Recently one of my readers remarked that “game” just as the more romantic notion of wooing a woman are relatively recent phenomena. In particular, the idea that you would need “game” is highly artificial. Of course, game is b.s. as your success with women primarily depends on looks for short-term hookups and money as well as looks, albeit possibly to a lower extent, for long-term relationships. The example given was that to a Roman, the mere thought that you would need “game” to get a woman would be completely incomprehensible. Needless to say Roman society was much more masculine than today’s effeminate society.
I find Roman society deeply fascinating. In fact, it was one of the main motivators for carrying me through my studies of Latin in high school. It was intellectually satisfying on its own, but this language being the key to a better understanding of the Roman culture provided some extra motivation. The Romans knew three kinds of marriage, by the way. There could be a formal ceremony, which somewhat comparable to religious marriage. Alternatively, you could simply buy a wife. Lastly, they also knew what we nowadays call “common-law marriage”. If you cohabitated with a woman in Ancient Rome, you were eventually considered married. Obviously, these three kinds of marriage were not seen as equivalent. Also, a man of a certain standing would not just purchase his wife but instead aim to get married to a woman from a good family.
Some historians claim that the fact that the Romans did not allow polygamy was a driving force behind them building their vast empire. There is probably some truth to it. More or less every man got a wife but for variety, there were whores aplenty who would satisfy your sexual needs for a few unciae. Thus, there was a clear social contract: To get a good woman, you needed to impress her father. Failing to do so, there were still other ways. This was more or less also the norm in much of Western Europe until quite recently. Today, though, the only option seems to be cohabitation with a loose woman as only in good families is the father consulted by the daughter regarding the choice of husband. (Article continues below.)
Break: To show your appreciation for this article and ensure the survival of this blog, please consider making a donation.
Whenever society knows stable paths towards marriage and family formation, there is neither an abundance of incels nor of spinsters. With the destruction of society, primarily by the forceful removal of the father from the family home and by pushing women into the workforce, mainstream media and radical leftist teachers now raise our children for the very most part. Thus, you end up with enormous masses of people who are simply adrift intellectually, professionally, and spiritually. You can say all you want that our previous way of organizing society was limiting the freedom of men and women. The alternative is simply too unappealing. We now have countless women who think “freedom” means to fuck a bunch of randos until their mid-30s and “keeping their options open”. Yet, because we now longer effectively control female sexuality, society has been falling apart.
On the one hand, you have women who hold out for an alpha Chad who never comes, and on the other you have a bunch of men who are not deemed sexually attractive enough. For some reason, this did not keep our forebears from procreating. We simply matched the most beautiful women with the most successful men, and so on. Today, women of average looks believe they are 10s because nobody tells them otherwise. Instead of settling down with a guy of a comparable level of desirability, they don’t settle down at all. Once they realize that they have forty years of TV dinners left, it is too late. This is the big tragedy of “women’s liberation”: Most women will only realize that they were the victims of a cruel joke when it is too late to change their ways.
Only because we have this large number of women who are unwilling to settle down did we ever end up with “game”. Of course, before there was “game” there was simply rampant promiscuity. Back in the 1970s, Chad railed all the Stacies. More and more men felt being left out from banging the increasing numbers of seemingly sexually available co-eds, and eventually these men hit a critical mass that could be commercially exploited by pick-up gurus who told them that the problem is not that they lack in the looks department but that they are simply missing “game”. If they only acted like 6’3″ Chad, they surely would get laid like 6’3″ Chad.
In contrast, had we kept marrying off women young, and to men of a comparable standing, we would never have had a large number of women who happily sleep around. There would have been no promiscuity of which only ever the more attractive men benefitted. Similarly, as a consequence there could not have been game buffoonery. Yet, without the misguided teachings of pick-up gurus, the black pill community would not have sprung up either. The number of men who fell for PUAs and never had any success grew too large to be ignored for a new batch of unscrupulous fraudsters. Thus, we now have black pill and red pill gurus addressing them. None of this kind of nonsense would have happened had we just kept running society smoothly.
This blog depends on your contributions. So, share your view and comment on this article (comment policy). Then, to ensure the survival of this blog, donate. If you haven’t bought Aaron’s books yet, buy them, all of them. Lastly, if you want tailored and honest advice, book some one-on-one consultation sessions.
14 thoughts on ““Game” and The Black Pill as a Mirror of a Fundamentally Broken Society”
“…the idea that you would need “game” is highly artificial. ”
“Of course, game is b.s. as your success with women primarily depends on looks.”
I had couple of girls back in my younger days who once told me that I didn’t have game. What does this mean if game doesn’t exist? Ironically, I hooked up with them.
I’ve had this exact thing happen as well. I suppose I’m not as adept at handling social situation as others due to my background. That’s really it though. If you spent your childhood and teens socializing, your game is almost certainly fine unless you have autism. If you didn’t, you may need to work on your social skills. I honestly don’t know how to work on social skills though because I’ve been socializing a shitload, since my sophomore year at university (almost 32 now). I still don’t know how to handle lots of situations, and I feel my mind freeze a lot, or start to wander away from the situation/conversation a lot. Idk what more i can do at this point except for continuing to meditate and socialize.
“game” or courting, exists, at least as a meme, but as Aaron wrote, it is the symptom of a broken society.
A man wasting 1000 of hours on tinder is also some form of “game”.
We know it is not effective because looks are the most important thing, but it still exists.
Instead of men being productive, they now have to become part time fitness models and jesters to be successful with women.
And you should stop listen to women. Of course they won’t admit being shallow. They want men to continue to jestermax.
Not “having game” typically means not picking up on signals, and not escalating when you should, not knowing when she is testing… stuff like that.
Also, when a chick tells you that you are “smooth” or that you “have game”, she does so in order to create plausible deniability. No, she’s not a slut for going home with you after 30 minutes. Instead, you are to blame for it because you have your ways with women. It has nothing to do with the fact that she has a torrent of juices running down her thighs because she is so horny.
In other words, when chicks talk about a guy “having game” they mean what Aaron describes in his “minimal game” book, not the crap that PUAs sell.
How can “game” be necessary if you manage to hook up with those chicks without it? Alek Novy’s comment is spot-on.
I also changed my opinion on libertarianism/liberal democracy based on the current developments.
I think it is fair to say now, that liberal democracy is not sustainable. It inevitably leads to feminism and communism and the current insanity.
If you give the normies freedom, they will just run society into the ground.
Democracy would require the average IQ to be at least ~120 for it to work in my opinion.
But considering the intelligence of the average person, I think that monarchy is a better system than democracy.
The normies need clear rules and morals to function, if you give them freedom, well you see the result of that right now.
Normies are like children, unable to reflect on the consequences of their actions. The Athenians were probably onto something with their model of democracy, which was essentially aristocratic in nature as it was limited to a very small number of people.
In traditional, non-cucked societies, seduction was essentially the woman’s job. The woman would make herself as attractive as possible, by maximizing her appearance and behaving in a certain way to draw the attention of a quality man, who was too focused on more important things like his career to care about seduction.
The fact that many men are focused on seduction, whether that’s through “game,” or through maximizing their appearance, is in many ways a reversal of traditional gender dynamics. Since many women are now working, money matters a lot less in partners, and is essentially irrelevant for hookups. And women are essentially emulating the behavior of Chad, trying to fuck all of the hot guys.
I think where things get really pathetic is when your typical Western woman decides to settle down. She wants to fuck a guy that looks like Chad, as she so happily did in her youth, but she refuses to seriously date anyone who is less “educated” than she is, or making less money than she does. If she managed to stay in shape, and is willing to compromise on a few things, maybe she will indeed lock down a husband, but otherwise, more and more cats will just start appearing at her place.
This is a good point that can’t be stressed enough! Women were called “seductive”, not men.
It’s ironic that advocates of “game”(a.k.a. red-pillers) believe to be a counterculture to feminists. When in reality this “movement” was created by lefties and those guys play along with the rules of feminists. Just look at what red-pillers value:
a) Concentrate on career and money, post-pone family
b) Don’t get married
c) Sleep around with as many people as possible and keep everything casual
It’s exactly the same thing feminists tell women to do! And those red-pillers have the nerve to call themselves traditional. Game feels a lot like new-age bullshit, to be honest.
the red-pill and blue-pill are both cucked.
in both systems the man defines his entire identity around success with women.
in the blue-pill it is to be a good provider & someone who respects women, in the red-pill it is to be a fitness-model and someone who holds frame and passes all the shit tests.
I would not even say that the red-pill is more effective. A lot of blue-pilled men end up as beta providers and actually do manage to reproduce, while on the other side guys who just focus on “gaming” night club sluts, end up childless.
God damn we are up a creek. Pre-civilization men just took what they wanted. We agreed upon civilization but now uncivilized people control everything. It’s no wonder men are so lost now days. I mean think about how we all ended up here. There are actually serious discussions about whether a man’s looks matter. Think about how stupid that actually is.