YOUNGFOGEY writes:

It seems to me that a portion of your readers have fallen into some common misconceptions about Game.

First, as I wrote, at the core of Game is acting like a man. That means being aggressive, that means having a plan, that means pursuing what you desire, living with honor and, I think (as a reflection of my Christianity), protecting the weak and, if you can find a woman who deserves it, providing for a wife and children. In this way, the core of Game is manly virtue. The thing about virtues is that they are not natural. They must be practiced, put on from the outside in. So, of course there is a tension between authenticity and the practice of any virtue. To say that Game is manipulative simply because it involves the practice of virtues that are immediately present seems more than a little unfair.

I think people like Marianne and Mabel fall into these mistakes for three reasons. First, they do not understand the difference between the virtues embodied in game and the techniques that some men have developed for practicing those virtues. For example, courage is a virtue. Because some men in the PUA (Pick-up Artist) community, etc. have developed techniques for acting with the courage required to approach and build attraction with girls, people like your readers think all game is just technique. They believe that because some Gamers use canned approach lines to make it easier to be courageous, that all Game is manipulative scheming. It’s not, Game is about the heart first, technique second.

The next reason for these misunderstandings is that many women cannot disassociate the idea of Game from sources of Game ideas they find disquieting. Some PUA-types present Game as a sort of sorcery for getting laid. They present themselves as master Lotharios able to teach men a few tricks to prevent their beds from ever getting cold. Many women disapprove. Because they have encountered Game in the PUA context, these women cannot shake their feelings of disapproval long enough to see that Game itself has applications far beyond the short-term seduction. There are many Christian advocates of Game and many men who are exploring the application of Game to marriage. Perhaps if your readers had encountered these men first, before running into the PUA’s, they’d feel differently.

Third, I cannot help but suspect that one reason some of your female readers disapprove of Game is that it allows men to re-claim our power. There is a lot of latent misandry in Mabel’s comment, for instance. She says she and her husband do not have “a conventional marriage.” I read this as meaning she is a feminist who is threatened by the idea that some men won’t be tamed. She says discussion of Game in the context of marriage sickens her. I suspect “terrifies” is the more apt word.

It is also worth noting that she mentions she is glad her husband does not read English well enough to understand writing about these concepts in English. This confirms my suspicions that Mabel is scared of what might happen if her husband became aware of his power.

In marriage, Game means leadership. In Laura’s example of the wife who comes to the husband with a specific concern, Game very much applies. In this situation, the husband should respond by saying and doing what is best for the family. If the wife wants to spend more time with him, he should decide if that is reasonable. If it is, he should make it happen. If it’s not he should tell her, tell her why and let her deal with the fallout. What he should not do is say to her “Well, what do you want me to do?” as if he is her subject waiting for some positive affirmation. If he says he cannot spend more time with her for reasons that are good and reasonable and she complains about it again, he should tell her to cut it out. If she gets angry, he should endure her wrath. To behave like this is manly. It is leadership. It is Game and, whatever your reader’s might think, it is love.

Laura writes:

Thank you. That is well-said and very interesting.

You say, “Game is about the heart first, technique second.” That is an important point. It boils down to a simple idea that cannot be found in complex, quasi-scientific therapeutic manuals that look in detail at studies regarding marriage. 

I stand corrected on how Game might apply to the situation I mentioned. However, I would add to your description of what a man should do in the case of a wife coming to him with a specific problem that while groveling would never be in order, passive, sympathetic  listening with no attempt to resolve the problem is not un-manly. A husband is a friend too. 

As you say, there is good reason given some of the unsavory applications of Game for both men and women to be suspicious. I like to think the reflexive revulsion it inspires in some readers is due to unfamiliarity, not misandry. 

Please follow and like us: