Game and Family Formation

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.

Advertisements

About Pechorin

A Hero of Our Time
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Game and Family Formation

  1. bgc says:

    Your whole argument could be summarized as: The Nazis had good qualities too!

    (Which, of course, they did! – or else they would not have been so successful.)

    I don’t understand why should should want to salvage the good elements from a basically wicked perspective, unless you are not serious about its wickedness.

    If you read the Stevosphere quant bloggers (Inductivist, Audacious Epigone) it is clear that in the USA the best path to a successful monogamous marriage, which is also the best path to having the most frequent sex and the most children, is traditional religion.

    This does not* mean that trad rel should be adopted as a means to this end, but that the whole perspective of ‘game’ is an error since (on average) it fails to deliver these outcomes.

    When you say: “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.” – then that is simply, factually wrong. Societies, and individuals in modern society, who pursue the strategy of early monogamous marriage and family do not recognize such ‘skills’.

    Individuals who are best at sustaining monogamous family life are not those most ‘skilled’ in ‘game’ – obviously not; skills take practice, whereas connecting with your lifetime soul-mate should *ideally* be a once-only and unique experience.

    (Those who *practice* such ‘skills’ do not sustain families).

    What you are doing is, in effect, suggesting that you can be a good Nazi and rise to high status in the Nazi system by focusing on its good points (fresh air, exercise, courage); while at the same time recognizing Nazism as evil…

    There are two things: expediency and morality. Which do you want? What you can’t have is a cost-free morality. To be moral in an immoral system, you can’t aim for expediency.

    If you want to be moral you must be prepared to suffer to some degree; at the very least to suffer the inconvenience of sub-optimal pleasure in the short term in hope of deeper long term satisfactions (the meaning of life). You can’t be moral and a primary hedonist. Obviously!

    What I am hoping you will do is recognize the nihilism and incoherence of a perspective which leads to ‘game’, and challenge the assumptions which led to that false perspective.

  2. dan says:

    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.

    how? you quit f-ing around and take over society. that’s how. and that is manlier than game or any other hedonistic pursuit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s