Is Game Moral?

Every man who is not a sociopath eventually says to himself, “Man, you’re disgusting. You use and manipulate women. This ain’t right.” Even Roosh is wondering about the morality of game.

Worry about this stuff is a huge mistake, as you are projecting manly morality onto women. Arthur Schopenhauer explains why that’s a mistake in his essay, “On Women.”

Yet a movie depicting a horrendous man shows that women are just as immoral as men.

In the Company of Men depicts a supposed sociopath. Yet the female “victim” was dating two men. She was playing a nice-guy beta – even choosing him over the disgusting alpha protagonist.

She tried rationalization it, “I hadn’t dated for a while, so I wanted to feel beautiful.”

The truth is that she was leading both men on.

Before I was a player, I went on a date with the woman who’d end up being my wife. After our date, I knew she was “the one.”

She went on a date wither another guy the next day.

Women are not like men. When a man meets a woman, all other women fade from the Earth. Women will serially date until she realizes it’s time to settle down. To a woman, romance is less about falling in love and more about being taken care of.

Women are not moral creatures. Civilization is a modern construct. Until recently, human size and sheer brutality governed all.

Women, lacking the size of men, developed cunning.

Why do you think women win every argument with a man?

Is it moral for a woman to ask you something 9 times, get 9 nos, and then before you go to bed, knowing you’re tired, hold you to your exasperated, “If you’ll let me sleep, yes.”

Is it moral for a woman to give you immense sexual pleasure during the courtship phase of the relationship – only to become boring and frigid after you marry her?

Is it moral for a girl to separate her men from his rowdy friends – while she is a regular at “girl’s night out”?

Morality can exist only when there is an expectation that the other side will keep his or her promises.

Do you expect a woman to keep her promises?

If you cannot rely on a woman to keep her word, then it simply makes no sense to keep your own word. You are not dealing with an equal. You are dealing with a child who must be subjugated and put to bed.

Game is not moral or immoral. Game just is.

  • Joe

    Heh. The last time a woman won an argument with me was more than a decade ago.

  • http://www.therulesrevistied.blogspot.com Andrew

    “All’s fair in love and war.”

    • http://king1xa@yahoo.com King A (Matthew King)

      Exactly. Any discussion of morality outside the acknowledgment of the present undeclared state of war is pointless. Therefore, to speak of women’s morality or Immorality is pointless.

      Civilization is a superstructure built to contain the consequences of the female animal’s unlimited desires and unlimited stupidity (cf. Rousseau’s Emile, Book V), what this community calls “hypergamy” and the current culture curses as “misogyny.” Only recently have we begun pretending women are capable of being smart and self-disciplined and dismantled the civic protections keeping us from each other’s throats. Hence we have unofficially reverted to the Hobbesian state of nature, roiling just below the veneer of official “peace,” leading to the gap wherein alpha males may do their thing, and, for the first time, undisturbed.

      Game is not “immoral.” It is an instrument. It is a weapon of survival in “the war of all against all,” absent which life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” If game is immoral, then guns are immoral, and you are one of those dreaming pacifist types of no use to anyone.

      The Incommodites Of Such A War

      Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

      Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter XIII

      Matt

  • http://www.thelesserevilshow.blogpot.com The Lesser Evil

    This funny, And I say this as a guy draw his mind set and belief system you Pimps. To me it’s the strong mindset you can have.

    http://thelesserevilshow.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-inspired-you-to-put-this-book.html

    The real question is are women moral? Without going into a long spiel I think the readers of the blog should do themselves a favor and read Esther Vilar The Manipulated Man or better yet Mattew Fitzgerald’s Sexploytation.

  • Scrouds

    Prisoners dilema? If women acted moral, and men acted moral as well, would everyone be better off?

    • http://gravatar.com/samseau samseau

      The million dollar question. Is morality good for us?

  • http://thequestfor50.wordpress.com Dagonet

    Everyone defines “moral” differently, but I think it is always some variation of “putting the good of the group ahead of your personal good.”

    I think Game can be used for both types of good, but ultimately it is just a system for effective socialization.

    Game is amoral, not immoral. Game is indifferent to all but human nature.

  • http://flyfreshandyoung.wordpress.com FFY

    Agreed.

    Probably something I get on the soapbox for more than anything. Morality and honor and all that is generally meant to serve women’s interests, at least nowadays.

    As you pointed out- women serial dating= “normal/expected”

    Man serial dating= “immoral”, “dishonorable”, “shameful”

    Morality is merely a tool to keep you in line and behave in society approved ways. It worked in the old days to keep society together, but feminism changed that and removed women from any responsibility from society. Millions of men are now played for chumps since the other side isn’t holding up their end of the deal.

    Morality is a straightjacket

  • Jason

    Great post!

  • http://universityofman.wordpress.com Professor Mentu

    My morals are flexible. If I look you in the eye, shake your hand, and agree to something, I’ll do it. Go back on your end of the bargain, and I’ll slit your throat.

    I don’t consider moral and immoral to have the weight of right and wrong.

    Yes, game is immoral. But it’s the right thing to do.

    Great thought-provoking post. It’s good for a man to be at ready to answer these questions when they are brought up by a chick or a beta.

  • NYCBachelor@hotmail.com

    “Morality” is Neitzsche’s slave morality. In the Slave morality what benefits others is “Good” and what benefits yourself, espically in a zero sum game, is “Evil”. Slave morality is designed to keep you weak – in inverts reality and makes you proud of your weakness and desire to be weak.

    This is the archiac foolishness of the slave morality of the masses; move beyond Good and Evil.

    Adopt the Master Morality- lying and manipulating are Moral- assuming you view reality for what it is; namely that what is good is what is good for you and what is bad is what is bad for you.

    It seems so simple, but we’re so programmed and f-ed up in the head that saying this in polite soceity is the equivlent of declaring love for Hitler.

  • Rob

    It turns out your readers are sociopaths. Or at least scumbags. Or at least sheep. Ask yourselves if there is a difference between taking Nietzsche to be the gospel and taking the gospel to be the gospel. If no one has ever told you before, agreeing with Nietzsche doesn’t necessarily make you a critical thinker.

  • NYCBachelor@hotmail.com

    “It turns out your readers are sociopaths. Or at least scumbags.”

    Ad Hominum

    “Ask yourselves if there is a difference between taking Nietzsche to be the gospel and taking the gospel to be the gospel.”

    False equivelence. Accepting the arguments of Neitzsche because of sound logic and premises is not the same as accepting the Bible on a blind act of faith.

    “If no one has ever told you before, agreeing with Nietzsche doesn’t necessarily make you a critical thinker.”

    Yet you’re implying that agreeing with him means that I’m not one. Ironically enough, every one of your sentences have been logical fallicies.

    “Or at least sheep.”

    Projection. Keep bleeting sheep; show everyone the pathetic stench of the slave proclaiming his greatness through his mediocrity.

  • Peter

    i treat women with respect and I have multiple sexual partners. Is this really so hard for guys to do?

  • http://jhappolati.wordpress.com Johann Happolati

    So we shouldn’t try to be better than women?

  • http://two.cedonulli.com Jake

    I’ll accept this, because it suits me. :D

    Nice way to lawyer through that one for sure. Though pair bonding psychology and biochemistry may contradict your position, modern society certainly has made a mess off the programming.

    That and being a manipulative bastard without justification is sociopath type behavior, whilst the same with justifications, however slim, is just misguided and … fun.

  • http://runsonmagic.com runsonmagic

    Game is about getting your needs me. Is getting your needs met amoral?

    http://runsonmagic.com/2014/01/game-reveals-your-true-self/