Concerning the value of game, Bruce Charlton writes:
This conversation could only proceed on the basis of assumptions of what is being aimed at – my assumption of the ‘ideal’ for sexual relations is pretty close to the Mormon ideal – early monogamous marriage and as many children as can be well cared for without external assistance.(almost all Mormons use contraception).
(I am not a Mormon but admire many aspects of Mormon life and have been doing research into Mormon fertility.)
So, the *standard* model and purpose which is publicly defended and around which society is organized, should not be serious sexual dating or sterile serial relationships extending into the thirties or until death; but a focus on finding the (one) right spouse, marriage by the early twenties then kids.
Of course, any standard model will not suit everybody nor will everybody be able to achieve it – but there must be a normative model around which society is organized. What I have described (necessarily briefly) seems pretty close to what is prescribed by Christianity.
Clearly, advocacy of the whole perspective of ‘game’, its whole mode of analysis and discussion, is hostile to this standard model of marriage and family.
I actually agree that the marriage model he describes is ideal. The question is how to attain it if you lack external support from society. Idealism in the face of a reality that doesn’t support it may be noble, but it is not effective.
With regards to game, two facts must be kept in mind.
1. There is a continuity between the skills needed to attract (and maintain attraction with) all women, whether the woman in question be a good girl and the intent marriage, or whether the woman in question is a bar slut and the intent a one night stand.
2. There is a difference between the skills and character needed to attract and maintain a relationship with these two types of girls for these two types of intents.
Game, as I would define it – and I am the first to admit that the term suffers from multiple definitions – means the skills described in (1) above. However, I do not disagree that the perspective of game, sociologically defined (with reference to the game/PUA community), has the effects you mention. (But see for instance here and here.) Nevertheless, even men whose only interest is marriage cannot today afford game illiteracy, since our feminized culture fills most commitment-prone men with anti-game.