Tag: women

Mailvox: Game and the Neophyte

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.”

Mailvox: a female one-two punch

AC babbles, as women who are desperate to avoid accurate criticism are wont to do:

Still looking for anyone who has anything good to say about women…(prove me wrong, someone, please!) What is the most grievous part about this blog? For it being written by a Christian, it does nothing to build up relationships between men and women. It builds men up by destroying the character of women. For someone who writes about the destruction of society, Vox is doing his fair share of it.

This is precisely why so many men find women to be contemptible and do not respect them. They are CONSTANTLY demanding approval and cannot bear even the slightest criticism. The merest factual observation is immediately transformed, in the average woman’s fertile imagination, into an unjust prosecution motivated by evil ulterior motives. Given that the subject is the ongoing female war against men, why on Earth should anyone expect anything good to be said about women in this context? This absolutely does not mean there is not anything good about women; many women wrote to thank me for my ode to mothers a few years ago and tell me how it made them cry. But when Admiral Nimitz was discussing the various weaknesses of the Imperial Japanese Navy with his officers in order to take advantage of them and win the war, I tend to doubt he spent much time praising the snappy Japanese uniforms, the excellent aeronautics of the Mitsubishi Zero, or the Japanese knack for electronics wizardry.

And it is simply stupid and all too typically female for AC to attempt to turn around my sound demographic, economic, and socio-sexual arguments about the way in which women’s collective and unconscious acceptance of feminist ideology is destroying Western civilization and claiming that I am doing my fair share of destroying society by “destroying the character of women”. That completely misses the central point! I am first and foremost observing that modern women have collectively destroyed their own characters and this is to the detriment of society; how can I possibly do to them what they have already done to themselves?

Women, the point of my criticism is not to make you feel better about yourselves, it is to tell you that you collectively need to change your behavior if you wish to live happy married lives surrounded by children in a reasonably free and wealthy society. If you’d rather be mounted by a cavalcade of pagan thugs before being abandoned to raise your bastard spawn in grass huts constructed amidst the ruins of a once-great civilization, then by all means feel free to ignore it. I’m certainly not going to stop you. But regardless of which fate you prefer, stop whining. I don’t define reality, I merely observe and comment upon it.

While MomProf doesn’t grasp the vital point, she is at least wise enough to dip a toe in before leaping to embrace the crocodiles:

I have read VD’s columns for some time now, and I find his economic observations, in particular, to be quite astute. But this one, I admit, baffles me.

Very well, let’s consider the two primary options here. Either I have suddenly and uncharacteristically lost my ability to correctly analyze a complex situation, or an intelligent and educated woman is unable to separate her analytical capabilities from her emotions regarding a subject that directly concerns her on multiple levels. Anyone care to have a whack at factoring the probabilities here?

I share Vox’s loathing of the feminists’ war on everything male, the feminization of men, and the mockery and marginalization of fatherhood. I despise the Left’s worship of abortion, and their rallying cry that it is the high watermark of ‘femaleness’ to destroy your own children. Any number of social pathologies have spun out of this depravity. But the answer, at least if I understand the arguments made here, is not to “go back” to a time when women were ignorant and dependent, and to remove the procedural and political protections to ensure that they remain that way.

A very bad start, and not one that bodes well for MomProf’s subsequent arguments. MomProf is seeking to rule an answer out of bounds, which does nothing more than demonstrate her personal biases. If we are to take her words seriously – and everyone here knows my position on that – she would prefer mass societal depravity to women being ignorant and dependent. Of course, most regulars already know what my rebuttal will be – do you SERIOUSLY think they are not ignorant and dependent now? They have simply traded dependence on their husbands and fathers for dependence upon the federal and state governments; given her profession, MomProf’s own job likely, though not necessarily, renders her at least partially dependent upon government largesse. I fail to see how this is supposed to be an improvement, even in comparison with MomProf’s mythically dystopian past.

I am afraid I must disagree vehemently with the gender-distinctive personality characteristics Vox ascribes to women and men. Yes, I know plenty of frivolous, shallow, petty and gossipy women. But many women are hard-working, virtuous, rational, intelligent, analytical – and yes, good at math and science (for what that’s worth). Taking away (or relinquishing) the right to vote is no panacea, particularly when our country is filled with ignorant, violent, irresponsible, addicted, and stupid men – and THEY’LL vote?

Great, now she’s revealing an inability to understand statistics in favor of her personal experience of women at the highest levels of education and intelligence. Yes, many women are virtuous and rational and good at math. The problem is that a lot more of them are not. Furthermore, men proven to be violent don’t vote in the USA and all men weren’t supposed to be enfranchised anyhow. Only the top quintile of men proven to be responsible were originally eligible to vote; I am as opposed to the universal male franchise in a democratic republic as I am to female suffrage. That being said, no doubt my position on democracy will confound MomProf; I only support universal male and female suffrage in a true and direct democracy. Does she really believe in the will of the people? Is she willing to do likewise or are we just quibbling over her hourly price?

Just as some women will tend to take advantage of a system that affords them freedom by exploiting it, so men will (and have for millennia) tend to take advantage of a system that affords the women in their lives little freedom. There is far too much proof to believe otherwise.

Yes, that’s precisely why women can’t be permitted to vote in a democratic republic. They are ALWAYS the core of the electorate that gravitates first to the Napoleons, the Mussolinis, the Hitlers, and the Obamas. The point is that women are always going to give their rights away to someone, hence the need to restrict suffrage in order to prevent them from giving away their freedom, and everyone else’s, to the sweet-talking monsters for whom history shows they inevitably fall.

The problems in our society are not caused by more freedom, more political power, or more access to education. The problem is the corruption of the educational system, the complete ignorance of the political structures that hold liberty in place, and a culture of licentiousness and complete abdication of personal responsibility.

She’s wrong because she doesn’t grasp the connection. The latter stems from the former.

All of this blather about “I’d give up my right to vote,” from certain women (who, I hope, are speaking hyperbolically) is nonsense. Will you give up your right to own and inherit property, too? Your right to attend school? Your right to defend yourself in a court of law? Your right to shield yourself and your children from an abusive spouse? (And please, spare me any claims that men are more abusive because they’re angry at our feminized society.) Why not just don the burqa and be done with it?

It is neither blather nor hyperbole. Sweet Darwin, but it never ceases to amaze me how incredibly stupid people who attempt to use the childish “well, how would YOU feel?” argument against either Spacebunny or me are. What obvious consequence of “we left the bloody country more than a decade ago” do you not grasp? Do foreigners vote in the USA? It is patently obvious that neither of us give a damn about our personal “right to vote”. And anyone capable of doing math would understand that any rational, freedom-loving woman should be enthusiastic about giving up her right to vote so long as the portion of the population that invariably inclines towards fascism of one sort or another was likewise disenfranchised. And it is grotesquely ignorant to claim that the female right to vote is connected in any way to the female right to inherit property or attend school, given that women were doing both long before 1920. MomProf simply doesn’t understand that the path she is defending is the direct route to the burqah she fears. Unless a woman is young and pretty, of course, in which case it is the brothel for the first few years.

Our country will not strengthen until its citizens begin to make choices in their personal lives that reflect fiscal responsibility, self-discipline, sexual restraint, the delay of gratification, a willingness to sacrifice for spouse and children – in short when our adults begin to behave like ADULTS and not like spoiled adolescents. But they must do these things because they WISH to, not because they HAVE to. I don’t know how anyone who calls himself (or herself) a “libertarian” can claim otherwise.

MomProf doesn’t understand the difference between libertarian and libertine. A common error.

Feminists love to shriek that if conservatives had their way, women would be forced back into lives of ignorance, dependence, and submission. I have always accused them of ridiculous, unwarranted hysteria. Speaking as a conservative (and a wife, and a mother of two children, and a professor of entrepreneurship), reading these posts, now I am not so sure.

I’m not a conservative, so this meandering has nothing to do with me. But ironically, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, it is the feminist ideology that has infected the majority of Western women that will ensure the women of the future are forced into lives of greater ignorance, greater dependence, and far more ignominious submission than they have known in the last 400 years in the West.

Mailvox: And yet they wonder….

JH writes what I am apparently supposed to regard as what passes for a rebuttal to yesterday’s WND column. The amazing thing is that there will be people who genuinely regard this as not only a coherent reply, but a decisive one:

If men are so much more moral than women, why is it that 96% of the people in jail in the U.S. are male? And are you really suggesting that men self-sacrifice more than women? Have you ever known a mother? One last thing: when I was in the 5th grade, my teacher informed me that “boys are just smarter at math” and that was the reason there were only boys in the accelerated math group in my class. There was no testing – that would’ve been too fair – she had just picked 3 boys that she thought were “smart at math.” All of us have to deal with bad attitudes in our lives at some time; it’s not just boys. Did someone just break up with you?

First, I never claimed that men are more moral than women. Second, even if I had, JH is confusing legality with morality. Yes, I really do believe that men are more self-sacrificing than women; how many female Medal of Honor winners are there? How many women have ever been known to act by the motto “men and children first”? It pains me to have to point out the obvious, but most women who are mothers very much want to be mothers. Self-sacrifice is about sacrificing your desires, not fulfilling them, and it is no more inherently self-sacrificing for the average woman to be a mother than it is for the average man who enjoys the clean lines of the unadorned female form to contribute to the college fund of a young, sartorially-challenged woman.

And since I attempt to make it my habit to answer even the most ridiculous questions, yes, I have been acquainted with the occasional mother. I did not, as it is often held, spring fully armored from the black helmet of Darth Vader. But we have to thank JH for not only demonstrating my point about women and logic with her deeply compelling tale of her fifth grade math class which apparently overturns decades of standardized math tests, but also the way in which few women are capable of considering an issue without making it personal. But no, no one broke up with me, I am not bitter about anything except last season’s NFC championship game, and I am totally indifferent your willingness or unwillingness to perform sexually for me.

WND column

Winning the War Against Men

There is a relentless war being waged against American men that literally spans the entire extent of their lives. From the womb, in which a woman’s “right” to abort a male baby for being male is defended but a similar right to abort a female baby for being female is vehemently opposed, to the grave, wherein the disparate impact of old age is ignored despite women living 5.2 years longer than men on the average, men are systematically, structurally and unstintingly under assault.

Most men understand this on some level, but like the nice dependable man who can’t figure out why attractive women repeatedly reject him in favor of unemployed losers with criminal records, they are incapable of doing anything about it because they simply can’t believe that women truly do not think or behave like men. Because they want to believe that women are “the civilizing force,” their “better halves” or “the fair sex,” they are constitutionally incapable of seeing what is, from a rational male perspective, the seething cauldron of amoral solipsism behind the collective pretty face.

Alpha disease

The divergent rate with which venereal disease affects the sexes is evidence in support of the Game perspective in which larger numbers of women are attracted to a smaller group of men:

About 16 percent of Americans between the ages of 14 and 49 are infected with genital herpes, making it one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases, U.S. health officials said on Tuesday… women were nearly twice likely as men to be infected, according to an analysis by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About 21 percent of women were infected with genital herpes, compared to only 11.5 percent of men.

I wouldn’t trust the politically correct explanations attempting to explain away the gargantuan difference in black and white infection rates. Of course, as with illegitimate births, we can expect the white infection rate to eventually rise to approach the black level as white society increasingly mimics matriarchal black society.

Hypergamy trumps ideology

Even stark raving feminists go on the hunt for gamma providers… once they begin to feel their looks starting to fade. The perceptive observer will note the Game-predicted pattern at work in Jessica Wakeman’s unexpected feminist defense of gold-digging:

Take me, for instance. I’m afraid I’m going to get tarred and feathered as a “bad feminist” for admitting this, but yeah, I do want to marry someone who can financially support both me and our kids…. Right now, I rent an apartment with my boyfriend and a roommate, but personally, I’m still living at the edge of my own means as it is. I don’t make a lot of money as a journalist, I owe lots of money to student loans and unless my future husband or I had a great job prospect someplace else, I don’t want to live very far outside New York City, because that’s where the media capital of the world is right now.

Maybe this isn’t “feminist,” but logically, I need to marry a guy who makes more money than I do—preferably a lot more money than I do—for us to be able to afford what I want and I hope he will want, too. An apartment big enough for kids, prenatal care, doctors appointments, birthday presents, vacations, summer camp, college, their own car, all that stuff. I know parents can raise children well on much less. But personally, that’s not the lifestyle I grew up with. I want to be able to give my children everything I had—maybe a little less, maybe a little more—because I think my parents did a great job.

I also would immediately disqualify entering into a sharing-bank-accounts relationship with a man who proved to be irresponsible with his cash. College loan debt is fine (I’ve got it) and a reasonable balance on the credit card debt is understandable (I’ve got that, too). But I couldn’t wrap up my life or my children’s lives around someone who spent or managed money irresponsibly.

So, the woman is living with her current boyfriend while simultaneously seeking some unwitting gamma who will completely fail to see that his only attraction for her is to pay her bills… and of course, her debts. This fits the classic pattern wherein a woman devotes her prime years to “having fun”, which translates as having as much sex as possible with alphas and unemployed artists while ignoring the nice deltas and gammas who helplessly offer her the promise of a stable relationship.

Then, once the daunting specter of THIRTY looms on the horizion, she begins to lower her sights and transform her attentions to the provider class of men further down the socio-sexual hierarchy. And this is why most married sex lives will tend to dry up after a year or two; the woman is no longer required to fake her level of sexual interest in the benefit of the hapless provider and there is nothing he can do about it since she has the full force of the feminized law at her disposal.

This is why it is a very risky and probably foolish endeavor for men to marry women over the age of 25. Even an extended “try before you buy” approach is unlikely to improve your odds, as observation suggests that desperation and/or determination to entrap a provider causes women to present a false sexual front for an extended period of time. And worse, over time her hypergamous nature is going to rise to the forefront and cause her to return to her “happiness-seeking” (read: alpha-seeking) habits.

There are two ways to address the situation. One is to marry a genuinely religious or submissive woman, as she will have a strong inherent resistance to her hypergamous instincts. Remember, instinct is merely an influence, it is not a controlling factor. The second, of course, is to not marry at all. But whatever you do, do not even speculate about the possibility of considering the thought of marrying an aging, debt-laden feminist who is scouting about for a long-term delta provider following an extended ride on the thugacious carousel.

The Twilight of the Damned

I am entirely confident that had vampire porn been around in the first century, Twilight bed sheets would have been included along with adultery as legitimate Biblical grounds for divorce.

I am an enthusiastic fan of the Twilight Saga and have recently purchased an Edward Cullen pillowcase and blanket. Here is the problem – I am married and my husband has taken great offense to having these items on our “marital bed”! I have argued that he is a fictional character and that these are just objects…and if he wanted to put Pam Anderson on a pillowcase he could gladly do so. He thinks I am not in touch with reality (which I find offensive) and am not being a considerate wife. I want to make my husband happy but does that mean that I have to compromise my happiness in order to achieve this?

Attention deltas and gammas. Remember this email the next time you find yourself tempted to take anything a woman says seriously or to place her on a pedestal. This is not a joke, it is an actual example of the way that a living, breathing, adult married woman thinks. Now, steel yourself and try to imagine what must be going through the head of the average woman who doesn’t regard herself as being sufficiently grown-up for marriage!

The mind reels.

There is so much wrong here that it might seem hard to know where to start, but in fact it is entirely clear. The bedsheets go and the wife can either decide to grow up or she can go too. Her immature, self-centered lack of respect for her husband is total and it is hilarious how she “finds offensive” his statement of the completely freaking obvious given her equation of happiness with teenybopper bedsheets.

The advice given by the fat little complacent gamma was totally predictable of course. As soon as I saw his picture, I knew his advice would be to ignore the fact that the wife is a complete lunatic and tell the husband to let her have her way. After all, doing exactly what a woman tells you to do is the way that you may occasionally be permitted to have sex with her, right? This is the point at which the observer is forced to note that as many as four of the advice columnist’s seven children might actually be his.

Sure enough: I’ve read those Twilight books, they are pretty romantic. So let your wife enjoy her dreamy fantasy of fangs and foreplay and she may just turn out to be the most considerate wife you could imagine – nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Did I call that one or what? Romance novels and romance TV are nothing more or less than female porn. Most women will furiously deny it, but their very vehemence underlines the reality. Women get the same buzz off romance porn that men get from Victoria’s Nasty Secret Vol. 37 and the fact that the female variant happens to be more acceptable in public in the West is no more meaningful than the fact that tentacle monsters penetrating spread-eagled teen girls in tattered school uniforms is equally acceptable in public elsewhere. I’ll never forget being puzzled by the sight of a middle-aged sarariman openly reading a comic book on the train next to me and glancing over his shoulder to see what sort of childish superhero cartoon it was. Such was my eye-opening introduction to the significant difference between shōnen and seijin manga.

The point is that while a man should tolerate a woman’s moderate porn habit, if it’s gotten to the point that she’s doing the female equivalent of bringing a Jenna Jameson blow-up doll to bed, she’s out of control and requires reining in. But this woman is so far gone that there may be no hope for her. Forget the sexual and sanity implications, I’d leave the poor freakshow solely on the basis of aesthetics.

Mailvox: exiting Omega

DG wonders how to apply Game in his situation:

I need some help. I’m very new to Game. I got started on my little adventure into this after a disaster of nuclear proportions with the last girl I was seeing. A conversation about masculinity, femininity and the roles men and women play in relationships set me on the journey.

Quick bit on me – in 2008 I took the “red pill” on the world (not women yet) and started questioning everything. While we may agree or disagree on points, we share similar outlooks in that much of what is conventional is likely a lie perpetrated for someone’s advantage. I am a Christian currently, former atheist for 16 years and then agnostic in 2009. I mention this because my faith and adherence to it affects what I can and cannot do.

I was a beta in HS, became a lesser alpha in college when my body finally decided to step it up (I was a late bloomer, I dropped 20 pounds of fat, put on about 15 pounds of muscle and grew 4 inches in my freshman year). Suddenly I was looking attractive and compared to the men at my university, I was golden. But then when I converted, I decided to be “nice.” Stupid me! I should have realized you can be an alpha and not be a douche, but my whole game was asshole game and never realized it until now. I have two major questions/requests. I’ll try to keep them short and to the point.

1) Where do you suggest that someone start if they are a complete newb and need to reverse their beta-tude? No matter what you are shooting for: STR, LTR, marriage, casual dating/sex, whatever, you need to know Game.

2) I mentioned the disaster that was the last woman. As Roissy described in an old post about what to do to win and ex back, everything he said not to do, I did. Oh yes, and then some. I went from alpha to omega in this girl’s eyes for sure. While I have no intentions of winning this girl back (it would take a miracle from God, and I’m not counting on getting one on this issue) or being her friend (I don’t keep female friends anymore, utterly useless), I can’t cut her out entirely from my life. I still need to deal with her and encounter her…at my church of all places. How do I deal with her when we are in the same room and when I do actually need to speak with her or work with her? I may not be able to recover my omega status in her eyes, but I certainly do not wish to feed it.

I think the best way to work one’s way out of beta-tude, or as I would refer to it, gammatude, is to stop judging yourself on the basis of what women think. Here’s how. Take a good look at the men around you, the men you know well. Consider what you think of them, of their strengths and weaknesses. Then compare your opinion to what women think of them. Are the results similar in any way, shape or form? I tend to doubt it.

The main reason that I could not care less what the female collective happen to think about pretty much everything is the result of the extreme dichotomy between what I thought of the men in my social circle at the time and what women thought of them. With a few notable exceptions, the men that were most highly regarded and sought after by women were the weak and insecure ones, the shallow, treacherous and useless ones. Once I could no longer take seriously what they thought about other men, it became impossible to care what they thought about me as well because I no longer considered them capable of judging me in a reasonable manner, whether they thought well of me or not. “In a way, I actually judge her for not breaking up with me sooner.” I have far more confidence in the average dog’s ability to distinguish between a good man and a bad man than the average woman’s and I don’t lose any sleep over what the average dog happens to think of my actions.

Given DG’s familiarity with Game, he can probably guess what developed as a result. At the superficial and social level, women respond to genuine contempt like catnip, probably because it is one of the more powerful forms of DHV. Note that I’m not talking about dislike or hate here, only the same sort of well-merited contempt for a ludicrously irrelevant opinion that The Special One would demonstrate for a soccer journalist.

As for Disaster Girl, the right thing to do also happens to be the polite thing to do. Don’t live in fear of her and don’t give her a moment’s thought when she’s not around you. Treat her in an entirely polite and civil manner, keep your conversations short and to the point, and make it very clear that what’s done is done and you have no interest in revisiting the past. Don’t give her any information about your life, if she asks how you are doing, just reply “very well, thank you,” and change the subject if she gets curious and starts probing. That will probably get her rationalization hamster spinning on its wheel; there is nothing that piques a girl’s curiosity like a former flame who has inexplicably stopped showing interest in her.

Then be sure to expect the probable test and don’t fail it by promptly dissolving into desperate gamma mode when she pulls a 180 on you and starts telling you how confused she is and how she thinks she might have made a mistake and so forth. Just remain perfectly polite, decline to pursue every dangling olive branch she offers, and tell her that you’re ever so pleased that after everything that has happened between the two of you, she’s still such a good friend. Be a Crimson Artist and flip the script on her.

Of course, if you really want to get out of the Omega box for good, show up at one -and only one- church event with a very pretty and somewhat inappropriately dressed girl with stripper hair. Don’t act like she’s your girlfriend or behave obnoxiously, just behave normally and let all the little gossips assume whatever they want to assume. And when asked about her later, just say “well, it’s kind of complicated” and leave it at that.

The fact is that Christianity inhibits Game for the obvious reason that Man is fallen. That’s just a reality that the Christian man has to accept and remind himself that pleasing the world and its women is not his mission on Earth. But the Bible demands male dominance and female submission too, just in a different form. Jesus Christ was seldom nice and he did not come to assuage anyone’s feelings but rather to make them feel so abysmally bad that they were willing to repent of their sins. The need to abandon asshole game should never be confused with the duty to assume gamma. Jesus is, after all the ultimate ALPHA as well as the Omega.

Breaking civilization

Scientists confirm the ideas of the Game theoreticians:

The results show that if there were no returns to career choices in the marriage market, men would tend to work less, study less, and choose blue‐collar jobs over white‐collar jobs. These findings suggest that the existing literature underestimates the true returns to human capital investments by ignoring their returns in the marriage market.

Source: “Marriage and Career: The Dynamic Decisions of Young Men” from “Journal of Human Capital”

Result: men turning away from the drudgery of building careers as a surefire investment strategy for acquiring [sexual interest from women]. The ROI of a corporate 9 to 5er is decreasing rapidly, and men are beginning to catch onto this.

Prediction: as long as women remain a large and growing segment of the white collar job market, men will continue to “drop out”. Replacement strategies for men include:

– prostitution (with concomitant calls for legalization)
– sexbots/3D porn
– video gaming
– growth of high paying blue collar trade jobs that women studiously avoid
– thuggishness
– game and assorted pickup strategies. (i.e. the birth of the “alpha mimicry market”.)

A few years ago, I demonstrated one way that the increase in female labor force participation from 30% to 60% has significantly harmed married women by forcing them into the workforce to replace the wages of their husbands lost to the increase in labor supply. That was pure economics. What Roissy is talking about here is a related socio-sexual cost of female labor force participation; since the hierarchical benefit to men working white collar jobs is decreasing even as the compensation for those jobs has fallen due to the increased white collar labor supply, men are becoming less influenced by their natural instinct to impress women.

Despite being groomed for a career in “the office”, I left that environment at 22 and never once looked back. But this makes me think that there is a seventh option that Roissy hasn’t considered, which is more male self-employment and virtual offices. Self-employment will become increasingly important as female-dominated HR departments institute credentialism that will favor female hires and corporate regulations that men aren’t willing to accept. And technology makes the virtual office not only possible, but more effective than the traditional office.

This suggests that men will not, as so many who only think in terms of linear projections presently assume, lose out due to increasing female domination of education. Instead, women will take over the dinosaur corporations just in time to help them die off more quickly even as men increasingly move towards working in a faster, more technologically evolved and lucrative manner.

A perfect summary

It isn’t often that I find myself wishing I’d written something someone else wrote, but this comment by Alexa Menos is the most flawless description and indictment of current female confusion that I have ever read. And I quote:

“Why don’t men in a matriarchal, polyamorous society behave as if they’re living in a patriarchal, monogamous society?”

If you change the rules of the game, don’t be surprised when the players begin to play it differently than before.

NB: Cocomment appears to be down so I’ve turned on Blogger comments.