, “if you do X, then Y will happen.” Maybe it will and maybe it won’t. The outcome is uncertain. Since we men usually have to make the first move to score pussy, we shoulder the burden of failure if it doesn’t work out.
Knowing your audience/market is usually the better way to approach, so that you minimize risks. PUA methods can only help with this so far before they fail. Experience is what counts in the end, just like a seasoned salesman knows.
Agree with (2) and (3), but not so sure about (1).
There are things that are outside of our control, but which are often hidden at first. For example, if the chick you’re trying to seduce is too introverted, too hung up about things other than sex, too afraid, too stuck-up and shot through with an entitlement attitude . . . you get the picture. Gaming her will likely be more difficult, and the outcome is uncertain. Still, this doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t try at all.
Where the PUA bullshit has failed a lot of men is in making things too prescriptive. That is, “if you do X, then Y will happen.” Maybe it will and maybe it won’t. The outcome is uncertain. Since we men usually have to make the first move to score pussy, we shoulder the burden of failure if it doesn’t work out.
Knowing your audience/market is usually the better way to approach, so that you minimize risks. PUA methods can only help with this so far before they fail. Experience is what counts in the end, just like a seasoned salesman knows.
“. . .just like a seasoned salesman knows. . . ”
. . . there is no burden of failure. Failure will happen more often than success. It’s part of the game and no particular prospect has any particular import, because there are always more prospects. Until the close that’s all they are, a prospect. It is only after the close that they become a customer. The so called burden is all in your head. Empty your head of burden.
It is a game. You play the game, you play it as well as you can. That’s all. If you do not enjoy the playing of the game in its own right, you are in the wrong line of work.
Just as with any game every play is the subject of analysis. Concentration is on finding what you did right so that you can reinforce that behavior and repeat it in the future. With enough repetitions the behavior becomes a pattern and occurs “naturally.” There is nothing difficult about this, you have been doing it with some degree of success since you were a baby.
At the end of the metaphorical day it is only your closing percentage that counts and if you have a closing percentage of 10% you’ll never have much trouble finding an employer; you’re the guy the employers are looking for.
Any so called sales trainer who tells you anything different isn’t a sales trainer at all. They are a scam artist. They aren’t there to teach you the game, they are there to game you. Ignore them.
This is a flaw with PUA culture too:
Blame the male for the failure of the interaction.
Any male who has been approached by a woman in a nightlife venue has seen it happen – the girl says something mildly retarded, or has a horrible, dumb opener.
Sometimes these still escalate to bangs, but other times the girl gets embarrassed or feels like she gunned for too sexy of a male. And it may not work out.
But what does the PUA do?
“No you didn’t build enough comfort”
“No you didn’t do x, y , z”
I have never once read a PUA once not blame the man for the interaction not working. Game bloggers too, although they may shift the blame to it being a problem with women in general.
What if some girls weren’t good at talking to men, just like some men are bad at talking to women.
Two things:
1. Blaming the male has its place, but only in terms of trying to wake the male up to something that might be going on inside of himself. Awakening to the Red Pill, more or less. Each of us came to it through different means.
I started down the path by flaming out on dates and wondering why I wasn’t getting anywhere. Then, i started reading about Game through some PUA blogs. Try things out. Then, things escalated, and I began to see the wider picture. I awoke from my dogmatic slumber.
So, the “blame” has its uses. If the smart guy realizes that he has some things about himself to work on, all the better. If the work leads him to quit his soul-crushing job, ditch his harpie of a girlfriend, dump his dumb-ass friends, eat better, travel more, get to the gym, develop a sense of style, etc. . . . then it was all worth it.
2. Of course the problem can easily lie with women. I’m old enough to remember when it wasn’t nearly so difficult to have a decent and intelligent conversation with girls, before endless cable TV, the Net, and smartphones — among other things. Many girls are horrible at striking up a conversation and keeping it because they’ve never been trained to, and have been shielded from negative consequences.
Also, we have to remember that women aren’t men. If it weren’t for the pussy, then what good would women be to us, really — especially modern American women.
As adaiforon said, blaming the male definitely has its place. Yes, there are plenty of girls out there who don’t have very good social skills. But if you’re trying to get laid, it’s wisest to focus on what you can do better to drive your interactions forward.
Exactly.
In the eyes of PUA fuck-faces it is always the man’s fault — like you stated “No, you didn’t do x,y,z” blah blah blah.
It would never occur to the monkey writing this article, and PUAs that perhaps, just perhaps that women should have the obligation to be human beings, with basic social skills and respect.
It is truly amazing to see pro-PUAs convince the world how stupid they are.
One of the biggest problems with PUAism is that it implies that learning to be good with women is easy and fast. However, it’s not easy (but not that hard either), and generally not fast. To get good it takes generally years for the average guy.
If the workshops said that hey for $3000 we will show you basics but then you have to practice for 2 years, there would be a lot fewer complaints. Of course there would also be far fewer customers too.
you are right, it takes at least a year to get game down and get your body, posture, style and confidence together.
Good point. Any skill or progress worth having, be it “game” or learning a new language or losing weight, or learning how to play a musical instrument is a difficult and gradual process. Expecting to become good at something overnight is unrealistic and those who deceive us into believing that it’s possible are nothing but a fraud. I wonder how many guys every day fall for the “buy this book and on page 23 you will find out one pick up line that works on every girl every time” and alike.
The first point is correct though. All else being equal the man with the best looks, most money, most fame, or best connections will score the hottest chicks.
If all else were equal we wouldn’t be here to hypothesize the entirely abstract concept of all else being equal in the first place.
The point was that guys with the best looks, most money and most fame do get the hottest chicks in most situations. The first denial isn’t so much a denial as a statement of the obvious
There is a reason game sites advocate working out and raking in some dough. Fame is the best thing for getting laid, we all know preselection is the greatest pussy magnet.
Game evens the playing field, but you would be retarded to believe you can compete against Brad Pitt cause you read Chateau Heartiste and are subscribed to RooshV.com
Not in the real world; where the man with all those traits, are much more likely to spend the majority of his time in venues where most females are past their prime. Dudley DoRight shuffling between the corner office, the gym and the country club, don’t even see women as hot, as those some unemployed guitar playing meth head hangs out with, during his busy, well thought out, days.
At least as long as you set fame aside. Genuine fame, of the women come running to you for an autograph/a picture kind, does seem to stand on it’s own, almost regardless of lack of game. But it’s sufficiently rare that it’s pretty much irrelevant for most guys.
completely agree @Stuki……
Where does Dudley DoRight find pretty girl his age? lets look at his waking hours:
Work?….takes up most of his waking life. 40 hour workweeks if he’s lucky, but nowadays its more liable to be 45-55 hours. No chance he finds anything more attractive than what he had as his high school prom date. Even slimmer than none that she be single, his age or younger, without child, and wouldn’t rather fuck the guy in a position of power (sorry Dudley, you’re going to have to wait for 2 more promotions and 3-4 new female hires before you get there, but ‘ambition’ is the name of the game here….)
Gym?….not much I can say here that hasn’t already been said in Mikael’s excellent gym game post earlier here on RoK. Im a believer in cold approaching gym game, its worked for me, but realistically from a dude who has been going to the gym for almost 10 years now, our friend Dudley is going to have maybe 1-2 legitimate prospects per month. and if he goes to a gym where people are actually serious about lifting weights (not all gyms are created equal), he’s going to even have less prospects.
SalsaDancing?….”SalsaDancing” to me is just a figure of speech – it really refers to any activity where its blatantly obvious you’re there to meet women. Its hard to hate on “SalsaDancing” too much, because the world we live in often now dictates men taking…..unusually excessive….efforts to put himself even in the scopes of a desirable woman. But I’d have to ask Dudley here, how much longer would you be taking that SalsaDancing class if all the women turned out to be older and taken?
“GoingOut”(bars/clubs)….this is really the only option I see for your average urbanite male between the ages of 22-28. I sure hope Dudley still has the energy to go out on a weeknight where the women are significantly more available and in a (decently) favorable ratio, because lord knows the Weekend SausageWarriors are going to scare poor little Daisy home alone by 11:30PM.
I think this ALONE post should Debunk game denialists……your average Dude-ley really only has a handful of shots *per month* – without game, how will he ever pull (at some point) without it?
kindof a tongue-in-cheek post but i think there’s a ton of truth to this reality.
Interacting with women was always easy and fun for me, so i think i have “game”. But the pick-up-community is in my opinion some sort of self-help-community for a bunch of weirdos with funny vocabulary. One or two “tricks” might be clever and work under certain circumstances, but an approach strictly relying on game-tactics is always to blockheaded. Maybe better then nothing, but not the real deal with women. Different girls, different game. You simply have to introduce yourself , listen to her and adapt your next steps. Interactions are not predictable, and i say this as someone who minored in (behavioral) psychology, which you aren’t getting right by the way. Using (kitchen sink-) psychology to understand people is way overrated, but taking a pychology class might help still, because it is always packed with different girls.
BS. Interactions can be extremely predictable. Being one of those “weirdos”, I can say that game tactics pure and simple do actually work. My first few pickups were blocky and unorganic, but I followed the mystery method to a T and got concrete results.
Don’t be the other type of game denialists, claiming it doesn’t work because you’re already good at interacting with women and believe it has to be natural and organic. There are more than one ways to skin a cat.
Even today though I have moved on from the mechanical PUA material to some more organic game of my own, I still use a few routines that typically give me the results I expect(palm reading, and cube, and a kiss routine). It doesn’t work all the time, but it works enough for anyone with half a brain to see a pattern here and there
Chiko is still correct though, just use your noddle and become a behaviourist.
I’ve read the mystery method and it’s simple structured shit which you don’t need to read if you’re already social.
I would say that denialists would be right to state that it’s a ploy to capitalise on losers who lack social skills.
Although, there is a game, but it’s a personal one.
Many blue pill men that just get started with the pua lifestyle do so for a quick fix of pussy forgetting that failure is part of the road to success, hence the denialism starts to creep in when they fail with their first couple of attempts at picking up girls
I agree with most of the debunk but I also agree with the fundamental premise of the betas you mentioned at the beginning of the article, only slightly altered:
Women’s response to their approaches ARE in fact, out of your control.
the best salesmen can sell wood to a tree, and the same applies to but the flaw with game-advocates is twofold:
1) they assume your average guy can actually reach levels of Game where they can attract Any woman the guy wants….even successful great looking charismatic men can’t even do that. Roissy has a more realistic view – game can get you 2 points higher than you’d get without.
The Internet is bad for men in that it features predominantly 7+/10 in much greater proportion than truly exist, then it simultaneously makes men feel “bad” for not having these women available, then it fills them with false promises that “learning game” will allow them to attain the hot women they see on the Internet….when, get this,
*Most of these hot women aren’t even available to the average man by proximity in the first place*!!!!
So game bloggers create a Sisyphean challenge for men to learn how to seduce women who….once again, aren’t even around in their daily life. And blogs like TheChive and BarstoolSports continue to flood men with these images.
7/10s outside of an isolated college environment are rare, but their prevalence online causes majority of male population to ignore their female status equal.
Is there any wonder why there’s a forever alone epidemic? Even when one of these males pull an average or decent looking chick, the Internet shows him women who are significantly more desirable. and makes him feel bad about what he has.
But wait, it gets better, the SAME thing happens to women, and being the more delusional and status/celebrity-obsessed gender, they take this to extreme excess and many end up very lonely as they age out of their youth, and generally end up even unhappier than the men.
2). Game supporters tend to rely on the blissfully ignorant assumption that higher status or betterr looking men aren’t doing the same damn thing – building charisma and learning game.
Most men aren’t going to become master salesmen, but men can at least develop an Elementary understanding of game. And Id recommend it too. But what happens to the average looking guy is surrounded with better looking men who also possess game?
He has to find women elsewhere, in increasingly more niche and increasingly lamer venues like a salsa dancing class, for instance.
“7/10s outside of an isolated college environment are rare”
Yellow is the least common M&M color. Nonetheless, yellow M&M’s are not rare.
Isolated college environments, however, are rare. Most of them are really quite permeable.
I can’t remember the last time I found a yellow m&m in a bag of m&m’s.
Which just goes to show that your memory is not objective and/or your exposure to M&M’s is extrememly limited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plain-M%26Ms-Pile.jpg
being “the least common” vs. “rare” seems quibbling over semantics to me, but I do appreciate the analogy.
But lets be real, I dont know what rating system You use but to me a 7/10 implies better than average. I can’t see how that wouldn’t be “rare” to some extent.
Stuki has an excellent point in this regard – most men easily go to work, go to the gym, eat, and sleep, rinse wash and repeat, and not come across a single desirable woman throughout this routine.
Are 7/10s “rare” in the “once in a blue moon” sense? Hell no.
7/10s are rare in the “diamond” sense – relatively high with numbers kept artificially low.
“7/10 implies better than average.”
In other words, quite common. As common as below average. As common as yellow M&M’s. You’d think I took some trouble to find a relevant analogy.
Their numbers occur absolutely naturally. As naturally as fucking. They aren’t being hoarded away. Nobody is limiting their mining. They’re walking the streets. Just as if they were just people.
Perhaps I see them because I actually walk the streets and actually look at people. Even make eye contact. Say a howdy do now and then. To strangers.
Sometimes they beat me to the howdy do when they notice I’m looking at them.
I don’t know, maybe you just need to get out of your car now and then?
A Stradivarius violin is rare. If you want one you are going have your work cut out for you. He isn’t making any more, what with being dead and all. They are hoarded.
But a Scott Cao is a fine and beautiful instrument and you can get as many as you want. You can even home demo and rent them. Just go shopping.
then I was correct about them being like diamonds…
common in reality, but depending on your location they can be quite rare and kept at an overinflated price.
Such is life in a second tier US city. I really wish it weren’t the case, because my daytime game is actually quite nice…
but at the fact you have a constant stream of 7s walking the streets of your city……”One Mans Trash….” … or “One Mans Bag of Yellow M&Ms”…..
Form one montrealer to another–> great reply
This article is missing what I think we can all agree is the number 1 denialism:
Game only works on sluts/skanks/party girls.
This is just Not All Women Are Like That. Honestly if a man refuses to believe that women share the same basic nature there is nothing I can say to convince him.
At least some of that stems from the commonly given PUA advice of moving on to greener/easier pastures unless you get a bang in 2-3 dates.
Two words: Steve..Hoca. Ever watch this guy on yt?
Game is about not fucking up. After too long just reading Riossy and Rossh, I started doing. Got a girl’s number and it seemed she was interested. I just fucked that up trying to setup a date with my normal nerdy texting that I use with my friends. We fuck it up without game and just stumble into getting laid.
Those denialists don’t believe they’re the ones always fucking it up with what they have been trained to think. Not fucking up isn’t luck. It’s knowing your shit.
The hucksters selling coaching and PUA courses certainly don’t help matters. Their websites look like internet scams and their video sales pitches sound like ripoff artists. The worst thing to happen to fast seduction was a bunch of assholes discovering they could make money at it.
Game: the suite of tactics and attributes that facilitate fucking cute girls.
Defined as such, no one really denies the existence of game. Feminists will say things like ‘I can’t believe this asshole McQueen gets laid, he must be a total basement dweller.’ Haters will say ‘insulting a girl is no way to get into her pants.’ They all agree that game exists, just not what it specifically entails. Observation, principally of men who fuck attractive girls, reveals what ‘game’ entails.
Exactly. It’s like the discovery of gravity by Newton. People knew that things have different weights and if you drop something it falls. Newton studied it and gave that force a name and context.
The same exists here with respect to game. It is there, it is tangible even if you don’t know what ‘IT’ is.
Why do we care about denialists and their opinions? We are getting pussy and they are not. end of story.
What helps me most is to think of it like poker. Any skilled poker player will tell you that ultimately as long as you are taking actions with mathematically postive expected value that you are making the “correct” play and so whether you win or lose that particular hand is totally irrelevant to your long term success. Hell, a winning session or a losing session does not matter to someone with a true poker mindset because they realize that poker is one of the few activities in which results do not always correspond to your actions. You can do everything right and still lose sometimes, and do everything wrong and still win.
Women are kind of like that. However, just like poker – making the correct series of actions creates a statistical edge in your chances which over the course of months and years becomes extremely profitable to you. If you approach 10 attractive women and 8 shoot you down, 1 gives you a number, and one results in a same night bang – technically your failure rate was 80 or 90 percent (depending on how you slice it) but ‘hey, you just fucked a hot chick’ – it’s a score. And every notch in the old belt adds to your confidence, it knocks women as a whole a little further off the pedestal you grew up putting them on, and increases you chances of success that much more. Approach, Approach, Approach.
Good comparison
I was going to do an article on poker being like game. In particular the bluff. To pull of a successful bluff you have to tell a concrete story. If you’re inconsistent e.g big raise the blind (you’re telling them you have a good hand, maybe king ace). The flop is a 2, 4, 7. If you bet big again you’re telling a different story. Most people will call or call raise you instantly.
If you look like a boss, you gotta walk like a boss and talk like a boss. You do these three things, it won’t matter how much money you have in your pocket, she’ll think you’re a boss.
Very good points.
Good stuff, but you missed THE BIGGEST one. That is: I don’t need game because I am married, in an LTR, religious.
I guarantee you that all your net new visitors are here because they learned–the hard way, as I did–that game continues to exist, even after you buy the ring and set the date.
” . . .that game continues to exist, even after you buy the ring . . .”
I got her to buy her own cubic zirconia.
Roosh…. time for a veto…. George Clooney is more gay than Boy George…..
It’s about time you woke up and smelled the coffee… use some other example as a womanizer……. stop supporting the Hollywood faggot lies……
“The first counter-response to this is that anyone who believes this hasn’t seen much of the world. He has not seen the countless doctors who spend all their time in the lab with no pussy to show for it, or the lawyers who make six figures in NYC but have extreme difficulty bringing girls back to their apartment, or the investment bankers who spends all of their hard earned cash on hookers.”
What a chode you are to write in this.
You are citing the guys who have cash but are completely socially retarded and hence their money makes no difference.
But the average dude with basic social skills will do well, assuming he has what females REALLY want: CASH and RESOURCES.
Between the average guy with average social skills who works at Home Depot with the average guy with average social skills who earns a fuck load of cash, and it will be Mr. Fuck Loads Of Cash who gets the supermodel skag.
Now tell me Mr. ROK writer, who’s the hypocritical asshole who is entertaining politically correct bullshit?
Game is like studying and then working obsessively hard at making the best turd sandwich possible.
American women are not worth that kind of commitment in time or energy. American women are laughably easy. so why bother with studying and practice game?
Does “game” work on EE women? I’ve never been there, but from what I read, it is somewhat counterproductive(!) and unnecessary. How about other nationalities / cultures? Is there Universal Game that works everywhere? Rhetorical.
I’ll probably be thought of as a “sub-beta game denier” but if I’m going to expend an effort on something, it has to be worth the effort. All game will get an American is a lovely shit sandwich make by a chef.
The only downside to game I see is basing your ego and self respect on how much you get laid. You not gonna tell me that getting laid does not improve your self confidence and I won’t tell you it shouldn’t. Personally I’m too lazy to thrust my hips. Let her work for it. My dick iz goood!
Wow. Thanks, Samseau. There’s a thought. You found for me a silver lining in these dehumanizing times:
“…it is our slutty times which have given rise to the science of game.”
Where do you meet these doctors and investment bankers that can’t get girls? I have a bunch of single friends who want boyfriends.
So the men without “game” skills get, shit, I dunno, some peace a quiet in their lives?
Since I find it diffcult to align the wolf-pack paradigm to the ovreall human experience, I do not subscribe to it. That said, I do not deny others the right to hitch their wagon to the theory, play the numbers game by jumping through tons of hoops, tons of rejection, tons of time and energy, and contract herpes.
What I do know is that the most competent and intellgient wolves have the ability to hunt and kill without the need for assistance from other wolves. This is the “Lone Wolf” paradigm. The lone wolf lifestyle requires much more dedication, and leaves little to no room for error, but living as such allows one to skip taking or giving orders, submitting to social constructs, and allows the lone wolf to reap the full benefit of his accomplishments.
So, if I am forced to pick a wolf career track, I guess I pick the Lone Wolf. Let the rest of the pack decide who is alpha beta zeta omega or whatever the fuck they want. While they are arguing about it, I will be sitting down in front of a fresh kill of the highest quality.
Game works, or at least it does for me.
Game works, to a certain extent. As one of these formerly doomed men who where raised basically by their mothers because of an incompetent or absent father, I have long suffered the fallacy of the White Knight that women deserve instilled into me by my mom, an otherwise strong and assertive woman.
When I first read Neill Strauss’ “The Game” more than a decade ago, I thought what I was reading was repulsive and misogynist, reducing women to a fraction of their personality. The second time I re-read it, I also read much of the NLP works referenced in it, and started to understand the psychology behind it. The third time around something in my brain made “click” and I started applying some of the things in the book on my own, after more than a year of being single, and was surprised at how well it actually worked.
And let me tell you: It’s not about playing something you aren’t. It’s not about peacocking, as they call it in the book, to capture a women’s attention. No, it’s actually all about being oneself. Women can spot a man who pretends to be something he isn’t at a glance, and I start off with a bad start, because I am sort of a geekish bloke. Well, the trick is not to hide that geekiness, but make it your strength, project it as a desirable feature, being proud of it. That, folks, is the real strength of the game.