The Reaction To "Game" & Other Past Vile Behaviour - After Enlightenment - Thread

[Shodan]

I'm curious if anyone else has had a similar experience, especially considering the heritage aspect of this form having grown out of the RVF.

I had to attend my company's Christmas party yesterday, which took place at two bars. I haven't been in a bar in nearly two years. I was not religious, or 'spiritually' attuned in any manner the last time I was in such an establishment.

Out of boredom of dealing with my, by then drunk, coworkers, I cold approached a girl on the other end of the bar, and she was incredibly receptive. As I instinctually ran a loose 'routine' out of habit, I started to feel as if I was going to vomit, my composure slipped, I trailed off mid-sentence, and the whole interaction crashed; I felt like a chump! I became viscerally ill, turned ghostly white, and then had to leave. Even the intoxicated coworkers of mine thought I was coming down with the flu, etc. I've never had anxiety with women, so that is not a possibility.

In reflection I realised that the bar itself had made me feel nausea, but I had ignored it, and the casual PUA routine (old habits die hard apparently), pushed it over to the state of physical symptoms. This leads me to the question, especially for those of you that are converts, post-enlightenment, are there locales that make you feel disgusted, or ill, and is there prior behavior that you once exhibited quite aptly that now feels incredibly out of alignment with God/universal consciousness that if engaged in will trigger an intense physical reaction?


I'm sure this fairly basic, but it's something that I've never experienced prior, thus if anyone has any commentary in this regard, and/or desires to list other behavior that falls into this category, please do so. I've tried to lead a sin-free life and have overall succeeded at it, but having this interaction truly defined the perspective of what one becomes, and feels like, when they swerve off the path.

 

[Maddox]

Looking back, I hated the douchebags who were a large part of that scene. The entire PUA community would have been a lot better if it had a stigma attached to it and remained a place where guys with zero social skills but good intentions learned to communicate with women. Instead, it became much bigger and attracted the wrong element which ended up putting a target on its back.

 

[BeatUpTruck]

Based on what Ive read in the marriage thread… I think basic ‘game’ needs to be talked about a lot more here. It doesn’t matter how pious the men here are, if you’re going to be in a relationship with a woman you had better understand how they’re wired. It’s foolish to expect that you can simply meet a ‘religious good girl’ and you’ll then have a doting submissive life partner for the rest of your days. Women aren’t wired that way and if you bind yourself to one in todays upside down culture, without understanding their basic nature, you’re probably in for a rough ride.

 

[TheSurveyor]

Based on what Ive read in the marriage thread… I think basic ‘game’ needs to be talked about a lot more here. It doesn’t matter how pious the men here are, if you’re going to be in a relationship with a woman you had better understand how they’re wired. It’s foolish to expect that you can simply meet a ‘religious good girl’ and you’ll then have a doting submissive life partner for the rest of your days. Women aren’t wired that way and if you bind yourself to one in todays upside down culture, without understanding their basic nature, you’re probably in for a rough ride.

I disagree, in the past couple of years a good many friends of mine found wives; while also being complete dweebs when it came to talking to woman. The main difference was that they men were pious and good men with good hearts and they pursued women of the same mark. The issue comes with men who have baggage on them and have that past experience of game trying to find good, pious women.

It's difficult for us to overcome many of our own personal biases of how good woman should be, when many of us are first-hand witnesses to degenerate rot that has plagued many women. Now this is not to say that there is not some truth in what you say and I think there may be a small disconnect from reality. When you see your average young man (church attending, or not) attempting and failing miserably with women, it does not necessitate that this young man is a man of good character. Years of pornography, social media, and societal pressures have resulted in most men (religious or not), being of fairly poor quality and the actual good men being very few and in-between.

 

[Blade Runner]

When you see your average young man (church attending, or not) attempting and failing miserably with women, it does not necessitate that this young man is a man of good character. Years of pornography, social media, and societal pressures have resulted in most men (religious or not), being of fairly poor quality and the actual good men being very few and in-between.

The reality is more along the lines of women being distracted with a great, many other things. There was a boom in population. You're going to see a ton of average to bad men and women, by definition. What you don't see is women needing men, or acting like they do, at all. They think they only need me (right or wrong, yes they're wrong) if the man is out of their league. Also, how can you make any matches in church when the male to female ratio is 4:1? When women are doing other things in their most valuable years, on average?

 

[Callixtus]

I have found most of what I know about "game" to be useless and unnecessary with a good woman. I'm about a year in to my first relationship since returning to the church in 2019 and she is unlike any woman I've ever known. While an understanding of female nature is important merely to be compassionate of her feminine eccentricities, I've found using tactics and lines isn't fruitful. Perhaps after giving up the vices of fornication, pornography and masturbation and turning my desires to what really matters has allowed me to just be a man, thus negating the need for game.

There's that old "just be yourself" adage that I'd learned to loathe, but after much contemplation I've determined that I wasn't being myself when I was timid and awkward seeking after lust unsuccessfully, nor was I being myself when I was confidently and deliberately seeking after lust slightly less unsuccessfully, but only now that I've began rightly ordering myself towards what is true and just am I able to be myself as a man successfully.

"Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you."

 

[JR5]

The concept of "game", looking back, is pretty simple. Globohomo unleashed unrestrained female hypergamy in the second half of the 20th century and women all chased the same top 10% of men. The other 90% of men who wanted to get women - if they didn't want to be doormat chums for over-the-hill women who resentfully settled for a beta provider male, anyway - tried to reverse-engineer alpha male behavior by mimicking it in order to "hack" the female brain in order to get them to find the bottom 90% of men attractive.

And it worked, kind of, for awhile, until women adapted to this strategy (because male/female dynamics is an ever-evolving battle) and they simply decided they want Chad all the way, it's Chad or bust, baby, rejection after rejection for anyone who isn't naturally alpha (and tall and good looking), period.

And the thing is this: most women *can get Chad*. Any woman on a dating app gets swarmed by 1,000 males the first day, some of whom are very good looking and tall. The problem with these women is they can't *keep* Chad; he will pump and dump her but not stick around. So the female mind gets scrambled, developing an inflated ego from having sex with Chad but being unable to keep him, which fuels their massive resentment against men generally. Meanwhile males, cut out from dating because they aren't Chad and also because the average woman is fat, feminist and tattoo'd, i.e. undatable, regularly become incels or volcels.

Such is life, I suppose. I don't blame you for being disgusted with game, because it is an unnatural lie, designed to fool, and it also just doesn't work that well in today's age.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

There was some truth to it but it clearly became an idol for many who were not aware of the buzz saw they were walking into.

 

[Valentin Pearson]

Game just means presenting yourself in a positive way. If you want to do anything else and call that game, that's up to you.

 

[thinkreadwritecode]

Natural men never needed game and the Machiavellian types used it to take financial advantage of desperate men. But I always thought Game was useful information to have, not so one can maximize the amount of sex one can have (i.e. Roosh), but to assist in finding a wife. I knew many good Christian guys who simply could not talk to girls. Since the girls aren't approaching guys and none of the Boomers in church are actively promoting relationships among their membership, it's up to guys to do what men have always done (because we don't all have parents who can send a servant out to find us a virtuous wife).

Game devolved to the most basic common denominator: getting laid. This is because the leadership was really awful. The so-called alpha males teaching about Game were not good people. They showed the tool can be used to maximize sexual gains, not employed to find yourself a worthy wife (without there even being a necessity to fornicate, you know well enough with your eyes if a woman is "compatible"). I reiterate how the knowledge of Game, in a redpill sense, is important because men aren't being taught in Church or anywhere else that women are just as fallen and privy to lust as men are. Game shows us how secular, fallen, fake Christian women really are because they respond to it.

I think Game failed to evolve to become more useful to those who really need some help in finding a wife. It's a tool that could have been used to build civilization but the wicked leadership used it for evil and made it dyscivilizational (promoting promiscuity instead of family formation). Speaking for myself, I was annoyed that Roosh left behind his public internet platform because he had a level of experience with women few men have and to get that kind of experience and wisdom from a hardcore Christian perspective is exceedingly rare.

I think OPs physical reaction was his spirit wrestling with his flesh.

 

[cognitive dissonance 73]

I believe Game has been misinterpreted by many.
Game is only to be shunned if it is used to facilitate fornication.
If it is used to help someone to find (and keep) a suitable - it is absolutely fine. And to clarify - this case Game simply means channeling confidence and masculine qualities to the lady. And this important in any healthy relationship that would lead to marriage and family.

 

[Wutang]

I was re-reading some of the old school Mystery Method stuff fairly recently. The specific techniques such as the opener lines and routines wouldn't work too well these days but I think the general overall concepts described (compliance, IOI/IOD, hoops, frame) and the series of stages a man and a woman move through in the process of going from strangers (open/male displaying value to the woman/woman proving herself worthy/getting to know each other deeper) to a couple is still pretty accurate. These stages don't necessarily have to lead to fornication at the end by the way.

Quite a few of the concepts in there are all about general social interaction and not just romantic ones. Learning about the idea of frame and how it's a huge factor in terms on who is setting the context of the conversation lets me see when people are trying to play these "frame games" on each other while jockeying for domination in a social setting.

 

[Thomas More]

I disagree, in the past couple of years a good many friends of mine found wives; while also being complete dweebs when it came to talking to woman. The main difference was that they men were pious and good men with good hearts and they pursued women of the same mark. The issue comes with men who have baggage on them and have that past experience of game trying to find good, pious women.

It's difficult for us to overcome many of our own personal biases of how good woman should be, when many of us are first-hand witnesses to degenerate rot that has plagued many women. Now this is not to say that there is not some truth in what you say and I think there may be a small disconnect from reality. When you see your average young man (church attending, or not) attempting and failing miserably with women, it does not necessitate that this young man is a man of good character. Years of pornography, social media, and societal pressures have resulted in most men (religious or not), being of fairly poor quality and the actual good men being very few and in-between.

Speaking as one who was a blue pill Christian dweeb when I was a young married man, a misunderstanding of the nature of women causes a lot of problems in marriage, even with a devout Christian wife. I was not a player before I married. I was completely sincere, and just wanted to make her happy. I know that lots of older men groaned in sympathy after reading that last sentence, because they know just how poorly that works.

There is a way of understanding and dealing with women that works better, including Christian women. This way can be described and learned. Lack of this knowledge can really lower the quality of marital life for both husband and wife.

 

[Edelweiss]

The last place I want to be in is a bar. This should be enough of an answer.

 

[Thomas More]

The last place I want to be in is a bar. This should be enough of an answer.

Bars serve food. Do you no longer want to eat? Food and bars are two different things. Obviously eating is still important even though it happens in bars.

Men need to understand women. Some men meet women at bars. Bars are no reason not to understand women. The existence of bars and the pickup culture there is no reason to dismiss knowledge about women that can help relate better with a wife.

 

[N°6]

The concept of "game", looking back, is pretty simple. Globohomo unleashed unrestrained female hypergamy in the second half of the 20th century and women all chased the same top 10% of men. The other 90% of men who wanted to get women - if they didn't want to be doormat chums for over-the-hill women who resentfully settled for a beta provider male, anyway - tried to reverse-engineer alpha male behavior by mimicking it in order to "hack" the female brain in order to get them to find the bottom 90% of men attractive.

And it worked, kind of, for awhile, until women adapted to this strategy (because male/female dynamics is an ever-evolving battle) and they simply decided they want Chad all the way, it's Chad or bust, baby, rejection after rejection for anyone who isn't naturally alpha (and tall and good looking), period.

And the thing is this: most women *can get Chad*. Any woman on a dating app gets swarmed by 1,000 males the first day, some of whom are very good looking and tall. The problem with these women is they can't *keep* Chad; he will pump and dump her but not stick around. So the female mind gets scrambled, developing an inflated ego from having sex with Chad but being unable to keep him, which fuels their massive resentment against men generally. Meanwhile males, cut out from dating because they aren't Chad and also because the average woman is fat, feminist and tattoo'd, i.e. undatable, regularly become incels or volcels.

Such is life, I suppose. I don't blame you for being disgusted with game, because it is an unnatural lie, designed to fool, and it also just doesn't work that well in today's age.

Excellent post. Without endorsing our pasts, we can have compassion on ourselves.

The liberal financial and the subsequent liberal social structure of the West meant that women delayed marriage until their late 20s. This changed everything. What are women going to do from the first time they first feel their sexual value in their teens to thirty - when they can take the infertility cult's eucharist to mitigate the hazards resulting from poor sexual choices?

Meanwhile most beta men (I do not deem beta as derogatory or the equivalent as "simp" but as the backbone of societies like NCOs are the backbone of the army and marines) entered the dating market with the advice, "treat women like how you should treat your mother and sisters". Their experiences of a dating market which does not see the average woman marrying until nearly 30 was brutal. This was compounded by witnessing the type of men women chose. This has rarely happened in history.

So then, beta men began to study what women want as a form of "self improvement" to feign the worst traits in men that women - not seeking marriage - sought.

When such men shared their experiences on the budding internet, Game was born.

Game died with the naissance of the smart phone and when women got the state to change laws to criminalise beta men from pretending to be the worst of men whom they were attracted to.


New Christians on this forum would do well to review Dalrock's blog. It is a Christian red pill blog that is much older than RVF's road to Damascus.

 

[Blade Runner]

The concept of "game", looking back, is pretty simple. Globohomo unleashed unrestrained female hypergamy in the second half of the 20th century and women all chased the same top 10% of men. The other 90% of men who wanted to get women - if they didn't want to be doormat chums for over-the-hill women who resentfully settled for a beta provider male, anyway - tried to reverse-engineer alpha male behavior by mimicking it in order to "hack" the female brain in order to get them to find the bottom 90% of men attractive.

And it worked, kind of, for awhile, until women adapted to this strategy (because male/female dynamics is an ever-evolving battle) and they simply decided they want Chad all the way, it's Chad or bust, baby, rejection after rejection for anyone who isn't naturally alpha (and tall and good looking), period.

And the thing is this: most women *can get Chad*. Any woman on a dating app gets swarmed by 1,000 males the first day, some of whom are very good looking and tall. The problem with these women is they can't *keep* Chad; he will pump and dump her but not stick around. So the female mind gets scrambled, developing an inflated ego from having sex with Chad but being unable to keep him, which fuels their massive resentment against men generally. Meanwhile males, cut out from dating because they aren't Chad and also because the average woman is fat, feminist and tattoo'd, i.e. undatable, regularly become incels or volcels.

Such is life, I suppose. I don't blame you for being disgusted with game, because it is an unnatural lie, designed to fool, and it also just doesn't work that well in today's age.

Easily post of the month for its pithiness. Well stated.

Remember, too, that the adaptation women had that they didn't do anything to get, but was (((provided for them))) was the technological one. There simply would not have been any/enough Chads around, no hanging Chads so to speak p), if they weren't given this theoretical chance to see and text them, taking advantage of the way women think, which is in possibilities. That's why they love astrology, because it opens up something they believe is possible for someone that can't ultimately affect change herself (unless she actually works at it, but then she's still a passive participant). The first step of the "technology", by the way, was moving to the city. That still required going out and throwing the dice with all the "rich, hot" dudes they think they deserve, which mostly isn't going to happen, of course, in similar fashion.

Game can be smooth talking and confidence of a sort, but really it's outcome independence, which is real manliness. The problem with the modern day again is that by the time any woman will even bother to pull an indicator of interest, she's too old for you to care - mostly because she didn't think she needed to care due to having money or was backstopped by money in some fashion at her younger age.

Put a different way, "game" actually just becomes going through huge numbers of sluts and seeing if one wants to buy with those indifferent and "confident" personas you put on. Outcome indifference is actually what makes a man. The problem is when you have a biological drive for sex or legacy and the quality of any characteristic men put value on is so low across the board - let alone seen in the same woman.

 

[Blade Runner]

There are some great posts on this thread.

Game shows us how secular, fallen, fake Christian women really are because they respond to it.

Yes, if you see that it's late stage given what No.6 said, this isn't all that surprising.

he had a level of experience with women few men have and to get that kind of experience and wisdom from a hardcore Christian perspective is exceedingly rare.

I can come off as critical, but I don't see that at all. He had volume and knew that he was selecting for the promiscuous, and he was fine with that. Later, he came to realize that was what was actually happening (he didn't really have quality people) and that putting that much effort in to randomly bang gets old, regardless of even above average "hotness."

There is a way of understanding and dealing with women that works better, including Christian women. This way can be described and learned. Lack of this knowledge can really lower the quality of marital life for both husband and wife.

You say a lot here (tease a lot) but don't really say anything at all. What is it that one should do to "deal" best?

The liberal financial and the subsequent liberal social structure of the West meant that women delayed marriage until their late 20s. This changed everything.

Amazing post as well, just like JR's. I've talked about this forever, and so few people understand it, though it's amazingly obvious. They don't want to believe in anything but the lie - and that's why. I think it's actually worse than any man around here, on average, even thinks. We are so far gone from accepting egalitarianism that it's impossible to change without major loss of standard of living and literally re-making the social structure and culture. I personally don't think it happens at this point, but I'm just guessing of course.

When you realize that all men liked late teenage to early 20s women historically (for obvious reasons), and thought 24-25 year olds were old just over a century ago, that dowries happened back then, etc you realize that women's value was only at a certain time in their life and that marriage was civilizational so that we could keep going, and in the right context. But they knew men would not accept that without a bare minimum, since women are so much to deal with, and lose their window of value so quickly compared to living until a ripe old age (80s often), let's say. Fast forward to today and you get absolutely none of the good, on average, but all of the responsibility and even social and governmental/legal forces coming after you if you are unlucky enough to be on the fickle end of feminine accusation.

It's a weird thing to say, but how can you not, when you realize what's going on, root somewhat for clown world to collapse? I'll be honest, and I know I have no control over it, but I'm tempted to all the time.

 

[Thomas More]

You say a lot here (tease a lot) but don't really say anything at all. What is it that one should do to "deal" best?

This is the whole topic of the red pill. To deny the red pill is to deny that there is a way of understanding and dealing with women that works better.

Here is simple example of understanding a woman's behavior and how to handle it. This is Red Pill 101, as I'm sure you know: Your wife is on a hysterical tirade pointing all your faults, including some outlandish accusations where your innocent comments or actions have the worse malice ascribed to them. You sincerely work hard to make her happy, and can't understand why she is so upset with you. Should you tell her you'll do whatever she wants to make her happy, she should just tell you what she wants you to do, and you'll do it?

NO! This would be the worst thing in the world to say. She is actually upset that you are too spineless, and she is trying to see if there's any limit to the abuse you'll take before you finally stand up for yourself. She's afraid she's married to a weakling. She is testing you, and you just failed! You can give up on any hopes of having good sex with her after this incident! The last thing in the world she needs is to get pregnant and bear the child of a weakling man. All of this behavior is subconscious, of course. In her conscious mind, she thinks she is actually upset over the ridiculous things she is complaining about. However, she is hardwired subconsciously to want a strong man, and be horrified by a subservient weakling husband.

The right answer of how to handle this situation is complicated. First of all, you have to stand up to her and let her know you refuse to allow her to treat her this way. This is a fitness test, (a sh*t test in red pill terminology). You pass it by standing up to it. One easy response is to agree and amplify to dismiss her attacks.

The problem is that you got to this point by convincing her over a long term period that you are a weakling, so you now have to convince her over time that you are not a weakling.

There are a lot of brow beaten, henpecked Christian husbands whose wives treat them this way, even though the wives actually desire to be good loving wives out of devotion to God. They just can't tolerate their husband's failure to act like a man in the way woman are hardwired to want. These men need the red pill.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

This is the whole topic of the red pill. To deny the red pill is to deny that there is a way of understanding and dealing with women that works better.

Here is simple example of understanding a woman's behavior and how to handle it. This is Red Pill 101, as I'm sure you know: Your wife is on a hysterical tirade pointing all your faults, including some outlandish accusations where your innocent comments or actions have the worse malice ascribed to them. You sincerely work hard to make her happy, and can't understand why she is so upset with you. Should you tell her you'll do whatever she wants to make her happy, she should just tell you what she wants you to do, and you'll do it?

NO! This would be the worst thing in the world to say. She is actually upset that you are too spineless, and she is trying to see if there's any limit to the abuse you'll take before you finally stand up for yourself. She's afraid she's married to a weakling. She is testing you, and you just failed! You can give up on any hopes of having good sex with her after this incident! The last thing in the world she needs is to get pregnant and bear the child of a weakling man. All of this behavior is subconscious, of course. In her conscious mind, she thinks she is actually upset over the ridiculous things she is complaining about. However, she is hardwired subconsciously to want a strong man, and be horrified by a subservient weakling husband.

The right answer of how to handle this situation is complicated. First of all, you have to stand up to her and let her know you refuse to allow her to treat her this way. This is a fitness test, (a sh*t test in red pill terminology). You pass it by standing up to it. One easy response is to agree and amplify to dismiss her attacks.

The problem is that you got to this point by convincing her over a long term period that you are a weakling, so you now have to convince her over time that you are not a weakling.

There are a lot of brow beaten, henpecked Christian husbands whose wives treat them this way, even though the wives actually desire to be good loving wives out of devotion to God. They just can't tolerate their husband's failure to act like a man in the way woman are hardwired to want. These men need the red pill.

You have to make them respect you. Their natural inclination is not to do so. If you're too willing to please them, they see that as a weakness, not worthy of their respect.