One of the repeated criticisms of Game that people (generally, trolls) will bring up is the idea that men changing their attitudes and habitual actions in order to become more attractive to women is somehow “immoral” or “deceptive.”
As if “molding one’s attitudes and habitual actions towards a desired goal” isn’t, you know, a pretty good basic definition of “growing up.” Who among those now called “adults” didn’t have temper tantrums as a child? Is the fact that adults don’t throw temper tantrums due to some strange miracle wherein adults suffer no frustrations in life? Duh, no. We learn to adjust our attitude in the face of frustration and to express ourselves in a socially acceptable manner. Do we all still wear diapers and require others to bathe us and choose our clothes for us as adults? No, we have taken on the habits of personal grooming as part of our development as people, and a failure in this area is going to swiftly result in social opprobrium.
Character, it is said by parents to frustrated children, is built. Out of inconvenience and pain, mostly, it seems.
Then, of course, is the accusation that changing one’s character in the pursuit of sex is somehow inherently degrading. Let’s be clear: that’s stupid Gnostic thought, based out of the false idea that physicality is inherently evil and only pure spirituality is good. Properly educated Christians don’t believe anything like that. (God said His creation was GOOD. He was talking about matter, not spirit!) But the trolls who trot this bit of foolishness out rarely go after any other appetite – when’s the last time that you saw someone decrying diets, on the grounds that attempting to change one’s eating habits for the goal of (pleasurable!) health is disreputable, downright bad? The very idea is ludicrous!
Sex is a human good. Can it be pursued in bad ways? Of course. Food is a good, too, but it also must be pursued in a good way (and boy, do I wish it were easier!).
But, of course, there’s a problem when a society arranges itself so as to promote poor behavior. Notice, in the comments, that livingtree2013 blames men, essentially for having sexual desire. That’s like casting blame on people for… getting hungry. Just, what? I mean seriously, what? That’s “all PIV sex is rape” levels of biological insanity. Look, just because women can get along fine without orgasms, that’s still biologically impossible for men. Literally. Biologically. Impossible. Ever heard of “nocturnal emissions”? That cropped up in the previous comment thread over at Dalrock’s, too, so LT has obviously not been paying attention either to human biology or to previous comment threads. Or she expects men to be happy with nothing more than wet dreams and masturbation, rather than human relationships. Or, you know, we could be really uncharitable and just assume both!
There’s nothing morally wrong about arranging one’s life to serve basic appetites, either for food or for sex. “If you don’t work, you don’t eat” is a very old canard; the same goes for sex, too – if a man doesn’t work for sex, he doesn’t get laid. And Dalrock’s point is that what men DO to “work” for sex is, in Western culture where consent of your partner is enshrined as sacred, entirely determined by women. So if men build their character in such a way as to become jerks in order to earn sex… ladies, it’s not their “fault.” It’s the sluts’ doing. And that’s why slut shaming has always been primarily done by women. The Sisterhood has stopped policing slutty behavior in large swathes of the population – and the proliferation of players and cads is the natural and inevitable result. Complaining about the degradation of men’s character as a result of this is a little ironic!