Of late I have started reading posts by some PUAs that game gives false hope to many men. Some ex-PUA posts go on to suggest that most “normal” women are not affected by game. Others imply that most men cannot really learn game, and being “alpha” is genetic etc.
I am fairly objective as far as game is concerned in that buying sex is my choice. I have no interest in impressing some stupid cunt in order to gave sex with her. Having said that, being an asshole is the easiest way to get laid, even if you are of the obnoxious type. Virtually any method beats the conventional socially approved way of dating women.
Pedestalling woman to get sex (or treating her nicely) is worser than any other way to get sex, because no woman will ever truly reciprocate your feelings. Even if she does not cheat on or divorce you, she still sees you as a tool that she can manipulate to get what she wants. Your wishes, safety, health or happiness are meaningless to her.
The reason why game works has little to do with routines, looks or body language. It works because it encourages men to hit on as many women as they can (numbers) and not suffer from “oneitis”. Even if every routine in game is worthless, increasing your approaches and treating women with a degree of contempt and disposability will guarantee you a higher probability of “free” sex than not doing so. It certainly helps if your actions fit a woman’s preconception of what is desirable.
The real impact of game, in my opinion, is removing any doubt from the mind of most men that women are made of sugar and spice. Destroying the favorable socially reinforced perception about women will be the biggest contribution of game, as they can get away with a lot of BS and abuse because many men believe that women are better human beings than them. In the past, most men realized that it was not true only after they had already been sucked into the whole legally enforced relationship scam. By spreading the word before most men make that mistake, game changes the probability of various outcomes.
I would distill game to a few concepts-
1. Approach a lot of women.
2. Approach with genuine confidence.
3. Never trust a woman.
4. Be amoral and opportunistic.
5. Never depend on one woman.
6. Treat women as they already treat men.
7. Do not apologize to a woman.
What do you think?
This post concentrates on a very specific effect of the current state of gender relations.
That specific effect is- A deflationary spiral caused by the ongoing collapse of marriage as an institution.
While others have commented on the effects of deteriorating gender relations on civility, community involvement etc- the economic effects have been largely ignored. I feel that the economic effects of feminism are almost as important as it’s demographic effects.
If you were been born at any time in history until the 1970s, there was a high chance that you would be married/ engaged/ attached for long periods of your life starting from your late teens. However that is no longer the case, and it has some peculiar secondary/ tertiary effects.
Since a two parent income is now almost necessary to live a middle class lifestyle, many single women will never have the economic resources of a married couple, even after alimony or child support. Since the previously attached or unattached guy has no skin in the game, he is unlikely to work hard or supply the resources that a married man would have. Combined with the lower birthrate in women, it makes entire sections of the economy far less lucrative than they once were.
Essentially there are fewer kids with less disposable income to support their needs and whims.
How many more educators can teach a decreasing number of students? What about people making their living running afterschool activity classes? Vacations to children friendly resorts, buying bigger houses and bigger cars are not as important, are they?
A lot of conventional economic activity is based on family formation, specifically those in which both parents have an interest in the economic betterment of their kids. If the rate of family formation declines further, it will permanently reduce the number of jobs in certain sectors of the economy. There are some who would call that creative destruction, but where are the alternative jobs? and why will men work hard if they only want to support themselves?
The net effect is a further systemic reduction in the both the flow and velocity of money.
Note that this effect will manifest itself without any specific political or social movement. It certainly does not help that the west’s economic model is based on an implicit assumption of continued growth, even if sophists try to say otherwise.