Bruce Charlton writes:
I’m afraid you are utterly deluded: ‘game’ is fundamentally about seduction, about manipulation; not about ‘attracting women’ – it is exploitative, it is based on hatred. It is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Can you imagine any person worthy of respect (Fr Seraphim Rose, C.S Lewis, JRR Tolkien, GK Chesterton…) advocating ‘game’? The very idea is ridiculous!
The fact that there is ‘some good’ in ‘game’ is exactly what makes it dangerous – all really dangerous evil things have some good in them (Nazism, Communism etc) – all dangerous evil mimics the good (that is the definition of Antichrist – a fake Christ).
Game must be rejected with horror, or repented with sincere desire to reform.
No other alternative.
What is the definition of game? If the concern is that specific figures in the game world are not moral, I’m not interested in disagreeing, nor would I disagree that learning game might have a morally detrimental effect on some men. If, however, the objection is to game itself, then we have to agree on a definition.
Game is nothing more or less than the analysis of the dynamics of female sexual attraction, implemented. It is a tool, and is morally neutral. I think the word “game” is a part of the objection, as it suggests that you are “playing” women. I agree that another word might be better – charisma, for instance, or more precisely charisma-with-women.
Most men, in at least some of their interactions with women, make an effort to attract said women. Game in its most general meaning is little more than applying a knowledge of women to these interactions. which is to say, game is a kind of acting-in-accordance-with-nature. As with any other kind of acting-in-accordance-with-nature, game confers a kind of power, but does not guarantee that that power will be used well.
How shall we interpret the kneejerk negative reaction to game among social conservatives (for which see also the discussions here)? Condemnation without understanding context is an unfortunate habit, and compiling a syllabus of errors, even if that syllabus has some truth to it, is neither practically nor intellectually an adequate way of dealing with change. To condemn the new because you can see that there is danger in it is a common conservative habit, and a bad one, even if they are right in seeing dangers. This habit accounts for a great deal of the complete and utter failure of conservatism to conserve anything whatsoever. Quite simply, it leaves conservatives without any answers to the vital new questions of their day. History is a dangerous place – if conservatives are too afraid to take a place on the historical stage on which they were born, is it any wonder liberals act unchecked?
Men are forced to deal with today’s women, under the conditions of the modern world. These conditions are radically new. Men want to succeed with women. Regardless of the kind of success they desire, they need the tools to attain it. Following the kind of advice that would have been given then 50 years ago turns out to fail. What then should they do? One cannot condemn a practical art out of concern for how it will be used without offering a practical alternative.
A good reference for understanding some of the realities of the modern world as it pertains to relations between the sexes, from the perspective of a married man, is Dalrock’s blog, including his list of references. I would also recommend this post.
As far as being a dangerous evil, or the Antichrist, nothing can be the Antichrist unless it is worshiped as Christ. Unless one makes game and women the center of one’s purpose in life there is no danger of this.
One final point: it may be objected that game is poisoned by its origins. As game awareness arose among pimply faced nerds desperate to get laid, and spread among playboys filling their bedposts with notches, then it is supposed it cannot be a force for good. Did not monotheism arise in the barbarous and genocidal tribe of the Jews? Did not Christianity arise among the unlettered followers of a backwards Galilean [to take Julian the Apostate’s term of ridicule] and spread among slaves? Did not medicine arise from the dissections of grave-robbers, and chemistry from the impious alchemists? Ignoring game because it comes from unsavory elements of society is not only unwise, but also unchristian, for it is said that god works in mysterious ways, and out of the lowly come great things, for God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.