34 comments on “Game Is Not Self Improvement

  1. Why do anything at all to attract women?

    It seems like the greater majority of them are in debt (and expect you to pay it), have children from God only knows who, or are so bitchy that tolerating them isn’t worth it…

    I refuse to do anything to attract or appease to them.

    Maybe I am just getting old and grizzled though.

    But, it seems like they should be trying to prove their worth to me, not vice-versa.

    • Why do anything at all to attract women?

      It seems like the greater majority of them are in debt (and expect you to pay it), have children from God only knows who, or are so bitchy that tolerating them isn’t worth it…

      I agree. And that was Eric’s (the man I quoted) point too. Even if game existed, it does nothing about the fact that most women are equivalent in quality to turds. The greater super-majority of them have at least one STD, are in debt (I read something once about how the average single woman has unsecured debt, as in credit card debt, equivalent to 13 months of her salary), have children from who knows where and/or are incredibly bitchy. Do you know the reason why I work so hard at my business? Because it generates something of value, money. If my business generated nothing but dogshit I would give on my business. Even if game existed it would be worthless because it can’t deliver women of value because there are no women of value for all intents and purposes (unless maybe you go Amish and good luck with that).

  2. A woman disqualifies herself as good marriage material if she responds to game to the point of sexual relations…
    because the more sex a woman has with others she is not married to,
    the harder it will be for her to stay married (since she loves the alpha cock and always will after that, this is the reason why married women mostly have no trouble running down their husbands — he wasn’t their first)
    The only reasons that virgins are shamed is because:
    The alphas want their sex without paying for it through a committed relationship (thus closing off their other options),
    The sluts want fallback guys to have no choice (so that they can’t be compared against girls with better morals) therefore promote the idea among females that being slutty is desirable.

    If a slut chooses you, she most likely has decided how to cash out on you when the time is right.
    Only men and women of comparable sexual history should get married. This keeps the adventurous away from the principled, and leads to stable societies.

    • “The sluts want fallback guys to have no choice (so that they can’t be compared against girls with better morals) therefore promote the idea among females that being slutty is desirable.” P Ray

      Interesting you picked up on this. In fact, once sluts have rode the cock carousel to the point alphas don’t want them anymore, they expect betas to pick up the tab and slack. They always want a man to be in the wings just in case. Plus, by promoting slut feminism as normal, competing with the “good girls” is less of a problem if being an Ameriskank is deemed as okay.

      Make no mistake about it. If a woman out there is resentful she isn’t getting the pick of alphas and gets knocked down steps on the ladder, she’s going to make *you* pay in more than one fashion. My idea is to never give them any real love and respect, because they will never do this to hard working, good men. Men have a difficult time with this because they are the more romantic sex (typically) and still don’t realize that modern women are competing, bullying, and conflicting with them all the time.

      When I read about some bitch that wrote that men who aren’t somehow helping women (regardless of what women do for men—it wasn’t even in her discussion) were “not truly human” was not surprised, but still not happy with it one bit. When I was a teenager I would have been both outraged and puzzled, but now it’s pretty clear how an Ameriskank views men—as second class citizens, and a means to an end. No joke.

      One big problem is that many men don’t want the women that have been trashed too much. It’s a testament to their hubris that they expect a man to still come and rescue them even with five kids from three fathers and debt they can’t possibly pay off by themselves. There’s no guilt or stigma with it anymore. But there are men that are waking up to this . . . it’s curious that women have a tough time accepting that men don’t want women that have been around the block too many times, but it’s their fault regardless of who or what they scapegoat and blame.

  3. the only real benefit to “being alpha” would be I guess in pursuing a career, definitely not in enslaving your body and mind towards pleasing a flock of bitter cunts

  4. Scientologists called themselves a school of “self-improvement” for decades – until they finally fessed up and admitted they’re a religion.

    • The only differences between the church of game and scientology is that game hasn’t admitted it’s a religion yet and scientology sends lawyers after people who disagree with them instead of pussy beggars with a lot of time on their hands.

      • I guess that’s because the game church can’t even afford lawyers. The funny thing is that sucking at everything, they even suck at scamming and making profits.

        Scientology at least made enough money to be able to send lawyers… But then again, as you say the Church of game at least has a ton of losers with no jobs (or business) and nothing to do all day, so they act as the “enforcers”.

        • That’s true. At least the Scientologists were smart enough to go where the money is and where it could be most easily obtained, stupid Hollyweird celebrities. That’s more than anyone can say for the church of game. While the church of game has a horde of losers to act as “enforcers” they really can’t do anything to you except waste your time. Scientology’s lawyers can cause real trouble.

          I tried to think who in the church of game actually had gainful employment or their own business and out of the horde of gamers our there, and the only answers I could up with were Roissy, The Fifth Horseman, and PMAFT. These are three men who have never been “game enforcers”. Not only are these the only three gamers who have gainful employment, I would bet serious money these are the only gamers getting laid with any frequency. (I think PMAFT may also be willing to admit that his success with women has more to do with desperate women looking to land a husband before their looks fade than “game”.) If you look at the gamers who have attacked me the most they are either unemployed or at best marginally employed. That Workshy Joe person who was attacking me a lot a while ago has never had a job that paid more than minimum wage. Hawaiian Neo-Marxist had “his hours reduced” at his job and is now having to do odd manual labor jobs which don’t replace his lost income.

          When you consider the how gamers are nearly all marginally employed, it’s no surprise so many of them believe in conspiracy theory. They attack anyone who is more financially successful than them. That’s why all of their conspiracies involve rich people like the Rockefellers. I was a lot more financially successful than them before I started my own business. The gap has increased since I started my own business.

        • These are three men who have never been “game enforcers”. Not only are these the only three gamers who have gainful employment, I would bet serious money these are the only gamers getting laid with any frequency.

          If by “getting laid” you mean have sex with a warpig who holds you by the balls, then yes. Roissy for example has been in monogamous relationships with warpigs for decades. He goes like 5-6 years with one warpig, then when dumped, gets into a new LTR with a new warpig for the next 5-6 years.

          And in the meantime, he keeps talking about “pickup”, as if he’s doing it or has ever done it.

        • I am not surprised. The Fifth Horseman hasn’t talked about what he’s done with game ever (which is common among a good number of gamers), but PMAFT has talked about how what he does is jump from LTR to LTR. PMAFT obviously hasn’t said his LTRs are with warpigs, but I have to wonder now about the quality of women he’s getting. Although given PMAFT’s honesty and willingness to speak out against “game enforcement” I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt more than any gamer.

          Not only has Roissy never done pickup like you said, most gamers haven’t. Either they’re suspiciously quiet about whatever they have done with game (i.e. The Fifth Horseman, Bardamu), or they’re LTR hopping (i.e. PMAFT, Roissy) or they’re married and thus never doing any pick up (Athol Kay, Hawaiian Neo-Marxist). Even worse than all that are the “pro-game women” like Susan Walsh who have never done any pickup and never will because they’re women. They have no basis to be pro-game. In other words hardly anyone in the game community has done any actual pickup.

  5. Game is a race to the bottom, to emulate thug behaviour. A society of gamers is a society of assholes who fundamentally cannot get along with each other because they’re locked in competition for poon. Women would rather sleep with an exciting thug than a boring provider guy.

    • That’s because women love drama in their lives and want the approval of their friends.
      A good woman is going to be highly unpopular with other women,
      and since most women are not good, they want all the opportunities of networking, even the illegal/unethical ones.
      Hence,
      they want a network as big as possible for all kinds of opportunities-for-free until it’s not possible for their streak to carry on.
      THEN they’ll find a nice guy.

  6. A better use of one’s time would be to do things that make you feel better.

    Work out and get in shape.

    Make some money and spend time learning to invest.

    Learn a foreign language then travel to that country (hopefully a SE Asian or Latin American country).

    Those will increase your chances with women much better than any book or any amount of time hanging in a smoky smelly greasy dive bar.

    • The thing here is that “increasing your chances with women” is not quite the same thing as “increasing your chances with women worth being in a relationship with”.
      You can be sure there are plenty of golddigging SE Asia and Latina women.
      At least for SE Asia, birthrates are dropping in certain countries too (Singapore for example).
      Guess what archetype of women they deal with there? The Westernised-Asian woman: the worst.

  7. “Women would rather sleep with an exciting thug than a boring provider guy.”

    I don’t agree. Women would rather sleep with a guy who actually has the balls to approach them and attempt to get in their pants than a guy who never talks to them.

    For women:

    boring provider guy == guy who doesn’t try to fuck me
    exciting thug == guy who tries to fuck me

    • Both are wrong. Women aren’t more likely to WANT to sleep with a thug – it’s just the thug approaches and tries more.

    • There are better uses of my time than approaching women. Even if all I wanted was to bang, trying to make a lot of approaches like gamers do isn’t very efficient for the time invested. If it takes around 10 hours of interaction to get in a woman’s pants, which is already pretty fast, that’s 10 hours wasted when I could have hired a whore for $200/hr. If you work a job that pays more than $20/hr, whores would be far more efficient if you want to get laid. This is also not accounting for time invested in learning “game” which is utter bullshit. Also, why risk rejection from average looking women when you can bang a hot one guaranteed?

      I’m just playing the devil’s advocate here, I’ve never hired a whore, but I know that the typical Western woman is a bad deal.

  8. Pingback: Hookers Provide Something Tangible Unlike Gamers « Omega Virgin Revolt

  9. Yes, I realised this last night. Why is it self-improvement to develop the attributes that women want? That’s implying that I, as I am, am not good enough because I don’t have the attributes that women desire. But why are women’s values the correct ones? Yes, I’m a “beta.” I’m a nice guy. I’m reliable, I’m predictable. I don’t cause trouble with other people. I have a good job, I pay my taxes, I save and invest. And people are trying to convince me that who I am isn’t good enough? No – it’s women’s values that are fucked up.

    I am a good guy and if women don’t want me then it’s their loss. And I can sincerely say that now. Let them mess up their own lives by chasing after alphas

    • Yes, I realised this last night. Why is it self-improvement to develop the attributes that women want? That’s implying that I, as I am, am not good enough because I don’t have the attributes that women desire. But why are women’s values the correct ones?

      I didn’t realize this point until I seeing black pill bringing it up over and over. Heck, I even kept believing the idea of “improving with women self-improvement” even long after regarding game as a scam.

      But as Black Pill likes to point out often “So why is that I’m successful with every other area then?” It’s a common blue pill notion that if you’re not getting women, you need “to improve” and “get better”. It’s one of the first thing both mainstream and game advice say as a platitude.

      The problem? Howcome a guy can be a total and utter fuck up generally (drunk, irresponsible, unemployed, unambitious, uneducated) but be amazing with women. And then you have someone who’s amazing at everything in life, except with women.

      And these aren’t just exceptions. I’m not doing the gamer-trick of tracking down exceptions, it’s in fact most often common. Sure, if some guy admits he’s not good with women (and that’s he a good personal overall) he’ll get some chicks that start pointing out and listing out his “flaws”.

      But it’s like *every human has flaws*. It’s dishonesty of the higher order. The implication is…

      “You’re not good with women, because you’re not perfect”.

      It’s no different than the old female lie “You don’t get women, because you’re not NICE enough, you need to be nicer”.

      http://aleknovy.com/2011/12/05/why-do-femmies-hate-self-proclaimed-nice-guys-with-such-fervor-and-hysterical-passion/

      Both are demonstrably false as being a major factor in success with women. Success with women is an ISOLATED area. Sure, there is some overlap, in the sense that if you double your general confidence, it might improve your confidence with women some 5%… but it’s not a massive link.

      • Sure, if some guy admits he’s not good with women (and that’s he a good personal overall) he’ll get some chicks that start pointing out and listing out his “flaws”.

        But it’s like *every human has flaws*. It’s dishonesty of the higher order. The implication is…

        Since I type out comments in a hurry without even reading them, sometimes some paragraphs are completely unreadable, like this one 😀

        What I meant to say is…

        If a guy admits that he is not good with women despite being a good man overall, the first thing manginas and women will do is to start listing off his flaws.

        The dishonesty of that trick is that everyone has “flaws” and “imperfections”, nobody is perfect.

        But instead of admitting that he is an overall-good-person and overall successful person, they’ll start telling him “yeah well you have this flaw and this flaw and this flaw” and that’s why you don’t get women!!!

        But often those flaws are a) subjective b) universal

        In other words, they’re not things that make him different than a guy WHO DOES get women.

        • If a guy admits that he is not good with women despite being a good man overall, the first thing manginas and women will do is to start listing off his flaws.

          Not only do they do that, but they will also try and paint such a man as a stalker, a threat to women, a potential rapist, and all around insane. This is so they can say that the reason women avoid you is because they all know you’re a insane rapist. In addition they may even accuse such a man of being part of various conspiracies.

        • Well that’s a more specific-subgroup. For the sake of honesty I have to say most men have not had the bad luck you have had.

          This isn’t to minimize the unfair things women have done to you just because many of them have decided you’re the wrong type of guy.

          For the sake of clarity, I mean to say that most of the time they don’t go that far “stalker, creep etc”, at least not in real world conversations (feminist blogs don’t count as the real world for me).

          Most men however are not players, and most men do have a hard time getting success with women. And if such an average guy admits being unsuccessful, the first instinctive response coming from women and manginas is to start listing off his flaws…

          And again, listings off all those flaws and idiosyncratic traits are all a red herring meant to distract from the reality of what it takes to be successful with women, and it’s NOT being a good man or being an all-around well-developed individual.

          Personal development has very little to do with female success. It’s a skill that almost exists in a vacuum (almost).

  10. This is very interesting and very, very true. I have even been good with women in some periods of my life and bad at others, without any other areas of my life being affected. It is really surreal.

    I think the KEY factor in being good with women is one very simple thing – simply being comfortable around them. It took me the longest time to figure this out. I once went through the most frustrating period where I had no trouble picking up women at bars and clubs, would have AMAZING interactions with them, only to have it fizzle out at some point that night, with this AMAZING and highly sexual interaction COMPLETELY fizzling out and me not sealing the deal. Sometimes it would fizzle out in the bedroom just before sex and I would be denied sex. And the thing is the women would lose TOTAL interest in me, it was like a COMPLETE about face.

    I was tearing my hair out with frustration not being able to figure out what I was doing to fuck things up! It was almost incredible how the pattern was so consistent – girls loving me in bars for the first few hours, we have an amazing connection, and I fuck it up massively to the point where the women DISLIKE me, sometimes within minutes. Sometimes the turn-around would take literally MINUTES from total intimate connection to active dislike on the part of the woman and her totally tuning me out.

    For a while I went through the gamer interpretation where I was not being alpha enough, *hard* enough, aloof enough – in fact these experiences drove me into game! – but that made things a million times worse. I went from things fizzling out LATE in the interactions to not even having those amazingly sexual connections for the first few hours of the interactions to begin with, lol!

    So finally I tried to REALLY pay attention and see what was happening. I discovered that every time I would get with some seriously hot girl for the first few hours I did not really take it seriously and would just be myself and be socially totally comfortable around the girl, but then at one point I would start getting anxious and scared that *holy shit it was really going down! She wants to have sex with me tonight* with this hot girl who suddenly seemed totally out of my league – and at that point I begin to withdraw socially and display socially avoidant behavior – less eye contact, etc, – that sent clear signals that I was not comfortable around that girl. My anxiousness made me do a version of *pre-rejection*. I freaked out and begin rejecting the girl out of a sense that she would reject me. When I was flirting with the idea that game is true I would sometimes go into *alpha mode* when I got anxious trying to be all *tough* and *aloof*, and this would have the SAME reaction from the girl – sudden total fizzle out. In both cases I began displaying anti-social behavior.

    In other words the openness and comfort that allowed the girls to feel a connection to me in the first few hours disappeared as I got anxious and began displaying rejection of the girls and socially hostile behavior, and this TOTALLY killed any attraction the girls had for me!

    What is fascinating about this is that it is the OPPOSITE of gamer interpretations – in other words, I needed to be LESS *hard* and LESS *hostile*, and just stop displaying anti-social behavior out of anxiousness.

    For me, the way to maintain my comfort with women was to accept that I wanted them and to stop going into *anti-social* mode – I became more honest with the fact that I wanted them and that this left me open to rejection.

    ’m a nice guy. I’m reliable, I’m predictable. I don’t cause trouble with other people. I have a good job, I pay my taxes, I save and invest. And people are trying to convince me that who I am isn’t good enough?

    None of that matters either FOR attraction or AGAINST female attraction. Women are attracted based on who you ARE and then all you have to be is comfortable around them.

  11. The frustrating thing about getting out of game is that my experiences proved to me that *behavior* DOES matter HUGELY in being successful with women, just not in the way the gamers think.

    1) It does not CREATE attraction
    2) But you can seriously make a girl dislike you through anti-social behavior unconsciously brought on by your own insecurities, that you are not even fully aware of!

    But as long as I was stuck in gamer mode every time I noticed that I fucked it up through my behavior – which I could not help noticing – I begin to think it was that I was not alpha enough, which had nothing to do with anything. As long as I tried to be more *alpha* I got more anti-social and worse with women.

    I just needed to be myself, comfortable, and not give a shit and go into anti-social mode THROUGHOUT the interaction.

  12. Now why should this be?

    I think women have 2 (or more, lol) modules in their head. One, they have the SEXUAL attraction module, which there is NOTHING you can do to affect whatsoever through your behavior.

    Two, they have this *safety module*, where they screen you for signs of socially avoidant or anti-social behavior that signals a potentially risky situation for them.

    OR, completely normal ego-issues are coming into play, like if you reject them, they reject you.

    But the idea that being comfortable and normal around women should be so important to them is after all somewhat bizarre. Why should that be such an important factor? After all, it is not for us men. We STILL want to bang some hot girl that is being socially weird or avoidant. Men are certainly not going to REFUSE to bang a girl we have been attracted to all night just because she suddenly BEHAVES socially uncomfortable and avoidant, etc.

    Why should women suddenly refuse to bang a guy they are CLEARLY attracted to because he suddenly went into *anti-social* mode and began displaying avoidant, less comfortable behavior? Why should this even MATTER sexually?

    I dont really know, but it is a fascianting question!

    • I think women have 2 (or more, lol) modules in their head. One, they have the SEXUAL attraction module, which there is NOTHING you can do to affect whatsoever through your behavior.

      Two, they have this *safety module*, where they screen you for signs of socially avoidant or anti-social behavior that signals a potentially risky situation for them.

      Exactly, and most errors in game come from conflating the two modules, or trying to apply the algorithms of one module to the other.

      But the idea that being comfortable and normal around women should be so important to them is after all somewhat bizarre. Why should that be such an important factor? After all, it is not for us men. We STILL want to bang some hot girl that is being socially weird or avoidant. Men are certainly not going to REFUSE to bang a girl we have been attracted to all night just because she suddenly BEHAVES socially uncomfortable and avoidant, etc.

      Why should women suddenly refuse to bang a guy they are CLEARLY attracted to because he suddenly went into *anti-social* mode and began displaying avoidant, less comfortable behavior? Why should this even MATTER sexually?

      IMHO, being uncomfortable and being socially weird are not the same, although women and PUAs conflate them.

      I think women have evolved a “run get away” instinct in the face of uncomfortable men, because looking uncomfortable is a possible sign you have bad intentions which you feel guilty over.

      Of course, the test is far from perfect, because perfectly good men can feel uncomfortable due to feminist brainwashing, and psychopaths who DO have bad intentions can be and are completely comfortable.

      There’s also the issue of insecurity. Too many men under-estimate female insecurity. Very often women misinterpret your insecurity or discomfort as you rejecting them. It’s totally idiotic, but that’s how it works. So she rejects you in response to her perceiving a possible future rejection from you. IT’s kind of dumb, but that’s how it works. Women are notorious about ego-preservation. If they feel even the slightest twinge that you might be considering rejecting them, they reject first as a pre-caution.

      http://aleknovy.com/2011/10/05/men-often-under-estimate-how-insecure-women-are-and-how-much-they-self-sabotage/

      • IMHO, being uncomfortable and being socially weird are not the same, although women and PUAs conflate them.

        I agree with that. One can be totally comfortable and still weird. But I do think dis-comfort most often manifests as weirdness. Rather, I should say discomfort that you are fighting against and seeking to conceal will lead to incongruent, repressed behavior that others see as weird. I think discomfort that is honestly expressed as just shyness will not necessarily be seen as weird or threatening, but maybe I am wrong about that.

        In my personal example, my dis-comfort manigested as socially avoidant (less eye contact, etc) and socially mildly hostile. So I was less plain weird that just socially avoidant.

        I think women have evolved a “run get away” instinct in the face of uncomfortable men, because looking uncomfortable is a possible sign you have bad intentions which you feel guilty over.

        Of course, the test is far from perfect, because perfectly good men can feel uncomfortable due to feminist brainwashing, and psychopaths who DO have bad intentions can be and are completely comfortable.

        Right, the test is far from perfect, and it is a damn shame because it captures so many otherwise normal men who women would LOVE in its broad net. I think the test might be for SINCERITY – in other words if you are uncomofortable but dont try to hide or repress it it does not lead to incongruent behavior and women remain comfortable around you.

        But most men react to their discomfort by fighting it and trying to repress it around themselves and the girl, which just creates greater discomfort.

        So the test might not be for discomfort per se but for our REACTION to our discomfort which makes us look insincere – but again, I am not sure and just tossing ideas in the air.

        There’s also the issue of insecurity. Too many men under-estimate female insecurity. Very often women misinterpret your insecurity or discomfort as you rejecting them. It’s totally idiotic, but that’s how it works. So she rejects you in response to her perceiving a possible future rejection from you. IT’s kind of dumb, but that’s how it works. Women are notorious about ego-preservation. If they feel even the slightest twinge that you might be considering rejecting them, they reject first as a pre-caution.

        I think this is a good point and plays into the issue as well.

        And those links are great, btw 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s