I awoke this morning to find a virtual explosion of responses to my recent post, Why Game & “Choice For Men” Elicits So Much Hate. The interesting thing to observe though, was that there was little comment on the actual subject matter, but rather other things, most notably, my saying that, over the course of a recent exchange with Ms. Walsh, I had employed a Neg (for example, Ms. Walsh has yet to actually respond to the part in my post where I take up the matter of paying for dates; or the whole “Choice For Men” issue, and so on). Understandably, Ms. Walsh was perturbed by my saying this, although, by her own admission, she does not fully know what a Neg is. And of course, there was the usual Hateration that comes with Game forums and the like from assorted others.
In this post I wish to clear the air on a number of points raised by Ms. Walsh and others. The best way to do that I think, is by point for point response to her most recent post from the aforementioned thread:
SUSAN WALSH: Keith, you are an enlightened man. We have a lot of guys like you hanging out at HookingUpSmart.com. You’re certainly not going to make anyone understand here, so come on by.
OBSIDIAN: I beg your pardon, Ms. Walsh. But when I asked Keith as to what he would advise Today’s Young Man to do to meet ladies, his advice isn’t all that different in the least from fundamental Game. As we’ve all agreed, his problem isn’t so much w/Game but rather with some of the louder/more popular/whatever voices within the community. It’s important then that he, and anyone else who thinks as he does, to separate the two. >
> OBS: The discussion was between Ms. Walsh and TFH, and he made a > powerful point-a younger Women gets more attention than an older one. >
> SW: Wait, who the hell is TFH? Oh wait, here we go:
>
> TFH: Why is Susan Walsh debating the neg? She is a 50 year old woman, > who has definitely not been negged as part of a seduction since Game > came into being a decade ago. >
> She should be behaving in a matronly manner, at this point. >
> So again, why the claim that she gets negged while at work? >
> SW: My objection was to being negged by OBS. Blogging is my work.
OBS: Question-if blogging is your work, and part of that work is writing on the current day hookup culture, how could you not study something that is such a big part of said culture? Please explain?
SW: I am 53. I have been married
for25yearstoafellowWhartonMBAwhoisgoodlooking,highearning,
and extremely intelligent. He was, and is, a total catch.
And 100% beta male. Not going to lead a posse of men to
slay the woolly mammoth during this lifetime. He would
NEVER have dated, much less married, a 23 year-old
waitress (unless she was working her way through
graduate school).
OBS: With all due respect Ms. Walsh, do you think things might have changed dramatically from 25 years ago? For example, according to Maria Shriver’s report “A Woman’s Nation”, Women now are employed MORE than Men. Since you bring up your daughter, this means, that for Women like her, her chances of landing a guy like your hubbie is significantly reduced, and Game has absolutely nothing to do with that. So, what will she do? What are her options? That wasn’t an issue for you a quarter of a century ago. It is for her. And, to be honest, I’ve yet to see ANY Woman blogger take that issue on squarely. Please see The Social Pathologist’s recent post, which was based on my recent post, Signs Of A Good Man, which is called Few Good Men…and holla back. 
Oh, and you still skirted around TFH’s point, that a younger Woman can and will garner more attention than an oler one, even when the latter has more status and money. If this weren’t so, there would be so many high earning older Women alone. I actually know quite a few, and trust me, it’s not a pretty sight to see. You’ve seen it, too. Her name is Oprah.
SW: Do I meet your requirement of behaving in a matronly
manner, whatever that is?
OBS: For me, yes, but I wasn’t the one asking the question, LOL.
SW: I have a blog that I started a year ago in response to the concerns of college women who struggle with the dearth
of relationships in the hookup culture. My motivation was
my own daughter, a young woman who has caused traffic
accidents at stop lights twice while walking. She is a 10+,
completely overwhelmed with the attention she gets from
men. She does not do PUAs. She does not do negs. She
has high mating value, and she will mate with someone of
similar status. She will NEVER mate with a PUA.
OBS: I prefer to leave your daughter out of the discussion please. Much too much personal feelings involved. What I will say is this: that Roissy, Ferdinand, RooshV and Tucker Max gets so much attention, tells me that quite a few “high mating value Women” wind up in the arms of these guys, much to a parent’s chagrin. Remember, Men are results oriented. If Game was a bunch of hookum, we wouldn’t be discussing it right now. These guys are hugely popular, because what they say, works. And it works because Women by and large-not out on the margins, but in the main-respond to it. That a fact, Ms. Walsh, and no amount of holding your own daughter out as some paragon of virtue is gonna change that, by your own admission your own site is a testament to that. So, the issue isn’t whether your own daughter will or won’t hookup with a Roissy or a Tucker, the issue is WHY so many Women respond to the Roissys and Tuckers of the world. When you understand Game, you know why. I certainly do.
OBS: Sounds like you and me, and indeed most of what
the literature of Game out there, aren’t that far apart at all. Seems to me you, like Ms. Walsh, has more problems
with *certain voices within the Game community* than
with Game itself, because, again, neither you nor Ms.
Walsh actually disagrees with the basic fundamentals of
Game.
SW: Indeed, it is not the theory that offends, but the
application of that theory. When OBS first wrote his Open
Letter to me and others, I hoped that I could find a way to
converse objectively and impassively. That has proved
difficult.
OBS: Really? I thought it was quite easy and relaxed, no hollering and shouting and denigrating each other, in the least. I was and am truly interested in hearing what you and anyone else has to say about the issue, because aside from the simple fact that it’s such a fascinating subject, it’s also something with huge implications for us all. I have no personal axe to grind against you or anyone else, and I think even you admitted that, of all the Gamers you’ve been in contact with, I’m the “best mannered”. So, what’s the problem? Please explain?
As for Game itself, please go back to my Star Wars analogy. As you said, it isn’t the Force that’s the problem, but how it’s used. On this, we agree. But let’s be clear, because I’m a big advocate that clarity is better than agreement-when you make those comments above, are you making them with reference to ME, and if so how? In what way? Please explain?
SW: Always the goal is the relentless promotion of Game,
even at the discovery of truth.
OBS: Whoa, hold on-what “truth”, Ms. Walsh? Please explain? I need clarity on this point. And, what do you mean by “relentless promotion of Game”? Again, please explain?
SW: Followed by the pithy put
down. There is not room for any other formula in your
world. After engaging in what I believed was a straight up
conversation about Game, I was informed by OBS that I
had been negged, wink, wink. What a claustrophobic
environment! But, hey, you don’t really want input from
women, so it’s all good.
OBS: Ms. Walsh, with all due respect, I will say, w/o any hint of fear or reprisal, that a Player has more intimate knowledge of, and real respect for Women, than do “Rules Girls”, “relationship advice experts” or damn near anyone else on the Female side of the aisle, because the former group actually has to take the time to understand Women; few if any Women out there truly understands Men. They THINK they do, but their actions belie their words.
That you couldn’t take the time to read ONE book on a topic you’ve written about, at least twice I believe, on your own site, is proof of what I just said above. Oh, and about the Neg business-this is from Style’s book The Game:
“Neg-*noun*: An ambigious statement or seemingly accidental insult delivered to a beautiful woman a pickup artist has just met, with the intent of actively demonstrating to her (or her friends) a lack of interest in her. For example: “Those are nice nails; are they real?”. *verb*: to actively demonstrate a lack of interest in a beautiful woman by making an ambiguous statement, insulting her in a way that appears accidental, or by offering constructive criticism. Also: Neg Hit. Origin: Mystery”. -pages 443-444
Now:
As Hugh Ristik has pointed out, alongside my own recent comments on the matter, and to which you’ve agreed, there are many ways to employ the Neg. In our case, it was in the form of offering constructive criticism, more specifically, informing you about what you don’t know. About Game. And to which you admitted was true.
Which leads to the next point-name me a Woman who on ANY level, is attracted to (a Woman’s regard or respect plays a very important role here) a Man whom she clearly outclassed in terms of knowledge, experience or intelligence? To ask the question is to answer it, if one is brutally honest with themselves.
Moreover, had you actually read The Game, you would not have bristled by my mentioning that Game is *everywhere* and ever constant, that it can be used in situations beyond the purely sexual or romantic. How so? Again, read your son’s copy of The Game. There you will find two instances where Style runs tight Game on two “Women with high mating value”-Courtney Love and Britney Spears. Women respond to Dominant Males. Just. A. Simple. Fact. Of. Life.
So, to recap: over the course of our discussion it was revealed by you that you were ignorant of Game to the extent that you hadn’t actually studied one of the most important books of the endeavor; on the other hand, I’ve read that and a plethora of other materials widely regarded by the community to be essential. For example, when I asked you what you’ve read insofar as EP was concerned, your shortlist didn’t include The Red Queen. That’s standard required reading for anyone wanting to understand Game, as is The Naked Ape, etc. And so on.
At that point it became clear who had the upperhand in the discussion, and as I recall you didn’t have too much of a problem with that. Yes, I value your input, but that’s not the same as having an informed discussion among two people equally familiar with the subject matter. As one trained in economics, could you honestly say that having an extensive discussion with someone who doesn’t even know who Milton Friedman was legit? Sure, they have their right to an opinion, and may be very good people. But let’s not kid ourselves here.
The simple point is Ms. Walsh, that you, like all Women, respect a guy who’s up on their stuff. Especially when you don’t know as much as they do about it. For Women, when it comes to attraction, that matters. A lot. *shrugs*
That I do it in a way that’s not abrasive counts for a lot, and you said so yourself: you consider me a gentleman, and that my momma raised me right, which she and my dad, most certainly did. 
SW: I’ve read enough to know that Roissy, Roosh and
Ferdinand are losers, as someone stated above.
OBS: Well Ms. Walsh, that’s a value judgemental, purely subjective comment on your part, and you’re welcome to it. However, you have not offered any legitimate counter argument to any of these Men’s claims, other than simply saying that they don’t appeal TO YOU. Which again, is perfectly fine. But it doesn’t do anything to advance the conversation.
I’ve had the chance to interact w/two of these Men closely over the past year at least, and only know the other from a distance. Nevertheless, I can vouch for most of what they say insofar as Game is concerned. In fact, I’ve told you that I have on numerous occasions, openly and vociferously disagreed with Roissy, and those disagreements weren’t based on Game, but rather ancillary issues, such as Race, and differing standards of beauty, etc. In other words, when it comes to Game, the Man knows his stuff. That I take issue with him on other points and on other fronts, is completely beside the point.
Have you read RooshV’s book Bang? It’s his take on Game. Of course, he has many postings on his website that speaks to Game as well. In fact, one of my recent posts, Are You A Slob?, was based on RooshV’s post Eighteen Reasons Why Men Don’t Get Laid. Would you believe that I actually took heat from a number of Men for writing that? LOL! Go and see for yourself, my post and then Roosh’s, and then comeback and please share with us exactly what in either of what we said demarcates him, or me, as “losers”?
Furthermore, please take the last week or so’s worth of postings of Roissy’s and Ferdinand’s sites, and point out specifically what makes them “losers”? I would argue that many of their critics are such, not necessarily they-and again, I’ve openly disagreed with Roissy. Your response?
SW: OBS takes a more balanced approach, and some of his responses led me to believe he might be rational, but it’s clear he can’t risk alienating the elder statesmen of the Game cult. OBS, you give a little, but then you backtrack hard.
OBS: “Game Cult”? Quite strong words, don’t you think, Ms. Walsh? It infers that I, nor any other Man, can disagree with the party line, when I’ve already debunked that myth insofar as I’m concerned. Nice try, though. And thank you for the compliment! I do try very hard to be fair and balanced, to borrow a popular phrase. And I think it fair to say, that I’m among the relative few in the Gamesphere who DOES go out of his way to be such.
SW: Hey, whatever gets you through the night. If it’s workin’ for ya, that’s great. I do know that you won’t be getting anywhere near women the quality of my own daughter.
OBS: OK, your own daughter aside, please define exactly what YOU mean when you say “Woman with high mating value”? What does that objectively mean? Please explain? No disrespect Ms. Walsh, but what parent DOESN’T think their daughter ISN’T a “quality Woman”? Hmm? So, let’s leave yor girl out of this, and focus more on objective measures, and we can go from there. Fair enough?
Hope I’ve cleared up some things here.
Holla back
The Obsidian
