"My definition is pathetic dweebs who think women can be manipulated into sex by a certain set of tricks and behaviors."
- John Scalzi
This would certainly explain why Mr. Scalzi has historically been so unsuccessful with women. Forget sex. Women can be manipulated into anything. Literally ANYTHING.
As the example of the recently convicted Ian Watkins proves, women can be manipulated into performing sex acts on their own infants and into offering up their own children to be raped. As 50 million+ abortions since 1973 prove, they can even be manipulated into murdering their own children. As the rising age of first marriage demonstrates, they can be manipulated into putting off marriage until they are less attractive and can only marry lower-quality men. As the rapidly increasing number of childless women over forty shows, they can be manipulated into remaining barren. As The Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle proves, they can be manipulated into voting for those who will oppress them.
But not sex. No, it's absolutely unthinkable to imagine that women could be manipulated into that. Only a pathetic dweeb could possibly think that.
28 comments:
He really thinks this kind of feigned cluelessness makes him look aloof and manly, doesn't he? He can't really be stupid and ignorant enough to think that's what Game is. But he already got hisself a woman, so he can sit back and sneer at all the guys who have to make an effort at it. He's like a trust-fund billionaire kid who sees some guys sitting around a sewer grate trying to stay warm and says, "Why don't they just buy homes?"
I don't think I'd ever wish frivorce on a man -- and certainly not on his children. But if this guy's wife ever gets unhaaaaappy and dumps his ass, it's going to be hard not to laugh.
women can be manipulated into performing sex acts on their own infants and into offering up their own children to be raped.
Equivalently, the Ian Watkins case proves that men are child rapists; but it doesn't - it proves that Ian Watkins is a child rapist and serves to confirm that, as we already know, some men are child rapists. Lazy and wrong (in both senses).
Equivalently, the Ian Watkins case proves that men are child rapists
That's not the equivalent. The Ian Watkins case proves that men can be child rapists. You are making a basic logical error by confusing a demonstration of possibility with a comprehensive state of being.
Scalzi denied that women can be manipulated into sex by certain things. I showed the essential silliness of his position by showing that women can be manipulated into many things, some of which are far less attractive and socially acceptable than sex.
No one, least of all the various theoreticians of Game, denies that all women cannot be manipulated into sex the same way. No one even claims that all women can be manipulated into sex. But certainly some women can be manipulated into sex and one aspect of Game centers on identifying the tools required.
The fact that he only thinks women can be convinced to have sex with him by tricks says it all about his self image.
apparently, women can also be tricked in to marrying men the really don't love and only after years of being provided for do they uncover the deception. They can also be tricked into believing things are not abuse until said divorce and then all becomes clear...
How would he define not-game-romance? My gamma dating patterns were a set of tricks and behaviors intended to manipulate women.
Fact is, all communication is manipulation. If I say "I like ice-cream," I am manipulating you with the intention of causing you to believe I like ice-cream.
Let's turn this on it's head:
"My definition of feminism is ugly whores who think that men can be manipulated into marriage and divorce by a certain set of tricks and behaviors."
My brother describes game similary. He says game causes one to be fake and manipulative. Game to him is not living in reality. My counter has been that game is not about being fake, but improving yourself. Game isn't manipulative, it is giving the female sex what they want from their men. Any different advice on how to convince him to live by game? He is a reasonable guy, libertarian. He has this girlfriend that needs to be over with and I think he if he understood game that relationship would end. Perhaps there is a blog post already out their already that simplies and explains why game is true and should be used by men.
In one breath he'll say that game doesn't work, and in the next breath he'll accuse some guy of "taking advantage" of a woman.
If women can't be manipulated by game, then the certainly can't be taken advantage of by a manipulative man.
Besides, arguing that people can't be manipulated is obtuse. 90% of any book on sales techniques is how to manipulate people into buying your product. Manipulating is just a crude synonym for influencing. Is he really going to argue that people can't be influenced to take one action over another?
My counter has been that game is not about being fake, but improving yourself.
You're not entirely wrong IMO, but Game is you acting like an Alpha without actually being one in the beginning. Sort of a "fake it til you make it" approach. I don't think Genghis Khan had "game".
"My definition is pathetic dweebs..
Here is an attempt to influence via shame.
Are you developing political ambitions *cough*?
"Is he really going to argue that people can't be influenced to take one action over another?"
No he will not argue that. Maniplation to him is misrepresenting yourself and therefore fraud. He has a very board defintion of manipulation. He sees game as cheap tricks to pick up girls only. He will argue that he is just going to "Me" Just be yourself and you'll meet someone and be happy. Its not working for him. He has a girlfriend that is allowed to go outside the relationship for sex when she wants. He doesn't care. He thinks that it works well him. He thinks he is making his relationship work right for "us" He rejects SMV explicity and doesn't care that he is lowering his own SMV be allowing her to this. It's ironic that he is the one being manipulated. That could be a slogan Manipulate or be Manipulated"
He can define game any way he likes to. But there isn't a good looking girl on this world who doesn't want a guy with game.
He will argue that he is just going to "Me" Just be yourself and you'll meet someone and be happy. Its not working for him.
Don't argue with him. Just ignore him on the subject. And if he brings it up, just point out that when you are looking to find an unfaithful girlfriend, you will ask him for advice. Never forget that some people are incapable of being educated by information.
@JP
"You're not entirely wrong IMO, but Game is you acting like an Alpha without actually being one in the beginning. Sort of a "fake it til you make it" approach. I don't think Genghis Khan had "game"."
I would argue that game is the process of becoming and Alpha. Even alphas had to learn when they were younger. It was trial and error for them as well. Game just systematizes it so that older men can cut down the learning curve.
Genghis Khan didn't have game?
News to me. I guess he never learned how to play various tribal chiefs against each other, or AMOG in some situations, and befriend and bribe in others, and ensure that his women behaved.
Nope, none of that. He was actually a superman and just physically beat down every competitor, all their minions, his own men, and because he was just naturally well-endowed, never had to game his own women.
Nope, no game there. Just a barbarian who someone united a bunch of warring tribes and used them to conquer much of the civilized world.
My gamma dating patterns were a set of tricks and behaviors intended to manipulate women.
The gamma may be manipulating women with their set of tricks - but the results the gamma receives doesn't equal the results they expect. The gamma may manipulatively think, "If I hold her hair back while she pukes in my car, she will undoubtedly love me and give me sex because women like men who care for them." When the tactic doesn't work, he is left with feelings of anger and bitterness - while he watches her immediately climb into the alpha's car for some back-seat fun. The same alpha who passed her by on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho.
Scalzi's statement reminds me of the statement comedian Bill Burr commented on, "There is no reason to hit a woman." His response, "Really - I could give you 17 off the top of my head. To suggest there is no reason...how about this – you marry a woman, buy her a nice house, and one day you come home and she is banging the neighbor and hands you divorce papers. You move out, pay her alimony while she is nailing said neighbor in the house you provided for her.” As Kinison said, "I don't condone it, but I understand it."
"Never forget that some people are incapable of being educated by information."
I know he is capable. My brother introduced me to Ayn Rand, libertarianism and the Paleo/Primal Diet. He learned on his own and shared with me. I was attempting to do the same for him with game. Perhaps I am not a good teacher of ideas. Regardless of why he isn't getting game, I think your approach is correct.
game for naturals is a philosophical reality.
for the 90% of men who aren't naturals, its a tactical reality designed to emulate the philosophical reality without having to really understand the why.
its an opportunity to not just compete and win in the Special Olympics (where even if you win you still get on the bus a retard), but internalize something greater (a greater masculine frame) and evolve from the short bus Olympiad with an extra chromosome into a living and breathing real boy with greater social/sexual access.
How can Scalzi explain all the slut-orbiters that Charles Manson had if he thinks women are beyond manipulation?
My gamma dating patterns were a set of tricks and behaviors intended to manipulate women.
The gamma may be manipulating women with their set of tricks - but the results the gamma receives doesn't equal the results they expect.
I didn't say they were functional tricks. Only that I wanted women to want me, and tried to make it happen. Hence: manipulation.
its an opportunity to not just compete and win in the Special Olympics (where even if you win you still get on the bus a retard), but internalize something greater (a greater masculine frame) and evolve from the short bus Olympiad with an extra chromosome into a living and breathing real boy with greater social/sexual access.
I would argue that game is 70% the lost art of genuine masculinity (which is instinctive rather than an art for that envied 10%) and 30% playing off of fallen (and therefor evil) human nature.
Which means that the religious among the red pillers are somewhat crippled (e.g. I cannot credibly threaten my wife with divorce), but have the advantage of being far less crippled than an AFC.
CrazyIvan, he may not be able to see the truths of game until he gets over his current case of one-itis in some other way. If he's actually standing by while his girlfriend has sex with other men and claiming it doesn't bother him, he's deep in denial about her, women in general, and himself. I'm not sure it's possible for a man to see straight when he's in the middle of a relationship that screwed up. The best you might be able to do is drop some hints and wait, and be prepared to explain some things to him during the post-mortem.
How can Scalzi explain all the slut-orbiters that Charles Manson had if he thinks women are beyond manipulation?
That's easy: there will always be a few mentally unbalanced women who are attracted to murderers and child molesters, but normal women certainly aren't that way and can't be manipulated into doing anything evil. Also drugs.
@cailcorishev said...
That's easy: there will always be a few mentally unbalanced women who are attracted to murderers and child molesters, but normal women certainly aren't that way and can't be manipulated into doing anything evil. Also drugs.
Oh, so Scalzi has a universally accepted definition for normal woman then? That's news. Also, "attracted to child molesters" ?? so much wrong...
Jeremy, I have no idea what definitions Scalzi might have invented. But I know the gamma mindset when confronted with women behaving badly: those are outliers, women with mental problems -- probably due to abuse at the hands of men, of course -- not normal women like my special snowflake. That doesn't just apply to women marrying incarcerated serial killers; it also applies to the sweet girl-next-door who says she just wants to be friends because she's not looking for a relationship at this time in her life, and then hops on the back of the bad boy's motorcycle and turns up with his name tattooed across her lower back a couple weeks later. She must be ill/confused/brainwashed/held-at-gunpoint; it couldn't be that she's just female.
crazyivan498 said...
That could be a slogan Manipulate or be Manipulated"
Actually, that's not bad. Certainly a good one to paste on the mirror for your morning shave reminder.
The problem for Christians of course is--how to do this but exercise enough restraint that you don't take undue advantage of people. Notice a small but significant portion of the New Testament is dedicated to exactly this: telling leaders in the church how to keep from abusing their positions. Jesus himself was a master manipulator, but he used the power for good, not evil. You can see that Paul is an excellent manipulator as well.
Honestly though--a lot of times there is no serious manipulation necessary, just initiative. This applies to your dealings with men as well as women. If you find yourself working among a group of men who are talented but don't have a lot of initiative, all you have to do is provide some direction and you will find them following you. Gammas tend to think of an alpha as the stereotypical bossy guy who barks out orders, but most of the time all you have to do is invite people to consider a course of action, and make the invitation... inviting. Get them to picture enjoying the result. Now, you have to have done some thinking in order to come up with a good course of action, and you have to have done some thinking in order to deal with the likely objections that will be raised. And of course use the classic salesman's technique of pre-qualification: "OK, so if that weren't an issue, would you go along with this plan? Good, because here's how we deal with that problem..."
Yes, this definition is from the same well meaning, 'sweet' man who was on oprah talking about equality in relationships (?). Feminism and her minions are simply unable to coerce another generation of men in lies.
Game stands affirmed by men as it is an response to feminism and upside thinking in relations between men the sexes-(culture).
Feminism is a failure and so is his definition. Everything else is a diversion.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.