(First Published at The Spearhead)

I have a problem with Evolutionary Psychology.  Specifically, I have a problem with how some members of the Game community interpret Evolutionary Psychology.  Evo-Psyche is used to define what it is to be a Man.

Evolutionary Psychology is a scape-goat science being used to market a product.

Once upon a time, men turned to God for explanations.  God lives in the gaps.  Then Man discovered the Scientific Method.  In the search for Truth, Man applied logic and reason to natural phenomenon and gradually the need for God dwindled.

“God works in mysterious ways,” became Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

Science began filling in the gaps in Man’s understanding of the world.  As methods improved, scientific credibility grew.  Then the scientific community developed a tragic flaw: hubris.

As recently as last year, scientists were suggesting that men were a dying breed.  Fifteen minutes ago, scientists announced that they were wrong.  Eggs are good, eggs are bad.  You too can lose weight eating nothing but bacon.

Science had long abused its credibility to push biased, misinformed, and under-investigated theories.  People listened because they wanted to believe what they were being told.  All they needed were the relevant statistics so they could plead authority.

Then Climategate broke and the wheels came off.

Evolutionary Psychology is not an exact science.  It is controversial, meaning debatable, and therefore far from perfect.  Before you quote Dawkins at me, understand what I’m saying.  I am not arguing that Evo-Psyche has no merit, nor am I arguing that it is not an advancing field.

What I am arguing is that Evolutionary Psychology is not grounds for making broad, deterministic statements about the nature of human beings.

When I read statements like “humans evolved to . . . ” or “nature intended”, the thinking part of my brain short-circuits.  Humans did not evolve to do anything.  Nature has no plan.  The idea that survival and replication are Nature’s/Evolution’s goal is quaint foolishness.

This may only be a trick of the language.  These kinds of statements may only be poor wording that conveys an unintended meaning.  Then again, they may be an extension of Argumentum ad Naturam.  Humans evolved that way, natural selection allows only the best, therefore people should behave according X,Y,Z.

Evolution is a process of happy accidents.

Humans did not evolve with opposable thumbs so that we could survive better.  We evolved with them because having them didn’t get us killed.  The fact that our thumbs are useful is only a bonus.

Evolution happens by kludging.  For every million or so harmful mutations, one comes along that happens to be benign, perhaps even useful.  There is no purpose behind it, humans “read” purpose onto Evolution.  We invest it with our own meaning.

Science is supposed to be about observable facts.

“Humans have forward looking eyes, a trait common to predatory animals,” is a valid scientific observation.

“Humans have forward looking eyes because they evolved to be predators,” is not.

Using Evolutionary Psychology to define Manhood makes it easy to reduce men to polyamorous breed machines.  Extrapolating how men are “supposed to be” from a series of lower level physical properties, however factual, is nothing more than reductive determinism.

Meanwhile, a generation of men emasculated by feminism and the Sexual Revolution mope around, dick-hurt about their clumsy love-lives and willing to blame anyone but themselves.  They turn to Game because the people marketing it wave a magic wand and say, “Science!”

Does Game work?  Sure it does . . . but I suspect that its success has more to do with the confidence a systematic approach instills in men than with the credibility of its scientific underpinnings.

Before you dust off your pitchfork and burn a cross on my lawn, think aboutwhy men want Game to be a Scientific Fact.  Men want sex.  Game promises them that.  If Game truly is the magic bullet, then anyone can land the girl(s) of their dreams and all they need is a little practice . . .

While you indulge this thought, which sounds like the male equivalent of a Cosmo cover article, consider how other scientifically proven products have benefited you.

Has your magic powder increased your natural testosterone 1500%?  Did that magic pill increase the size of your penis?

Did Xenedrine and Hydroxycut make you ripped?

If so, I’ve got some magic beans you’re gonna love . . .

(First Published at The Spearhead)

Denise Romano v. The Seduction Community

Denise Romano is no friend of pick-up artists.  Ms. Romano has accused pick-up artists of being abusive to women.  She claims that Game represents a kind of Fraud, invalidating consent for women who have sex with pick-up artists.

Ms. Romano believes that Game, and pick-up artists, are morally culpable for coercing women into having sex.  She believes that Game is a kind of brainwashing, that it manipulates the will, therefore constituting sexual assault.

Denise Romano is just bitter . . .

Ms. Romano argues ad nauseum that Game is morally wrong.  She attacks the specific terms that pick-up artists use, claiming that they objectify women.  She thinks that some pick-up artists are rude, awful jackasses who use women for sex without consideration for that woman’s feelings.

On some accounts, she is right.

Ms. Romano makes a Kantian argument.  Intentionally or not, she evokes the Categorical Imperative.

In the First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative, Kant states:

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

The first formulation is based on the “golden rule”, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  A universalizable maxim is a moral duty.  A maxim must be logically consistent.  It is not logical to will that you can steal from others without allowing that they can steal from you.

So don’t convince attractive people to have sex with you unless you want them to do the same.

The Second Formulation is closer to Ms. Romano’s logic:

“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end.”

This second formulation more specifically addresses Ms. Romano’s objection to Game and the Seduction Community.  Her real objection is that pick-up artists use women for sex without regard for their inherent moral value as persons (i.e. moral agents; people are capable of making moral choices, and therefore have moral worth).

If I were a Kantian, I would care.

The premise that seduction is inherently abusive assumes that people have a moral duty to one another.  Where does this moral duty come from?  Is there a divine law that we mustn’t break?  Does the power of Christ compel us?

No it doesn’t.

There is no such thing as moral obligation.  Morality is a social construct, an abstraction grown out of the human aversion to pain and death.  Right and wrong amount to personal injury and property damage.

How can this be?  If this were the case – if the world were, in fact, amoral – then life would be horrible!  We would all live in constant fear of pain and death.  The truth is, we do.  The world is a dangerous place.  It does not care about your pain.

Only you do.

Each of us recognizes the fact that such an existence – one of constant fear and danger – is miserable.  Each of us accepts, if only tacitly, a kind of great truce with our fellow man.  Thomas Hobbes calls it the Second Law of Nature:

” . . . that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself.” – The Leviathan; Chapter XIV

There it is again, the Golden Rule.  The difference here is that Hobbes isn’t concerned with universalizable maxims.  Hobbes suggests that we shouldn’t run around bonking each other over the head and stealing one another’s shit because a world like that would be miserable.

That does not mean we are obligated in any way to treat other persons with regard for their moral agency.  It means we must treat them with regard for their ability to kill us and take our shit.

See the difference?

Society is not based on altruistic principles, but on self-interest.  Each of us are responsible for our own well-being.  We are not obliged to worry about the wants or needs of others, except when we choose to.

As far as Game is concerned, Consent is the extent of the Law.

Here is where Ms. Romano’s argument thickens.  She holds that Game is a kind of Fraud, therefore legally invalidating any Consent given.

Ms. Romano’s premise relies upon the fact that Game is a form of deception.  Pick-up artists will often use a variety of deceitful practices in order to seduce a woman.  They adopt persona cultivated to entice women, they use canned material that is often little more than phony stories, they may lie about their names or facts about their lives.

Pick-up artists lie their asses off.

The problem is that lying and Fraud are not the same thing.  People lie all the time, and are guilty of nothing more than bad taste.  Pick-up artists lie and are guilty of nothing more than being douche bags.

Women wear flattering clothing to hide their flaws.  They use make-up to conceal blemishes and padded bras to accentuate their breasts.  They tell men all kinds of things to attract them, and sometimes they lie.

Does any of this constitute Fraud?  No.

Fraud: A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant’s actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact, (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

Elements 1-4 are clear; they outline the constituent parts of a lie.  Element 5 is where things get tricky.  In order for a lie to constitute Fraud, it must cause injury.  Specifically, the victim must be deprived of rights or property.  Furthermore, any lies must be false “statements of fact”.

Opinions and qualitative statements don’t count.

When a woman has sex with a pick-up artist, she is not buying a sales pitch or exchanging goods or services.  She is engaging in consensual sex.  Sex is straight-forward, what you see is what you get.  There is no false advertising once the clothes come off.

Buyers beware.

One sticking point here concerns STDs; a person who knowingly endangers another without making their partner aware of their condition beforehand obviates that person’s ability to make an informed decision.

. . . And if you’re having unprotected sex or being incautious with your body, shame on you.

In most cases, when someone goes home with a person they have just met, they do so at their own peril.  If bad sex or a smirch on your reputation is the worst that happens, count your blessings.  Consider the ramifications of your actions before you act, there is no RESET button.

Denise Romano’s argument is the argument of a bitter woman looking to obviate her own responsibility for having slept with someone she regrets.  I am not stating that this is actually the case.  I don’t care.

Game is just nerdy guys trying to get laid.  It isn’t magic.  It isn’t hypnosis.  It certainly isn’t sexual assault.  It’s just a game.

If women want to stand on equal footing with men then they have to accept the fact that, when they wake up next to a Gorgon, maybe they should have said No to that last shot of Jagermeister.

As for Denise Romano, maybe she should stop drinking the Kool-Aid.