“In the ruthless pursuit of sexual goals, for example, men and women derogate their rivals, deceive members of the opposite sex, and even subvert their own mates.” – David Buss in The Evolution of Desire (p. 5)
I came to this little niche of the blogosphere through Roissy. Being in my mid-twenties, Roissy’s writings hit home and explained a lot of the confusion and rationalized a lot of the anger I had built up inside. I felt that men were getting the short end of the stick in the culture wars and I enjoyed Roissy’s site because it was the closest thing I had read to male empowerment.
But with all of his talk about Game, I soon realized that Game was an affront to some MRA agendas. I place MRAs into two broad categories - those who dislike feminism and its results and those who dislike women because they are women. The latter being misogynists. I walk on thin ice when I toss that word around, I know, but if I’m to believe that there’s a such thing as misandry (I do) then I have to believe that its antithesis exists as well. Anti-feminist MRAs - with whom I tend to align – seem more amenable to Game. Misogynistic MRAs tend to shame men who compete for women; they play True Scotsman with Gamers’ masculinity. They argue that we are capitulating to them, pedestalizing them too much, or unable to harness our animal desire for the greater good when we utilize Game.
Procurement of opportunities with women is a two-front war. The first group of MRAs, the ones that tend to embrace Game, realize that we have to compete against other men and against women’s bitch shields; other types of MRAs feel that competing against the “brotherhood” decreases the overall power of men.
It’s true that Gamers and strict MRAs have competing agendas. I’ve argued in the past that Game is a Ponzi scheme. Men do well with women by stepping on the heads of other men. Given that someone has to occupy the lower rungs of the social hierarchy and that men don’t want to choose their women from the teeming cesspools of slutdom, one man’s gain is another man’s loss. Game merely serves to jumble men’s positions on the ladder rather than build a bigger ladder. This outcome doesn’t put men’s advocacy in the forefront and it doesn’t do anything to improve our position relative to women.
But we still harbor primal instincts. Men are compelled to compete for women against other men. In Game Theory, two agents face the “Prisoner’s Dilemma” when neither agent knows the actions or intentions of the other agent.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma of Game
| Cooperate | Game (Betray) | |
| Cooperate | Both alone with no chance to fulfill biological imperative | (Alone + failure relative to other man, Relations) |
| Game (Betray) | (Relations, Alone + failure relative to other man) | Both used as tools by the woman but give themselves an “E” for effort |
In these games, the dominant strategy for each player is to act (Game, or at least try) regardless of what the other player does. Given that men have some sort of natural urge to act towards a goal that involves women, it is in our best interest to use Game or any other tool necessary to best our male opponents. If we merely step with the same level of Game, resources, or enthusiasm we reach the gloomiest outcome of the Prisoner’s Dilemma; both players end up worse off than if neither would have acted at all. The major difference in this Game theory of Game is that – unlike the pure Prisoner’s Dilemma – men are compelled to do something by their natural instincts. The man who Games more effectively, or Games at all, will win out while the man who ”cooperates” loses.
(In my analysis I assume that a man who tries to get a woman but fails still feels better than a man who doesn’t try at all; that’s my personal experience at least.)
There are other Game theory models that would better fit seduction Game, but the conclusion is still the same: men want to act, and they’d better act as quickly and as effectively as possible in order to beat out other men. This natural tendency, exhibited in every other organism the planet, cannot be muted in men. Muting it for the sake of an artificially constructed brotherhood employs strategies similar to feminists in their quest for cultural marxism.
Another way to look at this dilemma is to picture a cartel. Some MRAs would like to see collusion among men in the fight against entitled women. I argue that this wouldn’t work. As with every cartel, the first guy to break the contract reaps the biggest reward. Men will undercut the tacit agreement with other men; this leads to a game theory outcome of tit-for-tat and constant vigilance against other men. Unfortunately, it’s a dilemma we can’t escape.
So Game isn’t a tide that lifts all boats at least with regards to Game as used for procuring new dating interests. Game’s real appeal and effectiveness lies in closed systems – committed relationships. In an open system where there are no strong pairings but only loose couplings involving intricate webs of sexual activity, men as a whole suffer a disadvantage. Since women always have more options and greater ability to choose than men, their value is greater in the midst of a sexual free-for-all. As stated earlier, men will compete in a race to the bottom for the attention and sexual dalliances of women. No matter the behavior of the woman, she can be an entitled daddy’s girl or a felon, if a man finds her attractive and thinks he can get her, he’ll undercut other men to do so. The sorry state for men is a result of men having to fight a two-front war. In relationships, men usually only have to fight a frontal female attack (if you’re fighting a two-front war in this closed system, you might as well go kamikaze) and can use the singular tool of Game against their lone “enemy” in order to capitalize on their position atop the pyramid.
As I mentioned above, I was drawn to the MRA/Game movement because I wanted to see a redress of the current sorry state men face. After observing the different dichotomies and learning more about Game and human behavior, I’ve realized that our plight arises from the Sexual Revolution that undermined relationships for the sake of easy-as-pie pie. Relationships are marginally less attractive, either because they aren’t cool or because they are stifling, thus leaving many more men competing against fellow men and women than before. This also results in fewer relationships in which Game can be effectively used for all men in the same situation. As a further impediment to men’s fulfillment, the situations in which men do have the ability to apply the tool of Game are distorted by gynocentric family law.
To buy into the notion that we should mute our natural inclination to Game or seduce women through whatever tools we have - so as to not undercut a men’s movement – is absurd. Game and strict men’s rights advocacy are at odds with each other. Feminists want to ignore our human nature by constructing a new social paradigm; MRAs who want men to sing kumbaya together are doing the same thing. Instead, men face a more structural foe: feminism and liberalism. The twins have caused a social shift that any amount of cooperation between men on the Game front will correct. In “free market” situations – in groups of single men and women – a man has a duty to Game as hard as he can to procure the woman he desires. In doing so he is charging hard into both enemy lines; one man will lose. Every man should Game in their relationships; it is one of the few opportunities for men to improve their station in life without the collateral damage of open system Game.
