Game denialism is something that started off as a reaction to the PUA bullshit of the 2000’s, where it was discovered that No-it’s-not-worth-$3000-to-learn-how-to-approach-girls, but slowly evolved into a more insidious force of angry beta males who were insistent that their failures with women were because of something outside of their control. In order to support the lie that they had no power over their sex lives, they deny that game exists.
In this blog post, I’d like to discuss the more popular criticisms of game while trying to show the more academic and psychological side of game.
Denialism #1: What you say barely matters
This criticism focuses on the passive vs. active side of game and denies that active game exists, or has little to zero impact on the seduction process. For the layman, this is the most popular criticism of game. They will argue that the only reason a man like George Clooney gets women is because he is famous, or that rich men with ugly women like Mark Zuckerberg are just weirdo’s who are outliers in the grand scheme of things.
All else being equal, they say, the man with the best looks, most money, most fame, or best connections will score the hottest chicks.
The first counter-response to this is that anyone who believes this hasn’t seen much of the world. He has not seen the countless doctors who spend all their time in the lab with no pussy to show for it, or the lawyers who make six figures in NYC but have extreme difficulty bringing girls back to their apartment, or the investment bankers who spends all of their hard earned cash on hookers. They have not seen the loser drug dealers who bang young hot skanks, or the broke musicians with their many groupies, or the salsa dancer who smashes more hot pussy in two months than most men will touch in a lifetime.
But more importantly, the philosophical problem with denialism #1 is that it denies a very influential and important school of psychology called behaviorism. Behaviorism, which starts with the premise that our thoughts do not matter in guiding our actions (a controversial, but useful, premise), believes that how animals act are largely based on what sort of stimulus it was exposed to.
Likewise, game, whether or not its adherents understand this, operates on the principle that a woman’s actions toward a man are based on what the man has previously said or acted toward her. That is, if a man approaches a woman with confident body language and speaks with gusto and charisma, the woman will be far more receptive to him than had he approached otherwise. This is behaviorism. Active game, in essence, is understanding how one’s behavior influences others. Behaviorism is also the guiding philosophy behind the sales business, whereby salesmen carefully craft their pitches to successfully pursuade their customers into buying their product.
So denialism #1, in addition to contradicting everyday experience, also denies a very powerful school of psychology which has proven itself extremely useful. It is for these reasons people should reject the idea that our behavior does not influence the results we have in our social interactions.
Denialism #2: Game is not geninue attraction, it’s just a bunch of tricks
This denialism is an interesting one. Rather than deny that game works, instead it is denied that game is as powerful as its adherents claim it to be. Game is merely a set of tricks that guys can use to con women into sleeping with them, rather than earn the love of a woman for the long haul. Other variants of denialism #2 include “game is mostly not fucking up,” or “game is just a placebo men use to give themselves confidence.”
In all cases, the denialist is appealing to some sort of moral code whereby a truly attractive man would not need game; indeed, he would be self-sufficient enough such that women would be drawn to his personality due to his raw masculinity. He would have no need to study behaviorial psychology in order to get laid – game is just for the loser men who aren’t manly enough to get laid without resorting to tricks.
This argument is equivalent to saying “game isn’t fair.” For example, if two men agree to a knife-duel and one man pulls out a gun to shoot the other man then it wouldn’t be a fair fight. And you know what? No one gives a shit. Because in the game of love, like war, the outcome is zero-sum. Some men will get more pussy than others. In every relationship, one will always like the other more, so either the man or the woman will have more power over his/her partner.
Thus if the only criticism of a gamer is that he’s not playing fair, here’s what I have to say…
Game is more than tricks. Game is knowledge of women. Knowledge is power. Game is power over women. Thus by learning game you do more than trick women — you control them.
Denialism #3: Game is a fad
I admit, I used to believe this one when I was first learning game. I thought that game was the product of a decadent culture, and when Western Civilization collapses so too will game lose its usefulness.
But once I learned game, I realized this was wrong. Game is nothing more than a euphemism for knowledge of behaviors that attract women. Certainly, the passive side of game will never change — women will always like being with successful and handsome men — but also, the active side of game will remain even if the language in which we speak changes or the venues in where men meet women change. The active side of game will always be culturally relative, but the principles of game will always remain the same (click this link to read some excerpts from Ars Armorata, by Ovid).
What is unique to our time, and what surely will not remain in place forever, is the “endless dating” that is inherant to our decadant culture. Casual sex is seen as normal, and women forgo childrearing in favor of careers and sexing as many alphas as they can before they hit menopause. Although it is extremely doubtful if this can last (I certainly do not think so), I will concede to the game denialist that it is our slutty times which have given rise to the science of game. Without the ability to approach and bed countless women, it would be impossible to develop and refine man’s understanding of women in such a scientific way as the modern gamesman has.
Read Next: Game Does Not Need Science