"And the Obsidian wants to paint it all black...as he is justified."
Although I've written a similar piece about this on my previous blog, I thought it would be a good time to extend and revise my remarks in light of a recent conversation I had with bloggerettte Alte:
ALTE: Editor: Game is economics, O. Any woman who understands Game will have at least a basic understanding of market-dynamics. Like Susan Walsh.
OBSIDIAN: True dat, Alte – but here’s the trick: how many Women has a “basic understanding of market-dynamics” – let alone Game? By all accounts, its the exact opposite – the vast majority of Women out there understand neither, LOL
Btw Alte, just curious: if I may ask, what specific materials on Game have you read? Any books, or has your learning been more confined to online sources, and if so, what are they? In your opinion, what have you found most helpful, and which have you found lest helpful, and why? Thanks!
A: Editor: Most of it is from my own head, actually. I’ve read Roissy, but that’s about it. And Aristotle and the Bible, of course.
O: Hi Alte,
You want to consider getting ahold of, if nothing else, The Game, The Mystery Method, and The Art of Seduction. There are other required reading materials in the Gamesphere, but those three are more or less considered to be must-reads, the first principles of Game study, if you will. Ms. Walsh has read The Game, at my urging, LOL.
A: Editor: I flipped through The Game in a bookstore once, but I didn’t see anything “new” in it.
O: Of course you’re not going to see anything “new” in it; seduction is as old as Humanity itself, that’s the point Greene makes in his Art of Seduction, LOL. The point is to be fully conversant on the topic of Game, and not to be steeped in the quasi-political hobby horses and deeply slanted takes on Game by one blogger in particular, and with all due respect Alte, this is what I have found to invariably be the case with far too many female readers and bloggers online; their entire worldview insofar as Game goes is shaped by Roissy, who often they deeply disagree with, and they pickup the ball and run with it, thinking that they’ve gotten all they need to know. This is what me and Ms. Walsh deeply disagreed with when we first met and I was able to make the case that she really needed to actually study up on the matter from actual and widely recognized reputable sources on Game, instead of merely taking one guy’s slant on it as definitive. The Game is worth reading. Just like the Bible – something else that is hardly new – is.
A: Editor: For me, I just think of what I find hot, and assume that’s Game. Until now, I’ve been correct. But I think most women aren’t as cognizant of their own desires, as I am. Most men I meet aren’t either, for that matter. Most people aren’t that introspective, actually.
The above sentiment expressed by Alte is I've found, in no way unique among the Women who in one way or another come to find out about Game; indeed, her views are in curious lockstep with virtually all the Women I've seen discuss the matter online - Jamila, Lady Raine, Amanda Marcotte and Megan McArdle are just a precious few of the Women I've seen discuss at varying degrees, Game, and I continue to be astounded by the sheer ignorance AND arrogance all of them have shown in their patent refusal to actually read up on the topic on one hand, and their comfort with discussing it on the other - almost always in dismissive and derogative tones, of course.
For example, going back to Alte above, she recently attempted to suggest that the principle of Peacock Theory applies equally to Men and Women, and she couldn't be more wrong. Imagine my doing a hackjob of the Bible, or more to the point as she's a true believer, the Catholic Church? Or, since she brought it up initially, Economics - something of which I have a rudimentary layman's understanding of, at best? I mean, would she be cool with my simply saying, after being asked by her on what basis do I make my remarks, that I flipped through the Bible but didn't find anything new in it, or that I had flipped through the works of Keynes or Friedman but didn't find anything new in them? Who would be cool with such a view coming from anyone who actually writes at considerable length on such matters?
Do you feel me?
There is only one exception to the rule that I know personally, and that's Susan Walsh, founder of the excellent blog Hooking Up Smart - and even she had to be brought into the light, so to speak, LOL - as a result of my direct interaction with her and my pointing out to her just how little she actually knew about the topic. What was deeply ironic in that situation was that her own son had the two books I constantly mention as definitive source materials on the matter - The Game, by Neil "Style" Strauss; and The Mystery Method, by Eric "Mystery" Markovic - and yet up until the time of our first meeting, about roughly a year ago, she had never thought to read them. She has since done so, and has a very good working understanding of what Game is all about - perhaps she felt the need to get up to speed, given her growing importance in the blogging community, and if that is indeed the case, rightly so. Ms. Walsh is becoming a recognized voice on the matters of sex and relationships among the middle and upper middle class college set, and while she started out with a particular focus on Women her own daughter's age, she has come to find out that it was important to get a sense what the fellas of the same class and age cohort were up to and why as well.
But other than that, I simply do not know any other Woman, on the Internet or not, blogger, commenter or not, who has actually taken the time to read the aforementioned books. At least Alte's "flipped through The Game" - I've known Women who vehemently refuse to read it or the Mystery Method at all, often trying to discredit the authors in some way in the process. This has been the case with Lady Raine, and more recently, in an exchange I had with a Sista commenter over at Very Smart Brothas, after I made the case that "real life "Hitch" Paul Carrick Brunson, while he may indeed be a "matchmaker" is NOT in any way, an authority on Game:
CHEEKIE: Mystery? IS A TOOL. I am still flabbergasted at how his methods actually work…especially considering that a ton of women openly mock him and his “pickup artist” techniques.
I can tell you, firsthand, that they do indeed work. Have you ever read the Mystery Method? Do you disagree with what I said about Mr. Brunson and why? I say Mystery is much closer to being the real life Hitch than Brunson by a country mile, and am prepared to layout, in detail, why.
what say you?
C: Well of course Brunson can’t be compared (in terms of numbers) since Mystery had an entire show dedicated to him on a basic cable network. I’ve read a bit about him and I think his techniques are way too calculated and unnatural and a LOT of women notice this. I mean, these are the people his students are trying to impress, right?
Brunson provides guidelines…Mystery provides step-by-step techniques that are far too unrealistic to me and truly only work on the socially awkward cats that love him.
I asked you if you had read The Mystery Method – the actual book – not whether you’ve read a bit of/about Mystery somewhere online. I want to probe just how much you actually know of Mystery’s system of Game before we go any further. What he talks about, works, end of. That an undetermined number of gals screech about him and/or his system only proves the efficacy of his work – you even admitted as much in your comments above.
TAMARA RASBERRY: on what are you basing your assumption that PCB is “geared towards the ladies?” his business is not just what we see on twitter. he is a matchmaker and relationship/life coach who has private clients. we have no way of knowing the gender ratio of his clientele.
I am basing my comments on that which we can objectively observe about Mr. Brunson. On that basis, I maintain what I said: his business is geared more towards Women than Men. I used as a point of comparison Mystery, or Neil Style Strauss – they are definitely geard toward guys. I’m just saying.
As you can see, I never got any further responses.
Shortly after the launch of my original blog, I wrote about why I thought so many Women, who while at the same time writing on Game, were so woefully ignorant of it, and it was later posted on The Spearhead - but now that I've had more time to reflect on things since then, and in that I've had more interaction with Women online (and in real life) on these matters, I would like to offer the following observation:
A major reason why so many Women online tend to take the view of Game that they do, is due directly or indirectly to one source - Roissy. He has become in many ways, the default setting as to what Game is, and many Women either have read him or have heard of him, and based on his personal views and personal take on Game, decide that that is what Game actually is.
Note above how Alte responds to my questions - in a nutshell, the whole of her understanding on the matter emanates from Roissy. The same is true of Jamila, Lady Raine and Denise Romano, and yup, even Susan Walsh - although in the latter case I was able to convince her to take her "studies" just a weebit deeper than the views of one blogger on the Internet. I'm glad she did, because she recently wrote what I consider to be the best summary of Roissy out there on the web to date, and can stand alone as a seperate post unto itself - something that I've been giving some thought to and may do that in due course.
And let me make something very clear here: in no way am I suggesting that Women have to agree with or like Game; just that they know what they are actually talking about. I mean, exactly what IS Game? What IS Peacock Theory, and why does it matter? What IS the Seven Hour Rule, and why does it work? What IS a "set"? How does one "merge" sets? Why are the more attractive Women, rarely out and about alone? Just basic things like this that every student or practitioner of Game knows, one could wager a dollar to a donut the aforementioned Women couldn't answer if their lives depended on it - yet, they feel oh so confident to discuss Game. I mean really, if ever there was a case to be made about the inability of Women to dispassionately glean information about a matter before commenting on it, this would be it.
At any rate, I've tried in my own way, to clarify matters with regard to Game, to give my readers some sense of what it's all about and what the views are of its seminal writers and thinkers, which I consider myself to be much more in line with than Roissy, to tell you the truth. While in no way do I consider myself to be an authority on the matter, I think it's also fair to say that I know enough to get the job done, which is a lot more than I can say of those who are among Game's biggest detractors. t's just sad that those who put themselves out to either comment on the matter, or worse deem themselves fit to write on the matter at considerable length, in truth know so very little about the actual subject.
Now adjourn your ignorant asses...