A question for quantbloggers in regards to game

Things slip through the cracks sometimes, including this post in which Dennis Mangan delivers a smackdown to the Audacious Epigone and all the other so-called quantbloggers who deny the validity of game:

Agnostic’s post may or may not do what he says it does, but the real thesis behind game isn’t necessarily that women are “sluttier”, it’s who they sleep with. That 20% of the men get 80% of the sex (or some such figure) isn’t dependent on an alleged decrease in sexual activity, and in any case, the data used to show this shows that the percentage of high school students who have had sex with 4 or more partners declined from 18.7% to 14.9% from 1991 to 2007, a decrease of about 20% in 16 years, hardly anything to get too excited about. However, the rate from 2001 to 2007 has increased some 5%. In any case, discussion of the current sexual landscape isn’t really about high school students, it’s about the behavior of all men and women. That the divorce rate has rocketed from the 60s until now, and that women initiate up to 75% of divorces, would seem to be facts of great importance.

One of my favorite stat-crunchers, Ron Guhname, has been talking about this as well. He has a brilliant series of posts showing that alphas are outpacing betas in the mating game, but he ends his most recent entry with one of the most laughable things I’ve read in the past week:

…while some women like the idea of a roll in the hay with Studly, on a day-to-day basis they want a man who treats them well. Women like attention, consideration, thoughtfulness, responsibility, and generosity. If she gets treated like dirt, she’s eventually going to move on, no matter how sexy the guy is.

But then again, this is coming from a guy who wrote this about his wife:

And even it she wasn’t beautiful, I’d still tell my buddies that I am one lucky bastard because she wouldn’t marry any of you guys in a million years. She gave up her freedom and her chance for a more worthy man for this insignificant hombre. And even if the day ever came that she left me–and it won’t–I’d still be wearing a smile and would ask everybody, do you know-so-and-so? I would then say in a bragging tone, “I was married to her for X years. She finally got smart and moved on, but those were the best years of my life. And I don’t see our kids as much as I’d like and have to pay too damn much child support, but they’re my kids, and they’re beautiful and smart and good just like she is.”

Must…restrain…urge…to…mock…

The thesis put forth by the Audacious Epigone and Mr. Guhname (I’ve already busted Agnostic’s balls enough for one month) is that the sexual marketplace hasn’t changed tremendously since the sexual revolution, which runs counter to Roissysphere and seduction community conventional wisdom. My question to them (and anyone else who agrees with them) is this:

If the sexual marketplace is the same now that it always was, how did the “game community” come into existence?

In the year 2009, we have an entire industry devoted to helping men get with women, when there was nothing of the sort a thousand, a hundred, or even fifty years ago. The concept of game would have been unthinkable to men of my father’s generation. According to what you’ve said, the sexual marketplace has changed little over the years, and yet today there is a seduction community where there was none before. Not only that, there’s an entire arsenal of websites and the like geared at getting men to avoid marriage, the preferred means of getting a woman in prior epochs. Can any of you oh-so-smart quantbloggers, with your fancy tables and reams of GSS data, explain this to me?

In the meantime, here’s a comment from Richard Hoste, an HBD blogger who gets it:

Obviously, it’s not as simple as “relax, women know what’s good for the word. And their choices will lead to the greatest common good.” The idea that humans (or at least high IQ populations) are doing what’s best for their genes is demonstrably false.

Here’s a thought: Alphas (high testosterone, low IQ) have been the fittest for most of our evolutionary history. One day man put constraints on female choice and civilization came about. Women are adaptable creatures (they will submit to rape because in prehistoric times they were often captured and still wanted to pass on their genes) and were happy with the new arrangements.

Then the rules were “deconstructed” and we went back to the pre-civilization ways. Now, we are breeding very badly, when we’re breeding at all.