Post-Game Culture

Below is an old post (from October 2009) that I made on the nice-guy forum.


I spent the last month traveling, with two weeks in Argentina and two weeks in Mexico.  I now see Latin America as a post-game culture.  Some PUAs/players have been advocating the general use of "game" among men as a solution to our problems, the idea being that this will allow all men to have some access to women.  If you want to see the result of this, just visit Latin America.

My wife likes to chat and she chatted with an old guy in Buenos Aires about his old times in Argentina.  The guy happily recalled his younger days when he was married and had lots of women on the side.  Many were married.  He told of a woman he was having sex with who was engaged and who had told her fiance that she was a virgin, and how she faked losing her virginity with some red dye.  What this shows is that Argentine culture became promiscuous long before America did.

On the old DGM forum, I debated with Irlandes about the nature of Mexican woman, my contention being that Mexican women had change over the last 20 years.  Irlandes disagreed and investigated and proved me wrong.  The last two weeks I spend in Mexico confirms Irlandes's view.  The changes I saw were mostly superficial.  Mexico has been promiscuous for a long time, probably hundreds of years.  The Spanish conquerors came from a chaste culture, but the Spanish influence was superficial and concentrated in the elite.  The masses continued with their promiscuous behavior under a chaste veneer of Spanish style.

In a promiscuous culture, men either become players or become extinct.  Men literally evolve to become players.  This is why Latin men have natural game.  But this has a cost.  Since the men are natural players, instead of PUAs who fake it, they actually have the characteristics that women are attracted to.  In other words, they are unreliable and focused on women, which makes them unsuitable for supporting modern civilization.  This can be seen clearly after spending some time in a Latin American country.  Of course, Argentina and Mexico are different, the difference being that Argentina became promiscuous about a hundred years ago while Mexico had been promiscuous far longer.  This means that co-alpha characteristics, those traits needed to maintain civilization, have been far more fully bred out of Mexico than out of Argentina.  And this can be seen in the behavior of men in these countries.  America is in early stage decay, Argentina in mid-stage decay, and Mexico in complete decay.  In Mexico, men are exactly as MGTOW/PUA advocate.  They go their own way and seduce women for sex.  They don't cooperate and they don't contribute to society.  The government is too incompetent to enforce feminist laws, so men don't have to worry about child support and other such issues.

But now I ask you, is this what you want?  If yes, stop complaining here and just move to Mexico.  Mexico is a MGTOW/PUA society.  If you support MGTOW/PUA, then you can't complain about the poverty and chaos in Mexico because these things are an inevitable result of MGTOW/PUA behavior.

I call Latin America "post-game" because after the widespread use of game has destroyed a society, it becomes poor enough for women to once again value men as providers.  This does not solve problem but rather produces some equilibrium at a low level.  Most men in these societies cannot be very effective providers because the country is poor.  And the men must constantly guard their wives against cheating, which is widespread.  American men are seen as super providers and this is why we are attractive to these women in spite of our lack of game.  We are super providers because we have not yet fully gone the MGTOW/PUA route, but I assume that we will and we will wind up as just another third world country.

I think history proves my point.  Most people in most of history lived in barbaric conditions.  When civilizations fell, they almost never recovered.  Rome/Italy is the only example of a place that I can think of that was civilized twice.  Every other successful society became a basket case permanently.  Visit Egypt today and look at the museum.  They had a great civilization 4000 years ago.  Today they are pathetic as a culture.  In Mexico, they had the Olmecs, the Maya, and Aztecs, each from a different area and each more primitive than the preceding culture.  My theory is that when a civilization falls, its co-alpha genes get wiped out.  There is no good genetic material left to start a new culture.  What was different about Rome?  It had a key subculture, Christianity, that saved the right values and therefore saved some co-alphas.  But Christianity grew when Rome was at its peak.  It could not have grown as it did in a barbaric environment.  We are now in a situation where most of the world has been absorbed into Western culture.  If Western culture falls without any alternative subculture being formed, then I think this will be the permanent end of civilization.

Franklin,

thanks for the very interesting comparison between Argentina and Mexico. I would like to add that not only the South American men, but also the women have subsequently evolved to prefer chads over providers. The current preference for providers in Mexico is only out of economic necessity (which is true for all women), but on a genetic level, the closer indigenous a Latin american woman is, the more she prefers a chad. While this also exists to some extent in Argentine women, it is less pronounced as Argentinians have more European genes. I acknowledge that your wife is Mexican so you may or may not agree with me, but I also had two girlfriends from Latin America and they both tended to be far more promiscuous than my European girlfriends (and I also spent a month in Yucatan; unrelated to these girls).

fschmidt wrote

If Western culture falls without any alternative subculture being formed, then I think this will be the permanent end of civilization.

The Western civilization will fall and be conquered by Islam. I realize that this post was written in 2009, but given the recent developments in Europe and the Middle East one can simply not come to another conclusion. At least this will end these horrible gynocentric and anti-civilizational laws currently in place in the Western world, and humanity is allowed to reach a new equilibrium.

I can't judge promiscuity levels, but I do disagree about chad preference.  Chad preference isn't just genetic, I argue that it is more cultural here:

http://www.mikraite.org/Human-Evolution-tp17.html

But my opinion is based on my experience.  I am clearly a provider, not chad.  Women in America treated me like dog shit, while women in Mexico were much nicer to me.  And my impression today is still that provider traits have some value in Mexico, but are totally worthless in America.

I do agree that the West will be conquered by Islam.  But don't overestimate Islam, it is quite weak too and can easily be conquered by any new culture that has any strength.

Is there any evidence to support your claim that ancient Latin America, Rome, and Egypt became feminist enough to cause a decline in their civilizations and to eliminate co-alpha genes from the gene pool? I don't know much about the ancient Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, and other civilizations, but from a cursory glance at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Aztec_civilization and http://genderrolesaztec.weebly.com/female-role.html it seems like the Aztecs had a patriarchal society where women were expected to marry and not have sex outside of marriage, and I see no evidence of this changing before the Spanish conquistadores arrived. If anything, I would assume that it is the influence of modern American/European culture that is encouraging promiscuity and PUA-like behavior in Latin American countries.

I know that towards the end of the Roman Empire, divorce became easier and it become easier for women to own property. However, even then it does not seem like Rome became more feminist than 19th-century America, and I don't think there was any trend of women avoiding marriage or having lots of premarital sex. Also, modern Italians are descended from a lot of ethnic groups other than the ancient Romans, including the "barbarians" who largely came from Eastern Europe. Therefore, I think it would make more sense to attribute whatever promiscuous or PUA-like behavior we might observe in Italy to modern culture instead of a genetic bottleneck effect in the Ancient Roman Empire.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Ancient_Egypt and https://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/womneg.htm it looks like ancient Egypt was more feminist than most other societies at the time. However, even though women had comparatively more rights in owning property and other similar matters, they were still expected to marry at an early age, meaning that premarital sex was uncommon. Also, modern Egyptians are descended from other ethnic groups besides the ancient Egyptians, including Arab populations that moved there during the expansion of the ancient Islamic Caliphate. In any case, I've never heard any stereotypes of the ancient Egyptians being more promiscuous or PUA-like than anywhere else in the Middle East.

Any thoughts on this? I don't mean to sound too rude - I generally agree with all of your views, but I think that the examples of "post-game" societies constitute a weaker portion of the co-alpha ideology.

I am not surprised that the Aztecs had the least feminism of the groups in Mexico, since they were dominant.  I don't think most Mexicans are of Aztec descent.  The other groups like the Olmecs and Mayans were decayed.  What I do know is that sexual fidelity is not effectively enforced among native Mexicans today, and natural PUA behavior is common.

I think you are underestimating the sluttiness of women in the Roman Empire.  I suggest reading some primary sources.  Satire like Juvenal provides a good picture of what the issues were.

Northern Italians are much more mixed that Southern Italians, which is why Southern Italians are much more PUA-like.

That's a good point - I suppose that the Mayan culture was more feminist than the Aztec culture. However, I'm reluctant to rely on the words of a satirist such as Juvenal to describe the behavior of women in Rome, because satirists are known to exaggerate things. Also, Juvenal lived during the height of the Roman Empire, at least a hundred years before it began to decline, so anything that he observed wouldn't have been relevant to the decline of the Roman Empire. To cite a source coinciding with the decline of Rome, in the City of God (written in 410), Augustine noted that many women who were raped committed suicide out of shame, and he denounced since this trend since chastity is only lost from one's intentions. So it is evident that the concept of premarital chastity was important even in the latter days of the Roman Empire, and that the Roman requirement for premarital chastity were actually more stringent than they are under Christianity.