178»

The PUA vs. the Lover


The Red and the Black



To be loved at first sight, a man should have at the same time something to respect and something to pity in his face.

Henri B. Stendahl


Tyler Cowen, on his awesome blog Marginal Revolution, recently linked to an essay from The Point Magazine, a Chicago-based journal. The essay, Love in the Age of the Pickup Artist: Stendhal Among the Seducers is by S.G. Belknap, presumably a pseudonym. His piece really struck a chord with me, as he delves deeply into the question that comes up so frequently about Game – if a man practices Game, is he still his authentic self? If he is, at his core, a lover, then how happy will he be as a PUA? At the end of the day, when a man designed to love has succeeded with his seduction skills, can he find fulfillment with a woman who did not succumb to a lover, but a seducer?

Belknap begins by relating his story of the one that got away, the one he still regrets. Rachel and he had circled one another for a year on campus, clearly attracted, neither approaching. When at last they met, it was she who suggested drinks. Winding up on his back porch at the end of the evening, she eagerly kissed him, to the point that he pulled back and said, “Easy…easy.” Instead of ramping up his desire, this was a boner killer for him, and he found himself doubting the value of his prize after all.

Reluctantly picking her up for another date, he was soon to revert to his true nature, as the sight of her in a white dress with her hair up took his breath away. Up she went onto a pedestal and there she remained. At first things were blissfully romantic, but before long he sensed that she was bored in the relationship. The night he said goodbye for the summer, these were her last sleepy words:

Remember, as you walk home through the night, be bold.

They struck him like a dagger through the heart. He understood that he had failed to provide something she had wanted. She had once told him that the first time she saw him she thought

What a badass!

Clearly, knowing him had destroyed that fantasy. In shifting his role from the Pursued to the Pursuer, he had ceded all control to Rachel, and she had lost attraction for him as a result. It’s a tale most men can relate to, having learned as much from trial and error. Miserable, Belknap picked up Neil Strauss’ The Game:

“The Game is the Great American Success Story for the testosterone-driven, club-going male; it is easy to understand its popularity. But the book has an unsettling and enchanting effect on the more old-fashioned among us as well, and in this the theme of manliness is front and center.

The good-hearted reader struggles as he feels his cherished notions slipping away: “If this is what women really want, then why shouldn’t I? …” Or: “Shouldn’t I get on board, while I am still young? Shouldn’t everyone experience this kind of life once?” Or, most painful of all: “If only I had done some of this when I met so-and-so…””

Belknap goes on to question the popularization in the media of PUAs as some special breed of super seducers:

“Are the pickup artists really all that far away from our world? Consider for example the PUA principle of “abundance.” The pickup artist never gets hung up on a particular woman—this would be “one-itis,” which almost always leads to rejection; women can smell the desperation and instinctively avoid a pained lover.

But even among non-PUAs these principles apply: everyone knows that it is more difficult for a man to find a girlfriend when he is in a “dry spell”; and, like it or not, women of all shapes and sizes find men more attractive when they know that other women find them attractive. The pickup artist’s practice is only a hyperbolic exploitation of these principles. And even if this practice can still be criticized, precisely because it is hyperbole, there are many cases in which the pickup artists end up on top plain and simple: pursuing the same ends as the rest of us, just doing it better.”

He continues with a discussion of the ethics of the PUA and concludes that as long as there is no overt deception, then aside from the occasional poor, unwitting woman who carelessly falls in love (caveat emptor!), the PUA defense that all is fair in love and war is a sound one.

“The pickup artists defend their theory and its rhetoric by emphasizing that profound gap between what women say they want and what they really want…Up front as they are about their intentions (seen but not heard, of course), they do not operate as so many non-PUAs do, lulling a woman, perhaps a social inferior, into the expectation of commitment—only to discard her after some suitable number of weeks with the usual breakup song and dance.”

What Belknap does question is the value of the prize:

“But even if one accepts all of the PUA rebuttals, even if one is allured again and again by the very real possibility of all the perfume, slender waists and blowjobs one can shake a stick at—even then there is the creeping feeling that something isn’t quite right here, that something must be wrong, that something is missing. And what is missing is: love.

We need to make sure that love can stand a chance against the bounty promised by PUA technology; that love can genuinely quell our anxieties about manliness.”

Belknap acknowledges that one may still find love portrayed in Hollywood films, but he says it’s a “remnant, a leftover in our 21st century jumble of values.” He goes on to trace the history of courtly love, which began with the 12th centry French nobility, and got a further boost in the works of Rousseau, who first bound romantic love to marriage in the 18th century. Of Stendahl, who wrote about Don Juan and owed a great debt to Rousseau, Belknap writes:

To an attempted debunker of love, Stendhal is a terror. Secure in his conviction that passionate love is the only worthwhile activity for man, he is nevertheless deeply versed in the theories and convictions of the other side; it would seem, then, that he has chosen his allegiances for good reason. He is one of love’s great theorists, and one of its most vivid painters.

There was always the archetypal seducer in fiction, and in 1822 the best example was the Vicomte de Valmont, in Laclos’ Liaisons dangereuses. Of course, Valmont is a rake and seduces a chaste woman for sport, immune to the suffering he causes. He is the most hardened of players, practicing Dark Game, to circle back to contemporary PUA concepts.

Belknap gets to the meat of the matter here:

“The great mistake of the pickup artists, of Don Juans, of seducers in general, is to think that the lover is a failed version of themselves. The lover, they say, tries to “get the girl,” but just doesn’t know how—and if he learned their techniques he would. The trouble is that there is no agreement on just what this “getting” is. And, in fact, if the lover were to adopt the techniques of the pickup artists, his “getting” would become impossible. For a woman’s sexual surrender does not count as “getting” for the lover. Nor, for that matter, does her love, if the lover does not love her also. The lover’s “getting” requires his own experience: his own adventure, his road through the mountains and forests. And the reward in the valley is not sexual satisfaction; it is a proof of love.”

Though Stendahl romanticizes the experience of being in love, even when unrequited, Belknap addresses the pointlessness of this:

“There is authenticity in loving when that love is not requited; to stick to one’s guns in this way is to stay true to one’s own desires, a possibility closed off to a seducer. But although this pain might be praiseworthy, although one might decide that living life without the pain just wouldn’t be worthwhile—even then, surely, we can still say that requited love would be better.”

Which brings us back to the original question. For a man who is a lover by nature, rather than a seducer, what can he do to get what he wants? Stendahl provides the answer in On Love:

“According to Stendhal, being natural is not at all, well, natural—it is an art. It takes effort. The kind of thing he has in mind is familiar enough once he spells it out, but an extraordinary thing nonetheless: unaffectedness in conversation is something one needs to work toward, step by step. One must set the stage carefully for the right moment to present itself; and then, when it does, one must speak from the heart. And not too late, either—there is a right time for everything.

One prepares for intoxication; but one is nevertheless intoxicated. One yields carefully; but one nevertheless yields. This precarious mixture of the active and the passive is the middle ground between a yearning, hopeless love and a ribald pickup artistry. It is love mediated through art, an artistry of love.”

Belknap acknowledges the value in marrying the PUA and romantic traditions:

“The lover should take his cue from Stendhal. The balancing act called for must be duplicated at every level and at every moment: always a genuine passion, and always a compensating restraint. If the lover is truly in love, he will be bursting to ask, bursting to tell, bursting to know and to make known. But he must always be patient, always willing to bide his time, to keep his sweet sentiments and his ardent gestures to himself until the time for them arrives. And though the beloved may waver in her affection, the lover cannot let his faith be shaken. Like Stendhal’s ideal conversation with its moments of preparation and moments of naturalness, the love affair as a whole contains moments of distance and moments of closeness; the lover must always adapt, stay ready, and roll with the punches.”

Thinking back on his time with Rachel, Belknap confesses his regret that he didn’t know better as he played the lover, and that Rachel didn’t know better as she loved the player.

“Which is not to say that Rachel was wrong when she gave me that peculiar command, on that last night: “Be bold.” She was right; I should have been bold, and I wasn’t. But the boldness needed was not the excessive manliness of the pickup artists. It was a manliness at once more humble and more daring; it was the courage to face up to whatever is greater than us in love, and the presence of mind to spring into action when the time comes.”

Belknap concludes by proclaiming that he is a passionate lover, which makes him one of a dying breed.

Love is fading fast. Long ago, the world provided much of our eroticism for us, by leaving us few options other than restraint. Were Stendhal to visit us today, this would no doubt be one of his first observations: love has become too easy. Or, rather, love has become too difficult, because sex has become too easy. If you take up love today, then, you take on an extra burden: the burden of creating your own eroticism, of conjuring up walls and limits out of thin air to replace the ones we have lost. You have no choice in the matter. Love was hard enough already; it has only gotten harder. Your love will exhaust you. But it will be worth the trouble.

Belknap is well prepared. He lost Rachel but he ventures into the world wiser, seeking love, with all the collected wisdom of Stendahl and Mystery.

2 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • greenfieldnews

    Wow, great post. I’m not even really sure what to say about it. It really does make a lot of sense, to read what he’s written, and to point out that love really is harder now to find, because sex is so easily found.
    And, as much as we want to say it doesn’t matter if you sleep with him on the first date…I have never heard any of my guy friends sound remotely as interested in those girls, as the ones who put a bit of a chase, a few walls up.
    I think it does go back to that idea of chivalry and of love.
    A lot of people i think, deeply want to know they’re special. Unique. DIfferent. And, i think in a way, that’s the question of life that love answers. Your lover says, “yes, you are special, and wonderful and the only one like you in the world.”
    But with hookups…all it says to either one, really, is “You are special…tonight…unless something better comes along.”

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I think what moved me the most about Belknap’s essay was his unapologetic desire for more, something real. He knows he blew it by showing his hand too early with Rachel, and he acknowledges the necessity of understanding what women want and when. But he is uncompromising in the sense that he wants romantic passion. And I think that is the ideal combination – for women, and for at least some men.

  • PJL

    Just asking the obvious question: Is romantic love necessarily linked with its Christian roots in the courtly love tradition and its thriving in a Christian culture? If so, *can* romantic love exist in our emerging post-Christian culture? Furthermore, does this mean that–if we’re proper post-Christians–we’re chasing quixotic dreams by pursuing the “lover”? To argue that love is necessarily conceptually related to Christian concepts *because* it is genetically related to Christianity would be the genetic fallacy. I want to be very clear that’s not what I’m doing at all. Nevertheless, the idea that that love between man and woman is a necessary criterion for sex is of Jewish-Christian origin. It was emphatically not seen in the Classical world, which makes the worst of modern mores seem pretty tame. As GEM Anscombe, a noted 20thc. philosopher, said

    “Christianity was at odds with the heathen world, not only about fornication, infanticide and idolatry; but also about marriage. Christians were taught that husband and wife had equal rights in one another’s bodies; a wife is wronged by her husband’s adultery as well as a husband by his wife’s. And Christianity involved non-acceptance of the contemptible role of the female partner in fornication, calling the prostitute to repentance and repudiating respectable concubinage. And finally for Christians divorce was excluded. These differences were the measure, great enough, of the separation between Christianity and the pagan world in these matters. By now, Christian teaching is, of course, known all over the world; …. But we ought to be conscious that, like the objection to infanticide, this is a Jewish Christian inheritance. And we should realize that heathen humanity tends to have a different attitude towards both. In Christian teaching a value is set on every human life and on men’s chastity as well as on women’s and this as part of the ordinary calling of a Christian…. Faithfulness, by which a man turned only to his spouse, forswearing all other women, was counted as one of the great goods of marriage.”

    “But the quarrel is far greater between Christianity and the present-day heathen, post Christian, morality that has sprung up as a result of contraception. In one word: Christianity taught that men ought to be as chaste as pagans thought honest women ought to be; the contraceptive morality teaches that women need to be as little chaste as pagans thought men need be.”

    This is an interesting question, the consideration of which deserves careful thought. Hint: off the cuff answers to complicated questions typically aren’t good answers.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      No full answer here, just some rambling thoughts. I confess that I was surprised that the linking of love to marriage came as late as the 18th c. Obviously, true love matches were idealized well before that as Shakepeare featured them prominently, among others. And we know from our beloved JA, for example, that in the early 19th c., at least some women wanted to marry for love if possible. By then it seems to have become the ideal, if not the ordinary practice.
      I hadn’t linked that to Christianity in my own mind. Certainly the early Jews practiced polygyny, but at some point became monogamous. As I think about it, it does seem that monogamous love marriages were born of the Judeo Christian tradition.
      It’s interesting – Europe is frequently described as post-Christian, but I don’t think you can say that about the U.S., at least not yet. As the Catholic church continues to lose followers in the U.S. as a result of the sex abuse scandal worldwide, this may tilt the U.S. toward the current European model. However, the fundamentalist Protestant strain is vibrant in certain parts of the U.S., and influences the culture significantly, though you’d never know it via the media.
      And contraception: yes, how that has unleashed female sexuality! Between the Pill and Roe the social stigma of unwed pregnancy has all but been erased. Those young women who give birth OOW freely choose to do so.
      So where does that leave us wrt romantic love?
      Women certainly want it, so I suppose it depends on the men. In a post-Christian world with little to no emphasis on what’s morally correct in relationships, it comes back to the question of nature. PUA or lover?

      • GudEnuf

        Do you how ridiculously easy it is to get laid at church camp? I’ve heard a few stories about Young Life…

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          Actually, the only girl from my high school that had a baby had gotten pregnant on a Bible Study retreat.

      • PJL

        Just the briefest of notes:

        Yes–the Church and Christianity in particular remain vibrant in many regions in America, which is one reason that it’s rather sloppy to even talk of the US as anything other than a geopolitical unit, however I think the affect of Christianity upon the general culture can be overplayed, even in the South, where it’s thick as molasses. As an aside, the obsession with the Catholic Church’s sex abuse scandal says a whole lot more about the general cultural mood of those areas than it does about the abuse “scandal,” the reporting of which is ridiculed with anachronisms, inaccuracies, innuendo, lack of perspective, ignorance, and political correctness. Digging up cases of alleged abuse between 1950 and 2010 all around the world and then using this as evidence of institutional corruption–without any discussion of how the medical community has evolved its understanding of pedophilia and homosexuality between 1950 and 2010–demonstrates how charming people find disenchantment. I did about 30 minutes of research of the vaguest of questions–i.e., what is a priest? what does “defrocking” a priest do?–regarding the abuse scandal when it broke and have sense been shocked at the AP’s inept covering of the issue.

        As to where this leaves love, an interesting question. I do know that women are at any time the majority in the pews, which speaks to their (general) desires and belies the feminist notion that religion is a patriarchal construct, since the patriarchs tend to run pretty fast from it when they think they can get away from it.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          Haha, PJL, you must be busy, promising only the briefest of replies. That’s cool, we understand.
          As for the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic church, I can only say that as a Catholic in Boston when it broke several years ago, I was stunned and disgusted to learn how priests were shuffled around from parish to parish when things got too uncomfortable with complaints from parishioners. I don’t know a lot about the European cases, but there was a clear pattern of secret sexual touching, mostly in families with absent fathers. Even in 1950, mothers knew when something was very, very wrong with Johnny. And the church whisked away Father Pederast to a new church. The word scandal does not belong in scare quotes here. I stopped practicing my religion as a result of it.

        • PJL

          Well: the first question to ask is “what was the medical consensus regarding pederasty and pedophilia in the 50′s, 60′s, and 70′s that the bishops thought ti best to just move the priests around?” People don’t make moral decisions with all the facts. In the case at hand, psychologists viewed pedophilia not as a type of mental mania but rather a sort of romance akin to any other–like falling in love with a woman. In this case, after “treatment” you can plausibly just move the priest to another parish, believing you’ve removed the temptation–perhaps after “treatment” he won’t be a threat. Of course, the medical community only recognized in the 80′s & early 90′s that the temptation wasn’t a particular boy but boys in general–something prima facie strange. As a heterosexual man, I’m not tempted by woman in general but by particular women. So moral decisions occur within a context and a mature understanding of that context is required to judge the decision. As Philip Jenkins (a modernist historian, not a Catholic) writes–”Often the scandals they expose show Catholic leaders responding to abuse cases no differently than their secular counterparts would have done in the same years, although it’s the church’s decisions that are painted in the most diabolical colors.” Let’s do the same thing with PE teachers from 1950-2010 and then sue the Teacher’s Union for millions for protecting them, alleging things of men long dead or into their dotage.

          Sorry you lost your faith over it. But it’s an invalid inference, nonetheless. Let’s say that I’m Jewish and I discover that every single rabbi on the face of the planet is in a plot with Satan. Well, this may make me distrustful of the hierarchy, but it wouldn’t change whether or not Jehovah exists or whether or not he made a pact with Abraham or whether or not he gave the Law to Moses. Likewise, if every single priest ever ordained molested children (the number is closer to 1%) and every single bishop excused it, including the Bishop of Rome that wouldn’t change whether or not Christ rose from the dead two millenia ago or whether or not, while leaving, he gave Peter the keys to heaven and earth or whether or not the Pope can speak infallibly on theological/moral questions. The inference from XYZ acts in immoral fashion ABC to XYZ’s claims 123 are false is one giant ad hominem. Off topic. But food for thought.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          Yes, that was a giant ad hominem, I admit. Your description of the historical view of pedophilia is very interesting – I don’t doubt the accuracy – it sounds like you’ve researched it. I do find it surprising though; it’s so far removed from current thinking. Even if that were true, though, the fact that churches did nothing to make amends to the children that were clearly disturbed and frightened is very troubling. Many boys kept the secret at the time, but the church has never taken responsibility willingly, even when it became clear that many of these men have lived lives of pain and dysfunction.
          Also, one wonders whether the church never found it significant that their employees seemed to fall in love with male children at a much higher rate than any other institution.

        • Screwtape

          They probably just figured it was the priests ‘acting out’ because they are so sexually constrained.

          And they are, perhaps, not so far off. By outlawing a thing, say… sex, you make it far more attractive. Combine this with power, and frequently being around someone subject to that power, I imagine the temptation gets pretty strong.

          Though, as I have said about many human behaviors before, we are not poop-flinging monkeys. We can restrain ourselves. The priests just did not want to.

        • Aldonza

          It may have been their sexual deviance that made them feel like they weren’t “normal” and would be “safe” in the priesthood. Remember, this was a place and time when unmarried men of any kind were considered deviant.
          .
          Pedophilia is a pecular affliction. Unlike rape, it has little to do with sexual access and it’s existence can’t yet really be explained by the holy word of Evo-Psych. It seems to be more tightly linked with abuse that causes an error in normal psychosexual brain “hardwiring” that takes place during emotional development. Some of the things we learn during our childhood cannot be undone. Hence “hardwired.”
          .
          LOL at “poop-flinging monkeys”. What about cyber-poop?

    • DJB

      I loved the article you linked to. Extremely well written. However, in reading Stendahl’s Red and the Black, I came away with a different impression: that the Western definition of love is flawed or, in the least, incomplete, because it is self-centered. This is something I am thinking about since I am a student of Confucianism (my wife was born in China and I’m about to take my kids there for their first visit). One initial source of misunderstanding between my wife and I was how we initially expressed love, and I believe its roots lie in the much more mature worldview that Confucianism provides. She likes romance, but to her, the more prosaic expressions of love are more important. Many in the West misunderstand Confucianism because the language does not translate precisely. My understanding is that love as defined by Stendahl and other romantic writers, in itself, has little value to a Confucian if it does not increase humanity within society (the precise translation lies somewhere between humanity and harmony, the latter being overemphasized in the West). Thus, there are levels of love depending on the amount of humanity that results from it. The love between a Father and child is the most valuable because it requires a conscious decision to sacrifice the individual man’s current wants for the betterment of the child, and thus humanity, it being recognized even at that time that a man had no biological drive to father, but was bounded by society. A mother’s love for her child is important as well, requiring self-abnegation, but is less a choice than a compulsion, and thus the quantum of humanity resulting from it is somewhat less. Likewise, there is brotherly love, and the love of a king for his subjects, and even romantic love between a husband and wife. The romantic love between unmarried partners is seen as less valuable. The Warring State’s period in China, when Confucious lived, was one where social bonds had broken down, largely because men chose to be warriors rather than fathers in the Confucian view. There was much romance at this time, just as their was in the European Middle Ages, but also much war and suffering. The genius of Confucious was to place love and romance within the broader moral framework of society, through the use of the “familiar” allegory. With respect to Red and the Black, Julian must hide his real “self” in order to gain the love of Mathilde and fake interest in Mathilde’s rival in order to make her his love “slave.” This does not increase humanity in society, much like Game does not increase humanity. In fact, it is not love at all, but courtly romance, a useless diversion. Game just applies the precepts of courtly romance to a different, more scientific level. Courtly romance and Game are neither bad nor good, but to be love, to be of a greater moral and humane character, it must be placed within the broader framework of social responsibility. You “game” a woman because you want to bring her love and children, both of which you will devote yourself to, and express through the everyday acts that such devotion implies. Casual sex, hooking up, relationship drama, whatever, to a Confucian, focuses on immediate needs and wants, and because it can be hurtful or negligent to the emotions of others, serves to lessen humanity over the long term. A PUA goes through an act or script, and does not demonstrate love.

      • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

        Casual sex, hooking up, relationship drama, whatever, to a Confucian, focuses on immediate needs and wants, and because it can be hurtful or negligent to the emotions of others, serves to lessen humanity over the long term.

        Yes, this makes perfect sense. To take it further, what is the cost of a lesser humanity? If we indulge our short-term impulses, what is the precise opportunity cost? I imagine it shows up eventually in ways that we cannot even imagine and my never trace: crime rates, divorce, a general breakdown of society. Interestingly, I’ve been reading that casual sex is on the rise in China, though for obvious reasons they have a surplus of males. I’m not sure how that squares.

        • DJB

          The cost can be concrete, but it can also be moral and/or spiritual. Society becomes coarse. We no longer have empathy. Society is no longer “harmonious.” Interestingly, though China is the birthplace of Confucianism, China, itself, has not embraced the ideas as wholeheartedly as Japan and Korea. There are so many competing ideologies in China from Taoism, to Buddhism, to other, more ancient, rituals, that Confucianism never had a monopoly. You can see the ideological battle in their mythology. I would recommend the movie “Green Snake,” which exemplifies the concept of “humanity” prevalent in Confucianism. I think the most recent iteration stars Maggie Cheung. http://www.yesasia.com/global/green-snake-dts-version/1003298553-0-0-0-en/info.htm

        • Mike

          I’m a virgin & have always explained my reasoning why to all the guys I’ve dated. And once they realized I was serious & telling the truth (we obviously got along well personality-wise as well), the way they treated me was much different than the treatment most of my friends seem to get from their boyfriends. Even though some of the treatment at the beginning wasn’t the best during the “testing” period to see if I’d fold like every other girl, I can honestly say each guy respected my decision ultimately and sort of treated me as something to be protected & cherished. Both of the guys I was pretty serious with said they didn’t deserve me, and it’s not because I’m such a special snowflake, but it’s because they felt some sort of need to be the masculine force to counteract the superfeminine they saw in me or something like that. Or at least that’s what one of them said to me. I suppose not every girl would want this, but many of my friends do.

          I think you’ve hit on something very important here. Many guys will live up or live down to the standards you hold yourself too. Just like women “shit test” for alpha attributes like confidence, dominance, security, etc. perhaps even on a subconscious basis, I think men are on some level programmed to “test” for “sluttiness”. We will try to go as far as possible to see where your boundaries are. I remember the first time I tried to have sex with my GF, and although I think on some level she wanted to, she was like “no,no,no, we can’t do this yet”. That was a good thing that definitely seriously boosted her as a serious relationship prospect.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          This may be the most important thing I’ve learned from men since I started writing. They will test a woman’s resolve early on, but may also be disappointed if a woman gives in. In other words, a woman has enormous control over whether she goes into the short-term or long-term box, based on how she approaches sex. The woman is the gatekeeper. It is in the man’s nature to try for sex, and it’s win/win for him in a way. But what doesn’t seem to happen, at least very often, is for women to get relationships by putting out. This is the biggest mistake women make, IMO, and it reverberates for years.

        • Chili

          So what are your reasons?

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          I just finished reading Chastened, a book about a woman who gave up sex for a year, after many years of having a lot of it. I’m working on a post about it, but it’s pretty incredible how she experiences, and comes to value, abstaining from sex. It really changes the way she experiences just about everything. Sex is never casual. It’s the most potent chemical cocktail there is.

        • greenfieldnews

          wow, I completely agree. I think I chimed in on that American Virgin post, too, and i do hold to alot of your beliefs too, Verie, and I’m also waiting for marriage. Just because I’ve never had sex doesn’t mean I cannot tell how powerful it is. I too, have seen friends stick with terrible guys because he’s her first. I’ve seen them panic over missed periods, gain weight due to birth control, and have to go to the doctor for an std test.
          And, thankfully, I deal with none of that.
          I also agree with the lack of deep seated issues. I’ve never been abused, have no disorders,etc. I see it as different from my religion, and i do not believe that god would judge anyone for having any sort of consenting, of age sex, whether that’s homosexual, premartial, sex or two old people getting frisky ;).
          I also know that I’m very emotional, and bond closely with my friends. To lose the one that I first became that physically close to, I really think, would devastate me. So, it goes back to Verie’s point about wanting to experience that bond with someone you really love.
          I also, do not pin a scarlet letter on myself. In fact, accroding to two dear (and man-whoreish) friends of mine, they were certain that if any of my female group wasn’t a virgin, it would have been me. I love life, and parties, and i’m comfortable with all guys (perhaps because I’ve never slept with, and therefore never been utterly broken by the loss of one)
          If the topic does come up, I do have to be very careful, because I honestly feel like my female friends judge me when the topic comes up. One told me I had to refer to myself as a girl, and not a woman. Another one told me I was denying myself my female rights, and behaving like a caged in, unliberated Victorian woman.
          I don’t see myself that way. If we define womanhood by when we have sex, that means we’re still allowing man (or his penis) to chose when we are grownup. I also see myself as liberated, because I made my CHOICE. No one made it for me.
          It also certainly does not mean I am unattractive, and therefore am a virgin because i have no other choices. I’ve had runins, hookups, boyfriends. I’ve been tempted. Sometimes, i’m the one pushing to go further, and have to pull back. Once i was so tempted that when things got close, the only answer i could think was bolting away, leaving a bra and a flipflop in his room.
          Interestingly enough, my male friends, who are far more sexually active than my female friends, when they (accidentally, believe me) found out about my choice, really seem to respect it. There have been a few jokes, esp, along the lines of “if you ever need anyone to remove that pesky v-card….”
          But in general, the guys treat me with a lot of respect. If I ever sleep over at their place, the door to the bedroom is open, or they’re all sleeping on the floor outside the door, so that “no one will think you’re…”
          Which is unnecessary. I don’t care what people think. But sweet.
          And these are not remotely virginal boys. Most have different girls each weekend, they all go to std tests together, etc. But they’ve all told me that i need to stay strong, and save it for love. And I know they know all about sex.
          In fact, and this is particularly on topic for this post. All the guys agree that sex in a relationship is actually better than one night stands, because you’re more comfortable, and trusting.
          So, that’s my take on virginity, love, and sex. The three, for me are all sorts of tied up in complicated knots, but i accept it. and anticipate falling in love with the right guy, who will understand my reasons. I don’t expect him to be a virgin, but I expect him not to mind waiting for me.

        • Vincent Ignatius

          One of the few “I’m not like that” girls who actually isn’t like that. Now I understand you better. But understand that you’re maybe 1/100 of the girls in your age bracket in urban centers. I’m mostly dealing with the other 99%.

        • greenfieldnews

          Vincent, not sure if you’re responding to me or verie. But I’m certain that I know, and I bet she does too, that our view is pretty rare.
          I don’t doubt, from poking around your blog, that you do deal with another type of girl.
          But I have a question for you. I have a few friends who are players in training. as, in, they’re young and only been working with “the game” for a couple years. But they seem to have a couple rules for girls they won’t pursue.
          1. Friend’s little sisters (oddly enough, older sisters are fair game)
          2. Girls in relationships with their friends
          and after an awkward almost one night stand and subsequent friendship with me, one guy’s added “Virgins” to the list.
          Do you have any rules like that? Obviously, I’m assuming the girl in these categories would be just as physically attractive as ones not on the list. I’m sure an ugly little sister would be even worse than just an ugly girl for you to game. If you don’t have rules, I by no means judge you. It’s your life to live, and you’re going about things the way you want to. I’m just curious.

        • Vincent Ignatius

          I only pursue a virgin if I feel I might actually commit to her. If she’s somehow deficient but otherwise attractive, I won’t do her the dishonor of taking her virginity just for another notch. I have taken a girl’s virginity and later decided against her, but that wasn’t my original intention.

          When it comes to friend’s sisters, cousins, etc, I would ask the friend first.

        • Vincent Ignatius

          Probably most men who get into game, are in it to find a good girlfriend or wife. These are not the men who are most successful in game and definitely not the ones who write the blogs.
          The proportion of good men to good women is far greater than 1 in American cities. So I feel that advising these guys to either switch to a pump and dump strategy or to look abroad for wives is a better strategy.

        • ExNewYorker

          I think Vincent is correct here. A lot of us learned “game principles” for that exact reason, to find a good girlfriend or wife. The advice we got of “be yourself” had clearly failed, for various reasons, so we decided to learn from those who had success (in my case my younger cad brother). While the game principles helped me date a lot (once I actually applied them), my goal wasn’t just to bang as many women as possible…heck, I was relatively chaste during that time, and not because of lack of opportunity. Once I married, the more “visible” results of Game (dating lots of women) became the more muted “LTR” game, which isn’t as flashy.

          So us “Light Side” Game practitioners abound. We just tend to not be as flashy about it.

          As for Vincent’s comment about the proportion of good men to good women, I might have disagreed with him a decade back, but my time in the SMP really opened my eyes. Maybe it’s not as true in smaller cities, but in the large metro areas I’ve lived in or traveled frequently to (Boston,NYC,various ones of Texas, Nor-Cal, So-Cal), it definitely seemed to be true…

        • verie44

          I suppose if you are commenting here as well, away from your normal blog, I’m wondering why you won’t tell me which countries you expect betas in the US to find wives and why they’re better than anglo countries. It occurred to me that maybe you haven’t actually thought about the actual regions — you just know the options suck in the US? If that’s the case, why not think about it and write a post for the guys who are following your blog and apparently want good relationships (since you just said that’s mainly your readership, the guys who game because they want relationships). That would be nice instead of the negativity about stringing women along and destroying them so they can’t get another relationship, which is pretty evil, honestly.

          But I should probably even refrain from suggesting such a thing, based on your reactions at your blog to my questions (mostly silence, I assume in an attempt to not appear beta). So I suppose propositions to write anything will go unanswered since you assume you wouldn’t be “alpha” by writing what I think might help. At least I tried.

        • Vincent Ignatius

          I’ve actually traveled quite extensively but have removed much of that information because I’ve got a crazy stalker on my back right now.
          I didn’t give you detailed information because it’s already out there in the manosphere, relatively easy to find. Maybe subconsciously it’s keeping my alpha frame, but it just comes naturally for me. It would be a waste of time for someone who hasn’t made the effort to discover these things on her own.

      • PJL

        Just a brief note. I can’t comment on the interesting thoughts of Confucian love. I do, however, think that you’re unfair to western notions of love.

        The Christian notion is reflected by Paul in Ephesians 5:22-33. Look it up yourself, but I don’t see how it could be understood as selfish, since the mandate to love like Christ is, for the Christian, a mandate to radically sacrifice oneself.

        Even in the secular mold, a Kantian (18th century philosopher) perspective on love is reminiscent of Paul’s ideal of two selves mutually giving themselves.

        Even Plato in *Phaedrus* and *Symposium* gives a good defense of a type of romantic love. The first half of *Ph*, now that I think of it, would be interesting to read in the light of the hook up culture.

        You may mean, however, “love,” as understood in the culture generally. If so, fine. I recently watched *Notting Hill*, and I was struck at how baseless the love between the two characters was. Love as some mysterious force that just happens–let’s not think too hard about why. Return to the Greeks, I suppose, cupids’ little arrow. Of course, the Greeks didn’t mess around; they at least didn’t associate such feeling with love. They called tehm, appropriately deisre.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          There were two things I liked about Notting Hill:
          1. wasn’t there an Elvis Costello song featured?
          2. the ending reminded me of Roman Holiday, one of my favorite movies.
          There were many things I didn’t like about Notting Hill, most notably exactly what you said. He fell for her because she was a movie star! There was absolutely nothing else going on! I guess we were supposed to suspend disbelief when we see her pregnant in the little private park at the end. Ugh.
          Bridget Jones was 10 x’s the movie that was.

  • http://the-reformed-tomboy.blogspot.com/ reformed_tomboy

    Great post! I like that Belknap had mentioned that Rachel told him to be bold. I don’t know if that’s necessarily a player thing but speaking from experience and having spoken with other girls/women – there is something to be said for the guy being the aggressor.

    It does seem to be true that the passionate lover is a bit of a dying breed but I suspect they’re not gone just yet.

  • Kyle

    PJL, your question is astute, and I think most anyone might ask it who has asked if endless oral sex is comparable to love – if Game is better or worse or on par with being a Lover. “Does chastity mean anything to my not-Christian, not-Jewish life?” Or “Do I really have to get married for life to one person, fertile, close to my age and then work at it forEVER?” These are questions closely tied to yours: Is romantic love necessarily linked with its Christian roots in the courtly love tradition and its thriving in a Christian culture? I would ask: If Stendhal’s and Belknap’s lover is artistically cultivating love, is that necessarily tied up with sexual morality or mores?

    Well, no. No to all four of those questions. The Lover isn’t subject to any of that. When looking for someone to love as a passionate partner:
    “We shall look for one who controls his indulgence
    in the pleasures of the body,
    who is truly hospitable and fair in his dealings
    and eager to do as much for his benefactors
    as he receives from them, so that he is worth knowing.”
    Socrates in discussion with Critobulus ( X. Mem. II, vi 1-5)

    Because when looking for the ever-fluctuating but enduring love of a life partner we aren’t looking for a sex-object with which to be as little or a much chaste as we choose. We are looking for a mate:
    – Someone responsible enough to help us deal with our problems (That was perhaps battle for Achilles and Patroclus; that was keeping the young alive for momma and poppa pre-homo sapiens)
    - AND someone empathetic enough and interested enough specifically in us to, in fact, help and encourage us.

    Sure, I’m saying that we [who do not operate under the dogmas of Christian/Jewish mores] are looking for a sexless love – a partner in crime, in life. And that’s kind of ‘courtly’ … BUT:
    In Addition, we are animals who like sex and are encouraged by bits of our bodies to go forth and reproduce/have sex (Nah, I don’t think it’s just about the reproduction), so we bond with someone with whom we can enjoy physical intimacy.

    Often, because this responsible and ‘hawt’ (read: attractive to us) partner is a beloved friend, one “controls his indulgence/ in the pleasures of the body” in order to be “truly hospitable and fair in his dealings” with one who wishes to be moderate, hospitable and fair in return. That is, you don’t talk about your buddies behind their backs, and you don’t mess around on your significant other behind their back, because your disloyalty would hurt them. My partner’s angst/discomfort/feeling of betrayal would jeopardize the partnership that is so beneficial for me. Also, I like to see my honey happy! That’s why I don’t invite others into my bed and thus into our intimate partnership, because it would take the smile off my dear’s face.

    Thus, “romantic” (not-Game) love is born without Biblical or Torah-st intervention!

    Thank you for reading all of that thought. PJL, I hope my answer wasn’t too off-the-cuff. That was quite the little barb. I understand your frustration, but I hope that condescension isn’t the only answer.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Kyle, I love this! Specifically, that the lover is in pursuit of love, which is timeless. While the PUA is in pursuit of sex, which is clearly of our time. That’s not to say that there isn’t overlap – indeed I think many PUAs do find love and “retire” from the Game, or even use Game to become the lover. And of course, if the lover gets his happy ending, sexual bliss is the reward.
      .
      Another thought – courtly love arose as a luxury. It was for the wealthy. Among the throngs of working folks, marriages were economic and if they included love and ardent passion, that was a bonus. Today, romantic love is an ideal in the wealthiest cultures. Women who don’t marry need not be penniless – consequently, some don’t. I think we’ve reached a point where we marry for love or not at all. While at the same time, before marriage we increasingly connect sexually or not at all.

  • Snowdrop111

    I’m not Muslim but I would say they should be included in the romantic love between spouses arising from their religion…and perhaps some other of the great world religions too.

  • http://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com white and nerdy

    if a man practices Game, is he still his authentic self?

    There is no such thing as “game”. “Game” is just an excuse to attack men and hide bad behavior.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      W&N, what do you mean by this? Men attacking other men? Surely you don’t think women use Game to attack men and hide bad behavior?

      • http://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com white and nerdy

        Most women (or men) have never heard of game so they can’t use it to attack anyone.

        It might help to watch this video first.

        “Game” as an actual concept does not exist. I know. I tried studying “game” and using it and failed miserably. How do I know that it wasn’t just me? As I was studying it became clear that “game” was circular reasoning because the only objective test of having “game” or not is whether you get a woman or not. Also most of the people who tell me to “get some game” have no idea what that phrase means but they are willing to say it and willing to attack me for asking the question. And its not just me. Obsidian attacked hundreds of men on the Spearhead recently for asking a few questions.

        I have also noticed the gamers never have consistent positions on “game”. One week it’s only 10% of men will be able to use game. The next week is all men can use game and back and forth. Obsidian again gives us an example. Which one they pick depends on who they want to attack this week.

        We also never see any examples of game in action. It’s always vague claims and nothing specific. It’s just, “I got game and I got a woman” or “I got game and saved my marriage”. Steps 2 – 50 are never discussed.

        The gamers are also very insecure. Obsidian couldn’t handle a few questions. Dave from Hawaii can’t stand anyone challenging his “the Rockefeller Satanist Zionists are out to get us”. This guy thinks MRAs are out to destroy his marriage.

        “Game” is a constantly moving target. It’s proponents would not have it be anything else because then they can’t use it as a weapon against men anymore. And the big names in game would no longer be able to sell crap to desperate men.

        Three years from now “game” will be regarded as a joke and be nothing but an entry on the Catalog of Anti-Male shaming tactics.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          This is actually the first comment I’ve ever read from a man who was a “dissatisfied customer” of game. As a woman who has never tried to learn and employ game I can’t say how difficult that is. I imagine it is quite difficult for some. There is no question that it is a huge industry, and there are plenty of charlatans out there. To be fair, the bloggers you mention aren’t making any money off of it. Not even Roissy does that.

        • http://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com white and nerdy

          “Dissatisfied customer” implies that there was a real product/concept involved. “Game” does not exist. There’s no level of difficulty because it doesn’t exist.

          I’m not that bothered by the big names and their products. As fake as their junk is you might still learn something useful. You know what their deal is. They are trying to make money.

          I really think the ones not making money off game are worse. For them it’s all about being assholes on the internet. All they do in essence is scream, “I have game!!!!” over and over again. There’s no useful information and if you call them on their BS like recently happened to Obsidian then you get some weird racial BS. These people have placed way too much emphasis on women and their entire self esteem is based on women. That’s dangerous for them but not my problem. Did you watch that video I linked to? If not you should.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          I did watch it and found it very interesting. In fact, I want to do a bit of digging for more info on Barborossaaaa. I haven’t paid close attention to the Spearhead controversy, but it was bound to happen. The Game community seems to have more factions than the Democratic party.

        • http://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com white and nerdy

          Yes there are lots of factions in the “game community”. I’m not surprised because most gamers are incredibly insecure and can’t deal with a few basic questions not even minimal criticism. You should see what happens to me after I point out that several of the things that a man is supposed to “learn” from “game” I was already doing before I ever heard of “game” but not getting the results they claimed.

  • nothingbutthetruth

    Wow, great post. I have read tens of posts of yours and this is the best.

    But it is even better to read the whole “On Love” of Stendhal, one of the best essays about love in the history of mankind.

    And, if you want to read good and fun litterature, read the two masterpieces of Stendhal: “The Red and the Black” and “The Charterhouse of Parma”. I remember reading them when I was teen and it was a really pleasurable experience.

    About Belkam, I envy him: I was I had this innocence (I had it once). And I pity him: it is sad to have such a good lover when women fit to be loved this way are so scarce.

    It remembers this poem by the great Spanish poet Antonio Machado (English translation follows):

    Todo amor es fantasía;
    él inventa el año, el día,
    la hora y su melodía;
    inventa el amante y, más,
    la amada. No prueba nada,
    contra el amor, que la amada
    no haya existido jamás.

    All love is fantasy;
    it invents the year, the day,
    the hour and its melody;
    it invents the lover, and even
    the beloved. It proves nothing
    against love, if the beloved
    has never existed.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Thanks for sharing that poem, that’s lovely. I have never read Stendahl’s novels, but I plan to pick up The Red and the Black shortly. BTW, he had a terrible case of one-itis himself, and he never got over it.

  • http://www.queenofrelationships.com Queenie

    Awesome post. I spend a lot of time in my own relationship, figuring out what side I am on. What am I today? The lover or the player? Yes, it changes from day to day and it’s draining but- would I be ill to say,… it’s somewhat enjoyable? It’s a constant chase between the two, one day he persues and the next day, I chase. There seems to be a consistent overdose on the chemicals of_________<———-love couldn't possibly fill the blank. The game is enjoyable (in the beginning) and we all talk about wanting to (in the end) be settled down and secure…but when most of us reach that 'place', we continue dreaming of the games we used to play. It's the love of the chase and winning the prize in the end but not wanting to put the trophy on the shelf, collecting dust. There seems to be some burning desire to recycle the trophy over and again. It's the rush, the chase, the prize and the game.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      It’s funny, someone left a comment very similar to this on another thread yesterday. I think that once two people reach a certain level of intimacy and trust, then it can be quite enjoyable to change things up sometimes. Unpredictability can be a good thing in relationships by keeping things fresh. Of course, it can also create confusion and hurt – this is why the trust is so important. The games then become more like role play, rather than an apparent sudden withdrawal of affection.

  • PJay

    “In our monogamous part of the world, to marry means to halve one’s rights and double one’s duties.”

    from On Women, Arthur Schopenhauer

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Ha! Who said anything about marriage?

    • Chili

      Ha! Who listens to Schopenhauer?

      • verie44

        :) I just laughed.

  • Pingback: I Used To Know Ross Jeffries. | Little Miss Attila

  • http://gameformarriage.blogspot.com/ Augustine DeCarthage

    Susan, thanks for posting this. Very interesting. I’ll be posting more about this and similar ideas in the future. Readers, check out the blog at http://gameformarriage.blogspot.com/. If you have any ideas, please chime in. More later.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Welcome, Augustine and thanks for the link love. Coincidentally, I quoted St. Augustine twice in a comment thread a day or two ago! Please come back and comment soon!

  • Rum

    Every young man should spend a prolonged period time in a sexual relationship with a woman towards which he feels no attraction – because she is too fat or mishapen or stupid, whatever.
    He will inevitably discover that she will be multi-orgasmic in all circumstances and will begin to worship his c*ck no matter how vile-ly he treats her…
    There is no better primer for understanding the meaning of “love” between a man and a woman..

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      WHOA! This is strange advice. Could you please elaborate? Sounds like the Valmont strategy. I assume your point is that a man who withholds emotional investment will find that the woman is desperate for him? What does that get him? In that case, he has less than a PUA – neither a woman he loves nor desires.

    • nothingbutthetruth

      All middle-aged men have had a relationship like this. My most significant relationship, the girl I was going to marry, was like this (although I didn’t treat her vile-ly, because I am unable to).

      At the beginning, I didn’t care about her because I saw her as an affair. She kissed my a** and treat me like a king and worshipped me.

      She treated me so well that I began to consider her as relationship material. The more I opened to her, the better I treated her, the worse she treated me.

      At the end, I treated her like a queen and she treated me like a sh*t. I only wanted to make her happy and she only bitched, complained and was angry.

      Six months before the wedding, she dumped me in a cruel way, insulting me and treating me like a s*t and went to marry other man. I don’t know nothing about her because she cut all communication.

      I learned a lot from this relationship. Never be more in love than your woman. Out of four “I love you”s she tells you, you only have to tell her one. If she tells you “I love you”, answer “I want you”. Return only two calls out of four calls she makes to you.

      I have followed this rule in my following relationships and it has worked. Women have treated me like a king, because they don’t take me for granted.

      Women want to think about their man as a prize. They want to think their man is reluctantly in this relationship because he could do better. They want to think that they have got somebody who is out of their league. They want to think that they are a 7 but they have got a 9.

      My current girlfriend imagines that there are lots of women attracted to me. In fact, there are a few women but I exaggerate the number of women attracted and the amount of the attraction. She treats me like a king because she is afraid to lose such attractive man. LOL!!!!

      • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

        Haha, I give you a lot of credit! Basically, you’ve done exactly what Belknap suggests. You’ve combined Game with LTR skills.
        BTW, you escaped disaster with that first woman, as I’m sure you know. It sounds like she showed her true colors and acted like a total bitch.

        • Sox

          Sounds like typical human behavior to me…we love to take people (and things) for granted.

        • nothingbutthetruth

          Thank you, Susan. You are right. As you American people say, I dodged a bullet. God took from me a woman who was not good for me because I was unable to do it by myself (when you are in love, you do a lot of silly things).

          On the other hand, I think some aspects of Game (not the abusive ones, of course) are very useful for a relationship.

          And I agree with Sox, we love to take things for granted. But we don’t usually value what we take for granted.

      • verie44

        Ok dude, you have to realize that everyone is on their best behavior in the beginning of the relationship. She could have just let her guard down & let you see her true self over time and it had absolutely nothing to do with your behavior. She sounds like she has lots of issues — loving men who abuse her & leaving the ones who treat her well. Chances are she had an absent father or one who treated her or her mother poorly & that’s how she learned to understand love.

        I doubt it comes strictly down to gaming women in your case. You want to be hard to get / desireable based on PUA skills, but don’t get it twisted — a high self-esteem woman would never put up with horrible treatment from you (especially at the beginning).

        • nothingbutthetruth

          It is not horrible treatment. Saying two “I love yous” when I receive four “I love yous” is not horrible treatment. Horrible treatment is to say “I hate you”.

          Veriee, you sound very sure and full of yourself about a history you don’t know anything about. I wonder if I touched a raw nerve in you. You twist my words and you make a lot of assumptions which are simply not true.

          For example, my ex had a loving father and mother and a good family (who I remember with affection because they were my second family for some years). The absent father who treated her mother poorly is only in your imagination.

          About my girlfriend not being a quality woman, well, you don’t know her. You try to distort and invent facts to fit your preconceived ideas.

          But PUA techniques work in a relationship, as some married men have experienced (Athol Kay, Hawaian Libertarian), as I have experienced with several women. If you are unable to admit it and want to deny reality, it’s OK with me.

        • nothingbutthetruth

          Well, thank you for apologizing. This says a lot from you. It takes courage and maturity to admit that you made a mistake. I admit that I made a mistake judging you.

          Yes, you are right that “not giving a shit at the beginning of the relationship” about my ex is a horrible treatment. In fact, it was not like that. It’s only that I was far less interested than her at the beginning of the relationship. It is not easy for me to write in English (one of the reasons to write here is because I can practice) and, when I am sleepy, I tend to use phrases that are very short, very simplistic and very inaccurate.

          Thank you for your post and I apologize if I judged wrong.

        • greenfieldnews

          Not to sound like a cheerleader, but I’m really glad this conflict was resolved by you two as adults. Props to both :). I’m really tired of blogs where the comments fight, and actually attack each other’s personal lives.
          as to the topic of his post
          “Women want to think about their man as a prize. They want to think their man is reluctantly in this relationship because he could do better. They want to think that they have got somebody who is out of their league. They want to think that they are a 7 but they have got a 9.”
          This does, actually ring true for me. As much as I wish we could all be honest to each other, I know that if the guy is pursuing me hard, he seems a bit desperate, and that scares me away. It means a lot more, at least in my book, to have one meaningful “I love you” said weeks into the relationship, than after the first date.
          But girls, sadly, have to play the same game sometimes. There’s a reason why “hard to get” seems to be the number one bit of dating advice. Guys also don’t want a girl (for a relationship) that jumps in headfirst, and declares love and bakes cookies, and rubs his feet.
          Humans in this day and age are naturally lacking in trust, and for good reason. So, I do think the best relationships happen when both parties keep their cards close to their chest, and put one down at a time. Say I love you. Then, the next week, make him cookies. It doesn’t mean that you have to pretend not to like him. You just have to not overwhelm him.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          GFN, it’s so true – timing is critical. BTW, I loved the feet rubbing – that’s a girl who REALLY has let herself get carried away, LOL. I don’t think it’s playing games to acknowledge that we want to have to earn someone’s love. Women know they don’t have to earn desire – we get sexual attention easily enough. But it means a great deal to have a man become attached emotionally. If he does so without cause – without knowing us and finding reasons to appreciate us other than sexual desire, we actually feel badly about that. We also question how sensible he is – that’s why women call guys who fall hard up front “creepy” – it’s the equivalent of guys calling girls “psycho.” In fact, I don’t know why Juliet didn’t think Romeo was a creep!

        • greenfieldnews

          Yeah, but Juliet was thirteen…lol. and my high school english teacher always told us she thought R and J was written to prove that young folks shouldn’t follow their hearts…or penises..or…the tingle.
          I mean think about it. They get a night together. and everybody dies.
          Not a resounding endorsement for love conquering all.

  • Sox

    You can’t find love with a checklist, yet another reason why it’s so elusive nowadays. Wrt my “one that got away,” we found each other in a place neither of us had wanted nor expected for it to happen.

    I had always considered myself the romantic type, a lover. I was brought up believing it was valued by society, that my passion and ability to push a relationship into further and further depths of intimacy was laudable and sexy to the opposite sex and society. As a result of this, the women I actually dated usually did fall hard for me, and I always got the “you’re different” line. As time went on, people became more jaded and cynical and my own scars prevented me from being able to give so recklessly and confidently as I could before.

    We’re discouraged from loving today, because everyone’s so damned concerned with holding all the cards, minimizing the chance for pain, and maximizing their options. Taking the “red pill” as many in the PUA community have put it has left me with an option. It isn’t easy to let go of my ideals of how relationships and love *should* be. It wasn’t easy actually acknowledging that the ideals I’d been developing myself around were more or less useless in today’s market. I understand why many guys are bitter.

    Men and women both played their parts in this, but honestly, I’ve run into many more women with the “I don’t need anyone” mentality in my age group (now 25) and I’m regularly hearing stories from them of their boyfriends saying they love them, and them just thinking, “oh, this is awkward.” Everything’s about instant gratification, distracting oneself, and scratching the itch.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I agree that there are considerable obstacles to real love. The truth is that we don’t trust it even when we get it. And we’re so used to people competing for the upper hand that when some comes along and dispenses with all the BS, we think, “What’s wrong with him? He doesn’t even want the upper hand!”
      I think that for guys like you, and Belknap, an understanding of how to be “bold” is essential, and it can be hard to find the right person for an LTR. However, only the lover can create those depths of intimacy that sustain a fulfilling relationship over years, or even a lifetime. I’d like to think Belknap is right when he says it will be worth the trouble.

      • Sox

        Sure, although I’ve never had a problem with staying “bold” and keeping the relationship exciting. It’s been being “bold enough” at the beginning that I was weaker at.

        Guys in the contemporary SMP/DMP would do well to realize that showing their hand too early almost definitely results in self-sabotage and a loss of respect/tingle from the other end. By all means go for it, but be warned.

  • Anni

    I very much liked the post, thank you Susan. I think it also applies to women that when in love, she shouldn’t show her hand too early. And I believe PUAs having to actively avoid getting hung up on one woman and thus having “one-itis” is evindece that men fall in love and want love as do women. One must learn to be in love and at the same time retain their self. This applies to both men and women. Failure to do so and putting the love interest on a pedestal is fatal to the attraction that peron feels. Distracting oneself with several men/women and thus avoiding falling in love might help to avoid heartache, but won’t get one the love that they want.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I agree with you, Anni. One of the things I found most comforting about Belknap’s essay was his unabashed desire for love. It is in the interest of women to embrace lovers, rather than send them into the night, but as you say, humans assign value based on scarcity. None of us value the prize that is won without much effort.
      It is good to know there are men out there who look forward to love, and I hope Belknap’s message spreads far and wide. Love and seduction must temper one another.

    • Aldonza

      I agree…and yet, somebody has to take the risk for a relationship to move forward. Otherwise you’re just stuck with two people dancing around one another, neither willing to step forward and risk anything.

  • Obsidian

    *Sigh*

    Once again, another tortured post in the blogosphere, by folk I find to be equal turns fascinating and baffling.

    The issue is a non-issue for me. I reject the idea that “love” and Game are mutually exclusive. There is room for both and in truth, there must be both.

    Thank God none of the homies engages in talk like this. ;)

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Well, I think he is saying that pure love without restraint or artifice is the opposite of Game. One needs some Game to get to love, and perhaps to maintain it. But Game alone is not love, and doesn’t specifically address the question. Of course, we see that Game may be adapted or deployed to nurturing love through desire, as Athol writes about.
      .
      Haha, I will admit that Belknap here is engaging in some handwringing, but I enjoy it as an intellectual exercise.

      • ExNewYorker

        Ahhh…this reminds me of late night study sessions, after the physics problem set was done, when a couple of my fraternity brothers and I would sit down with beer and chicken wings. And discuss their class: “Philosophy of Love”, and I, as the pragmatic historian, would try to bring their idealized notions of love back to earth. But I wound up absorbing their philosophical notions of love, very similar to what Mr. Belknap has imbibed.

        Problem is that there were a couple of difficulties with those notions:

        1) The “Rachels” in question turned out to be just regular woman. Dulcinea del Toboso was just a regular peasant woman, a simple woman named Aldonza. While Don Quixote bestowed value on her, it was like his image of the windmills, just a mirage. And yes, in some sense Don Quixote viewed the world in a magical way, that could be said to bring out the best in the ordinary, but it was a idealized view after all. So Mr. Belknap idealized a “woman in white”, and didn’t seem to realize that had he “been bold”, he was still more in love with the concept of love than with “Rachel” herself…

        2) Most of the time, the “Rachels” don’t wan’t to be pedestalized to that degree. When they are, they tend to tune their out their feelings since, in their mind, such a fawning male must not be a true love.

        There seem to be a subset of young men who fall in love with the concept of love. Some common features of these men tend to be: only children, or with no sisters, or fundamentalist christian background, plus sci-tech background resulting in awkward social skills. And it usually took a “Rachel” experience to break such a guy’s heart in such a way to get him to rethink their “unabashed” desire for love and see reality as it is.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          But women do want the lover! If he becomes hardened to love and withdraws, it’s just one more man who’s unavailable.
          I suppose this heartbreak is a necessary reality check, as you say. It certainly seems to have worked in the way you describe for Belknap. It’s the pedestalization of woman that is the real problem – it makes him too vulnerable, and also doomed to failure because she cannot live up to his ideal. It makes her very uncomfortable because she knows that this “love” is of the “first sight” variety and not built on real knowledge of her true self. His emotional intensity was won not only too easily, but without basis, in her estimation.

  • Aldonza

    I’ve often wondered about the far-end of Game practitioners. If, as they say, they can have any woman they want for sex…how can they respect any woman enough to want a relationship with her? Part of game is culling out the women most likely to be relationship material by escalating and letting the ones that don’t escalate fall by the wayside, and what you’re left with are the women most likely to have fallen for Game tactics many times before. Contrast that with the desire of almost all PUAs for a relatively inexperienced woman…and you see the problem.

    I’m not saying Game doesn’t work on inexperienced women, just that they’re less likely to be targets for a variety of reasons. They’re also more likely to come away from the interaction feeling more damaged than some of their more aporetic/cynical sisters.

    Hopefully most guys (and gals) will learn where to draw the line between “Game” and “Real”.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Actually, Athol had a good comment about this on Hamby’s blog, though from a different context:

      I think the irony is that the game community is huge about NOT limiting choices. The game is to keep everyone stringing along for as long as possible and claim a role as a “seat” on the cock carousel. Then to demonize every woman that took a ride on it as not being worthy of an actual relationship.

      • Höllenhund

        This isn’t terribly surprising. Many PUAs obviously want to have it both ways: have lots of casual sex with many young girls, keep their options open and then settle with a cute, chaste, pure woman when they hit 35 or 40. This is nothing but a mirror image of what many young women are doing.

        Average player at 20:

        “The sexual marketplace looks great. Many beautiful girls are willing to put out. I’ll have tons of great casual sex and keep my options open.”

        Same player at 40:

        “Oh crap! It’s time to settle and get married but I only see used-up, jaded, cock-riding nasty sluts around me. What the Hell?”

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          Haha, well said. Also, being an alpha on that carousel makes a man used up, jaded, and a slut himself, IMO.

    • Obsidian

      Aldonza,
      You need to read my blog more often. Game has but one goal and one goal in mind:

      To win the SEXUAL ATTRACTION of the Female.

      Period. NOTHING ELSE.

      Game is amoral. It has nothing to do with whether the practitioner uses it for a one night stand or a lifelong marriage. While it can be used in tandem with romantic love and so on, in and of itself it is not automatically synonymous.

      People really need to get their heads out of their behinds on this issue, and stop trying to make Game out to be more than it actually is, which is a mating strategy for Males. Period.

      Whew. You really are a piece of work, you know that?

      O.

      • Aldonza

        You really are a piece of work, you know that?

        What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason!
        how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how
        express and admirable! in action how like an angel!
        in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the
        world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me,
        what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not
        me: no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling
        you seem to say so.

        .
        It seems very clear to me that among the manosphere, Game is almost exclusively used for gaining casual sex, the more, the better. If you are going to lump together groups of women and ascribe to them the traits of the most extreme of their members, then you need to take some responsibility for the *immoral* members of your own tribe.
        .
        Game may be amoral, but people are almost certainly not. And Game is nothing without people.

        • Obsidian

          Aldonza,
          YAWN. Please see my blogsite where I have exhaustively taken members of my own “tribe” to task early and often, and even Ms. Walsh will attest to this fact. Unlike you, I don’t make excuses for anyone’s ill-behavior, not for myself and not for anyone else. Projection much?

          And, who said getting casual sex was wrong? I see nothing wrong with it, so long as the Man doing so is upfront about it. I personally have never had to lie or otherwise misrepresent myself in order to get some, Aldonza.

          Like I said, you’re a real piece of work.

          O.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, I will say that Obsidian has written pretty extensively against any form of “Dark Game.” He has demonstrated his lack of respect for those practitioners in the Game community who treat women poorly, and written numerous posts urging men who practice Game to behave with impeccable character. I also feel confident that this is the way Obs conducts his own life.
          .
          I also included in my post Belknap’s view of the matter – he read and thought about Game pretty deeply before concluding that it was not immoral. He was very clear on that point. As Obsidian says, it is amoral. So is flirting. I recognize that women abuse flirting and teasing to get themselves attention and material goods. I have and will continue to condemn that behavior, but I don’t feel responsible for it.

        • Aldonza

          I’ve don’t made excuses for ill behavior, although I do empathize with people in why they do the things they do. Humans are emotional beings, subject to emotional triggers. Game is somewhat based on those more reliable triggers.
          .
          And it isn’t just men who are guilty of using those triggers. Lots of my “sisters” do horrid things to their men, and they frequently reap better rewards than women who behave more honorably. For ever used-up cum dumpster you see, I see a woman who is in a relationship with a nice guy, treating him like crap and living well because of it. I’d like to believe that there is a middle ground between the cock carousel and the beta chump pet.
          .
          I also have no problem with casual sex. Call me “sex-positive” but I do believe that adults should be able to make their own decisions about their sex lives. To this end, I strongly advocate women learning more about SMP dynamics so they can make their own decisions about what is best for them. I’m not a big fan of the level of denial that most women practice on a regular basis to engage in casual sex.
          .
          Lastly, I think we’re on the same side of being against “Dark Game” which is what I was referring to above.

        • Obsidian

          Aldonza,
          Replies below:

          A: I’ve don’t made excuses for ill behavior, although I do empathize with people in why they do the things they do. Humans are emotional beings, subject to emotional triggers. Game is somewhat based on those more reliable triggers.

          O: Hmm. That’s not how I recall your more recent comments on the iPhone affair thread…
          .
          A: And it isn’t just men who are guilty of using those triggers. Lots of my “sisters” do horrid things to their men, and they frequently reap better rewards than women who behave more honorably. For ever used-up cum dumpster you see, I see a woman who is in a relationship with a nice guy, treating him like crap and living well because of it. I’d like to believe that there is a middle ground between the cock carousel and the beta chump pet.

          O: People believe all manner of things, true and otherwise. Have at it. At any rate, I never made any such argument as you have proferred above. Strawman much?

          .
          A: I also have no problem with casual sex. Call me “sex-positive” but I do believe that adults should be able to make their own decisions about their sex lives. To this end, I strongly advocate women learning more about SMP dynamics so they can make their own decisions about what is best for them. I’m not a big fan of the level of denial that most women practice on a regular basis to engage in casual sex.

          O: *shrugs*
          .
          A: Lastly, I think we’re on the same side of being against “Dark Game” which is what I was referring to above.

          O: It would be nice to see you taking your sisters to task as much as I do my brothers. Maybe then, I might actually listen to you.

          O.

  • http://thegatewayboyfriend.blogspot.com dan_brodribb

    ” Never be more in love than your woman. Out of four “I love you”s she tells you, you only have to tell her one. If she tells you “I love you”, answer “I want you”. Return only two calls out of four calls she makes to you…[Women]want to think their man is reluctantly in this relationship because he could do better. They want to think that they have got somebody who is out of their league. They want to think that they are a 7 but they have got a 9.

    My current girlfriend imagines that there are lots of women attracted to me. In fact, there are a few women but I exaggerate the number of women attracted and the amount of the attraction. She treats me like a king because she is afraid to lose such attractive man.”

    This advice works, especially on women with a certain personality type.

    For me, I’ve found is it’s tiring and unsatisfying. I don’t enjoy playing games. I don’t feel good about myself ‘exaggerating.’ And whether I’m in a one-night stand or a long term relationship, I want a woman treating me well because she likes me, not because she’s afraid of losing me.

    I love women, but to me no woman is worth going against the things you believe. Especially when there are so many others out there.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Dan, I’m not surprised to hear you say you’re a lover rather than a PUA. It sounds like nothingbutthetruth actually enjoys this slight deception, and why not, if his girlfriend is happy. I think it comes down to being true to one’s own nature. It’s no good to use Game to land a hot girl and then rue the day you ever pretended to be something you’re not. Some men use PUA tactics and find that they enjoy the newfound power – they have no desire to return to that “chump” they were before. And others use PUA tactics to create a trail of emotional destruction. Strategy helps, of course, but not if it means being an impostor. Nothing good can come of that – nothing lasting, anyway.

      • nothingbutthetruth

        Thank you, Susan, for your kind comment. In fact, it is not exactly “exaggerating” (English is not my native tongue and it is hard for me to find the right words). It is the fact that my girlfriend thinks that I am so attractive that lots of women want to be after me (of course, this is not true but a person in love can think lots of stupid things). And I don’t deny this. I let my girlfriend’s imagination run wild. I don’t set the record straight. So it is a kind of exaggerating, after all, but in an implicit way.

        In fact, I would love not having to use game techniques. I have a very big “inner beta chump” and, when my girlfriend tells me two tender words, I want to tell her ten of these words and give her ten kisses.

        But several relationships have proved me that things do not work that way. Every time I have been myself (that is, a beta chump) in a relationship, it has become a catastrophe. And it’s good to learn from the experience.

        Maybe you can be completely sincere and straightforward in a relationship in America. But, at least in my culture, when you are a beta pussy, the woman ends up losing interest.

        This is why I use Game. Not because I relish in the power Game gives me, but because I want a relationship to last. And using Game has proved me, beyond any doubt, that makes relationships last.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          I’m with you 100%. You are employing a strategy that brings you happiness, and makes your woman happy as well. Everybody wins.
          BTW, American relationships are anything but sincere and straightforward. We don’t have a particularly macho culture, but the women’s movement and other cultural shifts in the U.S. over the past 50 years have made the sexual marketplace extremely difficult to navigate.

    • Obsidian

      Dan,
      Sorry bruh, can’t relate. Never had a problem telling a Woman I loved her. No impact on my Game whatsoever, in many cases it only deepened things. Perhaps this is one of those neurotic middle class White things that continues to fascinate and bewilders me?

      *shrugs*

      O.

      • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

        Obs, just to clarify, Dan was quoting another commenter there. It was nothingbutthetruth, and he’s made several other comments too, if you’d care to have a look.

  • Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    I suppose. All’s I’m saying is that the cohort of folk that are commonly found on the Internet tend to think too much and live in their heads to the detriment of actual action. Like I said, I thank God the local barbershop ain’t like this.

    O.

  • Vincent Ignatius

    This is a terrible example for men everywhere.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Vincent, what do you mean?

      • Vincent Ignatius

        It gives men that may not have fully defeated their old flaws the false hope that perhaps they’ll find a woman worthy of being loved. While I support what you do here, I still think the women in the Anglosphere of my generation are finished. Perhaps 5% deserve love from some guy, but the proportion of men who could be lured into love is far larger than that 5%. I’d rather give men realistic expectations.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          Vincent, I am aware that you hold women in low regard, and I’m sure you have your reasons. I don’t know what you mean by “finished,” but the vast majority of the women in the Anglosphere will both give and receive love, hopefully at least once with the same person.

  • verie44

    This article was really interesting, and very well-written, with the history included etc. Overall I really enjoyed it :)

  • Athlone McGinnis

    Susan: ” Like Stendhal’s ideal conversation with its moments of preparation and moments of naturalness, the love affair as a whole contains moments of distance and moments of closeness; the lover must always adapt, stay ready, and roll with the punches.””

    Athlone: …so you basically just need a truckload of game(your average beta doesn’t do the whole “roll with the punches” thing too well) combined a willingness to enter an LTR. In other words, you need a skilled PUA(or someone with a natural skill that is, at the least, well above average) adept at reading female signals and judging the ebbs and flows of relationship dynamics. He must also be willing to be “flipped” in the first place.

    I’m somewhat skeptical of the usefulness of this strategy long term for most guys. Most betas aren’t going to be able to pull this off without developing a whole lot of game first(creating strong inner game, conversational skills, openers, lines, etc). Only then are they going to gain the skills necessary to follow this rule: “The balancing act called for must be duplicated at every level and at every moment: always a genuine passion, and always a compensating restraint.” Without game(or natural ability), the restraint, balance and timing won’t be there, and they wont know when to apply things properly in order to become the lover we’re talking about.

    Once they develop game and get good at it, though, you have another problem: How do you flip them and convince these guys to follow this arduous(“Your love will exhaust you”) path as opposed to the one they’ve chosen, which offers consistent and cheap sexual gratification and the occasional relationship(even Roissy has done the LTR thing)?

    So the choices are:

    1. Bust balls in order to become good lover and create strong monogamous relationship.
    Pros: Good for romanticism. Sex is great when you’re in love. Plus, consistent monogamy is safe. No stds, no sarging in bars all the time, etc, etc.
    Cons: Logically leads to marriage. If you live in the US, this leaves you no room for error. If your balancing act slips up, you can lose everything and your arduous effort will have been for nothing. You basically surrender yourself to the whims of your mate, and if you didn’t choose just the right one(odds are slim that you do), it can blow up in your face.
    It also takes a ton of time and work.

    2. Be a PUA/Player and learn game
    Pros: Lots of sex, variety. Relatively easy compared to option one. More fun, less effort. If you get good at it, you can even create some LTRs(although they won’t be of quite the same quality found in the successful application of option one).
    Cons: You might never find true love even though you want it(can result in some emotional turmoil), and you’re open to a few more dangers the lovers do not need to worry about(STDs, violent AMOGs, etc).

    Path two has more immediate gratification and arguably lower risk(if you screw up, you move on to the next girl as opposed to losing half of your wealth). Plus it takes way less work. Then there’s the environmental factor. If I’m a young beta male and all I see around me is a Sodom and Gomorrah of free, completely casual and sometimes wild sexual activity(from one-on-one’s to relatively common threesomes in many college towns-you wouldn’t believe the stories, and my college town is small), why am I gonna bother with the whole lover thing? That type of monogamy/dating is dead in my age group. If I can just learn a little game and show up at a state school party or dance at some silly club I can get two for the price of one.

    The best part? I don’t have to bother with them after I’m done. No need to even call or write, or greet them on the off chance I see them in person. I don’t need to try “balancing” or “restraining” anything. I don’t need to, even without it these girls or more girls like them will be back in droves next weekend. All I need is some alcohol, a couple of bros to roll with, some chicks and a decent party.

    Why work hard?

    Some outliers like myself(basically provider betas who probably wont be very good at this strategy to begin with) may be more willing to try and strike this balance and put the effort in, but I highly doubt that most guys are gonna go for it. Unless you can give them a good answer to that question and convince them that the work is worth it, I don’t think this idea gets off the ground.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Athlone, just to be clear, that statement was Belknap speaking, not me, as he wraps up his essay.

      Without game(or natural ability), the restraint, balance and timing won’t be there, and they wont know when to apply things properly in order to become the lover we’re talking about.

      This is very true. I don’t know, obviously, how hard it is to deploy Game. It seems to me that would hinge on the personality of the guy learning it, and perhaps shyness would be the main impediment.
      As for pitting the LTR against cheap, sexual gratification, that is something each man must decide for himself. By the way, don’t deceive yourself about Roissy – when he has dated women for a year of more, he has always had other women on the side, and is proud of his ability to deceive his gf’s about that.
      Re #1:

      You basically surrender yourself to the whims of your mate, and if you didn’t choose just the right one(odds are slim that you do), it can blow up in your face.

      You have clearly drunk the MRA Kool Aid on marriage. Personally, I don’t see why the odds should be slim that you choose the right partner. No one should marry who does not know their partner intimately in every respect. As I’ve said elsewhere, the divorce rate for college-educated couples in the U.S. is 17%.
      Re #2:
      I don’t see how becoming an effective PUA would be any less work than applying some Game to an LTR. In fact, the constant sargeing, trying to get numbers, dealing with the women who flake, etc. must be truly exhausting. At Project Hollywood, this amounted to a full-time job. Style was relieved to leave that life, though he took with him the skills necessary to maintain a LTR.
      .
      Finally, this post isn’t about selling an approach. It’s something that Belknap discovered for himself – it’s his own personal journey, and he’s sharing where it took him. He found a way to embrace his nature and still (hopefully) be effective to get what he wants. Perhaps that won’t work for other men, but I’m happy for him.

      • Obsidian

        Ms. Walsh,
        It is my understanding that college educated middle class Black couples have a higher chance of divorcing than their White counterparts – a key consideration for guys like Athlone, Dragnet and Escaronditio (of course, I’m the anomaly, LOL).

        Do you have any info on this?

        O.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          Obs, I don’t but I’ve made a note to research this. I may be able to find something at either the Rutgers or UVA Marriage Project.

      • Obsidian

        Ms. Walsh,
        It is very important to be precise here.

        Wrt Style, it wasn’t the sarging etc in and of themselves, that was the problem at Project Hollywood, but rather, that Style was the only guy there who actually had a life prior to Game, along with the maturity and age/wisdom in order to manage it all and keep it in perspective. All the other players, including Mystery, didn’t have that. Hence why the meltdown.

        I’m just saying.

        O.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          That’s true. Style was not fond of some of the guys that came in, like Tyler Durden, for example, as I recall. There was a lot of infighting around business opportunities. Still, I think he did say something along the lines of the usefulness of learning Game so that you won’t need it anymore. In other words, he was a “lover” who was able to fulfill his desire for a LTR with the woman he wanted by applying Game. He was able to change his behavior while still remaining true to his nature, at least I assume so.

      • Athlone McGinnis

        Susan: “By the way, don’t deceive yourself about Roissy – when he has dated women for a year of more, he has always had other women on the side, and is proud of his ability to deceive his gf’s about that.”

        Athlone: That’s a fair point, and one I acknowledge. However, keep in mind that I did make this caveat in my post, admitting that while LTRs are attainable from a Roissyesque perspective their quality is often not quite the same as would be found following the successful application of approach one and the discovery of actual love. I’ve read virtually every post Roissy has ever made, so I am well aware of the nature of his LTRs.

        The fact remains, though, that you can get LTRs out of that approach nonetheless. That means that if you still want a semblance of monogamy, you can have it when you want without putting a ton of work in. You don’t have to cheat either(though Roissy recommends establishing “dread” at the minimum, or at least making it seem that you COULD cheat or leave at anytime to keep her desire high).

        SW: “You have clearly drunk the MRA Kool Aid on marriage.”

        AM: C’mon, as if they’re completely without a point. If your marriage goes south in the US, it is very easy for you to get completely done in. Many rational men have been concerned about this and I don’t think its unfair for them to think about it. I even remember a recent comment thread where escarondito talked about his experience at a gaming store with a husband who seemed like a defeated man getting bossed around over the phone by his ex-wife. You admitted that men who had seen such things and had some concern were not unjustified.

        If I get married, it’ll probably be overseas in a country with saner laws.

        SW: “Personally, I don’t see why the odds should be slim that you choose the right partner.”

        AM: After spending the past year on a college campus, I can see why. 90% of the girls I met there(both inside and outside of the frat basement) wouldn’t fit the bill personality wise. I can only imagine that ratio being higher at the more average schools, like the ones that fill my hometown.

        For this to work, you need the following characteristics in the girl.

        1. Doesn’t aspire to the type of mindset outlined in shows like Sex and the City or Gossip Girl. This means that she doesn’t plan to play a carrie bradshaw role until her clock starts ticking and/or isn’t hypergamous and entitled to the max like Blair Waldorf and/or Serena. Most girls at my school do, unfortunately fit one of these categories(feminists with an eye to carrie bradshaw type life and an investment banker husband later or entitled princess).

        If she is one of these types, then the chances of your average beta successfully implementing this strategy are going to be low. The entitled princess will only accept proposals from the top 20% of men with game(read: alphas) and the the carrie bradshaw types will do the same and be more hesitant to commit, unless your game is tight(again, eliminating the majority of guys who are betas).

        2. Doesn’t screw around regularly, even when young(read: values self). Most girls at the average college campus don’t fit this category.
        This quality is probelmatic because it devalues the girl. As a guy, you probaby aren’t going to want to put in the arduous work necessary to snag a girl who screwed 7 frat bros in one week or gives blowjobs out like candy on Halloween.
        3. Doesn’t buy into modern american relationship mantra, which encourages higher divorce rates and infidelity among women simply because “they’re bored”(read: has to have the sense of responsibility, compassion and duty necessary to stick to this relationship and make it work even when your balancing isn’t so good). This is the most essential qualification. She can’t be of the ballbusting type that consistently shit tests/challenges her man just for the hell of it either. This will make balancing too tiresome.

        These are just three of the qualifications you’re gonna need in a girl to make this whole plan successful. There are plenty more, but even leaving the woman aside, you’ll still need a player who actually wants to be flipped(which is rare in and of itself).

        Finding a girl here who fits all three bills is rough going. I know good girls exist, and I’ve met at least a couple of them. I may even have had a friend or two date some good girls. They’re just really hard to find here these days, and that limits the effectiveness of this strategy. Its not going to work for most guys without a really rational, dutiful, more traditionally feminine type of woman, and those are uncommon.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          I really like this list of necessary characteristics, though I understand it’s not comprehensive. FWIW, I do think the MRAs have an excellent point about marriage and the risks to men. It’s just that my cost/benefit analysis looks different than theirs. In part, that’s because I’m a woman who would never divorce my husband because I’m bored. Anyone who thinks marriages don’t include boredom, not to mention downright annoyance, are deceiving themselves. If the worst thing about a marriage is that it gets stuck in a rut, it’s really not that hard a problem to solve. Either or both parties can switch things up a bit. I think a man needs to select a woman who shows absolute determination and commitment to everything she does. And she should be a person who puts the needs of others before her own some of the time. She should also be a person who communicates in a forthright way. Beware of women who sulk and then say “nothing” when you ask them what’s wrong.

        • Miss Nosey Parker

          Hi Susan, I’d like you to know that I really enjoy your blog. I am not a member of your target audience or age group, but I always find your posts and the discussions that follow to be interesting and insightful. I’ve been lurking for a little over a year and I have yet to comment until now.

          I am constantly mystified by your male readers that are making decisions based out of fear and loathing, and planning for their marriages to fail. A pre-nup is common sense, but actually considering going to another country to get married or seeking out a foreign wife as some way to assure your financial solvency if things go south? That sounds like a ridiculous extreme to me. I am not interested in getting into a big MRA debate. My question to some of your readers is this: Guys, don’t you trust yourselves to choose an honest, desirable wife? I know that there are no guarantees in life and sometimes things end earlier that we plan. I also know that we are ruled by our hormones, but are you guys so shallow that the warm glow of having a level 10 hottie on your arm and the raging jealously of friends and strangers trumps any rational decision making regarding long term mate selection? Dude, looks fade…and maintenance is a bitch. BTW – When snooty “Amanda” isn’t the B.G.O.C. anymore and she gets a reality check after graduation, who will be expected to pick up the pieces? You!

          As Susan mentioned in a few earlier posts, why not seek out a hard 7 or 8 that you are sexually attracted to, that would help you raise your kids and run a household, someone with whom you could enjoy mutual interests and respect, without having to worry about her banging your brother or her personal trainer when you’re away? YES, average looking people can act like entitled brats and they cheat, too. But I feel like some of these sexually frustrated guys are reaching too high (too low, really) and they are fishing in the wrong pond. Why are you guys pining away for those easy, obnoxious social butterflies with zero compassion for others? Susan, I know that you mentioned guys’ ability to compartmentalize and sleep with women they don’t respect or even like, but some of your readers seem to be begging to get chewed-up and spit-out by a succubus they despise. Then they get angrier and bitterer each time they are ignored or shit on. Hello? What does banging one of the “popular” girls get you in the end? Herpes. LOL

          I’m not a dullard, I understand the external validation and social proof that arm candy provides to men. But real life is not like High School and College! There’s a plethora of women out there with a multitude of personality types that you guys will meet once you are out in the real world. Right now every experience or interaction is magnified and exaggerated. Hang on! High School and College are not forever! Right now you are being prepped for life as an adult. It’s wise to begin shifting your priorities now. Would you really want to MARRY one of those rude, self-centered, high strung, high maintenance poodles? Really? If those are the traits that you value, then any guy who puts a ring on that deserves to get hung out to dry in a divorce.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          Hi Miss Nosey Parker! Welcome, I’m glad you came out of the shadows. I won’t attempt to respond to your comment directly, as it is directed towards the guys, but I do encourage you to keep joining the discussion! I’m so glad you enjoy HUS!

        • Passer_By

          Well, I’m currently happily married, so I’m not exactly your target audience here, but I’ll attempt to respond for the guys who post the things you mention.

          1. “Guys, don’t you trust yourselves to choose an honest, desirable wife? I know that there are no guarantees in life and sometimes things end earlier that we plan.”

          People change (or later manifest themselves) in ways that can’t be protected, and external incentives often allow them to rationalize those new behaviors. The guys who all got screwed over in divorce all thought they were choosing wisely at the time. Suppose, hypothetically, that the law allowed husbands to beat their wives with impunity, and suppose if the women tried to leave, the State would mandate that they be returned to be beaten some more (much like the State uses its awesome power to help many women screw men over in divorce and other family law scenarios). Suppose, as a result, we suddenly saw more and more men beating their wives. Suppose, then, women were simply saying “Sisters! Don’t get married. I’ll never get maried. You shouldn’t either!” Would you seriously say to those women “Gals, don’t you trust yourselves to pick good men who won’t do that?” It’s a silly statement. People do the best they can with the options they have, but if the incentives of the State end up creating terrible odds, they might be foolish to think they can pick better than all the other members of their gender. The answer in my hypothetical would not be to tell women to make better choices and trust their judgment, the answer would be to have the state stop helping the men beat the women.

          2. “As Susan mentioned in a few earlier posts, why not seek out a hard 7 or 8 that you are sexually attracted to, that would help you raise your kids and run a household, someone with whom you could enjoy mutual interests and respect, without having to worry about her banging your brother or her personal trainer when you’re away? ”

          You’re mixing and matching a few issues here, but I’ll try to separate them. As far as marrying a 7 or 10 or whatever, I think most of the guys who got screwed over in divorces got screwed over by the 7 or 8 (or less) just as often as the 10. From what I’ve seen, when a woman starts to seriously lose respect for her husband (for whatever reason), the 5s are just as bitchy and heartless as the 10s.

          As far as sexually frustrated guys overreaching, I doubt it. I really do. Guys overreach sometimes when seeking a long term mate (and don’t find one), but they are more than willing to have sex (even a fling or a shorter term relationship) with 5 or 6, or sometimes even less. The guys who aren’t getting any (assuming they are horribly unattractive or whatever) are simply too awkward and turn off even the 5s. If you’re talking about a guy who can never seem to find the right one who he wants to settle down with, you could be right. Sometimes I think male “commitment phobia” is really a form of male LTR hypergamy. Women are strongly sexually hypergamic and to a lesser degree LTR hypergamic, and men tend to be LTR hypergamic only (though not nearly as much as women are as to sex).

          3. “Why are you guys pining away for those easy, obnoxious social butterflies with zero compassion for others? ”

          Who are these guys you speak of? Some guys out there may be, but for the most part the guys who post here and elsewhere on the NET about not being successful with women are not pining away for those women, unless you’re talking about high school kids (and even then I tend to doubt it). I’m pretty confident of that. This is an example of women inaccurately projecting female behavior onto males.

        • Passer_By

          Oops. I need a proof reader.

          In the first point, that should be “predicted”, not “protected”.

          In the 2nd point, the parenthetic should read “(assuming they are NOT horribly unattractive or whatever)”. I’ve found that, strangely, the ommission of the word “not” often changes the intended meaning. Go figure.

        • verie44

          I just have to say that even when some women demonstrate these traits, some men don’t recognize them as good things. Not everyone reads Hookingup smart. There are men who have no idea what they actually need and who become the bitter MRA divorcees after the fact.

          1. They value women who value materialistic things like sex & the city either because they’re materialistic themselves, or because they see it as a marker of a woman of a certain class.
          2. They like the sexual experienced women because they’re dirtier (and probably initially better) in bed.
          3. They don’t pay attention to shit tests or realize what they are, and the idea is completely lost on them. They see the absence of these tests as low-maintenance, which translates to lower value in their eyes.

          Some men accept women who are the opposite of what you mention and reject women who demonstrate the good traits you talk about as low-class, bad in bed, low-maintenance (I’ve actually heard a man say that as an insult in regard to a woman). As long as this happens, what incentive do women have to not do these things? In fact, being the qualities you mention can get you rejected just as quickly. It’s your fellow men who are fucking things up for you — if they didn’t marry these women, women would have to change to be what we know actually works long-term since women are hypergamous.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          They see the absence of these tests as low-maintenance, which translates to lower value in their eyes.

          Really? That’s fascinating if true. I wonder if it’s the same as I was saying about women – they we want to work to earn affection, and therefore value it more highly when it doesn’t come too easily. If a woman is not coy, if she receives a man’s attention enthusiastically, will he value her less? Does a woman dishing out a lot of shit tests telegraph high value? Do men want to be the rare guy who can pass all her tests and “break” her?

        • verie44

          Yes, some do want to prove themselves. They take a kind of pride that their wife can buy anything she wants and they can provide it. But that woman obviously comes from a materialistic “sex and the city” viewpoint.

          Guys know that some men don’t particularly want a low number of partners — some marry the girl who’s the best in bed that they’ve had, and that may or may not be a girl with A LOT of partners, since different people tend to show you different things. Some of my girlfriends’ strategy to land a man falls in this category and it’s worked out for 2 of them.

          And yes, some guys seek out high-maintenance women because their mothers are that way or because they believe they’re better / more confident / more deserving.

          I’ve seen all of the above, actually more than I’ve seen men talking about women who are modest, have a low number of partners, and want a woman who is low-maintenance. But maybe that’s because NYC is a flashy city that revolves around money?

        • Athlone McGinnis

          verie44: “Some men accept women who are the opposite of what you mention and reject women who demonstrate the good traits you talk about as low-class, bad in bed, low-maintenance (I’ve actually heard a man say that as an insult in regard to a woman). As long as this happens, what incentive do women have to not do these things?”

          Athlone: None, really, but that just proves my point when I say that this strategy may not work for most men. The women don’t have the right qualities and a good number of the men, according to what you’re saying, have no idea how to pick out the ones who do have the right qualities either(and in fact do quite the opposite and chase them away in many cases). The whole endeavor of love will just fall apart at that rate.

          verie44: “It’s your fellow men who are fucking things up for you — if they didn’t marry these women, women would have to change to be what we know actually works long-term since women are hypergamous.”

          Athlone: In some ways, you have a point. “Those” men(manginas and white knights who tolerate the expression of negative qualities by their women for whatever reason) do screw things up for the rest of us.
          There are quite a few in the MRA/Roissysphere who would actually agree with you. I see posts talking about how these men, not feminists, are in fact the real “enemy” so to speak.

  • http://thegatewayboyfriend.blogspot.com dan_brodribb

    “I would love not having to use game techniques. I have a very big “inner beta chump” and, when my girlfriend tells me two tender words, I want to tell her ten of these words and give her ten kisses.

    But several relationships have proved me that things do not work that way. Every time I have been myself (that is, a beta chump) in a relationship, it has become a catastrophe”

    I’m sorry to hear that, NBT. Feeling like you can’t be yourself sounds very lonely.

    For what it’s worth, you don’t sound like a chump to me.

  • http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/ Hambydammit

    Such a complicated topic! I’ll keep myself to one aspect of it. Remember my post from a while back about defining love? ( Here it is: http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/what-is-love/ ) The principle model used by psychotherapists these days focuses on love as a decision to behave “lovingly” towards someone we’ve committed to. Of course, this decision is often accompanied by deep feelings of passion, but that’s kind of beside the point.

    PUA relationships are often built around getting the girl to put the behavior before the decision. That is, the guy wants sex and the girl gives it to him. This pattern continues for some length of time until the guy decides to dump the girl or keep her — at which point the GUY is making the decision to behave lovingly by giving the girl the commitment she wants.

    The reverse of this is generally frowned upon by players: Build up emotions and feelings of bonding and let the girl see how committed you already are, and then hope she follows through with the loving decision to give you sex.

    So yeah… I get it. Some men love the feeling of being in love. And that’s valid. But what psychology teaches us is that as Rachel discovered, women want what they want and all the poetic language in the world can’t change that. Men who love passion will still have a better shot at finding a girl to be passionate about if they learn to trip the switches of attraction in as many women as possible. They don’t have to pump and dump every girl whose eyes dilate. It’s just simple math. Love passion? You’ll love it more if you have fifty girls who’d love you to be passionate about them than if you’re pining away in the corner while the PUA’s plow through the Pump ‘n Go parking lot. And more importantly — maybe most importantly — once they have the girl they can feel passionate about, they can continue to game her so that she continues to feel attraction. Continuing to game your girl (using only Jedi powers, not Sith powers) is a way of behaving lovingly to her in a committed relationship.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Women want what they want and all the poetic language in the world can’t change that. Men who love passion will still have a better shot at finding a girl to be passionate about if they learn to trip the switches of attraction in as many women as possible.

      This is truth and there is no way around it. Even if women went for the lover every time, as Rachel did, they would lose interest if he couldn’t keep those switches turned on. That means that once you use Game to snag the girl, you’re going to need to keep it up forever. How challenging this is will depend on how far outside a man’s true nature he needed to travel to flip those switches. If it wasn’t far, he can probably internalize that change. If it’s a huge act, it’s going to fall apart at some point.
      As for the conflict between men and women re the timing of loving behavior vs. sex – well, that is the mating dance. It will ever be thus!

  • Athlone McGinnis

    Miss Nosey Parker: “I am constantly mystified by your male readers that are making decisions based out of fear and loathing, and planning for their marriages to fail.”

    Athlone McGinnis: Why? The state of marriage is not very good in the US. Failure rates are extremely high and the consequences(loss of half your wealth, your kids and your home, not to mention your dignity) are even worse.

    Things are bad. Recognizing this is just common sense for any guy. Even if they DO ultimately decide to go ahead and get married anyway they would be foolish not to at least be aware of the very real risks.

    Miss Nosey Parker: “A pre-nup is common sense, but actually considering going to another country to get married or seeking out a foreign wife as some way to assure your financial solvency if things go south? That sounds like a ridiculous extreme to me.”

    Athlone McGinnis: Its not so extreme for me. I’m a Jamaican with an English-born jamaican mother, and Ivy League pedigree and family/friends in many parts of the world. Packing up and heading to Europe(EU citizen by descent) or the caribbean would be easy for me.

    Given the risks in the US I outlined above, I fail to see how this is foolish.

    Miss Nosey Parker: “Guys, don’t you trust yourselves to choose an honest, desirable wife?”

    Athlone: Yes. I’m sure the millions of divorced guys out there did the same.
    I’m just using common sense. Is there a remote chance that I get married here? Perhaps, but it’d take the perfect girl, which I am unlikely to ever find here. My chances improve elsewhere.
    This is just a logical conclusion.

    Miss Nosey Parker: “I know that there are no guarantees in life and sometimes things end earlier that we plan.”

    Athlone: …and the consequences for me in that regard as a husband are going to be greater than my wife’s if I marry here. Don’t forget that.

    Miss Nosey Parker: “I also know that we are ruled by our hormones, but are you guys so shallow that the warm glow of having a level 10 hottie on your arm and the raging jealously of friends and strangers trumps any rational decision making regarding long term mate selection? Dude, looks fade…and maintenance is a bitch. BTW – When snooty “Amanda” isn’t the B.G.O.C. anymore and she gets a reality check after graduation, who will be expected to pick up the pieces? You!”

    Athlone: WTF? How did we go from expatriation to 10′s? Whatever, I’ll address it anyway.

    I am getting very, VERY sick of this assumption being made about guys like myself. I’ll try and be as clear as possible with you: I never pursued “snooty amanda”. The vast majority of the girl’s I have pursued have not been “perfect 10 hotties”. I’ve never tried to date a model. My teammates thought that the last girl I seriously tried to court was, in fact, ugly(I’d have called her a 5). Most of the girls I have sought out have been 6′s, 7′s, and MAYBE a couple of 8′s. Cute girls, but they weren’t winning any beauty pageants.

    I am not shallow. In fact, my lack of shallowness has been the problem. My willingness to become infatuated with personal, deeper qualities about the girls I pursue has helped to cause my “oneitis”(read: getting too into one girl), which in turn helps to just creep them out. I valued the 5 I courted early this past school year because of her smarts and carriage, which helped me overlook her rather unspectacular appearance. I respected these qualities so much that I started thinking further ahead(as I usually do) about how they would make her a good wife and all of that crap. That’s why she ran.

    Furthermore, even if we were judging “leagues” solely on appearance, I was without a doubt in or above the league of most girls I pursued. I’m an Ivy League football player, not an obese, lazy, druggie omega bum who lives in a trailer and wacks off all day in between WOW sessions. I’ve been objectively judged anywhere from a 7 in person by my peers to a 9 on HotorNot. I’m decent looking. So are plenty of the other guys here who have similar complaints to my own. Why is it irrational for us to expect a good looking girl? I’ve shot for mostly 6′s and 7′s and I think that is perfectly fair, not “entitled” as so many seem to assume.

    Most of the other guys who complain about being “nice guys” and getting shot down a lot are just like me-they got blown out of the sky by the cute 6 or 7(maybe 8 at best and, in my case, a 5 or two) in school, not the 9 or 10 queen bee who models for abercrombie in her spare time. It is disingenuous, irrational, and downright ignorant to continue doggedly assuming that every guy with a relationship issue is “aiming too high”.

    We’re rational enough to shoot for girls who are in our league. They don’t want us. That’s where the frustration comes from. People need to stop assuming that we’re not rational enough to avoid limiting ourselves to supermodels. We’re more reasonable than this.

    • verie44

      Divorce is only 20% in the college-educated set. It’s been vastly overstated. Everyone needs to chill out with the 50% failure rate. It’s actually not that high.
      http://www.isnare.com/?aid=217950&ca=Marriage

      • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

        From the UVA Marriage Project:

        College-educated Americans have seen their divorce rates drop
        by about 30% since the early 1980s, whereas Americans without college
        degrees have seen their divorce rates increase by about 6%. Just under
        a quarter of college-educated couples who married in the early 1970s
        divorced in their first ten years of marriage, compared to 34% of their
        less-educated peers. Twenty years later, only 17% of college- educated
        couples who married in the early 1990s divorced in their first ten years of
        marriage; 36% of less-educated couples who married in the early 1990s,
        however, divorced sometime in their first decade of marriage.

        http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/pdfs/Wilcox_Fall09.pdf

    • verie44

      I have to say that I think you and your friends are having unique problems because of the school you attend. I also went to an ivy and many of the girls there are awkward & weird, just like many of the guys. I fell into this category myself when I attended. Put a bunch of really smart, really sheltered people in a group with little social experience from high school (most of you are dorks or studied too much/did too much extracurricular to party much, just admit it) and you get some weird social dynamics when there’s pressure to drink and have sex. Girls like me have NO idea how to react — I just ran when guys wanted to date me or made up crazy excuses because I wasn’t ready to deal with it. School was demanding enough, making friends, and trying to be social all were too much to juggle. Plus I didn’t want the entire campus knowing who I was dating — it’s tough to choose a guy at a small school without everyone knowing every detail. I didn’t know how to interact with boys at all until probably my junior year of college, and even then I probably seemed pretty impaired compared to your average state school girl, just very shy and unsure of myself.

      I just had a visit from a friend who was also a football player at my school and he echoed what you’re saying: girls were always rejecting guys, saying they were sketchy or weird, etc. He always envied guys who went to state schools because the girls were throwing themselves at the athletes. I honestly think you’ll stop having problems once you hit junior or senior year (I’m guessing you’re a freshman or sophomore), and even less problems with girls being weird or rejecting you in the real world. For now though, I would probably concentrate on the girls in sororities at your school — they tend to be the most socially-adapted of the campus (read: apt to react to your advances normally). Just be careful they’re not slutty (even the “sluts” will be considerably less slutty than the general populace), but there are some who are not, especially at a “smart school.”

      • ExNewYorker

        Nah, waiting till junior or senior year doesn’t make too much of a difference. A majority of the “ivy league set” of women is still career obsessed, or alpha obsessed. They may start realizing that they may have been going at it wrong in the third or fourth of grad school, but at that point, we’ve gotten tired of waiting and have begun to listen to our cad friends and relatives, who were right all along…

        • Lisette

          Oh, whine whine. I had somewhat similar experiences to Vera and wasn’t all that comfortable interacting with guys, really, until I went out into the working world. I did have guy friends in college, but I ran with an academic sort of crowd and so even the “alphas” of that group would probably be considered betas by the rest of the world’s standards. A few romances blossomed here and there, but for the most part we all just eyed each other kind of warily and didn’t do much.
          .
          I’m sorry your youth wasn’t everything you dreamed it could be, or that you’re jealous of your cad brother’s success with women, or whatever, but it might have been nice if you had recognized that women are people, just like you, subject to the same hopes, disappointments, and yes, insecurities. I really don’t have time to get into a big argument with you or anyone else right now, but I’m a little tired of the prevailing attitude around here that a woman who has been disappointed in love must be shallow and full of herself, but a man who has been disappointed in love is just an innocent victim of women’s innate cruelty.
          /rant over.

        • Lisette

          Apologies for getting personal. I can have a mean streak at times.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          Lisette, ENY is a great guy and a real ally, but your criticism is well founded about the tone of some of the guys’ comments. I am glad you spoke up, and encourage you to debate anything you disagree with. There are women in general, and I don’t think we’re all the same. Nor do I think there are just a few good women around. There are certainly good women here. My readers are hardly representative of the culture at large. Not a lot of Girls Gone Wild and heartless women here.

        • ExNewYorker

          *Laugh* I’m a big boy, I can handle a little “disagreement”… :-)
          .
          I did envy cad brother his success with women, but it wasn’t like I was a monk…just that it was harder to find relationships, and when I did, to avoid “pedestalizing” the woman, which would backfire. But the reality is that, while I had to learn some “Game” from him, it also had to be adapted to my needs, goals and personality. It was never my interest to bang a new girl every week or month, but to date enough to see what was out there, and to be able to have a measure of choice in who I wanted a LTR with.
          .
          I suspect that readers of this blog tend to be more toward “the good side”. However, during the last of my single years, it was quite difficult to find women to fit that mold for a LTR. Anecdotally, it seemed to be a parallel to the 80%-20% alpha vs. cad action discussed around here…

  • ExNewYorker

    I think Athlone is correcl on all his points, and especially in the last one. We “originally beta men” were rational, pursuing the girls in our league. Heck, at a Sci/Tech or Ivy, the women will be reasonably cute, but not models. As beta guys, we understood we might have to “setlle”, but we tried to find other qualities to compensate.

    Of course, this didn’t work, and eventually we looked around to see those who had success so we learned some game, and the hotties that who were originally out of our league, now started returning our calls. Of course, most of the “hotties” were anything but good LTR material (good for a STR or hookup), so then the task becomes finding a worthwhile LTR, which Athlone correctly adds that the marriage laws make the decision to commit in that way less and less appealing.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Yes, Athlone is extremely smart and perceptive. Wise well beyond his years. My main concern (Athlone, are you listening?) is that he is absorbing some of Roissy et al’s cynicism. Honestly, hanging out with those guys can be problematic for a young man, IMO. Roissy clearly has a completely inability to emotionally attach, and he’s made a name for himself celebrating that. He inhabits an ugly world. The fact that he will have avoided a financially ruinous marriage doesn’t make him or his ilk successful in life. Or love. Or much of anything really.
      .
      The marriage climate in the U.S. sucks. I get it. I don’t really see how the alternative is any better. Yeah, hang on to your dollars, guaranteed, and practice a lifetime of serial monogamy or just have sex with whomever. Idk, maybe that’s a guy’s ideal life. If so, that sucks for the good women.

      • Athlone McGinnis

        Yeah, I am listening. And yeah, I’m a cynic, not gonna lie. I like to consider myself a reasonably rational individual capable of strong objective analysis. I’ve read EVERYTHING there is to read about the modern dating market. That means going from Feministing to pandagon to Roissy to obsidian to Inmalafide to the more moderate places like this. I even went onto the fringes and delved in Devlin essays and HBD.

        My conclusion? All have their points(though to varying extents). I’ve tried to draw on all of these. In the process, i have concluded that, despite the cynicism inherent in his writing, Roissy makes cogent, valid points more often than not. I found myself digging into my own personal past(relatively limited as it was) and finding that, for many of the “maxims” and conclusions he made I could find an experience of my own justifying it.
        His experience and the advice that stems from it, cynical as it is, is CORRECT in the MAJORITY of cases one deals with in the average American sexual marketplace. The longer I’ve read and the more I’ve learned, the clearer this has become.

        Is he a misogynistic cynic and kind of a prick in some ways? Well, yeah, I can’t really deny this. That doesn’t invalidate his life experience. Hell, he even acknowledges openly the “dark side” of his cynicism, and alludes to the point so many girls have made here about him(“if you’re too cynical you might hurt truly good girls”).
        I mean, he was honest enough to admit that. I doubt that many of his other posts are any less realistic(and I have read nearly all of them). He’s clearly not trying to fool anyone into thinking that his lifestyle is infallible and flawless. He just makes the argument convincingly that the alternative(which I lived for most of my life) is worse.

        So, to conclude, I agree that his points are highly cynical in that they are often cold, dark, calculating and sometimes shocking and mean. In other words, they’re EXACTLY like the world we now live in. I’ll never be as cynical as he is(too much beta has been bred into me already) so you don’t have to worry about that. Still, I’d rather be aware and understanding of this unfortunate but realistic darkness than live a delusional and blissfully ignorant life as a chump. I’ve been that guy already, and I’d rather be castrated and celibate than do it again.

        As for marriage, expatriation is a valid option. Overweight and entirely unattractive men with no game go to Southeast asia and find 8′s and 9′s to marry, so the average beta probably has a shot to(just don’t bring her back here). If that’s not your thing, consider a place like Sweden which has much fairer divorce laws, or even Latin America. A lot of expatriate betas do well in japan, Korea and Singapore to. You don’t neccessarily need to go to a third world country to find a better deal(though its obviously easier there). Even Europe(more progressively feminist than even the US) has some intriguingly fair options.

        Cohabitation sans marriage is another idea. This can rid you of the alimony issue, though you still will need to deal with child support.
        If you’re lucky you might just find the ideal girl here and not have to do any of that. You’d be able to marry her and, because of who she is, let your cynical guard down and live a long happy life. You probably wont be that lucky, though you never know. The caveat, though, is that you’re more likely to find this girl in a more traditional culture unlike the one we’re used to seeing in most of the US(read: overseas). Make of that what you will.
        There are several other ways, but rest assured that serial monogamy/hooking up is not the only option.

        • Aldonza

          I found myself digging into my own personal past(relatively limited as it was) and finding that, for many of the “maxims” and conclusions he made I could find an experience of my own justifying it.

          What you have there is clear confirmation or verification bias, as it’s known in the research community. You’ve decided to sign on board with what Roissy is saying, so your brain is looking for “facts” to back it up. I could equally decide that all men suck and find plenty of justification for that belief. But your belief is still just a belief.
          .
          The fact is, if you look around, you’ll see exactly what you’re looking for. I’d say that Roissy has just chosen to see exactly what he sees.

        • Athlone McGinnis

          Aldonza: “What you have there is clear confirmation or verification bias, as it’s known in the research community. You’ve decided to sign on board with what Roissy is saying, so your brain is looking for “facts” to back it up. I could equally decide that all men suck and find plenty of justification for that belief. But your belief is still just a belief.”

          Athlone McGinnis: Not quite. I am not looking for facts AFTER deciding to sign on with what Roissy was saying. These experiences jumped out at me while I was in the process of studying and reading blogs, including this one. Many of these “facts” jumped out at me when I first started reading Roissy(as I was beginning my serious attempt to study his and other blogs relating to dating). I hadn’t made a decision at all at this point, and in fact I remember also being far less cynical back then as well. I was far from “signing on board” with the chateau then and even now I know I’ll never approach his level of cynicism(cynical as I am). I was much more hopeful at that point in time, and would even go on to make several more mistakes with girls between then and now based on this fact alone.

          My brain brought up the facts to back up his posts because they resonated, plain and simple. I’d already lived much of what he described, and seen a lot of the rest. Since the whole point of this endeavor was to learn more about dating from various sources and see how this knowledge could relate to me, my mind naturally brought up the experiences.

          Aldonza: “The fact is, if you look around, you’ll see exactly what you’re looking for. I’d say that Roissy has just chosen to see exactly what he sees.”

          Athlone McGinnis: I disagree. I spent most of my life looking for something very different than I am now, and I did so in a far less cynical way than I do now. I chose what I wanted to see(mostly good, idealistic things), and proceeded accordingly.

          I got burned by this approach because what I had chosen to see was not reality.
          I did not choose to see so many truths in what Roissy says. I was raised and bred in a completely different way, one that doesn’t mesh at all with what Roissy preaches.
          I only see it now because I have to. It is reality(most of it, anyway). Women do(by and large) love asshole game. Women do respond better when you behave in a more aloof manner. White knighting is a chump-like thing to do and will shrivel your relationship success. Serial killers and ex-cons DO get more female attention than law abiding white collar profesionals. Pre-selection is an extremely powerful truth when it comes to attracting women. Women today do generally dislike betas, and they DO treat them like crap regularly. I could go on and on. This is the world we live in. It isn’t what I WANT to see. Its just what’s quite obviously THERE.

          I spent most of my life steadfastly believing the opposite of all of this deep down, but it would be foolish of me now to put on rose colored glasses and pretend that all of that isn’t real because, in my heart of hearts, I want to see a more sane and idealistic world where people still date more than they hookup and you don’t need to pretend that you don’t care about a girl or that you’re a misogynistic asshat to get her to talk to you, a world where frat basements and clubs ARE NOT the primary means of interaction for the vast majority of people in my age group.
          That world doesn’t exist(at least not in the US anymore) and I’ve got to accept that.

        • verie44

          Having a mother that comes from a country that is constantly lauded as an amazing place for finding a wife by Roissy and Roosh, I can tell you they have no effing clue what they’re talking about. Read the Rawness “Myth of the middle class alpha male” for a start. You can get the implications fairly quickly I’m sure, although there are so many other factors culturally that most Americans who are romanticizing these countries’ women just don’t understand.

          Beyond Asia, where women often pedestalize white men & money over most other qualities, American men would really have trouble attracting a wife for much more than a green card or money in most “third world” / “traditional” countries.

        • Athlone McGinnis

          Verie, you do make a good point and you point out a pretty fatal flaw in my argument that I forgot to address earlier.

          Not every foreign girl is an angel. I do have to throw a bone to Roosh and Roissy here though-they and their readers aren’t as delusional as one may think. As a regular reader over on Roosh, I’ve been able to find plenty of threads talking about the ruthlessness of Russian women and the perpetual cheating of Colombianas.

          These guys are more self aware than you think-they are willing and open to talk about the cultural norms and other things that can trip your average westerner up in each place. It didn’t take me long to figure out what’s wrong with Argentinians, Brazillians, Colombians, and Pinays, etc. Read enough, and you won’t get the impression that every girl overseas is an angel. Even Roissy shares stories about the highly calculating, cheating Russian girls he’s had sex with. That alone should let you know that the grass on the other side isn’t THAT green.

          You’re right when you say that the majority of Americans who romanticize these places don’t understand things. Most can(and have) been chewed up and spit out by these women because they forget that these are real people, and not the hypersexed, docile figments of their sexual imaginations.
          That being said, there is a big difference between people who do extensive research, networking, and learning before travelling and those that do not.
          Therefore, I would still maintain that Roosh and others aren’t off when they talk about foreign lands as better places to find a wife. The caveat that most people(including myself here) forget to add is that the heavy lifting needs to be done before any expating in order to make that rule accurate. That means understanding the culture and nature of the people there and(preferably) speaking the language.

          I have no idea where you’re from, but I can use Brazil as an example of this. It is frequently cited as a great place to find a wife, and I think it is. The problem, though, is that to get that wife you need a thorough understanding of Brazilian culture(beyond Carnival and soccer) and you MUST speak portuguese fairly well. You must also be willing to spend a good amount of time in the country and visit frequently(sporadic one week vacations won’t cut it, high quality brazilian women need to know that you’ll be around. Roosh admits that he lost a lot of girls because of this).

          Those abilities will allow you to venture outside the touristy spots of the country to lesser known cities like Vitoria and parts of the countryside where the high quality women are. It will also allow you to make a stronger social network in the country, which in turn will enhance your chances further of finding a good woman. Once you clear these hurdles, the maxim that Brazil is a pretty good place to find a wife will hold true, especially if you’re a white westerner in decent shape(fitness is another key component guys forget about). Even the black folk like myself would do decently.

          Most men, however, don’t know this. They hear that Brazil is a good place to go for women and just hop on a plane with little understanding of the place. They usually end up in Rio at pubs like Help(renown for the number of escorts/porn stars who frequent it) banging pretty attractive but low quality women who are likely to do the green card extraction routine as soon as they’re able. Those are the guys who get in trouble.

          I still suggest that for at least a sizable minority of betas, this idea isn’t a bad one. The catch is that they’ll need to do some legwork to get the most out of it(something many, maybe even a majority won’t be able to do). That being said, given the studious nature of many betas I don’t think its entirely unreasonable that a good number of them could overcome these hurdles and proceed wisely and safely.

        • Maggie Noodles

          “Beyond Asia, where women often pedestalize white men & money over most other qualities, American men would really have trouble attracting a wife for much more than a green card or money in most “third world” / “traditional” countries.”

          SO TRUE. BUT…. it is true for Asia as well. And forget South Asia where marrying outside of “your own” is a taboo and a “step down” for most.

          And regarding the “hypersexualized, docile female” fantasy these third-world globe-trotting PUAs espouse – a woman who is trained by her culture to be “docile” is simultaneously trained to repress her sexuality.

          At least that has been my experience.

        • verie44

          Do you realize most of the guys who are saying “all American women suck, I’m just gonna go get me a foreign wife!” will never ever put all this work into finding a quality woman? There are some men on this blog who can probably afford it, having gone to college and having good jobs. But the time investment is insane. You’re going to be spending time learning another language, flying back and forth to and from the country, traveling extensively within the country, and trying to find a wife in a small village where no one knows you and you look extremely different from the locals? And then you still have to screen for an “alpha cock carousel” mindset — the girls there will most likely have a much higher tolerance for alpha males as well. Talk about barrier to entry.

          All of this work is totally unrealistic for 99.9% of men in the US. Unless you are independently wealthy and have no career aspirations, there’s no way this is going to happen. I doubt very much that you will end up doing this yourself. That said, I still say you’re better off trying to find a decent girl in the US. It’s much easier to screen them when you already share a language and culture. They definitely exist and the numbers are not so dismal as others would have you believe. Among my 10 closest girlfriends, 5 of them are what I think you would be looking for. I just hope they won’t be used & abused by guys to turn them into the bitter, angry, cock-carousel riding girls you so despise.

        • Passer_By

          I agree. It’s absurd.

        • Jimmy Hendricks

          Amen. That’s one line of thinking I never really understood from that crowd… I don’t really see all that effort being worth it.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          I’ve been able to find plenty of threads talking about the ruthlessness of Russian women and the perpetual cheating of Colombianas.
          These guys are more self aware than you think-they are willing and open to talk about the cultural norms and other things that can trip your average westerner up in each place. It didn’t take me long to figure out what’s wrong with Argentinians, Brazillians, Colombians, and Pinays, etc.

          .
          Are you aware of the bigotry in this statement? Honestly, I cannot bear guys singing the praises of these narcissist, racist, sadist pigs here.

        • verie44

          Agreed on that — especially since you, Athlone, have previously bemoaned girls who judge you immediately based on your race (claiming that they find you scary as a black man, and that pickup is so much easier as a white guy). It clearly is hypocrisy to do the same thing to foreign women.

        • Athlone McGinnis

          verie44: ” It clearly is hypocrisy to do the same thing to foreign women.”

          Ok. So men who don’t take the time to try and understand the positive and negative aspects of each culture as it relates to them(including some of the trends I listed above) are actually delusional and, like you said earlier, will just get exploited for cash and a green cards.

          But men who do take the time to objectively analyze the trends of the sexual marketplace in these other places the same way they’ve thoroughly done with regards to american women(thus resulting in some of the traits I listed above regarding Eastern Europe and Colombia) are racist bigots.

          So in other words, we have a no-win game. Those are fun.

          This will be my last post on this subject, I’m obviously not winning anybody over here. As a multi national I should realize that this whole travelling thing would seem much easier and more natural to me than to others.

          That said, one more thing:

          “you, Athlone, have previously bemoaned girls who judge you immediately based on your race (claiming that they find you scary as a black man, and that pickup is so much easier as a white guy).”

          This depends on where I am. In the average American suburb and especially in a closed Ivy League environment, the disadvantages I noted are real. With a ton of confidence/swagger/game, I could overcome them but I do not have these things.
          There are other environments where my traits would actually give me a pretty big advantage. Girls would be easier to talk to in these places. They’re relatively few compared to their counterparts but they exist nonetheless. These are realities I have to accept-the girls in the environment I’m in aren’t going to change anytime soon whether I bemoan them or not.

          Anyway, in that statement I claimed that my phenotype served as a basis of elimination from consideration as a partner, or at least severely hindered my candidacy. Other men with my phenotype do easily overcome these hurdles, but only with a large amount of game, which I do not have.

          My claims regarding Colombianas and Russian women were not intended to serve the same purpose, though I will admit that they were worded poorly and could easily give the wrong impression.
          They were meant simply to show that the men who talk about this stuff(including myself) are not as delusional as you think. They recognize that none of these girls are perfect and that every foreign girl is not a panacea for all of their problems. Cheating by women is fairly common in some cultures, and in others there is a higher alpha tolerance than some realize(weakness is eaten up ruthlessly).

          These guys aren’t planning to discriminate against these women based upon these trends alone. They aren’t going to look at the appearance of Russian/Colombian women(nevermind the fact that neither group is easily distinguishable from other groups to begin with) and eliminate them. What they will do is approach them knowing that they are real people, not fantastical docile sex dolls like so many(including a few folks in this thread) THINK they will. I’m trying to illustrate the fact that they are realists, not idealists. They CAN see that other women are not completely perfect, and are capable of pointing out issues with women outside of the US as well.

          That was the point, and I’m done. Last word is yours if you want it.

        • verie44

          Sure, I’ll respond since I have something to say.

          “They CAN see that other women are not completely perfect, and are capable of pointing out issues with women outside of the US as well.”

          I have absolutely no doubt of this — Roissy and Roosh and most of the posters you’re talking about are extremely misogynistic, color me surprised if they point out how women suck in other countries as well.

          “Ok. So men who don’t take the time to try and understand the positive and negative aspects of each culture as it relates to them(including some of the trends I listed above) are actually delusional and, like you said earlier, will just get exploited for cash and green cards.But men who do take the time to objectively analyze the trends of the sexual marketplace in these other places the same way they’ve thoroughly done with regards to american women (thus resulting in some of the traits I listed above regarding Eastern Europe and Colombia) are racist bigots.So in other words, we have a no-win game. Those are fun.”

          Um, no. The real point of this little exercise is to show that it’s completely pointless to categorize each country as a good or bad place to find a wife, let alone spend ridiculous amounts of time and money trying to bridge the culture & language barrier to connect with this perfect country’s women. No woman in any place is going to be perfect like some men imagine. They all have drawbacks, as you’ve pointed out. And the women will not all be the same. You have American-acting women in Brazil (and in every country, really), Chinese-acting women in Peru, and Russian-acting women in the US. Every woman doesn’t follow her cultural upbringing, and quite a few will shock & surprise you.

          “What they will do is approach them knowing that they are real people, not fantastical docile sex dolls like so many(including a few folks in this thread) THINK they will. I’m trying to illustrate the fact that they are realists, not idealists.”

          This quote is contradicting what you said previously. You just said above that “You’re right when you say that the majority of Americans who romanticize these places don’t understand things. Most can(and have) been chewed up and spit out by these women because they forget that these are real people, and not the hypersexed, docile figments of their sexual imaginations.” I agree with your original point, let’s be real, Average Joe expat is not going to do the extensive work you talked about above.

          My overall summation is that you should be able to do what you just said: “approach them knowing that they are real people” with American women just as well instead of using ridiculous stereotypes to paint everyone with one brush. I think putting this level of effort you plan on expending in doing the expat thing would be better served in whatever country you happen to live.

      • Höllenhund

        My guess is that Roissy will eventually become disgusted by the Washington DC dating scene and expat to Thailand/Central America etc. after his retirement unless he gets a book deal.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          My guess is that Roissy is already hard up for chicks who meet his requirements. The women who would (insanely) try to date him are hitting 30, years older than his stated preference. Unfortunately for him, his fame and notoriety only make him a hit with men, who fawn over him and give him undeserved credit. It does nothing for him in the dating scene. A while back I read his account of walking down M St. in Georgetown dressed like a 20-something hipster, winking and nodding at young women, practicing what he calls he “day game.” As usual, he had nothing to show for it, but the delusional sense that he is attractive. He is a total creeper.

          He will not expat because he does not want a docile and loving female. He wants to break the spirit of as many women as possible in the years he has left. He will die lonely, alone, and more bitter than the angriest of his readers. Oh wait. He’s already there. Yeah, he can expect more of the same until he’s dead. Sucks for him.

        • Höllenhund

          “his fame and notoriety only make him a hit with men”

          Which explains why no woman gets wet for serial killers, death row inmates and othar sociopaths. Oh wait…

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          Oh please, not the serial killer thing again. What percentage of women write love letters to serial killers? How many of them are sane? Attractive? Daughters of loving parents? etc. etc. Psychos all around. Doesn’t mean anything.

        • Höllenhund

          I’ll try to be more specific.

          “Unfortunately for him, his fame and notoriety ONLY make him a hit with men, who fawn over him and give him undeserved credit. It does NOTHING for him in the dating scene.”

          Above statement is obviously false because there are women for whom psychopathy in men is attractive or at least clearly not a disqualifier. And your implication that Roissy wouldn’t fuck psycho women is very funny!

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          I would imagine that the typical woman who writes a love letter to a serial killer is something like this:
          Morbidly obese
          Several teeth missing
          Virgin, has never had a relationship of any kind
          Age 30+
          Recluse
          Victim of abuse, seeking to repeat unhealthy patterns

          I’d love to see footage of Roissy fucking a woman who actually has written to a guy on Death Row!

        • Passer_By

          “I’d love to see footage of Roissy fucking a woman who actually has written to a guy on Death Row!”

          I knew it! You’re so hot for roissy, you want to see his home made porn. :)

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          As long as it doesn’t show his pale, flabby butt cheeks, OK.

        • Passer_By

          Thanks for the visual

        • Höllenhund

          That was just hyperbole on your part, Mrs. Walsh. I have seen pictures of such women, the wannabe bride of Richard Ramirez for example, and they all seemed at least average-looking or hotter.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          OK, Hollenhund, why do you think a good looking woman would choose to marry a serial killer? Are there any red flags popping up for you there? What is the profile of a woman who would:
          1. Marry a man who will never be released from prison.
          2. Marry a man who is dangerous.
          3. Marry a man who is insane.
          What kind of woman feels the tingle, no, feels obsession, for a psychopath?

        • Höllenhund

          How the Hell am I supposed to answer that? I’m not a woman, I can’t tell what goes on in their head when they spread their legs for psychopaths. Ask another woman about that. My guess is that these are the women with the strongest hypergamous tendencies, i.e. they feel uncontrollable attraction to the most alpha men, those who have/had the power over life and death.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          Haha, fair enough. I don’t have any more data than you do, and it’s not a relevant or interesting enough topic to research.

        • Passer_By

          Saw an article or blog post that defined this as “hybristophilia”, and inidicating that women suffer from it far more than men.

          The question to me is, is it really a “disease” or perversion such that we can feel better assuming that most aren’t “suffering” from this, or is it really that these women are simply at the extreme margin in a continuous spectrum of sexual attraction to aggressively violent behavior.

          I also find it funny when people (not you) try to explain this by flipping into a positive about women by suggesting that it’s their extreme desire to nurture and save people that draw them to these men. lol

        • verie44

          “Above statement is obviously false because there are women for whom psychopathy in men is attractive or at least clearly not a disqualifier.”

          Well there are men for whom being dead is attractive or at least clearly not a disqualifier. It’s called necrophilia. So should we start telling women to start dressing like corpses because of these outliers? Exactly.

        • Maggie Noodles

          Susan Sadie Atkins – Charles Manson’s right-hand-woman and the killer of both Sharon Tate AND the baby in her womb not only got love letters from men while in jail – she got married TWICE in jail – and GOT LAID there.

          Why do men fall for lethal seriel killing women? Why aren’t normal, sane, non-homicidal women “good enough” to get their rocks off anymore?

          (And Sexy Sadie wasn’t the only one…. read any of the biographies of dangerous women and there are men who love them).

        • Höllenhund

          “Well there are men for whom being dead is attractive or at least clearly not a disqualifier. It’s called necrophilia. So should we start telling women to start dressing like corpses because of these outliers? Exactly.”

          In what way does that disprove my statement, namely that it is false to say that Roissy’s ‘fame and notoriety’ – such as it is – will drive ALL women away from him?

        • verie44

          If that’s your argument, I’m totally uninterested in arguing semantics like ALL or NONE. It’s boring and unhelpful. I’m sure to MOST people, an emotionally scarred, ugly woman writing to a criminal is just as much of a turnoff to men as a necrophiliac trying to “romance” a dead girl is to women. They are outliers, that was the point.

        • Jimmy Hendricks

          Shaming language, much?
          .
          I like the blog Susan, but it’s hard to have any credibility with sour grapes rants like this.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          Hmmm. Sith Game much?

          First of all, there’s a time and place for shaming language. Namely, when addressing shameful behavior. IMO Roissy is guilty of shameful, despicable, immoral behavior (see humorous descriptions of physical violence, cheating, lying, and sadism). The fact that he is capable of same, and without shame, is a testimony to his sociopathy.
          It would be one thing if people said he’s brilliant, and often right about female psychology, and left it there. I’ll happily agree with that. But he’s got guys over there giving him virtual high fives every time he shits on a woman. Sorry, but I’m not down with that. I don’t understand the women who hang there and comment, much less flirt.
          I have no dog in the fight. His blog has very minimal effect on mine, just an occasional link from a commenter. It’s not sour grapes, but I reserve the right to call a fraud a fraud, and he is most definitely a fraud. He has written several posts, e.g. the “day game” post I referred to above, a “blind girl game” post, an “art film premiere” post, and a “guilt” post, where he boasted about how he could have gotten the girl if he’d wanted to, but he didn’t want to. Uh huh.
          God help me if my credibility hinges on my support of Roissy and his evil ways.

        • Jimmy Hendricks

          Roissy’s real life success or lack or real life success has absolutely no correlation to the truths he observes that moat people are afraid to acknowledge… he points out what works and what doesn’t work at a higher percentage than anyone out there giving dating advice, and that is what is appealing about him to guys.
          .
          On another note, I’ve never been a fan of the term ‘PUA.’ I agree with most of the principles of Game, but ‘PUA’ to me brings up the image of weird looking dudes in posh clubs in big urban environments… a culture that isn’t anything like the college scene these days. I can’t see Mystery being that successful in a frat basement.
          .
          College guys don’t aspire to be Mystery, they aspire to be the ‘bro’ that’s balls deep in half of some sorority.

        • verie44

          I can tell you that the good girls you meet will be able to detect the bitterness you hold in the form of these beliefs about women. You won’t be able to get rid of the mindset once you meet the “right girl” — it will be a part of you. Do you really think she’ll want to deal with it when she isn’t responsible for any part of it? It’s like women accusing all of their boyfriends of cheating because their ex did.

          You might be able to fool her for a while, but the smart ones will wait it out and figure it out before long. I used to say wow, game is so amazing — what courage and perseverence to have the guts to improve yourself like that, how great to use it to find a great girl you’d like to treat right. Until I met a guy who was very good at pickup and deep down had a LOT of issues about women (was very bitter). Something always felt a bit off, and I’m so glad I listened to it.

          Now I avoid guys who are bitter betas, and also the user alphas. Both are equally damaged goods to me. I keep hearing about all these game practitioners that are using it for good in order to find a girlfriend, but I haven’t seen any. The only thing I see it being used for is making guys angry at women and trying to get their dicks wet. Until I meet someone that bucks that trend, I’m treating the “gamers” like pariahs.

        • Höllenhund

          Game is never used to make guys angry and bitter at women. That task is always accomplished by female hypergamy, dishonesty, continuous rejection, cheating, divorce court antics etc. and, generally speaking, the realization that all the BS they were fed about female sexual preferences is just that, BS. Game is a remedy that betas need the most, since they are the ones who experience rejection and therefore become bitter.

          Come to think of it, betas are in a lose-lose situation anyway. When they get rejected over and over (this WILL happen, since they are betas) they can react in two ways: they can either blame only themselves – which is what women essentially prefer them to do – or they can blame women (by the reasoning that their sexual preferences are fucked up). In the former case, they will either lose all self-confidence and go ghost (predictably resulting in women calling them losers, cowards etc.) OR try to improve themselves and learn Game (with the result that women like you will treat them as pariahs).

          Having said that, I was happy to read this comment of yours because it’s further proof of what I’ve been suspecting for a while: the mating scene will only get worse and the downward spiral will continue – because everyone is predisposed to blame the other gender for the current mess. We have not yet seen the final consequences of decades of feminist indoctrination and social engineering.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          Roissy’s real life success or lack or real life success has absolutely no correlation to the truths he observes.

          Are you serious? His whole shtick is that his field reports prove the accuracy of his claims. His personal experience and success with women is the only source of his credibility. He’s also good at providing examples of beta chumps, so that in addition to knowing exactly how to succeed (be like him) you can also see concrete examples of how to fail (be unlike him).
          If Roissy was unsuccessful in getting women, wouldn’t that be proof that his methods don’t work? That’s what is interesting about his blog nowadays. Since his outing by Lady Raine, and his subsequent deleting of many posts and new “toned down” approach, he has pulled back considerably on the vitriol. Add to this the fact that he is getting too old to practice Game effectively on 20-somethings, and his raison d’etre vanishes.
          He could probably reshape his blog into one where the elder statesman gives advice, much as I do here, but he’d have to acknowledge that he is not longer catnip to women, and that will never happen.

        • Jimmy Hendricks

          You don’t need to be an all-star player to be a great coach or understand the game (whether it’s sports or nailing women). He could be a chaste monk for all I care, but most of his observations regarding what attracts and repels women are pretty spot on, and that’s all that guys are going to care about.
          .
          I’m not really a Roissy disciple, but I enjoy reading his blog. I think he’s a great writer, and like Athlone, I can verify about 90% of the stuff he writes as being true in my own life. I find his political/life observations to be pretty interesting as well, aside from straight ‘game’ advice.
          .
          I just don’t see how you can call him a fraud when you’ve never even met the guy, let alone followed him around. Just because you want it to be true doesn’t make it so.
          .
          Not trying to attack you here Susan. As I said, I really enjoy this blog most of the time. It just seems like you’re letting your emotions cause you to commit logical fallacies here.

        • Maggie Noodles

          Roissy resents couples in loving, happy relationships. He’s pretty damn bitter. He’s hit the wall and his obviously past his prime otherwise he’d have managed to get a woman willing to have his baby by now (mid 40s!) and he hasn’t.

          He has failed to replicate his DNA during his most fertile years and therefore he is a Darwinian-evolutionary FAILURE.

          “Evo-psychology” my ass!

          There’s nothing “evo” about it – just “psych(o)”.

        • Jimmy Hendricks

          Not everyone wants to have kids, certainly not all guys

        • verie44

          I love that guys often fall back on the “women are too emotional” argument when they don’t agree. Nice try. What exactly are said logical fallacies committed? The fact is that no one knows Roissy as a person and has followed him around, so really all we have to go on are facts about his person.
          Fact: he’s old & about a 6. He’d be lower if I didn’t adjust for his rank in the senior citizen set. Fact: he’s unmarried with no children.
          All the other BS is unverified — he could be a keyboard jockey with no real-life experience or nowhere near the success he writes about.

          I think you’re the one that’s getting emotional here, Jimmy. Surely you see that when you tell Susan “just because you want it to be true doesn’t mean it is” also applies to yourself. Just because Roissy appeals to your wet dream of being balls-deep in half a sorority doesn’t mean it is true. You’re invested in believing his viewpoint yourself.

          “Roissy’s real life success or lack or real life success has absolutely no correlation to the truths he observes that moat people are afraid to acknowledge… he points out what works and what doesn’t work at a higher percentage than anyone out there giving dating advice, and that is what is appealing about him to guys.”
          What is appealing to guys is that Roissy claims he can give them a shot at nailing the head cheerleader with less work than it takes to get to popularity, 225 lbs of muscle & a football scholarship.

          “You don’t need to be an all-star player to be a great coach or understand the game (whether it’s sports or nailing women). He could be a chaste monk for all I care, but most of his observations regarding what attracts and repels women are pretty spot on, and that’s all that guys are going to care about.”
          This is a ridiculous point. You don’t become a coach without a solid understanding of the game & its mechanics. Maybe you weren’t the best because you were physically limited by genetics or injured, but isn’t that the point of game, that it can overcome all the gifts other guys have like money & appearance? Therefore Roissy doesn’t have the excuse sports coaches do — he really can be the best. When he’s not and has nothing to show for it but a bitter attitude, that’s when people like Susan start calling him on his BS.

        • Jimmy Hendricks

          Ad hominem attacks for starters…
          .
          “Fact, he’s old and about a 6.” Definitely a subjective opinion, not a fact.
          .
          If Roissy was just a keyboard jockey who flung around lies and deceptions, he wouldn’t be nearly as popular. But as Athlone and I pointed out (and I’m sure many other guys would agree), we can confirm a lot of the stuff he writes about to be true in our own lives.
          .
          Like Athlone, I personally wish Roissy was full of shit and that the world was a much different place. But it isn’t. Reality can suck at times, and we have to deal with it as best we can. The first step to doing that is recognizing reality.

        • verie44

          You completely ignored almost everything I wrote in response to your remarks. I suppose that means you agree with me.

          In terms of the subjective opinion, yes, of course it’s my own personal rating. But anyone can check out Roissy and determine he’s not a really attractive guy
          (go ahead, you know you want to: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mQGMyWPkNw0J:ladyraine.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/exposed-roissy-in-dc/+Exposed!+Roissy+in+DC&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
          Really, that was the point of the rating — to just say that we only have very few actual facts about him. The rating actually shouldn’t matter at all because game is supposed to overcome everything.

          “If Roissy was just a keyboard jockey who flung around lies and deceptions, he wouldn’t be nearly as popular.”
          Not true. The writer of Great Expectations was a virgin with no experience. And yet she understood how to write to appeal to the masses about great love & emotion although she had never felt it herself.

          You have your viewpoint & I have mine. I’m just saying, be careful what you accept as your reality. It’s hard to change once you go there — and not everyone will enjoy the cynicism as much as you do.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          I agree with this verie. There’s an enormous amount of male solipsism going around roissy readers these days.
          .
          Male solipsism. Haha, I confess it feels good to put those two words together for a change.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          There’s no percentage in either of us engaging in a debate about Roissy here. I’ll leave you to it. His blog is very well written and intelligent. Perhaps you could keep an eye out for signs of Roissy the Pretender. He makes himself known from time to time in his posts. This may not render his advice meaningless, but it certainly gives pause to the discerning disciple. I specifically referred to several posts where this is blatantly obvious. Interestingly, those posts generated relatively few comments, as I recall. Even his regular readers could detect the whiff of false reporting, it seems.

  • Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: What You’ve All Been Waiting for Edition (NSFW)

  • Höllenhund

    Am I the only one getting the impression that many women and men expect the other side to basically forget about all the grievances of the past and lay down their arms? This is commonly described as ‘deadlock’.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I think the vast majority of single people are blissfully unaware of the grievances of the past. They’re young, fertile, and they want to mate. They don’t want a lot of political debate. They want to get on with the business of f*cking. And that’s always best when we lay our weapons down.

      • Athlone McGinnis

        Fine, you win. With this post, I officially concede this thread. I’m out of the country for 2 weeks starting tomorrow anyway. Sorry for escalating this into a tangential and long winded political debate and derailing the thread.

        Peace out.

        • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

          Have a good vacation, Athlone! No need to be sorry, your input is always welcome. Come see us when you return, OK?

  • Maggie Noodles

    “Not everyone wants to have kids, certainly not all guys”

    And CERTAINLY not all women either.

    You’ve obviously missed my point.

    Can’t see the forest for the trees……..

  • verie44

    Oops — I meant Pride & Prejudice, not Great Expectations above.

  • http://www.theatheistindian.com Atheist Indian

    @ Sox – “It wasn’t easy actually acknowledging that the ideals I’d been developing myself around were more or less useless in today’s market. I understand why many guys are bitter.”
    Bingo. I was strongly a ‘lover’ through all of my teenage years. As I grew up and the innocence of teenage romance wore off, I turned to PUA as a survival tactic – since it was the only ‘trick’ I knew that worked.
     
    While I am not bitter at present and still retain as much of the ‘lover’ as I was, I have become more calculating and cynical, given that I live in a dog-eat-dog world where people are emotionally and intellectually too lazy to spare effort in antiquated notions of romantic love. Not to mention, the media stereotypes that men are unromantic sex maniacs who can’t make lovers.