Women hate the demystification of romance: commodities, artisans, and the game

Women hate game but simultaneously women hate guys with no game. Players look at this and initially think it makes no sense, because on the surface it doesn’t… women should want guys to learn game and learn how to please women instead of repulsing women with awkward banter, technical talk, sports talk, politics, terrible fashion, etc. Yet we have all seen game demonized by some women and feminists, who also complain that there are no “good” men (since men don’t learn how to be effective with women). I would probably never tell a woman in real life about consciously practicing “the game,” although I have encouraged a few to read Neil Strauss (they hate THE GAME the book).

What gives? The seduction and sex process is probably shrouded in more mystification than any other common human activity in the entire world. The whole culture is collectively blowing so much smoke around seduction and sex that women don’t understand it either (thus many women encourage men to do things that the woman herself doesn’t like, like “Just be nice to her,” fine advice if you are +2 or +3 relative to her in SMV and bad advice if you are not). Men don’t understand the seduction process.

What happens when you remove the mystification and understand the process? Men get more power and often become less interested in commitment. Women hate game because it demystifies romance and pushes sex with a woman just a little bit closer to commodity status. A little economic theory for you, no one wants to be a commodity because a commodity can be made by many producers, pushing profit to zero or near zero. Everyone wants to be differentiated because a differentiated product can earn profits above the market rate. Apple makes more money than a thousand white-box computer makers because Apple is differentiated from white box makers; if consumers wanted to maximize income we would all be buying white box computers running Linux and a web browser. Most computer users prefer the branded experience though and producers want to create brand mystique so they can charge higher prices. Mystification can help everyone win. I’m writing this on a Macbook not a whitebox Linux laptop, so I’m as guilty as anyone.

Many guys think, “What do women want?” “I don’t understand women.” “I got lucky.” If they learn evolutionary psychology and game, they figure out what women want and how to deliver it, with much greater consistency and reliability than if we don’t learn evolutionary psychology and the game. Many women have nothing of value in their lives apart from their p***y, so, if you reduce the value of that by learning game, they have nothing to offer and end up being commodities. Hot guys with good game take them for a ride then decline commitment, leaving her feeling used and unhappy. So women demonize game and think romance should “Just happen” like it does in the romance novels they masturbate to. At the end of all romance novels a hot guy wifes up a woman… usually a woman who is lower SMV than him.

Many women are frustrated right now because they find it easy to get a guy +2 SMV for sex but can’t get him for relationships. The guy who is even SMV or -1 to her might be willing to do a relationship but he doesn’t have the value she seeks. Many women thrash in this trap for a long time… the ones who thrash in it too long end up being spinsters and writing those stories about why hot rich men won’t “man up” and marry 35 year old women past their prime. Game improves male SMV but also makes the guy choosier and less likely to commit. A guy with many options won’t be as interested in committing as a running-to-fat guy whose chief hobby is video games, with porn and TV secondary.

Economic history has parallels to this. Starting with the Industrial Revolution, people began figuring out how to produce artisanal goods at mass scale. Artisans fought like hell against this because they argued mass-produced goods can never be as pure and honest (or whatever) as hand-crafted goods. Everyday consumers were like, “LOL whatever bro” and bought whatever was cheapest and most functional. Entrepreneurs used factories to demystify the production process and make high-skill artisans redundant. The children of artisans ended up working in factories because that’s where the efficiency was. Today some artisanal commodity goods have high status again among some people, but the vast majority of us buy cups and plates and clothes that have been inexpensively made by machine.

Those artisans were angry but ineffective. We now have the term “luddite” from nineteenth century anti-technology groups who failed. Women also don’t want game entrepreneurs to apply evolutionary psychology to the dating and sex process because they want to be artisanal producers, not commodity products. No woman, except a few ¬†unusual women like evolutionary biologist Diana Fleischman, will ever characterize the situation this way, but the instinctive anger reaction is there. Women like a guy who “just gets it” and shows his intelligence, charisma, etc. by “just getting it.” Women hate the idea that average guys can counterfeit (or more realistically learn) these traits, then avoid committing financial resources to women. Personally I think these fears are overblown because the vast majority of men are too lazy with insufficient IQs to make any of this happen. But a few will and in the process they might remove themselves from the marriage market. That’s frustrating for women. Smart men are learning from each other and using that learning to reduce female market power.

Continue reading “Women hate the demystification of romance: commodities, artisans, and the game”