"And the Obsidian wants to paint it all black...as he is justified."
"Seducers draw you in by the focused, individualized attention they pay to you. Anti-Seducers are the opposite: insecure, self-absorbed, and unable to grasp the psychology of another person, they literally repel. Anti-Seducers have no self-awareness, and never realize when they are pestering, imposing, talking too much. They lack the subtlety to create the promise of pleasure that seduction requires. Root out anti-seductive qualities in yourself, and recognize them in others-there is no pleasure or profit in dealing with the Anti-Seducer."
- Robert Greene, The Art of Seduction, pp. 131
Like all things in life - good/bad, light/dark, in/out, good/evil, the very nature of Seduction has its polar opposite: Anti-Seduction. In his masterful work, The Art of Seduction, Robert Greene devotes an entire chapter to the topic and gives several case examples drawn both from history and literature, as what NOT to do if your goal is to be an effective seducer. In the Seduction community out of which Game springs, Greene's tome is considered required reading, and after getting word about it myself, I ordered it along with all the other books I recently recommended to The Realest Leo and others. When TAOS finally arrived, I dove right in, knocking off the entire book in a weekend, complete with an old-school black and white composition book full of my own notes while reading along (one of my pet peeves is writing in books that I've bought) - a kind of concordance, if you will - and which acted as my "quick study guide" for I had included in the same book insights gleaned from my reading of other books on the list. I honestly do not think it is possible to really have a strong, intimate grasp of Game itself, WITHOUT reading Greene's work; it fleshes out what Mystery writes in his manual on the matter, and deepens Style's and Iceberg Slim's memoirs, by giving a panoramic historical view of Seduction and the role it has played and continues to play, in our world, accross cultures and climes.
There is something about the very nature of Game itself, that brings out the Anti-Seducers of the world; discuss seduction in any context, and here they come, armed to the teeth with all manner of arguments and reasons as to why "seduction is whacked". Greene gives quite a number of types and forms the Anti-Seducer can come in, but for purposes of today's discussion, two in particular come readily to mind. We'll get to them shortly; but first, we have to ask, exactly what's the Anti-Seducer's beef? Why are they, indeed, Anti-Seducers?
Greene gives the answer, as follows:
"Anti-Seducers come in many shapes and kinds, but almost all of them share a single attribute, the source of their repellence: insecurity. We are all insecure, and we suffer for it. Yet we are able to surmount these feelings at times; a seductive engagement can bring us out of our usual self-absorption, and to the degree that we seduce or are seduced, we feel charged and confident. Anti-Seducers, however, are insecure to such a degree that they cannot be drawn into the seductive process. Their needs, their anxieties, their self-consciousness close them off."
To put it bluntly, the Manosphere is brimming over with Anti-Seducers - Men who are openly hostile to Game, and those who are good with it and with those they practice it on - Women. One need not search far and wide in the Manosphere community before they are regaled with laments and complaints big and small, about how our very way of life is being demeaned, even destroyed, by those who, by dint of Nature's selection or by careful study and diligent practice, have become good seducers, and the unbridled passions of the "Weaker Sex" who crave their attentions. Day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, a reader is bombarded with rants and harangues, laments and complaints, bitterly spat out onto the computer screen, by Men who claim to have taken the moral high ground, with little to show for it. And from that lofty perch, they engage in a neverending sermon, damning all who seek romance or erotic delights to Hell.
The Manosphere's Anti-Seducers - and by now I need not give any names, for you know who they are - come wrapped in the cloak of righteousness. But the sheer ferocity and marathon-like duration of their arguments, the volume and vitriol with which their grievances are put forth and so on, actually belies any pretensions toward piety or grave concern for "society", Western civilization", "traditional American values" and the like. One gets the distinct sense that something else is at work in these gentlemen's daily rants, something lurking just below the surface that is really driving it all. And that thing, is insecurity. Insecurity about their place in the world. Insecurity about how they will or won't relate to others. And insecurity about developing a different skillset with which to navigate the Brave New World in which we find ourselves.
A particularly telling - and to be frank disheartening - example of this was an article I wrote for the Men's online magazine The Spearhead, last Summer; that article was one of the most commented in the history of said magazine, unleashing an Id Monster torrent of some 500-plus comments calling for my head on a pike, for merely suggesting that Men groom themselves and worse, for suggesting that it was irrational for so many Men who had benefitted so much from our society and way of life, to be so bitter at the world in general and Women in particular. I knew that there some stone-cold hitters over at The Spearhead, but the whole thing took me by surprise, largely because I think what I wrote was fairly benign; as it turned out, I had hit an exceptionally raw nerve - and the commentariat of The Spearhead was keen to let me know it.
I have written about some of the very real dangers that the Manosphere faces, which has gotten so bad that even my strongest detractors have seen the light and have given voice to the same concerns. The Anti-Seducers of the Manosphere has a destructive bent that is so pervasive, that they run the very real risk of destroying the "movement" itself. They cannot, indeed, do not wish, to expand their influence with which to draw others to their cause; they wish to play to their ever-shrinking "base", their arguments and rhetoric filled with bellicose zeal, as they rage against what they see as a Raw Deal they have been handed by society at large, all the while not understanding that they turn as many, if not more, people off by their harangues, as they inspire to follow their cause. Moreover, they give their mortal self-appointed enemies - the Feminists - an armory of smoking guns with which to further malign, marginalize and mock the whole of the Manosphere; dismissed as misogynistic, homoerotic, loser fanboys of varied and sundried Cults of Cyber-Personality. And yet, the band, plays on.
This is the way of the Anti-Seducer, and it would do all those who read these and other words I have written well to avoid, or at the very least, have as little contact with them as humanly possible; for they can and will take away your ability to relate not only to Women, but to the wider world in which you must live and operate. They have no desire to bend and adapt to their surroundings; indeed, their aim is to bend everyone else to their own visions of the way things ought to be. Nor is this impulse or type, anything new; Greene refers to these types of Anti-Seducers as "The Moralizer":
"Seduction is a game, and should be undertaken with a light heart. All is fair in love and seduction; morality never enters the picture. The character of the Moralizer, however, is rigid. These are people who follow fixed ideas and try to make you bend to their standards. They want to change you, to make you a better person, so they endlessly criticize and judge - that is their pleasure in life. In truth, their moral ideas stem from their own unhappiness, and mask their desire to dominate those around them. Their inability to adapt and to enjoy makes them easy to recognize; their mental rigidity may also be accompanied by a physical stiffness. It is hard not to take their criticisms personally so it is better to avoid their presence and their poisoned comments."
Sound familiar, anyone? Tell the truth and shame the devil, now.
But that's just one type of Anti-Seducer that we find in the Manosphere, and to be frank, The Moralizer is by far the most pernicious of the two. The second type is what Greene refers to as The Bumbler:
"Bumblers are self-conscious, and their self-consciousness heightens your own. At first you may think they are thinking about you, and so much so that it makes them awkward. In fact they are only thinking of themselves - worrying about how they look, or about the consequences for them of their attempt to seduce you. Their worry is usually contagious: soon you are worrying too, about yourself. Bumblers rarely reach the final stages of a seduction, but if they get that far, they bungle that, too. In seduction, they key weapon is boldness, refusing the target time to stop and think. Bumblers have no sense of timing. You might find it amusing to try to train or educate them, but if they are still Bumblers past a certain age, the case is probably hopeless - they are incapable of getting outside themselves."
Again, I ask all those reading along, right now - does any of the above, sound familiar to you? Know anyone like this, online in the Manosphere, elsewhere on the Internet, or off?
I put it that way because while the Manosphere is indeed a haven for Anti-Seducers of the Moralizing and Bumbling types, it is by no means the only place where we find such folk. Indeed, recent events in my own life have confirmed for me the existence of female Anti-Seducers as well, and strangely enough, they too are a curious and odd mixture of the Moralizing and Bumbling types.
Some of you may recall well the "war" between Roissy and Lady Raine last year, that resulted in the former being outed by the latter to the world, in a bid to destroy him for humilating the latter via posting various pictures from her MySpace page and elsewhere, along with photos of her son and adding let us say, "colorful" commentary. As should come as any surprise to anyone who is familiar with the very name "Roissy", he had a small but very vocal group of dissed Women who took extreme issue with what he wrote, and in many cases, rightly so in my opinion; one among them in particular, one Ms. Denise Romano, joined in Lady Raine's efforts to have Roissy removed from the Internet. Their plan ultimately failed, but they were successful in inflicting a good degree of damage; to this day, rumors persist that Roissy had lost his job behind the whole affair, and while his blog was taken down, he was more or less forced to purge large swaths of it that were not only viewed to be objectionable by the tag team of Raine and Romano, but was also potentially illegal and could have held him liable for criminal charges.
But it didn't stop there for these two. High on their "victory" against Roissy, Raine and Romano sought to take on the whole of the Seduction community itself - most of whom had little to no awareness of Roissy at all - for their supposedly inherently misogynistic views and by-design dishonest tactics. They weren't so successful in this endeavor, despite repeated attempts to smear certain voices of the community. But from time to time, remnants of their "team" rear their heads every now and again, lobbing a firebomb of vitriol of their own, usually at their favorite targets, being Roissy or another well known name in these parts, RooshV.
Well, as I said, recently, I had the chance to see a textbook case of Anti-Seduction leap right out in front of me, when a Woman who goes by the name of Maria - a frequent commenter and supporter of Lady Raine and Denise Romano - called a much lesser (and quite benign in my view) known name in the community a liar based on the intricacies of Google searches, despite the fact that virtually all of the Women on the comments thread of the post she took issue with, didn't seem to have much of problem with what Athol Kay said. She asked me directly as to whether "Game-bloggers lie to support their theses", when I thought we were having a discussion about what I actually had written. As it turned out, this Woman patently refuses to debate me on the merits of Game, instead choosing to find even the most tangential of things with which to impugn Game itself, and anyone who speaks favorably of it or some of its core tenets. She is very much a Moralizer in the form that Greene discusses in his book, and I find it particularly interesting that in this, she has a heck of a lot more in common with the "MRAs/PUAs" she and others of her ilk like to routinely excoriate than she may realize or admit. Like the old saying goes, Misery loves company of its own kind.
Greene gives an example of the Moralizing Anti-Seducer in action, in the form of British Prime Minister William Gladstone:
"In 1868, Queen Victoria of England hosted her first private meeting with the country's new prime minister, William Gladstone. She had met him before, and knew his reputation as a moral absolutist, but this was to be a ceremony, an exchange of pleasantries. Gladstone, however, had no patience for such things. at that first meeting he explained to the queen his theory of royalty: the queen, he believed, had to play an exemplary role in England - a role she had lately failed to live up to, for she was overly private."
Imagine that - this guy is going to lecture the Queen on how to conduct herself?!? But wait, it gets better:
"As the head of the Liber Party, Gladstone had a nemesis, Benjamin Disraeli, the head of the Conservative Party. He considered Disraeli amoral, a devilish Jew. at one session in Parliament, Gladstone tore into his rival, scoring point after point as he described where his opponent's policies would lead. Growing angry as he spoke (as usually happened when he talked of Disraeli), he pounded the speaker's table with such force that pens and papers went flying. Through all of this, Disraeli seemed half-asleep. When Gladstone had finished, he opened his eyes, rose to his feet, and calmly walked up to the table. "The right honorable gentleman". he said, "has spoken with much passion, much eloquence, and much - ahem - violence." Then, after a drawn out pause, he continued, "But the damage can be repaired"-and he proceeded to gather up everything that had fallen from the table and put them back in place. The speech that followed was all the more masterful for its calm and ironic contrast to Gladstone's. The members of Parliament were spellbound, and all them agreed he had won the day.
If Disraeli was the consummate social seducer and charmer, Gladstone was the Anti-Seducer. Of course he had supporters - he twice defeated Disraeli in a general election. But he found it hard to broaden his appeal beyond the circle of believers. Women in particular found him insufferable. Of course they had no vote at the time, so they were little political liabilty; but Gladstone had no patience for a feminine point of view. A woman, he felt, had to learn to see things as a man did, and it was purpose in life to educate those he felt were irrational or abandoned by God.
It did not take long for Gladstone to wear on anyone's nerves. That is the nature of people who are convinced of some truth, but have no patience for a different perspective or for dealing with someone else's psychology. These types are bullies, and in the short term they often get their way, particularly among the less aggressive. But they stir up a lot of resentment and unspoken antipathy, which eventually trips them up. People see through their righteous moral stance, which is most often a cover for a power play - morality is a form of power. A seducer never seeks to persuade directly, never parades his or her morality, never lectures or imposes. Everything is subtle, psychological and indirect."
I rest my case.
Greene gives a detailed example of what the Bumbling type of Anti-Seducer looks like, and I strongly urge you to look it up so you can see for yourselves how they roll; you should be able to instantly recognize the type through both the Manosphere and as well, among Feminists - like Ms. Romano, although she too has a good dash of the Moralizer in her makeup, as does the Femosphere itself. Again, like, attracts like.
Beware the Haters of the Game, people. They are here to steal your joy in this life.
Now adjourn your asses...