A failure to grasp Game

Cane Caldo lays a false foundation, then attempts to build upon it in a guest post at Dalrock's:

1. Game isn’t what you think it is.

2. Game means more than you think it does.

3. Christians don’t need Game.

My short response: 1) Game certainly isn't what Cane thinks it is. 2) It most certainly does. 3) Yeah, they do. But there is no more reason to accept my naked assertions than his, so let's peruse his argument.

Game Isn’t What You Think It Is

When we remove the tautologies and self-references from the my definition (which I think is very fair, and in keeping with the spirit of Roissy’s more compact ones), all we are left with is the concept of hypergamy. Even that is severely crippled with the lack of evidence that is founded upon the now-very-unstable Game. What we really see is that women want what they want, and that they want more and better, and there seems to be no end to their appetite.

Cane goes awry from the very beginning by failing to understand that Roissy does not, and does not pretend to, represent Game in its entirety. He is its foremost advocate, but he does not claim that his perspective is definitive, let alone conclusive, and he is perfectly aware that there are aspects beyond the one upon which he focuses. Game is not a lifestyle or a philosophy, it is nothing more than an analytical tool, moreover, it is a tool that can be broadly applied to a broad spectrum of human behavior. Cane isn't looking deeply enough, he is too focused on the particulars of what Roissy is advising to understand what Roissy is doing.

A much better definition of Game is this: the conscious attempt to observe and understand successful natural behaviors and attitudes in order to artificially simulate them. In Roissy's case, this is usually limited to imitating men who successfully have casual sex with attractive women. The famous 16 Commandments are the commandments of Poon, after all, not Game. Cane is confusing the subset with the set. And by further reducing it to hypergamy, he has reduced the subset to a single variable.

Game Means More Than You Think It Does

It’s the most likely fate of the Christian man that follows Game. It’s not the only possible fate, and not the worst. You could get taken over by an agent. (This is what I suspect of Roissy.) Roissy knows the Matrix isn’t real–just as Neo, Morpheus, and Cypher do–but he is intent upon using the Matrix to get pleasure. You can find it here, here, and here. Above all, you can find it in the Sixteen Commandments of Poon. Game writers all work from the point of view that the sensory experience of steak and vagina is so good, that whatever you have to do to get it, you should. And whatever betrayal you have to commit to yourself or others is just effective Game. This is being in the real world, but taking the Blue Pill.

Cane contradicts his own previous point here. How can "the concept of hypergamy" lead a man, Christian or otherwise, inevitably to hedonism? This is simply incoherent. And to claim that what everyone understands as the red pill reality is really just taking the blue pill simply underlines Cane's basic confusion here. Not only has he built upon a false foundation, but he has built badly upon it.

Christians Don’t Need Game

This isn’t what Game says! It says that it’s natural for wives to be driven by their hypergamous biomechanics to be attracted to the available alpha in their proximity. If Game is true, then a man should NEVER marry. Game writers whole-heartedly agree with that sentiment. If you’re already married, you’re simply meat waiting to be processed by the Feminist machines.

No man can serve two masters. Serving women–that is, Feminism; that is, the Matrix–is what Game is all about. Understand her desires. Fulfill her desires. Reap pleasure from her desires. This is Feminism twisted back on itself. Game attempts to use the Matrix to get in Feminist pants. Christianity means to send Feminism to Hell.

Here Cane demonstrates that he understands the Biblical view of intersexual relations as poorly as he grasps Game. Both Christianity and Game recognize women as being dynamic and malleable. Both Christianity and Game teach a man that he has to be capable of exerting authority over a woman if he is to have successful relationship with her. Not only is Game not feminist in any way, but it is simply false to claim it is "to get in Feminist pants". Even if we limit the concept of Game to the particular PUA application, its primary use is to get into "non-Feminist" pants; there are very few men who are observably less interested in getting into "lantern-jawed, hairy-armed" Feminist pants than Roissy.

Finally, in response to Cane's last question, the reason Game cannot possibly be considered "a round-about method of telling Christian men to Man-Up and Marry These Sluts" is because manning up and marrying sluts is patently not behavior of a successful natural.