Misrepresentation
Ever dated a woman who wouldn’t order a meal but then proceeded to devour yours right off your plate? How about the dessert consumption tactic of “I’ll just have a half” and then proceeding to wolf down 17 in succession (most common among the geriatric set)? Who do they think they are kidding? Men may not be recognized for their attention to detail but c’mon already. Well this is more than anecdotal evidence. In fact, the phenomenon has been studied back in ‘87 and I came across the reference just recently here:
In this study, female college students came into the psychology lab to participate in a study in which they were asked to have a conversation with a male student. Before the conversation, the women read a background sheet about the partner, which either made him/her seem desirable (interested in travel, athletics, photography, wanted to go to law school, and single) or undesirable (no interests other than watching TV, no plans other than making money). They were then asked to have a 20-minute conversation, and as the experimenter left the room, she gestured to a bowl of candy (M & Ms) and said “oh, these were left over from a party — help yourself”. Researchers then measured how many candies the subjects ate under the two conditions: when the women were talking with the desirable partner and when they were talking with the undesirable partner.
I bet you can guess what they found: Women ate significantly more M & Ms if their partner was undesirable than if their partner was desirable! This study is a classic example of how women deliberately present an image to men in certain situations — and specifically that when women want to appear attractive, they don’t eat much.
Lo and behold, say it ain’t so. Women refrain from their usual gustatory routines of gorging like a famished hyena to impress men lest they give the impression that they will one day resemble a spongy, overfed sea-cow (probable here in the states). As resoundingly profound as this finding may be, it comes as a surprise to few men. We’ve seen it in action.
Furthermore this is far from the only way this tendency reveals itself early in the courting stage or even the limerence phase of a relationship. In fact it seems to be par for the course when a woman is trying to lure a man into commitment. How many times gents, have you found what you thought what you thought was the perfect girl (this time) only to have her begin withdrawing everything which made the relationship desirable in the first place within the first year or so? She may have represented herself as a girl who liked sports, fishing, going out with your buds, or fellatio right? You thought you made the catch of a lifetime, she had all the criteria that make a girl worth committing to if any can, you thought. You thought she broke the mold right? How woefully mistaken you found yourself to be after those few glorious months.
How did you mistake this shrewish, selfish prude for the giving she-beast of the sack you thought you had landed? Simple, she misrepresented herself that way to lure you in and set the hook. Guys are notoriously susceptible to guile. She never liked hanging with your buds or giving BJ’s on request you nitwit, she merely did it to win you over. Once she had sprung the trap the bait was whisked away and all you were left with was her expectations and her true character revealed.
This is when the cold hard truth is revealed. It isn’t all about you. Ultimately the ladies fall in love with what you can do for their legacy, not with you objectively as you do for them. Remember all the women who have accusingly reprimanded you for objectifying women? Well guess what ladies, that objectification means the man loves you for you, not what you can provide him. One might say it’s a more authentic form of love/adoration than loving someone for what they can do for you. That seems hopelessly Machiavellian but such is nature, there is little use in judging evolution.
Regardless, the fact is that women, intentionally or not (if we care to give them the benefit of the doubt) portray themselves as precisely what you desire them to be just long enough to get you to love it and put a ring on it, then they conduct a full 180 and it becomes all about them and their needs and desires. Having secured your support for their legacy they turn full time to that endeavor and you’re left on the sidelines to provide monetary and moral support. Sometimes they’ll still return to their old ways, when trying to convince you to give them something like another child (a woman’s never so randy as when trying to get pregnant, but it had better hold you for a year or two) or a new home, car etc. Do not be so obtuse as to believe she’s turned over a new leaf, it’s calculated to get you to expose your soft underbelly to her desires and will be short-lived at best.
Knowing that such behaviors are calculated to encourage you to give up the farm, why not hold your own bait (and tackle) out there but never quite let them get hold of their goal? It’s all mutual manipulation anyway. Your choices are twofold, be the chump, or be the equal. I know which I’d rather be. Never give up too much. You’ll always be attractive and pursued and you’ll always get her best, while the suckers submit to a lifetime of denial and toil in the furtherance of her desires while their own are foiled.
Alpha’s don’t play that. Always keep her off her toes and you’ll receive big dividends while the nice guys do the heavy lifting.
[...] This post was Twitted by fbardamu [...]
why would you want to change this? enjoy the first few glorious months and move on to a new girl
No need to change it, just don’t be sucked in by it. How many unhappily married men do you know that took those first months as the “real her” only to realize he got played. Recognize and use the female nature for your own ends was the point.
No need to change is merely because it is close to impossible to change for most guys.
Being aware of it is different.
Creating shit tests for the women to pass is the next step. There need to be ways to find out what would happen once the hook is sunk in.
also,
“One might say it’s a more authentic form of love/adoration than loving someone for what they can do for you. ”
Could as well be:
“One might say it’s a more authentic form of love/adoration than loving someone for the love they could receive from other females.”
Because today the women really do not need the man doing something for them, something they needed for all human existence minus fifty years.
They need to focus on having attractive offspring, and for this, the ginatingle is sufficient. the gina tingles for a man if there are other tingling ginas in the environment, or in the perception of the gina to be tingled.
I think this is quickly becoming the major/only selector for women: Does he make ginae (plural) tingle? If he does, so tingles mine. If he does not, so sleeps mine.
Long time… went on a yellow fever spree in Shanghai.. gotta get out soon or I might have to deal with multiple miniature replicas of myself.
Too true that is why a guy should try to avoid food dates, especially dinner since restaurants purposely increase prices. The smart dater like Leykis 101 students will eat before and order something like a salad…
No girl wants to look like fat pig to others and if she does then she isn’t worth your time. Excuse yourself and leave her with the tab! Very fun to do if she is the cold hearted bitch type. Throws them off since they never had any “beta” do it.
Happens to betas all the time. The girl will pretend to like all his likes and then do a 180 once he sings the contract of marriage. Never ever give into any form of manipulation, if you give in then you have just opened up for continuous testing and exploitation.
I’d agree as a criteria for bedding a man, but despite their protestations of independence when the rubber hits the road they’re all about legally taking control of a man’s production via child support. Do they need him in the house? No, but they sure want his income paying for it.
Yes. To hearken back to the point Lee made, the point of this article isn’t necessarily to state the obvious to the 10% of us that are Alphas, but to disabuse the 90% of men who are beta of the notion that the women they are dating are thinking like they are. The nice guy generally has a naive and genuine approach. He likes a woman, he presents himself as he is and as he intends to continue to be. It’s like the old saw about how a man marries a woman hoping she’ll never change, and a woman marries a man hoping to change him. She baits him in but then starts trying to rebuild him in her image of the prince charming AFC once she’s got his commitment. The nice guy is usually totally blindsided by this. He naively assumes that the woman he married was who she was from day one, after all, if she really liked him, would she callously misrepresent herself as being something else? He also assumes she married him because she liked him for who he was and accepted him at face value. Nothing could be further from the truth. She saw him as a lump of clay she could remake in her ideal image and portrayed herself just how she thought he would be most taken with her. Once he’s signed on the line, the facade drops away and he’s stunned to realize he’s married a shrew and she never liked him for who he genuinely was, who he’s portrayed himself as all along. This is vastly disillusioning for the AFC and leads to more marital discord than probably anything else IMO. He soon realizes he’s made a horrible mistake and misjudged her profoundly, but it’s too late; the die has been cast. This is the reason for this post, to inform these guys that the courtier nature of the female, their propensity to calculate their actions for the desired result and rely on guile to achieve their own objectives at the expense of his happiness is par for the course. Like I say above, there’s little point in debating the merits of how nature made us, the best we can do is recognize the facts and act accordingly. The average nice guy is hopelessly naive and unsophisticated and needs to be hit over the head with this fact before it’s too late.
@z.g. – “Because today the women really do not need the man doing something for them, something they needed for all human existence minus fifty years.”
That doesn’t make any sense. Human nature doesn’t change so abruptly. At the core of every woman is a quivering mess dying to find strength from a man.
Anony,
I believe ZG intended that to be tongue in cheek. Sadly they have yet to invent a sarcasm font and it’s readily lost online.
Anon:
That doesn’t make any sense. Human nature doesn’t change so abruptly. At the core of every woman is a quivering mess dying to find strength from a man.
When did women make sense?
What do they need a man for?
Look at it this way: Anything they can get from being happily married to a man who is not in the top of the top, they can get from society and daddy government, and from the man through force.
Once you take away the need a woman has for a happy man, you take away the incentive to be happy with that “lesser” man, 90% of men.
That is why they marry and then take the man to the cleaners. By this, they take what they need from the man, forced by the society, without “needing” him.
Let’s say most women get what they need from men without needing them to be around.
Anyway, my first sentence, the one you quoted, explains best, with this in mind, so no need to spoil that.
I will quote you again, for a different purpose:
At the core of every woman is a quivering mess dying to find strength from a man.
Previously, almost any normal man would be strong enough to give the woman the strength she so craves for.
Now, the ladies are strong and independent, mostly due to social& state support, if they are not strong and independent, they have social&state support, laws negate any responsibility a woman will have for procreation, laws make the man pay for her decisions, state support indirectly.
Means:
The man who was perceived as strong and protective, is now perceived a wimp, because the environmental support level is unnaturally high.
So the men who can now give the women the strength they crave for are a few stones on the top of the pyramid.
Women do not need men anymore, they just crave for the attention of the few top extremes.
That has changed. A need has been satisfied by the environment, a craving has been left without the balance of a need.
So the men who can now give the women the strength they crave for are a few stones on the top of the pyramid.
This is hypergamy by definition. This and the social issues you bring up here are the outcome of adopting a PC feminist agenda at the expense of the traditional family. Devlin addresses these issues masterfully in his essay here. I brought this issue up because it touches on the larger social decay that is the demise of the family. I am saddened by the demise of the traditional family unit and I believe it is largely responsible for the issues in Stein’s article. The expense and urbanization can explain smaller families, because children truly are an expense versus an asset economically unlike on a farm in our recent past, but the economic issue fails to explain the decreased birthrate in middle class families. The demise of marriage and the diminution of men however does address this. Successful men have far more to lose to divorce and child support than those in the underclass. Society steps in to provide for these men’s children and we don’t see a consequent decline in birthrate in the poor, underprivileged, or downright stupid. In effect our social policies are changing the cost benefit equation of children and encouraging those who produce the least fit offspring to reproduce while penalizing those who produce the most fit and ultimately productive offspring. The costs are shifted to the successful inhibiting their ability to devote more resources to their own offspring. This is a perhaps unintended inverse eugenics program, driving the population inexorably towards a lower average level of fitness. We’ve inverted Darwin’s forces and the only possible outcome is a lower average quality of citizen.
While the propaganda holds that women are the same as men and don’t need their strength and natural male assets, I believe this is a myth. My experience suggests women and men complement one another and women need men’s stolid consistent and relatively emotionally neutral nature to balance their own volatile emotional states and keep the big picture and structure in their life together. Men also benefit from womens emotional passions and capriciousness, and potentially empathy and compassion when in a sound and constructive relationship. Traditional family structure and gender roles fostered this balance but it is woefully absent in most marriages today.
It is unfair when people grossly misrepresent themselves. Many men seem to also misrepresent themselves by overly playing up their career success in the beginning. At this point I always assume there’s a bit of exaggeration involved when people talk up their success too much. (Anecdotally it seems like the more humble ones usually downplay more – which is great when you are pleasantly surprised to find out they’ve done a lot of cool stuff).
Everyone seems to put forth their best side in the beginning, so shouldn’t we all just expect that the first few months are more of a “front”? Outright dishonesty, however, like the type in 29 Dresses (pretending to be vegetarian, into the environment, etc.) is completely wrong though.
About women eating less in front of less desirable partners… I’m not totally buying it. M&Ms are chocolate… when I feel down, a quick pick-me-up is chocolate. I feel like when I’m in bad company in general, to feel better about the situation I turn to food for pleasure.
Also, some people just lose their appetites from nervousness or self-conscious (don’t want to look weird while pigging out so eat very slowly or just a little). I forget to eat sometimes when I”m caught up with something fun…like a great conversation or dancing, whatever. Wish these angles were compared with too.
[...] Alpha Dominance details how women misrepresent themselves in order to get men to commit. [...]
lovelysexybeauty,
Some men can and do misrepresent themselves too. In either case they are doing themselves a disservice and projecting their inadequacies. I always present myself in my worst light early on. The more loutish I come across the better. Then, when the reality exceeds the expectation they’re hooked. I respect anyone who is honest with themselves and others from the get-go. There’s no point in selling the moon and delivering a pile of horse shit. We can all see through this and it just wastes each other’s time.
[...] Original post: Misrepresentation [...]
[...] stuff? I don’t know, that’s why it’s all still there, It may be very important, or not. Misrepresentation – alphadominance.com 10/27/2009 Ever dated a woman who wouldn’t order a meal but then [...]
In The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women into Bed, there are a number of ethical problems:
1. The subtitle is predatory and completely focused on using women sexually.
2. There are completely false statements made throughout the book as though they are scientific fact, when they are not:
“Nature will unapologetically weed your genes out of existence if you don’t take action and learn how to attract women now.” (p.xiiii).
“This is why I am privileged to share with you more than ten years of experience in the science of social dynamics and the art of the cold-approach pickup.” (p. xiv).
Casanova, who allegedly “enjoyed erotic liaisons with 122 women during his travels across Europe” is celebrated. (p. 1).
Women’s “value” is entirely based on physical appearance and is rated on a degrading numeric scale. (throughout the book).
Despite Mystery’s “Statement of Ethics”: “Mystery protégés focus on attraction first, not seduction. Ethically, they are attractors, not seducers” (p. 44), the book contradicts this by routinely advising men how and when to seduce women. Mystery includes the definition of Seduction:
1. To persuade to disobedience or disloyalty
2. To lead astray usually by persuasion or false promises
3. To carry out the physical seduction of; entice to sexual intercourse
The marketing of “Game” to men is unethical in that terms such as “algorithms”, “the science of courtship”, “dating science”, dynamic social homeostasis”, “rewiring her attraction circuitry”, “dynamic social intuition”, “replication value”, “survival value”, “backward rationalize”, “anti-slut defense”, “decimal rating scale”, “calibration”, “internalization”, “negative replication value”,
Actual scientific theories such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (check this), “pre-selection”, and Evolutionary Psychology are distorted and misused.
Non-critical use and validation of the term “slut” (p. 28).
“She does have a boyfriend and she is willing to cheat on him (they often are if your game is tight), but she doesn’t want to feel guilty about it. This is her rationalization process at work. As long as she mentions the boyfriend before sleeping with you, she can rationalize to herself that it was your fault. Sure, she might regret it later, but that won’t necessarily stop her from cheating.” (p. 36).
“Emotions are circuits in the brain that judge value and create motivation. They are designed to keep you alive and to replicate your genes. (p. 37).
“What a woman likes or says she likes, is not necessarily what she responds to emotionally (and thus sexually). (p. 37).
“All women have a powerful interruption system knows as “anti-slut defense” or ASD. When you play solid game, you will be able to escalate smoothly without triggering a woman’s anti-slut defense”. (p. 38).
“A woman often won’t do anything that makes her feel responsible for the escalation – she needs plausible deniability. The Venusian artist must take responsibility to make things happen and act with moxie”. (p. 38).
“Don’t act as if things are a big deal. Just repeat the words “no problem” in your head until you really believe it. No matter what happens, it’s no big deal. (p. 38).
“As you proceed with the pickup, keep the woman just inside that window between revalidation and rejection. She must be baited to chase in small increments, just like a cat with a string.”. (p. 38).
Women are referred to as “targets”, “girls”,
“Attraction is not a choice” – David DeAngleo (p. 44).
“In the same way that we men automatically feel an overwhelming attraction toward any Sports Illustrated swimsuit model because she turns on all our switches, women can be made to feel exactly the same way toward us if we only devise a clever method for systematically turning on all their attraction switches.” (p. 45).
“the majority of a man’s attraction switches are set to respond to…p.45 check this!
“Demonstrating that you have women interested in you, in this direct manner, is only one of many ways to trigger the same sexual selection switch. There are other ways. You can also wear women’s perfume. When a woman asks what you are wearing say, “Nothing.” Smell your collar and then, as if remembering, say, “Ah,” and smile to yourself.
Another way to flip her preselection switch is to have a lipstick kiss on your cheek. In the exact same way you feel greater attraction for a woman if she has an appealing hip-to-waist ratio, a woman will feel toward you because of that all-important lipstick kiss”. (p. 46)
Seduction is mutual: p 47
“it takes an average of 5 to 10 hours of cumulative comfort building before a woman is ready for seduction. (p. 54).
Coming Soon: A similar outing of the rest of the proof of unethical methods in the rest of the Mystery Method as well as in the enewsletters sent by Nick Savoy’s Love Systems.
Response to “the obsidian”:
“1. They’re all bloggers of varying stripe”
The above statement is one of the few things you’ve said that is actually true).
“2. They all have deep issues with regard to Game”
The issues we have with Game are not “deep” but are legitimate.
“3. But they haven’t read the key source material, and almost always use, as their “primary” source info, Roissy in DC, or blogsites like it (such as say, Tucker Max, in the case of Ms. Susan Walsh of Hooking Up Smart.com)”
Again, you make statements that are untrue and misinformed. Lady Raine and I have BOTH quoted from primary sources (which you don’t need to put in quotes by the way).
“Yet, the level of reasoning, and simple investigative research into the basic of issues surrounding Game by these and other Women is, I have to say, a slap in the face to all that the Academy stands for.”
Again, you express an uninformed opinion that ignores what we have already put forth. I am weary from repeating myself to you. Perhaps you should reread the entire thread on Lady Raine’s blog and the threads on my blog as well to remind yourself of what is true.
“I am NOT arguing that these or any other Woman has to AGREE with Game, but rather, to merely be educated on its basic premise and methodology, as propounded by its creators and key thinkers themselves.”
We ARE educated on its basic premise and methodology; it’s not rocket science. We’ve made this clear in all of our blog posts. I’m beginning to think you have severely deficient reading comprehension skills.
“Apparently, she got wind of my back and forth epic struggle with Lady Raine…”
Are you delusional as well? I did not “get wind of” any “back and forth epic struggle with Lady Raine” and you. YOU are the one who decided to post an open letter to me, and I am now keeping my word and responding even though you’ve proven that you are intellectually dishonest and have no understanding of what it means to be an American.
“Ms. Romano’s comments over at Lady Raine’s struck me as a bit odd, considering the string of letters following her name; perhaps I do give such people a bit too much credit, because I have always been taught that such individuals are by definition, people who attempt to live by Reason, Logic and at least some understanding of and application of, the Scientific Method.”
I have used the scientific method above. Read it again.
Just because YOU think my August 1, 2009 blog post is “outrageous”, does not mean you are correct. What is YOUR expertise? Oh, that’s right, you won’t tell us because you’re too cowardly to use your real name or real identity.
“Speaking of Style, it should also be said, that he goes out of his way in BOTH of his books, to warn Men about the very real Dark Sides of Game; in fact, I attribute a goodly bit of my own “style” to Style, not just in a stylistic sense, but in a moral one, too.”
Neil Strauss’ warning about “the dark side of Game” is insufficient. He has made a great deal of money teaching men to deceive, manipulate, coerce, and utimately harm women and themselves whether they realize it and whether you agree with me or not. End of Story.
“Game (noun, verb): A corpus of knowledge, and series of behaviors, designed to win the SEXUAL ATTRACTION of the Female.
PERIOD.”
As usual, you are being intellectually dishonest. You fail to acknowledge that the word “win” above really means the following given how Game is taught to men: con, trick, deceive, coerce, lie to, manipulate, pressure, psychologically abuse, hypnotize, and misuse NLP techniques.
“It is a mating strategy, and ALL living things found on the Earth has one, if not several. Game, is simply a mating strategy for Human Males to use.”
Yet more lies from Obsidian above. It is NOT a mating strategy; it is a strategy to get men laid by any means necessary; there is an enormous difference.
“Game draws its knowledge from the insights gleaned from Evolutionary Psychology, itself considered by some a controversial corner of the Psychology world; PUAs (or “Gamers” if you will) study not only Game-specific materials, but also the work of noted Evolutionary Psychologists, like David Buss, Mat Ridley, and Steven Pinker. ”
And yet more misinformation from Obsidian above: Game uses cherry-picked aspects of Evolutionary Psychology which have been grossly distorted in an attempt to justify the abusive, manipulative, and unethical methods which Game intentionally uses and teaches.
“In addition, Gamesmen (my preferred term) study the great works of literature on the topic of romance, seduction and Human Sexuality, such as The Story of O, the compendium written by Robert Greene The Art Of Seduction, My Secret Life and others.”
You have a very odd idea of what constitutes a “great” work of literature and what the definitions of “romance” and “human sexuality” are. I would suggest instead that you read Getting Love Right by Terence Gorski, She Comes First by Ian Kerner, Cutting Loose by Howard Halpern, Boundaries and Relationships by Charles Whitfield, Why Does He Do That by Lundy Bancroft, The Verbally Abusive Relationship by Patricia Evans, Unexpected Allies: Men Who Stop Rape by Todd Denny, The Macho Paradox by Jackson Katz, and Coercive Control by Evan Stark.
“Many of its core tenets may seem bizarre or counterintuitive to the uninitiated or otherwise untrained eye; but to those well-practiced in the Game, they know well the efficacy of its use and practical results.”
For the Millionth time, we are NOT saying it doesn’t work to get men laid. We ARE saying it’s unethical.
“Game can also be said to be an “applied science” in the sense that it relies heavily on trial and error, after periods of intense and lengthy observation. Field reports, detailed accounts of actual, realtime interactions with Women are a staple of Game practice, and much of what is viewed today as the core tenets of Game came from said practice.”
You’ve got to be kidding. Game is NOT an applied science, Game materials and practitioners have proven their lack of critical reasoning skills and ability to reality-test their beliefs, and “field reports” are not reliably accurate.
“Moreover, Game is NOT in itself moral or immoral; in fact, Game is AMORAL, and it is left solely to the practitioner as to how he will use it.”
This is the same argument used about guns, fireworks, and cough medicine. And the conclusion is that the argument is invalid; THAT is why most states do have some amount of legal control for who can obtain and use those things. That is because they ARE harmful to many people.
“This is where methods such as the use of what is known as NLP-and forms the backbone of the Ross Jeffries school of Seduction or Game-comes in, because it uses considerable degrees of hypnosis in its methods.”
Yes, and I’ve already posted on Lady Raine’s blog the comments from NLP and Hypnosis professional practitioners statinm.g that these methods do work, a person can be hypnotised without knowing it, and that it is unethical to use these methods on people to get sex from them.
“Does it work? I’ve seen it in action and can say, YES, it does work. But then we are left with the moral implications of such a strategem; is it RIGHT to do it? I say NO, and I am not alone.”
Yet you still defend game and the other methods in Mystery’s book which I’ve provided examples of above.
“It is unclear if Mystery himself is cool with NLP, but what is clear, that his school of thought does not include or incorporate NLP in any way; instead his school of thought deals with what has become known as Social Dynamics, how people interact with each other within the context of group activity.”
Ah yes, “social dynamics” – another fake, scientific-sounding concept made up by an entertainer, not a psychology professional.
“Again: Game is amoral. In and of itself, there is no “right” or “wrong” way to get a Woman into bed with you.”
You’re kidding, right? There are multiple WRONG ways to get a woman into bed with you, and Game very intentionally teaches almost all of them.
“The only one to determine ultimately if something is good or bad, is the practitioner himself.”
Really? I disagree. The women the Gamer has deceived, manipulated, lied to, hypnotized, used NLP on, psychologically coerced, and whose boundaries have been minimized and defiled by calling them LMR, and violating them – THEY are the ones to determine if something was good or bad.
“In this regard, I view Game in the same light as Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince-a practical and pragmatic, how-to guide to gaining political power and keeping it. It doesn’t concern itself with the moral or ethical implications of Statecraft; it is left to the “Prince” to decide for himself which way to go.”
And the above is a complete cop-out. Guess what else didn’t concern itself with moral or ethical implications? Slavery. It was very very good for the American Economy, which would have completely collapsed if Slavery had been abolished earlier than it was. Do you feel the same way about that?
“Furthermore, Game is NOT relegated to the niteclub, bar or lounge, although it certainly can be used in such environments; Game can be applied to a whole host of situations and scenarios, from the boardroom and shopfloor, to the local taproom or formal events.”
Right – and that makes it even worse. Women can’t even avoid these unethical manipulators by simply avoiding bars and clubs.
“Basically, ANYWHERE Men and Women get together, there will you also find GAME.”
And that is why all PUA trainers, students, and practitioners need to honestly acknowledge the unethical aspects of it, denounce those, STOP using them, learn the definitions of rape, and learn how STDs are transmitted. Otherwise, they’re all willfully being negligent and choosing ignorance.
“That so many Women are so very concerned about the blatherings of weird guys with funny names in our time-a time where Women enjoy an unprecedented level of advance, freedom, opportunity and largesse-is proof if there ever was any, that Game does indeed WORK.”
You are again being obtuse and missing the point. I’m going to start referring to you as “Obtuse” rather than “obsidian” as it suits you better. Try again please to use some critical reasoning skills. That so many women have a very bad reaction to Game, indicates only that women have serious and legitimate concerns about it.
In fact, Lady Raine and I have both outlined these and instead of acknowledging them, you lie and say that we havnen’t done this. Instead of thinking about what we’ve said, you erroneously claim we are making ad hominem attacks, proving you don’t even know what an ad hominem attack is.
“The very fact that Women from Lady Raine to Susan Walsh and now Denise Romano, make such a stink about it all, is again proof positive, that despite all the protestations and denunciations and denials to the contrary, that Game is indeed, highly effective.”
You’re already said this. So I will reply again. No, what that proves is that we have legitimate concerns about it which should be taken seriously. You and Nick Savoy have both proven that you are too cowardly to do that.
“Understandbly then, they would be concerned about the way in which it is applied by its practitioners, and to what ends.”
So, now you understand that we’re concerned about the way in which it is applied and to what ends? HERE is where you should have started your thinking and writing to me. Let’s see if you’re able to further develop that thought into anything useful as part of this discussion….Nope. You had one tiny moment of constructive clarity – and now it’s gone. Obtuse, indeed.
“It is important for these ladies to understand that, like any discipline or field of endeavor, there will invariably be many approaches, understandings and stances by many corners of said community; it is not at all unusual to find multiple, seemingly conflicting interpretations of things such as, say, the “Neg” is and how it is to be applied. For example, some say that Negs are indispensable to any seduction; others argue that it plays at best, a tangential role. Some say that Negs are to be employed in “carpet bombing” fashion regardless as to the Target is, others say that Negs should be “calibrated’ for use depending on how “hot” the Target is-the hotter she is, the more you Neg her. Those who attempt to diminish the whole of Game, are akin to those who attempt to diminish the whole of ANY field of endeavor, because within each one is bound to find differing takes on core or key tenets and ideas or principles. Such critics shouldn’t see this as a weakness or failing of Game, but indeed a strength, just as we would say, Psychology, and its many differing takes and “squabbles”, LOL. Viva La Difference, indeed!”
The Neg is abusive. I’ve already blogged about this. So have other men and women. I do not have the energy to explain it to you YET AGAIN.
“Now-with all the above being said and laidout-it is also important to let Ms. Romano and every other person, Male or Female, reading this, know that YES, there are what I consider to be “Dark Forces” in the Game; who twist and pervert it to their own ends, and has the potential to really damage many lives with their “Black” Arts.
Are we know in the middle of a science fiction script or are we having a discussion? Your intentional obufscation is really exhuasting. The point many of us have made is exactly that there are those “who twist and pervert it to their own ends, and has the potential to really damage many lives”.
Again, had you even tried to find common ground with us and respecting our legitimate concerns, you might have started with that point. But you are not trying to find common ground. You are more interested in using big words and latin phrases you don’t understand in a long blog post to increase traffice. Disappointing indeed.
“For my part, I and others whom I consider good friends, do what we can to act as a kind of check on said behaviors, by speaking out against them and their kind.”
And yet you have put enormous energy into arguing that none of our concerns are legitimate. Do you even understand what the concepts of “dicussion” and “finding common ground” are?
“For example, I liken NLP to Sith Magic, effective and highly seductive, but deeply morally unethical and potentially soul-killing, for both parties involved. While I respect Tyler Durden’s knowledge of Game, I refuse to use much of what he’s gleaned, because I so thoroughly disagree with his philosophical stances and just overall “vibe”. He creeps me out, quite frankly. And, as much as I respect Roissy’s deep knowledge of Game, I also deeply disagree with his application of same in many instances, as well as the overall vibe of his “house”-which explains why few if any people have seen me posting there after my own blog launched, nearly three months ago.”
Ah yes the launch of your blog. I keep forgetting that is *really* what this is about for you.
My question to your statement above is the same question I posed to Nick Savoy and other Gamers: IF you truly respect women, why would you be comfortable with being confused with men like Durden and Roissy? And, furthermore, WHY would you compliment anything about Roissy, given his egregious violence against women? That is alot like defending what a great painter Hitler was despite his “transgressions”.
“While I’m on the topic of Roissy, let me also say, that in many ways, his presence on the Internet is both a triumph and a curse. He is a triumph in the sense that Game has real utility and, quite frankly, power, to change things. His promotion of Game has touched many lives, mine included, and I would to think, at least in my case, for the better.”
Exhibit A Above: Obtuse thinks Hitler is a great painter. That’s why we call him “Obtuse”.
“But he is also a curse, in the sense that because of the way in which he blends his personal views on many topics in with Game itself, people on the outside looking in get the impression that HIS TAKE ON GAME IS “THE” TAKE ON GAME, and that’s where they would be sorely mistaken-but by then, the damage is done.”
And now again, above, a momentary yet fleeting glimpse of clarity in Obtuse’s brain.
“Women, such as Lady Raine, Susan Walsh and Denise Romano, are convinced, based on Roissy and a few others like him, that Game is no good, that it is inherently misogynistic, and that it is also deliberately deceptive and manipulative.”
You have clearly failed to read or comprehend anything I’ve written on Game. I base my assessment of it on many sources, other than Roissy.
“That Roissy attracts so much attention to Game on the one had, yet so much negative publicity for it on the other, is truly sad. It’s sad because Game itself has a much harder time getting a fair hearing. I’ve taken it on as my own personal mission to do what I can to present Game in its best light, since it’s been so good to me in meeting my goals in life. The record clearly shows me not only speaking out against what I consider “Sith” applications of Game no matter who does it, but I have also opposed Roissy himself publicly on a host of issues, both on his actual blog and here at my own, and will do so again if the need arises. Let me be clear here: Roissy’s understanding of Game information is not and cannot be in dispute; it is his application of Game, his undergirding philosophy, that IS in dispute, and that which I take deep issue with. This is the key distinction that I think is lost on many of his critics, many of whom refuse to properly acquaint themselves with key Game source materials, most notably Style’s works.”
If it looks Obtuse, sounds Obtuse, and walks Obtuse; it’s Obtuse.
“I would also like to address Ms. Romano’s charges that to be a Gamesman is to be an abuser-something I take great umbrage with, for a number of reasons. First, depsite the presence of Men like Roissy, there has been no reports of Women being abused, and by that I mean, physically abused by PUAs.”
Roissy counts and you don’t know that there have been no reports of women being abused in any way by Game, and you are mistaken.
“By the way, Roissy does NOT consider himself a PUA, he’s said so himself. Just wanted to be clear on that point. Moreover, as one who has put his livelihood and very life on the line to protect Women from abuse, I find Ms. Romano’s slinging out the term “abuse” to BE abusive, and a most disturbing trend in the popular culture of late-merely call anything you have a personal issue with or otherwise don’t like, “abusive”, “misogynistic”, “racist”, “homophobic” and so on.”
Right, I nearly forgot until you just reminded me that when I disagree with you I am both UnAmerican and abusive. Yet your frequent lies about what Lady Raine and I HAVE said and how I’ve told you repeatedly why I would not be able to respond to you right away but that I eventually would do so is an acceptable way for you to communicate.
“Such abuses of truly powerful terms cheapens their meaning, makes REAL instances of such abuses seem trivial, and makes the whole exercise a joke and a laughingstock, while at the same time throwing the true victims of such practices under the bus.”
YOU are cheapening the meaning of every word and phrase you’ve misused in this ridiculous letter. Lady Raine and I have been using legitimate defintions of the words we’ve used, we have not cheapened their meaning, we have not trivialized instances of other abuse, others agree with us (including men who have stated so on LR’s and my blogs), and YOU are the one who is making this an unnecessarily ridiclous experience.
YOU have misquoted us, have lied about my communications with you, have been intellectually dishonest, and have failed to acknowledge that there are men who find merit with aspects of PUA trainings yet also share most of our very legitimate concerns.
“One would think that a Woman of Ms. Romano’s statue would be a bit more deliberative with her language, especially the written word.”
You’re kidding. Once again: I’ve been extremely deliberative with my language, have provided citations, and have asked others in this important conversation to do so as well. YOU, however, need a repeat of tenth grade English, agood dictionary, and a course in critical reasoning skills.
“I also find it most interesting-aw heck, I’m just gonna call it what it is-hypocritical-of Ms. Romano to, on the one hand, deride those in the Game community who sell their wares to customers as snakeoil salesmen, to then turn around and implore Men to instead spend some $250 on “NVC” training.”
This is not hypocritical at all. Again, your astounding lack of any ability to think rationally is shocking. Let’s try this in baby steps and see if you get it:
1. Yes: I see Game as something that is a fault product sold to men.
2. I encourage men to NOT spend their money on it because it is a faulty product.
3. I do encourage them to spend money on HELPFUL and HEALTHY products.
4. I do not teach NVC, so I’m NOT encouraging anyone to give ME their money.
There is nothing hypocritical about that.
“Mind you, I’m not yet in a position to say whether NVC is worth its weight in gold or lead-just that I find it interesting that she wants to shut down one aspect of commerce in favor of another. Hmm.”
This is not a mystery; I have made it clear that I believe Game is a fault product that harms both men and women, and I’ve repeatedly said why, though you fail to comprehend or acknowledge this. Let’s try some baby steps again.
What I am saying is just like when someone says, “It is alot better for you to buy and consume fresh fruits and vegetables than it is to buy and consume fast food. It’s alot healthier for you”.
See? Now do you get it or are you still obtusely confused?
“Then there’s Ms. Romano’s seeming indifference, or intellectual dishonesty when it comes to the full range of “abuse”, indeed violence. Her Aug 1 2009 post was terribly one-sided in its view of the situation: Women are victims, Men victimizers. And while no one would deny that Woman are indeed abused and victimized, it seems incredibly hard for Women to even acknowledge that the same can happen to Men, too-even when the stats back this up.”
This is another lie. In that post, I do say that men can be abused by women and that such abuse is wrong.
“And, as if to bring heaven sent proof of this fact, we need no other than one Mr. Tiger Woods, who, on Thanksgiving Day, was clocked upside the head with one of his own golf clubs by his wife, Mrs. Elin Woods. To be sure, no one I personally know-and definitely not me personally-defends Mr. Woods actions. But that doesn’t give Ms. Elin Woods the right to physically abuse her husband.”
I’ve thought alot about this. This is my take on it. Tiger Woods intentionally and willingly CHOSE to have unprotected sex with more than ten women outside of his marriage vows to his wife (which he also willingly chose to make) thus exposing Elin (and their youngest child if that child is being breastfed) to every STD there is – including potentially fatal ones.
AND, any sex that Elin had with Tiger after his very first instance of infidelity (whether it was unprotected or not) WAS AN ACT OF RAPE.
WHY? Because Elin would NOT have chosen to sleep with him after that, as is true for most women. After the very first time he betrayed her, he was no longer who he claimed to be, and every sexual encounter with his wife thereafter was a rape because he DENIED her the information she needed to give full consent to sleep with him.
Had he told her what he did, she would NOT have slept with him.
Furthermore, I will say it again: Infidelity IS Emotional, Psychological, Verbal, Sexual, and Physical Abuse all at once.
Therefore, I see Elin’s having hit Tiger with a golf club as justifiable given that he raped her and abused her in every way possible repeatedly, and she now has to wait several months to learn what STDs she’s been exposed to.
“Now, where is the intellectual consistency on Ms. Romano’s part here? Hmm? To ask the questin is to answer it. If she can take time out of her schedule to write a lengthy hit piece on Game and PUAs and MRAs, if she can find time to log her comments in to Lady Raine’s blog about same, then why can’t she find the time to speak out against what Elin Woods did? Hmm?”
You are a complete idiot. Yes my intellectual inconsistency MUST be the only explanation for me to write a lenghty post on Game and post on Lady Raine’s blog but not to speak out against Elin Woods! There couldn’t possibly be any OTHER explanation for this.
Seriously: You’ve recently hit your head very hard, right?
First: I have clarifiied my position on Elin Woods over the past week, having thought about it quite a bit. Hint: it’s a good idea to think before you comment, you may want to remember that. AND, the focus of my blog has been on concepts and learning, not on individual acts of violence, other than my very recent post highlighting Dimitri, the PUA who was prosecuted for criminal behavior.
Second: Let’s talk about YOUR intellectual inconsistency. Have you gone to the MRA websites and asked them to evenly examine and publicize violence against women and violence against men? No, you haven’t. Because you see that their mission IS to bring attention to violence against men, and you respect that. Now try respecting this: I have a different mission for my blog, which you obviously don’t understand and did not consider.
“And why is that NO MAJOR FEMINIST WEBSITE TO DATE, has done so either? If anything, it’s the exact opposite, a kind of “You Go Girl!” sentiment, not tacitly expressed, by EXPLICITY expressed.”
There is a reason for this. Reread my Elin Woods comments above. I’m sure many women feel the same way.
“If Ms. Romano is truly interested in the fairness she exhorts PUAs to exhibit with regard to Men and Women, one would think she could start in her own backyard. Afterall, charity, begins at home.”
You get minus 10 points for misusing a cliche. And, you haven’t seemed to notice that my backyard is EI and NVC. And there is nothing unethical going on with those.
“What about Mary Winkler-who shot her hubbie in the back with a shotgun, while he was sleeping? The only “proof” we have that she was “abused” comes from Mrs. Winkler herself-there was no independent record of spousal abuse on Rev. Winkler’s part, and to add insult to injury, Mrs. Winkler was even feted on Oprah-white platform shoes and all-to tell her story. No one was there to speak for Rev. Winkler. Dead Men tell no tales.”
What is your point? If you want to blog about this, go ahead. I am interested in raising awarness about how GAME is unethical and how most MRA groups are (like the PUA industry) alarmingly misogynistic and lacking in the most basic critical thinking skills.
“I saw no such denunciation of Mrs Winkler on Ms. Romano’s or quite frankly, any other Woman’s site who claims to care about “domestic abuse”. Seems that they care about it only when it involves Women-on the receiving end.”
There you go lying again. This is officially the LAST time I will ever respond to you. Your lying is inexcusable and exhausting. You KNOW that both Lady Raine and I have denounced abuse and violence (other than self-defense) regardless of the gender of the person committing it or being victimized by it.
I see what Elin Woods did as completely different as Tiger raped her and exposed her to many diseases including potentially fatal diseases. And their young child has likely been exposed as well.
“Last month, in specific response to my lady readers, I put up a post taking up the question as to whether Game was inherently deceptive and manipulative. Without exception, excuse or apology, I said that YES, Game can indeed be used this way, that there is a contingent of the Game community who does this, and that I neither condoned or endorsed it, nor did I want to be associated with anyone who was known to be engaging in such activity. Then I asked the Women who claimed to be so concerned about the ethics of the Men in the Game community, about the many deeply deceptive and manipulative things Women do, and have done, for YEARS.”
Perhaps the problem is that you read your own posts but not those posted by LR and myself.
“I invite Ms. Romano or anyone else reading this open letter to see my post for themselves, it’s in the Dec 2009 archive and very easy to find. The replies I got back from the majority of Women-notable exceptions aside-were in a word, ming boggling. Some actually wanted to justify the actions I pointed ouit that Women did; others wanted to actually put up for debate, other things Women have long done that was at the least a misrepresentation of herself, if not out and out deceit. Finally, in a followup post I put up directed at the ladies of my forum, also found in the Dec 2009 archives, I questioned them as to why we never see those issues addressed on so many Women’s blogs and websites. The responses were again, in a word, mind-boggling-if not quite deceitful in themselves.”
Here’s a hint to you: when something is mind-boggling, you need to learn how to THINK about it and ask questions so you can then do your best to understand something you don’t understand. That is how we learn. Try it; you might like it.
“It all adds up to a feeling on the part of many Men, of a very real double-standard-Women want Men to be held accountable, but they don’t want to be held accountable themselves. Women have no problem using every advantage they can get out there on the Mating Grounds, but deplore anything that might help Men get an advantage, too. Women want Men to speak out against their own who do wrong, but Women can never seem to be found when time comes to speak out against a Elin Woods, a Mary Winkler, a Crystal Gale Mangum, to say nothing about the many scores of Women who take advantage of Men every way till the next Xmas. Women want Men to take the high road, but don’t seem to have trouble at the very least, condoning the low behavior of so many of their “sisters”.”
RE: the above: please read my post: “In Response to Several Questions Posed to Me at this Blog About PUAs and MRAs” about logical fallcies, intellectual dishonesty, and a complete lack of critical reasoning skills in the PUA and MRA groups.
“That Ms. Romano makes outrageous claims against Game, indicts someone like Style and lumps him in with known and documented spousal abusers, rapists and murderers, asserts that ALL PUAs are “abusers of Women” and then falls completely silent on the well known and publicized events of clear, present and REAL abuse perpetrated by the Women above, someone who’s LIFE WORK is to advocate for victims of violence and abuse, really says it all to me, and to any thinking, caring person who gives a damn about fairness, decency, and just plain ole getting the facts straight. If this is the best our Academy can do, it is little wonder we as a society are in the mess we’re in afterall.”
Where have I said that my life’s work is to advocate for victims of violence and abuse? That is not my life’s work. Where do you come up with this stuff?
My life’s work, is to examine issues of those who wish to have POWER-OVER others and the many ways those people and groups try to accomplish that. My life’s work is also to write about such things so that others can be eduated about these important issues.
“I’ll say this in closing, and it behooves Women like Ms. Romano to listen close: your “war” against Roissy, Savoy and others, will not succeed. It won’t because not only are your motives wrong, but so to are your own convictions.”
I do hope and pray that this is really nearly the end of your ridiculous letter to me. Our motives are not wrong and neither are our convictions. If you had merely repeated for the 100th time that you disagree with us, your only error would have been more redundancy on your part. But, now you’ve also made a further ass of yourself by claiming to know what motives and convictions are right or wrong.
“More and more Men aren’t flocking to these guys for nothing, Ms. Romano-there’s a “there” there.”
Yes, men are flocking to the PUA industry because they haven’t read the many healthy sources of relationship advice and training that are out there because are not slyly marketed directly to their insecurities as Game is. Men flocking to Game is a triumph of marketing and nothing else.
“And so long as you and others like you refuse to address the root causes of why the Roissys exist in the first place, all you’ll be doing is standing in the middle of a sinking boat, trying to prevent it from going under by tossing overboard bucketfuls of water.”
I’m SO glad you brought this up! Let’s clarify what you mean by this:
Are you giving women credit for the root causes of creating a man as wonderful as Roissy or are you blaming women for the root causes of creating a monster like Roissy? Which is it and why?
I need to repeat to you that due to the many lies you’ve told since you posted your letter and IN your letter, I will not again give you this kind of attention or respond to any open letters you post to me unless I choose to do so for some reason of my own.
Thanks,
Denise
Denise,
Some rant there. I gather these are quotations from your site that you copy and paste onto every Ev-psych, game, and dating site you can find. I also can only gather that you haven’t bothered to read my site to any extent since I have myself raised the problems of game as manipulation. I don’t preach game, but personal cultivation. As you stated in your diatribe above, why not improve oneself so that one is naturally attractive to women. The attraction will only last if it is authentic and done with integrity and character. An Alpha male need not manipulate and deceive women to foster their attraction and I have said so repeatedly. Game can be a tool for men to learn social interaction however and I disagree with your assertion that persuasion and influence directly translate into manipulation or rape. This is itself an obtuse reading of a highly nuanced subject. If you think that women don’t calculate their responses and actions to elicit behaviors out of men, you are in denial. For men to do the same is natural too within reason. The line comes where someone crosses from influence to force. Blurring the lines of what constitutes rape is a disservice and dishonor to those who have been the victims of it. Given your ardent position I can only presume that you have been hurt in your past and that you can no longer differentiate between victimization and normal human persuasion. Good luck with that.