Female Game-supporter Admits That Game Is A Form Of Pandering To women

So I was having a discussion with a female supporter of game who was trying to rationalize away anti-game. She’s actually in a serious-committed relationship with a gamer right now.

She contrasted and compared anti-game and game. She correctly described anti-game as being opposed to game in that it seeks to minimize pandering to women. She says that anti-game (not pandering to random sluts) only works if you’re “hot” like Max Tucker, implying that if you’re not hot, you can only get laid by pandering to women.

Through my discussion with said chick, I’ve also learned that she defines a guy as a “jerk” if he doesn’t kiss a woman’s ass even though he has no chance of fucking her. In my reality, and in anti-game, if a woman is not putting up or willing to put in 50% of the work, it’s “bye bye there’s the door, scram” – there’s no point in wasting time on a chick you can’t fuck. To this pro-game chick I was talking to – that means that I am a “jerk”. Yes, wanting the woman to pull 50% of the conversation when you approach her is “being an asshole”. Wanting a woman to not play games if she’s interested, makes you a “jerk”. Not wanting to waste time “gaming” women whom you have no chance of fucking is “being a jerk”?!?

What she didn’t realize is that by describing anti-game as “non-pandering” is that she indirectly admitted that game is in fact a form of pandering to women. She admits that game is a way of boosting the ego of women whom you have no chance of fucking. By contrasting game and anti-game as the method of “getting laid without pandering”, she’s admitting that game is in fact a form of pandering to women.

This is why women support game and PUA once they learn more about it (like this chick does). Most women who are anti-game don’t know shit about it and are only against game out of some knee-jerk reaction. The more women learn about game (like susan walsh and other pro-game women), the more they realize game is just a way of exploiting men’s sexuality while maintaining plausible deniability. It’s a way of getting men to raise random women’s egos and pander to them, while having the guy believe he’s “controlling the woman”. It’s the most ingenious device the matriarchy is yet to invent. It gets you to pander, while believing you’re not – BRILLIANT!

Femmies are also violently against game, even though they’ve never watched a single game or pua seminar in their life or know anything about game past the salesletters and marketing promises. This is why after some femmies actually DO explore game, they realize it’s a matriarchal tool that can serve the femmies really well. The spoiled privileged lazy trash known as clarisse thorny started out disliking PUAs and game, but the more she learned about it, the more she realized the two were made for each other, and now she’s recommending a collaboration between the two and she even defends gamers from femmie attacks… She’s saying (hint hint, these suckers are actually doing our work for us). She’s only the latest. Previous femmies have realized that game is a powerful tool to control men before, and have suggested this collaboration before as well. They believe that the game community only needs a few tweaks, and it will be the perfect femmie-tool to control men.

This is what spitfirrregurl said:
All reprimanding aside, I really think femmie values can be propagated by PUA’s faster than we ever could (this is strategic ally building on my part).

Ever seen any femmie suggest that about MGTOWs? Ever In fact, it’s the opposite with the MGTOW. The more they learn and read about MGTOW, the MORE they hate it, not less. You will never ever ever see a major femmie (like clarisse thorny) defending MGTOWs or writing articles to explain and make MGTOWs “understood” in front of other femmies. This is because MGTOW is the only true 100% “Fuck you society, I ain’t pandering” movement.