The other important fact, which Allen mentions, is that the upper classes nevertheless get married and have children at something resembling 1950s rates. So where’s their virtue coming from? On the other hand, it’s the middle class and the poor whose sexual/family structures have collapsed. Which suggests that there’s more to the problem than “culture”.

The fact is that fewer people marry today than was typical during earlier periods in American history, and they have fewer children. Upper-middle-class women enjoy a period of sowing wild oats before marriage, and the kind of men they choose during this phase of their lives are usually not the ones likely to make good husbands.

That is where Game comes in. Men find that they need to develop a certain kind of manner – let’s call it cocky indifference rather than talking about alphas here – in order to sell themselves in this sexual market. Those who fail to do so become spiteful and frustrated; those who succeed become cynical about female nature. This trend is as yet too recent to have had much impact on marriage patterns – the urban middle classes still get married eventually, and their divorce rates are actually down – but that may change.

As for people outside the big cities, they may have fewer sexual partners than in NYC, but that doesn’t mean that women in smaller or less sophisticated communities aren’t choosing exciting men over good husband material, while their male counterparts choose “Girls Gone Wild” over women who could make good wives. Worse, their children, especially at lower social levels, are more likely to be born out of wedlock. So it’s quite possible that here, too, the “alpha” male is the more sexually successful, even if these women have 3.3 sexual partners rather than 20 over the course of a lifetime.

The social, economic, and even spiritual implications of these facts are not good.

Full disclosure: Charlotte Allen cites me in her article.

Slumlord is at:
socialpathology.blogspot.com
His article is:
Traditionalism and Female Sexuality

Most “gamers” use evolutionary psychology and tend to reduce everyone to his animal nature by suggestion. For these materialist reductionists, to understand a woman’s instinctual (fallen) bio nature is tantamount to understanding women per se. Transcendence is eliminated from the start, so their cynicism merits no surprise. Many complain of being lied to about female sexuality, probably when their virgin/whore dualism is invalidated.

Inevitably, you get hedonistic nihilism, and “let’s manipulate nature toward our own ends.” It works, because of either widespread materialism or dualism. The latter especially embraces a distinction made between Alpha and Beta, both corresponding to a woman’s dualistic attractions, which are viewed as contradictory. A girl goes for a Beta possibly only in a purely mental (thus non-existent or weakened) manner; she only truly wants the Alpha, since her strictly instinctual sexuality must be running the show. Most guys then believe they must be one of two exclusive disjuncts (obvious choice for secularists: moral-free, weak, approval-seeking kindness or loud, proud, pleasurable disrespect; either/or despair for Christians: neutered egalitarianism or “misogynistic” promiscuity). Allegedly, the girl confusedly tries to use an alpha for a beta’s job or else lets the government replace beta. Liberal feminists help her.

The Game Movement is viewed as a counter-attack on feminists, who essentially attempt to deny natural biological reality, or separate the rational and the natural to reform the second with their own ideas in the first. (Re-)formalists v. materialists, rationalists v. empiricists. Game is more like a radical, reductionist refutation of rationalists.

It seems every time you divorce the rational from the material, the irrational material wins, getting all the cheapened belongings of the now seemingly useless rational-formal. (Hm, apparently the sexes follow respectively.) As always, we need more Aristotle and Thomas to help bridge the “gap” and solve the problem of male/female interaction.