Vox Popoli

A fair amount of what this woman writes about is wrong and even the title of this post is misleading, but she grasps the important issues better than most and her core message here is correct. A woman can “tame” even the most hard core player if he is genuinely ready to settle down and raise a family:

The secret to flipping a player is finding one who wants to be flipped. A pretend asshole. A guy who’s gone from beta to bastard and back again. The truth is, a very high percentage of males understand that assholes get laid. Many don’t know what to do about it. Others work hard to acquire skills with women via Game. But many, many young men just flip into acting like jerks. When in doubt, insult her. Walk away. Never show you care. This is surprisingly effective, and it really doesn’t require a bootcamp to role-play this way. Some of these guys will like the action so much, they won’t ever come back from the Dark side. Some will. You gotta figure about 20% of guys getting laid are jerks. The rest are just acting like jerks. That doesn’t make them fun to be around, but it does mean they are susceptible to being poached.

This strikes me as somewhat of a statement of the obvious; since Game concerns the simulation of Alpha behavior, there is going to be a clear difference between the natural Game player and the simulated one. And, of course, it’s true that the simulated Alpha is less likely to be a complete and unrepentant bastard. Now, I do believe even complete bastards can change from ruthless and cold-hearted cad to faithful family man because that’s precisely what happened to me. However, this only came about through the transformative power of Jesus Christ; a woman can enable such a transformation, but I don’t see how she could possibly bring it about on her own.

I think the problem with the beta to bastard and back concept is that as you act, so you eventually become. Few whores start out thinking to earn crack money on the street; they are more likely to embark upon their descent as a low-rent model or fully-clothed cigarette girl at the strip club. (I once placed a bet with a club owner on how long it would take his new cigarette girl to graduate to the stage. I said a month and lost. Two weeks, or more precisely, eight working evenings.) Experience leaves its mark on men too, even if we don’t tend to get that “ridden hard, put away wet” look that is so easy to see on women with a history of promiscuity. (By the way, women, you may wish to note that observant men can usually estimate how many men have had you with a surprising degree of accuracy. It’s a fun party trick, although not one recommended for dinner parties with married couples.) Once a man ceases to put women on pedestals, he is very unlikely to ever do so again, much less become a shield-brandishing White Knight ever ready to defend a mythical honor.

It’s a dangerous game both ways, of course. On the one hand, even Hugh Hefner wanted to settle down and raise a family for a while, but the sentiment passed and soon he was collecting larger and more visible harems than ever before. On the other, a relapsed Game player whose behavior has been tamed into delta or even gamma behavior is going to generate contempt and disgust in the very woman who tamed him… so she will go off and seek another faux alpha to tame or a real one to entertain her. The irony, of course, being that not long after she leaves the relapsed Game player due to his contemptible gammadom, he’ll be back to his old ways with a bitter vengeance, leaving a trail of women half her age strewn behind him in broken-hearted adoration.

This is why I think it is a massive mistake for women to attempt to play alpha-tamer. A real man only does things for his own reasons, (which should not be confused with his self-interest), and unless he is motivated to change his ways by a higher power, any other externally induced change, be it for reasons of romance, fear, familial pressure, or even boredom, is unlikely to last over time.

And it’s even possible that change for all the right reasons could lead a woman to develop some degree of contempt for even the strongest, most attractive man. There is a saying, after all, that no man is a hero to his valet and the intimate familiarity of family life can’t help but breed the occasional eye-rolling, and perhaps even disgust. I doubt that it’s much sexier to clean up after George Clooney’s vomit than anyone else’s. But it’s always important to remember that men are not monkeys, women are not weasels, and both sexes are at least capable of surmounting our biological instincts in our own long-term best interests. That’s why it is wise to recall that love is a choice and it should never be confused with the short-lived chemical cloudburst that sometimes passes for it.

But in the end, if you want a good man, then stop chasing bad ones.

BM is new to the concept of mechanistic socio-sexual science:

I have read a few of your blogs concerning game and found them rather interesting. I’m quite new to the concept of game and have a few questions concerning it. Just to start, I am a Christian and I am aware that the Christian worldview and game do conflict. However, considering the fact that I have only gone on a couple of dates in my life so far and I am often quite introverted, especially around women, I feel that at least a basic knowledge of game can serve to my advantage in meeting women.

My first question concerns a post you had titled “Exiting Omega.” In the post you mention that showing a certain level of “contempt” may serve to your advantage in talking to women. Just to make sure I understand you correctly, contempt in this context could mean a sort of indifference, right? How may I apply this “contempt” in a situation of meeting a woman?

My second and final question concerns my introversion around people. I was never a socially outgoing person, as social events tend to make me rather nervous and uneasy. This has played a huge role in my lack of ability to talk to people, particularly women. Applying game, how may I overcome this obstacle? Could being introverted actually be a plus, in light of “contempt,” as far as meeting women is concerned?

This is partially incorrect. The Christian perspective and Game perspective are not only NOT in conflict, they are virtually identical. This should be immediately obvious even to the neophyte observer, given that secular femininists actively loathe and fear both Christianity and Game, and for very similar reasons. There are only two substantive differences worth noting with regards to the areas where the two perspectives overlap, keeping in mind that Game has very little to say about the greater part of Christian theology and Christianity has very little to say about the details of applied Game.

Difference #1: Christianity describes the character of the fallen species of Man. Game describes the character of the fallen sex of women.

Difference #2: Christianity’s practical application is directed towards a specific goal, the continued santification and eventual union of the individual soul with the Creator through the medium of Jesus Christ. Game’s practical application is not directed towards any specific goal, the development and initial use of it by male pick-up artists notwithstanding.

Therefore, Game is merely a tool, which like every tool can be wielded for purposes both good and evil. Game is good when it helps a man establish and maintain his Divinely-appointed position as the head of his household. It is good when it helps a woman find contentment in her Biblically-defined role as a submissive wife. And it is evil when it is used for the purposes of fornication, adultery, or cruelty.

As for your questions, the indifference of which you speak derives from the form of contempt I mentioned. One may be very fond of a golden retriever, but one does not base one’s actions on the dog’s opinion. Introversion need not be even the slightest barrier to women feeling attracted to you; I fall into the INTJ category myself. What matters is how you behave towards them when they approach you, and how you behave on those occasions when you can be bothered to approach them. There are few things that intrigue a woman more than a man who looks at her as if she is an insect to be swatted because he is reflexively displaying higher value than her, therefore, only introverts can truly utilize the higher levels of indifference Game because they genuinely do not desire normal social interaction.

Here is a practical application. Indifference Game often plays out as some variant of this:

Two pairs of eyes meet. Woman’s eyes are calculating and tentatively dismissive, as per usual. The man rolls his eyes at the obvious signs of her hypergamous female nature, he laughs to himself, shakes his head and turns away. The shock of this “rejection”, which is in reality nothing more than a failure to provide an appreciative homage, inspires the woman to confront him. How dare he reject her! She is supposed to be the rejector, not the rejectee!

“Who do you think you are anyway?”
“I think I am someone who has no desire to engage in tedious small talk with vapid and uninteresting people.”

Now, even if the woman is a vapid and uninteresting person who has nothing more to offer than tedious small talk, it would harm her self-regard to accept the lower value that has been assigned to her. This inspires her to prove to the introvert, who has really done nothing more than fail to grant her higher value status, that she is worthy of his attention.

The reason Game is inherently complicated is that social value is both objective and subjective. Everyone understands the objective value of wealth, power and fame. But few understand the greater significance of subjective value, either in terms of economics or Game. And subjective value always trumps objective value.

As for talking to women in social situations, I recommend speaking slowly, clearly, and with small words of no more than three syllables. And whatever you do, don’t talk about science or anyone else’s beliefs. On a tangential note, this reminds me of one of my father’s most amusing comments. After returning from an evening at a black tie charity dinner, during which he was seated between two of the most garrulous women in St. Paul society at the time, he summarized his evening thusly: “Now I know what Hell is like.”