Poor, Misunderstood Dread Game

Each time a woman knows her man has other options (be it other women, friends or some hobby), it’s unintentional dread game. Each time she knows he will not tolerate bullshit if she chooses to throw some his way, it’s unintentional dread game. Although I think a blue pill feminist will disagree and say it’s just an equal relationship. I think it’s both. IMO, the argument is almost entirely semantic.

A man doesn’t have to engage in conscious manipulation to create a feeling of dread in his woman. But if he does, it’s not all wrong. To let the woman know that you don’t stick around to tolerate bullshit is just standing up for yourself. And making sure she knows you have other options is just a reminder of your value, and that you’re not needy. It’s a way to stop giving a little, when the person isn’t acting very appreciative of it.

I heard bluepillers say breaking up is better than manipulation. I think it’s highly debatable. Is it a horrible immoral evil to make someone feel uncomfortable for a while? Also, for some people, breaking up would be breaking apart a family or/and becoming impoverished. And some people just want to make it work. Might as well try one last time to fix it. You can always go back to how things were, if you don’t like it, and THEN break up.

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Men, Women and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Poor, Misunderstood Dread Game

  1. I really don’t understand why red pills believe they are engaging in “dread game.” Are these things not simply normal human relationships? Why do they perceive it as manipulation? Manipulation is like, threats of violence, intimidation, coercion. Either many of those red pills are slightly psychotic or they’re talking about rather ordinary human boundary setting in relationships. There’s nothing “dread” about it.

    • Sam says:

      Men, particularly INTJs who browse Manosphere websites, strive to diminish their partners’ discomfort. So if knowing that they have other options may make their women uncomfortable; or, if resisting their women’s bullshit may cause the women to feel discomfort – then men, by their nature, are compelled to remove this discomfort, or, to use Manospherian terminology, diminish an aspect of “Dread” from the relationship. The so-called “Red Pill” is the observation that investing 100% of your ability to diminish a woman’s discomfort makes one appear as less, rather than more, attractive to women. No, this is not obvious *at all*: a woman who strives to make her man as comfortable as possible is still attractive, not despite of this, but because, or regardless, of this. Betas / Omegas are inclined to remove discomfort; this makes them less attractive; the Red Pill teaches them not to remove discomfort, sometimes even to introduce it. This introduction, if it concerns the man having other options, that is, the man being able to leave if he chooses, is an introduction of a latent “Dread”.

    • Jeremy says:

      I largely agree with Sam’s comments. @insanitybytes22, it may seem like what YOU (and most women) would do in a normal human relationship, but it is not how most men are conditioned to behave.

      Most men are conditioned to respect women and put them first, not to strive for equality. If a woman slaps a man in the face, most men would NOT slap the woman back (even though doing so may technically be called “equality”). Men are raised to believe that their efforts naturally go to their women. That their job is to make their women happy.

      Further, as Sam wrote, if a woman spent all her efforts trying to make her man happy, such behaviour would make most husbands amazingly attracted and grateful to her. So it is a mystery to most men that such behavior induces only contempt in women when men behave that way.

      My experience (and that of many men) is that when sex and respect wane in a marriage, the reason is more often that the woman has grown too comfortable rather than not comfortable enough. The concept of “dread game” just reduces that comfort. Not enough to make her unhappy, but to keep a slow drip of dopamine in the relationship. Without that, most women lose interest, then respect, then sex, then their marriages.

      • Perhaps it is not fair for me to judge the red pills as much as I do, it’s just that to me, these things are not great revelations. I can hardly conceive of the fact that some men actually struggle with these ideas.

        And there are some red pills who use this alleged awareness to promote some rather vile forms of exploitation. So when people speak of dread game they are not all on the same page with their motivation and intent.

      • I think it’s a revelation to these men, because they don’t see the cause of why the woman stops wanting to have sex. They think they must be more accomodating to make it how it was before. How can they guess otherwise?

      • Jeremy says:

        @insanitybites22

        I understand this isn’t a revelation to you, but it is to many men. I’ll give you an example of the reverse:
        Years ago, I was speaking to a female acquaintance of mine who was a dental student. She very much wanted to meet a man and get married, but couldn’t seem to generate attraction in the type of man she was interested in. She complained to me that she didn’t understand – why are more men not attracted to her? She was a dental student – she would have a good job and make a good income. She would find that incredibly attractive in a man, so why don’t men find that attractive in her? I explained what was obvious to me, but not to her – that the qualities men find attractive in women are not the same qualities women find attractive in men. Her job, admirable though it was, is not a sexual attractant to most men. This was an unpleasant revelation to her.

        The discovery of how “dread” affects women is often an unpleasant discovery for men. We don’t understand it. It’s not how we think.

      • Eric says:

        Love and Dread are mutually exclusive concepts. If these Gamecocks would reverse the genders and hear women talking about how to instill dread in men and manipulate them through fear, they would outraged and rightly so.

        If women need to be shocked and awed into staying in a relationship, then the relationship is of no value.

      • Jeremy says:

        @ Eric, you wrote “Love and dread are mutually exclusive concepts.”

        I respectfully disagree, though we may be quibbling over the meaning of the word “dread”. I recommend the book “Mating in Captivity” by Esther Perel (if you haven’t already read it). The book discusses the interesting differences between “love” and “desire”. How we can love what we already have, but how it is difficult to desire something we already have. How too much intimacy can actually be detrimental to love in a relationship.
        In this context, “dread” is too strong of a word. It should be taken to mean a certain degree of distance, “otherness”; an intolerance of bullsh-t, and the willingness to leave the relationship should it no longer be mutually satisfying. It’s funny, I would, once upon a time, have totally agreed that these things are antithetical to my concept of a loving relationship. But I have observed that, for many women, they are the absolute underpinnings of a loving relationship (as insanitybytes22 confirmed – they seem only natural to her).

        PS: what is a Gamecock?

      • Eric says:

        Jeremy:
        Relationships are supposed to evolve to higher levels. If intimacy has becoming ‘boring’ for a woman, it’s because she isn’t putting enough effort into it. It’s up to her to do something different, not the man.

        Game is simply feminism for men. It depends on mutual antagonism between the sexes just like feminism does.

      • theasdgamer says:

        Eric is a white-knighting equalist. Yuck.

      • Eric says:

        Adsgamer:
        Heaven forbid that men and women should actually like one another. That would defeat the purposes of both Feminists and Gamesters.

        ‘Men without options are unattractive. Dread necessarily follows having options’

        That’s just stupid. Once a man is committed in a relationship, he doesn’t continue to have other options.

        ‘Women always have options without trying.’

        If that’s true, then dread would be counterproductive.

        ‘Wisdom leads men to seek options’

        No it doesn’t.

        ‘Men having options levels the field…’

        Yes, on Feminist terms. It’s the Feminists who want uncommitted relationships, and you Gamers play right into their hands.

      • theasdgamer says:

        That’s just stupid. Once a man is committed in a relationship, he doesn’t continue to have other options.

        Sure, there’s lots of commitment, proved by a very high divorce rate and lots of cheating. The system is aimed to ensure commitment. Not. Your argument is stupid.

        You should read my post about the Song of Solomon and Dread, assuming that you put any stock in the Bible.

      • theasdgamer says:

        ‘Women always have options without trying.’

        If that’s true, then dread would be counterproductive.

        Not if the woman is chasing the man because the man is higher value than she.

      • theasdgamer says:

        ‘Wisdom leads men to seek options’

        No it doesn’t.

        Twit.

      • theasdgamer says:

        ‘Men having options levels the field…’

        Yes, on Feminist terms. It’s the Feminists who want uncommitted relationships, and you Gamers play right into their hands.

        Sure, because the Bible must be feminist and all, since it suggests that a man having options makes him more desirable to a woman. See my post about the Song of Solomon and Preselection.

        It’s divorce law that has removed commitment from relationships. “Gamers” have nothing to do with commitment being removed from relationships. And having Game doesn’t equal being a PUA.

      • Jeremy says:

        @Eric,
        I understand where you are coming from. Your comment “once a man is in a committed relationship, he no longer has any other options” is how I think too. Once a person, man or woman, is in a committed relationship, they should make the other person’s happiness their priority, right? They should show their undying love and devotion for that person, right?
        Dude, that’s how MEN view relationships. It is certainly how I view them. The discovery that most men make, though, as they get older and their relationships mature, is that women don’t see things the same way. Men want their wives to prioritize their needs – a woman who spends her day prioritizing a man’s needs is seen by him as awesome. A man who spends his days prioritizing a woman’s needs is seen as a ball-less dweeb. They admire a man who has his own passions, his own desires and interests – they want to assist that man with his desires. They don’t want to be the center of his desires.

        It is foreign to me, but it is ubiquitous. Your comments are idealistic, but unfortunately not realistic. I don’t advocate for soft-dread because I think it is idealistic or morally correct. I do it because it works, and believe it or not, makes women HAPPIER in their relationships with men. It’s crazy, I know.

      • theasdgamer says:

        @ Jeremy

        I don’t advocate for soft-dread because I think it is idealistic or morally correct.

        Who GAF about morality? If the Song of Solomon contains righteous ideas about relationships, then its advocation of soft dread means that soft dread is righteous.

      • Eric says:

        Adsgamer:
        I put stock in the Bible—but not in Gamecock Revisionism. The Bible is not a Game Manual, in spite of what clowns like Dalrock say.

        The high divorce rate proves only that our culture doesn’t value marriage—in fact, it’s a product of having TOO MANY options. Women are monogamous by nature, the current culture is not the natural female state.

      • Eric says:

        Jeremy:
        Are you saying that women admire men who ignore their needs? Prioritzing female needs doesn’t make a man a ‘ball-less dweeb’ it makes him a responsible member of a relationship. Ball-less dweebs don’t try to please a woman—instead they keep searching for new options.

      • theasdgamer says:

        I put stock in the Bible—but not in Gamecock Revisionism.

        You put no stock in the Bible–rather in your own revisionism. Sure, I’m practicing revisionism–from your own churchian revisionism back to the original reading.

        The Bible is not a Game Manual, in spite of what clowns like Dalrock say.

        But the Song of Solomon certainly teaches about Game, no matter what you say. If you call Dalrock a “clown”, why is it that you have a big red nose on your face and feet the size of boats?

        The high divorce rate proves only that our culture doesn’t value marriage

        Who gives a 5h1t about the divorce rate? I was discussing divorce LAW. Learn how to read.

        TOO MANY options. Women are monogamous by nature

        Let’s supply another FACT. Women initiate 70% of divorces. Women use divorce to create options. Those options include serial monogamy, which is not committed lifetime monogamy. Serial monogamy isn’t real marriage. And women generally begin sexual relations with a second man before leaving the first. I know one 25 yo woman who has six new boyfriends every year. Yeah, that’s just sooooo monogamous, lol.

        And another FACT. I get hit on fairly frequently by married women.

        The FACTS just don’t support Eric’s conclusions. Women are hypergamous by nature, not monogamous.

      • Eric says:

        Adsgamer:
        Game IS, for all intents and purposes, a quasi-religious cult. Trying to wrap it in pseudo-Christianity doesn’t make it Christian.

        There’s nothing in Solomon’s writings that teaches Game, or anywhere else in the Bible. Christianity teaches a strict gender polarity and that Monogamy is accordance with the divine law—‘the two shall become one flesh’—certainly seems to negate anything taught by the Churchian/neo-Gnostic Gamecocks.

        And there’s no such thing as female hypergamy.

  2. Liz says:

    “To let the woman know that you don’t stick around to tolerate bullshit is just standing up for yourself. And making sure she knows you have other options is just a reminder of your value, and that you’re not needy. It’s a way to stop giving a little, when the person isn’t acting very appreciative of it.”

    100 percent agree. Well said, Emma. 🙂

  3. Pingback: Poor, Misunderstood Dread Game | Truth and cont...

  4. theasdgamer says:

    Men without options are unattractive. Dread necessarily follows having options. Wisdom leads men to seek options. Women always have options without trying. Men having options levels the playing field in a relationship..

  5. Shee says:

    The only time dread is manipulation is when the man is lying about having more options than he actually has. Telling a girlfriend that she needs to change in order to continue with the relationship isn’t manipulation. It’s giving her a chance to save the relationship. I think a man who is willingly to walk away from a bad relationship regardless whether they can have sex with another woman the next day or not is attractive.

    Of course many red pill website have to describe this process in the most vile negative way possible that it’s hard for bluepillers to accept it.

    • “Of course many red pill website have to describe this process in the most vile negative way possible that it’s hard for bluepillers to accept it.”

      Kind of true, presentation matters.

      • Eric says:

        Telling someone that they to change isn’t manipulation: coercing change is. If anything, coercion demonstrates lack of options in itself, since someone with options wouldn’t demand change.

        In a committed relationship, of course, things are different.

    • Shee says:

      @Eric

      “If anything, coercion demonstrates lack of options in itself, since someone with options wouldn’t demand change.”

      The man can become single. He doesn’t need options to free himself from a woman who is not meeting his relationship standard. Even a man who has options will not throw away a fixable relationship that he already invested in. It’s not coercion. No one is forcing the woman to change. People in successful committed relationships communicate with each other about what each others standards are and try their best to reach it. If they are unable or unwilling to reach the standard than they should find others who can.

  6. Matthew Chiglinsky says:

    Breaking up is more honest than manipulation, and honesty is good. Also, there’s that noble cliche: If you love something, let it go and wait for it to come back to you.

    Why do people play these games anyway? I’m missing the point of why I would ever want a girlfriend if I’m supposed to jump through these hoops. If a girl isn’t willing to trust me, she can go to Hell. Trust is the basis for any HEALTHY relationship, and I shouldn’t have to remind her of my “value”. I’m a person, not a damned commodity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s