Simply put, both of these notions are premised on the idea that interpersonal relationships function like economic relationships; hence even things like sexual attraction and marriage can presumably be understood by marketing dynamics and methods.
Some of the Game Cultists have sneered over our comparisons to their theories and Marxism. But in reality, who besides Red Pills and Communists interpret the complexities of human life by simplistic economic formulas?
"Communism does not consist of any independence from natural laws, but in the knowledge of these laws and the systematic application of them towards concrete objectives."---- Friedrich Engels
Marx and Engels clearly knew Game. Many Gamers claim that their ideas are found in the Bible, but in reality the Communist writers were far better Gamers than the Apostles.
Now no one denies that normal human beings find certain physical qualities in the opposite sex attractive for sexual and marriages. But the factors behind these attractions are subjective individually and not reducible to formulas or rubrics. What human beings find attractive in the opposite sex are based upon internal idealizations of the opposite sex learned in childhood. There is obviously no way that this can be categorized into universal precepts. In the long-term sense of committed marriage, what human beings search for are strong complimentary qualities in another person. That is, they seek supportive qualities in others which they lack. This too is entirely subjective and based solely upon an individual's self-perception. Again, these tendencies cannot follow a standard rule.
The Game Cultists, like the Communists, are so completely intellectually bound to the grossest and most vulgar Materialism that it is literally impossible for them to comprehend anything---or other people---except in terms of physical value and utility. In the Gamers' case, they hold that women have no value outside of their capacity to have sexual relations and bear children or otherwise serve the Alpha Male. This is really only a sexual variation of the Communist belief that those not serving the Party are social parasites, and of no value to anyone.
The Sexual Market Value does not exist---anymore than Female Hypergamy, Masculine Archetypes or any of the other innovations that the Game leadership concocts. The only social realms where sex has any actual 'marketability' is prostitution and pornography: neither of which are especially useful sources upon which to draw conclusions about relationships and marriage.
This why boys are (or used to be) taught that their ability to keep and make happy ONE woman was a great masculine achievement. That was because simply that finding one who compliments you is the truly valuable thing.
"... Sexual Market Value and Marriage Market Value. These two concepts are central to Game Cult thinking."
ReplyDeleteI will refer to these as SMV and MMV.
"What human beings find attractive in the opposite sex are based upon internal idealizations of the opposite sex learned in childhood". There is obviously no way that this can be categorized into universal precepts. In the long-term sense of committed marriage, what human beings search for are strong complimentary (sic) qualities in another person. That is, they seek supportive qualities in others which they lack. This too is entirely subjective and based solely upon an individual's self-perception. Again, these tendencies cannot follow a standard rule."
What psychological theory are you following here? What studies support the assertions you provide for what is attractive and desired for marriage?
As much as you dislike the idea of formulas, SMV and MMV are based, at least partially, on well-grounded data. For example, MMV is reduced depending on how many sex partners the woman has had. Studies show that the risk of divorce is higher when that number is higher. Of course, it does not prove that divorce will occur regardless of the number, but is only a probability.
SMV and MMV are also based on the individual's personal preferences. For example, some men prefer tall women, others short women. In short, these "rules" are based on the individual, their preferences, and their judgment of the importance of the preferences.
SMV and MMV are just a way to conceptualize what one desires in the opposite sex. There are equivalents that you would likely accept. For example, you probably would have a simplistic SMV where you find a man to be physically "hot" or not. And, in the case of MMV, you would likely consider certain behaviors or information about a man to be red flags.
You can dislike the concepts of Game, but that doesn't mean they have no value or utility to others.
"This why boys are (or used to be) taught that their ability to keep and make happy ONE woman was a great masculine achievement. That was because simply that finding one who compliments (sic) you is the truly valuable thing."
Well, we don't live in the past. Instead, boys today experience the reality that most often their father or at least one of their friends' fathers has been divorced by the mother. As they reach the point of considering marriage, they likely hear more details about these marriages and realize that it is unlikely that they will be any more successful.
As to making a woman happy, that is not possible for any man. She is responsible for her emotions. Unfortunately, it seems that one of the most common reasons for a woman initiating divorce is that she is unhappy.
The truly valuable quality that is necessary for marriage to be successful is commitment. Commitment to love the other and make the marriage work in spite of the problems that will arise.
The psychological theories followed here are agreed upon all schools of credible depth psychologists. What you say in defense of Sexual Market Value shows that the criterion are indeed subjective. The notion of finding 'general concepts' (i.e. generic characteristics) is a marketing concept. It relies solely on visual reaction, and has no relationship to deeper emotional bonding.
DeleteThat is also true of the idea that Commitment is the determining aspect of martial success. That, too, is from the Marketing Model: that contractual obligations are the basis for a relationship. What guarantees success in marriage is love for another; and in such cases commitment is a voluntary act.
As to making a woman happy---it is possible. The reason that women initiate more divorces is because they are culturally and legally incentivized to do it. I'll discuss some more in more depth in the next post.
"What guarantees success in marriage is love for another; and in such cases commitment is a voluntary act."
DeleteI consider commitment to be the foundation for marriage success. Perhaps this commitment is equivalent to the love (Greek agape) found in the New Testament. Romantic love, to some degree, comes and goes. I am inclined to think commitment leads to a greater amount of romantic love. A lack of commitment almost guarantees that the marriage will falter when romantic love subsides.
My understanding of psychological theory is that emotions are the responsibility of the individual, thus another person cannot make an individual happy.
I'll accept that women have incentives to divorce. However, their level of perceived happiness is a large factor in the decision.
"As to making a woman happy---it is possible. The reason that women initiate more divorces is because they are culturally and legally incentivized to do it. I'll discuss some more in more depth in the next post."
DeleteSince I have not seen any post including this discussion, I presume you either forgot or chose to forego it.
The points that needed to be discussed in depth were included on the next post 'Red Pill Unrealities'.
DeleteAgain, I'm going to caution you that the tone you are taking both with other commenters and myself is rude and unacceptable here. You will confine yourself to polite commentary, or else you will not be welcome here. Is that understood?
It seems I did not recognize the post "Red Pill Unrealities" as addressing the topic as I expected.
DeleteI think I understand your philosophy on commenting.
I agree that the SMV ideology is dehumanizing to both sexes.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if I did concur, I'd say Rudy and his lovely companion were at the top of the heap in this department. What a lovely couple!!! I wonder if "The Sheik" is available on "Net Flicks" I bet it is not.
I agree that the SMV ideology is dehumanizing to both sexes.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if I did concur, I'd say Rudy and his lovely companion were at the top of the heap in this department. What a lovely couple!!! I wonder if "The Sheik" is available on "Net Flicks" I bet it is not.