A blog for Christian men "going their own way."

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Defining "Game" and Consergame

I think one of the most frustrating aspects about debating the pros and cons of "Game" is the loose way the term is defined. Why, even looking up information on the internet is daunting, given all the other ways the word is used in our post-Nintendo culture. And a lot of the people in the "Game" community are conflicted in the ways they use the word themselves. One has a basic definition of the word here:
Game is the sum total of the attitudes and behaviors that women find attractive in men. Practice and perfect game and women will be attracted to you. - Ferdinand Bardamu
Sounds good enough, but then one gets into arguments about who has "Game" and who doesn't, what's necessarily a part of "Game" and what isn't, etc. The one yapping in your face about you not having "Game" may be less attractive to many women than you are. When one thinks about it, there are a lot of miserable guys who have "Game" by the above definition. After all, they got married. They must have some relationship value for a woman to want to be with them.

So, does "Game" mean something more? Does it mean using your attractiveness to get women to comply with your demands? Does it mean being attractive to the woman you find attractive? But what if she's below a "6" on the looks scale? Does that make you a "Herb" or a "beta"? Does "Game" mean being attractive to women other men generally find to be physically attractive? But what if you're a stereotypical "Nice Guy" ("beta"/"loser"/"AFC"/whatever) that managed to marry a pretty girl from Laos, all without having to "learn game"? Confused yet? I think these are valid questions to ask, nonetheless. Someone can accuse me of being "anti-game" but then I could ask, "What game are you taking about?"

Consergame

I myself have been blindsided by some socially conservative and religious men telling me that "Game" is good, moral, Apple Pie, and that stuff. But when I was talking about "Game" some time ago, I mainly had in mind "Game" as many PUAs embrace it (viz., for recreational sex). So maybe I should distinguish between PUAism and consergame, the latter being "Game" as practiced by guys who just want to find and keep a "good woman" for the sake of marriage, family, hearth, and home. Consergame is "Game" for the wholesome boy-next-door who goes to church every Sunday.

I don't have a problem with consergame in and of itself. Any religious guy that wants to be happily married should learn some form of Biblically sound consergame. The problem I have is that some fellows who are into consergame also seemed to have dipped their cups into the brackish waters of sexual nihilism and the naturalistic, atheistic system of Evolutionary Psychology. Or at least, that's the vibe I'm getting from some of things they are saying. If these guys really believe that Suzy Cupcake will turn on the them the very second they show any signs of weakness, lack of dominance, lack of confidence, lack of status, or overall "Betatude," then I've gotta' ask, "Cui bono, compadres?"

If the relationship between the sexes boils down to raw biological tokens of looks, status, power, etc. then why on earth would you even bother with marriage?! Let me figure this out. Supposedly, Cupcake doesn't love me for the "special snowflake" that I am, but only loves me to the extent that I can play Top Alpha Dog and do the DHV thingy. So if agape is passé in the New Era of Things then, um, what exactly am *I* getting out of the deal if my dearly beloved is going to age like cottage cheese? It's like Ferdinand said, "I’m no economist, but a commodity that gets more expensive as it becomes increasingly worthless sounds like one only a sucker would buy – and make no mistake, when you get married, you’re effectively 'buying' a woman."

I don't get it. I don't get how men can preach consergame and yet accept the brutal claims of Evolutionary Psychology (viz., that we are nothing more than naked apes with mercenary mating strategies). If I wasn't a Christian, if I didn't believe in agape, if I didn't care about sexual morality, if I accepted Evolutionary Psychology, then I would run straight past the Chapel and the wedding going on there for me, go to the nearest college pub where the co-eds are, and round them up like there was no tomorrow. Or maybe not. Maybe the thought of STDs and mindless conversation might drive me to porn instead. But the bottom line is this: If women are entitled to chase Alpha boys, then I am entitled to chase women who are young and physically attractive. Evolutionary Psychology says so, don't-cha know, so let's be consistent!

Let me put it to you another way. If I am not the "special snowflake" that will be loved "as I am" in my weakest moments, and if women in this culture act in a way that supports Evolutionary Psychology, I'd rather stay celibate than be married. No, don't bristle. Think about the balance sheet, folks. I rather live alone than be stuck with a female Evo-Psych specimen who will still hold the marriage bond over my head, test me, and demand Alpha performance from me while she goes through menopause and turns into a old crone. That's not Biblical matrimony, that's not living a life, that's not "Game." That's a rip-off! There's no ROI there, fellas! I say, "Ladies, either love me for real or go find another sucker." Life is easier without having to be under the gun of someone who is not doing much for you.

For the Christian man who thinks about this, marriage makes sense ... but only in the context where husbands and wives live according to the Law of Agape, not the Law of the Jungle. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense ... especially if a Christian man keeps running into "Christian" women who want to act like the "naked ape" and not like they are created in the image of God. Hmmm. Maybe that partially explains why some of us are not so sanguine about dating and marriage.

Postcript (A Morality Play)

Anglosphere Chick: "Anakin, your bitter for writing a post for like that. You just need to accept the fact that women are attracted to certain traits, blah, blah, de blah, blah."

Anakin: "Well, men are attracted to good looking women. So what happens when you hit forty and your looks go south? What exactly do I get at that time for being the Alpha husband to you?"

Anglosphere Chick: "You're so shallow and cold. Can't you love a woman for her character?"

Anakin: "Well, there were a lot of unassuming guys with character that you passed by in your youth, hypocrite."

(Overcome by frustration and impotent rage, Anglosphere Chick spontaneously combusts in a puff of smoke.)

The End.

30 comments:

Talleyrand said...

It's not an either or though Anakin.

I'm not in the get married camp, but some guys believe that is the right thing to do, even without the "Agape" that you're talking about.

Personally, I don't think Agape is achievable with a woman, except maybe when both of you are post 70 years old.

Leaving that aside though, if a man wants to get married and have children and raise them in the church and do all that (and who am I to disagree with that desire?) and yet he understands that the woman he marries will be tempted by our culture, and that it is easy for her to jettison him, despite how outwardly moral she is, then he needs to game her.

Simple as that. You and I may see the deal as a crappy one, but he might see it as a necessary one for moral reasons and because he wants children.

I will point out that some of the great seducers in history lived during periods when women were seen as moral creatures and Christian in their upbringing and they succumbed.

Women are fallen, and to forget that is to imperil yourself.

Adam T. said...

If these guys really believe that Suzy Cupcake will turn on the them the very second they show any signs of weakness, lack of dominance, lack of confidence, lack of status, or overall "Betatude," then I've gotta' ask, "Cui bono, compadres?"

I agree, and if there's one way that reading about game has damaged me and my relationship with my wife, it would be this. I've already gotten overly cynical about female nature, and that extends to being cynical about my wife's genuine sweetness and love for me. This is something I regret, because my wife is truly a Godly, lovely woman, and I want to remember it.

That being said, I agree with the FBardamu quote:

Game is the sum total of the attitudes and behaviors that women find attractive in men. Practice and perfect game and women will be attracted to you.

That's really all 'game' is.

Adam T. said...

Talley:

I respect your input, but I do think you need to realize that Anakin's blog is meant to address Christians and Christian relationships. When you use the word 'marriage', you are envisioning something quite different - a deathtrap, a prison - from what we have in mind.

You might not believe that there could possibly be a difference between non-Christian and Christian marriages, but I do, and I think Anakin does as well.

In point of fact, I would pretty much agree with you if we were talking about American women in general and not conservative, Christian women in particular. If I were not a conservative Christian I would have more or less the same reservations about marriage as you do.

And:

Women are fallen, and to forget that is to imperil yourself.

Completely agreed.

Novaseeker said...

Well, I'm not so sure that many Christian women are all that different, at the end of the day. Certainly the chances are *better* with Christian women that they will be less susceptible to the culture, but I think most of us have met quite a few church-going "conservative" Christian women who are nevertheless deeply immersed in the contemporary culture. As I say, I do think that your best bet for finding someone who is not is in the Church -- and I have been fortunate that way -- but I think that the culture has seeped into the Church as well, and into the lives of many church-going women.

It is very important in a marriage for the man to remain manly and somewhat dominant. Note: not domineering, but dominant -- there is a difference. Christian men may find ways to do this that are biblical or otherwise in accord with their own Christian tradition without the specifics of "Game" -- there's no doubt about that. However, the degree to which that *works* will be based on the degree to which the woman involved is impacted by and immersed in the culture.

The reason for that is simple: the social climate and the legal system create imbalances in favor of women in marriages in the United States -- whether you are Christian or not. Again, if you find a woman who is relatively immune to that culture, or who stands over and against it and embraces and practices different values and so on, then you are running a much lower risk. But not all Christian women are like that -- not in the least. The impact of the contemporary culture is pervasive, and you need to be very, very careful, even when dealing with church-going Christian women.

Learner said...

Tallyrand,

Personally, I don't think Agape is achievable with a woman, except maybe when both of you are post 70 years old.

Why?

Ferdinand Bardamu said...

Anakin, beware. You're at risk of falling into what I call "David Alexander Syndrome." Basically, it's taking the tenets of game literally to the point where you start thinking that all women are reflexively hardwired to seek out the most dominant of socially dominant men and fall into despair because of it.

"If these guys really believe that Suzy Cupcake will turn on the them the very second they show any signs of weakness, lack of dominance, lack of confidence, lack of status, or overall "Betatude," then I've gotta' ask, "Cui bono, compadres?""

This notion is completely incorrect. It's true that women want their men to be dominant and in charge, but this does not mean they are totally intolerant of beta backsliding. In fact, depending on the length of your relationship, some backsliding is necessary to keep the flame going. I've seen this both in my own relationships with women and in others that I've observed.

I'm not as cynical as some of my contemporaries - I believe in love and I think that agape IS achievable with a woman. But I think of love like a house, with the realities of sexual politics and economics forming the foundations. Without the house, you've got nothing but a pile of bricks and mortar - without the foundation, you've got a collapsed wreck. Finding true love is only possible when you consign yourself to certain unalienable truths. We are all bound by chains - the trick is learning which ones can be broken and which ones can be turned to our benefit.

Also, I like your term for LTR game, "consergame." I'll have to start using that one...

Learner:

"Why?"

Talleyrand's an extreme cynic.

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech said...

I'm not as cynical as some of my contemporaries

FB, you will be eventually. In many cases cynicism is the same as experience and this is one of them.

Justin said...

You got one thing right, Anakin, Game means something different to everyone who uses it.

E.W. just did a post responding to a question from a Gamer about if he were unfortunate enough to have a daughter. That is the fruit if Game, to poison your outlook on women to the point where you would regret your own daughter's birth.

The whole evo-psych fantasy world is destructive and frankly silly. The sick and dying embrace a worldview of sickness and death... no real surprise there, I guess.

The Gamer responses to criticism are always typical, exhibited clearly in those above mine: "Anakin, you don't understand Game..."

Yes, right, unless you are praising Game, clearly you don't understand Game... Such is the mentality of every cultist throughout history. "If you only truly understood our beliefs, you would join us..."

Balderdash and claptrap.

Ferdinand Bardamu said...

Justin:

"E.W. just did a post responding to a question from a Gamer about if he were unfortunate enough to have a daughter. That is the fruit if Game, to poison your outlook on women to the point where you would regret your own daughter's birth."

You're a liar. There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that the guy that Elusive Wapiti responded to practiced game or even had any knowledge of it. Game wasn't even mentioned in that post once. Obfuscation and dishonesty from you on this topic - typical.

For anyone who's curious, here's the link to EW's post. Go through it and seriously try to argue that Justin's take is anywhere close to the truth.

"The Gamer responses to criticism are always typical, exhibited clearly in those above mine: "Anakin, you don't understand Game..."

Yes, right, unless you are praising Game, clearly you don't understand Game... Such is the mentality of every cultist throughout history. "If you only truly understood our beliefs, you would join us...""

Only in your warped mind could pointing out that someone is wrong and explaining WHY they are wrong equate to cult behavior.

Anonymous said...

The culture IS in the church as well. I have a number of christian friends who married christian women who hid their true selves from their husbands until after the ceremony. That's when the true woman came out. My mom was a christian woman and that didn't stop her from verbally abusing me all of my years growing up.

That's not 100% of the marriages to be sure. But it has happened enough for me to know that if one marries a wrong woman he's in a world of hurt. Church woman or otherwise.

slwerner said...

anonymous - "That's not 100% of the marriages to be sure. But it has happened enough for me to know that if one marries a wrong woman he's in a world of hurt. Church woman or otherwise."

Not to worry, Vysota has spewed forth all the wisdom anyone would ever need to address this:



"Also, slwerner, selecting the right mate now is far less crucial than it used to be. Now if you make the wrong decision -- divorce!"

Eumaios said...

OP: For the Christian man who thinks about this, marriage makes sense ... but only in the context where husbands and wives live according to the Law of Agape, not the Law of the Jungle.

Talleyrand: Personally, I don't think Agape is achievable with a woman, except maybe when both of you are post 70 years old

My wife largely despises and resents me. She treats me as an antagonist. Because I demand that she act as a wife, I am in a very real sense her enemy. She has no eros and little philia for me.

Despite all this, she acts with agape toward me. She loves her enemy.

Will S. said...

Goodness me, Eumaios; is it worth it? I don't know whether you two have kids together; do you; if so, is that the only reason why you tolerate it?

Just askin'. I'm trying to decide, whether I want to employ, as per Anakin's term, 'ConserGame', to use to secure and maintain an LTR with a suitable woman (if I find such), or, whether to join him, Justin, and others, in becoming an MGHOW...

Frankly, I sometimes wish I could be an amoral heathen, and just care about myself. I know from past experience that I can get a woman of some kind (not necessarily an 8 or a 10, but at least a 6), if I want to, for nefarious, selfish purposes; but, I don't ultimately favour that; I do wish to try to walk the straight and narrow and abide by God's ways, if He gives me strength sufficient to do so. I don't feel called to singlehood, however, so that must mean ultimately a wife.

MarkyMark said...

Guys,

Game=deeds done to have sex with women. That's it! Much of what's being called game would be more accurately called interpersonal skills, relationship advice, etc.; while the actions may work, while they may be valid, they are NOT game. Please use the right terminology already!

MarkyMark

Will S. said...

That's just it, MM; as AN is saying, the term can mean different things to different people; hence AN's attempt to divide it between the LTR variety, and the PUA variety, by labelling the former 'ConserGame'. I don't hold any illusions that term will catch on, though.

MarkyMark said...

Will,

It's a truism that, in order to have a debate or discussion, then all parties involved must be using the same terms, and they must mean the same thing. Otherwise, no communication can occur.

It's also a truism that he who controls the terms used in a debate CONTROL that same debate?! How do you think the communists get ahead? I know, so I rest my case...

MarkyMark

Will S. said...

Exactly, MM; hence why the Left places so much emphasis on 'political correctness'; it isn't merely because they hold to the values associated with such terms, but because they indeed wish to control the terms of the debate, to force their opponents to debate them on their grounds.

Kathy Farrelly said...

"Game=deeds done to have sex with women"
I think you have it in a nutshell Mark.( Even the good Christian man aspires to have sex as much as possible with his wife.)

There would really be no reason for men(or women) to engage in it otherwise.

I love my husband, but to keep things fresh and interesting I guess you could say that I employ a kind of game.

I text suggestive messages to him, during the day :)

Hubby works hard, gets home , has papperwork to complete in his office, plays with the kids for a while..
While he is sitting down, I will give him a backrub, maybe whisper a few things in his ear..Make sure he has a cold beer(And I mean COLD! Aussie blokes like it real cold)
I might playfully grab him when the kids are not looking(it's an art that I have perfected!!) During our conversation, I'll slip in a couple of double entendre's that go right over the kid's heads. Something just for the two of us to share.He smiles.. I smile...

Why do I do this? Obviously, because I love my husband..But, I do not want the marriage to stagnate.Too often it is so easy to get caught up with the kids and their needs.A couple also needs time to themselves. And, frankly, I am assured of sex every time.(no matter how tired he is)

It's a win win win situation for us both ;)

vysota said...

Yes, werner, it's called divorce. Ever heard of the term? Look it up. It's a thing you can do if you don't want to stay with your wife. Although it's also a thing she can do if she does not want to stay with you. Hard to imagine you've never come across this concept before...

Anonymous said...

Male 'dominance' used to be a given reality, now its just a social construct. If I can play the game well I've got 'it', if I can't (or won't) I'm smaller than a gnat.

I'll hazard a guess that Vysota has never received a blow job in its life.

slwerner said...

vysota - "Yes, werner, it's called divorce. Ever heard of the term?"

the point, which seems to have escaped your grasp, is that you clearly don not understand what your talking about when you suggest divorce as an easy way for a man to undo a mistake in choosing a partner. You seem to believe that divorce and the (anti-)Family courts go easy and fairly on men.

But, I's sure the MGTOW crowd are pleased that you post here. How better to get the message out that marriage isn't such a good idea for most men that to have someone come on here, and consistently show nothing but contempt of (other) men.

When men see that someone who doesn't even like them, let alone have any concern over their futures and fates, telling them that they need to get married, or you're going to call them idiots; well, let's just say, you do a very good job of making the MGTOW case for them.

I bet that some of them are even collecting some of your better little gems so as to be able to show those men who may find themselves debating marriage, just what the pro-marriage crowd is really like.

vysota said...

I'm glad to aid any collection of any quotes anyone wants to start. I can even autograph them, if need be.

is that you clearly don not understand what your talking about when you suggest divorce as an easy way for a man to undo a mistake in choosing a partner
I'm sorry, maybe I missed my own posts... did I ever say it was "easy"? Who said anything about "easy"? I said it's a way that's available, which was not available a few decades ago. Again, if passively living with your mistake is how you deal with it, be my guest. However, I'm saying that this mistake CAN be undone. Must everything be "easy" for you in order to do it? Does your lawyer wife spoon-feed you because you can't be bothered to use your widdle fingers?

When men see that someone who doesn't even like them, let alone have any concern over their futures and fates...
No, home boy. Again, maybe I was raised differently, but what I object to is the idea that the best way to deal with a problem is to whine about it. It's unbecoming for anyone, much less for what I would consider to be a real man. I don't dislike men, I just prefer real men. Men who actually act, rather than bitch. Maybe it's misogynistic of me, but I have little to no respect for men who complain that girls are mean to them.

just what the pro-marriage crowd is really like.
You mean happy, educated and willing to confront problems head-on? Oh noes!

slwerner said...

Vysota - "Who said anything about "easy"? I said it's a way that's available..."

That's good, you just keep right on digging...

Vysota - "(divorce) was not available a few decades ago."

Which planet are you referring to here. For those of us on earth, divorce has been around for centuries. And, up until a few decades ago, it was even a good option for men who found themselves in bad marriages. It's only been in those last few decades that it's become a largely untenable option for men.


Vysota - "what I object to is the idea that the best way to deal with a problem is to whine about it."

Odd, then, that it's what you tend to do WRT men who choose to avoid the trouble of Marriage 2.0 with modern western women. Oh, wait, you don't just whine about them, you hurl insults as well.

I suppose, that given your demonstrated inability to present cogent meaningful argument sin support of your position ["I'm right because I'm smarter than everyone else", isn't really as good of an argument as you seem to think], it's only natural for you do turn to your primary skill-set - whining and insulting.

But, then again, I think that it is these two elements (that you seriously over-rely on) that tend to make you seem like a feminist, and perhaps a lesbian, rather than a typical man posting.

Wait for it....

Vysota - "I just prefer real men"

There it is, the tell-tale "Realmannspracht" of the feminists.

Oh, BTW, "Real Men" don't have to resort to trying to shame other men in order to advance their arguments.

You seem to be as ignorant of "Real Men" as you are of divorce law.

vysota said...

For those of us on earth, divorce has been around for centuries.
Yes, except it was always extremely difficult to obtain (not to mention socially unacceptable in a fundamentalist society). Now divorce is not easy but far more readily available than before.

It's only been in those last few decades that it's become a largely untenable option for men.
Because you can no longer simply kick your wife to the curb and find a younger upgrade? What exactly would you prefer to happen in a divorce? As soon as you're tired of your wife she's out on her ass with the clothes on her back? Yes, now divorces hurt both sides. In some cases they may ever favor women. So your response is "I'm not guaranteed to win, so I might as well give up now and not play at all?" Sure, but encouraging others to follow your stellar example is ridiculous.

Odd, then, that it's what you tend to do WRT men who choose to avoid the trouble of Marriage 2.0 with modern western women. Oh, wait, you don't just whine about them, you hurl insults as well.
Yes, I know, picking on the low-hanging fruit is a bit cheap. I apologize. But, hey, we all have our shortcomings. Mine is that I sometimes am mean to stupid people. Yours is that you're one of those people.

I suppose, that given your demonstrated inability to present cogent meaningful argument sin support of your position
My position is: deal with life. My argument? Ummm, well, you are. My argument is: "Hey, do you really want to wind up a bitter shell of a man like slwerner or Anakin?"

But, then again, I think that it is these two elements (that you seriously over-rely on) that tend to make you seem like a feminist, and perhaps a lesbian, rather than a typical man posting.
Depends on what you mean by "feminist". If you mean it in the sense of "giving women rights equal to those of men" then yes, I'm a feminist, of course. As for lesbian... do you really think that's an insult? You're sad... And at least lesbians know how to please a woman, and how to be pleased by one :) Maybe you should talk to them.

Oh, BTW, "Real Men" don't have to resort to trying to shame other men in order to advance their arguments.
Ah, yes, there it is again. There is nothing worse for you than "shaming". Well, guess what, you aren't the perfect little angel your mommy always told you you were. Yeah, damn straight I'm shaming you. You SHOULD be ashamed. You seem to have this attitude (that I described before) of "I'm perfect therefore anything that makes me feel that I'm less than that is wrong". I feel ashamed if I say or do something dumb. Shame is a natural
response to things. Sometimes we all have something to be ashamed of. But oh no! heaven forbid the great slwerner ever feel ashamed of something.

slwerner said...

Vysota - "But oh no! heaven forbid the great slwerner ever feel ashamed of something."

While I can appreciate that you've come to view me as "great"; what, pray tell, do I have to be ashamed of?

Every last thing you've insinuated about me has been wrong. You missed; you failed to invoke any feeling of shame on my part.

But, I suppose it was to be expected that you'd be wrong. Seems every thing you've posted has been wrong. In fact, I cannot recall one thing you've posted that was even close to correct. At times, it's seemed that you are rather detached from the realities of gender relations/laws. Or, perhaps, being deliberately obtuse.

So, let me ask - what exactly is your reason for posting here? I don't see you posting on any other forums. You don't seem to have any real agenda (aside from disrupting Anakin's blog). I doubt you actually believe in and support marriage - thus, the absolute lack of cogent arguments in support of it coming from you. If you do have some agenda, I’d challenge to you to present it. State your case, if you can; or, if you are unable, just attempt to ridicule others.

All you really seem capable of is hurling insults. I guess it is effective in shutting down any meaningful discussions. In that much, perhaps you've been successful.

So, what is it you have against Anakin, anyway? Do you know him personally? Is that why you have so much hatred for him?

Well, while I'm sure you'll be responding with some good invective towards me – it’s quite apparent that you could never do better than that – I’m afraid I’ve wasted to much time, and allowed myself to be drawn into your little game, with it’s disruptive effects on any discussions, for long enough. So, hit me with the best you’ve got, but know that I will no longer be responding.

I also feel I must offer my apologies to everyone else for my part in the derailment of the discussion of the topic Anakin has put forward. Hopefully, a rational exchange can be restarted. Wombatty was right on the previous thread: ”NovaSeeker was right - starve the troll”. If I wasn’t so pig-headed, I’d have taken his advice sooner.

vysota said...

what, pray tell, do I have to be ashamed of?
Being a coward. Being a misogynistic a-hole. Making some woman suffer being married to you. Lack of human empathy. You name it...

Every last thing you've insinuated about me has been wrong
You wish!

So, let me ask - what exactly is your reason for posting here?
I've already answered that. We all have our weaknesses. Mine is sometimes relaxing by poking fun at the feeble-mided. Yours is being feeble-minded. Etc.

I doubt you actually believe in and support marriage
Thank you for proving my point from the above paragraph.

So, what is it you have against Anakin, anyway? Do you know him personally? Is that why you have so much hatred for him?
I never said I hated him. And I don't. I pity him. There is a large difference. He seems to be a nice enough guy who is simply spectacularly socially inept and has let that affect his mindset. It's sad, and I wish he would work it out.

I’m afraid I’ve wasted to much time, and allowed myself to be drawn into your little game, with it’s disruptive effects on any discussions, for long enough
Ah, as usual. Instead of answering my questions, you run away. Like clockwork. Answering questions always seems to be the weak point of those who don't have any leg to stand on. They're memorized what they're supposed to say, but once you ask a question the answer to which has not been programmed, the software shuts down and the "while" loop returns "I'm leaving because I'm better".

If I wasn’t so pig-headed, I’d have taken his advice sooner
Actually, if you weren't so pig-headed your life would be better in general. And if I wasn't so cruel I would not pick on those with pig-like brains. But, alas, I can be mean. I'm sorry. Good luck, slwerner, I'm hoping no girls make you cry for the rest of the week. Go ye in peace. But keep in touch in case you grow a pair. :)

Anonymous said...

Anakin sees through the liberal bullshit that has become modern marriage.
Vysota knows that if he and those of his ilk ditch the system, the empire collapses and we'll be speaking Spanish in three generations (blacks, gays, liberals, feminists, immigrants, white trash etc. can't make the trains run on time).

Anonymous said...

"Because you can no longer simply kick your wife to the curb and find a younger upgrade? What exactly would you prefer to happen in a divorce? As soon as you're tired of your wife she's out on her ass with the clothes on her back? Yes, now divorces hurt both sides. In some cases they may ever favor women. So your response is "I'm not guaranteed to win, so I might as well give up now and not play at all?" Sure, but encouraging others to follow your stellar example is ridiculous." -vysota

No man would have written that. Only a woman doing wymins studies would.

Anonymous said...

"Any religious guy that wants to be happily married should learn some form of Biblically sound consergame."

Good to hear you say that, tho I'd agree with MM that "much of what's being called game would be more accurately called interpersonal skills, relationship advice, etc. "Game" really is an overcorrection, an overreaction to having found to be lacking those skills.

"If these guys really believe that Suzy Cupcake will turn on the them the very second they show any signs of weakness, lack of dominance, lack of confidence, lack of status, or overall "Betatude," then I've gotta' ask, "Cui bono, compadres?"

These "Suzy Cupcakes" are female volatiles who really should be with male volatiles. Volatility isn't something that can be faked just to attract a volatile person of the opposite sex, and even if it could be, as you ask, what's the point in that? Fortunately, volatiles are in the minority, even if they do seem to be overrepresented among the attractive (high sociosexuality?) of both sexes.

Keeping things fresh and interesting is a reality for all relationships, but for the most part, overcorrective "game" gimmicks are not required and may even be self-defeating. There is such a thing as working too hard at a relationship.

Anonymous said...

Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!