“I’m recently engaged to the most honest, thoughtful, and loving man I’ve ever met. He has supported me through many hard times, including losing my job and being assaulted. Here’s the but about him: He makes no money. He has ambitions, and he’s smart, but will likely only bring a middle-class income at best. I have an OK job and I’m self-sufficient. Now here’s the but about me: I’m really, really pretty. My whole life people have told me I could get any man I want, meaning a rich man, and are shocked that I’m engaged to my fiancé, nice though he is. I’ve never dated a rich man, but it does make me curious. So part of me thinks I’m squandering my good looks on this poor man, and the other part of me thinks that I’m so shallow that I don’t even deserve him or anyone else. Am I a fool for thinking that a poor man can make me happy, or an idiot for believing a sexist fantasy?”The important thing to note here is not the shameless hypergamy or the expectation that looks intrinsically merit money, but rather, the fact that women can, and do, make a choice to surmount their baser motivations. The practitioners of Game who dismiss all women as helpless biological automatons are as wrong to do so as the naysayers of Game are to deny the biological and sociological drives that men with Game exploit so successfully.
Civilizationists should not only advocate Game for men, but the rational control of the hypergamous instinct for women. One might dismiss this pretty woman as shallow, but in truth, she is showing more self-awareness than the average woman does. And it should also make it obvious that although women grasp the concepts of gratitude and obligation, they don't tend to view them as binding in the male sense of the terms.