Friday, May 01, 2009

Game as anti-PC, or egalitarian wishfulness?

++Addition++In the comments, Roissy reviews some of the fundamentals of game, and also takes note in a post about a super beta prostrate. I am uncomfortable making assertions without empirical backing, but I don't really disagree with him. He misreads in saying that I think adopting game only helps the rich get richer--to the contrary, it helps the poor more, because it gives them a little bling to flash around when they'd otherwise have nothing, while the rich are already operating closer to game's optimum and consequently are closer to the point of diminishing returns. Confidence, assertiveness, smooth operating, creating sexual tension verbally and non-verbally, and everything else involved in game, ceteris paribus, raise a man's desirability. Roissy gives an estimate of 1-3 points worth. That sounds right, the gain depending on one's level of confidence to begin with.

To the extent that I disagree with him, it's in not seeing how he squares this with his ranking of game as being of greater importance than physical attractiveness, or in charging that studies like the one mentioned are of little value because they judge responses to questions, not actual behavior--if the participants were being disingenuous, wouldn't we expect them to place dependability, compatibility, intelligence, status, etc above looks, as it this last one is socially viewed as the most shallow of attributes to be taken in by? But girls still say physical attractiveness trumps everything else (as Agnostic points out, the advantage probably lessens as women age, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is still at or near the top before menopause).

I am not sure how the other pointers like dressing well and lifting for definition are 'contentious'. Are there a meaningful number of men who do not believe these things help? My experience has been that those who deny they do are slobbish or lazy, and try to rationalize this by claiming that cleaning and toning up makes no difference, so why bother?

There is obviously a great deal of substance in what Roissy writes. He knows the scene infinitely better than I do--when my girl teased me about not "kicking it" on weekends, after expressing surprise that illiterates are able to get college scholarships and pointing out that playing footy is kicking it, I asked if she'd rather me go to Orlando's instead (a nite club). In disgust, an "Eww, no!" Not a world my interests come from. Parenthetically, if readers are under the assumption that I'm a frustrated hater, I'd ask a couple of guys who've seen pictures of my latest to rate her in the comments (be honest, I won't be pissed if it's too low because you're purblind)--not to have a sizing contest under an internet pseudonym, but because unfortunately those who criticize anything libertine are at risk of being dismissed without consideration as bitter killjoys.

Further, Roissy edifies in anonymity and without any monetary recompense. I did not at all mean to insinuate that he is snake oil salesman, just my feeling that many guys are selling themselves short in believing rehearsing various lines will turn them into Casanovas, quixotically refusing to know themselves.

What's the problem with giving them too much hope? Unattainably high expectations mean more time striving for something that will never come, with unrealistically high standards that aren't going to be met. So guys who expect too much out of game delay going after what they are able to get--and there is probably a an IQ floor of around 11o for those who take an intellectual interest in it. I want smarties to get to work as soon as possible!

More generally, it strikes me as a socially pathological lifestyle. Black guys have the most game. They consistently outscore other groups in perceptions of self-confidence, have higher levels of assertiveness and higher levels of testosterone (which is presumably correlated to most 'alpha' qualities). They have more sexual partners, are more likely to cheat, and are far less likely to stay with the mother of their children than other men are--all signs of the greatest desire to hit the g-spot and move on. Is this worthy of celebration or emulation? Should I be happy that a sharp, healthy, affluent, perspicacious, good-looking stud like Roissy is working to put more notches into his belt instead of working to penetrate more of his wife's eggs? That, with all his influence, he ridicules the (putative lack of) virility of men who push strollers when, excepting Israel and the US (which is right on the cusp, with whites and Asians below it), every Western nation on the planet has a total fertility rate below replacement?


Last month, Michael Blowhard wrote on game as a revolt against political correctness:
To take it a step further: What if what Game represents is the beginnings of a mass, populist revolt against PC? If so, then that's really something major, given what PC is and how long it's been around.
If that's the case, it's heartening, but it seems more of a libertarian reassertion of virility than a rebuke of the blank slatism that underlies political correctness. The objective study of what exactly qualifies as game and its effectiveness is elusive, so I am just trying to speculate logically. In the sense that the ability to get women to spread for you is celebrated, it is a rejection of the feminist desire for you to treat all women like your self-sufficient, independent sister. But the presumption that game is an acquirable technique mastered with sufficient study and practice, as if reading Roissy will make you into a leisure suit Larry, strikes me as wishful egalitarian thinking.

Women rate physical appearance as the most important attribute in determining what attracts them to men. A short, balding, unathletic, homely goofball is at a huge disadvantage against a Johnny Depp clone. Having game will be better for Larry than not having it, but as long as Depp isn't agoraphobic or psychologically unstable, the girls are going to flock to him at Larry's expense. Memorizing the right pick up lines isn't going to change that. Assuming Roissy is genuine, I'll bet the house that in appearance he resembles Depp more than Larry.

Going in the other direction, this is obvious. Trying to pull the wool over the eyes of most men is futile*--our level of physical attraction is evident and quite stable within the first couple of minutes (or seconds), barring something gross or unsettling emerging down the road.

That's not too like a comparison, of course. There is more hope for fat and ugly men than there is for fugly women--men's anchors are set in deeper water. But there is only so much we can do to raise our value in the eyes of the other sex. Think of someone like Elliot Spitzer, who despite having money, power, and presumably being an 'alpha', had to illegally pay for sex with a woman who some guys of less elevated status and more mild personalities would just be settling for.

* I am not considering artificial bodily enhancements like enlargements that improve the objective physical attractiveness of women.


Soul Searcher said...

Buss (2007) claims that women rate men's physical attractiveness as primary only when they are pursuing a short-term mating strategy. Wealth and emotions become more primary when they are looking to settle down.

Audacious Epigone said...


I guess it depends on which study you look at. The one HS and Bobvis report on finds that physical attractiveness is the most influential attribute of desirability in a mate even for long-term relationships.

Anonymous said...

I've always maintained that Game is mostly useful to men who don't need it in the first place. To use it with any degree of skill a man has to be witty and clever with words, and a man with those abilities usually won't have much trouble getting women. Introverted nerds are the men who most need some help with women, unfortunately they're also the sort of men who'd be most likely to make a complete mess out of attempting Game.

I also suspect that Game works best when the woman already has some interest in the man using it.


Jokah Macpherson said...

If you google image search "Roissy" there is an alleged picture of him that comes up. I don't know if it's the real deal but it looks enough like the drawing on his blog to be plausibly genuine. Judge for yourself.

I think there's something to game and that many men would do well to read about it but like you say, it's not a magic silver bullet - not even close. The fact that so much rides on the delivery of your flirtation relative to what you actually say points to it being more of an innate characteristic of your personality rather than a learned skill like keyboarding or bicycling.

I am finding as I get older that even some very attractive girls are actually quite shy, and rather than trying to jump through nonexistent hoops your best bet is to go with, "Hi, I'm xxxx," and to proceed mostly the same as any other casual conversation.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

I am finding as I get older that even some very attractive girls are actually quite shy, and rather than trying to jump through nonexistent hoops your best bet is to go with, "Hi, I'm xxxx," and to proceed mostly the same as any other casual conversation.

I'm in my early 20's and I have no desire to try Game because I never had any patience for "mind games" with girls.

I just try casual conversation if I'm into a girl. If the conversation doesn't go anywhere then I move on, especially if I think the girl is high mainanence and demanding.

Also, I think Roissy exagerates how materialistic 20 something American girls are, perhaps because he's dating area is DC where there lots of hot but ambitious career climbers running around.

Anonymous said...

Jokah -

Roissy recently recently posted a picture of himself, taken at a book signing with Neil Strauss. Although he's blurred the face, enough is visible to make it pretty certain that it's the same person as in the Googled picture.


Anonymous said...

Right, Roissy is attractive. He also seems quite tall.

This is prolly why game works for him.

He always says it doesn't matter how you look, but neglects to mention that he's good looking and probably a very good conversationalist to boot.

The Undiscovered Jew said...

Right, Roissy is attractive. He also seems quite tall.

I'm not surprised he's tall. Roissy claims to have Dutch background and the Dutch are among the tallest people on earth.

Nick said...

I've no doubt that Game helps, but I think volume and the methodical approach matter as much, if not more than, the specific principles. Roissy and others often claim that the volume angle isn't true, but I flat out don't believe them when they say this. I find it impossible to believe that reading up on and creating a whole system for attracting women would not be accompanied by an increase in attempts. This is just like the "dark triad" stuff AE considered earlier. Maybe women do prefer these sorts, but there is no doubt that they're more obsessed with getting laid.

All that said, I don't use Game or try and pick up drunken women in bars, so I really don't know what I'm talking about. Also, women don't seem interested in me much, so I guess that's one in the Game column. (Especially since I'm a tall, handsome and witty genius. . .)

Nevertheless, I suspect that the major psychological insights of Game are largely true, particularly the female desire to be dominated, or, more precisely, to be with a dominant male, which is best proved by him dominating her. (Note how young women swoon for "Twilight" in spite of years of programming.) In a primitive society it seems certain that being associated with the strongest males best guarantees safety and health, and no way these impulses have disappeared, even if they aren't physically relevant anymore. And this is about as anti-PC a statement as you can imagine w/o consider the dreaded "R" word.

Anonymous said...

I'm one of those nerdy introverts who actually spent a year of my life in the Game subculture. Granted I did not attend any expensive workshops, but I did despite my introverted nature, go out to bars, clubs and cafe's and managed to approach random women repeatedly - I stopped counting once I had hit 100 approaches.

The things I discovered were that a) It was a numbers game, for every spark of interest you had to handle 10 brush offs.
b) It never got any easier and my skills never really improved.
c) The only women who were attracted to me, were those who would have been attracted to me without the game.

I did have some fun and have some fond memories, but after a year of watching myself and most others in the community fail to make any progress I gave it up as a fools mission.

Blode0322 said...

The "alpha vs. beta" axis applies well enough to apes, and it may work for early humans, but at this point it's out-of-date at best. Note that I'm not just criticizing the dichotomy, it's the whole axis that seems hopelessly wrong. Betas are supposed to meek, hard workers who toil in obscurity, hoping to be seen as a good enough provider to win the heart of a woman whom they would never, ever argue with. They take things too seriously and can't laugh at themselves. Alphas take and give jokes easily, setting people at ease with their natural leadership skills. While betas get used to being the victim, alphas never let themselves be victimized.

This is completely orthogonal to the main axis that separates males from one another today: how much the guy will use the privileged status of victimhood to get ahead. It's the really aggressive males who are constantly complaining they've been wronged, who upon losing a contest will claim their opponents had unfair advantages, etc.

I don't know anyone who approaches either classic alpha or classic beta behavior. I don't know any meek hardworking types who never complain and seek to create a small pool of respect by being loyal and dependable. I also don't know any natural leaders. Most of what is mistaken for natural leadership is just apathy - people who seems cheerful and confident but don't pay attention to detail just won't make it any more, not in any field I can think of.

My father, for example: he led a company (alpha), doesn't care about being criticized by women (alpha), never corrects or argues with women (beta), does not compete in any man-to-man contest (beta), works hard without claiming much credit (beat), never seems worried (alpha), etc. etc. He's not alpha or beta, he's old fashioned. The opposite of him - the couch potato who sees his whole life as a very very interesting tragedy, who relates better to vampires than people, who thinks loyalty is for dogs, who mocks himself constantly in a masochistic (not just self-deprecating) way, etc. - is not alpha or beta either, he's just The Neurotic Personality of Our Time personified.

We all have leftism to thank for shutting the door on any opportunity we have to have honor either as good alphas or as good betas. Failure is assured. It is reflected in the way young men dress today, it's called Pick Your Failure. Economic failure: dress like a homeless person. Moral failure: dress like a gangster. Style failure: dress like cool people did ten years ago. Or you can always just dress like a girl.

I am sure my opinion is tweaked based on being in an unusual circle of people, but that is the way I see things.

agnostic said...

The females in the study you link to were -- college students! Game matters more when you're trying to pick up women who are past that part of their mating career, roughly 25 and above. With college students or younger, the main driver is the "omg he's sooo cute" factor.

If you've ever read or watched stuff from Mystery, Neil Strauss, etc., you'll note that they advocate going after women who are no younger than 23. Mystery often uses the phrase "not *too* young" to justify this. And in the bars or clubs they go to, it's more like mid-late 20s typically.

Game is like SAT prep -- it won't change your fundamental value, but it will make you better at using that value to pass standardized tests. And the smarter ones can figure this stuff out more easily, just as the naturally better-looking, taller, more extraverted, socially adept, etc., will get the most out of Game.

agnostic said...

To finish up that thought, you're right to point out that much of the Game guru output is snake oil to either make money or enhance their reputation, and that they're playing on the bubble mindset of desperate losers --

"Dude, if I go on that VH1 show with Mystery, I won't be playing D&D every Saturday night anymore!"

Same with SAT prep -- most of it is a scam, and I should know since I've been tutoring it since I was in high school. Pays well, though. You can make some gains, but on average it's not much, and it's only if you're pretty sharp that you can grasp the ins and outs of the test.

E.g., learning some math formulas that you never did or are rusty on, learning more vocab words, etc. Tutoring will help this, but the smarties are the best at absorbing new information.

rob said...

I resemble Larry way more than Johnny Depp. But for the few months I practiced game, it certainly helped. OTOH I'm fairly sure I have a mental illness, or aspergers, so maybe I'm not a good case.

I'll just paste a comment I left at hit coffee.

There were a couple of people who could probably have slept with had I gone for it. The game experiment ended when a) I developed ‘one-itis’ for someone, and b) fell back into old habits.

To a huge extent, Game did for me what some people say the military does: teach you what you should have learned from your mother. Yes, I should have picked up the daily hygeine, eat real food, exercise, and sleep enough habits, etc. But for personal ‘issues’ never did. My fault, not mom’s, btw.

It was worthwhile for me. I learned important things. Now that I’m not a teenager, rejection doesn’t doesn’t hurt all that much. If I had been more outgoing, I would have learned that way earlier. I realized how intensely biological I am, that having some goals and hope greatly increases how effort I put into things.

Oooh, I also found out that my tastes in women are not what I thought. I think the socially maladroit (and pathologically introverted) decide what they’re interested at about 13 or so like everyone else. But without real-world feedback, we never adjust those interests. I didn’t realize how important smart was to me. Or how just a few aspects of someone’s personality could grind me down.

My pet theory on all “all women or men care about is…” When someone is unsucessful with the opposite sex because of one serious flaw, they tend to attribute all rejection or lack of interest to that flaw. So men who are low income, especially compared to their reference group, think women only car about money. Bald guys think women only want hair. Very shy men think women only want ‘alpha’ social dominance and outgoingness… Someone with a clubbed foot probably thinks the other sex only wants straight feet.

Some of what (generic) you think are mandatory absolute requirements may in fact only be plusses, and can be compensated for in other areas, or fixed. Because game encourages practice, it can get some people to try without being so concerned about outcomes. If one hasn’t dated for a long time, or ever, asking someone out tends to get built up to the point that they don’t try.

Audacious Epigone said...


I don't want to turn this thread or any other into a bragging contest about endowment, but that's my sense, too.

Jokah & Peter,

Thanks for that. So he is good-looking--tight face and mouth, tall, slender but athletic in appearance, good hair, symmetrical features. I am not the least bit surprised. The similarities with successful business magnates telling you how to become as rich as them with this free DVD on how to build your own business are obvious. This underscores the general point I'm trying to make--game helps like flashcards or running wind sprints increases your mathematical intelligence or foot speed.


Right. The liberal, careerist, feminist bent of DC puts him in a different biosphere than those in middle American suburbia.


I call it the Boomhauer strategy, a la King of the Hill.

Attributes that play into the level of physical attractiveness a man enjoys are certainly not PC. But it seems to me that they are the most relevant.


Interesting thoughts. Chivalry is an eclectic mix of alpha and beta qualities.

My biggest problem with the alpha/beta dichotomy (or continuum) is that it sounds a lot like conscientiousness to me. Few men willingly allow themselves to be dominated when they are in the position to keep it from happening. Conscientious people realize when they are able to successfully assert themselves as able leaders, and when they must subjugate themselves.


Mid-twenties and beyond? Why would I waste my time with that :) I wonder if there is a similar quantification for older women. It would be interesting to see how priorities shift over time.


But does game help because it is more effective than acting naturally, or simply because you were suddenly chasing a lot more than you had been in the past?

I should disclose, too, that my natural inclinations in interacting with girls are similar to what Roissy proscribes but I'm not convinced it does much more than signal perceived interest to them.

FeministX said...

Game exists. We've all seen it- a guy who isn't especially good looking or rich or anything yet manages to attract a lot of women. But I think this is mainly a genetic personality trait that cannot be mastered though it probably can be learned to some superficial extent.

Personally, I do not attract more women when I put on the alpha airs, but I attract more devoted ones. That just sort of follows logically- if you seem to have a more dominant personality, you will attract those with a more submissive personality, and submissive people like to serve.

As for Roissy, we don't really know if he is real anyways, but it's quite likely that such a man could attract droves of women.

"He also seems quite tall."

Not needed though. My brother has a seemingly similar personality to Roissy (extroverted, sarcastic, philosophical) and he attracts an *insane* amount of attractive women and he is probably 5'7". And it's definitely about him attracting them and not him pursuing them. Whenever I go out in my hometown, the hot waitress, cashier etc. he went to HS with will get so excited about running into him. They light up and you can just see the crush in their eyes.

FeministX said...

"This is just like the "dark triad" stuff AE considered earlier. Maybe women do prefer these sorts, but there is no doubt that they're more obsessed with getting laid."

It is also inevitable that the girl that remains with a man with dark triad traits is a girl that wishes to endure a man with such a personality. Such a woman must have high tolerance for BS and cruelty.

Anonymous said...

Audacious Epigone, Miles here....

I too thought game was just going to be more bullshit when I first read about it in an article by chance. A couple of years later, I seen another article about it, and quickly read it. The author stated clearly that he thought game was very dishonest and somewhat evil, but after tagging along with Neil Strauss, Tyler Durden (who he -really- didn't like personally) and a couple of other professional PUA's, he admitted that it worked.

The PUA's taught him some material, and he used it at a club in London. The author described himself as an "average" looking man. When entering the club, the author and the three other PUA's stopped right after entering in carefully-constructed "peacocking clothes" and looked at each other intensely speaking a few words, but looking at each other as if they were the most important guys in the entire city at that point. Weighted facial gestures, erect physical posture, and then broke off with a physical composure that suggested that they would have "Business to attend to of import with one another later that night". Reading that hooked me into reading the rest of the article----because its something I'd have never thought of myself. The author described how he used a few negs (disqualify yourself from being interested in the mark, act as if you are hunting bigger game--but are just making small talk and slightly teasing her), and then Demonstrated Higher Value (DHV), and then if she gave any flack, Demonstrated Lower Value (DLV) where she was concerned, and proceed to "build" attraction (when her eyes are dialated when she is looking at you, she A)wants to show you something or wants to prove something to you, B)is attracted to you, C)is scared of you). Several other "tells" that you can learn (many of which you already subconciously know) let you know if a woman you are gaming is "getting" attracted. After you have subconcious attraction, you have to shift into the building comfort phase. A couple of techniques here are kino and venue shifting (apparently harmless touching-which can be used to anchor emotions subconciously*** and moving to another area of the bar WITH the person, or to another bar which psychologically makes them feel like they have been "different places" with you, and know you better than what they do). The author stated that a few women who were way to good looking to be attracted to him (he was engaged, and wasn't going to cheat), were. When he would tell them he had to go somewhere, they'd make him promise to come back and talk more. When he did, and didn't use "game" anymore, he could tell that they were looking at him trying to figure out why he was no longer so "interesting".

I came away from the article (can't find it with google, dont remember his name) with the impression that there may be something to this, and it really might be some kind of underground mood scam that might work in the nightclub-boozed up-loud-status-frenzied environment. I went to the net and read a little more. When I read the "Mystery Method" E-book......I knew that somebody had really-REALLY-thought out every step in the sexual attraction process for FEMALES that are good-looking.

First off, you cannot listen to women when they tell you what they find attractive about a guy. When you do, they visualize a guy like the young Errol Flynn, and tell you the things that he would do to make -them- feel comforatble and that they were actually attractive enough to date and be courted for marriage by someone like him. Women are attracted to men that they percieve have high value relative to themselves. The Mystery Method shows many quick ways that a guy can convince her that he does without really proving any of it.

I cannot tell you enough that you need to actually read the book (the E-book might still be available for free online) to really understand it. It is a small book that can be read in about 2-3 hours, but its pure 'method' and its not entertaining. This is because (obviously) Erik von Markovick didn't want any easy examples so women could just cite the example to each other and be able to identify pick-up artists in the field.

The biggest "thing" that a new guy out at the bars is going to pick up from the Mystery Method is the knowledge that every approach he makes is just another "set" (2 set, mixed 4-set) and that he is going to be applying a tried-and-true psychological technique to that set.
Ever done any sales Audacious? After getting training in several sales techniqes (the artifical time constraint technique, the mood scam, the "your a successful professional and should be able to afford this technique because you are buying it in front of this hot chick" technique, the hard-sell, "relationship"-selling, "dont-be-a-bad-guy"-selling, the "if-I-get-you-to-agree-to-five-statements-how-can-you-say-no" selling, etc. Just imagine if you went out to the bars and had similar techniques memorized to "run" on unsuspecting females who are used to guys nervously walking up to them and saying "Im G, can I buy you a drink?".

The genius behind the MM is that instead of the man telling the girl his qualities (I live X, I was educated at X, I majored in X, I have a X to live in, I drive and X, I like to read X, I watch X movies, Im active in X, Ive travelled to X), he can make HER attempt to qualify herself to him by acting as if a few things she says are "OK", but a few things not-so-OK, and that she --might-- be good enough to make the team. The interaction is framed in a way as he really isn't hitting on her, but initially is looking above her, waiting on a friend, is supposed to be meeting another chick, is hiding from a x-girlfriend he just saw, really is supposed to be leaving with his pals in a hour or so anyway, etc.

After reading the MM, and a couple of other books on the subject, my conclusion is this: one can definitely improve their ability to chat up the women and know "where to go" if they choose to escalate any attraction built during that time (framing the interaction), just as a newbie salesman can indeed learn underhanded techniques to use on the floor that get people to buy things they really don't need, with money they really don't have, to impress people they really don't like. Psychology in interpersonal relations is.....VERY unfortunately, huge.

Game's weakpoints believe it or not, will probably turn out to be the neg when it gets to be more well-known, as it could be a "tell" of game. A neg can be a physical gesture or seemigly innocent remark like "there is something in your eye" or "eww, you just spit on me" that MAKES HER FEEL SELF-CONCIOUS and lowers her value for a minute. A way around having the neg mark the PUA is to use the "statement, statement, open-ended question" routine at the start of an interaction. Anything beats walking up and qualifying yourself instantly after asking HER if you MAY buy her a drink, or ASKING her to dance with you, or ASKING her to talk to you. You are putting yourself in a position of being -beneath- her if you do this. Game allows you to be "above" or at least equal to her at all times in the interaction.

Only the top 10-15% of men are good looking enough for most of the 7's and up at a bar to openly look at them with "lust" and practically send you an engraved invitation. The rest of the men have to "build" attraction (which isn't as much physical for females like it is with us males) to really attract the hotter females. Above all else, she must be convinced you are a "cool" guy who has options, a social set, whom other women are interested in, and are willing to stand up for the people who are important to you---in other words an "alpha" male of some importance somewhere.

There is much more about it, and there are "dirty" subconcious pyschological techniques like anchoring and mirroring that can be used while talking to a woman that will anchor certain emotions to yourself when you touch her on the arm, hand, shoulder, thigh, etc. Some PUA's have 3 or 4 emotions anchored to women that they are dating that they can awaken by touching them at a certain place that will have an effect on them if they are wise and dont over-use them. Remember a PUA's main concerns are getting laid regularily by different women. Most of these guys aren't looking for a long-term relationship at all.

I'll put it to you this way, if going out and picking up the girls was like ...........playing golf, would you think you'd do better if you practiced with a pro twice a week, went to the driving range twice a week, went to the putting green twice a week, bought the best golf-clubs and gear and read a golf magazine,..... or just watched it on TV, rented cheapie clubs at the course and went out there and just tried your best? Most men just go out there and try their best with no beforehand preparation. Game is definite beforehand preparation.

Will you, if you are a 6, be bringing home 9's? Probably not, but you will have more success with 7's and maybe even a 8 or two.

Will the 7's and 8's still be interested in you in 10 months? That is the big question about game to me, and what will lead to a lot of PUA's being dissapointed. You see them speak of "deep inner game", but my original contention (which seemed to irritate Roissy a little, but he is a good looking guy and this wont apply to him) is that several hot women will look across a bed from a guy and know they could have done better at some point, and many of these guys will be losing "hotter" women than themselves and wont be able to figure our why they eventually lose their attraction for them. There are techniques for "long-term" game, but these are not employed in a loud, alchohol-fueled-dark environment.

On Roissy..........Ive seen 5 pictures of the guy, but Im not gonna say where they are posted in the interests of his privacy. He is about 6-3 and he is nice-looking. He has a model's jaw and nice masculine face. Im quite sure game is devastatingly effective when it comes from him and have no doubt about his success at the bars. I had an old roomate (2 in fact) that were big-good-looking men who were "natuals" in my twenties. The numbers of women at our townhouse that they'd bring home were ridiculous. There really is an elite of men who get laid all the time if they want to pursue that.

RF Interference said...

"A short, balding, unathletic, homely goofball is at a huge disadvantage against a Johnny Depp clone."

One thing that slays me are "PUA Gurus" that trend more towards snake-oil salesmen. You'll see claims on their websites along the lines of it doesn't matter how you look/how much you weigh/what you do for a living and so on. This makes perfect sense as there aren't many frustrated Johnny Depp clones out there willing to pay to improve their chances with women.

The first thing any guy should do is get in shape and dress well (whatever that means for his niche or scene). Then use "game" to live up to his maximum potential.

roissy said...

audacious -

the biggest flaw with these studies attemtping to assess what turns women on is that they *ask* women what they find attractive in men rather than actually measure their attraction as it is happening in the field. as anyone who reads my blog knows, rule number one is: don't listen to what a woman says, watch what she does. and what a woman does with men is nearly always opposite what she will claim she likes in men.

another big problem with these sorts of studies is that they do not -- or cannot -- measure the most powerful male attractiveness trait -- psychosocial dominance; or, in the parlance of the times, game. (in the parlance of earlier times - seduction). i've yet to see a scientific study that addresses this empirical shortcoming. when these studies begin taking account of women's behavior and mating preferences as they are being negged or qualified by a guy running game, then i will say the science is taking steps toward accurately observing the true underlying nature of women.

as for the importance of male good looks in getting laid, i have never claimed otherwise. unlike a lot of PUA gurus, of which i note many run businesses that reek of snake oil charlatanism, i tell my readers straight up that all else equal it's better to be good-looking than not. given equal game skills, fat and ugly guys are going to see less results than a guy who looks like depp. but they will see results, and for many pussy-parched guys, the improvement with women from game will feel like heaven on earth. no, a 5 guy employing expert level game will not consistently land a 9 girl, but he will land 6s and 7s. since women by nature "date up", altering the playing field by giving average guys a shot at slightly above average women will have huge sociosexual ramifications. that is why game is such a threat to the established order -- it really is a shortcut to poon, and it really does transfer some degree of sexual market power from women to men.

side note: despite the cheesy PUA marketing, most men don't nurse expectations of scoring dime pieces with game; on the contrary, most herb-ish dudes would kill for a 6 or 7 girlfriend.

bottom line, game really helps level the playing field.

what women find attractive in men is multifactorial (men, as nature's guinea pigs, are designed to be more complicated than women). good looks are not the strongest attractor of women. (this observation may vary by race. i suspect black chicks are more looks oriented than girls from other races.) women are first and foremost drawn to *power*, and looks are just one avenue for a man to display power. i'm of the same opinion as one of the PUAs (mystery i think) who said "looks will get you more auditions but they won't close the deal." based on the success rate of my pre-game years, i can tell you this is true.

in descending order of attractiveness to women, these are the male traits that most turn them on (based on years of personal observation):

fame (high social status within a niche will do in a pinch)
vast wealth (ordinary wealth won't cut it)
personality (read: dominance, charm, wit, humor, attitude, temperament. in a word: game)
looks (includes factors like age, health and sense of style)
emotional availability/romantic overtures

since fame and vast wealth are out of reach for most men, the easiest and quickest way for the average man to land babes 1 to 3 points higher than him on the physical attractiveness scale is to learn game, lift weights, and dress stylishly, in that order. learning to play guitar for a garage band wouldn't hurt either for a relatively quick boost to social status.

I find it impossible to believe that reading up on and creating a whole system for attracting women would not be accompanied by an increase in attempts.this is a common anti-game complaint -- that the success of game is merely a reflection of the increase in approaches. it's misleading if not outright false. yes, there will be a jump in volume during the initial learning stage of game and a consequent increase in number of notches, but once you have absorbed the fundamentals you can pare back your approach volume while continuing to enjoy the higher notch count and the better quality. there are many "LTR" PUAs out there who have done just this -- mastered the game, then used what they learned to date and screen women to find that perfect girl with whom to slip willingly into monogamous commitment.

So he is good-looking--tight face and mouth, tall, slender but athletic in appearance, good hair, symmetrical features. I am not the least bit success rate with women quintupled after i learned and applied game to my dealings with them. during this time, my looks stayed the same, and my sum total of approaches was only a bit higher post-game than pre-game.

game opened up a bigger market of hotter women to me, and saved me a lot of the frustration that comes from getting auditions but not winning the part.

The similarities with successful business magnates telling you how to become as rich as them with this free DVD on how to build your own business are obvious.i don't make any money off my writings on game, nor do i have any sort of business relationship with any PUA to push product. in fact, i market nothing. i have no plans to start a pickup business or offer in-field workshops. so why do i dispense game-related advice on my blog? it's a fun hobby.

and as far as the acquisition of knowledge is concerned, game is the most valuable information a man will come across. if i were to have a son, 'mystery method' would be the first book i give as a gift.

DaveinHackensack said...

"Think of someone like Elliot Spitzer, who despite having money, power, and presumably being an 'alpha', had to illegally pay for sex with a woman who some guys of less elevated status and more mild personalities would just be settling for."I'm sure Spitzer could have had an affair with an attractive aid or lobbyist, as other politicians have done, but figured he was safer (from discovery, blackmail, etc.) with a professional. As for his ability to land an attractive mate, This is a picture of Spitzer's wife Silda, taken last year. If she looks that good in her 50s, imagine what she looked like when he married her 20+ years ago. She's also a Harvard Law alumna.

FuturePundit said...


Guys pay for sex for a variety of reasons. I think it was Charlie Sheen who explained once that he didn't pay for the women to have sex with him so much as he paid for them to leave afterwards. Prostitution limits the guy's involvement.

As for physical attractivess: But what's the standard deviation of the score rate for equally attractive guys? I bet the std dev is pretty large. Why? Game is one reason. Money, status, and fame are others.

Anonymous said...

Interesting discussion.

I suspect I have Asperger's which definitely affects people's perception of my male status.

I have noticed that while for the most part I signal unconsciously alpha in my behavior, I occasionally send a few strong beta signals (not meeting people's glances etc etc correlated with Asperger's) as well -- which makes people react in odd ways.

I always laugh at how surprised some males are when they see how attractive my wife is (a solid 9 BTW) ---- and how much more respect they give me after.

-Anonymous Asperger

Mateo G said...

Everything you need to know about getting women is learned on the playground in grade school.

Make fun of them, pull their pigtails, and make them chase you.

Anonymous said...

Roissy -

If you're a 5 guy sans game (taking into account social status, wealth, looks, and all that), what level of woman would you recommend that guy shooting for as he is starting to learn game? Is it more beneficial to play the numbers game with the 8s and 9s right out off the bat--dealing with the rejections, and progressively improving your game in the process--or should one "practice" on 5s, 6s, and 7s until he feels he has mastered those, and then move on to the heavier hitters?

Audacious Epigone said...


That makes sense to me. It's why you see the 'free spirit' pasty girls with funky hair who wear mismatched pieces of raggedy anne clothing and slip-ons who are nonetheless hot with lispy thin-necked boys in tight jeans with a raised nose and a canvas bag with buttons on it.


Thanks for the comments. I wish I had something insightful to say but I've pretty much attempted to cover it elsewhere.


You could be right. Spitzer might be too extreme an example. I'm just speculating on his thought processes--maybe he thought that despite being illegal and having a marginal economic cost, it was the safest way he could get some extramarital love. I don't know.


Please see the updated post.


I'd guess money and status are wider than looks, but I don't know. Probably game, too, although maybe not fame. The lack of objective standards is what makes these discussions so fun but also so indefinitive.


Well put. I've always been into kicking shins, myself.

Lance said...

you've got game all wrong. i know this because of your desire to dismiss it as PC egalitarianism. game is much more an offspring of the enlightenment principle that reason applied to any task can produce significant improvement. this genetic determinism you espouse has much more in common with progressive ideals than you admit.

the basic principle behind game is that men and women differ fundamentally on what they find attractive. men look for genetic cues primarily, with some regard to what makes a good mother. women, depending on their stage in life and in ovulation, put varying degrees of importance on genetic cues and social dominance cues. the reason ugly rock stars/billionaires/athletes attract women is because at the end of the day social status trumps looks.

of course, it's best to have both.

Audacious Epigone said...


I'm not dismissing game, which can be generalized as a combination of self-confidence and assertiveness, but am weary of the presumption that it is effectively teachable to a great extent or that it trumps everything else in importance.

"the reason ugly rock stars/billionaires/athletes attract women is because at the end of the day social status trumps looks."

Status, wealth, looks, health, intelligence, personality--the standard attributes of attraction, are all to a great extent innate in their origins.

Game is the malleable exception, then? Maybe, but isn't skepticism legitimate when there is little empirical evidence backing that assertion?

Audacious Epigone said...


I'd recommend a guy lacking in all three two prioritize in the order you suggest.

David said...

This is a very interesting post. Thankyou.

rob said...

"But does game help because it is more effective than acting naturally, or simply because you were suddenly chasing a lot more than you had been in the past?"

Game helps. A few reasons. It encouraged me to put effort into making a stable "presentation of self." Certainly mystery, and most other pickup sources I've seen encourage one to shower shave, dress well, etc. when going out. "Being myself" I slacked on all that stuff at least on occassion.

Cocky-funny, or not taking interactions very seriously does seem to work. I can think of a few reasons. Since you seem less invested, she may a)think you have options, or b) at least not be afraid that you're an obsessive stalker.

Also, by being (almost) flirty in general, if a girl isn't interested, it doesn't look as bad as it does for someone with one-itis. Rejection hurts one's chances with her social circle and women who know about it. But rejection isn't as obvious is you flirt lots of people. Plus, if you get rejected by an obvious one-itis, women who know about it will think you're trying to pick them up as your nth choice. They don't seem to like that.

Not being a Nice GuyTM also works better. To avoid rejection, nerds like avoided being sexual people most of the time. But it's easier to go from "hey you wanna go out" to being friends than it is to go from friends to "hey buddy can I put my hand down your pants" It doesn't creep girls out, I don't feel used in a friendship. I can still pursue her friends since I never seemed obsessed, just interested.

Sad to say, almost all of this goes against my natural inclinations.

I think there are feminist/ women's POV interpretations of game behaviors that probably describe women's emotional and responses better than game does, but pickup theory predicts the affect response pretty well.

Anonymous said...


I think Roissy is correct wrt game. It works. I've seen guys do it. Sure, nerds or even average guys won't be dating supermodels or even the class hottie, but they at least will be able to date more and date up. They will be more interesting to women, literally more seductive.

To help normal men understand women a little better is a pretty good move forward, IMHO. I also think Michael Blowhard is right in this respect by describing game as an anti-feminist tool. There can never be enough anti-feminist tools.

I understand your scepticism towards libertinism. The last thing Western countries need during these times of low birth rate is another tool for more libertinism. If that's the case, than so much the worse for game and the PUA scene.

Still, if game helps young men to find mates sooner and be better lovers to them, I don't think it would be a bad thing at all. Actually, it could even help people become more happy. Game should be a means to and end, not an end in itself. That's where me and some PUAs (Roissy too) part ways. Most men want to settle down anyway, hardly no one wants to be a player forever.

(OTOH, I've often read Roissy take quite strong HBD/Sailerist positions, he'd probably not support libertinism/hedonism to every man in the West. He might even care about our little civilization, for all we know.)



Audacious Epigone said...


It is anti-feminist in the sense that it shows that women are taken by what the feminists don't want them to be taken by. I think it is helpful in the same way dressing well and keeping oneself in shape is helpful. The impetus of the post was to question the idea of it representing a fullscale revolt against political correctness, which I don't really think it does at all.