Posts
Novaseeker writes of the danger taking the alpha-beta paradigm a bridge too far:
Some of the young men who have been exposed to PUA ideas seem to have convinced themselves that no women are capable of loving anyone but an extreme “alpha” male, and that therefore any system which pairs “beta” males together with women is worthless – because they're convinced that no women will ever love, want, or be happy with any beta male, and that the sex and love would be fake, false and worthless. It follows from this perspective that any “beta” male who does not have “Game” is far better off with porn and masturbation than he is with women, whom, it is assumed, are simply naturally incapable of loving a man like him. This is an unfortunate example of what happens when certain general trends are absolutized and calcified into an unrealistically hardened model.
While there is a grain of truth that in a more “open” system, such as the one we have today, women tend to “drift up” towards the top men, in no way is this absolute, fixed, or inevitable. Not all women are slutting their way through their 20s hopping from one alpha bed to the next – but the ones who are doing that are certainly overrepresented in the bar and club scene. Outside that scene, there are plenty of women who only sleep with men in relationships, and plenty who have serial relationships with “beta” men, and end up happily married to one. Women are not monolithic, once you get outside certain settings where they tend to be more similar to each other. Yes, women tend to prefer men who are masculine rather than men who are passive doormats, but this in no way means that all women are entering short term relationships with “alpha” men.
It deeply concerns me that the worldview, and in particular the view of women in general, of some of these young men is being formed based on a set of rules and assumptions that apply to the kind of young women who hang out in bars and clubs, and the priorities and assumptions of these women. PUA's assumptions are as good as it goes for that setting, where the goal is simply getting laid. They are effective in that kind of effort. They are not very good for projecting out to society as a whole in a general, hardened way.
10 comments:
Yep, I completely agree. You'll note that most PUAs operate in large cities, in a bar-and-club scene, where sexual selection is most frenetic and girls are already somewhat self-selected. As a result the "game" they advocate is on the aggressive end of the scale. In other settings, however, that level of aggression will be counterproductive, and that view of women will be inaccurate. (There ARE women with traditional sexual mores, though they are not likely to be responsive to one-night-stand game.)
Now the basic principles of game still apply; a bit of rougish charm is still helpful. But applying game outside the bar/club setting requires flexibility and a sense of proportion, something the egotistic PUA gurus will be slow to recognize and provide.
I followed the link (and a couple of subsequent links), and one thing that came up somewhere is this idea that women are only going to be happy in the long-term if they marry someone of equal or higher value.
Of course, if I remember correctly, according to Roissy et al. there's also a phenomenon of 'successful' (in the usual sense of that word; not that I agree with that usage), professional women having relationships with less 'successful' men who are nonetheless attractive because of their 'game'.
I bring this up because I'm trying to make sense of what I see on a day-to-day basis. I'm in medical school. By far the majority of women in my class who are in relationships are in relationships with less 'successful' men. How can this be? One might suggest that these boyfriends/husbands all have great 'game', but the thing is I've met them and - they don't.
In other words, my daily experience contradicts the idea that 'successful' women today will still only consider men 'higher' than themselves for relationship material.
I guess what I'm thinking, among other things, is that I'm very curious to see how these marriages pan out over the next couple of decades.
@Kirt33, here's a Trumwill post that might interest you, from the perspective of an IT worker who married a (family practice, I think) physician: http://hitcoffee.net/index.php/file/1348
As a premed myself I am pretty interested in your observations of relationships in medical school. Do you find that many of your cohorts import their college relationships (in which case current status may not reflect their initial relative statuses)? I find it hard to believe that the med school curriculum allows time for many time-consuming nights in bars, etc.
@PeterW:
@Kirt33, here's a Trumwill post that might interest youWow, it's hard to think of something that could be more relevant (and I happen to agree with a lot of it)! Thanks for sharing.
Do you find that many of your cohorts import their college relationships (in which case current status may not reflect their initial relative statuses)?Well, great point about initial statuses (which is another reason to watch how those relationships pan out over the coming years), and to answer the first part of your question: yes, indeed, off the top of my head I'd say almost all of my classmates that are in serious relationships imported them from previous life (I'm in 2nd year FWIW). In fact I'm trying to think which of my classmates in serious relationships didn't import them, and I can only think of: me (and I met mine online), and a couple of my classmates who are now dating each other.
I find it hard to believe that the med school curriculum allows time for many time-consuming nights in bars, etc.You might be surprised.
You might be surprised.
(Which is not to say that it's easy to meet people. That's why I went online: I felt fairly desperate to meet someone before third year hospital rotations begin. It worked, too. :) )
Looks like PeterW beat me to my own plug!
Anyhow, I couldn't agree more with Novaseeker. On this issue, at least (I strongly suspect we disagree on many others). I thank my lucky stars that I didn't have access to a lot of the sort of stuff going around the Internet or I would have added a whole new bag of paranoia to the batch of neurotic soup I made in my late teenage years.
I think that guys like DA who see game as an excuse to give up are missing the point altogether. The correct response is to see it as a set of tools you can use to improve your interactions with women.
At its heart, game is about rejecting the feminizing influence of modern culture and becoming the kind of man women desire. The rest is just a bunch of parlor tricks you use to fake it until you master internal game. As such, it's a boon not only to men, but also to women, who benefit from wider availability of desirable men.
The big problem with Nova's article is that game does apply to almost all women, not just the one's in the bars.
Second, game applies in long term relationships too.
What is true is that:
a) not all women sleep around
b) not all women will cheat
c) some women, while they would prefer a long term relationship with an alpha, still prefer a long term relationship with a beta to a fling with an alpha
As for where to find such women, see my post here.
- Thursday
The big problem with Nova's article is that game does apply to almost all womenI think it makes more sense if you stop calling it 'game' and simply call it 'the way women are'.
game = behaviours that are attractive to women
- Thursday
Post a Comment