The Gaming Den

1) If you stop game, she will still love you, because you psychologically trained her to love you, regardless of how you act. IE, she is a dog, and you can ring the bell, and you never have to feed her.

That is definitely brainwashing, no question.

Ok, I'm looking up the definition for brainwashing, and it completely doesn't apply. You get a woman to be completely in love with you by being awesome, attractive and seductive. You don't force her into it or strap her down and beam messages of "love me" into her. It uses the exact same mechanisms as a woman falling in love with Edward Cullen or falling for Don Juan or Robert Pattinson. Every definition of brainwashing I've found involves using coercion and force to force someone into believing a certain way, often to their detriment. Game uses subtlety and self improvement to make somebody believe in a certain way, to their advantage. The two aren't equivocal at all.

See, there you go again, no, your personal preferences for a specific body type are not only not universal, they are not prevalent. Most men find 36 6 36 attractive, they also find 28 10 28 or whatever else attractive. Because most find women attractive. But when it comes to personality, both men and women prefer different things, and what is attractive is not terribly universal, and not prevalently one thing.

Are you serious? The blind have a preference for that hip-waist ratio. Men find characteristics that suggest high fertility(which includes characteristics of youth) attractive. The universally agreed upon "most attractive time" for a woman is between puberty and first child. Babies spend more time looking at attractive faces than unattractive ones - it is instinctual, and the male preference for the appearance of indicators of fertility(which includes hip-waist ratio) is universal. There is no culture or people in the world where men exclusively lust after the elderly and the obviously barren. While there are always exceptions(some men prefer fat chicks, some men prefer young children, some men prefer grannies). Female attractiveness, except for a small amount of individual variation and some noise at the very upper levels is largely down to a science by now. Personality is largely a sidenote when it comes to female attractiveness.

The fact that you think Game works on everyone is not surprising, you've been explicitly told that every time it doesn't work, it really worked, and she is just repressed and not giving what she wants. There are many things that we do know most women like, for example confidence, and if the only way you can show confidence is to try to convince her you are better than her, that's fine, I guess you should do that. But being a dom isn't the only way to be confident.

The reason I think game works on almost everyone isn't that at all - every time it doesn't work, I can see how I stuffed up or there was something I couldn't expect - she was happily married, just had a death in the family, had a fatal illness, etc etc. If it wasn't something which made her obviously unavailable, it was me making a mistake and fucking up. Game isn't "magic" and takes a long time to learn and use effectively. If things don't go how you planned it is you who is at fault, not the woman.

So yeah, in addition to not quoting people out of context like a douchebag, you could also learn to fucking read. Specifically, the part to the left of each post that has the posters name. I never called you a pedophile, other people did. I pointed out your stupid statements are false. And no, nerdy does not fall under vivacious. Nothing about vivacious is what I am talking about. I am talking about a set of shared hobbies and beliefs, that in fact, are more prevalent in non vivacious people.

If you'd learn to read, you'd see that I pointed out that "active" falls under vivacious. Nerdy has nothing to do with those characteristics, and you can be nerdy and active(Orion certainly seems to be), and nerdy and vivacious. I find that sort of person to be tons of fun to be around, even if the non vivacious nerdy people are more prevalent. And I apologise for thinking you called me a pedophile - my mistake.

Um. What? You're gonna have to back that one up.

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/ ... cts-women/
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/ ... ilt-asstd/
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/ ... ght-again/
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/ ... -me-right/
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/ ... rd-to-get/
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/ ... -me-right/
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/ ... uctionism/
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/ ... ates-game/

Just ask if you want some more.

This statement is like the whole God-creating-a-rock-he-can't-lift thing.

If you game a girl and get one who loves you no matter what, than ceasing the game should result in... Nothing. She loves you no matter what.

Game is transformative. You come out of it a different person than when you came in, and even if you do stop actively gaming a woman in love with you, chances are she's going to stay in love with you.

In this scenario, by directly responding to the question, the husband totally fessed up, which demonstrates to her that he's being responsible. Even the fact that he left his car at the bar and now she has to go with him to get it despite the late hour is a good thing, because at least he didn't put himself at risk of an accident or ticket or whatever.

The man was lying through his teeth here - he was using sarcasm and being playful. The truth content of his words decreased, and they were received better. The original question was a shit-test - she was asking a question where getting the answer would make her unhappy(much like "does my butt look big in this"), and the only correct response is to ignore it, brush it off, or agree and amplify, which is what he did here. He was playful and rakish, which worked much much better.

Starmaker! How could you link to Cracked?!! I get so lost over there. The first link was fabulous, especially point #4.

Vnonymous - The scientists weren't studying Game.

Vnonymous wrote:He was playful and rakish, which worked much much better.

He wasn't being a lying defensive ass.

I find it absolutely appalling that men can believe that the women who love them and live with them want to deliberately set them up for misery. That's fucking sick.

Regardless, my point stands - the underlying psychology works no matter of what kind of packaging is covering it. You can stick with your dickish explanations if it makes you feel like more of a man. I'll stick with mine as it keeps me from believing that my husband is less of one.

Of course they were studying game - the set of behaviours that maximise attention from women. Dominant social behaviour and posture increases attraction from women? You betcha. Instilling a woman with dread makes her more into you? You betcha. Being nice to women has been demonstratively shown to make them like you less in some situations! Read the links and see what Roissy has to say on them - the research confirms his views and experience. Saying that those scientists weren't researching game is like saying people who study processors aren't figuring out how to build better computers.

Completely false. Women have two different strategies for optimising reproductive success, strategies that work concurrently. A man should be appealing on both axes, but neglecting one of them leads to sexlessness, creepiness and cuckoldry. Neglecting the other means you just get a giant string of one night stands, which most men don't have much of a problem with.

How does this in any way contradict what Maj said?
You just outlined the following kinds of men:
a.) those who appeal on 2 axes
b.) those who appeal on only 1, and have constant one-night stands
c.) those who appeal on only 1, and get "sexlessness, creepiness, and cuckoldry".
d.) those who appeal on 0, and are pathetic.

So the first 2 are flavors of asshole, and the second 2 are flavors of pussy.

I can't demonstrate how this is false until you tell me what these 2 axes are, so I can provide counterexamples. But right off the bat, the very concept that "women have 2 strategies for optimising reproductive success" is bollocks.

Roissy gets a constant stream of thank yous and praise for the truths that he's revealed and the tricks that he's taught.

How many of them are from women?

The difference between game and evolutionary psychology is the difference between engineering and science.

Ah, that explains so much. Evolutionary psychology may be a valid scientific field (stress the "may"), but attempting to apply it to the individual level is complete bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutiona ... ontroversy

...I'm willing to bet you've never met a "virtuoso" of the skill.

Unfalsifiable claim #1: it works, and if it doesn't, you just haven't met an expert.

Firstly, you're never going to get a woman who loves you no matter what you do if you don't use game.

First, citation needed.
Second, why is that even a positive goal? Kaelik and I have both pointed out that having someone who "loves you no matter what" is actually pretty fucking disturbing.
Third, if there is maintenance required, how is it even "love no matter what"?

Women seduce men all the time, and they're not brainwashing them. The same applies when the genders are flipped.

Do you see it as perfectly fine when a woman has a man so wrapped around her finger that he humiliates himself to please her? I find it pretty disgusting. I certainly don't hold it up as something to emulate.
But "game" posits doing the EXACT SAME THING, gender-flipped, and touts it as the way relationships should be. WTF?

Mind you, Dracula, Edward Cullen, Mister Darcy and James Bond are seen as ridiculously attractive and sexually desirable by a lot of women, to the same degree...

Here's a news flash for you: many women (hell, many people) find something appealing in fantasy, that they would never in a million years actually want in reality.
You play fantasy RPGs and don't know this? Or do you think you'd actually enjoy fighting for your life against hideous monsters?

Except you were actively suggesting that I was a pedophile for finding childlike vivacity and carefree innocence attractive, which is why I proposed the opposite. Nerdy has nothing to do with what I suggested, and active technically falls under "vivacious" as well. I like assertiveness in my women too - to a point, of course.

I said that, and I stand by it. How does "assertive" fit with "carefree innocence"? It doesn't.

Every definition of brainwashing I've found involves using coercion and force to force someone into believing a certain way, often to their detriment. Game uses subtlety and self improvement to make somebody believe in a certain way, to their advantage. The two aren't equivocal at all.

The crazy part is that you don't see how getting a woman to love you despite your treating her shitty (farting on her, giving her less than she gives you, lying to her) doesn't meet the definition of "forcing someone into believeing a certain way, often to their detriment".

The blind have a preference for that hip-waist ratio.

Citation?

Personality is largely a sidenote when it comes to female attractiveness.

Citation? Specifically, is this referring to "with no other factors, who would you prefer to bone?" or "who would you prefer to spend your life with?".

The reason I think game works on almost everyone isn't that at all - every time it doesn't work, I can see how I stuffed up or there was something I couldn't expect...

Unfalsifiable claim #2...it works, and if it doesn't, you're doing it wrong.

I'm going to repost Unfalsifiable Claim #3, just for kicks...it works, and if it doesn't, it's because the woman is a bitch/prude/lesbian/feminazi/etc.

So: you've got a system based on bullshit, that makes claims that are completely unfalsifiable, is primarily supported by anecdotes, and which demonstrably involves acting like an asshole.

I rest my case.

Looked over Vnon's links...

The first one says that adopting a "confident" posture will make you more likely to take risks. I find this completely unsurprising, since we know smiling makes you happy. However, this study says nothing about sex or dating.

The second ones says a lot of stuff, but it's mostly about certain body types being more attractive than others in lab conditions. I don't see what that has to do with game, except maybe if PUAs tell you to tilt your hea forward all the time to look taller. I've never seen that advice, but if they do, one point for them.

The third links to a study where they showed women pictures of men and said either "he's hot for you" "he doesn't really care about you" or "you have no idea what he feels about you." This is actually the most itneresting and relevant study, and I'm glad I read it. Let's be clear about what it doesn't prove, though. A: It's about how attractive you find strangers, so it doesn't prove that "instilling dread" is a good idea in a committed relationship. B: It doesn't prove that being mysterious is an effective way to get laid. Sure, you might get more women fantasizing about you, but I'm sure you're more likely to be asked out, more likely to stay in touch, etc. when the other person knows you are interested.

The fourth links to a bunch of studies that mostly have nothing to do with game, and mostly fall under "thank you, captain obvious" territory. Highlights: people who have been married for years have less sex than couples that just got together (apparently this disproves feminism) and people with more partners before marriage have more partners after marriage. Shocking.

Fifth is a rehash of third.

Sixth is a link fest mostly having nothing to do with game. My favorite part is the one where he doesn't understand how STD transmission works.

Seventh is another pile of studies which have nothing to do with gaming. The only interesting one is the one that showed you can guess someone's self-esteem, extraversion, and religiousness from pictures. That's cool.

Last one is a rehash of the first one.

Son, I am disappoint.

Other Stuff

I actually find it pretty easy to believe that blind men still prefer thin women. I mean, they can still feel it, right? Plus, people can detect *weird* shit chemically. Women can tell how tall and muscular you are by *smelling your shirt*.

PoliteNewb, would you *please* stop calling people pedophiles? Some people prefer their partners older than them; others prefer younger partners. That's all there is to it. I prefer my partners older than me, but I therefore depend on it being okay to prefer younger ones.

Orion wrote: I actually find it pretty easy to believe that blind men still prefer thin women. I mean, they can still feel it, right?

Not really relevant, since "thin" is actually less attractive from a tactile perspective than someone with some more padding. Hugging (and, more to the point, any number of things that you do when having sex) a really thin woman tends to be awkward, because there is a fear of breaking them, whether or not such a fear is realistic. Of course, the women he was describing weren't really all that thin.

To Orion:

I should use a different term, perhaps. I don't think the particular chronological age of your partner matters, particularly...my own wife is 4 years younger than me. Human beings become physically/sexually mature in their teens.

What's important is the level of mental/emotional maturity. And Vnon is explicitly stating (as is Roissy) that he prefers women who have a mental "regression" towards innocence, naivete, and other immature traits.

I can fully understand a physical attraction towards youthful physical traits...but those physical traits are often possessed by women in their 30's (there's an online quiz where you try to guess a woman's age by her body).

I do NOT understand an attraction to mental/emotional traits that imply lack of good judgment, submissiveness, and vulnerability...which is what Vnon described. That, to me, says predatory behavior.

This is why a 16 year old with a 26 year old is seen as creepy, while a 30 year old with a 40 year old is unremarkable. The difference in the maturity levels between the latter is nil; between the former, it is usually MASSIVE.

If this isn't predatory intent but "those girls are fun", why does Roissy flat-out admit that he wants to dominate women, and that "women want to be dominated"?

Roissy's blog wrote: Do you think a normal, young, cute woman wants to be assertive? To take charge? To lead? To make the decisions? Of course not!

Surrender is victory. Slavery is freedom. Submission is power. If you do not understand what I’m talking about (a reaction I expect from the feminist [EDITED] and the inexperienced nancyboys)...

If men don't want to be called predators, they shouldn't state how awesome predatory behavior is.

Wow, he's... so enlightened. Not only is he a douchebag, but he actually doesn't really understand Power/Play Relationships at all. He's instead basically glorifying Pimp/Hooker abusive relationships.

Yeah. Submission can be power, but he doesn`t really believe that, or why is he so sure he should always be on the non slavery side of freedom?

Neither end of dominiation play is gender specific.

Kaelik wrote:Yeah. Submission can be power, but he doesn`t really believe that, or why is he so sure he should always be on the non slavery side of freedom?

Neither end of dominiation play is gender specific.

Oh, I didn't provide full context...he believes those things for women only. All women.

Dom/Sub behavior can be an acceptable kink, handled properly by responsible adults who lay out the round rules. Universalizing it to be "always women, never men" is fucking insane. Like, John Norman of Gor insane.

I mean, shit...this is one step (and it's a small step) away from the "she asked for it" rape defense.

Vnonymous wrote:Of course they were studying game - the set of behaviours that maximise attention from women. Dominant social behaviour and posture increases attraction from women? You betcha. Instilling a woman with dread makes her more into you? You betcha. Being nice to women has been demonstratively shown to make them like you less in some situations! Read the links and see what Roissy has to say on them - the research confirms his views and experience. Saying that those scientists weren't researching game is like saying people who study processors aren't figuring out how to build better computers.

I'm sorry, I know I already posted a link-by-link thing on your science links, but I just read this and there's a couple of things I can't keep my mouth shut about. First: you should really really pay attention to which parts of a blog post are from a study, which are from a journalist's interpretation of the study, and which are from the blogger's interpretation of the interpretation.In the studies about dominant posture, scientists found that "dominant" postures led to risk-taking or aggressive actions. That's it. That was the entire study. The whole thing about those risk-taking actions leading to more sex? Unverified assertions by Roissy, that have nothing to do with the study.

Similarly, the "dread" thing. The study compared people who like you a lot, an average amount, and an uncertain amount. That uncertainty can exist even if you're being "nice"--after all, someone who treats you considerately could be anywhere from a casual acquaintance who is a decent fellow to someone desperately wanting to bone you. From context, we have every reason to think that the attractive area of uncertainty is the arc between "just friendly" and "crazy about me." There's no reason to think that being actively mean to someone would be helpful.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postscript: Interestingly, I think Roissy's conclusion (that you should let your partner know you're willing to leave them) is true even though his argument is wrong. People shouldn't feel trapped in their relationships, and I do think being straight-up and demanding what you need is the way to be happy. I've been with my girlfriend for 7 years now, and in that time I've delivered several ultimatums and received a couple as well. Plus we've actually broken up between 2 and 5 times, depending on how you count. And frankly, I wouldn't have it any other way.

EDIT: http://www.smbc-comics.com/

Vnonymous wrote:Ok, I'm looking up the definition for brainwashing, and it completely doesn't apply. You get a woman to be completely in love with you by being awesome, attractive and seductive. You don't force her into it or strap her down and beam messages of "love me" into her. It uses the exact same mechanisms as a woman falling in love with Edward Cullen or falling for Don Juan or Robert Pattinson. Every definition of brainwashing I've found involves using coercion and force to force someone into believing a certain way, often to their detriment. Game uses subtlety and self improvement to make somebody believe in a certain way, to their advantage. The two aren't equivocal at all.

First of all, brainwashing is not always force. Jesus Camp doesn't have 70ft walls, but it does have a series of practices that psychologically condition children to respond in specific ways, which leads to them thinking about things in certain ways.

Secondly, you are making me repeat myself for the third god damn time, and that is annoying. You keep trying to lead things of on some bullshit track about what counts as brainwashing. I agree that acting in such a way that someone enjoys spending time with you, in order to get them to spend time with you is not brainwashing, that is not the issue I am pointing to.

So instead of presenting the two possibilities, I will present this in the form of a question.

You are apparently in a relationship with someone who "loves you no matter what." Now, picture this woman. Now pretend she has a five year old daughter, by you or otherwise. Now imagine that you tie her up and starve her for weeks, while also beating her bloody every day and literally never untying her. Then, you pull her five year old daughter in front of her, and rape that five year old daughter while she watches helplessly.

Do you think she would still love you?

I'll go ahead and answer. No, she fucking wouldn't. So obviously she doesn't love you no matter what, she loves you because you act in a specific way.

That said, there are lots of other ways you could act that would also result in her loving you. Game is not the only one. Game does not give "no matter what" love. It gives conditional love, and there are lots of other ways to get conditional love.

Vnonymous wrote:the male preference for the appearance of indicators of fertility(which includes hip-waist ratio) is universal. There is no culture or people in the world where men exclusively lust after the elderly and the obviously barren.

28-10-28 is not obviously barren, or elderly. There is some degree of biological judgment of attractiveness. There is also a cultural aspect, and a personal aspect derived from, amongst other things, personal experiences growing up, and with first women.

Vnonymous wrote:Personality is largely a sidenote when it comes to female attractiveness.

Maybe for you. But not for me. Personality is largely a deal breaker when it comes to female attractiveness.

Vnonymous wrote:If you'd learn to read, you'd see that I pointed out that "active" falls under vivacious.

If you learned to read, you'd see that active is also not under vivacious, but whatever, I'm going to chalk that up to me not specifying the type of active I mean.

Vnonymous, as a former bartender who met a lot of stuck up sorority [EDITED], I can safely say that personality is a deal breaker for me. The fact of the matter is that no matter how jack-off-smoking-fucking-hot she is, someone, somewhere is tired of putting up with her pouty, whiny, holier-than-thou bullshit.

Game On,
fbmf

Stop taking Roissy seriously. He's a sexist, but a hilarious sexist who often makes accurate insights into women's behavior.

And a mega racist, apparently.

On Personality

Personality is less important than a woman's physical attractiveness when it comes to finding a long term partner. When I say matters less, it obviously doesn't mean NOT AT ALL. And you wouldn't want to get into a relationship with those amazingly hot and yet annoying women. But would you want to have a one night stand with them? I'm willing to bet that you would. A smoking hot woman with no personality is going to do a lot better than an ugly one with a great personality on the dating market. How many male celebrities do you see with ugly, but funny and smart women?

I perfectly agree that personality is a factor and one you should be choosing on. Game even says that you want to make women qualify themselves for your attraction(you should be discriminating and hard to please with nothing but physical hotness). But it is not as important as physical attractiveness, which is a fundamental baseline for a good romantic relationship.

Again, when you're having sex with a woman she probably isn't reading out scientific formulas or the literary genius of Dostoyevsky or how great dnd is(if she is you're doing something wrong). When it comes to spending your life with someone - personality matters. When it comes to sex? No, no it doesn't.

On No matter what

Obviously I wasn't being entirely literal. While I'm sure that people like Robert Pattinson get this sort of treatment just by default, people don't realise just what game is. If you are with a woman solely because of your amazing abs, and she says she won't leave you no matter what, you can bet that she's going to fall out of love if you become a professional sumo wrestler.

Game is the same - although you can be a bit laxer. Saying that learning game is stopping you from being yourself is like saying that upgrading a computer stops it from being the same computer, or repairing a car stops it from being the same car.

On the blind - citation needed

http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090- ... 3/abstract
If you want the actual paper you'll have to buy it from the journal I'm afraid.

On PoliteNewb and "creepiness"

Who said anything about age? I'd consider a love of fun and activity and entertainment and passion and vivacity a progression from being a teenager. As adults we often strive to regain the seriousness of a child at play.

On "flavours of asshole and pussy"

dregs –> lesser omega –> greater omega –> lesser beta –> beta –> greater beta –> lesser alpha –> alpha –> super alpha. Women have a similar scale, although their distribution on it and the qualities that decide their placement are different. Read up on the Sexy Son Hypothesis if you want to learn more. (And remember - thanks to genetic testing, we know that something like one in ten or less children have a father who isn't their stated father/husband of their mother). The idea that women have two strategies for optimising reproductive success is a direct reference to this - women want to have children with men who have lots of children, and they want to have their children raised by men who are great caregivers and providers.

On thanks from women

Ask him? I don't read his email inbox. But he does get a fair few regular female commenters, and not many of them decry how horrible and wrong he is.

On game's success and evo-psych

Saying that game works and if you stuff up it is your fault or a problem with the women is not fucking unfalsifiable. You can go and follow Mystery or Style or Roissy or whatever around for a while and see if their claims are true. Saying that "If something stuffs up it is because it is your fault" makes something non falsifiable is fucking moronic. You can see an example of properly run game whenever you want, there are probably a bunch of them on youtube already. Again, anyone who says that game doesn't work, watch Roissy or Mystery or Style in the field or even in an interview or something and see how it works. I was introduced to it by seeing somebody use it properly in the field and being amazed. "I haven't seen something works so it obviously doesn't" is the sort of thing I'd expect from a 4e player.

On love and devotion

I don't find having someone completely devoted to my happiness and well being, even to the detriment of themselves, to be disgusting. I think that its' pretty good, actually, especially for me. Knowing that somebody loves you that much feels great. Flip the genders and you'll often find that the opposite happens, but I'm not going to complain.

Charities use manipulative techniques to get people to give money to starving children, which doesn't benefit the giver at all.

On Fantasy

You bet your ass that if I had the powers of my dnd characters I'd be fighting monsters for my life with them. If I was a master demon-binder and summoner you can bet that I'd know how to throwdown with a demon or their various minions and monsters. All fantasies have at their core a desire based in reality.

On PoliteNewb calling me a pedophile for liking people with a love for life

Are you fucking serious? I'm a pedophile for liking my ex who was older than me by three years? Your claims are ludicrous and you should be ashamed of yourself. You're accusing almost every man on earth of being a pedophile here, by saying that an attraction for a whimsical, playful and carefree woman is an attraction to raping children. Go fuck yourself.

On treating women shittily

How the fuck is farting on somebody a serious detriment to them. It is an act of play, not serious harm. In my first relationship, where I didn't know what game was, the other person was richer than me and bought me a bunch of cool stuff, including paying for every outing, despite being in what could be called poverty. Am I evil for getting into a relationship with her unconsciously and having her disadvantage herself out of love for me? And your own argument there fucking defeats itself.

getting a woman to love you despite your treating her shitty

"forcing someone into believeing a certain way, often to their detriment"

There's no force involved at any time in game. If a woman wants to, she can just walk away and tell you never to contact her again. And if you are actually a student of game, you will and won't look back twice. They are there because they choose to be there. How many women will say "No" if you ask them "The next time you're single, would you like to be romantically swept off your feet into a passionate romance with someone you adore?"
How many people, even men, are going to say that they do not want that? There will always be a few(asexuals etc etc), but for the vast majority? Yeah, think about it.

On evidence for game

Mystery exists and runs a profitable business. While homeopaths do as well, there has been no debunking of game, at all, ever. Every person who has seriously tried game has seen improvement. I've personally seen a lot of improvement, and I've seen a guy go from a nerd who owns two pairs of shirts and played nothing but cod all day go to a playboy who is currently travelling across Europe, and has free access to just about every event he wants to go to due to his hundreds of devoted female friends. If you don't believe that game works you're perfectly welcome to go and test it yourself. Tell us the results, if you do. Its' perfectly falsifiable, you just won't do it because it is a serious effort and undertaking.

..

Vnonymous wrote:Personality is less important than a woman's physical attractiveness when it comes to finding a long term partner.

This is exceedingly shallow, but some people are that way and they're still living, so OK.

Vnon wrote:When I say matters less, it obviously doesn't mean NOT AT ALL. And you wouldn't want to get into a relationship with those amazingly hot and yet annoying women. But would you want to have a one night stand with them? I'm willing to bet that you would.

Long term relationships and one night stands are two COMPLETELY different things, and you shop totally differently as a result. The first one you have to live with, possibly even have kids with, and take home to Mom. The second one your mom doesn't even know happened.

Personality and intelligence are total deal breakers for men who have the ability to imagine their lives 25 years from now.

Vnon wrote:A smoking hot woman with no personality is going to do a lot better than an ugly one with a great personality on the dating market. How many male celebrities do you see with ugly, but funny and smart women?

Celebrities are not even near the majority of people. They are a horribly bad sample to look at.

Vnon wrote:http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090- ... 3/abstract

Wait, wait, wait... The science is talking about Waist/Hip ratio? Orion, that just means she has an ass, not that she's thin...

Wikipedia: Waist-Hip Ratio wrote:it is possible for two women to have vastly different body mass indices but the same waist-hip ratio, or to have the same body mass index but vastly different waist-hip ratios.

The fact that men - blind or not - like to have ass is totally unsurprising. I mean seriously... We all know what you're holding onto while you're having sex.



We are not, however, going to go into the complete ridiculousness that is the numbers that have been used here. They are not possible on a human without some severe organ rearranging.

For the last time - Game is packaging that covers various scientific principles. The psychology generally works. Those qualities that set Game apart from those techniques - namely thinking you're better than other people, putting women down, etc - are designed to psychologically affect the men who use the process into thinking they are superior to others around them so that they have confidence. Game allows men to justify their behavior because it pits women against men - they are out to ensnare you, to pull you into drama, to deliberately make you unhappy. And most importantly, Game gives men the ultimate escape - they handle situations differently, not because they're wrong or they finally give a damn about what their woman is saying, but because they are outmanipulating her; they are the winners because they have control of her behavior.

Of course you're going to defend it. It defines you as being right.

Maj wrote: We all know what you're holding onto while you're having sex.

Wait for it. Waaaaait for it...

... his dick.

Vnonymous wrote:

On Personality

Personality is less important than a woman's physical attractiveness when it comes to finding a long term partner. When I say matters less, it obviously doesn't mean NOT AT ALL. And you wouldn't want to get into a relationship with those amazingly hot and yet annoying women. But would you want to have a one night stand with them? I'm willing to bet that you would. A smoking hot woman with no personality is going to do a lot better than an ugly one with a great personality on the dating market. How many male celebrities do you see with ugly, but funny and smart women?

You aren't just evil, you are wrong and insane. The male celebs who date non-celebs tend not to have their relationships published. They do have them on a regular basis. And anyone who think personality isn't vastly more important than looks when choosing a long-term partner is insane.

But it is not as important as physical attractiveness, which is a fundamental baseline for a good romantic relationship.

When it comes to spending your life with someone - personality matters. When it comes to sex? No, no it doesn't.

2 things: your statements are contradictory and both somehow manage to be wrong.

As adults we often strive to regain the seriousness of a child at play.

We do? Fuck, I find people who act like teenagers later in life someone I'm trying to protect from themselves. Because they need it.

How the fuck is farting on somebody a serious detriment to them. It is an act of play, not serious harm.

If you think farting on someone is an act of play, you need serious help. A serious detriment, no, but incredibly fucking insulting.

Yeah actually I'd say good looks are most important for friends, secondarily important for partners and least important for hookups.

What does it actually mean when someone is good looking. Well, you're more likely to notice them, more likely to want to get to know them, and more likely to become attracted to them. You're going to enjoy spending time with them more than you otherwise would. But how does it actually effect the benefit you get from associating with them? Shockingly, I think the best use for good-looking people is looking at them. Looking at pretty people is just fun, and it adds spice to your debate, gaming, or whatever else you do together. If you become attracted to them, so much the better! I like being around people I'm attracted to even when there's zero hope of it going anywhere--even when I wouldn't want it to go anywhere, and so I try to keep a half-dozen flirtations with beautiful people going just for fun.

But when you're actually sleeping with someone, I really don't think looks matter that much. The interaction of your personalities, fetishes, and choreography is way more important. Heck, I have my eyes closed most of the time anyway.

Maj wrote: In this scenario, by directly responding to the question, the husband totally fessed up, which demonstrates to her that he's being responsible. Even the fact that he left his car at the bar and now she has to go with him to get it despite the late hour is a good thing, because at least he didn't put himself at risk of an accident or ticket or whatever.

So not acting like a drink driving teenager getting home after curfew is more attractive to women.

Who the shit needs some tryhard to tell them that?

Vnon, there is literally no difference between what you are saying, and how every cult/homeopathy/magnetic bracelet person talks.

Game always works, and we know this because it works, and if it doesn't work, the problem is with you.

Everyone likes X, yeah, there are some people that don't like X, but they are exceptions, and don't count. What, Everyone but me as exception? Yeah, Exceptions don't count. Everyone likes X.

Orion wrote:Yeah actually I'd say good looks are most important for friends, secondarily important for partners and least important for hookups.

Funny, it's the opposite for me. Pretty friends are pleasant to look at, ugly friends make me look presentable. Both are fine. The defining characteristic of hookups is fuckability, and that's appearance (and legality, obviously). In a long-term partner, look are secondary to personality, but I actually expect to be able to compliment her appearance without lying like a politician.

Kaelik wrote:Game always works, and we know this because it works, and if it doesn't work, the problem is with you.

Prep school, Russian style
1. Post ads: university admission guaranteed or your money back.
2. Wear a suit with an U pin.
3. Meet clients, promise admission, collect money.
4. Wait for the entrance exam results.
5. Return money to the failures.
6. goto 1

Vnon wrote:How many male celebrities do you see with ugly, but funny and smart women?

This is interesting, simply because it points out your sexism.
Gender-flip this...how many FEMALE celebs do you see with guys who are less than smoking hot? What kind of chicks do guys like Jason Alexander and Jack Black score?

This is entirely a social construct, which defines "male attractiveness" extremely broadly, and "female attractiveness" extremely narrowly.

Besides which, the points Neeeek and Maj made are both entirely correct.

I perfectly agree that personality is a factor and one you should be choosing on. Game even says that you want to make women qualify themselves for your attraction(you should be discriminating and hard to please with nothing but physical hotness). But it is not as important as physical attractiveness, which is a fundamental baseline for a good romantic relationship.

Attractiveness is no more a baseline for a good romantic relationship than intelligence and personality. If you are planning to spend more than 1 hour with a person, and you're going to be doing any talking in that hour other than "oh god don't stop", intelligence/personality are deal-breakers. If I'm going to be spending more than a few days with a person (for instance, if we're going to live together), intelligence/personality are considerably more important than attractiveness.

When it comes to spending your life with someone - personality matters. When it comes to sex? No, no it doesn't.

To some extent, personality is important even just with sex. I like to feel I'm doing something more than fucking a blow-up doll.

I'd consider a love of fun and activity and entertainment and passion and vivacity a progression from being a teenager. As adults we often strive to regain the seriousness of a child at play.

This is bullshit. "love of fun", "vivacity", "passion" and so on are NOT childlike traits. No, I don't "strive to regain the seriousness of a child at play".

The difference between a child's love of fun and an adult's love of fun is that childish fun involves stuff like pokemon and my-little-pony, and adult fun involves stuff like poker, chess, shooting big-bore handguns, and Guy Ritchie movies.

I have kids; a kid's idea of "fun" and mine are worlds apart. My son thinks it's fun to have his G.I. Joe guys do the exact same thing over and over, with inane dialogue. I can do that for a while, because I love my kid and want to spend time with him, but it is by no means "fun" for me the way it is for him. When I want to have fun with another adult, it in no way resembles anything "childlike".

I'm going to drop it, and let you pretend you misspoke and you really just want a "fun-loving" chick and not a "childlike" one. If you don't see what's wrong with the stuff I already posted, you're not going to get it if I repeat it.

The idea that women have two strategies for optimising reproductive success is a direct reference to this - women want to have children with men who have lots of children, and they want to have their children raised by men who are great caregivers and providers.

This is where your ev-psych bullshit shows. "Females" of the animal kingdom may have predispositions like these. To say that this genetic influence in ANY way overrides the actual intellectual decisions of women in choosing their partners is retarded. And insulting.

But he does get a fair few regular female commenters, and not many of them decry how horrible and wrong he is.

Because of course, he would post comments from women on how horrible and wrong he is, right? Even if he got a ton of them. He'd never do something as in-character as call them a bunch of uptight bitches and ignore them, would he?

Saying that game works and if you stuff up it is your fault or a problem with the women is not fucking unfalsifiable.

It is when you can't provide an objective definition of "stuffing it up" or "problem with the woman". Without such definitions, you can literally exclude ANY situation of game not working by blaming it on "stuffing up" or "problem with the woman". Do you know what an unfalsifiable claim is? It means "not capable of being proved false", typically by simply ignoring an proofs of falsehood by claiming they "dont' count".

What proof would you accept that game doesn't work?

"I haven't seen something works so it obviously doesn't" is the sort of thing I'd expect from a 4e player.

Really? Because the most common 4rrie claim is actually the exact OPPOSITE (the argument you're using):

"Well, I've seen it work, so it must be good".

And just like a 4rrie, you're ignoring any counter-evidence because in your incredibly limited, anecdotal experience, game is awesome. So to you, that extends to it being awesome all the time, everywhere, for all people.

I don't find having someone completely devoted to my happiness and well being, even to the detriment of themselves, to be disgusting.

Let's explore this.
How do you feel about men who are controlled by their women in this fashion? About men who are devoted to their women, even to the detriment of themselves?
Quotes from Roissy show that he thinks they are pathetic.

Now, we gender-flip. How do you feel about women who are controlled by their men, who are devoted to their men even to the detriment of themselves?

If the answer is anything other than exactly the same, you are a sexist and a misogynist.
If the answer IS 'exactly the same', and that answer is the same as Roissy's (pathetic)...why exactly do you want to be with a pathetic person? How is that appealing?

Feel free to expound on this, if I'm missing something important, but be sure to answer the questions.

You bet your ass that if I had the powers of my dnd characters I'd be fighting monsters for my life with them. If I was a master demon-binder and summoner you can bet that I'd know how to throwdown with a demon or their various minions and monsters. All fantasies have at their core a desire based in reality.

First of all, this is incredibly easy to say, because there's no way to test it. I would say you're not looking at the situation realistically, but hey, it's a pretty out-there fantasy, so that's hard.
Secondly...no, all fantasies do not have at their core a desire based in reality. I know this for a fact, based on my fantasies, including some that I have tried to live out in reality (and which were not as appealing once I had to deal with the nuts-and-bolts issues of them, rather than the glossy fantasy version).

Are you fucking serious? I'm a pedophile for liking my ex who was older than me by three years? Your claims are ludicrous and you should be ashamed of yourself. You're accusing almost every man on earth of being a pedophile here, by saying that an attraction for a whimsical, playful and carefree woman is an attraction to raping children. Go fuck yourself.

Thanks for ignoring everything I wrote other than the word "pedophile".
I flat-out stated that my wife is 4 years younger than me. Chronological age is NOT what I am talking about. I already SAID what I am talking about, and you blithely waltzed right past it in your eagerness to defend your desire to dominate women.

How the fuck is farting on somebody a serious detriment to them. It is an act of play, not serious harm.

Really? Just play, no big deal, huh? You'd probably be cool if your woman did that to you, right? Laugh about it?

And let me say, if you and your girl agree that farts are funny and that's a game you play, hey, that's cool.
What's NOT cool is when you do it out of nowhere, and when your partner gets indignant about it, say "you really wanted it".

But that aside, farting on someone is rude and disgusting, and an act of disrespect. I never said it was "serious harm", I said it was treating someone shitty. And it is.
(Unless you're both into fart-play, in which case, hey, I don't judge.)

In my first relationship, where I didn't know what game was, the other person was richer than me and bought me a bunch of cool stuff, including paying for every outing, despite being in what could be called poverty. Am I evil for getting into a relationship with her unconsciously and having her disadvantage herself out of love for me?

Evil? Maybe not. A dumbass? Yes, absolutely. Callous? I'd say yeah.

You're stupid if you get into relationships "unconsciously". WTF does that even mean? And you're callous if you see someone you supposedly care about getting themselves into financial hardship and don't try to stop them.

How many women will say "No" if you ask them "The next time you're single, would you like to be romantically swept off your feet into a passionate romance with someone you adore?"

Most of the women I know. Really, that sentence doesn't even make any sense.

If you don't believe that game works you're perfectly welcome to go and test it yourself. Tell us the results, if you do. Its' perfectly falsifiable, you just won't do it because it is a serious effort and undertaking.

Jesus. You realize that is what every con man ever has said?

And finally...when all is said and done, I don't even give a shit if game "works" (depending on the definition of "works"). I care if it is misogynistic douchebaggery. Which it absolutely is. That's the sole reason I'm still talking to you. Because I believe in calling people on this shit.

Orion wrote: But when you're actually sleeping with someone, I really don't think looks matter that much. The interaction of your personalities, fetishes, and choreography is way more important. Heck, I have my eyes closed most of the time anyway.

Really? Boy, you are missing out. Watching my wife while we have sex is the best part. I love the visual.

(that's just IMO, of course...but seriously, if you've never seen a woman coming her brains out, I think you're missing out on one of life's most beautiful moments.)