Reader PA provided a springboard for a post when he mused about the male archetypes found in the lyrics of love songs by female singers.
Love songs by female artists about each of VoxDay’s [male SMV] ranks.
Alpha – Carly Simon “You’re so Vain.” He’s a legend and a lady killer who always takes what he wants, he never wants it for too long, and she will never forget him.
Beta – Whitney Houston “All the Man that I Need.” The title alone tells you that he is not larger than life. But her physical and emotional satisfaction is total.
Delta – Taylor Swift “You Belong with Me.” He’s literally the boy next door. An attractive girl plays him, but a plain girl wants him.
Gamma – That was a tough one. How many girls sing love songs to John Scalzi? Best I can think of is Dolly Parton’s “Jolene.” A drab woman pleads for mercy to a seductress that wants to toy with her loser husband just because she can.
Omega – Concrete Blonde “Joey.” He is broke. He is drunk. He is laying in a pool of vomit. No, he is not Keith Richards.
Sigma – Heart “Magic Man.” Nobody can make heads or tails of the attraction; it’s like, WTF? But it’s like out of a dream.
Lambda – ?
I’ll assume a lambda is a gay. Have any female singers crooned about a gay man? Here’s one:
It was tough to dig up that video. For all the talk about women routinely falling for gay men unbeknownst, in reality most women have pretty good gaydars. At least the hardened urban slut cynics do.
One thing that’s interesting about female singers is that you can obliquely track changes in the sexual market by the themes of their songs. One big change has been the anhedonic increase in faux tankgrrl posturing by mainstream twat-rockers.
Women used to sing, authentically, about their vulnerability and heartbreak, often at the hands of callous badboys. Their songs reverberated with truth, because they sang with honest self-appraisal instead of posturing feminism. Even the “tough girls” of the past, like Pat Benatar, singing about daring a man to “hit me with your best shot” (i.e., game the living tingles outta her), aimed many of her punches at her own sternum.
Well you’re a real tough cookie with a long history Of breaking little hearts, like the one in me
In the 90s, the GineVibe started to oscillate along an anti-human, pro-androgyne wavelength. The first fully-flowered feminist singers made man-hating propaganda a focal point of their songs. Many of these girlpower/girlvictimism songs were based on carefully constructed lies. (Tori Amos was never raped.)
Since then, the trend among female singers has been accelerating to more absurd and ridiculous phony Sandbergian “lean in” power postures. Today, we have the spectacle of fatties like Elle King (Deuce Bigalow’s daughter) singing about all the studs who can’t get enough of her doughgirl rolls and chase her around like puppy dogs.
Older, current female singers are in on the zeitgeist too. Sia boasts of her time on the party circuit and cock carousel as she hides her cracking face under a veil for live performances and calls it a symbolic blow against patriarchal oppression.
Even within female singers’ careers, there’s a trend away from honest self-assessment and feminine vulnerability toward chest-beating theatrics that would challenge the antics of the horniest male rocker. Taylor Swift morphed from a smitten, naive romantic to a fortified fembot “shaking it off”. Katy Perry roars, without a hint of irony. Miley Cyrus milks her femininity-disavowing sexual ambiguity for profit.
Female singers have started aping and co-opting the caricatured masculine themes of promiscuity, emotional distance (implied or revealed), and middle finger majesty, without any of the poetic discordance in feelings or slipped confessions of humility that male singers often drop into their songs.
It’s bizarro world with these aggrochicks, and it sells today. But why?
Maybe as a nation/country/world bazaar declines, its “””people””” need to cling evermore tightly to delusions about the sexes, about the races, about the classes, and about the tribes. And maybe that’s why we have the Elle Kings and neo-Taylor Swifts selling their fake-outs to millions of thirsty femme ears, to both transparently faux-bragging fatties and meekly acquiescing manlets alike.
Or, maybe the modern sexual market has become so alien to women — rife with jerkboys, betas, delayed marriage, childlessness, and Diversity-fueled social disconnection — that the only way they can comprehend it is to pretend to be like men, swinging their clitmores and hewing testicles for sport.
A player’s paradise — aka a cads and tramps society — would have distinguishing features that wouldn’t be found, or wouldn’t be quite as pronounced, in a beta male-ruled — aka dads and damsels — society.
1. More sexualized women.
Is T&A the order of the day? Do culture-amplifying mediums like advertising and entertainment try to get away with displaying the maximum amount of skin and minimum amount of clothing on their female messengers? Are women (especially women in the limelight) all too eager to comply with the zesty zeitgeist?
In a playa’s paradise, we can expect to find more sexualization of women because women will be more interested in short-term hookups with sexy, charming, dominant men. These men have dating market options, and as any man with options will do he’ll demand more sexual license and physical perfection from his considered conquests. Women will respond to this male-centric romantic preference by advertising themselves as sexual, sexy objects to be devoured in a bonerbath of contraceptively-safeguarded desire.
2. Less sexual dimorphism.
It seems counter-intuitive, but there is cross-racial evidence for the CH hypothesis that cad/tramp societies are less sexually dimorphic than dad/damsel societies. For instance, in the world’s OPP (Original Playa’s Paradise), Africa, the women are more masculine and less feminine than woman from dad/damsel societies. Even within the dad-centered West, a swing toward more cads/tramps is associated with less feminine (where feminine = coy, slender, and estrogenically curvy) women. Female athletes are the best example of this trend… all narrow boyhips, flat chests, and scowling countenances hitched atop glass-cutting manjaws.
Why? Best speculation: There are two processes happening that reinforce each other. One, girls with more masculine features and personalities tend, on average, to be more open to the idea of casual, NSA sex, and probably have, as well, stronger, more insistent, libidos than feminine women. Two, men seeking easy flings probably target, subconsciously, women with “sexually aggressive” phenotypic traits, and that may include women with bodies and desirous leers primed for piston-like pumping.
In a cad/tramp society, men will prefer good-to-go, low investment pussy properties, because there’s less paternity assurance (and less emphasis on paternity assurance by both sexes) and because there’s less expectation that any romantic liaison will lead to a long-term, sexually faithful, commitment. In a dad/damsel society, men are expected to commit before receiving the poon goodies, (and likewise women are expected to avoid riding the cock carousel before receiving that treasured commitment). Therefore, men under these conditions will prefer take-it-slow, high investment pussy properties, which means more feminine, prettier, coy women.
The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.
Feminism can be seen as both a happy allegiance to, and a bitter backlash against, a cad/tramp society. On the former, feminism advocates a social order that opens the short-term, sexual field to women, with the intent of allowing women the shameless pursuit of those few sexy, fly-by-night alpha cads who give them womb-shaking tingles. On the latter, feminism wishes to institute draconian, anti-male, anti-human rules of conduct that serve to straitjacket the romantic prerogatives of unsexy beta males. In this latter instance, the gimping of beta male courtship preferences — that is, the discouragement of beta males taking advantage of their sexual market strengths (shy, deliberate courting with long-term focus) — helps cad-chasing women avoid the awkward solicitations of any men other than those men who are skilled at the art of the approach.
4. Hatred of traditional sex roles.
A cad/tramp society should see more expressed hatred of the traditional sex roles that predominate in a dad/damsel society. This hatred will be found strongest among women who most benefit from the loose sexual and romantic expectations of a cad society: The middling 4s, 5s, and 6s who would rather enjoy five minutes of a higher value man scrubbing out their dirty dick holsters for a few weeks than the enraptured commitment of a lower value man offering financial and emotional commitment that these economically and egotistically self-sufficient women no longer need.
Cads themselves will also shit and piss on traditional sex roles, but they’ll mostly do this through their actions instead of the typical female strategy of verbal tumblrrhea designed to police thought boundaries and enlarge the conformist suck-up circle.
5. Hatred of beta provider males.
Concomitant with the above predicted observation, beta provider males will really take it on the chin. They are the biggest losers in a cad/tramp culture. Romantic failures, and hated for their romantic failure, beta provider males will have to find succor in waiting until their early 30s to marry a road-worn, cock-scarred cougarette on the make for a suburban sap she can latch onto for her obligatory 1.5 IVF-aided snot-nosed brats at the low low cost of once-a-year half-hearted birthday blowjobs.
6. More aggressive sexual signaling.
A cad/tramp society will teem with girls signaling their availability for hot sex from the right man. You would expect to see more tattoos, more body modifications, and more behavioral tics that transparently suggest the girl under consideration is DTF if you enter the correct all-access key code into her id-box.
Interestingly, on this matter, men will divide into two competing camps: The players and wannabes who emphasize their sexy male attributes at the expense of their latent romantic idealism, and the hardened betaboys who will cling ever tighter to their emotional tampon/orbiter game in the belief, usually mistaken, that at least one girl, at one point in their miserably incel lives, will tire of the cads and swoon for the beta’s earnest niceness.
7. Disproportionately higher STD rates among women.
A sexual market with cads and tramps at the top of the hierarchy would be sex-skewed in favor of the cads, for the simple reason that the female hypergamous impulse to mate with higher status men is more powerful and less malleable to compromise than the male impulse to fornicate with the prettiest girls. (In layman’s (heh) terms, men are more willing than are women to slum it once in a while.)
A consequence of female hypergamy is that once it is unleashed from cultural constraints, women will gravitate to a de facto polygyny, sharing the top 10-20% of men during their prime fertility years (15-25). What you’d find then, is a few cads spreading their venereal love to the larger number of women who lay with them. And that is what the data point to:
Overall prevalence of chlamydial infection was 4.19% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.48%-4.90%). Women (4.74%; 95% CI, 3.93%-5.71%) were more likely to be infected than men (3.67%; 95% CI, 2.93%-4.58%; prevalence ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03-1.63). The prevalence of chlamydial infection was highest among black women (13.95%; 95% CI, 11.25%-17.18%) and black men (11.12%; 95% CI, 8.51%-14.42%); lowest prevalences were among Asian men (1.14%; 95% CI, 0.40%-3.21%), white men (1.38%; 95% CI, 0.93%-2.03%), and white women (2.52%; 95% CI, 1.90%-3.34%).
8. More women acting out like men.
Female teachers banging their underage and overhorny charges will be rampant in cad/tramp environments. So will women cursing like sailors, women posturing like drunken frat boys, women pretending to enjoy their slutty lifestyles, and women refusing the chivalric interventions of well-meaning old skool men.
Why bother cultivating the feminine traits when their usefulness has expired?
9. More men acting out like women.
This one is the mortal shiv in the heart of Western dad/damsel culture. What do you get when you (de)couple sexually focused, short-term thinking, masculine women with weepy, romance-starved, long-term focused male feminists?
The difference between manlets and manjaws is part motivation, part exogenous insult. Manjaws (unfeminine women) would suffer in a dad/damsel society where men were more discerning about which women they’d choose for commitment, but in a cad/tramp society vulgar, leg-spreading manjaws don’t take too big of a hit to their ability to find horndogs on the one-night-only prowl.
Manlets, in contrast, suffer a big hit whether they operate within a cad/tramp or a dad/damsel context. However, one could argue the hit they take is smaller in the dad/damsel milieu. So what motivates manlets in a cad/tramp society to stick to their feeble, flaccid guns? Perhaps their bitterness as SMV rejects creates a negative feedback loop exaggerating their impetus to unmanly posturing. Sort of like how a bullied kid will retreat deeper into solitude and fantasies of self-actualization.
But the reason may be more concrete than that psychological trawling. Post-America Manlettery (PAM!) could be the consequence of an all-out, all-points environmental estrogenic assault by the chemicals and Hivemind propaganda we all profoundly breathe and ingest on the daily.
Bottom line: Masculine women and feminine men are 100% bad box office. A 7-2 offsuit hand. A cosmic affront. A middle finger to the god of biomechanics. It won’t end well.
So, you tell the CH audience… are we living in a playa’s paradise?
The ironic misuse of the “creepy” slander by women toward men is in part a case of psychological projection by the unfairer sex. Commenter “Not Thought Police” explains:
Never attribute to internal failing that which can be explained by a woman’s inherent need to emotionally project.
Do not pass go. Do not validate. Do not entertain her musings until projection is ruled out first.
This holds true for many facets of femininity but i think in no other place does it hold more weight than the concept of male creepiness:
A woman, in vetting a man, will:
Gossip with friends, look through his private stuff, his books, his music, find out his political leanings to the n’th-degree (from his feminist sensibilities right down to how he feels about trade agreements n shit), how he feels toward his mother, how much he earns, is he carrying a mental illness, can he provide?, does he look and act like Gosling? Can he sing like that dude from Coldplay or at least do something notable so she doesn’t look like she’s just dating Dave, the accountant? Is he strong..but not so strong that he cannot be controlled? Is he intelligent..but not so intelligent that he might win in an argument? Is he confident, but not so much that he might attract the attentions of other girls (not that she’d be jealous or anything because women aren’t creepy like that) Is he articulate but not so much that he might outshine her beaming personality? Is he cool but not so cool that he’d make her look uncool. That’d never do!
Contrast this to the creepy, rapey Man: What’s her rack like? Is she kinda half normal?
Tell me who is really the creepy one here?
Here’s an uncomfortable truth: The Surveillance State is women’s natural operating procedure. But we autonomically give women a pass for being precociously creepy toward men within the field of view of the female Eye of Ovum because… well, read about the Fundamental Premise.
Of course, women have good evo-bio reasons for being creepier than men (and equally good reasons for fooling themselves about their own creepster instincts), but that doesn’t mean men have to roll over and play the women’s game the way women want it played. Correction… the way women “””want””” it played; triple-quoted to indicate that women may consciously want obeisance to their rules from men, but subconsciously, where messages are sent direct to the vagina, women want men who don’t do what they “””want”””.
Disgust, more than fear, dampens women’s sexual arousal. As a devoted skirt chaser, it’s better to make a girl a little afraid of you than it is to disgust her.
(Any connection between wives’ growing disgust for their beta hubbies and their frequency of headaches is purely coincidental.)
This female hindbrain reality explains why women are so quick to label men they don’t like with terms that evoke disgust, (e.g., “creepy”, “strange”, “weird”), and why men, in turn, are so careful to avoid being labeled as such, and to feel the sting harder when they are the recipient.
But it is also true, as any man with extensive field experience will attest, that women tend to throw around the “creep” smear with scattershot profligacy, as a means of “dramatizing” an incipient seduction as often as a means of communicating outright rejection of their suitors. In other words, the “creepy” label is a semantic shit test, and like any female shit test, if successfully passed your attractiveness to the girl will markedly increase.
There are counter-semantic measures a man can take to power down the empowerment a girl feels when she drops the “creep” bomb.
GIRL: “Ew, you’re being soooo creepy/such a creep!”
“Please, you haven’t seen anything yet. Wait’ll I put on my clown make-up.”
Basically, light-heartedly call the girl out as a creep before she gets a chance to do it to you. It’s a great preemptive reframe of a courtship that constantly forces the girl back on her heels, in the defensive crouch (where tingles are born!)
“Oh, you’re one of *those* girls.”
“Do you eat with that mouth?”
Reverse Shit Test
Assume The Sale
“Look, this is my final offer. After this, I have to cut you loose.”
This might be the best option for newbies. Just change the topic and “reset” the convo as if she hadn’t said anything of note.
As always, when engaged in the business of applied charisma, avoiding the pitfall of sounding defensive is paramount. This is not so hard as it seems, if you mentally groom yourself to be prepared for anything a girl might say in the course of a courtship. If you enter every pregnant-ly romantic interaction with a girl expecting to hear the unexpected from her, the crass from her, the bitchy from her, you likely never will be surprised by whatever she says, and this is the secret to building a personal defense against your own proclivity to butthurt defensiveness.
You needn’t be a cynic; you merely need to be accepting of the full behavioral spectrum of female privilege. You won’t always be able to predict what a girl will say to you, but you can predict how you’ll respond when she throws a monkey wrench into your laid-best plans: Unflustered, because you know this is how women are, how they have been for millennia, and how it is your job as a man to joyously pluck and eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and women. If you don’t pluck it, some other man will. Or, tragically, it will rot and fall to the ground, to be eaten by scavenging house cats.
You know who had a decent grasp of Game and understood its essential truth? Shakespeare. Motherfuckin Shakespeare. His Sonnet 130 (h/t @martel2112):
My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips’ red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damask’d, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground:
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare.
Here’s an analysis of Sonnet 130. CH take: Sonnet 130 is basically one long anti-white knight/beta male pussy pedestal polisher neg. “Her eyes may not be pearls, especially the left one.”
There are innumerable examples of White European Game in Shakespeare’s works that resonate with today’s more scientific/field tested Game knowledge. Too many to list here. He should probably have his own ‘Great Men on Game’ category. The man knew women, and knew how they loved.
The poets always precede the professors. Unless they’re slam poets, who precede only Culture Death.
Today CH will introduce you to the theory of the Rubicock. What is the Rubicock? Reader PWN explains it well.
lol, if you want a girl that didn’t sleep around, you must be either her first boyfriend or her second boyfriend. After that, the dam breaks and it might as well be 45 men. There are plenty of girls who hold out, some guy pops their cherry and by the next year they fucked two dozen men.
Ain’t that the truth. So many women, after having drunk enough truth serum, will eventually confess to “wild times” in their lives, when they went cock crazy, usually after a break-up or, as PWN notes, after a long dry spell followed by a drought-busting dicking. Once the chaste girl’s sugar walls are chafed by her third ride on the cock carousel, all her self-control flies out the window. She’s primed for regularly scheduled poundings, especially if she’s left her early 20s behind and still single.
I’ve heard it so many times from women who were considered by their girl friends the “virgins” of the cluck. It goes like this: She has an anonymously urban night when she throws all caution to the wind out of frustration, and the next thing she knows, she’s getting new dick monthly, departing with a quickness from the relative chastity of her pre-Rubicock dating history.
That’s the Rubicock: The cock notch number that, when a girl crosses it, accelerates her descent into debauched sluttery.
It’s like, once the snatch seal is broken, her womb trembles and the four horse cocks of the apocalypse pour molten semen into her damaged psyche.
If you’re interested in long-term loving with a woman that comes with threat of financial loss, it’s a good idea to avoid committing to any woman who has crossed the Rubicock. There’s a good chance you won’t be the last Rubicock line she crosses.
How do you game a girl who has received twenty solicitations for sex and fifty compliments on her beauty all before 11AM? This is the problem that men face in the electronic ego validation age, when Tinder and Facebook and sundry dating websites serve as mediums for the uninterrupted fluffing, however superficial, of the tumescent self-perceptions of every halfway bangable girl with an internet connection or a mobile data plan.
This is no minor obstacle to love and romance. The ego is the enemy of intimacy, and female egos that have been inflated to the bursting point are a neural (and neurotic) bunker between you and a girl’s heart. Evidence of this mass female ego inflation comes directly from men’s testimonials and indirectly from data showing trends in how couples meet.
Every inception source of romance is down over the past 70 years except for bars and online. What happens in bars and online that doesn’t happen in the normal course of events when couples meet through the more traditional routes? That’s right: Intense, relentless, and usually charmless come-ons by drunk and socially clumsy men, that pump girls full of themselves. We’ve entered the age of the narcissistically-charged woman who houses in the well-marbled fat of her skull ham a steroid-injected, Facebook-fed hamster spinning its distaff vessel’s place in the world as the center of existence.
The catalyst for this post was a question by reader Culum Struan, regarding a girl affecting a pose of boredom who wasn’t “biting” on his attempts to connect with her.
I never got through to her emotionally. Even my best stories barely got a mild emotional response – these are GOOD stories and I have a lot of practice. It was just flat. What do you do with these girls?
YaReally, responding, suggests putting the girl in the defensive crouch, qualifying herself to Culum.
Stack disqualifiers lol make fun of her basically. If she isn’t interested in your stories about yoursef then turn the tables and put the spotlight on her instead and put her on the defensive because she likes that more than she likes yapping about her own stories. Drop the stories and go for her emotional jugular and get her qualifying herself and thinking you’re a bit of an asshole but then a nice guy but then an asshole etc etc giving her an emotional rollercoaster ride.
Think of it like you’re entertaining a 5yo with a book but they’re not paying attention or don’t seem that into it. Instead of sticking with the book and it might be a great book that most kids love, calibrate to this kid and throw on an exciting movie instead. Or play a game with them. Engage them on a different level.
What Culum describes — girls who seem impregnable to emotional engagement — is a problem that grows in proportion to the amount of ego validation girls are rewarded with online. The more a girl has her ego stroked by a phalanx of online dating desperadoes, the less she’ll feel the urge or the need to devote her full attention to any individual man unlucky enough to take her on a real world date. What results is a growing brotherhood of men finding they share experiences dealing with selfish, classless American women of mediocre appearance who act like the stereotype of haughty swimsuit models. It’s gotten so bad that actual swimsuit models are proving to be more pleasing dates for men with the balls to ask them out.
Since social media ego validation isn’t leaving us anytime soon, a man must learn the skills that will help him master the polluted dating market moonscape. YaReally continues in this vein, linking to a Mystery seminar video and explaining the concept of “conversational stacking” as a technique designed specifically to deal with egotistic, ADHD, mortally validated girls.
Try stacking it to increase her obsession, 3:57 in this vid.
For anyone who’s checked out the Julien PIMP vids I’ve linked about devalidation stacking, this is the multiple threading concept juliens shit is based on. It’s basically this concept but combined with negs/devalidation. Strongest chick-crack I’ve ever seen, makes the girl obsessed with qualifying herself and correcting your impression of her. Planning to do a write up about it in depth sometime. It’s the first legit evolution of classic MM to adopt it to the social media over-validation/over-entitlement era that I’ve seen.
The value of devalidation in the age of ego validated chicks cannot be overstated. To penetrate a girl’s Tinder-spackled ego fortress, you must first show an active disinterest in her world, and one powerful method to accomplish that attitudinal cue is the veering, shallow, self-amusing, multi-threaded conversation style. As Culum says,
So if I understand right – stacking and changing conversational threads (MM style) is good because it shows lower investment on your part plus creates conversational tension the girl will want to resolve. Julien’s devalidation basically puts the girl into a “box” and that creates tension that the girl will want to resolve by climbing out of the box (hence why we make statements about her and not ask questions). But if you combine the two, you multiply the effect of both strategies – is that it?
Recall the formulation “statement-statement-question“. This is the foundation you want to begin your career in active seduction. (Active seduction simply means you, as a man, aim to have choice in the women you date, rather than drearily accept the fate of the majority of beta males who take what they can get, which is usually an overweight hausfrau.)
Ultimately, the best weapon against internet-abetted female ego validation is LOWER MALE INVESTMENT. If a man must deal with a woman’s hypergonadal ego, (and consequently her revved-up hypergamous impulse), his first order of business must be neutralizing the influence and unclogging the romance-blockage of her ego. This, in practice, means FLIPPING THE SEDUCTION SCRIPT as soon as possible, and creating the perception that you are the chased and she is the chaser. Tactics that work include:
– refraining from asking a girl too many questions,
– skipping around topics of conversation (less investment in any one topic signals that you aren’t much interested in her input, and aren’t seeking her approval),
– disqualifying her as a romantic prospect, and
– treating her with amused mastery, as if she’s a precocious nuisance you could take or leave.
Once you have the girl hooked, you can switch gears and start to qualify her as a possible sex interest and drive for deeper rapport by asking her more open-ended leading questions with sexual undertones.
This isn’t your Greatest Generation’s dating market. Prairie farm ladies aren’t waiting at home for a battle-weary man to rescue them from spinsterhood. Women aren’t effusively grateful to men for giving them the opportunity to exit the singles market. The sexual market has, in sum, devolved from a K-selected one to an r-selected one, and all that goes with such a cataclysmic change. The era of High Male Investment and Low Male Sexiness courtship signaling — poems and flowers and punctuality and appeasing her parents and stressing your financial stability and lavishing her with promises of eternal devotion — is OVER. Or, at least, its effectiveness greatly attenuated. We are now in the era of Low Male Investment and High Male Sexiness, or altered perceptions thereof.
What economically self-sufficient and Pill-freed women want now is a man who can make them FEEL again, and that means, in essence, giving women back the opportunity to do what they used to do without prompting: Making an effort to please men.
A woman is lost, adrift on a murky ocean of her undifferentiated emotions, when she’s robbed of that special female duty to please men. Game — the art and science of learned charisma — can give back to women that which massive social changes and the sexual revolution have wrested from them. Game can save women’s souls.