Roissy introduces us to a shining example of male power over women, or what many have come to call game-
It made me think, for some reason, of the following quote-
“A monk asked Yun-Men, “What surpasses the Buddhas, surpasses the Patriarchs?” Yun-Men replied: “Buns.””
Buns indeed. It’s all so complicated, and so simple. Everything is game. There is no such thing as game. I doubt this guy ever heard of game, and if he did it wouldn’t register on him, just as a fish doesn’t think about water.
The key point for me, and probably for most, is “is game only a charade? does it work as only a charade?”
As Roissy explains-
“A lot of doubters of the efficacy of game insist that game is a charade that only works in the short term to fool women, and that women will eventually figure out the man doesn’t have “real” high status. Stories like this put the lie to that thinking. Game is its own status; the mere application of game is a demonstration of status, and not just a proxy for status. A cocky smirk and a devil-may-care attitude is as much real male status as a big bankroll. Often, it’s higher status. See: Mark Zuckerberg. This loser thug gets more and higher quality — yes, HIGHER QUALITY — pussy than a fucking billionaire.
And the continual application of game causes it to become second nature, an unthinking process, so that it is no longer a deliberate mimicking of the alpha traits women love but an extension of a man’s nature. Josh Camacho may have been born with some natural game, but undoubtedly his first successes with women reinforced whatever latent confidence he had, and the smirk that started as an affect soon became a subconscious reflection of his weighty ballsack and supercharged ego. Game will do the same for any man; the successes with women build on each other until your alpha pose isn’t a pose anymore. The opposite is also true: continual failures with women will build on each other until the latent, baby beta in you grows and consumes your soul.
Conclusion: if you want to nail good-looking women as efficiently as possible, and to keep them around fighting for your attention, start with learning game.
Game/charisma — One to six months to begin seeing results.
Money — Five to fifty years to earn enough to make a difference in attracting women.
High status professional career — Four to twelve years slogging through academia for the proper credentials.
Fame — Infinitesimally low odds.
Good looks — Luck. Or plastic surgery (see: money).”
If you don’t know what you’re doing with women, following certain rules is a big help. Wear these clothes; say these things; do this on a date. And if the woman likes you, this will do the trick. (If she likes you and you do stupid things, she will reject you for that.) If she is on the fence about you, and she can tell you are faking it, it won’t work. I believe outer game without inner game will work to an extent, but inner game is more important.
In a comment to the previous post, Bob Smith asks what difference does it make to a woman if a man she doesn’t like, doesn’t like her. The Real Assanova, he says, identifies himself as tall and good-looking, so how does this work for a short, ugly guy? Well this guy is 5’5″ and no male model and he has two above-average women throwing themselves at him in the most desperate way possible, so there has to be something to it.
Years ago I had a tape by some guys who said the idea was to find a woman who had at least 50% interest in you, and increase that interest by your behavior- the idea being that if she had less than 50% interest, it would probably not work. That certainly makes sense, but as we know women do not make sense. Can you build attraction from less that 50% interest? If so how much less? You can build a fire from a tiny spark, can you build burning attraction from a similarly small spark? I think it depends on how much game you have and just as importantly, how susceptible the woman is to game.
Roissy implies that you can create attraction from a zero level of interest. This depends on the woman believing “he is aloof, cocky, indifferent, and only very mildly interested in me, so regardless of his objective traits and status he must be desirable, so I desire him.” MacGyver can escape from prison with a paper clip, a piece of gum and a rubber band, but most guys can’t.
All women like game to some extent, but some react particularly strongly to it. I don’t think this story is at all typical, I think these two girls were just particularly reactive to game. I think this guy pushed some button in them, and his indifference triggered a very strong reaction in each. I think his indifference was real, not faked- and if you really don’t care, is it game?
I have not had a lot of relationships with women, but in those that progressed to the sex stage the woman fell for me hard. I think that is because with these relationships I regarded it as a waypoint to something better, and I really didn’t care on a deep level. In one I was more into her than she into me, until I started to back off, then she got more into me.
But enough of these crazy people. They serve to illustrate a point, but they are not an example to follow. What should a normal guy keep in mind?
-Healthy self-regard and realistic expectations of a relationship are important, but not necessarily enough.
-“Game” without the previous will help, but fall short because it can’t tell you what to do or say in every situation.
-The first will be aided significantly by game, since game provides a framework of behaviors that women respond to.
I think you need both inner and outer game, but inner game is more critical.