As we approach what could be a schism within the Manosphere, I accept what might have to happen, but I don’t have to like it. We have a lot in common, but there’s also some substantial difference. The latter may well overwhelm the former. It is what it is.
However, as I’ve mentally explored the varying factions of the Manosphere, I’ve noticed a parallel with their respective approaches to Game and my own profoundly effective rhetoric. When I argue politics, religion, or philosophy with somebody (in person), I don’t lose. Yet, when I do it, I’m not particularly Alpha in the sense we use it. I find common ground, bite my tongue when I want to call them a complete moron, and concede debatable points, but I change minds. I can’t say I never “lose it” and rip somebody a new one, but I’ll tend to do it not when I first feel like doing it, I’ll do it when that’s the smartest move.
So here I am acting like a beta, getting better results than the loudmouths who are paid millions of dollars to go on TV and talk to the masses about how they should think about things. Sean Hannity may not be a sexual Alpha, but he is a political one. He’s the dude with legions of fans, a television and a radio show, he rips into lefty callers and guests on a daily basis, but I seriously suspect that lowly anonymous me may have turned more people away from leftism than he has. I don’t think I’ve done it much at all on my blog (it’s almost impossible in today’s media environment to turn anyone with only the written word), but in person, I can almost do it in my sleep.
And I couldn’t help but wonder, have I somehow circumvented the laws of Game? After all, don’t women respond best to being grabbed by their metaphoric pony tails and dragged into the cave? How can I have a profound effect on them by not being like that? Shouldn’t the hipster lefty chick respond best to being roundly dismissed? Have I stumbled upon some exception to The Rule, or did I just learn that there’s more to The Rule.
It’s the latter, and it relates directly to the division between the Hedonists and the Moralists. The rules of Game are the same, but we want different things from it. That means we’re going to use it altogether differently.
The Frames of Game
The goal of the Hedonists, the PUA’s, is rapid sexual attraction. They use Game to tap into the rawest aspects of femininity as quickly as possible. Her individual proclivities matter only insofar as they can be manipulate her into being the generic female that spreads her legs. There’s no need for lasting bonds, the only purpose of building rapport is to disarm her anti-slut defense. Her character is irrelevant. Sure, women may have different interests, values, and goals, but what matters is her internal animal and how to tap into it.
The Hedonist uses Game to manipulate every aspect of the female, her interests, fears, and highest nature into a frame that magnifies and accentuates her sexual instincts.
To the Moralists, the purpose of Game is different, so much so that some Hedonists might not even consider it Game. Red Pill Moralists don’t disagree in the slightest with the Hedonists’ assessment of what excites a female, but to the Moralists, such knowledge is a means, not an end. The Moralists seek something long-term, the quality female that many Hedonists no longer believe exists. Whereas the Hedonist sees resistance to rapid banging as merely an obstacle to overcome, the Moralist sees such traits as a possible indication that she might be something more than just another ho’.
The Moralist wishes to manipulate a woman’s instinctual nature in such a way as to magnify her higher qualities. He wants a quality girlfriend, a woman to support him through the tough times, a wife, a mother for his kids.
The error of the Moralist is that all too often, in his quest for such a woman, he over-estimates Woman’s propensity to be the type of woman he desires; he forgets that it’s simply not her natural inclination to be the way he wants her to be. Blue Pill Moralists either disregard the visceral sex-drive of a woman altogether or dismiss it as evil, but even Red Pill Moralists can forget that no matter how many Bible verses she can quote off the top of her head, she’s going to feel a tingle when Aaron Hernandez appears on her television. Even if you want to marry her and don’t plan to have sex for months, you’ve still got to turn her on. You’ll never have access to what’s best in her if you don’t take what’s most base about her into account.
But the beliefs of the Hedonist can become self-fulfilling prophesies. The PUA soon believes that women may well have no higher nature. After all, how many times have they heard the “I never do this speech”? How many Christian girls just happened to make an exception for him? How often did the same lines work, the same strategies get through her defenses, the post-copulation pillow-talk follow the exact same pattern?
Yet should they be surprised when they view women as merely animals that they exact exactly like animals, entirely beholden to their instincts and devoid of any individuality whatsoever? They go to clubs where women are most likely to give it up (and most likely to be mindless conformists), they quickly move onto another prospect when she doesn’t give it up right away (nobody really believes in waiting, NEXT!), they appeal explicitly and directly to the most feral aspect of Woman and then find themselves shocked that all the women in their lives are merely feral.
It’s like a stripper complaining that men only care about it tits and ass.
Unfortunately, in today’s West, the Hedonists have the upper hand. Women haven’t been raised to value their higher natures, they believe in “letting themselves go”. The Hedonist risks far less by assuming that all women are sluts than the Moralists risks by assuming they’re somehow enlightened.
And because so many of today’s Hedonists were once Blue Pill Moralists, because they’ve been burned by assuming the best in women, they not only assume the worst (perfectly reasonable), they write off the possibility of a woman being anything more than that. Because they’ve learned the limits of their beta traits, they dismiss their beta natures altogether. Because they failed to take the tingle into account so often before, that’s all they take into account now.
Which works when all you want is to make women tingle. The Moralist, who wants to get the tingle but insists on more than tingle, has to develop a wider skill set.
As I’ve dissected my own rhetorical technique, I’ve learned that it doesn’t defy the rules of Game, it merely mirrors the Game required of the Moralist instead of the Hedonist. The Game of the Hedonist is sheer aggressive, overt dominance. He takes no crap, surrenders no ground, controls and frightens.
Likewise, his rhetoric is brutal. He emphasizes the ways in which he disagrees with his opponents, insults and smashes into them. The goal is not to persuade, but to get the opponent to back down and melt away.
My rhetoric is more like that of the Game required of the Moralist. I dominate without smashing. The Game of the Moralist isn’t merely to get her to do what he wants, it’s to get her to want what he wants. It’s softer, smoother, and takes more time, but when done effectively, its effects are much more profound.
I’ve never had problems in relationships for the same reasons that I can’t know anyone for more than a month without them becoming my intellectual disciple. Those with Hedonistic rhetoric at first find me overly submissive.
Their minds change within the hour.
I rarely yell. I agree and find common ground. I inspire lasting change.
I don’t fight, I win.