We get a lot of hate from the fairer sex, particularly feminists. On the surface, this seems a little odd. After all, what exactly are we trying to do here?
We’re hoping to facilitate the improvement of men by giving them a forum to share and to acquire knowledge about how to improve themselves socially, economically, and romantically. We try to give men new ways to improve their style, their finances, their health, their physique and, above all, their ability to appeal to women.
Sounds great, no? We’re helping to create wealthier, healthier, better looking, more attractive men. Isn’t that what women want-more polished, appealing, high quality guys? Why, then, do so many women express a seemingly inherent and irrational hostility to many sites like this?
They do this because the very act of teaching someone to better approach women is considered “creepy,” regardless of the results.
Women want effortless attraction. They want a guy who is very attractive to them without any evidence that he’s putting much effort into being that way. They very much value the romanticism of the “it just happened” kind of meeting, the idea that the guy was just there being himself and he was just right and he just happened to want her.
This is why media designed to appeal to women doesn’t feature male leads who seem to consciously plan to meet the female characters. Romance/adult novels (read: chick porn) feature extremely attractive men who, more often than not, are just kind of there. There is no attempt to show the development of these men into the very attractive specimens they become, or the mistakes they make in growing and getting there. They just are.
The “Disney Princess” movie model also reads this way, and does much to shape the perception of young women as they grow. The Prince does not game the Princess—he’s just there, he’s naturally charming, and he wants her. She has no idea how he became a prince or what he goes through to keep that title and maintain his authority, and that stuff rarely features in the story. He’s just there, he’s perfect for her the way he is and he can’t help but be drawn in by her. The End.
In female fantasy, the ideal male just is. She could care less about the effort it takes for that man to become what he is, as long as he just is.
The fact that many guys put in an effort to build that attraction and become that better man kills the ideal of organic attraction that most women want to maintain. The fact that something like “game” exists at all is even more damaging because it implies that there are some concrete formulas and methods that produce better results than others, killing the notion of “magical love” that they’d much prefer to cling to.
In the end, this all comes down to feelings. Women “feel” uncomfortable with inorganic models of sexual attraction. Game promotes an inorganic model of attraction by telling them that there is a formula that can increase a man’s appeal and that a woman can be drawn more reliably with practice and perfection of this formula. Therefore, game makes women feel uncomfortable.
“Creepy” is the catch-all label used by women for that which makes them feel uncomfortable. Hence, game is creepy.
Women also do not like the idea of losing control. Girls want the ability to choose winners and losers in the sexual marketplace—this uncontested place in the mating game’s driver’s seat is, in their mind, their natural prerogative and right.
When those winners (alpha males and guys who are just generally successful with women) and losers (dudes who don’t see much sexual success) start gathering on sites likes this in numbers and begin discussing and actually codifying how to do things, they begin to undermine that power women would like to keep.
It also becomes harder to tell which guys fit the “effortless attraction” model they idealize and spend most of their youth dreaming about and which guys merely look the part after a lot of effort. Girls would, generally, prefer to be able to make this distinction themselves, separating the more organic “naturals” from the others who had to work at it or are merely putting on a well practiced cover for weaknesses in their game that girls would otherwise readily see.
With “game” and the advice offered on sites like these that encourage male improvement, men take some of this ability and choice away from them.
To men, this may not seem like a bad thing since men are merely trying to give women more of what they want. That seems only logical to us.
The problem is that women do not want men making this decision and taking things out of their hands. This is a threat to the feminine imperative and a challenge to the romanticized organic model I described above, so women subconsciously shy away from it.
The feminine imperative calls for control over the direction of the sexual marketplace, and male cooperation and focused effort to improve their standing in said marketplace does nothing to help this aim. That merely shows the female hand and facilitates the rise of the more inorganic sexual marketplace females do not really want.
The standard response, therefore, is to shame those who participate in those discussions. The term “creepy” is a good way to do that, and it fits since the whole idea makes women uncomfortable as well (creepy = “I don’t like the feeling he/it gives me”). This also makes rational discussion with female opponents (feminists especially) very difficult.
Of course, this feminine imperative creates a dilemma for men who try to abide by it. If they put in effort and that effort is seen, that’s creepy. If they don’t put in effort and they’re not naturals (very few men are), they are still creepy. Lose-lose.
This isn’t a good place for men to be, but women generally don’t care. They simply can’t, and we’ll be wasting our time expecting them to do so.
Don’t Miss: Effortless Attraction