In his post Why Christians Need Game, Dalrock states the case thus:
Christians need game because:
1. Abandoning the biblical frame of marriage kills the attraction wives feel for their husbands. Game will help get some of it back. If you insist on indulging in feminism even a little, you absolutely need to learn and practice game.
2. Game will help you stop rejecting and being ashamed of the Bible when it comes to men and women. Game will help you understand that your wife wants and needs to look up to you. She needs you to lead her and at times overrule her emotions with your strength of will and frame. It will also help you understand that women aren’t the morally superior sex that our foolish culture claims they are.
I was asked if I would like to submit a guest post, and this is it. Many thanks to Dalrock for his graciousness, and to the readers for their long-suffering.
My goal is to show:
1. Game isn’t what you think it is.
2. Game means more than you think it does.
3. Christians don’t need Game.
Some parameters need to be set, so that the discussion can be fruitful. For my definitions I’ve chosen Dalrock’s blog, and Roissy/Chateau/Heartiste’s (henceforth called simply “Roissy”). Dalrock’s blog is a natural choice. This is where the debate is. Most importantly, Dalrock is probably the foremost independent Christian Game blogger.
Likewise, Roissy is the foremost Game blogger, period. His posts have set the tone for the entire field. He has the most development on both the philosophy and practice of Game. While he makes no claim to be the end-all-be-all of Game itself (and wasn’t its beginning) he is the most erudite and referenced prophet of Game. The fact is, we cannot talk about Game without talking about Roissy.
Lastly, I also reference the film “The Matrix” quite a bit. It’s important to understand the movie that introduced the Red Pill concept, to understand the Red Pill movement.
Game Isn’t What You Think It Is
What is Game? Here’s the definition, as I understand it:
Game is the applied science of attraction, most commonly expressed as the art of seduction. It’s based on the supposed evolutionary psychology of human; with a special emphasis on exploiting the condition of hypergamy.
Hypergamy is a philosophy of the condition of women that says, whenever possible, any given woman will choose to mate with the male in her vicinity that is exhibiting the most, and most dominant, sexual traits. Those sexual traits, themselves, are Game.
We don’t find this definition all in one place. It’s been broken-down into bite-sized pieces. Here are the most frequent, most emphasized pieces:
Game is the applied science.
Game is the art of seduction.
Game is exploiting hypergamy.
Game is exhibiting manly sexual traits.
Game is exhibiting the most dominant sexual traits.
We call accepting this truth “Taking the Red Pill”. In fact, we call each of these bits Red Pills. We exhort each other to keep taking the Red Pills. But that’s not how the Red Pill works, is it? You take it once, and you’re out of the Matrix. More on this later.
Like most of you, I’ve eaten all these morsels, and they seemed good to me. But in the gastronomic tract of the mind they’ve been churned back together. Here’s what comes out:
Game is founded on Game, most commonly expressed as Game. It’s based on the supposed evolutionary psychology of humans; with a special emphasis on the concept of Hypergamy.
Hypergamy is a philosophy of the condition of women that says, whenever possible, any given women will choose to mate with the male in her vicinity that is exhibiting the most, and most dominant, Game. Those Game are, themselves, Game.
Now, if that sounds silly to you, here are several definitions from Roissy:
“Game is its own status.”
“Game IS.”
“Biomechanics is God.”
When we remove the tautologies and self-references from the my definition (which I think is very fair, and in keeping with the spirit of Roissy’s more compact ones), all we are left with is the concept of hypergamy. Even that is severely crippled with the lack of evidence that is founded upon the now-very-unstable Game. What we really see is that women want what they want, and that they want more and better, and there seems to be no end to their appetite.
Game Means More Than You Think It Does
You found Game either because you searched for “How to pick-up/meet women”, or because you looked around you, and you saw the wasteland that Feminism has wrought upon Western Civilization. You could sense something wasn’t right, but you couldn’t put a finger on it because you were enveloped in it. Everywhere, more and more news about women breaking down more barriers; more women CEOs, government officials, university students and presidents, reporters, soldiers, and sexy singles. And equally present the news that business is bad, government is atrocious, college is a waste, the news sucks, we can’t win wars anymore, and everyone is divorced.
Why is everything so off? Does anyone else get this bad vibe? We tend to focus on the fact that in the movie, the good guys found Neo first, but they show you that it didn’t have to turn out like that. The agents were immediately on the heels of Neo. What if you asked the Internet: “What is the Matrix?”, and the agents replied?
Cypher
Cypher is one of the most interesting characters of the movie. He’s outside the Matrix, and he’s knows what is inside it is phony, but he can’t stop fantasizing about the pleasures of the Matrix. Good food and good women are rare in the real world. Life outside the Matrix very much seems dull. Cypher knows one good-looking woman, and she’s hung up on another guy. He spends his free time watching the programs scroll by, building his lust; not focused on the real world and mission, but on what he’s missing out. Cypher sums up his discomfort and displeasure when he says to Neo, “I know what you’re thinking: Why, oh why, didn’t I take the Blue Pill?”
Eventually, his lusts get the better of him, and he starts working for the agents; visiting with them in restaurants among beautiful, fake, people. Ultimately, his lusts lead him to betray his mission, his friends, and even the woman he loves. It’s the most likely fate of the Christian man that follows Game. It’s not the only possible fate, and not the worst. You could get taken over by an agent. (This is what I suspect of Roissy.) Roissy knows the Matrix isn’t real–just as Neo, Morpheus, and Cypher do–but he is intent upon using the Matrix to get pleasure. You can find it here, here, and here. Above all, you can find it in the Sixteen Commandments of Poon. Game writers all work from the point of view that the sensory experience of steak and vagina is so good, that whatever you have to do to get it, you should. And whatever betrayal you have to commit to yourself or others is just effective Game.
This is being in the real world, but taking the Blue Pill.
Christians Don’t Need Game
At its fullest, and most coherent, the Blue Pill of Game says that the source of happiness is found between many women’s legs, and that to get there you must serve their unspoken–and even misunderstood– desires. It says (contradictory on its face!) that you must serve yourself, and to serve yourself you must serve them…right up until they are no more use to you. It’s often said that Game doesn’t pretend to answer what to do with women who the Game-user has no use for; whether by age or behavior unsuitable to the Game-user. This is a lie. It says: Get rid of them. Christians must not do this. The problem the Christian has with Feminists is the problem that Morpheus states to Neo during the–very apt–woman in the red dress test.
“Look around you. What do you see?[…]The very minds of the people we’re trying to save. But until we do they’re a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy.”
We are not free to abuse them, even if they’re sluts. Game, though, demands this. Over and again we read on Roissy, Roosh, and others that we can only develop Game by using it on many women. In addition to the logistical problems for the Christian (much more the husband!), this teaching demonstrates the difficulty in forming a cohesive philosophy of Game. You can’t Game until you’ve Gamed a lot.
Part of the perception problem is that Feminism is so pervasive that any assertive behavior the Game writer puts into his text is considered Game; simple because it’s not outright Feminist. This is what’s so deceptive about Roissy’s Sixteen Commandments: The things that a Christian husband can’t do, are Game; those he can, aren’t! Additionally, all of them focus on either the supremacy of the man applying them, or women’s hypergamy. “You do these things because it will subvert her hypergamy.” “You don’t do these because her hypergamy will be encouraged.” That frame is all wrong for the Christian.
If scripture were relatively silent on male-female relations then maybe a case could be made for it; like engineering. But it’s so far from being silent (It’s concerned with it from cover to cover) that we must view Game as a competitor to scripture. To bring this back to Dalrock’s case, just after his two reasons, he says:
“On the topic of wives being attracted to their husbands, the first thing most Christians need to learn from game is that it really is natural for wives to be attracted to their husbands.”
This isn’t what Game says! It says that it’s natural for wives to be driven by their hypergamous biomechanics to be attracted to the available alpha in their proximity. If Game is true, then a man should NEVER marry. Game writers whole-heartedly agree with that sentiment. If you’re already married, you’re simply meat waiting to be processed by the Feminist machines.
No man can serve two masters. Serving women–that is, Feminism; that is, the Matrix–is what Game is all about. Understand her desires. Fulfill her desires. Reap pleasure from her desires. This is Feminism twisted back on itself. Game attempts to use the Matrix to get in Feminist pants. Christianity means to send Feminism to Hell.
Here’s how scripture describes it in one place: 2 Timothy 3:1-7
But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. 2 For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, 4 treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. 6 For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, 7 always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.
Here we have a description of PUAs and Game writers, a command to avoid them, and a very apt description of all the passions a woman is given to; including Feminism, and hypergamy. Scripture says: Avoid such people. For among them are PUAs. You’re not Neo. You’re a potential Cypher, or a potential agent.
What the Christian man must have is a scriptural frame. I want to be clear: The real world is a very dead place. There is death, divorce, and fatherless children all around. Concern for them is what the real Red Pill–the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ crucified–reveals to us. Answering what to do about that is another post.
Finally, I want to ask the readers a question. Let’s assume that I have Game wrong, and that it can be separated from the PUA culture, and its tricks. Let’s assume it’s simply about breaking through the Feminist frame, understanding hypergamy, and adopting a masculine frame. Considering that the Christian man is called to marriage alone for sexual release, and that the world is full of sluts (there aren’t nearly enough virgins to go around), how is Game anything but a round-about method of telling Christian men to Man-Up and Marry These Sluts?
“how is Game anything but a round-about method of telling Christian men to Man-Up and Marry These Sluts?”
Game is amoral. Game is only a tool. It’s up to the individual user of Game and how he applies it where you can moralize it’s application.
Game can be used to pump and dump sluts.
Game can be harnessed to prevent oneself from being abused by women who know how to manipulate men for their own nefarious gains.
Game can simply be used to build confidence. (light game/inner game)
Guns.
Guns are not evil. A murderer who uses a gun to kill is evil.
A man who uses a gun to kill a burglar performing a home invasion is not evil.
Police are not evil (most of the time). They carry guns, to protect the public (who have been disarmed by the state)
I am not Christian. I’m atheist and proud of it. Yet i grew up in the faith and retain a semblance of that morality. I may not explicitly practice it, but i comprehend it and understand it. A christian man who wants to remain christian does not need to run game for pump and dump conquests. There is a lot more to game than sexual conquests. It is simply an awareness of what is required by male to be attractive in the eyes of women and how to navigate it towards the successful outcome YOU desire.
Apply the morality against what you desire, not the instrument of attaining it.
Pingback: Between Dalrock and a Hard Case « Zippy Catholic
This is how I understand Game as well. To put it mildly, I’m not happy about it as a Christian. I acknowledge the truth of a woman’s nature but I’m not going to game a woman into marriage. There comes a time and a place where we all are tested. The woman’s test is to show she can keep her vows by remaining chaste and submitting to her future husband. If she can’t do that, marriage itself is wasted on her and the man and any children they might have.
I’ve said it countless times on this blog. A lot of game in the Christian sphere seems intent on guiding a male Christian into marrying those women that aren’t as bad as the Hussies. It does this because women have fallen to such barren depths that there just aren’t enough decent ones. Most have ridden and spoiled themselves to such extent that the rot cannot be removed from the whole. It’s a disgusting state of affairs and one I cannot begin to wrap my mind around.
Just what is a Christian man to do if one seeks sexual release?
most definitions of game define a philosophy that doesnt work neway check this site out: http://www.seductionmyth.com/
Read this before you spend your money on products and seminars or even worse, before you lose a lot of priceless time in your life trying to put into practice concepts that have been made up by greedy con artists or obsessed daydreamers.
*Seduction* is the biggest SCAM played on men in history! Just like the “get-rich-quick” schemes, only this time it’s a “get-laid-quick” scheme.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not implying average Joes cannot pick up hot babes. It happens sometimes. Only the real process going on has nothing to do with the distortion of reality that people call “seduction.”
yes a man needs to lead his woman thats true but the bible covers that and really its not even necessary for getting laid women are animals like men and sexual attraction happens at an animal level which is mostly about how u look n smell n God knows what else…. point is that a woman being turned on by u isnt something u really control altho if u r a sackless man aka a poor leader it can kill her attraction or build up contempt that over time snuffs out her attraction 4 u…. likewise if u r a loser she might decide not to sleep w u even tho she may be attracted….. but her feeling a tingling in her loins for u is 98% automatic stuff….. determined by God and/or biology take ur pick (i choose both)
gettin laid really just boils down to playin a numbers game and screening for women who want a bang: http://www.goodlookingloser.com/2011/12/16/relax-youll-eventually-get-pussy/
Getting laid is a numbers game. Do not let ANYONE tell you otherwise. If someone tells you that getting laid/dating isn’t a numbers game – they are either lying or they don’t get laid.
The more chicks you hit on, the more chicks you’ll get.
It’s a numbers game and that’s a good thing.
The issue is not up for discussion.
Getting laid is simply about finding a ready and willing girls among the crowd. Getting laid is a number’s game and you only need 1 girl to be sexually available and sexually interested in you. Chances are – you’ll have to talk to and screen a bunch of girls to find a buyer. This is one of the things that elite players know (and act on) that the average guy doesn’t.
so cane is really on to something here…. dalrock and seduction myth and good looking loser are really on the forefront of this stuff…. seduction myth is more about debunking game…. good looking loser is about getting laid for real….. would love to see this blog explore this idea that cane started in further depth……. something is definitely wrong…. feminism is definitely bad….. divorces n cuckolds and sluttiness this stuff jus cant be good…… but game is not the answer to any of that its not really the answer to anything mostly just another hobby for go nowhere internet loserss
This is a great post. It signifies the debate that men, especially Christian men, need to have about Game and understanding human nature.
I don’t have time now for a detailed response, but I offer these points now.
1. I see an error in the expression of Game as a philosophy. It is not. The fact that some try to fashion a way of life, a raison d’etre, out of a simple tool doesn’t make it so.
2. Cane seems to presume an understanding of hypergamy and female nature, and application of that knowledge to a man’s relationships, is incompatible with Christianity and a true Christian walk. I disagree with this entirely. In fact I think a thorough understanding of female nature in general, and hypergamy in particular, is completely consistent with Christianity. If anything, more men need to learn it and need to teach it to their sons.
For a moment there, I thought Dalrock had lost his mind.
Then I saw the author’s name and chuckled.
Feminist society is the matrix – the pretty lies which put a fake smile on and rationalize hypergamy. Hypergamy itself is the real world. Learn to navigate it. Don’t like the term game?
Pick another.
It’s a matter of semantics. When Dalrock and other christian bloggers talk about Game, they talk about the masculine traits that appeal to women, and that’s it. In a sense, it’s the equivalent of makeup and flirty attitude for women. But as you demonstrated, in general, Game is understood as “the way of the PUA”, and that is certainly not compatible with Christianity.
Your analysis is very interesting. I would like to add something about the blue pill and red pill. In the movie, Neo doesn’t know really what the Matrix is until he is given the choice between the pills. So the red pill is really the choice of getting to know the beast even if it hurts (here, reading the manosphere and realizing what feminism really is). The blue pill is the refusal to do so. But once you’ve taken the red pill, you can’t really go back: you have the new knowledge, you can’t just forget it. When Cypher conspired with the agents, he wasn’t taking the blue pill, he was consciously trying to ignore what he learnt for the pleasure of the senses. I completely agree with your assessment that PUAs are basically in a comparable position, but it is distinct from the general population who either took the blue pill (reject the ideas advanced by the manosphere) or were never presented with the choice.
I feel this last point is important because I disagree with your suggestion that PUAs are a different manifestation of feminism. They are a separate entity, because this game does not have 2 parties, but 3: real traditionalists, aspiring PUAs, and feminists. And it seems each distrusts the other two, but from a utilitarian point of view, it might be advantageous for the first two parties to be allies. And that’s basically what the MRM is.
I see Game a removing the log from your own eye first, by dumping your Blue Pill frame and adopting a masculine/Red Pill frame. Once you do that, you can go on and search for a woman who isn’t too ruined to marry (early 20s, teacher) and assert your frame over. Game is simply a system of asserting your masculine frame over a woman. It is just technical break down of how-to. I spent years getting not-too-terrible advice about men and leadership in relationships from decent mentors. HOWEVER, none of them ever broke it down to such a low, nuts and bolts level as game has. It gives you the full bill of materials, with assembly instructions, torque specs and all. It is against God’s commands to be promiscuous, but it is not against God’s command to adopt a masculine frame and practice it with women you meet.
CC, I feel that you left out the NAWALT idea, and that even if you marry a good, virginal, Christian woman, she will STILL need to be Gamed to keep the marriage alive and vibrant. You still have to put in the effort and assert your frame over hers because she will test it. That never changes. And that is what game teaches.
What you don’t realize is that women are CURSED by God in order to try to control their husbands and men in general. It is right in Genesis 3, when it uses the phrase “desire after your husband”, the only other place in Genesis that word for “desire” comes up is when “and its desire is to possess you” in reference to Cain, and it means “desires to control”. Even a redeemed, Christian woman will still struggle with this and will try to gain control by wresting your frame from you. Simply stated, there is never a time in your marriage when you can fully let down your frame.
A woman is attracted to a man that appears difficult for her to control, but as soon as she gains control, the attraction is completely gone. It is part of her sin nature. Game acknowledges this, albeit indirectly.
i think you have it backwards. Cypher’s story of the blue pill as game is backwards. Christianity is right and good and always has been. Christianity as we know it today is churchianity. A young christian man takes the red pill and understands game (female psychology) The scriptures come to life. Customs and traditions become self explained and understood in their purpose. from arranged marriages to shot gun weddings and chastidy belts.
Game is not the solution Game is the understanding of why christian morality is there. As long as christian men deny female psychology in reality and stand by wishful goodness they are lost. Christian men and leaders, Game is not about getting pussy it is about female psychology.
Dalrock
Chistian men are terrified of female sexuality That video of the tyranny of nice comes to mind.
Deti
You have it right.
Let’s assume that I have Game wrong, and that it can be separated from the PUA culture, and its tricks. Let’s assume it’s simply about breaking through the Feminist frame, understanding hypergamy, and adopting a masculine frame.
Fine, I accept this assumption: Game = understanding female hypergamy. And it need not involve PUA-type activities.
Considering that the Christian man is called to marriage alone for sexual release, and that the world is full of sluts (there aren’t nearly enough virgins to go around), how is Game anything but a round-about method of telling Christian men to Man-Up and Marry These Sluts?
You make a couple of catastrophic errors here:
(a) NACWALT. Not all Christian women are sluts. Some are still virgins, and some others are *geniunely repentant*, not just carousel riders looking for a beta provider. Simply put: there ARE good Christian women out there, that good Christian men can marry. If there were not, all discussion of dating, romance, and marriage would be utterly moot, we’d all be morally bound to celibacy and extinction.
(b) “Man up and marry those sluts!” — Caldo, you couldn’t have it more profoundly backwards. Here is the critical, central point, the ONE THING that you’ve totally missed: The reason, the ONE and ONLY reason, why game has such attraction for Christian men, is because being a decent oldfashioned Christian gentleman gets you almost nothing but rejection in Church nowadays!
No matter whether a woman is a pure Christian virgin, an innocent rape/molestation victim, a genuinely reformed former slut, or an unrepentant slut — ALL of them will INSTINCTIVELY romantically reject a man that they PERCEIVE as lower status than themselves… no matter how righteous, how kind-hearted, or even how handsome he may be… “let’s just be friends” is all he’ll ever get. There are plenly of Christian men who are more than willing to “man up and marry those sluts” (unwisely IMHO)– but the guys can’t even get a date! You’re missing the entire point of the problem!
Summarizing: Game theory is, so far, the one and only hypothesis that explains the otherwise incomprehensible phenomenon, of the en masse romantic rejection of good Christian men, by nearly all the good Christian women, in the modern church.
Until you find an alternate hypothesis to explain that, I have to stick with the proposition that Game (= understanding female hypergamy”) is actually the truth.
“Cane seems to presume an understanding of hypergamy and female nature, and application of that knowledge to a man’s relationships, is incompatible with Christianity and a true Christian walk.”
I disagree. I think you should re-read what Cane posted.
Better still, let’s go to the scripture – it tells us that a wife is to submit to her husband. Hence, if the prospective husband is focussed on checking if wife-to-be is willing to submit – “If we get married, I expect a, b and c from you”, then he will have an idea if she will submit. This answers the hypergamy question. If she will submit, then she accepts you as being in charge.
I believe this is one of the reasons the scripture tells us no sex before marriage – it forces you to look at her family, her beliefs, her self-control, and her willingnes to submit to you.
It seems many men, christian and non-christian, think, “Oh, I know she has had a dozen or so before me, but by the power of my goodness, sexual prowess, manliness, game etc, I will make her submit”.
It doesn’t work that way.
You can’t fix someone else; you can only fix yourself.
And even if all the laws were changed tomorrow to marriage 1.0, marrying a woman with lots of experience would still lead to misery.
There was some interesting work I read regarding male/female psychology before I came across game(roissy’s blog). The review gives a gist of it.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2S2U1X81SCOPG/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1901240169&channel=rw-dp&nodeID=283155&store=books#wasThisHelpful
This fool reminds me of stupid creationists who try to claim that the Big Bang is part of “the theory of evolution”. Those morons haven’t even bothered to find out what it is they’re trying to refute — so predictably, they do a hilariously awful job of refuting it. Same with the pathetic commenter above who thinks that if some jerkoff is charging money for lousy “seduction seminars”, therefore we can consider it proven that male behavior has no effect on female attraction. Non sequitur. Look it up.
Kids, you’re not even wrong. If you learn to be more calmly confident and masculine, if you learn not to let shit tests rattle you, if you learn to like women without ever taking them too seriously, women will be more attracted to you. That’s a fact. And that’s game. A LOT of men have tried it out and found it to be unmistakably true. If you’re so socially inept that your attempts at confident masculinity are just weird and off-putting, it sucks to be you. But it works if you do it right. You may be too uncoordinated to learn to fly a helicopter, but does that prove that NOBODY flies helicopters? No. Look up in the air, you clever genius, you. LOOK UP.
“Shit, I picked up a guitar and all I could make was stupid noises. That proves that Mark Knopfler is a total fake! You can’t make music with a guitar! It’s just a numbers game!” Imbecile.
What you *do* with game is another matter entirely. If I were a Christian, I’d use my understanding of female psychology to find and marry a suitable girl, and then to maintain a happy and stable marriage. Nothing about that knowledge would require me to exterminate fat girls (WTF?) or to abuse anybody at all. It’s not abuse to treat women in a way that makes them feel good. Quite the opposite. If you act in a way that kills your wife’s attraction to you, you are trapping her in a loveless and joyless marriage. That’s abuse.
I don’t know why Dalrock let you post this garbage.
A scriptural frame is fine. It starts with Eph. 5. “Wives, submit to your husbands”. The man must enforce this with a GF or wife (a Christian GF must practice submission to a potential husband) by repeated reference to this scripture. Her response to this soon tells you how submissive she is and how easily she will be able to obey this scriptural directive.
@Deti.
I’m going to tackle these backwards, because one depends on the other.
I wasn’t saying that hypergamy is incompatible with Christianity, but that it is an insufficient philosophy; particularly in comparison to the description found in Timothy: “burden by sins, and led astray by various passions.” I’m willing to put hypergamy down as one of those passions, but the case for hypergamy needs to be made better.
I don’t know how to say this, except to say that you do not know what the word “philosophy” means. Every painter has a philosophy of painting. That doesn’t mean that he puts paint on everything he sees. Also, I did not say in my definition that Game is a philosophy (though I think it is very fair to do so); I said hypergamy is a philosophy. And it is. You can’t put a woman under a CAT scan and find a hypergamy in there. Before you say “it’s simply a tool/s” again, I invite you to tell me what those tools are, how they’re used, and how to think about them so as to use them better.
Whatever you come up with, it will be–must be–Deti’s philosophy of Game.
“The reason, the ONE and ONLY reason, why game has such attraction for Christian men, is because being a decent oldfashioned Christian gentleman gets you almost nothing but rejection in Church nowadays!”
Yep, and he marries a girl using “game”. Can he or anyone maintain “impenetrable frame” the rest of his life? Who would want to? What kind of marriage is this? What kind of life is this? The alpha thing for a man to do then would be to avoid marriage altogether. Summarizing: Game theory is, so far, the one and only hypothesis that explains the otherwise incomprehensible phenomenon, of the en masse romantic rejection of good Christian men, by nearly all the good Christian women, in the modern church.
Really?
One, women have choices – not every good Christian man will strike their fancy, just as how every good Christian girl will not strike your fancy.
Two, Christainity has long decayed into Churchianity, a worldly counterfeit, so that even the “good” Christian girls have worldly mindsets,(which are encouraged by the pastors, and elders).
Three, many many “good” Christian girls are sexing on Saturday night, and praying on Sunday. (Don’t be fooled; most of them are not as holy as they look; I know). And the ones that are saving themselves will and do give it up if they think it will seal the deal on a ring. So let’s not be fooled by their so-called goodness.
I don’t think I did. This is addressed when I say that Game, and it’s writers, say that it is better not to marry because they believe that all women will always be in thrall to their hypergamous natures.
Except on those rare occasions when Game writers (oddly) say: “NAWALT”; like van Rooinek does below. More on that when I respond to his comments.
Marlon:
Here is where I derive my understanding of Cane’s argument as suggesting that an understanding of female nature and applying it to a man’s benefit is somehow incompatible with Christianity:
“the Blue Pill of Game says that the source of happiness is found between many women’s legs, and that to get there you must serve their unspoken–and even misunderstood– desires. It says (contradictory on its face!) that you must serve yourself, and to serve yourself you must serve them…right up until they are no more use to you.”
Cane has fallen into the common trap that those who learn Game, or begin to understand female nature and then use it for his benefit (or at least stop ignoring it to his detriment), will become pickup artists, will try to become PUAs, or will leave their wives to pursue a Casanova lifestyle. It is as if Cane is subliminally sounding the alarm that the countryside will be filled with Roissy wannabes, going around deflowering the pretty young things. This is silly, This is never, ever going to happen. Most men will never reach that level of Game proficiency. Most men can use that understanding of hypergamy to stop screwing up their lives.
What is more likely is that some men who learn Game (an understanding of female nature) will believe they are better at pickup than they are. They will fail, and no harm will be done, other than perhaps those men’s decisions not to pursue hardcore pickup lifestyles due to their failures.
And most married men who learn Game are simply learning what they never learned as boys growing up in a feminized society. They don’t want to leave their wives and sex up 19 year olds. They want to keep their wives, or at least make life more tolerable. They are trying to save their marriages, not end them.
I find this very concept of game to be thought provoking at the very least. Yes Genesis does point out that women will desire to control us. That has been a problem since day 1 and is a result of women’s fallen nature.
I am not sure game is the solution here per se. Being a gentleman and being firm in the ways of the Lord is. Like a previous poster wrote, check to see if a perspective wife will do a, b and c. If she is willing to do that she may submit to you. If not then get rid of her. Even after marriage a man needs to assert his authority. The key is to make sure that the woman one marries will indeed submit no matter what. If what I said can be construed to be game, then so be it.
Teddy Roosevelt said it best: “speak softly and carry a big stick.”
Based on my observations, good women are indeed hard to find but they are out there. Most are of the repentant type with some sort of sexual history. That is the crux of the problem since a man will have a harder time getting the woman to submit since she has an imprint in her mind of other men. In her weak moments she may outright reject his authority more so and often than a virginal woman. So there will be moments of intense wrestling between a man and his wife for this reason and he better win. If he doesn’t then his marriage may very well be doomed or severely weakened.
Girly men need to bother with getting married.
Let me re-format that post:
“The reason, the ONE and ONLY reason, why game has such attraction for Christian men, is because being a decent oldfashioned Christian gentleman gets you almost nothing but rejection in Church nowadays!”
Yep, and he marries a girl using “game”. Can he or anyone maintain “impenetrable frame” the rest of his life? Who would want to? What kind of marriage is this? What kind of life is this? The alpha thing for a man to do then would be to avoid marriage altogether.
“Summarizing: Game theory is, so far, the one and only hypothesis that explains the otherwise incomprehensible phenomenon, of the en masse romantic rejection of good Christian men, by nearly all the good Christian women, in the modern church.”
Really?
One, women have choices – not every good Christian man will strike their fancy, just as how every good Christian girl will not strike your fancy.
Two, Christainity has long decayed into Churchianity, a worldly counterfeit, so that even the “good” Christian girls have worldly mindsets,(which are encouraged by the pastors, and elders).
Three, many many “good” Christian girls are sexing on Saturday night, and praying on Sunday. (Don’t be fooled; most of them are not as holy as they look; I know). And the ones that are saving themselves will and do give it up if they think it will seal the deal on a ring. So let’s not be fooled by their so-called goodness.
You make some good points, although by wrapping up the ‘Red Pill,’ hypergamy, Game, PUAs etc. in the same package which you accept or reject as a whole, you risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
So lets be clear on a few things: Reality exists. Human males and females tend to behave in particular ways and respond predictably to certain stimuli. As a rational adult, seeking truth, one should seek to understand one’s own behaviour and the behaviour of others. This true, accurate, Biblical understanding of human behaviour is what I call the Red Pill.
In summary:
1. Humans are naturally hierarchical creatures.
2. Humans are naturally patriarchal creatures.
3. Humans are not naturally monogamous.
4. Human societies function best when monogamous marriage is encouraged.
A whole bunch of people have swallowed the Red Pill. Dalrock here, the Christian blogger Vox Day (who also has a Game blog), the pro-monogamy atheist blogger Athol Kay, James Kalb, you’ve already linked to Roissy etc. etc.
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
What I would call Game is a collection of theoretical models and practical techniques through which men (and to a lesser extent women) can improve their attractiveness and the quality of their interactions with the opposite sex. Just as women can become more attractive to men by keeping fit, and dressing well, and carefully applying makeup; so Game describes how men can become more attractive to women: by keeping fit, by dressing well, by projecting confidence, by having a strong identity and sense of self, by having good humor etc.
The point you kinda sorta start to make — which I agree with — in your post, is that PUAs go astray by using their powers for evil. They have a better understanding of human behaviour than the women they’re dating and the society they reside in, and they exploit this asymmetric information to ‘profit’ at the expense of the women they date and the society they live in.
Where we disagree is whether or not Game in and of itself is evil. The reason Jesus commanded those about to stone the adulterer that ‘he who is without sin [should] cast the first stone’ is because he knew that the only difference between those doing the stoning and the adulterer was the adulterer had the opportunity to act on the lusts present in the hearts of all men. Game opens doors, and it is up to the individual Christian to have the moral fortitude to not walk through them.
“Feminist Hater” above said:
This confuses the descriptive and the normative. The woman should keep her vows by remaining chaste and submitting to her husband. The woman is attracted to and will willingly submit to a man who keeps himself fit, dresses well, projects calm confidence, calls her out on her temper tantrums etc. Your wife should be chaste and submit to you, you can make it easier for her by not being a sissy.
Hopefully this becomes clearer if I reverse the genders: The man should keep his vows by loving and honouring his wife, and remaining faithful to him. The man is attracted to and will willingly love a woman who is feminine, affectionate, keeps herself fit, dresses well, looks good, and knows how to be sexual with him etc. Your husband should love and remain faithful to you. You can make it easier for him by not being a bitch.
“And most married men who learn Game are simply learning what they never learned as boys growing up in a feminized society. They don’t want to leave their wives and sex up 19 year olds. They want to keep their wives, or at least make life more tolerable. They are trying to save their marriages, not end them.”
No kidding
@ Cane:
“the case for hypergamy needs to be made better.”
Do you question the existence of female nature (flesh, if you will) that desires a man superior to her?
I submit the chief culprit in creating the sexual marketplace which currently exists is completely unrestrained hypergamy. Women’s desire for ever-better men is not only uncontrolled and out of control; it is encouraged and indulged. Nothing, not even the North American Church, stands athwart it.
If there is no such thing as hypergamy, what in your opinion explains the sexual marketplace as it currently exists?
Cane has fallen into the common trap [of assuming] that those who learn Game, or begin to understand female nature and then use it for his benefit (or at least stop ignoring it to his detriment), will become pickup artists, will try to become PUAs, or will leave their wives to pursue a Casanova lifestyle. …
Yes, I believe this is why he cries out so bitterly against it despite its obvious truth.
Most men can use that understanding of hypergamy to stop screwing up their lives
Right. As I’ve termed it.. .Defensive game.
I am not sure game is the solution here per se. Being a gentleman and being firm in the ways of the Lord is
Sorry but a lot of us found out the hard way, that’s not enough. It SHOULD be. But it’s not.
Marlon:
“Yep, and he marries a girl using “game”. Can he or anyone maintain “impenetrable frame” the rest of his life? Who would want to? What kind of marriage is this? What kind of life is this? The alpha thing for a man to do then would be to avoid marriage altogether.”
You’ll get little disagreement from most of the posters on this board. Dalrock himself has suggested that men must screen hard for wives. The general unsuitability of many women for marriage means many men will have to do without marriage.
And: game is an insufficient foundation for a marriage. If you have to game a woman hard, then continue to game her hard into submission, the woman you’re gaming is not a suitable marriage candidate. Period.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/that-way-rationalization-lies/
Deti: If there is no such thing as hypergamy, what in your opinion explains the sexual marketplace as it currently exists?
That’s my question too. I’ll take Cane seriously when he proposes an alternate hypothesis with comparable explanatory power. Not before.
You misunderstand what the Red Pill is. It is not Game. The Red Pill is when you decide that this Feminism thing is phony, and you’re going to learn some other way of seeing the world. In the terms of The Matrix, Game presents itself to be the training scenarios that Morpheus takes Neo through. Simply taking the Red Pill doesn’t give you the ability to jump buildings, or dodge bullets. You have to learn how to do it after you take the Red Pill.
The difference for us is there is no training ground; no Christian-controlled Matrix inside the real Feminist Matrix to test this out, as the crew of the Nebuchadnezzar has. You can only learn to jump the building by trying to jump the building. Likewise–as Game says, you can only learn how to get the slut to want to jump you, by getting the slut to want to jump you.
Is it theoretically possible to pick-up girls with Game, but not actually commit fornication? Possibly, but I doubt it. Even if it absolutely were possible, in no way would I endorse it because the temptation is too great. A Christian man–who wants to have sex, and therefore wants to get married–has no business putting himself (or her) in a situation where he could actually and immediately have sex before he’s married.
All a good Christian man needs is The Bible… and sometimes also a cookbook… and first aid instructions… and automobile mainteinance manual… and wife mainteinance manual, also known as “game”…
Deti, part of the problem is that no one will stick to a hard definition of game. You seem to be saying that game means “act like a man; look to God for approval not man”. If that is so, no problem chief.
From a christian point of view, what I am pushing for is this:
1. On a corporate level, confront the pastors and elders of the churches about the femicentric nature of things.
2. On a personal level, now that we have been enlightened by the game teachings, let us leave them behind, and look at the scriptures with fresh eyes on how to be manly in God’s sight.
3. Women have three things to offer: submission, youth and fertility. Select the women who can best give us these things. Leave the repentant sluts to repent. Marrying single mothers, and 20 cocked women is a bad idea – no matter how impenetrable your frame may be.
A young christian man takes the red pill and understands game (female psychology) The scriptures come to life. ..Game is not the solution Game is the understanding of why christian morality is there…..You misunderstand what the Red Pill is. It is not Game.
Ah, perhaps this is the understanding gap. I equate the two.
Is it theoretically possible to pick-up girls with Game, but not actually commit fornication? Possibly, but I doubt it. . A Christian man–who wants to have sex, and therefore wants to get married–has no business putting himself (or her) in a situation where he could actually and immediately have sex before he’s married.
From PERSONAL experience: even good Christian virgins, respond positively to dominance triggers and negatively to “beta” behavior. If you want to marry a good Christian virgin, you still have to first entice her into a RELATIONSHIP.. dating/courting/whatever you call it. Being her “friend” will never get you within a thousand miles of the altar.
Because… The same mental event that happens in the mind of a barhopping slut, before she goes home with a PUA, has to happen in the mind of a good Christian virgin before she will chastely date a marriage-minded Christian guy. In both cases, even a simple defensive “redpill” understanding can prevent catastrophic mistakes that make you look a lot less of a man than you really are.
Your own testimony is against you. You professed that in your youth you were nice. At some point you noticed that girls like jerks, but you thought you should stay nice, even though that meant single. Then you found a Godly woman who you didn’t have to Game, and she liked you for being nice and productive (beta). Today you are happily married, and (apparently) going at it like rabbits.
I understand the singleness in the middle could be excruciating at times, but, my goodness, man! You have lived the dream, and yet you deny it. Why?
This bears repeating, separately, so it sinks in to the doubters:
A simple defensive “redpill” understanding can prevent catastrophic [dating] mistakes that make you look a lot less of a man than you really are.
This is going to be a fantastic thread.
Only the first paragraph in the comment to greyghost should be blockquoted. (A young christian man takes…why christian morality is there.) I don’t have rights to fix it in the comments. (Probably wisely. Ha!)
“The same mental event that happens in the mind of a barhopping slut, before she goes home with a PUA, has to happen in the mind of a good Christian virgin before she will chastely date a marriage-minded Christian guy.”
And that mental event is: “This man is attractive. He is a man who is worthy of my submission. He is worthy to put his penis in my vagina and deposit his sperm. He is a man worthy to make babies with.”
The difference between the slut and the virgin is when P in V takes place. The woman’s mental and physical processing is the same.
A very well written essay by Cane Caldo (I expected nothing less) but I have two problems:
1. If Game is the scientifically based theory which it claims to be, then it should be falsifiable, in the Popperian sense, but it isn’t. Women are far too variable and do not always go for the biggest beast around: there is such a thing as chemistry, and frankly if you are six foot tall and well built and handsome you really don’t need to try too hard, indeed it might be over-kill to do so – it is the short fat men who tend to become comedians – or tyrants. The Game theorist however – like a true snake-oil salesman is not fazed with this potential hole in his theory. He says that the reason the short, fat, ugly guy succeeded was because he had Game, and if I say I cannot see that he exerted any dominance, I will be told that, not being a woman, I fail to see his dominance. If however I fail to score with a woman, I am told I am not being sufficiently dominant and I will be told this no matter how dominant I am being, and so it goes on. Game does, I regret to say (in present company) sound remarkably like a Pastor explaining to a sinner in his congregation that the reason for his sinning is that he does not sufficiently believe (or accept Jesus as his Lord and Saviour) whereas the person who overcomes his sinning has, de facto, so overcome Satan. How convenient.
2. Gamesters assume (and here I supect that I part company with Cane Caldo) that Gamesters assume that women have little or no agency. This is the unspoken attitude behind all the white-knighting, both from Neo-Cons and Xtians [the quote from the blessed Timothy is of this sort] – that women really are helpless Damsels-in-Distress, who cannot make up their mind or do what they want or desire and that seducing a woman is thus entirely the fault of the man – that man with Game, is thus, really an abuser or Rapist who should if given a chance, man-up. I think not.
Women I find, are infinitely variable: not all are hypergamous by any means, though some are; but to base a philosophy of life on the idea that all women are hypergamous is a daft as for a woman to base her philosophy on the idea that all men are Rapists. There is a tendency for prophecy to be self-fulfilling and to see what one wants to see. Of course among the ball-busting female lawyers in Roissy’s D.C., Game may be the only reasonable Game in town, but I don’t live in D.C. (these days – any more than most people do, and anyway female lawyers are hardly my cup-of-tea; and it is not that I am intimidated by them either, in fact quite the reverse; they are too pretentiously dull) not that I had any trouble when I did live there- but then you will say I had Game.
“All a good Christian man needs is … and wife mainteinance manual, also known as “game”…”
You can become more manly (not looking to other’s approval, looking to God, going to the gym, becoming more competent, getting her to the gym etc). That helps.
(Is that what you mean by game? Game is all things to all men).
But if she won’t submit, no “game” can save you.
Cane, hypergamy exists – no doubt about it. Genesis 3:16, David and Bathsheba, Solomon and the Shulamite girl, Ephesians 5 etc. The word translated as submit or subject, is hupotasso, literally, under-set. The wife is to set-under herself or subordinate herself to her husband. No need for that command if she didn’t want to rule him. And she wouldn’t want to rule him if he wasn’t above her.
@Mentu
I noticed you’re dealing with this on your blog, too. You referenced “manliness” the other day, instead of Game.
Feminist society is the Matrix–the Bitch Bin is yet one more pretty lie. It’s Game. It’s not the name “Game” that I have a problem with. Game is–as you say, and I agree–navigating the Feminist Matrix. Christianity means to burn it down.
You professed that in your youth you were nice. At some point you noticed that girls like jerks, but you thought you should stay nice, even though that meant single. Then you found a Godly woman who you didn’t have to Game, and she liked you for being nice and productive (beta)…
You have lived the dream, and yet you deny it. Why?
(a) Staying single/virgin til age 38 was my NIGHTMARE not my dream. I scored very, very well in the end but I should NOT have had to wait that long.
(b) Retrospective failure analysis on my prior attempts at dating, clearly made sense in the red pill understanding of things. Game theory is the ONLY EXPLANATION that makes even the slightest sense.
(c) Just because I wasn’t willing to become a jerk, doesn’t mean I didn’t get significant benefit out of the red pill. Avoiding stupid mistakes, in other words. Like don’t be too emotionally vulnerable too quickly, it makes you look beta. HYPERGAMY
(d) As a married man I’ve observed certain things… not gonna go into details there..
(e) One of the most effective things I did, to radically turn around the way women looked at me, was a change in my physical appearance that I believe I was led by God to make: The longer my hair grew, the wilder I looked, and the more dates I got. HYPERGAMY.
(f) As my income and social status rose, there was a direct correlation with how much female attention I got. HYPERGAMY.
(g) My wife respects education, and I have a Phd in Chemistry. HYPERGAMY
My sons will be given the redpill at 16. They’ll hear it from me, not Roissy.
Masculinity, Game, and Biblical morals/actions/relationships are all three separate things. They can work with each other or against each other.
Disclaimer – I will mention blog posts of my own that touch on these ideas more in depth. I don’t comment here often, read it regularly, and have no desire to ‘pimp my blog’ but simply to be taken seriously while also offering further thoughts than one comment allows. I personally don’t consider myself ‘Christian’ at the moment, I have been in the past, and the current path I’m on I suspect I will be in the future. My own blog reflects this kind of journey in many ways, but don’t go there expecting Christianity to shine forth.
Masculinity, in it’s purest form, is the knowledge of the dangers of the real world and the ability of a man to stand up against them. To be a rock that other things can be built upon. This is independent of any moral code. To be masculine you can just as easily throw your wife to the wolves to protect yourself and then go look for a new mate to father more children upon. Masculinity is the pure, raw biological laws of evolution independent of any political correctness, social niceties, or morals. Obviously civilization depends on the GENTLEman, the man who has a grasp of his masculinity and is able to curb it, tame it, civilize it. He still has it within him to act for his own pure, biological needs, but has formed codes, laws, and honors for himself to live by. This is the man that has masculinity and can be a rock for civilization to be built on. (blog examples – Stones of Masculinity and Clarification on Be the Best Man You can Be)
Game is purely the ability to sell yourself in a way that appeals to women’s biomechanics. It does not require that you actually have any masculinity at all, only that you have the ability to fake it. I honestly would call people that use game solely to win women as Beta’s if you’re talking any other context but sex, because they have put the woman’s needs above their own to a point where they’ve spent years of time and money to learn how to appeal to women on a short term basis on a woman’s terms, but spent none of that time improving themselves or forwarding their own life goals. That’s the example of how I think Game can work against Christianity and against the man himself and his long term goals. However, there are masculine men that are horrible at showing that masculinity to women, as well as men that NEED a set of guidelines on how to ‘fake it till you make it’ with their full intention to actually make it one day instead of simply serving women’s needs. Each of those two people have a code, a set of honor, a law to live by – which can very well be Christianity. (blog examples: Making a Boss or Potential Employer Qualify to you, History of Modern Hypergamy, This is What Hypergamy Looks Like, Tell them They’re Happy, Would They Come Back)
Christianity, as stated in the bible, is the one, pure way to live within God’s frame. He is The Man, he is asserting his Frame upon you, and it is Good. It’s a healthy way to live with man as the head of the church, the head of the house, and the head of his own life. It gives many laws and ideas to help support men’s leadership, to give women fulfilling and rewarding lifestyles in submission to a Christian man of worth, and how each of the sexes can act in ways that are appealing to the other while both single and in a relationship. As we can currently see, the word of God can be misinterpreted by others to lead them away from the intention he put in. Or have sections ignored or glossed over, or taken out of context. Even assuming a Man has a full understanding of the text, his desire to forgive another human being and assume the best in a woman can lead to him being horribly taken advantage of, especially in a system that fully supports that advantage to be taken and encourages it. (Stones of Masculinity, Guard your Gate, Some Self Improvement, Beta’s Find Happiness Alpha’s Make Happiness)
So, you have the three elements. I hope I’ve shown clearly how they can work against each other. Honestly its working them with each other that is much harder to show, because it is something that can only be found through trial and error in each of the elements to find the correct BALANCE, to find the place you, as a man, are going to set your Rock down and build your House upon it. On finding the masculinity to do that, the ability to not tear down your own creations, to be able to take enough pride in yourself to attract other people of worth without becoming overly self indulgent. On being able to exhibit the judgment to keep people who will poison your life out of it while still setting them on a Christian path to growth, while still being kind enough that those people of worth can find a way into your life and find comfort there.
That balance is hard. I have a feeling that most of the saints just barely found it, and that the search for that balance is what leads to every single growth within the core of a man that he has his whole life. So far, I’ve found every step rewarding.
I think you have game all wrong. You have pigeon-holed it too much.
In a nutshell, game is livign your life, on your terms, without compromise.
That is catnip to women. Putting yourself in that position, of holding a strong masculine frame, will drawm them to you like moths to a flame. Yes it helps to be funny, witty, provider and protector all in one. But of most importance is having a backbone and saying your life is yours alone and people (including a wife) are accessories to your life.
Now that we have that out of the way, the OP posited the following question……
“how is Game anything but a round-about method of telling Christian men to Man-Up and Marry These Sluts?”
Game (from a Christian standpoint) is telling Christian men that there are no Christian women out there to marry. In fact, it says that no woman is worth marrying in the current structure of society. Why? Because the Christian woman has already violated God’s laws over and over again, and will continue to do so.
Now, should you find a woman who has not violated God’s law, who does not already have a husband (meaning she has not yet had sex with a man, as a man who takes the virginity of a woman is actually her hsuband), then you will need game (a strong frame) to keep her on the true path of Christiantity in regards to sex.
As an early twenty-something christian man, who is moderately successful with women, I’ve met only a tiny number of true virgins (the ones who hadn’t given a blow job, done anal, ect.) in my search for a wife. As a virgin myself, I expect it in a wife. I’ve gotten a LOT of flack from this from my unshakable stance. Much of it comes from christian women.
However, what I’ve discovered is that a woman who is genuinely submitted to God, usually also trusts her sexuality to Him as well. Most women my age are looking for a boyfriend, they have no interest in submitting to a husband or being a godly wife, they want to be romanced and treated like an princess ESPECIALLY the virgins. There’s also plenty of women who are virgins by default and not out of virtue, far more of these in the church than not. Then there are the more overweight women and those who have difficulty with basic makeup and hygiene than I care to mention.
Game to me, is about developing myself into the most godly, attractive man I can be and getting and keeping the most godly, most beautiful wife I can acquire with my material and intangible resources. I understand that marriage is about sacrifice, and I’m only willing to make that sacrifice for a woman who respects me, who is submissive, who satisfies me in bed, and loves only God more than her husband. Perhaps that’s too much to ask for in this culture. Dalrock, thanks for being at least a healthy supplier of the Red Pill; Roissy is quite depressing and cynical if you aren’t living a sexually immoral lifestyle.
This is an interesting post and you make some good and valid points, but I’m going to side with deti’s “game as a tool” on this one. There seem to be quite a few Christian men in the manosphere who have taken this tool and used it well.
As I said before, a hammer can be used to build or to destroy; the PUA does the latter, while the true Christian does the former. Some tools are highly dangerous in the wrong hands, but does that mean a Christian shouldn’t learn to wield them?
Game is amoral and it is merely the application of Game that determines morality or immorality. Many men and women still equate Game with PUA behavior. The Christian manosphere and LTR/marriage Game blogs have long made this distinction.
A tool analogy can be used to understand Game. Should Christians be taught about hammers? A hammer can be used to pound nails to build a house. Would a woman want a man to use a hammer for this purpose? This is productive and provides shelter for a family (which includes a woman and children). Other men may use their hammers to destroy houses or to break boards which are then not useful building materials. That is not a productive use.
Hmmm…let me clarify what I mean by hypergamy…”women desire men they can look up to”.
Deti said:
“The same mental event that happens in the mind of a barhopping slut, before she goes home with a PUA, has to happen in the mind of a good Christian virgin before she will chastely date a marriage-minded Christian guy.”
And that mental event is: “This man is attractive. He is a man who is worthy of my submission. He is worthy to put his penis in my vagina and deposit his sperm. He is a man worthy to make babies with.”
The difference between the slut and the virgin is when P in V takes place. The woman’s mental and physical processing is the same.
I agree Deti. No doubt.
I think van Rooinek’s testimony obliterates everything CC has to say. He has demonstrated through actions, the facts of Game and the Red Pill.
Ok, so let me get this straight. As a Christian, you’re supposed to follow the bible, yet the bible says to stone these women. Well, unless you’re Hosea, and you get a pass.
Oh, but now we’re living in a New Testament world – one of forgiveness and love. Instead of the Old Testament God of Wrath, we follow more the teachings of Jesus.
“Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
Jesus blessed harlots, changed his path between cities to give eternal life and hope to a whore, and died for her sins just like he died for everyone else’s sins.
He blessed those who used him, and prayed for those who persecuted him. He willingly delivered himself unto their hands, and they crucified him.
Legions of angels stood ready to rescue him from his unjust fate, yet he didn’t call them. He suffered and died so that the most vile and wretched of mankind could be free.
Cane Caldo is right. Christians don’t need game. A real Christian following the example of Jesus would marry that slut, crawl up on the cross, and die for the sins of feminism.
There you go, Christian men. Love your wife as Christ loved the church EVEN when they do not submit to you and nail you to a cross.
It’s the Christian thing to do.
deti wrote:
I don’t know if I am misunderstanding this, but is the suggestion that if a man is gaming a woman, she’s going to choose to submit to him? I don’t necessarily agree with that. I think masculine frame/game increases sexual attraction. I don’t think it makes submission easier.
Submission in action doesn’t mean that a woman is generally pleasant, nice, and interested in sex. Submission means when you’ve spent two days talking over a decision, but you can’t come to an agreement, and finally he says, “OK, this is how it’s going to be. Do this.” and then she does what he says. Think about that. Does that sound like to fun to you? Because I can assure you that it is not. No matter how dominant he behaves, she has to will herself to submit. It’s not all roses and unicorns for her just because he’s got game and she’s feels attracted to him. When push comes to shove, submission is way harder than that.
Nope ar103038. Van’s game and Roissy’s Game (which Cane talks about) are not the same. Van is simply being manly. Thirt years ago Van’s behaviour wouldn’t require a special name to describe it.
Let me repeat this for us Christians:
1. On a corporate level, confront the pastors and elders of the churches about the femicentric nature of things.
2. On a personal level, now that we have been enlightened by the game teachings, let us leave them behind, and look at the scriptures with fresh eyes on how to be manly in God’s sight.
3. Women have three things to offer: submission, youth and fertility. Select the women who can best give us these things. Leave the repentant sluts to repent. Marrying single mothers, and 20 cocked women is a bad idea – no matter how impenetrable your frame may be.
Christians don’t need game. A real Christian following the example of Jesus would marry that slut, crawl up on the cross, and die for the sins of feminism.
Nah. It’s not a, “If not A, then B” choice. In that same sense, the choice in game isn’t PUA or Marry the Slut!. For example, there’s MGTOW.
I’m currently working on another route to take. I’ll prolly pass it around for scrubbing before I publish it, though.
From PERSONAL experience: even good Christian virgins, respond positively to dominance triggers and negatively to “beta” behavior.
Wouldn’t this be ESPECIALLY true of good Christian virgins? I mean, it’s good Christian virgins who believe that male dominance is a good thing, so of course they are going to like dominance.
If Game is the scientifically based theory which it claims to be, then it should be falsifiable, in the Popperian sense, but it isn’t. Women are far too variable and do not always go for the biggest beast around: there is such a thing as chemistry, and frankly if you are six foot tall and well built and handsome you really don’t need to try too hard, indeed it might be over-kill to do so – it is the short fat men who tend to become comedians – or tyrants. The Game theorist however – like a true snake-oil salesman is not fazed with this potential hole in his theory. He says that the reason the short, fat, ugly guy succeeded was because he had Game, and if I say I cannot see that he exerted any dominance, I will be told that, not being a woman, I fail to see his dominance . . .
This is SO true. I might add to that if a woman says that she didn’t choose a dominant man, she will be told that the man was, in fact, dominant in some way. And the reality is, after the fact, when a woman chooses a man, you can always find something he did that can be categorized as “dominant” unless the man’s a complete doormat. Most human interactions involve some degree of self-assertion and compromise on both sides, so you can always cast one party or the other as “dominant” depending on your politics.
As Anon Reader predicted, we’re devolving into a debate on what Game is, rather than whether Christian men need it.
Game is a tool. It’s an understanding of female nature which is then applied for the man’s benefit or at least to avoid detriment in his dating and romantic life.
The use of this tool can then lead to any of the things which is usually discussed in the manosphere:
1. MGTOW
2. Life on his terms without compromise
3. PUA
4. getting an LTR or a wife
5. Improving his marriage
6. improving his sex life within marriage
Or any combinations thereof at various times.
Cane Caldo is right. Christians don’t need game. A real Christian following the example of Jesus would marry that slut, crawl up on the cross, and die for the sins of feminism. There you go, Christian men. Love your wife as Christ loved the church EVEN when they do not submit to you and nail you to a cross.
Without game, even the slut won’t marry you, so all of the above is moot. You can’t “love your wife as Christ loved the church” if you can’t get a wife… not even the whore of Hosea… to begin with.
My comment got caught in spam filter originally, but is responding to a lot of these ideas of game, masculinity, and Christianity.
I’d biasedly say its worth scrolling back up for.
DH: Wouldn’t this be ESPECIALLY true of good Christian virgins? I mean, it’s good Christian virgins who believe that male dominance is a good thing, so of course they are going to like dominance.
No, they are taught to look for a good strong God-fearing leader. But when they actually meet that, very often they are turned off by it.
They automatically gravitate to the drifter on a motorocyle, all on their own, despite being taught NOT to do that! Game explains why.
@Deti, CL, 7man, ar10308, others
You can deny what Game is, in an effort to limit it to a palatable Christian sensibilities, but that isn’t what Game writers say it is. Game is not the Red Pill. What you’re describing is the Red Pill; some mix of 1) realization of the Feminist Matrix, 2) hypergamy, which–again–I’m willing to say can be useful. The Red Pill is not Game. Those who are in the best position to teach Game will tell you what it is. I linked to a bunch of them in the post. Alternatively, check out Mentu’s post on the Bitch Bin. It’s true Game, and it’s pretty damn smart.
@Mentu
I agree with every thing you said, except this
The Christian is bound to do whatever it is God calls him to do. It could include marrying that slut (A quick survey of the crowd says that there’s not much option, anyway. Your fault, ladies.). It could include dying a horrible and embarrassing death. It cannot be to die for the sins of anyone else, or even himself, since Christ has already covered that.
You (like Dalrock) were instrumental in my change of heart. Many thanks.
@Danger
I never argued Game isn’t effective, I argued that it’s inherently set against Christianity because the frame is “navigating the Feminist Matrix”; instead of “Living out God’s will”. After your first two paragraphs, you can find everything else you wrote in my post.
frankly if you are six foot tall and well built and handsome you really don’t need to try too hard,
Welll… it didn’t help me. Only when i raised my status, and appearance of status, did my romantic fortunes change. Being 6’3″, having a handsome face (so I’m told), and hitting the gym got me nowhere romantically.
From Roisy’s The Unbearable Triteness of Hating:
Cane, don’t take this the wrong way because I honestly have a lot of respect for your perspective, but what you’ve written here reads less like ‘Christians don’t need Game” and more like “Christians need MGTOW”. One thing that’s unique to Plugged-In men is that they believe they’re not plugged in. They claim a sense of pride for not being like typical ‘other guys’ in the hopes that women will appreciate their uniqueness. They believe that their identifying and accommodation of the popularized wants of feminine imperative makes them more attractive; they believe they’re above or removed from the game.
When a guy finally does unplug and comes to realize the true nature of the game he’d been playing in his blue pill coma he realizes that game (intergender dynamics) is still going on all around him. He’s aware enough of the mechanics of that system, but he’s not apart from that system.
I understand the want to be removed from that system. The MGTOW adherents largely would like to believe they can remove themselves from that system, but by will or by force, at some point are always drawn back into the system. This is what’s meant by ‘The Game IS’. As a Christ follower we’re called to separate ourselves from ‘the world’, but you still have to live in the world.
I’m still on the fence as to whether Game can be christianized. When I see the Mark Driscolls of the world bastardize Game to fit their narrow, feminized-christian narrative, my guess is it’s not far off. Like most things churchianty co-opts, they’ll wait about 5 years, slap a christian kosher Jesus-fish logo on the book and call it “The Game for Christian Men”.
However, when there is a formalized Christian Game it will be rooted in the same want of removal from a system they will never be separated from. It will convince them that they’re sarging ‘God’s Way’, but underneath it are still the principles of functioning pragmatically within an established system.
I use Matrix analogies a lot on my blog, but the one thing I’ve always been uncomfortable with is the presumption that there is some alternate “real world” that men can escape to in order to be free. Unfortunately, in this life, The Matrix IS also the real world. We may be more aware of the system after the red pill, but that awareness neither excuses or removes us from that system.
Game can be used to perpetuate soft harem, and Game can be used to vet and secure your perfect virginic wife. Christianity doesn’t excuse you from the consequences of using or not using that system awareness. Hypergamy doesn’t care about your religious convictions.
Game is not the Red Pill. What you’re describing is the Red Pill; some mix of 1) realization of the Feminist Matrix, 2) hypergamy, which–again–I’m willing to say can be useful. The Red Pill is not Game
If you redefine “Game” as PUA, and “Redpill” as “understanding female hypergamy”, then, this entire argument, this entire thread, is completely pointless.
Game can be used to perpetuate soft harem, and Game can be used to vet and secure your perfect virginic wife. Christianity doesn’t excuse you from the consequences of using or not using that system awareness. Hypergamy doesn’t care about your religious convictions.
Well said, Rollo. And with that, I need to retire from this thread for a while.
@vanRooinek: Tongue was firmly planted in cheek when I made that comment, brother.
I don’t recognize CC’s authority to define what Game is.
DH: Wouldn’t this be ESPECIALLY true of good Christian virgins? I mean, it’s good Christian virgins who believe that male dominance is a good thing, so of course they are going to like dominance.<
VR: No, they are taught to look for a good strong God-fearing leader. But when they actually meet that, very often they are turned off by it.
They automatically gravitate to the drifter on a motorocyle, all on their own, despite being taught NOT to do that! Game explains why.
VR, but being a strong God-fearing leader would require showing dominance traits, no? So the issue with the Christian virgins you knew wasn’t hypergamy, i.e. that women prefer a dominant guy rather than a nice guy. It’s that they weren’t choosing kind of dominant guy that they were supposed to choose. I would chalk that up to the women you knew not wanting to be told what to do and therefore being attracted to the opposite of what they were told.
Why are so many men here who have at the least an understanding of hypergamy, scripture in Gen. which basically says
“Women desire a superior man.”
so scared of actually being superior all the time?
“But wait, I might actually have to “game” my wife ALL the time?? Forget this whole game thing guys, I just wanna sit on the couch and relax.”
Why is it such a problem to simply be superior to your woman all the time? Perhaps it is the christian idea that men must be like christ and totally sacrifice themselves and so forth. But I question how that idea was expressed in christian society prior to feminism’s onslaught. In medieval times the knightly husband expressed his sacrifice by travelling to a foreign land and eviscerating an invading population/religion.
Truly I think it is a basic fight or flight response to confrontation and you guys are being intellectually lazy about your ideas of applying this new knowledge in your marriages and perhaps life in general. If you dont feel the need to be superior and dominate your woman in a marriage at ALL times how can you honestly think of yourself as the christian “head” of your own house?
Christianity is a rejection of this world, a rejection of nature. Nature is seen as demonic. (And it pretty much IS demonic and utterly evil, if you think about. Schopenhauer explains why pretty well). Sex, women, pleasure, etc. – these things are all merely manifestations of that demonic reality, which according to Christian philosophy should be rejected.
Game is a strategy to achieve a worldly resource. An act of striving for nature or some part of nature.
Trying to integrate ‘rejection of the world’ with ‘striving for something worldly’ is not only futile, but absurd.
The ‘Christians need game’ contention therefore is nonsensical, unless by ‘Christian’ one means merely someone who goes to church or lives in the Christian cultural milieu. In that case, sure, you could game your wife, romantic prospects or whatever.
Christianity, Buddhism, the Matrix, etc, – any philosophical approach that discourages worldly attachment to see some ‘higher’ reality has no place in the discussion of game.
As for my opinion, yeah I think you should game those bitchez. Then again, I’m a spiteful motherfucker.
Not at all; I appreciate you taking the time to give a thoughtful reply.
It’s actually much more horrible than that. I purposefully left out naming the horror in the post until the comments could simmer up a bit. Roissy, Mentu, etc., are right: Virtually all modern Western women are, or were, sluts; including our wives; including the women who post here. The Christian man has to come to terms with this. He cannot Game his way out of it. The VRs of the world (while he may bitterly regret having to MGTOW for a very long time) has the almost unheard-of benefit of having a virgin wife. I’ve been in church my whole life, and I’ve never heard of that. Honest to God. So, he can be bitter if he wants to, but he’s been very blessed.
This is a dirty and diseased time we live in. All the garments out there are filthy. Only by the washing with the water of the Word can the soiling be cleansed.
This thread is degenerating because we will not stick to a single defintion of game.
Is it Roissy game? If so that is purely about sexing as many women as possible and is not Christian.
Is it neutral? That is, all the non-Christian stuff removed from Roissy’s 16 commandments? Then it is simply being manly.
(I am not American, and we do not have marriage 2.0 so all “neutral game” is, is simply being manly. Hypergamy is something we knew even though that term was unfamiliar to me). Since Roissy has pointed Christians to certain principles that are in agreement with the Word, then Christians, why not drop the use of the term game, and simply look at the scriptures in a manly and godly way?
Again, I ask, rather than hammer Cane into the ground, and fight about how awesome game is, why not confront the pastors and elders of the churches about the femicentric nature of things. (Is this too “alpha”?)
The only weak part of the essay was the questioning of hypergamy, to which I can only say, read Genesis 3, then think back to high school and college – not just one’s own experiences there, but in all the history and literature the schools tried to stuff in your head. Which guys were neck deep in chicks, and which were stuck playing AD&D, or the era-appropriate equivalent thereof? Allowing for natural variations from person to person, were there really no traits more commonly found among the first group than the second, and vice versa?
A minor quibble, almost a pathetic one, in light of the rest, especially the question in the final paragraph. I note no attempts to answer it thus far.
“Virtually all modern Western women are, or were, sluts; including our wives; including the women who post here.”
Cane, if that is true… if that is true then marriage is a waste of time in your country.
“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple … So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.” (Luke 14:26-27, 33)
If this is not “game”, what is?
As a man, you show “her” that she is NOT the center of the universe, she will then either reject you and move on (good) or accept her diminished status and attempt to earn a higher place by supporting your journey to Christ (her natural role).
If she is with you because of …looks, status, power, money, fame, attributes, whatever, the foundation of your relationship is flawed, the likelihood of it lasting, less than 50%…the current divorce rate .
From the scriptural perspective, all mankind’s righteousness is as filthy rags, so this is a disease across all geographies, but it is in a much more advanced condition in America.
Even “Red Pill” men don’t want to hear this. It’s deflating. It’s fine for us to go to church, and hear about this nebulous “sin” business going out in the world, and that infects us too, yadda, yadda, yadda… But you won’t hear even men in the manosphere say the women in their lives are or were sluts unless it’s an EX-wife, or an EX-girlfriend. Game writers are bracingly truthful about it.
Selecting the right spouse is so key–in full knowledge of their circumstances. There’s no substitute for it; no maneuvering for a better position. She is either what he wants all around, or he needs to move on. The same goes for women.
The question, then, is: Now what?
@Cane
“I never argued Game isn’t effective, I argued that it’s inherently set against Christianity because the frame is “navigating the Feminist Matrix”; instead of “Living out God’s will”. After your first two paragraphs, you can find everything else you wrote in my post.”
How is the feminist matrix different from any of the other temptations laid out before Christian Men?
God’s will is in navigating the feminist matrix, resisting the temptation and remaining the leader of the family unit. Being a leader means having game. God said that men are to be the leaders of society, and those leaders by default have game. God’s will is for men to have game.
It is the having of game, the being a leader, that allows men to keep their wives from going astray. To keep them from resisting temptation.
Game existed long before the feminist matrix did. God’s word and role for men to be leaders was a actually teaching men how to have game, but did not call it game. Feminism came well afterwards.
“accept her diminished status and attempt to earn a higher place by supporting your journey to Christ (her natural role).”
Correction: Accept her higher status, lower control, and continually earning her place using her indirect means of power by supporting the Family’s Journey to Christ through your decisions as a man.
@Cane again…..
Yes indeed, now what? Perhaps if men walked away from the church due to the lack of true Christian valued women, then the church would go through the effort of appeasing men again and recognize that it is the church itself that has strayed?
Buck, you said:
“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple … So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.” (Luke 14:26-27, 33)
If this is not “game”, what is?
Well Buck, my problem with that is this: Is it game that must define scripture? Must scripture be re-cast in game? Or is it scripture that must reign supreme over all? Cane is wrong about hypergamy but he is right about scripture above all.
That passage is about following Christ – not game (unless christianity is now a subset of game; an impression I get form reading a number of posts). I respect you for bringing that passge up for that is what I would like to see the Christians do – look at the word with fresh eyes after exposure to Roissy.
Because Game says you make you and her hypergamous responses to you the center of the universe; as concerns her.
I want to stress something, again: If you’re a married Christian, and you’re subdividing your life up into parts, and marriage isn’t part-and-parcel of your working faith, then you’re not understanding the scriptural implications and imperatives of Ephesians 5, etc. You become ONE flesh, and this is a mystery of Christ and His church. We’re not talking about feelings, here. When you marry, your wife becomes your ministry.
1 Corinthians 7:32-35
But it HAS to remain in that context: The husband devoted to God, in ministry to his wife. Game usually says to remain devoted to yourself. Sometimes this is rephrased as being devoted to something (nearly anything) besides her, so that she “knows her place”. If you think this doesn’t come through to women–that you’ve placed something above them, and it’s not God–you’re likely in for a divorce.
@ Cane:
YOu said “Selecting the right spouse is so key–in full knowledge of their circumstances. There’s no substitute for it; no maneuvering for a better position. She is either what he wants all around, or he needs to move on. The same goes for women.
The question, then, is: Now what?”
Dalrock has the answer. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but one that must be downed nonetheless, I’m afraid.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/feral-females-in-the-news/#comment-46468
“Unfortunately this means that large numbers of men today will need to pass on marriage and fatherhood. Individual men can learn how to better spot the women who are worthy of marriage and be more attractive to her, lead in the marriage, etc. But many other men must by simple math do without. This last point is something we need to not gloss past. Something absolutely terrible has occurred. All we can do is try to manage the damage in our own lives and help others do the same. Even those who put the odds in their favor in selecting a wife and maintaining the frame of the head of the household aren’t guaranteed success. Husbands can do it all right but if the wife chooses not to submit and instead sells out her family for 30 pieces of silver he can’t stop her from doing so.
What I think both you and GBFM would agree on is No Rings for Sluts, whether they were buthexed (and secretly taped) with neocon fiat dollars or not.”
Because, like every other man born into contemporary western culture, they are steeped in the feminine imperative. Their very livelihood, and the livelihoods of their families all depend upon his church placating to the feminine imperative. Even a man-up, fire-breathing nut job like Mark Driscoll, who for all intents is viewed as a misogynist cult preacher by the mainstream, still operates and preaches from a psychology that’s firmly planted in a feminine primary mindset.
I’ve gotten into huge arguments with ‘feminist christian’ women who think he’s some devil because of his overt calls to remasculinized the church. They look at me sideways when I tell them he’s a chump and unwittingly uses the same shaming and social conventions feminists would with men. In fact, because he speaks from some meta-physical position of male authority, he’s a more effective advocate for fem-centrism than any feminist could ever hope to be.
That’s what christianized Game looks like. Men self-righteously shaming other men into a more ‘Godly’ way of better serving the feminine imperative. As I said, there’s no escaping the system, even in church.
Chief Cane:
“But you won’t hear even men in the manosphere say the women in their lives are or were sluts unless it’s an EX-wife, or an EX-girlfriend. Game writers are bracingly truthful about it.
Selecting the right spouse is so key–in full knowledge of their circumstances. There’s no substitute for it; no maneuvering for a better position. She is either what he wants all around, or he needs to move on. The same goes for women.”
The question, then, is: Now what?
Cane, been saying it for number of threads:
1. Confront the pastors about the femdom in the church.
(Is this pastor game? Truth to power game? Afraid to get drummed out of church game?)
2. Stop marrying sluts. Select submission, youth and fertility – the holy triad.
If y’all marry the sluts, then you got to keep entertaining them with game, cause she has your balls and will squeeze…hard… if she is not entertained. Perhaps, that is why any criticism of game is met with such passion.
It’s actually much more horrible than that. I purposefully left out naming the horror in the post until the comments could simmer up a bit. Roissy, Mentu, etc., are right: Virtually all modern Western women are, or were, sluts; including our wives; including the women who post here. The Christian man has to come to terms with this. He cannot Game his way out of it.[…] All the garments out there are filthy. Only by the washing with the water of the Word can the soiling be cleansed.
But what if Game is a start – what if it leads to that washing? What if it leads to some form of redemption? What if the lack of the qualities that Game seeks to give back to men is to blame for the mess we’re in now? Game is anti-feminist in that way, and feminism has caused a lot of destruction.
It seems CC blames it all on women, and then it comes back to the fact that women are going to have a harder time than necessary in trying to submit to a marshmallow. Why make it more difficult? If you are supposed to wash your wife, then isn’t it necessary to have the ability to keep her in her place and to help her stay there? Perhaps by gaming her (and I don’t mean some uber slut who needs a really heavy hand), a man helps to clean her and facilitate her redemption, and thus him own. (And I don’t mean “redeem a slut”, I mean “redeem a sinner”).
It is so much easier for a woman to submit to her man if he uses some Game on her. Sure this will give her tingles, but why should his gift of creating tingles within her be withheld? The purpose isn’t to worship the tingle as some anti-gamers suggest, but to render the woman easier for him to lead, which is beneficial for both man and woman.
As I read these debates, I get these thoughts:
1. Christian men want to have sex
2. The church calls Christian men to contain sex within biblical marriage
3. Christian women live feminist marriage on her part but demand biblical marriage on his part
The solutions:
1. Christian men stay celibate and never marry (porn and masturbation)
2. Christian men sleep with or marry non-Christian women
3. Christian men marry a Christian woman and are subservient to them
5. Christian men become atheists to free themselves from the conflict and boundaries
This is over-simplified to be sure and none of these are absolute, but this is what I see.
Selecting a wife based on youth, fertility, and submission is just asking for trouble down the road. As many such women get older, they realize that the wonderful man they married has feet of clay and they resent the hell out of him.
It’s the same process that occurs when a man puts a woman on a pedestal and then realizes that she isn’t some pure angel of gentle selflessness. He then resents the hell out of her and the relationship goes down hill.
Thanks, Rollo.
I worry though, Rollo.
You and Buck are not Christians yet you were able to answer the questions I asked the Christians!
@ Sunshinemary:
“No matter how dominant he behaves, she has to will herself to submit. It’s not all roses and unicorns for her just because he’s got game and she’s feels attracted to him. When push comes to shove, submission is way harder than that.”
I am not a woman so I don’t experience this. Her submission is less about attraction than about security, I think. It would seem to me that his confidence and dominance would make it easier for her to choose to submit, because that confidence and dominance allay her fears. It is safer and more secure for a woman to submit to a confident, dominant man. If there is a problem, he is perceived as more capable at fixing it. She can repose trust in him. A woman’s unease in submission seems to result from her fear — her insecurity, fright, and need for safety.
One of the primary stumbling blocks I think most Christian men (the vast majority of which are well indoctrinated betas) struggle with is the foundational principle of forgiveness in the Christian faith. For all of the precautionary sarcasm of “Man-Up and marry those sluts” and for all of CC’s want of a virgin-bride-goes-slut, the article of Christ-mandated forgiveness throws all of that gnashing of teeth about vetting your bride, and the debate about marrying sluts out the window.
Christians are red-letter called to forgive unconditionally. Judge not and ye shall not be judged. Jesus himself implicitly forgave a woman, caught IN THE ACT of adultery (see; cuckolding her husband), and spared her from death by stoning. The principle of Christian forgiveness is the lynchpin of the feminine imperative in the church.
How does a Christianized manosphere reconcile the article of forgiveness?
How does a Christianized manosphere reconcile the article of forgiveness?
You can forgive a reformed thief without trusting him to watch over your valuables.
Speaking as a generational x’er, game allowed me to better understand my wife. My generation and the generation that followed me were told that there is no difference between the sexes. We were lied to our whole lives about the true nature of women. (that is why many men get angry when they learn the truth) Kinda like someone telling you that there is no difference between a dog and a cat. Then a man tries to use techniques that are effective on a dog, on a cat and wonders why the cat does not behave. In fact, the cat gets pissed and claws you. Game is nothing more than getting a better understanding of what makes the cat tick. Some guys can use this knowledge to collect cats. Some guys are happy having one content loyal cat. Understanding interpersonal/intersexual dinamics is not a moral issue. The morality comes in the application of that knowledge.
However, one thing is certain; Anyone that wants you to remain ignorant of the world around you does not have your best interests in mind.
Rollo, I’m not Christian obviously but I doubt that forgiveness requires marrying someone.
“If you are supposed to wash your wife, then isn’t it necessary to have the ability to keep her in her place and to help her stay there? Perhaps by gaming her (and I don’t mean some uber slut who needs a really heavy hand), a man helps to clean her and facilitate her redemption, and thus him own. (And I don’t mean “redeem a slut”, I mean “redeem a sinner”).”
Nope. A man’s job is not to keep his wife in place. If God couldn’t keep Eve from disobedience, how can a man do it? (And God has impenetrable frame. LOL!). A woman’s submission to God and her father keeps her clean; a man takes the baton from her father. He cannot make her submit.
If the baton is not passed from her father to her husband but to Steve, John, Fred, Billy,etc, then what can any man do? The gamers are wiser than the Christians – pump & dump or leave her alone. (Miserman is right)
A woman submits to a man; her submission encourages his dominance – a godly cycle.
A man is not called to be a lion tamer. The men who decide to tame lions – here are some scriptures for them:
Prov 21:9, 25:24 – [It is] better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.
Prov 21:19 – [It is] better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.
Prov 27:15 – A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike.
Do you notice that there is no parallel passsage to 1 Peter 3:1-6 addresses to men?
1 Pet 3:1-6 states that a godly woman can convert a man by virtue of her submission.
There is no passage stating a man can convert a woman to Christ by his leadership!
Eph 5 states a man can wash a woman who is already submitted. There are no lion taming scriptures.
My theory is that “Game” is an empty shell into which various people pour the meaning they want it to have.
I am not a woman so I don’t experience this. Her submission is less about attraction than about security, I think. It would seem to me that his confidence and dominance would make it easier for her to choose to submit, because that confidence and dominance allay her fears. It is safer and more secure for a woman to submit to a confident, dominant man. If there is a problem, he is perceived as more capable at fixing it. She can repose trust in him. A woman’s unease in submission seems to result from her fear — her insecurity, fright, and need for safety.
I don’t think that would make submission any more palatable to most women, including apparently, women who believe they should submit. People generally do not want to subordinate their will to other people, and find it undignified to do so. That’s why, in a free society, we generally limit the situations in which adults are required to submit to others. Women struggle with submission to a husband for the same reason that men would not want to submit their life decisions to a brilliant philosopher king, no matter how great he might be.
Christ said to love those who persecute you. I would assume that applies even to practicing thieves as well as practicing (or reformed) sluts. Love your enemy, right?
Man, so many things to reply to! I have to hit this one first, even though it’s not chronological.
@Rollo
I. Could. Not. Have. Said. It. Better! Christianized Game leads nowhere. But there is another way, and it’s what Marlon keeps saying. No one wants to do this though because they’re scared they’ll get rejected, tossed out of church, etc.
Let me pause to reiterate: The real world is an extremely dark, ugly, horrible place, and it longs to hear the sweet screams of Christians; that it might echo them across the world. What I’m suggesting might feed that hunger.
That being said, we get to the men’s portion. I do not believe, CL, that this (meaning the whole problem of modern sexual relations) is all women’s fault. Dalrock did a post awhile ago about the pervasive manly failure being Cowardice–as opposed to sluttiness*. All men are, or were, cowards. The scriptures demand we confront our pastors if they are leading the flock astray. We should do it in a Christ-centered, corrective way, but we should do it. Choosing not to is cowardice. One reason I think women choose serial monogamy as their preferred sluthood (as opposed to ONS, polygamy, etc.) , because they know men are prone to be unaccountable; to lack fortitude, but they want to cheat commitment out of the system without giving up their independence.
The problem with Glenn Stanton and Mark Driscoll is that they’re MORE than willing to stand up there and call men cowards, but they don’t dare call women sluts. Worse (much worse) they blame the whoring on men. Women make their own calculated decisions to whore themselves out–on their own. That is not men’s fault.
It’s mens fault that they drop out of church before the church has a chance to kick them out. Men do this to maintain the illusion that “This is there choice.” But that’s not what happened. If he does this, he’s allowing the culture–the evil spirit–of the church to choose for him. We ought to be getting kicked out of church.
<*Google Chrome wants to auto-correct “sluttiness” to “sultana”. Typical.
I like Game in theory snd practice. As a theory, because it explains so much that otherwise makes no sense. In practice because it has helped in my marriage.
I wonder if we are overthinking this.
If you can attract a woman, you probably had enough natural Game for her. The thing is not to lose it. A common problem seems to be going into what I call a “chump slump”. A happy marriage with minimal hen-pecking depends on understanding female psychology. The problem is that for the last few decades men have been fed “pretty lies” about female psychology. Game is a dose of the truth.
GAME and CHRISTIANITY are very similar – Both are about dealing with REJECTION. To expand: Laying women sexually is one of the most spiritual affirmations a man can have on this Earth. Sort of like heaven for me. Imagine that: Heaven Here On Earth!
Not here-after – here right now.
Christianity is about dealing with rejection as well… a rejection from Heaven – A rejection from God, from Jesus, from the Holy Spirit… the only difference is Game deals with rejection here on Earth – and Christianity deals with rejection here-after.
What ‘Game’ must one play here on earth to be Accepted into heaven?
What ‘Game’ must one play here on earth to be Accepted into women?
Whatever the answer is, the fact that both Game and Christianity hinge on ACCEPTANCE make them both more similar than different.
One might conclude then that I am comparing women to God, but I wouldn’t take it that far… just writing about the spiritual union that is available to men and women here – now – and what it takes for some to achieve this.
Games teaches a man how to deal with rejection from women.
Christianity teaches a man how to deal with rejection from God.
The difference then is the focus of the man’s rejection –
Woman or Jesus, here-now or here-after?
I didn’t say a man has to make her submit, but that he can help her. All of that assumes a willingness on her part to submit but that doesn’t mean sometimes a little help is needed. If she does a decent job most of the time, it will encourage his dominance and he will not find it difficult to put her in her place occasionally – or simply avoid escalation of potential arguments.
Again, I never said he had to be a lion tamer. I thought I was pretty clear on that. This seems to be another case of going to an extreme and expecting women to “just submit” while a man does nothing. If she were capable of doing this to perfection on her own will, why would his dominance need to be encouraged at all? Why is there the expectation that a woman shouldn’t require some management? This is living in the land of ShudBe.
A husband can put his wife in her place but she still has the free will to not stay there. Refusing to practice a bit of game to give her tingles is akin to her refusing to wear lingerie which would arouse him. He should just be aroused if she wears frumpy clothes and she should be aroused and submissive even if he acts like a beta wuss and is like a puppy dog always asking her permission for everything he does.
Sorry, I did it again – above comment @ marlon.
@Marlon
Dude, the preacher hears the choir, but he doesn’t repsond to them. We’re on the same page. I agree with you.
@Rollo
Man, you are so close to picking up what I am putting down. I thought this would be the case. I didn’t suspect any resistance from Mentu, either. Game writers are very often smart, and they do try very hard to be coherent within themselves. They’ve measure the costs, and have rejected Christ’s way.
Arg!
that doesn’t mean sometimes a little help is needed
should read: that doesn’t mean sometimes a little help isn’t needed
Women struggle with submission to a husband for the same reason that men would not want to submit their life decisions to a brilliant philosopher king, no matter how great he might be.
But that’s what every Christian man does, by definition. We serve the ultimate Philosopher-King, the only one who can be trusted with absolute power. (For all others, there’s the Second Amendment.)
@Rollo
That word you keep using, “forgiveness”: I don’t think it means what you think it means.
marlon says:
August 15, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Why do you suppose I’m not a Christian?…whatever,
But, I’m not placing scripture under game, I’m acknowledging that a true follower of Christ does not place women and the pursuit of tang above scripture; this aloofness is part of the game psychology and women seemingly find this attractive in men.
God calls us to be wise, if roosh, riossy et al have found certain techniques that Jedi mind bend women into attraction to men, well bully for men. If you use this knowledge just to deflower women, you will answer for that choice, if you use it to find, keep and maintain a good woman…win-win for you.
@David Collard
Thanks for saying this. This was one of those minimized Game philosophies that I chose to cut from my post. “Just be yourself!” There’s a lot of self-esteem claptrap that comes into Game when you try to cut out the actual Game tactics–which is what Christian men try to do when they encounter the Sixteen Commandments of Poon. “Oh, well, i can just ignore those naughty ones, and put a big ol’ dose of “Being Myself!” into the mix.”
If you’re not picking up the sluts, you’re fooling yourself. Guys who can’t get girls are painfully aware of this. Game writers know that you have to practice; partly because it’s a numbers game, and partly because you can’t just will your way to this knowledge.
Christians think they can, though. They do the same thing with charity. “If I just think some pretty wholesome thoughts about how it sucks to be poor, I don’t have to actually give any time, money, or resources.”
Game operates the same way: You can’t just think some hypergamy-centered thoughts about women, and then go be successful with them. You have to go do them.
Thanks for a really thought provoking article Cane.
One thought, based in Christian History, that occurs. It seems in many ways Game is like a crass and brutal Pagan Philosophy. It contains elements of truth, but truth that is glimpsed only by the dim cloudy light of reason and not the blinding pure illumination of revelation.
Not to put reason down, you can get a really long way on unaided reason as the heights of ancient pagan philosophy in men like Plato and Aristotle showed, but it is incomplete and ultimately contaminated by the fall. At the same time we are Christians not Muslims. We don’t burn the Great Library of Alexandria because we deem it irrelevant or redundant trash in light of our revealed book. On the contrary we look at what the Pagans have to offer, we interact with their thought and take what is good and illuminating from it and use it to advance the Kingdom of Heaven. Think Paul at the Aeropagus, Justin Martyrs Dialogue with Trypho the Jew or Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologicae.
We can learn a lot from a pagan philosophy like “game” as it illuminates one of the central cancers at the heart of Western Civilization and the Trojan Horse that has infiltrated and seeks to subvert the Church, even if Game practitioners use this knowledge for purely heonistic gain. I don’t think there is anything wrong with learning from this to get a sense of what is going on, even if part of the application it is put too is forbidden to us.
So I think you are possibly to hard on the idea that Game is of no use to the Christian. After all it was interaction with Pagan philosophical ideas and developments that helps early Christianity define and flesh out the idea of the Trinity, a thoroughly biblical doctrine that is contained in the revelation but took time to completely understand. It may have taken much longer to tease out all the implications without e aid of Pgan Philosophy. I suspect that the same may be true for Christians in regard to hypergamy and feminism.
Don’t through the baby out with the bath water.
Although your final comment about how in a Christian context, “Game”, can amount to a call to man up and marry the sluts is correct, I don’t think it must. It does illuminate the profoundly biblical idea that when choosing a spouse choose carefully, and it does provide some insights on the mechanics of attraction even if it puts these genuine insights to evil ends.
Anyway, thanks again, I will be posting this around.
DH:
Your understanding of “submission” is quite different. Based on your worldview, I am sure you take “submission” to mean she’s a cowering doormat; she has no agency; no free will; no ability or need to think or act. That’s not biblical submission nor is it the submission men in the manosphere think of. On the contrary, the manosphere insists on a woman’s full agency and unimpeded free will.
It’s a consequence of feminism: women wanted the same rights as men; and they’ve got ’em. And with rights come concomitant responsibilities.
Deti:
CL:
See, I think it’s important to understand if game/masculine frame really does affect submission or not, since one of the proposed applications of game for the married Christian man is to get his wife to submit to him. But I am uncertain if that can work. Submission is a serious act of obedience to God on a woman’s part. I’m not talking about “playing submission.” I love to play submission, of course – that’s when you get to make a big deal about checking in with your husband and asking his permission, and it makes you both feel just so cozy because he gets to feel in charge and she gets to feel like she’s such a good and submissive wife. There is nothing wrong with this highly-enjoyable dynamic, and I think game will be a good tool for eliciting this “submission lite”. But it’s not the real deal. In order for it to be submission, we have to think you are wrong but still obey you anyway.
But I might be overly-personalizing this, since after a two-day debate I just got a direct order that I do not want to follow, but I have to grit my teeth and do it anyway. With a nicer attitude than I currently have. If game, which I think my husband has, is supposed to make submission easy, why do I still have such a crappy attitude? I should be joyful skipping along to do his bidding if game is the answer.
Can we get a caveat that whenever Game is mentioned on this blog, that unless otherwise specified it is assumed to not be Dark Game? That would (in theory) clear up 99% of all the confusion. Dalrock gaming his wife is entirely different from Roissy gaming some bar slut. I’m sick reading countless arguments over obtuse semantics.
But that’s what every Christian man does, by definition. We serve the ultimate Philosopher-King, the only one who can be trusted with absolute power. (For all others, there’s the Second Amendment.)
But don’t you see a huge difference between submitting to God and submitting to another human being? You start talking to men about submitting to another human being, or even just enacting some health care reform, and suddenly they’re running around with “Don’t Tread On Me,” flags. What I find odd is that these men often don’t recognize that same love of freedom in women, and in stead hypothesize that women would be happy to submit to the right kind of person.
But if we think we’re consistent in that service, or in our trust of Him, scripture says we’re fooling ourselves. We aren’t Christ’s knights; the best of us are Christ’s wash-rags. The worst, are worse.
I hope not. I’m suggesting they’re the same.
I’m not saying that. I’m saying Dalrock doesn’t Game his wife.
Words matter. I think we need to suss this out.
Your understanding of “submission” is quite different. Based on your worldview, I am sure you take “submission” to mean she’s a cowering doormat; she has no agency; no free will; no ability or need to think or act. That’s not biblical submission nor is it the submission men in the manosphere think of. On the contrary, the manosphere insists on a woman’s full agency and unimpeded free will.
It’s a consequence of feminism: women wanted the same rights as men; and they’ve got ‘em. And with rights come concomitant responsibilities.
Thanks Deti. I do appreciate the clarification, but I definitely understand that “submission” as it is understood does not necessarily mean that the woman is a cowering doormat. As I understand it, it’s practice varies but it really comes down to the husband having the final say (as Sunshine Mary described) when the couple has a disagreement. That’s the understanding I have.
DH, ever heard of the military? Lot’s of authority that men obey there. Don’t get submission confused with slavery. This is talk of a hierarchical structure ordained by God. God, Jesus, Man, Woman, Child and then Animals. Quite simple really.
“but it really comes down to the husband having the final say (as Sunshine Mary described) when the couple has a disagreement. That’s the understanding I have.”
I stand corrected. You have the correct understanding.
Yep, that’s pretty much it. Somebody’s gotta be the captain and make the final decision; and that person is naturally the man.
Besides: you think you don’t submit to other human beings? People do it all the time. You do it all the time. Everywhere there are two people, one is dominant, the other is submissive.
Every marriage has a dominant partner and a submissive partner. If the man is not dominant, being ACTIVELY dominant, then he is submissive.
@ sunshinemary
That is just a mood that passes. I don’t think it’s that Game makes it “easy” but that it helps you to obey even when you don’t want to because the frame is in place and you trust. It’s a bit paradoxical, but lots of things in life are that way.
When you have done this before, how has it turned out? You do it anyway, then when the thing is done with, you still love and trust him – perhaps more so because he was able to wield his authority well and you were able to act in spite of your unwilling spirit. That is a sign of strength.
FH,
Wow. You actually made a semi-decent point. The military is an example where men sometimes are happy to obey orders from a commander they trust and respect. That’s a very fair analogy to what the comment Deti made that a woman would likely be willing to take orders from a husband she trusts.
But the military is set up in a very hierarchical way because it involves very complex missions under life-and-death situations that require quick decision making. Obedience to a chain of command is required for the discrete purposes of the military. Those same conditions don’t exist in the civilian world, and most men would not be willing to turn over the decision making over their lives to some other dude, other than in very discrete, limited circumstances.
ZippyCatholic said: My theory is that “Game” is an empty shell into which various people pour the meaning they want it to have.
Right you are Zippy.
I ask again, can the Christians define exactly what they mean by game, so that we can measure it against the scripture. If Christian game or neutral game or scriptural game or whatever term is used, fits the scripture, can we then start to shift to using the scripture as the measure of how we should behave?
It is tiring to figure out which of the 16 commandments of Roissy different Christians have in mind when speaking of game. At least, with the non-Christians I know they mean ALL 16. Come now, the gamers are coherent yet we are not.
I repeat my challenge to us Christians; the non-Christians have already responded:
1. Confront the pastors about the femdom in the church.
(Is this pastor game? Truth to power game? Afraid to get drummed out of church game?)
2. Stop marrying sluts. Select submission, youth and fertility – the holy triad.
If y’all marry the sluts, then you got to keep entertaining them, cause she has your balls and will squeeze…hard… if she is not entertained. Perhaps, that is why any criticism of game is met with such passion.
3. Use scripture as our reference for man-woman behaviour.
CL, I do agree that a man should act manly – lift your weights, run, study the word, be responsible etc – in short, set an example of what you want your wife to be. I am not saying men should lie down and do nothing. But there is no impenetrable frame; no man can make his wife submit. In fact the Greek voice in Ephesians 5 is the middle voice, which refers to things you are doing to yourself, so submission is the godly choice a woman makes. She submits herself – an act of will, not of tingles, to her man. For no man makes his wife tingle all the time either.
@CC
“I hope not. I’m suggesting they’re the same.”
I see so much you say that I agree with, then sentences like this and then all of a sudden I think we’re talking past each other. Or, at least since you post 100X more than me, you’re talking past me…
“I’m not saying that. I’m saying Dalrock doesn’t Game his wife.”
Certainly not Dark Game. I would argue that he does game his wife, in a Christian way. Different words should probably be used if we’re going to truly get to the heart of this.
”I’m sick reading countless arguments over obtuse semantics.”
Words matter. I think we need to suss this out.’
Agreed. Unfortunately if we suss it out here, it won’t necessarily make it to the rest of the manosphere. Perhaps I’m underestimating Dalrock’s influence. He’s one of my favorites, but that doesn’t always mean anything.
If you’re not picking up the sluts, you’re fooling yourself. Guys who can’t get girls are painfully aware of this. Game writers know that you have to practice; partly because it’s a numbers game, and partly because you can’t just will your way to this knowledge.
Christians think they can, though. They do the same thing with charity. “If I just think some pretty wholesome thoughts about how it sucks to be poor, I don’t have to actually give any time, money, or resources.”
Game operates the same way: You can’t just think some hypergamy-centered thoughts about women, and then go be successful with them. You have to go do them.
How many times, in how many ways, does this have to be explained to you, before you understand? Christian red-pillers apply their understanding of hypergamy, to the *chaste* pursuit of *marriageable christian women*… not to picking up sluts! And legions of them report that it WORKS..
Your persistent inability (or refusal) to understand this, is infuriating. I suspect that, deep down at the core of your soul, there is some part of you that desperately, desperately doesn’t want game to be true.
For what it’s worth… I know the feeling.
SunshineMary, you raise a good point, which will make me think. I like your point about play submission. That is the fun part.
Very occasionally, I have asked my wife to “take one for the team” as Americans say. And she mostly has. For example, I once told her I wanted her to work fewer hours for a while, because our son had been unwell. She was a bit disappointed, but she complied. That is true submission, not play.
There do come times when a wife, as you say, really wants not to comply. They are testing times. I suppose this is an area where Game, or even appeals to scripture, are not enough. These are times when a woman’s deepest values come to the fore.
Maybe Game is just for the small stuff. Day to day rubbing along.
I do know what you mean by play submission. Most women will do a bit of this, especially in the first flush of desire. The question is really, will play become reality in time?
During an engagement of any length some serious issues will arise. If you, as a couple, plan on a traditional marriage, these will help determine if the woman will comply even if there is a real cost. Maybe the man’s career could be taking him to another city. That is the kind of serious test that an engagement may throw up. Certainly, a marriage will have many tests like that.
Buck, I apologize, brother, for calling you an unbeliever.
(Alas, according to game, I am being “beta” by apologizing!)
Deti,
Sure, we all submit to others in various circumstances, but that’s different than a lifelong commitment to submit to someone else in all things, including your most personal life decisionmaking.
I will say I would be hard pressed to identify the dominant or submissive partner in most marriages I know. Decisionmaking by a couple is an extremely complex process. The way I look at it is spouses don’t own each other, and each has to make his or her own decision as to how to act. I can say to my husband, “It will embarrass me if you don’t wear a tie to this upcoming event,” but ultimately he has the final say, because it’s his clothing and his self-presentation. Does that mean he’s dominating me? No, it means he retains sovereignty over himself. By the same token, my husband can say, “I would really prefer it if you took my surname,” but ultimately have the final say because it’s my name. I retain sovereignty over myself. On issues that are truly joint issues – such as buying a house, or how to raise the children, there obviously needs to be some kind of consensus. But people of good faith can work something out that pleases everyone or can engage in mutual compromises — much the same way equal partners in a business manage to run it successfully.
@Sunshinemary
You comment on it being important what Game means for submission is superb. Game says that, if she doesn’t want to submit it’s because her hypergamy is trumping his Game, and if he wants to keep her, and keep her submissive, he has to improve his Game. How is this not gyno-centric thinking? Scripture says that if she’s not submitting regardless of the reason* she’s sinning, and in danger of Hell.
@Deti
I think it’s important to keep the word “headship” in mind when we talk of our roles as husbands. Dominance can be lost. Headship is ordained by God, and is therefore immutable. This is another area where Game and scripture diverge: Game says he must never lose dominance. Scripture says she must submit to headship. This is a profound difference.
@Jason
I think you’re misunderstanding my intent. Please don’t burn down Roissy’s page. What you’re speaking of is a huge difference. Early Christian theologians did not send regular Christians to the temple of Odin to pick up tips on how to better worship God and conduct their lives; regardless of the overlaps (hanging on the Tree of Woe, fatherly, focus on wisdom, etc.). What you’re talking about were scholars of the scriptures, with a firm foundation and a long-suffering faith, studying the writings; not participating in services. I don’t know how long you’ve been reading the comments here or elsewhere, but…that’s not exactly my view of the readers.
*I don’t want to hear it: I know the caveats. They’re not caveats, they’re outpourings of grace, and they should occur under corporate oversight, not individually.
So on the topic of the thread, it appears that “game” is simply a set of techniques men use to dominate (or at least avoid being dominated by) women. The question is whether it is appropriate to apply this technique within the context of Christian marriage, in which submission by a woman is a duty she has towards God and something she must exercise her free will to choose, rather than being forced or dominated into it.
@CaneCaldo,
I have bee reading for a while, I think we are talking past each other.
I think you misunderstand if you think I am advocating “burning down Roissy’s page”. Quite the opposite.
You are fit the early Christians did not participate in again religious life, which in this context would be gaming sluts and planting flags, but they did take seriously what the pagan world had learned and sought to appropriate and make use of whatever was true in it.
There are many useful insist that can be gleaned from “game” and it’s understanding of fallen female psychology. Not all will be applicable but somoe of it is.
DH:
You’re talking about an egalitarian marriage. There really is no such thing, because every marriage has a dominant partner and a submissive partner.
Any woman who talks about her marriage being “egalitarian” is the dominant partner in her marriage.
@sunshinemary
”But it’s not the real deal. In order for it to be submission, we have to think you are wrong but still obey you anyway.”
Sometimes she might know he is right but not like his decision. Therefore it is still difficult to accept it. Times like these are where we are tested on our principles. Men get tested too but in somewhat different ways.
A man with Game does not make it easy for his wife to submit, but it does make it easier since it is virtually impossible for a woman to submit to a marshmallow.
@greyghost
GKC made a point in the previous post on the topic which I agree with:
Game shouldn’t be a tool for interpreting Scripture. If it helps Christians stop denying the parts of the Bible which their inner feminist finds uncomfortable, then that is something else.
Consider this: Roissy says “Game is its own status” because “signs of alpha behavior is as important/effective as being a natural alpha.” and Roissy loves to point out that the proess is self-affirming: acting more alpha actually MAKES you more alpha.
The Church has always been successful because it handled female submission EXACTLY the same way. Dalrock recently talked about female head-coverings. A woman who puts on a head covering might not be submissive, but *the sign is jut as important* and she would actually become more submissive. Again, per Dalrock: the sign of women being silent in Church doesnt mean she is a quiet mouse, but she would actually become more submissive by honoring the environment of the church.
The female imperative is found in barebone, seemingly innocent stuff, i.e. friendly conversation. women chat circles around the alpha male and who he is about to marry, or if the slut is about to marry a nice guy, etc. A simple sign of “Women cannot talk during church” is so overtly clashing to the feminized world we live in, and seemingly chickenshit and trifle, but it is exactly the kind of first step that leads to a submissive wife and a biblically centered marriage.
@CaneCaldo,
I particularly like that you equated PUA approaches as basically the same as the approach taken by Cypher ithhe matrix. He knows the world is screwed up and humaty is enslaved and his choice is to pursue his own hedonism at the expense of everyone else.
But in a sense, at least for the atheist, this probably a rational choice. The system is vast and entrenched and you have only a limited window in which to live. Why spend all your effort on a Sisyphean endeavor?
You’re talking about an egalitarian marriage. There really is no such thing, because every marriage has a dominant partner and a submissive partner.
Any woman who talks about her marriage being “egalitarian” is the dominant partner in her marriage.
Deti, I honestly don’t get that. Perhaps it’s because I’m not even sure how you define “dominant partner” in a scenario where neither partner is invested with the final say in joint decisions.
CC wrote:
I think this is what I was trying to get at, but you have said it much more clearly. Hey, I don’t want my husband’s “game” (if that is what he has) taking credit for the hard work I have to do to submit to him, darn it! I wouldn’t mind so much about him taking the blame when I mess up though! 😉
Man, VR, I’m so far away from this idea. I want to avoid the word “true”, for now. Especially while I open myself up to some possibly severe criticism.
Game works. I know this in the way we shouldn’t. I knew this before I ever heard of Game. When I found Roissy, what fascinated and horrified me was seeing myself laid out on the dissecting table.
“Oh, that’s why that worked!”
“Yup, that’s how I talked myself into it.”
“My God. There’s my nihilism. It’s hideous.”
I tend to think of myself as a beta because that’s the path I’ve chosen, but I have stockpile of alpha traits. I’m younger than you (mid-30s), a 6/6-er (not 6’6″-er) who likes to laugh, and people naturally look for me to lead–at work, at church–everywhere I’ve ever been. I’m a little fluffier now, but I still get told I have “nice arms” by women. I don’t doubt that Game works; I doubt that it’s True.
DH: So on the topic of the thread, it appears that “game” is simply a set of techniques men use to dominate (or at least avoid being dominated by) women.
Almost. Game is a set of techniques men use to ATTRACT women (or at least, avoid short-circuiting attraction that otherwise might occur on its own) by creating or resurrecting a dominant social posture…. to which women will WILLINGLY submit.
@Jason
Yeah, I knew you weren’t. I mean’t that as a joke–a bad idea in this format. So, hopefully, now you can see that I was agreeing with you.
@CaneCaldo,
Whoops. Well, glad we agree 🙂
Pingback: Masculinity, Game, and Christianity « stagedreality
Van said:
“Game is a set of techniques men use to ATTRACT women (or at least, avoid short-circuiting attraction that otherwise might occur on its own) by creating or resurrecting a dominant social posture…. to which women will WILLINGLY submit.”
If that is the Christian version, no problem.
Still need to confront the pastor though about femdom in the church.
Cane, still troubled by hypergamy (women desiring higher status men) or you cool with that?
Thanks, VR. That’s a helpful clarification.
Hypergamy is a word with many inter-related meanings. Understanding the significance of these meanings as a whole requires the learning of a string of concepts that are far outside of mainstream thought. Indeed, their exact opposites are taught nearly everywhere. Game-ology, taken in full strength doses, is a deadly threat to many modern social structures.
If one comprehends the broad dimensions of females hypergamous nature it leads straight to the realization that the average woman is never going to feel much sexual attraction towards the average sort of guy that in real life she must marry; if she is to marry. Her being a naive, submitted virgin does appear to help push things in the direction of giving a boost to the guy, but only up to a point.
Roissy once made the sulfurous insight that so many nice guys think women are chaste, relatively non-sexual creatures because that is the only side of their natures that they ever show to nice guys. Seeing the raw, aggressive, animalistic, willing-to-fight-to-get-banged approach taken towards “alphas” that really make them tingle would be eye opening for them as they contemplate offering life-time commitment to the same woman (or womans nature) who acts demurely towards his sort.
Game is human nature. It is fact.
It is not True, or Truth.
Facts just are. They are not good or bad, or they can be used for good or ill.
But neither salvation nor eternal life are found in game.
marlon:
Serendipity strikes sometimes.
deti:
I’m reminded of a quote that I made from that post I linked above:
It’s a mistake to think Churchian women are anything different than the worldly women. They’re mostly sluts, all. To think any differently is a mistake, for sure! This is usually the first fallacy that brings the downfall of men in Churchian environments. The only question is whether you choose to deal with them or not and how.
“Hypergamy” also seems like a troubling concept. You can label any woman “hypergamous” by focusing on the areas where her man outshines her in some way.
Game works. I know this in the way we shouldn’t. I knew this before I ever heard of Game. When I found Roissy, what fascinated and horrified me was seeing myself laid out on the dissecting table
Now I see. I had you totally wrong. Sorry. We are coming at game from totally opposite directions. For you, game was part of your SIN… and now you repent. (Good for you, BTW). For me, game is something that finally explained, why I was being so grievously SINNED AGAINST. (And no, mere rejection isn’t sin… but nuclear rejection is, just to take one example).
So in a way you’re like a reformed alcoholic. Alcohol did so much damage in his life, he’s glad to be totally away from it, and when a fellow Christian admits to having a glass of wine with dinner — or a doctor says that moderate alcohol use can be heathful — he is aghast, and cannot fathom why anyone would have anything good to say about it. The analogy continues — just as the alcoholic reinterprets the “wine” passages in the Bible to try to believe it was all really just grape juice, so too, you won’t concede that the righteous aspects of game, are “really game”.
Am I a little closer to understanding now?
Also.. if you once tread the path of Roissy… I don’t want to hear anything from you about holding out for a virgin, if you yourself aren’t one. You’ve no right to demand what you can’t give. If you’re a refomed “roissy”, that’s the male equivalent of a reformed “slut”. FWIW it can go the other way, actually…. I know several friends who are in long-term successful marriages where the husband was a virgin at marriage, and the wife wasn’t. However, in all these cases the wife totally owned what she’d done, and repented without rationalizing; no hamsters in evidence.
Van said:
“Game is a set of techniques men use to ATTRACT women (or at least, avoid short-circuiting attraction that otherwise might occur on its own) by creating or resurrecting a dominant social posture…. to which women will WILLINGLY submit.”
If that is the Christian version, no problem.
I think that basic description covers ALL variants of game, actually. It would seem to be broad enough to cover Marriage-Oriented Game, pure Roissyianism, and everything in between
I do agree with Cane on this:
Biblical submission to headship is required.
Most women are or were sluts, and carry all the baggage that entails.
Cane Caldo (writes)
“Let’s assume it’s simply about breaking through the Feminist frame, understanding hypergamy, and adopting a masculine frame.”
As a Christian…that is my understanding of game at its best.
I remember counseling a younger man about 6 years back who was very much aware of game from the Internet and wanted my advice. The advice I gave him was to embrace chastity in his own life as an absolute.
Walking into a bar or social setting were one is going to interact with woman as potential mates within the conscious framework of “I am NOT going to allow myself to get laid tonight or any other night outside my wedding night” can and has done wonders for my self confidence and has aided in my attractiveness to woman.
Once this is excepted, a young man can use elements of game & work on his game with women in such a way as to build a degree of appreciation for what it takes for any man to live with any woman Christian or not, in the modern world.
Pingback: Game is a Stop-gap « Free Northerner
@VR & Marlon
So, Game purports to do what Adam could not do in Eden–with God right there with them. Do not wonder why I suggest that it’s taken a place of supremacy.
@Deti
I know what facts are; that’s not my problem. My problem is that you say this, but Game writers don’t ask that we just look at a set of facts. Game requires you to do something about them. The reason they call it Game, instead of, say, Truth, is because there is an active component that you’re completely ignoring.
You must perform Game; you cannot merely think good (either meaning: happy, or decent) thoughts about it. If you can, then it’s just self-esteem claptrap. Meditate on the truths of Game gets you nowhere unless you apply them. Once they’re applied, they cease to be just facts!
To go back to VR & Marlon’s definition above, you’re elevating Game from pick-up tactics to an overall philosophy of life–defenestrating scripture in the process. At the same time, you’re denying yourself the pleasure that Game could actually bring you. It’s a Stanton and Gregoire world where you Man-Up with Game and Save Those Sluts from Themselves! This is the worst of both worlds.
Insofar as something breaks a person’s Feminist worldview: this is good. For example: recognizing that women seem to prefer the wrong men for the wrong reasons. Too much further than that is either Good, or Bad. Since so much of the most productive Game isn’t Good, and there is a place where we can find Good, then we should go there.* Game does not seek to subvert the Feminist frame; it seeks to navigate, abuse, and hide out in it, for its own ends. Think of the Merovingian, if personification helps.
@Almost Everyone
It would be nice if we could be a little more consistent in our declarations. In the “Why Christians Need Game” thread, I was taken to task for saying that Game is a philosophy that tends to take over every aspect of a man’s life. But if you look through that thread, and this one, you’ll see many comments about how Game helps you see the whole world.
In that same vein: When I said that scripture has everything you need to know about male/female relations, it was made plain to me that–although scripture tells you what to do–only Game can explain why men and women act this way.
To which I replied: That’s not actually true, as only scripture says why (found initially in Genesis, and expanded upon in nearly every book from there on; some in painstaking detail), while Game guesses at some evo-psych gobbledygook about how, 10,000 years ago, Yippette wanted Grunter to pull her back into the cave by her hair because he had some mammoth meat**, and now that means you should only text her twice after she texts you three times.
Whatever I say about scripture having the answer, you don’t dare refute, but you always feel the compulsion to say that Game has knowledge beyond scripture. Where? Show me!
*Except for you heroic Game scholars, who know your limits, and are well-founded in the faith and tradition of the Christian church, etc.
**Take your pick what I mean by that: it’s either/or/both!
Forgiveness implies that a direct offense would have had to have been made in order to forgive. The sluts wouldn’t have made a direct offense against me, so I would have nothing to forgive them for. Now if I were to marry one and have her slut around on me it would be different.
The key behind forgiveness is always repentance. I can choose to forgive a trespass against without repentance from the other party and let it go, but that’s another matter entirely.
This leads to the last barrier. Dealing in this way does not excuse me from common wisdom and discernment. This is all over Scripture as well. For instance:
There’s no injunction against taking common precautions of wisdom or discernment against anything to spite forgiveness, including choice of associations. The counsel is to watch such things.
So what does this mean in dealing with women? You be cautious yet verify, use your discernment, and deal with her the best way you can according to the grace you can have (that’s the attribute I think you’re looking for when it comes to dealing with such women as opposed to forgiveness). Sluts make themselves pretty well known if you give them time (if they aren’t already carrying that reputation, you’ll find that out too), and if you encounter one as a Christian man seeking to not fornicate, you reject her. You can forgive her for trying WITH YOU, but it should be abundantly clear from that point on that she’s not worthy of marriage. You can extend to her grace to continue on if you feel that she’s really trying to be reformed, given her response to you, but if she’s not, you just use your freedom of association and move on.
I’m sure there will be disagreement, but there’s my answer.
Why not? The male equivalent of a slut is a coward, and, in the sense that any girl in not a slut, I’m not a coward. Dalrock has a post on this false dichotomy of male-female sluts. Anyway, Game says I’m entitled to what I can get.
Regardless, I’ve been married for a long time. My wife knows all about me.
The analogy to the alcoholic is easy, but inaccurate.; especially since I’m married. If Game is this necessary thing for establishing dominance, then I need to keep drinking it. You don’t want me to get divorced, do you?
@deti:
” A woman’s unease in submission seems to result from her fear — her insecurity, fright, and need for safety.”
This is why we need some game from our husbands even if we want to be submissive, and usually are. A display of strength helps us to overcome our fear of trusting them. Many women have difficulty with submitting due to life-long training in defiance, but for many of us it’s nothing more than fear.
I’m 48 years old and I’ve been married to a good man for 24 of those years. I KNOW he can be trusted to almost always make good decisions, but he’s not perfect. This recent commuter marriage/home purchase/cross-country move has tested me intensely. WolfAlpha’s greatest weakness is to become indecisive under stress; clearly in an effort to make the best choice possible. I worked my tail off to do the legwork for him so he knew what his options were, but I have continuously faced two obstacles to my own “submissiveness.” 1) My impatient desire to just make the decisions myself and let him catch up later, and 2) The fear that he might make a catastrophic mistake. “Married Game” give us the reassurance we occasionally need.
Cane Caldo
For what its worth, I am new to this whole area of the “manosphere” & game and the whole lingo (but I live & breath so am not new to male/female dynamics)
My best appraisal as a newbe is that you are essentially correct that game cannot be an end in itself and that it is prone for abuse, and only reinforces feminism and does not attack it. At best it sets up a long term corosive effect that helps bring an end to the sexual revolution by everybody getting so burnt they finally yell fire.
It is incompatable with Christianity and obviously so.
Having said that I think we both agree that reading about it and mild applications of it in relationships and the mating world can help men retreive some sense of masculinity and a authentic masculine posture so therefore its not a complete evil unless its simply used for conquest and exploitation of ones fellow man.
Uh…fellow man (read) woman.
“But if you look through that thread, and this one, you’ll see many comments about how Game helps you see the whole world.”
Wrong. Masculinity lets you see the world. Christianity (or any other moral code) tells you what your end goals, moral actions, and the frame you put forward to others should be. Game tells you how to use the first to achieve the second through using the biological and psychological rules of human make up.
People need to stop viewing game as Masculinity. Or Masculinity as Game. They’re not interchangable.
People need to stop viewing Christianity as Masculinity. Christianity is a set of morals and codes that are set up to impose God’s will, his Frame, on the world and set men up as successful leaders to do so under his guidance.
And Christianity is certainly not game. I find it humorous when people try to claim it is. It is simply a system that was developed and set in place by God so that hypergamous instincts that women have are controlled by society as a whole. This was to lessen the burden on the individual husband to do so, and free him up to achieve greater success with his family, his community, his Church, and humanity as a whole in terms of God’s purpose.
“Game is a set of techniques men use to ATTRACT women (or at least, avoid short-circuiting attraction that otherwise might occur on its own) by creating or resurrecting a dominant social posture…. to which women will WILLINGLY submit.”
I swallowed too quickly, and didn’t digest, Cane Caldo. Let’s look at it more closely.
1. Game is a set of techniques men use to ATTRACT women (or at least, avoid short-circuiting attraction that otherwise might occur on its own) by creating or resurrecting a dominant social posture.
Ok, what limits are there, if any, on what mwthods would be used to create this posture?
What about they who are about to be gamed?
Are all desirable women to be gamed, or are there standards, moral or otherwise that the Christian should apply?
2. …. to which women will WILLINGLY submit.”
Hmmm…but as Cane pointed out…Eve in the garden plus women in real life…women sometimes rebel. I guess God’s game wan’t tight enough. He lacked an impenetrable frame since Eve did rebel.
Plus, what of grudging submission, can game truly make submission willing all the time? Even the best of women don’t always submit willingly…they are only human after all.
This definition makes the gamer responsible for his woman’s behaviour. She can be made to do whatever the gamer wills provided his game is tight enough. Not good enough.
This definition of game isn’t alpha enough. Better definition required.
@Cane Caldo
”… I was taken to task for saying that Game is a philosophy that tends to take over every aspect of a man’s life. But if you look through that thread, and this one, you’ll see many comments about how Game helps you see the whole world.”
This is conflation and exaggeration. Game can help us see and it may be a kind of philosophy, but that does not mean that it takes over every aspect of a man’s life or that it triumphs over true Christian beliefs or what is said in the Bible. Game can be utilized in a chaste manner.
Many refuse to understand that Game can be used morally. Game is not exclusively about bedding numerous women. Some men do that and think that is all there is to life, but they are shallow men.
Piggybacking off marlon and deti…
Game is a set of cognitive tools to understand, apply, and benefit from the laws of socio-sexual dynamics. Similar to money, power, and social skill: when subjected to raw human nature, it takes a turn towards the selfishness of human nature. Thats why game is perceived to be synonymous with the quick lay whereas that is only one facet of the underlying psycho-philosophy.
Christianity confronts the fallen state of human nature, and offers the path to divine nature through virtue. It is difficult to overcome human nature without understanding it, thus foundations of game are essential. The extremes of christianity with and without game: hypocrite PUA player, and catholic pedo-priest. Everything in moderation, blah blah blah, but at a base level, the foundations of game and a basic understanding of socio-sexual dynamics are integral to the development and survival of Christian men, especially in response to the echos of Hypergamy and hyperfeminism that rage in western society and distort the biomechanical balance.
Roissy, Roosh, Rollo, VK’s Empire of Dirt, Krauser, and many other Game experts disagree with you. They say: If you haven’t bedded many women, you don’t know Game.
Look, this is not the position that I want to take. I WANT to take your position, but, damn it man! You are picking and choosing what you want to hear them say. When they say “I know women are hypergamous because Russian models offer me their asses.”, you nod sagely, and say to yourself, “Yes, this is the way of women.” But when they say, “You can’t understand Game without going out to get tail.” you remain silent, and then go back to your own blog, or come here, and tell men that Game is necessary, and true…except the parts you don’t like.
Balderdash.
@ David Collard
“If you can attract a woman, you probably had enough natural Game for her. The thing is not to lose it. A common problem seems to be going into what I call a “chump slump”. A happy marriage with minimal hen-pecking depends on understanding female psychology. The problem is that for the last few decades men have been fed “pretty lies” about female psychology. Game is a dose of the truth.”
This right here is spot on. I got married. For seven years it was great. Couple of kids later, a move to a nicer neighborhood, my then wife starting to hang out with all the other stay at home mommies and the shit hit the fan. All those pretty lies I had been fed left me completely unprepared for what ensued. The constant message to my wife from her friends and Christian friends was that she deserved more out of life. They all thought that. So after six years more years of tumult culminating with some brutal “hypergamous” behavior on her part I filed. We are no longer married.
So all this talk about picking well and screening hard for marriage doesn’t work so well when you don’t understand the underlying dynamics and how to react when the inevitable conflict comes your way.
I found Dalrock, Roissy, and others after the divorce. It was almost comical to read the blogs and realize how our little dance played out just like game and hypergamy predict.
So with that in mind:
@ Deti
The use of this tool can then lead to any of the things which is usually discussed in the manosphere:
1. MGTOW
2. Life on his terms without compromise
3. PUA
4. getting an LTR or a wife
5. Improving his marriage
6. improving his sex life within marriage
Or any combinations thereof at various times.
I’ll add a seventh.
7. Managing your ex-wife when kids are involved
My ex-wife has changed through “game”. She defers to me pretty much on everything. She doesn’t get pissed and complain anymore if I don’t answer her mail notes or texts right away or even at all. She bends over backwards to accommodate any conflict in schedules. Her frame has gone from “think the worst” to “think the best” with regard to my actions.
Is it perfect? Nope. Seeing your kids only half the time sucks.
The harshest realization is that all I am doing is being who I used to be before I met her. I didn’t understand any of the dynamics. I ate all the “pretty lies”.
But like Deti says, you can bet I will be completely exposing this to my sons when they turn 16. The sins of this father will not be visited on his sons.
@ballista74
That was a great paragraph.
I found Dalrock, Roissy, and others after the divorce. It was almost comical to read the blogs and realize how our little dance played out just like game and hypergamy predict.
As I said in the very beginning… Game explains the facts better than any other hypothesis.
Nobody has refuted this yet.
Interested,
Did game change your ex-wife’s behaviour? Or did the difficulty of raising kids by herself and the desire of your children to see you make this difference you are now seeing?
Whats the difference between hyperagamy and boredom, jealousy and incontinence?
Why would anyone countenance immoral behaviour by appeasing it, it’s like gaing favour with a fat kid by giving him sweets.
@Cane Caldo
Are you saying that my inactions on those blogs (on which I do not participate or read very often) runs the gamut from nodding sagely and thinking agreement (and not commenting) to remaining silent (and not commenting)?
This sounds like silently nodding vs. remaining silent.
I certainly do not remain silent at this blog when there is something I disagree with on a moral basis.
Van,
I didn’t need to know game to know hypergamy (women’s desire for a higher status man) exists.
Furthermore, legal changes which make it more profitable for cupcake to divorce than to remain married caused Interested’s marriage to break up. If divorce meant Interested’s ex would be poorer, and not get custody, she would be with him now.
If the pill disappeared, and/or marriage 1.0 laws were brought back then, the divorce rates would drop. The legal framework and popular culture make divorce attractive and profitable to women.
Whats the difference between hyperagamy and boredom, jealousy and incontinence?
Not a bit of difference from the outside, Johnny.
Why would anyone countenance immoral behaviour by appeasing it, it’s like gaing favour with a fat kid by giving him sweets.
If the fat kid can rape you in divorce, you better be very entertaining.
Interested, yes. I am not a natural showman, and I like a quiet life. But I value my wife and her respect, and I am prepared to put on a bit of an act, or rather emphasise certain parts of my personality, if it keeps her happy and in line.
I keep an eye on her. A lot of men don’t do this. Women are great, but they need to be watched. They are like nuclear reactors, capable of producing energy, warmth and electricity; but you have to watch for the meltdowns, keep an eye on the control panel and make sure you use the cooling rods properly.
The crucial point, as you imply, is that once the woman thinks she can “do better”, she will skip off like a newly shorn lamb. A man has to make a woman feel that she has a real prize, and be keen not to lose it. I actually tell her sometimes, “you are lucky to have me”. I act a little more cocksure and arrogant than I am. If your wife complains you are an arrogant prick, you are doing it right.
You have to make her qualify herself to you, not vice versa. She should work for your approval, not you for hers. She should report to you (“I did three loads of washing today. You can’t say I’m lazy”). You do not report to her. Your time is more valuable than hers. She should want to approach you and be with you. She goes to you. You don’t go, cap in hand, to her. When Valentine’s Day comes, she has to perform, not you. If she asks you about a meal she has cooked, as my wife did last night, tell her the truth: “No, it wasn’t nice.”
I know this sounds terrible. But we live in terrible times.
Marlon, we’re good, and to apologize is Alpha when proper…cheers!
RE Game,
As I understand it, to be aloof, disinterested, somewhat narcissistic when dealing with women. Apparently this “distance” is a dark mystery to women and attractive to them in a prospective man.
If a Christian man “seeks FIRST the kingdom…all these things will be added unto him”, this other-focus of the man would compel an interested woman to “submit” to his limited time by accommodation to him.
If the man is seeking God’s will in all matters, then he would not be supplicating to his wife, showing weakness, which turns women off.
My job requires me to be assertive, demanding and in control. I interact with women all the time and I have absolutely no interested in them sexually…I’m married and take my vow seriously. Oh sure, I flirt, chat up, “game” women routinely, just for fun and the fact is, the roosh/roissy techniques are unbelievably effective based on IOI. When I show no interest in pursuit the gals push back with some shameless offers. At first I thought this was just counter-joking, but no, it’s aggressive sluttery. Deti’s comment about the general trampiness of western women is pretty much on point.
I battle all the time with the world (don’t we all), holding on to scripture, hoping in the ultimate victory of the Word, but I have to tell you, there are times I think about the gals and their offers and have a tinge of jealously for the players out there racking up huge partner counts…shame on me.
Ever heard of feminine wiles?
Game is masculine wiles. It is the correct playing of masculine strengths in order to offset the power of feminine wiles.
Brilliantly phrased as:
http://stagetwo.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/114/
@ David Collard
This is just about the best advice there is. All guys should heed what you say
@ Marlon
My ex wife’s behavior changed because I changed. No more supplication. No more pedestals to put her on. When the shit tests came I didn’t react. When there was conflict I stood strong in my beliefs and didn’t fold. I have not been a prick. I just moved forward with my new life. For some reason I think she believed that nothing would change. I would still be her “best friend” and the “best thing that ever happened to her”. I made it clear that I wasn’t available for those roles anymore.
I also have to say that after the divorce I rededicated myself to work and working out. I have never had more success at work since the divorce. She knows it. But she doesn’t benefit anymore other than the monthly court ordered transfer of wealth.
As for your later comment about money you are spot on. She walked away with plenty. And even though I have the kids half the time I STILL pay child support. If that wasn’t a choice she probably would have worked harder to restrain her hypergamous impulses.
Not that I care a whole lot anymore. When the covers are peeled off your eyes it becomes a lot harder to ignore how many available women in the 45 year old range are just plain self absorbed train wrecks.
@7man
I inferred it. There is a logical connection because those men are the pioneers of Game, and write the rules that the rest of us discuss, but I admit that I do not remember you commenting on their posts. This pyrrhic victory is yours to enjoy.
@van Rooinek
Actually, I’ve said several places that I think scripture explains is better. Even if I were to take the view that it doesn’t, it’s not Game that explains it, but hypergamy certainly plays a role. When a woman commits divorce theft, that’s not Game, and it’s barely hypergamy. There’s a different passion in play there; though it could certainly be compounded by hypergamy–probably often is.
Interested and Marlon raised a very good point, about trying to delineate what caused the ex-wife to become more submissive. I know I keep coming back to the washing of the wife with the water of the Word, like a broken record, but bear with me.
I’ve been to two funerals for siblings of my friends, and the behavior of the divorced parents is excruciatingly heartbreaking. They both sobbed together, and holding hands. Anyone walking into the situation would be forgiven for thinking they were still married to each other. If only they had had the deadly seriousness of the real world in front of their eyes the whole time–the divorce could have been spared. There was obviously still a way to come together.
One of the less-commented sub-tragedies of divorce is that it’s often the divorce that’s a sham. In some ways, you’re still connected.
@Ashur
I checked out that link. Here’s what a biblegateway.com search for “arrogance” returns:
Not much in scripture to recommend arrogance, or miniskirts.
When the covers are peeled off your eyes it becomes a lot harder to ignore how many available women in the 45 year old range are just plain self absorbed train wrecks.
You must have run across my ex. And yes, game does help in relations with the ex after divorce
Not much in scripture to recommend arrogance, or miniskirts.
Have you not heard of the book of Oprah?
Roissy and the PUA crowd are considered experts in the use of game, but they didn’t invent it, and they don’t get to define it, even while they show how to apply it to their own ends. Game is a tool; these experts use it, refine it, and teach it from their point of view. They don’t own it.
@ Interested and farm boy
If the way you have changed the way you deal with your EXs has resulted in a change in how they behave, but you attribute it to knowing Game (not applied with the goal of PUAs), how can this be Game (even though it is comprised of the same foundational attributes)?
Hopefully the anti-Game Christians can come up with an explanation or another word to describe what you have learned and applied in your interactions with women (and your EXs).
Maybe this is really the opposite of Game which would be Emag.
Interested, glad to see you’re doing ok (well…compared to lot of other men).
The West is feminized, and as such, any movement toward masculine behaviour is called game.
Interested’s response and the stuff David Collard does is adapting to the situation. In Interested’s case, suffering made him re-assess,toughen up, and sharpened and hardened him.
This sharpening and hardening happens to both men and women in response to tragedy. Not all people improve but many do. That isn’t game (whatever game may be; ’tis a nebulous thing, no? Perhaps, it is what it’s been said to be all along by Roissy et al: behaviours to get p in as many v’s as possible).
________________________________________________________________
Here’s a post from NJartist49 at GreatBooksforMen that I’d like to share. Perhaps CC and others can come up with a remedy to this problem:
“There needs to be a serious discussion of the pollution of the church caused by “Christian” women who marry their alpha and then drag him into the church.”
I refer to the practice of “Christian” women going out and getting their non-Christian “alpha” then dragging him to church; in time, if God is gracious, he converts; yet she takes the credit for his conversion and prods him along “acceptable” doctrine: female based theology, not biblical Christianity. During this conversion process, they couple may have children; herein is a problem: the oldest child or children are pre-conversion; they have none or few of the character qualities desired by the Church: in time they become disruptive, not fitting into the now Christian household. Another scenario is if the first child is female and the post-conversion child is male: now we in the Church are treated to the farce of watching the daughter repeat the process of bringing in her bad boy “alpha”, all under the cover of being a “good Christian”; we also get to see the young son grow up as a nice guy and never understand why his “sisters in Christ” keep rejecting him: he thinks that the churchianity he group up under is the criteria his mother used to select her husband: “every good boy wants to grow up and marry a girl like the girl that married dear old Dad” – no one tells him his Dad was a cad.
As the former alpha continues in the church, he will become part of the “elder” hierarchy, influencing and leading the direction of the church, still lead by his wife’s female based theology.
“I’m willing to put hypergamy down as one of those passions, but the case for hypergamy needs to be made better.”
F*ck. Look at Fireproof. It’s the handsome firefighter who nearly died saving a kid. He needs to woo his screeching harpy “wife” better so she doesn’t leave him for the bigger better deal. Doctor man.
Cause, ya know, he just isn’t wonderful enough! The b*tches watching that think screeching harpy girl actually “deserves” better than heroic firefighter man. Cause she has the magic Vagina. And in any case she “can” do better… therefore she DESERVES better.
If you want to replace “hypergamy” with “an unlimited belief in their own wonderfulness that leads them to believe they DESERVE any man they can get to sleep with them once” then fine. Tomato, tomato.
@7man
I haven’t said Game cannot produce results. That doesn’t make it right.
Also, people can be confused about the causation of things when we’re discussing an inherently complex subject (like human psychology); especially when discussing painful incidents (like divorce).
Worse: a lot of people are so invested in their preconceptions that they’re not willing to listen to what another has to say. This happens a lot when men read Game blogs. By default, they accept the parts they like, and discard the bits that make them uncomfortable, or seem to put them in a bad light. Remarkably, PUAs themselves don’t seem to do this.
@7man
Pretty much the same techniques were used, though the goal was not seduction.
I use game effectively for moral purposes. That is the end of the debate in my book. Next question?
Your mistake is that you’re assuming Dalrock is coming at this from a Biblical perspective. He’s not claiming gaming sluts is the moral, Biblical thing to do. He’s saying, “Women, even church girls, don’t follow Bible rules. You can play by Bible rules and fail with the vast majority of women, or learn game and lower your failure rate drastically.” Christian girls are no different from most women in the world. They want excitement, and you can either play their desires or be told, “I just want to be friends.” Morality and honor only gets you so far. Eventually you don’t want to be rejected for a bad boy player.
@7man
Same as farm boy described.
Same techniques, but certainly no end point goal of seduction.
ballista wrote:
And perhaps they are worse. I keep hearing that most single Christian women are sexually active and are marrying later. How can this be? Consider:
Exhibit A: I was a non-Christian feminist when I married. At age 22. With a lower partner count than many Christian girls now have.
Exhibit B: Doomed Harlot is a non-Christian feminist. She married at 23 and had only slept with one other man before her marriage.
Something is very, very off here.
CC wrote:
Yes, that is correct. And that leads to your next comment:
Answer that, please. Now what, for the Christian man? Life-long celibacy? Fornication? I can understand “no rings for sluts” but I think it would be helpful if you would state the alternative that you truly believe an unmarried Christian man should follow. Because, there are like three virgins left in North American, and that is not enough to go around.
Because, there are like three virgins left in North American, and that is not enough to go around.
Maybe we can all share them…
@ Rollo
How does a Christianized manosphere reconcile the article of forgiveness?
Forgiveness means releasing someone from blame and letting go of negative emotions, it doesn’t mean being a doormat (although some aspects of Christianity can definitely be taken that far). If a woman wrongs you, you can forgive her but still throw her out of your life for your own sake.
ps I am not christian and don’t speak as someone with a thorough understanding of modern church laws and conventions, though I was raised Catholic and maintain some christian values.
@ Cane Caldo
By default, they accept the parts they like, and discard the bits that make them uncomfortable
So? Isn’t that what we do with any information, take what’s useful and discard what isn’t? Or from the Christian perspective, take what doesn’t contradict Christian ethics and discard what does?
@ Interested and farm boy
That was my point. Use of Game is not necessarily about seduction but it does make interactions easier and thus Game can be used for not immoral purposes.
Farm Boy…you…man…that was hilarious.
@Sunshinemary
I want to hold off on giving my answer to that question, but ballista74 had a great comment above about how to think about it before one marries.
To the “Game is an amoral set of tools/concepts crowd, I have a comment, and two requests:
I buy a lot of amoral tools. Almost all of them come with instruction manuals. I was thinking about the last reciprocating saw I bought. Man, that sucker hums. I’ll tell you what, though: If I had opened that manual, and instruction A. was “Disconnect the battery before replacing the blade”, and then B. read, “Take your neighbor’s saw if this one stops working”, and then C. said “Replace the battery on the charger when it’s dead”, and then D. crowed, “Never measure before you cut”…I’d be very suspicious of the intentions of that manufacturer, and their amoral saws. Even though they clearly have a working knowledge of saws, my neighbor, and the fact that I was hoping to cut things… I don’t know. Something’s just not right. This is especially true since I have owned a whole range of power saws and drills before, and none of their manuals ever once mentioned Old Man Peters, or suggested I pilfer from his shed.
1) Can you give me a list of amoral Game tools? Can you at least tell me where to go to get a list of these tools? They’re famous in this thread, so you should be able to do this right away.
3) Let’s assume Game is simply about breaking through the Feminist frame, understanding hypergamy, and adopting a masculine frame. Considering that the Christian man is called to marriage alone for sexual release, and that the world is full of sluts (there aren’t nearly enough virgins to go around), how is Game anything but a round-about method of telling Christian men to Man-Up and Marry These Sluts? (You may have seen this question somewhere before.)
As mentioned from the submission and discussions.
It seems there are two components at work in this discussion, theory and hypothesis. The theory is Hypergamy and one type of hypothesis is PUA. Most of the condemnation appears to center around PUA, which is hedonist centered. Both Hypergamy and PUA are collectively called “game”.
Let us condemn one but not both, the hypothesis not the theory.
@Rollo Tomassi
“Game can be used to perpetuate soft harem, and Game can be used to vet and secure your perfect virginic wife. Christianity doesn’t excuse you from the consequences of using or not using that system awareness. Hypergamy doesn’t care about your religious convictions.”
My erection does not care about my religious convictions either, however I am instructed
Biblically to use it in a righteous manner.
@Cane Caldo
“But it HAS to remain in that context: The husband devoted to God, in ministry to his wife. Game usually says to remain devoted to yourself. Sometimes this is rephrased as being devoted to something (nearly anything) besides her, so that she “knows her place”. If you think this doesn’t come through to women–that you’ve placed something above them, and it’s not God–you’re likely in for a divorce.”
I choose the latter, devoted to something besides her.
@Deti
Dalrock has the answer. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but one that must be downed nonetheless,
I’m afraid.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/feral-females-in-the-news/#comment-46468
“Unfortunately this means that large numbers of men today will need to pass on marriage and
fatherhood. Individual men can learn how to better spot the women who are worthy of marriage and be more attractive to her, lead in the marriage, etc. But many other men must by simple math do without. This last point is something we need to not gloss past. Something absolutely terrible has occurred. All we can do is try to manage the damage in our own lives and help others do the same. Even those who put the odds in their favor in selecting a wife and maintaining the frame of the head of the household aren’t guaranteed success. Husbands can do it all right but if the wife chooses not to submit and instead sells out her family for 30 pieces of silver he can’t stop her from doing so.”
Worthy of marriage is the born again (repentant), as Biblically instructed. Not in the sense that women today claim they are born again virgins hamster rationalizations. Hows this?
John 3:5-8
5 Jesus replied, “I assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. 6 Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual life. 7 So don’t be surprised when I say, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it wants. Just as you can hear the wind but can’t tell where it comes from or where it is going, so you can’t explain how people are born of the Spirit.”
I’m not certain of large numbers portion, but for the most part it is a correct observation and should be incorporated into what ever we will designate as Christian “game”.
@rollo Tomasi
“That’s what christianized Game looks like. Men self-righteously shaming other men into a more ‘Godly’ way of better serving the feminine imperative. As I said, there’s no escaping the
system, even in church.”
Where is shame to be found by leading in a Godly way?
Romans 1:16
“16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. ”
@rollo tomasi
“How does a Christianized manosphere reconcile the article of forgiveness?”
As zippycaholic mentioned forgiveness does not equal implicit trust as it is earned not given.
@Cane Caldo
“If you’re not picking up the sluts, you’re fooling yourself. Guys who can’t get girls are painfully aware of this. Game writers know that you have to practice; partly because it’s a numbers game, and partly because you can’t just will your way to this knowledge.”
Game writers know that you must execute PUA to increase proficiency at PUA.
“I think it’s important to keep the word “headship” in mind when we talk of our roles as husbands. Dominance can be lost. Headship is ordained by God, and is therefore immutable. This is another area where Game and scripture diverge: Game says he must never lose dominance. Scripture says she must submit to headship. This is a profound difference.”
Finally, you are nearing another type of hypothesis other than PUA. Though it has yet to be given a name, I submit that Athol at MMSL, Vox at Alpha Game, and Dalrock are advancing on this line of thought.
@Doomed Harlot
“So on the topic of the thread, it appears that “game” is simply a set of techniques men use to dominate (or at least avoid being dominated by) women. The question is whether it is appropriate to apply this technique within the context of Christian marriage, in which submission by a woman is a duty she has towards God and something she must exercise her free will to choose, rather than being forced or dominated into it.”
Correct observation, though I prefer lead over dominate. With this line of thought, it is Biblically supported. (see comment below for further illumination)
@Jason
“There are many useful insist that can be gleaned from “game” and it’s understanding of fallen female psychology. Not all will be applicable but somoe of it is.”
Separating theory, Hypergamy, from theory and hypothesis, “Game”, yes there is much truth to understand and apply.
@Van Rooinek
“Almost. Game is a set of techniques men use to ATTRACT women (or at least, avoid short-circuiting attraction that otherwise might occur on its own) by creating or resurrecting a dominant social posture…. to which women will WILLINGLY submit.”
This is better articulated, though I still prefer lead over dominate.
@ballista74
referencing “How does a Christianized manosphere reconcile the article of forgiveness? “
Good explanation, more than I had time reference.
@7man:
Use of Game is not necessarily about seduction but it does make interactions easier and thus Game can be used for not immoral purposes.
At least as stated, the conclusion doesn’t follow. Take, for instance, women showing off cleavage. Does it ‘make interactions easier [for her to get what she wants]’? Sure. Is there anything wrong with merely knowing that fact about how men tend to react to certain displays? No. But not many Christians, I presume yourself included, would say, on those grounds, that it’s generally okay for women to do it. The method itself is morally questionable.
What CC is suggesting – not without reason – is that a significant portion of the behavioral prescriptions of Game are similarly morally questionable, even before considering their intended uses. You’re assuming that the behavioral prescriptions are neutral, in the fashion of inanimate objects (e.g. guns), and that is the crux of the debate.
Cane Caldo, thanks for an interesting posting. I cannot read all the comments now and cannot offer a detailed reply. However there are a couple of points I wish to raise.
* Your description of Game is pretty narrow. By requiring a man to engage in PUA to learn Game, you are implying that van Rooniek does not know Game – he can’t, he was never a PUA. Yet he himself asserts that he does know Game, and that it made a difference in his life. So you must perforce deny his experience, in order for your definition to be accurate. Is that what you mean to do?
* By declaring any and all aspects of Game to be wrong for Christian men, you are implying that Christian men are now prohibited from many things…anything that Game suggests, they can’t do. So they can no longer walk tall, because that’s part of Game. They must slump, and shuffle, because that’s part of Game. They cannot speak to their wives in a deep or commanding voice – that’s Game. Therefore they must speak to their wives in a non-commanding voice, such as a monotone, or a whisper. A newly married Christian man cannot carry his wife over the threshold of their house – that would be Game. Perhaps he should her carry him, in order to truly avoid anything that smacks of Game?
Sure, this little reducto ad absurdium of mine is a bit silly after a while, but not completely so. In your newfound desire to step away from Game, perhaps motivated a bit by some of your past that you have mentioned from time to time, I believe you have gone overboard. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, eh?
I’ll try to get back tomorrow.
@ Mentu
Agreed. The matrix analogy is mostly about disabusing popular lies and misconceptions, mostly about female sexuality and the sexual marketplace.
@ Cane Caldo
By default, they accept the parts they like, and discard the bits that make them uncomfortable, or seem to put them in a bad light.
As far as Heartiste is concerned, he tends to choose his language very carefully and everything is explained to apply to specific contexts. Thus, for a rational person it’s not that hard to reject specific aspects for specific reasons, even if you accept their validity. Much of what he describes applies to “in-demand women, women with options.” Or at least, women who believe that of themselves. Furthermore, he also quite obviously exaggerates for dramatic or comedic effect. He’d rather drive home a point that’s “mostly true” and do it memorably than be absolutely precise and wind up with a scientific paper no one will read.
He pretty clearly states at one point that the best way to have a stable relationship is for both partners to lack options. He might sneer at those people, but if you have self-esteem his tone shouldn’t bother you. You can recognize the truth of what he’s saying and understand he’s simply not telling the whole story. This in fact aligns very closely to one key tenent of Christianity: avoid temptation. If you make a practice of avoiding temptation you are consciously limiting your options.
Not being familiar with modern Christian teachings, and reading Dalrock’s blog, I have to wonder how much the “avoid temptation” ideas are impressed upon married Christian women. Certainly movies like Fireproof do not seem to reflect this.
…should add: A useful reply to CC’s post will include either:
1: A categorical defense of the moral neutrality of Game behavioral prescriptions. Preferably one that doesn’t involve a bad comparison to firearms.
2: An itemized defense of the moral neutrality of common Game behavioral prescriptions, not including the exercise of household authority, which nobody here denies, and which is therefore irrelevant to the inquiry…
and
…a useful means of distinguishing between Game’s morally neutral prescriptions and positively immoral prescriptions.
Carry on.
@CL
No. I haven’t even opened a Cosmo in years. Just think of all those secret tips I missed!
In seriousness, we choose to ignore texts and media all the time; even if they have truths in them. I want to refer you back to what I said in my post:
What I meant was, if there was a void–or even just a paucity–of advice, warnings, or explanations in scripture, then maybe we should look to Game to shore up these weak areas; just as we do engineering, or chemistry. Someone compared this to Islam in this thread, or the other. Great analogy because Islam is a more militant cousin of Christianity (from secular perspective), with quite a bit of moral overlap; but it would be downright silly to send Christians to the Koran to learn what’s in the Bible.
I think looking at Dalrock’s posts over the last few months shows this, too. While he often credits Game for his insights, what we read is actually very specifically Christian, and not amorally Game-centered. This has been somewhat of a shift for him, but not much as he’s mostly been focused on shredding the Feminist propaganda papers, and not prescribing Game.
I want to hold off on giving my answer to that question
Yes. You have given a lot of information but no conclusions, so I suspected from the get-go that you had more to say. You are waiting for the commenters to arrive at your conclusion themselves via inductive reasoning I think.
I see Game as a psychological answer to the problem of a woman’s fallen hypergamous nature. By that definition it is a human response to the sin nature of women and so is fatally flawed from the outset. Saying that, I think it is very important for men to understand the hypergamous/fallen nature of women AND to never ever forget it. The Bible tells us to be as wise as serpents and innocent as doves, I think that this caveat goes doubly when considering women. Game and the red pills helped me identify that sin nature that I was refusing to see before, it up to us now to use that knowledge in a Godly manner.
This post was the biggest pile of crap I’ve ever read in the Manosphere. Blue pill, red pill? The biggest blue pill ever pushed on humanity is religion. Some dude died on a cross, came back to life, and we are all going to live in a paradise in the sky? Does it get anymore blue pill/fantasy land than that?
The red pill is simply understanding evolutionary psychology, which is contrary to Christian beliefs. It is not limited to women, hypergamy, or feminism. It’s understanding that human behavior is primarily biologically and evolutionary based. It can be applied to more than the SMP.
And all these definitions of game? Please. Game is simply behaving in a manner that is attractive to the opposite sex. Alpha/beta/masculine blah blah is simply the reasons that “game” works or techniques to apply “game”. It’s like breaking down the physics of hitting a baseball. No matter your swing mechanics or the science behind it, your goal is to hit the ball.
“…up to us now to use that knowledge in a Godly manner.”
Game IS that knowledge.
@Sunshinemary
I’m waiting for a better consensus on the definition of Game, really. From that, we can decide whether:
A) Game is in competition with scripture
B) Game, Stanton, and Gregoire all encourage men to man-up and marry the sluts to save them
C) Game is a set of utterly neutral set of tools that I should be ashamed for ever doubting
Unger nailed it here:
Because all this matters when we Christians are thinking about what we’re doing when we decide to marry. This isn’t just a mating ritual for us. I will go further and say that it’s not for the rest of the world either when we survey the destruction that the anti-family/pro-Feminist movement has wreaked on the West.
@Anon Reader
1) Yes, but I don’t mean it in the sense that I’m denying VR his victory–which seems truly blessed–, but rather denying that the victory should be ascribed to Game.
2) No, I’m saying Christian men should walk tall because scripture says you have been given a spirit of power, and not a spirit of timidity. Game says you should walk tall to catch women’s eyes. The former recognizes the authority of God (and, actually, in the Christian it will be a fruit of the spirit–it’s one of the ways he and we will know he’s walking faithfully in Christ), while the latter reasoning puts either the man himself, or women’s hypergamy, as the authority on how to live his life.
It’s not motivated by my past, but my past certainly informs it. For the record, I didn’t discover Game, and then start using it, so now I’m repenting, now everyone has to get out of the pool. I was married, Gamed, repented, discovered Game, and then tried to match it up with Christianity because a lot of us said it could be done. I could match Game to my experience. I could match Game to patriarchy/anti-Feminism. I could match patriarchy/anti-Feminism to Christianity, but I can’t match Game to Christianity. I finally figured that out after three years of thinking about it, and this is the result. Dalrock and Mentu in particular were instrumental in helping me clear the cobwebs.
@x2d4d
Roissy is very smart, largely coherent, and honest in his reasoning. I obviously can’t vouch for the stories themselves. I think I understand Game the same way he does; which makes sense because his blog is where I learned it from (the theory, anyway).
@I Art Laughing
I would shake on that deal.
“I submit the chief culprit in creating the sexual marketplace which currently exists is completely unrestrained hypergamy.”
No, the reality is actually quite a bit worse than that, and that’s where Roissy et. al. get off track, but there are a couple things he gets dead right and which are not only compatible with Christian morality, but essential in the effort to recover it.
(a) The red pill. This is merely the doctrine of original sin rediscovered independently. Our (common) fallen nature. Grace is not very Amazing if one believes that its not really necessary. This is the achilles heel of Churchianity. The good news, such is it is, is that this generation is so fallen that we can no longer credibly convince ourselves that the redemption offered in Christ is for other people. Catwoman longs above all for a clean slate. The only true way to clean that slate spotless is the Blood of the Lamb.
(b) Anti-game. In one sense, men and women have been making the same mistake – we’ve been applying a naive version of the Golden Rule to our mating strategies: men have acted like the women they are most attracted too, while women have acted like men. This problem can be somewhat laid at the feet of feminist denial of gender differences, but there is plenty of blame that can fall on our common incuriousity for what it is that scripture actually teaches, rather than the Cliff Notes version.
Where there is a discrepancy in the genders, it lies in the fact that many women have acted like the worst men, while the men who are most aggrieved commonly strive to act like the best women, but playing the “who has sinned the worst” game has never been a hallmark of Christianity successfully practiced.
I’m late to this but I hope my 2 cents gets read:
Thomas Aquinas said that ALL TRUTH is GOD’S TRUTH. Therefore, Game represents the truth of how/why males can attract females based on an understanding of the natures of each. That’s all it is; it’s really simple. If you’re like Roissy, you believe it’s rooted in evo psych, but if you’re Christian, you trust it’s based on God’s created order.
What Cane Caldo is missing is while the Bible instructs us on what to do once Christians get married, it NEVER, EVER tells a man or a woman HOW to get married. But the scriptures do present, however, in ever so subtle ways, principles that make vague allusions to Game, but it’s so vague, the average, frustrated Christian chump will miss it. Like an aspiring engineer cannot learn foundations of engineering in the Good Book, so too will an aspiring Christian groom need to learn some Game extra-biblically to cop that wife he so desperately wants.
“We aren’t Christ’s knights; the best of us are Christ’s wash-rags”
Bullshit.
“What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Nay, in all these things WE ARE MORE THAN CONQUERORS through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
– Romans 8:31-38
More. Than. Conquerors.Nor washrags. Not any more.
Here you have the appearance of godliness while denying its power.
When the church succumbs to this sort of slave mentality it is the feminists, and their equivalents throughout history, who fill the void left by the real men who look elsewhere.To bring them back requires reconnecting with the heroic aspect of Christianity.
Caldo: “I’m waiting for a better consensus on the definition of Game”
I propose the following definitions:
The Red Pill: Understanding of the hypergamous/fallen nature of women, and how it has shaped past and current society.
This includes but is not limited to:
– Awareness that this understanding is incomplete, that it is an ongoing process.
– Awareness that what we have been taught, conditioned or want to believe is not necessarily or even likely true in many cases.
– Willingness to search for facts and objectively evaluate empirical evidence (cause and effect), even if it conflicts with the “pretty lies” we want to believe.
Game: Application of said Red Pill knowledge.
In this case Game is simply a means, and any moral judgment, or lack thereof, depends solely on the intended and actual ends.
Gah, the definition comment above is mine.
Comment auto-filled the name field with an old and unintended text string.
Roissy at some point learned the term hypergamy and then proceeded to try to shoehorn all the problems he sees (all too well) into that framework. What has in fact occurred is worse than hypergamy.
The base male instinct is widely understood to be polygamy – to spread one’s seed as widely as possible. The corresponding base female instinct, far less well understood, although Roissy gets it even as he mislabels it, is not hypergamy, it is polygamy at one remove: bearing children with the most polygamous man she can find, so that her offspring are most likely to be able to reproduce as widely as possible. In other words, the sexy son hypothesis.
Hypergamy per se, the desire to find a man of higher status than oneself, was actually a very hard-earned cultural advancement over sexy son, as status is conferred by society to the men who are the most effective leaders, and the ability to award effective leaders with the best mating prospects – at its best, just one – was a powerful inducement to men to strive to make themselves so.
Devolving to sexy son is not hypergamy, it is in fact its opposite, and so Roissy, while often spotting the problems well, offers solutions that generate more heat than light.
@Thronestruck
“My erection does not care about my religious convictions either, however I am instructed
Biblically to use it in a righteous manner”
I always have a problem when this arguement is used by a Christian guy. 9/10 times these guys just can’t get laid. If their very life depended on picking up a girl to screw they just couldn’t do it.
With the obese being the exception, most women will get laid at any time that they desire. Hell even the obese will find a willing partner.
.”
By the way, the rewarding of the best leaders with the best mating prospects is at the heart of the conflict between Achilles and Agamemnon in the Iliad. These are not new problems we face.
As for actually being a Christian Knight, there happens to be a handbook.
Eh, link here.
I probably went through chumpy phases and we stayed together, so I didn’t mean to imply that a woman won’t allow you some latitude. Perhaps the worst you will bet is some eye-rolling. They say, though, that contempt is the acid that destroys a marriage. I have only ever seen contempt on my wife’s face once. That was enough. If you are getting that, you have big problems.
Anyway, I have wandered off point. What I meant to say was that if you marry a decent woman, she will cut you some slack. Men have work disappointments, minor illnesses, and so on. Nobody can be Iron Man all the time. A sensible woman knows that.
The other thing I want to keep emphasising is this. Women are tough. There was a good line from a movie about werewolves, of all things. “The beast in man is met by the beast in woman”. Women are tough and they can take a lot more than many good-hearted men would believe. It doesn’t matter what they look like, no matter how cute. A soft skin does not make a soft heart.
A lot of Western men don’t get this. I think we have reached the end of the road on how much we can pedestalise women. We need a more Oriental attitude, perhaps. One of Alte’s insights was that the problem of modern women is that their lives are too easy. Men are victims of their own success. Men’s inventiveness has eased the lives of women so much that they are bored and find life bland. So they look for excitement in men.
I have personally seen women do things for a man many male readers would not believe. And I have had relatively little experience with women. Any man who thinks women are angels, still, needs to think again.
You said, “It’s not the only possible fate, and not the worst. You could get taken over by an agent. (This is what I suspect of Roissy.)”
What does this mean? Who are the agents? When I first read it, I thought you meant Roissy was possessed. That’s not what you mean, is it?
Should have been, “the worst you will get is some eye-rolling”.
Just a couple of comments from a lurker.
1) I think one of the issues is that Game, the Red Pill, Hypergamy, etc., do not have rigorous hard-and-fast definitions as one finds in the sciences. As a result, sometimes people use them to cover different aspects or features —
for example, Game can be a mindset which leads one to act in a certain way, or a framework to interpret or ignore a woman’s response, or Game can be a class of behaviours which one adopts in order to achieve certain ends in relationships with a woman, or with women in general.
See also “maintaining frame.”
Likewise, the Red Pill can be knowledge of the feminist-dominated culture, knowledge of hypergamy, or the willingness to apply this knowledge to frame one’s behaviour.
It is important, when using these terms, to specify which sense one is applying them in; and this sense can be site-dependent or thread-dependent.
2) Another issue is that of “Game” vs. “Christian Game” — there is some bristling over the intermingling of pop-psych and pop-evo (to coin a phrase) within game; and addition the apprehension within Christian circles that Game is somehow intrinsically immoral. But this ties back to the differing *definitions* of Game as laid out in 1) above.
A Christian such as Dalrock, or even an apostate atheist such as Athol Kay, intends for Game to be used within the context of a committed relationship, or a marriage; and to do so both to prevent the man from succumbing to the horrors of modern divorce, as well as to make the relationship at least livable, if not enliven the spark once again. Sex comes into it, of course; but for the Christian gameosphere, the sex is both an ingredient in a happy marriage in and of itself, as well as a means of reinforcing and biochemically cementing the submission and bonding which Game calls into play.
On the other hand, the PUA community uses game, not to maintain and to enrich an existing long term / marriage relationship; but rather to create short-term emotional excitement, with the goal of seduction. It is interesting that this form of Game *also* promises to protect the man from both female hypergamy and divorce-rape, just as Christian Game does; but while the tactics are the same (gina tingles / dominance / interest / stroking the hamster), the *strategy* is different, because the goal is different: at best, PUA wants the girl to become part of a soft harem, and there is neither the intent nor the specific promise of anything more. The PUA justifies this (if at all) by correctly pointing out that the women are either self-deceived, or willing participants; and his control of hypergamy is simply by withdrawing any seeming commitment from the woman before the point at which legal protections (divorce courts, common-law marriage, “for the children”) kick in; or, in other cases, using the threat of total abandonment of the woman as psychological coercion into an abortion.
Did I say “Christian Game”? That itself brings up another difficulty with definitions. For the Christian Game, since it is concerned with marriage, is necessarily in two phases: the first is to find, attract, and court a woman who is a virgin, or one who has sincerely repented of the Carousel; the second, is to maintain the initial attraction and “tingles” over the long haul, given the complicating factors of familiarity (not as exciting as “I just met this new man!”), day-to-day living (one’s flaws and habits show), and careers and children. (Athol is correct that within marriage a lot of beta traits — laundry, diaper-changing, and the like — if applied judiciously, can enhance a man’s appeal.)
Now what this has to do with definitions is that Game can refer to actions and to attitude. For the short term, or even for some courting, actions alone will be sufficient. Hence the Mystery Method, outdated though it be, scripts or methodologies for Day Game, and the like. But for the long term, attitude comes into play, and with it, “frame”: one can cook dinner as a henpecked husband or as someone who does it with verve and confidence; and the presentation is as important as the actions being performed. (There is an analogy here, I am sure, to the relationship between the words used and the inflection and body english employed in delivering them.)
Finally, as to hypergamy. Ah, hypergamy. One element which I have not seen discussed very much is that of the elements of female attraction, and how the *interplay* between them can often determine how a woman will react. Some of the elements which are commonly included are:
‘gina tingles’ — sexual desire for or attraction to one particular man, based on his appearance, demeanor, a certain “je ne sais quoi.” Instigating this feeling is part of PUA game; often one of the factors used to account for female-instigated divorce.
hypergamy — a desire for a woman to “date up” or “sex up”, to get the best man available *within her range*. Often one of the factors used to excuse female-instigated divorce.
dominance / submission — a controversial factor: according to many in the manosphere, most women secretly desire to submit to a man, but the curse of Genesis combined with hypergamy means that getting it to happen is rather tricky.
rationalization hamster — a term for the tendency of women to only see what they want to be true, regardless of the lies they have to tell themselves or others in the process.
preselection / social proofing — a tendency for women to pre-emptively *disqualify* men for relationships or sex, based on his perceived social rank or his ability to improve *her* social rank among her peers.
“shit tests” — a disagreement or spat or task which a woman imposes on a man, to ascertain if he is really going to lead. Failing a shit test leads downhill, and to loss of gina tingles, and for a woman to look around for other men (see hypergamy).
The importance of these elements to Game, is that different elements are important in different stages of a relationship: and they differ in proportion according to the *type* of relationship, the duration of the relationship, and the past history of the participants: both the sexual past, and the way the people in the relationship have treated each other during their time together.
So for a PUA, generally his tools are provoking gina tingles to establish contact, and quickly developing dominance over the woman (“negs” or “setting the frame”), as well as over her immediate circle of acquaintances (“c*ckblockers”); if he can do this successfully, the woman’s mind takes over as she uses her rationalization hamster to project onto him any number of qualities she wants, and surrenders herself to sex, either for the pleasure of it, or to improve her social status (“a woman who sleeps around is a slut, but a woman who has slept with Magic Johnson is a woman who has slept with Magic Johnson”), or in the hopes of securing commitment. The man does not have to worry about feet of clay since he intends to only be with the woman for a short time, and he will use social proofing or her own rationalization hamster to keep her from rejecting him before he pulls the plug. Some PUA artists have also explained how they deliberately *fail* shit tests in order that the woman break up with him — trusting that their rationalization hamsters (to protect their own ego) will then not get as angry at him for dropping (“pump and dump”ing) them.
Incidentally, this happens to explain one of the reasons that PUA game, while not falsifiable, still works in the real world, even though its best practitioners claim around a 10% success rate, little better than random day approaches.
The reason is, if a woman decides that she is attracted to you, she is going to crawl over broken glass to be around you, to give you chances, and (for a time) to make excuses for your mistakes; but if she is NOT attracted to you (you have been evaluated as one of her “I’m not going to sleep with *him* men, and become invisible), then game is generally not sufficient to overcome the obstacle. What PUA game *does* do, however, is increase the man’s confidence, so that the actually approaches more women than otherwise, as well as increase his ability to induce initial gina tingles and project confidence, so the few women “on the margin” will be more receptive, and finally, it trains men to be much more observant of body english and indicators of interest (IOIs) which means that a PUA will very quickly drop a woman who is not sending “yes” signals and is much less likely to be *involuntarily* friendzoned — which both drops his preselection value in that social circle and wastes his time.
However, for a Christian, or in a feminized Churchianity setting, the initial road is a lot harder, and only gets worse as time goes on. For one thing, in a church, “slut shaming” is so far from being verbotten, that ex-sluts who have reformed (even if they still sex around on Friday nights but don’t admit it!) are celebrated; but at the same time, the ostensible purpose of a church is not hookups. This means that PUA types can prowl at churches to pick off sluts, but that Christian men are actively discouraged from using either gina tingles or dominance.
Further, preselection is strong: as opposed to the bar scene / carousel, most Church men have been trained to be subservient to women (“manginas, white knights”) which not only makes them timid, but disqualifies them should they dare speak to a “Daughter of the King.”
The cure for this, by the way, is to start courting early, to look for a young virgin, and to try for marriage early — though our society has put *multiple* roadblocks in the way, from promiscuity to feminism (“you go, grrl” and “you need to date around” to “go get your Masters’ Degree”) to “it costs too much to marry and you can’t get a job or attract a Quality Woman (TM) without a College Degree — which both bankrupts the man and indoctrinates the woman.
But assuming a Christian man *does* land a wife, things get harder: not only does he have the likely sexual past of the wife to contend with — which means she has imprinted sexually on another man, or worse, has begun to lose the ability to bond by sex — but he also has a woman with a chip on her shoulder, who has been coached by Churchianity that the man must *continually* prove his worth to her, and who reserves the right to terminate the marriage if he fails to maintain her gina tingles and satisfy her hypergamy. And, by the way, he is forbidden to use dominance, or to reproach her for her past.
Not a pretty kettle of fish.
But the answer (in principle, though the attainment of it is problematic) is easy.
If Dating / Marriage 2.0 is wrong, then we need to (literally) go back to Dating / Marriage 1.0.
There are a number of problems with this — akin to a salmon trying to swim upstream past Niagra Falls. For if the society proclaims and enforces values which impose the Blue Pill behaviour, and ostracizes or actively punishes Red Pill thinking and actions, what can one do?
Further, if most of the people have been trained into thinking and BELIEVING the Blue Pill — and the women have mostly ridden the Carousel, and cannot truly participate in Marriage 1.0 any longer even if they want to, what is to be done?
Unfortunately, just as it took years, or even a couple of generations, to destroy marriage as an institution, so it may take just as long to restore it.
And it will be a multi-front war.
One must seek to — as the 60s hippies and Communists said – – “consciousness-raise.” These blogs are a good starting point, but one must begin to speak up outside of the manosphere, to confront stereotypes, to change people’s instinctive (inculcated) leanings.
Men should also seek to create political pressure groups or umbrella organizations to work with legislators and government officials.
Another issue is the Church: if the Church has run astray because the women have assumed leadership, then the men need to start attending Churches and taking the leadership back.
If men attend Church, they too should speak with their wallets when it comes time to give offerings, if the teachings of a particular priest are out of line.
And the men can look to the most feminine women they can — even going outside of the congregation as necessary to meet and marry, should they do so. (It is more tricky at this point, to keep a woman so married from falling in with a bunch of man-haters or gossipy hens who will try to undermine her relationship; but establishing Game early within a marriage will help make a woman resistant to these temptations.) If enough men on the margins do not marry ex-Carousel riders, this will have an effect. Also, if you do have children, seek to educate them on the Red Pill.
Finally, one other point: as some posters tangential to the manosphere have said, “Anything that can’t go on forever, won’t.” This is for three reasons: economics, demographics, and world affairs. Much of the blue-pill world depends on a goodly flow of *other people’s money* : HR departments, divorce lawyers, judges, womyn’s studies, and the like. As our national debt passes $15 trillion dollars (that’s $50,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country), the money for many of these follies will quite literally run out. For demographics, neither Carousel riders nor crazy cat ladies who have hit the wall can breed; nor do their allies, the homosexuals; whereas traditionalists *do*. And for world affairs, a debt-ridden, feminized country will come under attack from non-feminized countries, some of which have distinctly repressive attitudes towards women. May God grant that it not take something much bigger than 9-11 to wake up the rest of the country to the positive attributes of, and need for, masculinity.
@Desiderius
We’ll see about that.
grey-whiskers, maybe those countries have realistic attitudes to women, not “repressive”.
I have started to have real doubts about the wisdom of the West going into other countries to “free” the women. And I sort of hope that the Pussy Riot sluts in Moscow get sent to jail.
To take a line from GBFM, here we are 50 million abortions later. Was the liberation of women really such a great idea?
Black Cat states:
I propose the following definitions:
The Red Pill: Understanding of the hypergamous/fallen nature of women, and how it has shaped past and current society.
This includes but is not limited to:
– Awareness that this understanding is incomplete, that it is an ongoing process.
– Awareness that what we have been taught, conditioned or want to believe is not necessarily or even likely true in many cases.
– Willingness to search for facts and objectively evaluate empirical evidence (cause and effect), even if it conflicts with the “pretty lies” we want to believe.
Game: Application of said Red Pill knowledge.
In this case Game is simply a means, and any moral judgment, or lack thereof, depends solely on the intended and actual ends.
Consensus on these definitions?
@therule222
The agents from The Matrix, and yes, that’s what I suspect; though not in the head-spinning sense. I have a suspicion that Roissy used to be a Christian, but is now an atheist. That being said: I have no idea of the “condition of his eternal soul”.
@Grey Whiskers
Good comments. Lots of them.
Desiderius, I was interested in your distinction between hypergamy and the sexy son hypothesis. But I wonder if there is a real difference. Isn’t hypergamy a proxy for attraction to the kind of man who could be a polygnist, whether he actually chooses to be or not in a given social situation?
All of these things are normally proxies or honest signals for something deeper. Moreover, if I saw a sexy looking woman, knowing that she is in fact infertile would not make her less subjectively sexy. In the same way, a powerful, exciting man might not choose to spread his seed around, but women would still find him sexy. It is notorious that handsome priests still attract women.
What is selected for is potential. Women are hypergamous for powerful men. Whether they use that power to build a company or spend all their time skirt-chasing is not crucial. The desire for power in men probably evolved at a time when power translated directly into resource provision. The relationship today may be broken, but the instinct persists.
The problem with the sexy son hypothesis is that I am not sure that is how the human species works. Human children need a father’s input as well as a mother’s. Arguably there is no point in spreading your seed around if you cannot supply resources for all those women. It is quite likely that the polygyny we see in the modern world depends on the creation of agricultural surpluses, and is a relatively recent phenomenon in human history, not relevant to the stage of human evolution in which our mating instincts evolved.
Pingback: Game and the Rise of the Kwisatz Haderach « M3
Cane:
You win the silver “meddle” award for missing the larger point and getting caught up in semantics. If you wish to preen with scripture, be my guest. Anyone can hit the search button on biblegateway.com, or wherever you found your cut-and-paste material.
I just can’t take your comment seriously.
Deti pointed out a concrete truth:
“If you have to game a woman hard, then continue to game her hard into submission, the woman you’re gaming is not a suitable marriage candidate. Period.”
That leaves very, very few options for American Christian men and Christian American women. Whichever one is defacto “spiritually stronger” has the greatest opportunity and the greatest danger.
What comes to my mind is to “reframe” the situation which involves leaving the apostate American Evangelical system, praying, and simply leaving it alone.
If it is in Gods will – He will bring along a Non-American woman who is a real disciple.
Cane:
“We’ll see about that.”
Smug answer, quite inconsistent with the man-of-God image you would have us see in you.
There’s a bit of Jonah in your style.
@TFH
I don’t mean to ignore it, but to blow holes in it.
1) LTRs are not in play, scripturally.
2) It’s been said that Game is very beneficial to marriage, but
2a) We have hardly approached a consensus on what Game is.
2b) Hypergamy was almost resolved, but there’s been some pretty good questions raised on hypergamy vs. polygamy-once-removed in the last few comments that apparently needs to be settled. There’s a lot of evo-psych involved, so bring your ouija board. That process would go a lot faster if they could contact Yippette and Grunter directly instead of just rummaging around in their gene pockets. Do hurry: This will determine what shape the definition of Game takes.
3) I’m also waiting on this list of tools of which Game is comprised. I have suffered a barrage of notifications that such a set exists, but have yet to see the MacTools Amoral Do-It-Yourself PUA and Marriage Makeover Kit.
4) There’s been rumors and implications of manning-up, among other skulduggery.
In the meantime, Dalrock had a really good post on how issues in marriages have a good chance of sorting themselves out, or being sorted out, if the couple will just stick with the commitment. A couple issues with it came up in the user survey, though. Marketing sucks: there’s no cool title for it, like Game. Also, there’s an expectations issue: when you open up the Stanley Tough-It-Out box it’s just seems empty, and many users simply threw it all away. Further surveys revealed that some customers weren’t sure what to do with it, but kept it for storage. They reportedly could usually get what they put in it, back out again.
I’ll take the silver “meddle”, and watch with satisfaction as you try to craw-daddy out of your comment. You said Game was male wiles to counteract feminine wiles. To bolster this argument you linked to what you thought was the pithy remark that arrogance was the man’s version of the miniskirt. I showed what scripture thinks of arrogance. I didn’t get caught being pedantic; you got caught being flippant.
Anyway, I think you do take it seriously. Otherwise you wouldn’t have remarked on it.
Another point. SunshineMary’s remarks about Game and “play submission” are important. Play submission may not imply real submission.
What Roissy “discovered” [as I said before, the first man I know to codify Game was the Irish lyricist Percy French in about 1900, in his song The Pride of Petravore] was that a woman will often succumb to certain male displays. However her short term submissive sexual response does not necessarily imply that she will remain socially submissive to that man or any man in the longterm.
In other words, a woman can behave with extreme sexual submission one day and go back to being a butter-would-not-melt-in-her-mouth good Christian girl the next, or maybe go back to her feminist career girl attitudes just as easily. The women that Roissy beds, and seems to enjoy humiliating, are almost certainly, to a woman, feminists in real life.
In a healthy society, this ugly fact would be less important, because girls would not often meet full-blown alphas, or would be socially protected from them. But some subcultures in the West are not healthy.
Cane, the arrogance of the Gaming man may simply be what earlier generations would have seen as a normal male attitude. It is not wrong to be happy to be a man, for example. I have always been proud of being a man. It is sad that so many men today seem to be ashamed of it.
Cane, I would think you are happy to be a man. Only a “mangina” is ashamed of being a man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnanimity
It is not the vice of pride to have a just estimate of one’s abilities or to expect a proper level of respect, for example from one’s wife:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07462a.htm
grey-whiskers
outstanding
Cane
Looks like christian men will not have godly wives. There are no wives to be had in the west. Game(female psychology) is the best way to sniff out a slut. No rings for sluts and say it out loud. Also christian men need to always question any woman without shame or fear of her sexual past. Any church that stands in the way of that needs to be shown the finger. If you have game, fuck the preachers wife on the way out, she’s most likely a hypergamous slut.
The point is make you christian men strong and powerful. Have faith in the word of god in their hearts and minds. ( I’ll give you a hint beta men are a good bet to do the right thing with the definition of right thing being of what ever group they belong to)
One more game will not tame a slut and a woman in the tingle is very submissive. Gaming a wife to keep a tingle so she will stay around is bullshit. In this feminised world it is a survival skill. You are right in a sane society the word should be enough but that is at this time a fantasy world. Only about 1 to 2 or 3 percent of christian men will actually have a chance to marry a woman that submits to the word of god in marriage. You have already said it yourself. Teach your boys in your church game so they can see the lie of the blue pill. (the lie that there is a good woman to be found) As long as the laws of misandry are on the books and enforced any hint of game(female psychology) will put 2 and 2 together and there is no wife to be had.
Re: Rollo Tomassi 2:27 pm
MGTOW has always existed throughout the ages in every society – it doesn’t matter whether we use a broad or a narrow definition of it. MGTOW normally stays on a negligible level but it tends to become more widespreas whenever female quality declines and/or the realization dawns on common people that the collapse of their rotting, exhausted civilization is inevitable. Both are undoubtedly the case today.
Re: Nine Furies 2:42 pm
The fundamental fact you need to keep in mind is that Western women are inexorably turning into overweight, entitled, insufferable, psychologically wretched piles of feminist excrement. The same fate awaits non-Western women as well, although at a slower pace, as the feminist pandemic spreads to all inhabited continents. This discourages men from learning and implementing Game. It’s hard work, and what’s the point if there’s no prize. THIS is the primary reason why most betas cannot be arsed to learn Game,.
Long time lurker here. I’m a young (I assume much younger than most here) Christian man – so perhaps it would be a interesting/different point of view.
I find this blog to be VERY enlightening. At the same time, it is also extremely depressing. Quite frankly the amount of potential godly female suitors is scarce. I assume most folks here are older gentleman – just think of what the younger generation lads like me have to face. I mean forget finding a “godly” Christian woman, I am hard pressed to even find a genuine Christian. The fact is, the gate is narrow, and it seems to be getting narrower all the time with each wicked and adulterous generation. “Christian” youth these days are just as worldly as the world, they act like world, they like the same things as the world – the exception is that they “believe in God/Jesus” and go to Hillsong concerts. It’s just another religion, there is no regeneration. I don’t claim to be able to make absolute judgments on who are truly saved, but most of the time it’s fairly obvious. Most of them have an attitude that its “cool” and “awesome” to be a Christian. I have noticed a complete lack of reverence for the Lord, and a shallow appreciation for His Sovereignty. By my estimation, a very low percentage (single digit and that’s being VERY generous) of professing Christians (including Church-going, and many aren’t even true Churches) are actually Christians. Now add the fact that where I live (and I suspect everywhere else), the number of Christians overall are rapidly dwindling, it is quite a gloomy outlook. Whenever I raise this point, I qualify that I do not consider myself a good Christian at all. The key point is however that I am not oblivious to my condition.
I read earlier several people asking what then is the conclusion of this particular article? My own personal conclusion is that I will probably remain single for the rest of my life. This is something I really struggle with. While I know God alone is more than sufficient, there is a certain sadness for myself and the state of this world. I also know that I have likely placed my own desires above God – otherwise I should not be affected by this as I am now. This is a huge personal struggle, and I always have to keep reminding myself I have to live for God, not myself. It’s also sad because I know marriage is a gift from God, if lived according to his will, really is blissful. I know this because I have observed ONE submissive Christian wife (oh and believe me although I’m young, because of my circumstances, I’ve seen in detail A LOT of relationships). This one Christian wife really showed me for the first time what wifely submission was, a level of commitment I dare say most people, even here, have not witnessed, but I won’t get into the details. So I know how beautiful marriage can be, yet sin destroys everything, and we’re at a stage where certain options are no longer available to the Christian man. Oh why couldn’t I be born in previous generations (lol)?
Now I am not saying there aren’t any true women followers of Christ out there, but they are so few that it’s virtually impossible that you would find her (ESPECIALLY the younger generation). Now I am a firm believer that everything is in God’s provision – is this really any different? Is it through our own efforts that we find a spouse, or is it entirely God’s provision? This is a question I ask myself, and also a pertinent question for everyone else here. I know there is the argument that if you don’t seek, you won’t find, but honestly, where on earth do you look? I have in the past been to many different Christian communities, I have doubts many of them are truly Christian, let alone a potential suitor. No, I subscribe to the view of God’s provision in this case, simply because mathematically it is practically impossible. If this is the case, it is very relevant to the current discussion at hand, do you “game” your way to a godly wife (if you can even find one), or is it entirely God’s provision? Also, by “godly”, I do not necessarily mean uber spiritual. But because we live in an age where we are so spiritually weak, in this context, “godly” would actually mean the most basic attributes/views/behaviors you would expect from Christian (sad isn’t it?). I make this distinction because many Christians, even ones that ARE regenerate, live carnal lives and walk the wide path – and in this case likely have little regard for submission, respect or honor.
You see, I do not believe a godly woman needs to be “gamed”. A true Christian woman is NOT the same as a non-Christian woman, she is transformed into a new creature, she would have different values/views/desires to the world. That is not to say she doesn’t have any of her old weaknesses and struggles, no her old nature is still alive, but it is COMPLETELY different to an unregenerate woman. “Game” works on nonregenerate women – it appeals to their nature, and if we believe the Holy Spirit transforms, then it follows that “game” will not work with anywhere the same level of effectiveness on a godly woman; her values are different, she has a desire and will to overcome her old nature and look for spiritual qualities. If a godly woman is interested in a godly man, she will find his spiritual qualities attractive, in much the same way I do when I see a woman after God’s heart. Now I am not saying all the other factors like physical attraction and other qualities included in “game” don’t play a role, but if the two are interested/attracted to begin with, the spiritual qualities/character will dwarf everything else. Also divorce (except for adultery) is not an option for a godly woman, if she is truly transformed and mature in spirit, this simply does not enter the equation at any stage (not saying there won’t be arguments etc). Now then, if Christians are few, and godly women even fewer, how then would a Christian man attract her? I don’t believe the answer is “game”. Because we know spiritual character is the dominant factor, we then should ensure we are strong in that area. And how can we be strong in that area? By putting God first. You cannot grow in spiritual maturity with the motive of attracting a girl, it just doesn’t work, your motive must be God alone. Coincidentally, what happens when you do this is that you are in fact living out “game” – in that God is actually first, and not the woman (or yourself). Also people who are spiritually mature are confident, because their strength is from God, and they also have a sense authority because they live upright lives in the word. Confidence and authority are probably the two biggest “alpha” traits. The difference between “game” and I guess the “Christian way”, is the source of that confidence, strength and authority. In game, that source is yourself. Whereas the Christian way, it comes from God, and it simply trumps all – it is TRUE confidence and authority, not some stupid mind game you play with yourself.
This is the truth I recognize and intend to live out, it will not be easy. In essence, throw your life (all hopes are to be for his Kingdom, not yourself) away for Christ, and he will give you more in return. Now I am not saying it guarantees or is even likely to mean you will be provided a godly spouse, but I think if one becomes sufficiently mature in Christ, that would not be a concern anyway.
To God be the glory.
You have a problem with wiles? Additionally, you should reread the disclaimer on UMan, it may help calm your nerves over my flippancy.
It is clear that you are impressed with your own opinions and interpretations, but you are missing the key element which is humor and entertainment.
I get it – you have an axe to grind, don’t we all. You also don’t seem to realize that trying to “prove” something on the internet is something no one should ever attempt.
At the root of it, you long for a victory, you desire to taste the visceral thrill of a bold internet triumph. Well, this creature does not exist. Your original article presented some interesting ideas, many of which I agree with. Your management of the comments, however, is tiring, and as I said before, I just can’t take it all that seriously.
You may be right, you may be wrong, but overall, I guess I am more bored than offended.
My other problem with Game is this:
I can doubtless purchase a manual which will tell me how I can become an Olympic 100 metres champion (or anything else you like), but you have to put the precepts into practise and frankly unless you start young, and are over six foot and built for speed you are unlikely to succeed. Game is rather like that but worse, in that the opportunity to put it into practise is not contained within a formal environment and at a fixed time or with a fixed duration; it occurs at any time of the day or night and in the most diverse of circumstances – and frequently whrn you are supposed to be doing something else and something serious at that e.g. work.
Furthermore the people with the best game tend to be young, fit, handsome – when women throw themselves at you it does tend to make one naturally confident. Even the greatest lover of all time, Casanova, eventually reached a point (he lost his looks) when he could no longer pull them effortlessly or at all.
Most people do not have the time, money, or energy to practise Game, and if they did it would just be simpler to buy the woman up-front (you’re going to pay for her anyway). That avoids the thrill of the chase but if the chase is the thrill, then the outcome is irrelevant.
Game is, as its name implies, merely a game.
Opus, the thing is though that you don’t have to perform at a Roissy-like, Olympic level with women. Most men only want to improve their relationship. It has helped me in my marriage. I have seen it “work”. I don’t do it consciously all the time, but when I am paying attention, I can see it work in front of my eyes.
I agree that it helps to start with good human material. One of the absurd claims that Gamesters make is that good looks don’t matter. When I was young, good looks was all I had. Otherwise, I was pretty much what they now call a nerd. And yes, good looks meant that a lot of women were interested. Some were not, and I have been LJBFed, sort of, so I know what that is like. But some were, very, and I got some red pill from watching the ridiculous way women will behave to amuse a man they are seriously interested in.
I want to keep repeating this. Women will do almost anything for the right man. Feminists know this, and it shames them. Men need to know as well.
Let me restate that last point, from a different perspective. If a man is married to a woman who treats him with contempt, won’t put out much, won’t cook for him, etc. etc., he is being cheated. The same woman would do it for a different man, eagerly, and probably would for her actual husband, if he would stop treating her as his superior.
This post is kind of incoherent because I didn’t have any idea until the end whether those were your thoughts, or thoughts of someone you were quoting. Oh wait, that’s Cypher…. I think it should have been more clearly labeled as “guest post”.
Other than agreeing with M3’s first comment and laughing at all the game denialists that popped up, there’s not much to say. I agree that some would like not to use game or to give up on a part of their desires entirely, but claiming that it’s a scam is… wow. The argument that it ultimately serves Feminism is IMO sketchy, but the logic is good and I could agree with a part of it.
For a non-Christian man like me who wanted to just settle down with a nice girl and be a loyal husband with children (and of course, found that is extremely difficult in the current circumstances that I’m not responsible for), Game provides the great escape from the betrayal of that dream and from the alternative (eternal celibacy and pain on the fringes). There’s nothing amoral about it, just doing the best you can.
This article tends to support my argument that polygyny is a feature of agricultural societies, not the hunter-gatherer societies that characterised most of human evolution:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/2012/01/06/case-of-the-missing-polygamists/
However there is also the interesting point that there is evidence that women did a fair amount of cuckolding of men with high-status men at ovulation, and this shows up in the genetic data. It seems likely that quite a few men provided resources for children that were not theirs. So, this might support the “sexy sons” hypothesis mentioned above, with informal polygyny occurring.
If women were using what Robert Trivers calls adaptive self-deception, a good psychological strategy would be to feel subjective interest in beta males while they are not ovulating, but to feel attraction for alphas at ovulation. And perhaps to lack self-awareness in this regard. Which is what we see.
Sunshine Mary at 936 notes that sometimes non-Christian feminists lead more sexually conservative lifestyles than Christian women – citing herself as a non-Christian feminist at the time of her marriage at 22 and me at the time of my engagement at 23. We are hardly a representative sample. And certainly there are plenty of chaste Christian women and plenty of feminist women who sleep around. However, there are dynamics that lead to the phenomenon Sunshine Mary is referring to.
When you have an upbringing with feminist-oriented parents, no one is fussing over how how pretty you are. You are steeped in girls’ literature that emphasizes intelligence, character, and achievement, rather than popularity with boys. Your future is not defined in terms of the ability to attract a man. If it’s the 70s, you view the fuss over Miss America with a jaundiced eye and you scoff when Playboy centerfolds on TV gush about “what an honor” they’ve been given to pose naked in a magazine. So when puberty hits and you start getting attention for your looks (or not, as the case may be), you’re better equipped to keep it in perspective. I have a clear memory of looking in the mirror at 16 after a party where a lot of boys were paying attention to me and thinking, “This is silly. These boys just like me because I’m thin and have nice coloring. I didn’t do anything to earn this and it’s not going to last. So it’s sort of fun, but it’s not as important as a lot of other things.”. As a feminist, you also absorb the idea that you are never, ever, ever obligated to sleep with a boy or a man just to make him like you more. Male attention is a fun distraction, not a source of validation. In all, that means you are less likely to pursue marriage as a goal when you are extremely young as Dalrock would recommend, but you are also only sleeping with men when and if you really want to and if you’ve controlled for a lot of risks, Also, as a feminist, you are less likely to view men in stereotypical terms as beasts who just want sex and can be manipulated on that basis. You view men as not that different from yourself, rather than as objects.
As a non-feminist or non-feminist Christian, on the other hand, you absorb the “helpmeet” ethos and see yourself defined in terms of men. Your sense of self worth depends on whether men want you. You view men as a wholly different order of being, much more important and more powerful than yourself. Of course, you crave their attention and admiration – and at some point, you realize that there are some pretty easy ways to get it. That’s why a lot of those Miss America contestants, professional football cheerleaders, and Playboy centerfolds are devout Christians from the Bible belt. Another element is the human desire to cross boundaries that you are told repeatedly not to cross. That’s why Catholic schoolgirls have the reputation they do.
The Scientific American article I cited is hard to follow and I suspect some deliberate obfuscation for reasons of PC, but it rather looks as if cuckoldry is only a feature of relatively advanced agricultural societies, and even then it may reflect marriage systems rather than actual deception by the woman. Also, there is evidence that cuckoldry has been rare in Western societies at least in historical times:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/04/paternity-most-assured/
Answer that, please. Now what, for the Christian man? Life-long celibacy? Fornication? I can understand “no rings for sluts” but I think it would be helpful if you would state the alternative that you truly believe an unmarried Christian man should follow. Because, there are like three virgins left in North American, and that is not enough to go around.
SSM, thank you for once again proving that marriage today in America and the Anglo world is a waste of time. The alternative for Christian men would obviously be fornication or going their own way, as that is all the Anglo women has left them. They might as well sin and learn game and never marry. Certainly better to spoil yourself than reward a slut with life long devotion. After all, they won’t get a virgin even if they are a virgin themselves and practice celibacy. And since the women claim repentance and get a free heaven card, what’s to stop the men?
As for me, I’m not going to game a slut, I ain’t going to game a woman at all. Serve God, that is all that counts. By rewarding sluts, one doesn’t serve God but the feminist imperative.
For American men, perhaps there is no alternative but going your own way. That culture is beyond saving, it’s dead. The women spawned it and now must suffer the consequences of their actions.
Eh, the first paragraph of my post should be in block quotes.
David Collard says: “Women will do almost anything for the right man. Feminists know this and it shames them.”
I’m not really sure what’s being referred to here. I think women, like men, will do a lot for love, and I don’t think there is any particular shame in that. If DC is referring to “submission,” there are very few women who would agree to a formal relationship of submission, absent religious teaching or a sexual fetish.
The difficulty is defining a relationship in terms of submission when it isn’t actually formally structured as such. When I read some game web sites, I’m struck by how men interpret certain actions as submission when perhaps the women don’t view them that way at all. In college, I used to run out and pick up the takeout while my boyfriend lounged around. Eventually, it emerged that he thought I was “submissive,” whereas I thought I was being kind and generous. The view of relationships as a constant power struggle (as promoted by both Game and the Biblical view of marriage) makes it impossible to recognize basic human decency, love, and intimacy.
I remember seeing a documentary on the last Aboriginals to come out of desert Australia. It was a man and his three wives. So that is one case of polygyny in a hunter-gatherer group.
@ Cane:
This is an excellent post, but I’m sure you knew I’d agree with most of what you said here.
This is the reason I stand behind what I have always said: Either a man has impenetrable frame, or he doesn’t. Full stop.
I don’t have time to read all the comments. I simply wanted to say I liked the post and offer an encouraging word because if I had to wager I’d bet that the commentary here is decidedly against you, LOL.
So, Elspeth, are you saying that a man has to be born with it?
It can’t be “Maybelline”?
I think she’s saying that either you got it or haven’t and if you don’t, ‘man up’ and marry those sluts.
Re: Developing Your Impenetrable Frame
Following up on this insightful post by David Collard:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/cyphers-problem/#comment-52020
I just blundered into this.
So there’s plan A and plan B. Plan A is the best for the family and most consistent with its values, but requires a lot of work. Plan B costs money that maybe isn’t available. My wife would use the challenge of A to extract concessions from me… but it was never enough no matter what I did. I was keeping pace with her hamster on the wheel and not realizing it for years as she nagged and complained.
Sometimes I would get so fed up I would declare that we were doing plan B. For a while she would go nuts and strenuously argue until we went back to plan A. For a long time, I chalked these instances up to reverse psychology… but there’s more to it than that.
Recently I simply said, “look… we’ll see how plan A goes this year… and if I’m not happy with it, I will start getting ready to switch to plan B.” I hadn’t thought it through, but this is some basic leadership stuff I imagine. Even so the tone changed dramatically. Going to plan B means that she has been weighed in the balances and found wanting… and she knows it!
All her usual complaints suddenly dried up and I now hear more about what’s going right than just how miserable she is.
@Opus
Not to re-hash the semantic stuff, but game isn’t a theory. Game is derived from theories explaining female sexual desire and social dynamics. I know that’s not your point, so moving on: I think that if you look in the right places, the theories are in fact falsifiable. They’re unscientific in the sense that studies are haphazard and uncontrolled, the knowledge there is crude and unreliable, but it’s not fundamentally worthless. That’s why there’s years of accumulated discussion and observations refining the various theories and certain aspects, like the “Male SMV test” at the Chateau Heartiste, are mostly ignored at this point. Contrast with a truly unfalsifiable pseudoscience, the Myers-Briggs personality inventory, where the focus has always been on the “tests” and the personality descriptions are vague and inclusive to keep the “tests” relevant and bringing in $$. Game theories are falsified by lesbians, gays, and others who do not function within the male-female sexual marketplace. They are falsified by an understanding that humans have great capability to use high-order brain functions to override primal desires.
But the theories do explain things and have some predictive value. If I say a story breaks, where a moderately attractive girl (HB7) at a major american university has a fuck diary stolen and published, and that there are a dozen men chronicled in that diary. The theories predict that the men are likely to be high-status, attractive, in-demand men and that these men are probably not going to commit to her. Game theories predict that bored Kristen Stewart, a young woman with a very large ego, would cheat with the director rather than going after one of the stage hands.
The theories aren’t pefect and sometimes will predict wrong, and that’s what lots of the ongoing discussion is about. It’s not rigorous like true science, but the theories are not entirely unfalsifiable. Perhaps more importantly, the “blue pill” mentality is that the questions should not even be asked.
Re: Reconciling Christian Forgiveness with ‘Man Up and Marry those sluts’
You’d be surprised by how many chronic Christian Nice Guys would think they hit the sexual jackpot while at the same time thinking that their magnanimity in forgiving a ‘reformed slut’s’ past means she’d have to appreciate them for it.
Plugged-in christo-chumps will line up around the block to get at a woman who’ll end the self-mandated perpetual dry spell of their 20s; being a former porn-star turned christian only sweetens the deal in the back of their minds because they think their wife to be will be a tiger in their ordained marriage bed.
I’ll say it again, the fundament of christian forgiveness is the lynchpin of hypergamy and the feminine imperative in a christian context. God’s forgiven them of exercising their fallen sexual natures, why can’t you? What would Jesus do? He’d forgive the adulteress caught in the act of cuckoldry and spare her from certain death, while reminding the men ready to stone her of their own sins.
See how nicely forgiveness dovetails into the latent hypergamic purposes of the feminine imperative? Nah, don’t teach Christian men about Game, they’re better off in their ignorance, right?
@Doomed Harlot — The view of relationships as a constant power struggle (as promoted by both Game and the Biblical view of marriage) makes it impossible to recognize basic human decency, love, and intimacy.
No. No no no.
We are not stoic patriarchs that are waking up one day wondering why our lives are devoid of decency, love, and intimacy. We are romantics that assumed that women were rational actors that could be taken at their word and that could honor their commitments… but we saw our marriages going to hell even though we did everything that society, the preacher, and the relationship books said to do. Comparing notes with other guys about what actions women respond positively to… we are shocked and dumbfounded that reality is so different than what we were led to believe it should be like.
Kristen Stewart said, before all the kerfuffle, that she wanted to be “fucked over”. Typical female masochism.
So, Elspeth, are you saying that a man has to be born with it? It can’t be “Maybelline”?
Well no one is born with it, LOL. It’s implanted from a young age. My husband was taught that it is the mark of man not to allow himself to be manipulated, controlled, or lead by his woman. He doesn’t employ “game” techniques on me. He’s the captain of his boat and he has allowed me the honor of sailing with him.
We all know that it’s much easier to instill certain character qualities in a child than it is to try to reform an adult. The good news is that even adults can change, but it takes a lot of work and it has to be for the right reasons to begin with, which can rarely have anything to do with any other human being.
And no, I’m not saying anyone should “man up” and marry anyone. I believe single life is a perfectly acceptable option for the Christian man or woman because I believe the Bible.
Some Guy says:
August 16, 2012 at 8:26 am
WOW,
Your comment says it all…cheers!
Rollo, I am as serious a Christian as you are likely to meet but I had and have no illusions about women. And I would never have married a slut.
Elspeth, I have always had the attitudes I have, as early as I can remember. And they were not instilled in me. My family had fairly liberal attitudes for the time.
@Ashur
I have commented way too much, but in my defense I’m not used to dealing with a blog from this side of it. What I see happen a lot is that people do what zippycatholic said above. They read about Game, empty out the bucket of what they don’t like, and pour whatever they want it to be into it. That’s offensive, at the least, to the work that the Game writers have put into their writings. It’s also delusional, and those delusions are getting spread around.
Don’t mistake my fervor for the topic for a generic desire for victory. I confess to being over-eager–I’ve been musing on this for literally years, and I’ve been hyper-focused on it for the past week. I like to have a good time, but when we look at the grim nature of the world as told by some of these men’s stories, I sometimes lose my humor.
@Paladin
Thanks for commenting, Paladin. You touch on a good point: It’s seems like it should be easy and natural to have a non-Feminist marriage and family, and I think that’s exactly what our fathers and grandfathers thought when they let it all slip through their fingers: “Of course my sons will naturally be the heads of their households.” There doesn’t seem to be an escape, to me, except to blow up the whole Feminist charade.
As I scroll down and read the comments I have to add my $.50. I was rasied as a Christiain and a lot of the values and morals I have came from church. Not a bad thing but, I am going to ask everyone this question. Have you seen a Pastor or Minister as a “Alpha” or a “Beta” male? In my opinion probably the latter. I think that church does take away some of the mans power and makes them supplicate a little to women. I think that MEN and WOMEN play games in order to get the @ss or the ring. If you watched the ” Five Year Engagement” that was the perfect example of this. The main character seemed to me the typical Beta male and the woman the one who settled because of her diminishing “Market Value”.
So, both side play games to get what the want. I think the “Red Pill” gives you a clearer sight through the fog of the game.
Also stay tuned on my page I am a up and coming writer! Stay tuned you all are great inspiration.
You’d be surprised by how many chronic Christian Nice Guys would think they hit the sexual jackpot while at the same time thinking that their magnanimity in forgiving a ‘reformed slut’s’ past means she’d have to appreciate them for it.
Ding, ding, ding. That’s my read on a lot of these relationship, and it seems like a recipe for disaster. A marriage isn’t going to work when one partner feels in the other partner’s debt. No one wants to be the screw up dependent on the other person’s magnanimity. That’s a major reason marriages are so difficult to repair after someone has an affair — the guilty person starts to resent the wronged party. The guilty person feels the other one is holding it over her (or his) head. Or the very existence of the wronged party reminds the guilty party of the wrong he (or she committed) and the resulting guilt. (NOTE: I don’t view having a premarital affair as committing wrong but obviously that is how it is viewed within the context of a conservative Christian marriage.)
Rollo
You said it nicer than I. And you are dead on. To not teach a christian man game is leading a lamb to slaughter all the while you get to tell everyone how christian and true to the faith you are. Doesn’t sound like leadership at all. Looks down right wicked and sinful to me. A PUA is doing gods work a preacher denying game is surely working for the devil.
To many christians think doing the lords work is all kindness and purity. It is feminized churchianity. A man does not get to feel romance and goodness in his love for god. That is why it is called faith. If doing the lords works requires you to have ignorant students of the word then you are not doing the work of the lord. There is no virtue in ignoring reality because it doesn’t fit in the nice guy christian photograph.
Greyghost @ 2:35:
“Gaming a wife to keep a tingle so she will stay around is bullshit.”
On it’s face this is true; it’s bowing to the feminist agenda. However “so she will stay around” is only part of the story. Ideally a man shouldn’t even marry a woman who needs to be constantly gamed, but the occasional use of game to maintain a dominant frame is essential (to any man whose natural masculinity was trained out of him before puberty.) Women are flighty and fearful, which naturally makes us demanding. Combine our nature with a society which trains us to be even more demanding, and we MUST be managed. The consequences of not doing so are dire.
If a wife needs to be constantly gamed so she will stay around, the husband should insist on rebuilding or ending the marriage, because it will probably end on her terms otherwise. On the other hand, a husband who occasionally displays a slightly exaggerated version of his masculinity, is simply managing his wife’s fears. And if she’s a decent wife who’s inclined to stay around anyway, a little game reinforces that inclination. Before feminism took over, this was normal behavior for most men, but since men are now trained to suppress their natural, unconscious masculinity, they must relearn it consciously in order to have successful relationships with modern women. (That doesn’t make it artificial.) Women aren’t going to step up and become good wives on our own. I think we can’t. We can’t see what we’re doing wrong, and we don’t know how to do it right, but most of us can’t help following the lead of a man who is even moderately dominant. Learning and applying Game is essentially learning the masculine frame that wasn’t learned in childhood.
This is simply human nature, and it applies to both secular and religious couples.
““’We aren’t Christ’s knights; the best of us are Christ’s wash-rags’
Bullshit.
We’ll see about that”
“We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us, but life in you.
We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God.
For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.”
2 Corinthians 4:8-18
As a Christian you are meant to be pure and truthful, this goes for men and women. What you are not meant to be is nice, or an ignoramus. I am grateful for learning of the red pill and the obvious fallen nature of women. I am perfectly happy for those such as DH who want to live their lives without God, without Christ and without male leadership; and want to live a hedonistic lifestyle. Just stop expecting others to pick up the tab, that’s all I ask. Stop welfare, stop EBT cards, stop free abortion, birth control, stop alimony and child support. You want to live the lifestyle, pay for it. Stop the Title programs, stop affirmative action, stop all the wealth transfers and then I will take them seriously.
What I am unhappy about is the constant interference of these types of people and the governments in how I or my family or those I know want to live our lives.
Rollo,
That’s what is known as cheap grace. If that’s what your church teaches or your (prospective) wife believes, find a better one. Of both.
Dead on, Rollo. And I say this as a man who married a reformed slut.
A man needs to know this. A woman’s ideal sexual behavior is:
1. to ride the carousel and have sex with hot alpha men in her 20s, keeping her options open as long as she can and delaying marriage as long as she can.
2. When she finds her sexual market value slipping or has The Wall in her sights, she wants to step off the carousel (without being kicked off) into the arms of a loving beta provider who will forgive her carousel riding (or at least not be smart enough to figure it out).
3. Romance the provider and give him hot sex until he proposes; marry the provider.
4. Divorce the beta provider and take half his assets.
5. Find another, hotter man.
6. Repeat steps 3 through 5.
Some Guy says: @Doomed Harlot — The view of relationships as a constant power struggle (as promoted by both Game and the Biblical view of marriage) makes it impossible to recognize basic human decency, love, and intimacy.
No. No no no.
We are not stoic patriarchs that are waking up one day wondering why our lives are devoid of decency, love, and intimacy. We are romantics that assumed that women were rational actors that could be taken at their word and that could honor their commitments… but we saw our marriages going to hell even though we did everything that society, the preacher, and the relationship books said to do. Comparing notes with other guys about what actions women respond positively to… we are shocked and dumbfounded that reality is so different than what we were led to believe it should be like.
Well, I think that’s fair to point out that some of you have been hurt by women who have behaved badly, and your view of the world is shaped by that experience. Of course, many of us have had the experience of seeing women who have acted exactly in the chaste, submissive way you would recommend and have gotten totally screwed over. I think particularly of my devout Catholic mother-in-law who was abandoned by her Catholic husband, and left with two young children and no means of support and stuck with a life of celibacy, since her belief system did not permit her to date other men while her ex-husband was still alive. Or my mother, who, while feminist minded because of her negative experiences, in fact lived up to the perfect housewife ideal, only to be rewarded with a lifetime (now more than 40 years) shackled to a domineering asshole who makes her life miserable.
The fact is that a lot of people — male and female – are assholes. And when you’re dealing with those kinds of people, the relationship IS a power struggle. For example, my mother is basically forced into an awful choice of having to either struggle for power with her life partner or give up and become a door mat. But that doesn’t have to be the universal experience, and when you find the right person (and I do agree with careful selection is crucial), there is no need to think in terms of domination and submission. Yeah, you still speak up for yourself and what you want, but the right person is going to respect and work with you on that, without the need for a hierarchical arrangement. If not, you’ve married an asshole.
Suz, yes.
Male dominance behaviour works on women like a short skirt works on men. It is instinctive.
This doesn’t mean all women engage in steps 1 through 6. It means that most women want to if given the chance.
DH, you do realise there is only one solution for disagreements like this, right?
You go your way, and we go ours. And at the end of the day, those who are right triumph.
I am late to this party. This whole thing comes down to semantics. Gentlemen, it’s not game, it’s masculine Charisma. It’s the set of skills and behaviors that men should possess in order to be more attractive to women. Such Charisma is completely independent of one’s faith. Pastor Bob and Rabbi Herbert can each be Charismatic.
“there is no need to think in terms of domination and submission.”
No.
Not domination.
Dominance. Dominant frame.
It is not ruling with an iron fist like a tinhorn dictator.
It is standing up for oneself, being the leader, having the final say in important decisions, and refusing to put up with her bullshit.
This is the root of your deliberate failure and refusal to understand.
DH,
“Also, as a feminist, you are less likely to view men in stereotypical terms as beasts who just want sex and can be manipulated on that basis”
Heh. First-wave, yes. After that, not so much.
The last of us who remember those first-wavers are now hitting 40. The SMP is now dominated by men whose only experience with feminism is as an (increasingly more powerful) oppressive force. As those men rise into (cultural/financial/legal) power, the challenge will become limiting the severity of the reprisals and conserving some of the real gains made by the first-wavers.
I.e. keeping the coming war on feminism from becoming a true war on women. As with the rise of feminism, many from both genders will enthusiastically participate in its demise.
This post and thread are awesome.
Mentu: “Cane Caldo is right. Christians don’t need game. A real Christian following the example of Jesus would marry that slut, crawl up on the cross, and die for the sins of feminism.
There you go, Christian men. Love your wife as Christ loved the church EVEN when they do not submit to you and nail you to a cross.”
Caldo to Mentu: “The Christian is bound to do whatever it is God calls him to do. It could include marrying that slut (A quick survey of the crowd says that there’s not much option, anyway. Your fault, ladies.). It could include dying a horrible and embarrassing death. It cannot be to die for the sins of anyone else, or even himself, since Christ has already covered that.”
Rollo: “How does a Christianized manosphere reconcile the article of forgiveness?”
Doomed Harlot: “Rollo, I’m not Christian obviously but I doubt that forgiveness requires marrying someone.”
Doomed Harlot is right. Christ, the King, however, is out to marry everyone from His wash-rags (not “Bullshit”) to the most raging sluts (well, we are all meant to be one wife in His eyes, members of His “one-flesh” body). That’s right – providing for more of us than even Solomon.
Christ defines true masculinity. Here is what I, as a Christian, see it as all about:
…we are the bride of Christ, our Husband. And intimacy is always on His mind. The Christian is to always remain child-like as regards faith, but not childish as regards maturity. God would have us understand both what a good father and a good husband are, for they help us know Him better. What follows is what we realize occurs as we mature in our relationship with Him.
Our husband Christ is a Lover. This Lover is the attractive and strong provider whom the Church desires, and whom He exclusively desires in turn. In our Protector’s presence, all realize His dominance – He does not put up with our, or anyone else’s crap, and will not only freely criticize when necessary, but take drastic action. And He is not only a Lover, but a Fighter – a Champion Fighter. Our Champion is the mighty One who sarcastically taunts the enemies sin, death, and the devil, kicking sand in their faces with authority and confidence. Not only this, but He outwits His foe, turning the tables and wining the seemingly improbably victory via improbable means – an instrument of torture.
Of course not all know this about Him, but faith perceives it (Heb. 2:8): our Man is simply like the millionaire who veils his wealth, choosing to live in simple fashion. And He became Man for no other reason than to win His bride and all she had (stewardship of creation) through His death and resurrection. This is the Son of God who took on created flesh, and it is now this very flesh that enters us in the Lord’s Supper – even if we are not completely aware of the intimate gift this is. A la Song of Solomon, He is the One who aggressively pursues us that He might be with us, speak with us, sharply flirt with us, touch us, and finally, take us: “I want you. And I want you now.” Like a good Lover, He enjoys both giving us pleasure, and yes, receiving pleasure in turn from us. He enjoys us: He woos, ravishes, and finally proceeds to intimacy, in full awareness that good, procreative fruit will be the result. This is no time for “make duty a pleasure” talk, which, as Luther reminds us, is sometimes necessary in the Christian life.
Even when we do not realize it, He is showering us with His love. Now it is true that we are not by any means the most attractive partner, and our ways and goals – our fleeting fancies and silly concerns – often do not mimic His own. Nevertheless, our foolishness does not sway Him – He sees us as cleansed in His own sacrificial blood – as a beautiful and pure virgin. Christ goggles. And yes, “one-flesh” intimacy is always on his mind. When we are with Him in the way He ultimately desires, we lose ourselves in Him. We are not self-conscious of our imperfection, but focus on Him and what He is doing for us and in us – and, feeling connected and secure, we joyfully submit and obey His will. Him in us and we in Him – we are one with the Strong one who makes us strong when we are weak. Not our will, but His, be done. And more: though He loves us just as we are, as intimate moments with Him reveal, He nevertheless refuses to leave us that way – there will indeed come a day when we will be all that He envisions we will be.
And just as the lover covets letters from his beloved when separated by great distance, so our Lord treasures our groanings of anticipation and prayers to Him.
He is the only One that exists who not only unfailingly desires each and every person, but truly loves them, enjoys them, and remains faithful to them. He will not be tamed as He does all that is necessary to protect, treasure, win, ravish and woo us. This includes crushing those other “lovers” who would lovelessly use us for their own empty purposes, that we may be His forever.
We are the ones who ruin the glory of God’s beautiful gift that is sex…
Of course, most persons claiming Christ don’t see it this way.
By the way, I was one of the lucky ones who found a wonderful, virgin Christian woman (who now has a husband who understands Christ and husbandry better due to Game). But I think Caldo is likely right. Not sure what my four boys will get.
Cane, I think you are on to something with this framing. Do you have a blog of your own? I agree with you about cowardice being the main problem vs sluttiness.
As to Professor Ashur’s comment: “I get it – you have an axe to grind, don’t we all. You also don’t seem to realize that trying to “prove” something on the internet is something no one should ever attempt”, I have a hard time taking this seriously. As if many of the persons here do not care about truth and thinks we shouldn’t bother trying to share it and find it.
I don’t think CC is being arrogant, he’s being confident in the truth he knows and has yet to be shown is false. There’s a big difference.
Read post and most comments. Wish I could stay for the party, but no more time to do so.
“Pastor Bob and Rabbi Herbert can each be Charismatic.”
Well yeah. Charisma and Christ (and charity and grace) all come from the same Greek root referring to anointing (of the priests). Its all about leadership.
It is not ruling with an iron fist like a tinhorn dictator.
It is standing up for oneself, being the leader, having the final say in important decisions, and refusing to put up with her bullshit.
This is the root of your deliberate failure and refusal to understand.
Oh no, I understand perfectly that that is the theory! Absolutely, I get it. But first, in reality, casting the man as the “leader” often DOES lead to him acting like a tinhorn dictator. I’ve seen it over and over and over again. So the theory may be sort of innocuous compared to what I’ve described, but the reality not so much. We see it here on this thread, with folks like David Collard smugly reporting how he directed his wife to wear skirts. It’s clearly very important to him to be “the boss” in his relationship to the point of bragging about how she follows his directions even in minor decisions personal to her, such as what clothing to wear.
But even your prettier version is (in part) a description of “domination” — being the leader, and having the final say in important decisions.
(NOTE: I will say there is nothing “dominant” about standing up for yourself or refusing to take bullshit. That’s just having self-respect and not being a doormat. And it’s good advice for both men and women.)
Oops, sorry my italics didn’t come through because I screwed up. The first three paragraphs of my last comment are quotes from Deti.
Desiderius,
I think you mean the Second Wave — with which I identify myself. Those were the feminists of the 60s, 70s, or early 80s. The First Wave would have been the 19th century types like Susan B. Anthony and the suffragists. Those of us hitting 40 wouldn’t remember them!
@CC,
After reading all of what you’ve posted as responses to comments, I’d really like to ask you to share with us a bit about yourself that qualifies you to speak from a Christian perspective on Game. Frankly, your qualifications should have been presented at the beginning of this guest post (what denomination you attend, a sentence about your conversion testimony, how you’ve applied Game/RedPill in your life or haven’t). I just want some basics, because I really don’t think you are as qualified as a number of the commenters here are on the topics of Christianity or Game to get your own guest post.
@DH
Why are you here?
You are neither a Christian, nor a sexually faithful wife. Which renders the value of your opinions in this realm slightly less valuable than the floor we are standing on.
You don’t agree with anything anyone says on any of the topics discussed. Frankly, I have no idea why anyone bothers responding to you.
“Either a man has impenetrable frame, or he doesn’t.”
No. Such. Thing. Exists.
God couldn’t prevent Eve from sinning so how can mere men keep their wives from rebellion.
If a man has this mythical impenetrable frame then he could marry an ex-porn star amd make her never divorce him.
Crap, crap and more crap. Impenetrable frame = Man up and marry sluts. You got divorced – tough – your frame was penetrated.
Reading Rollo, Cane and GreyGhost, American Christian men are wusses, feminised, afraid to confront their wives, and afraid to confront their pastors. They marry ex-sluts and try to turn whores into housewives. Of course, this is a recipe for disaster, non-biblical, and just plain stupid.
Yes, Christian men need to become men like Jesus – masculine, a mission, balls, knowledge of female psychology, God above all (including sex), and perhaps a life of singleness. Can they learn it from the scripture? Yes, if they are godly men around, and not just whipped dogs. The culture is feminised and your churches more so. So it takes the gamers to make you realise the Bible does promote strong decisive masculinity.
Hopefully, you’ll grow a pair and confront the pastors about the femdom in church.
For no impenetrable frame will prevent the brutal anti-marriage legal climate which puts your wife in charge of you, from affecting you. (By the way, what is married game – entertaining Her lest she rape you in divorce court, like those Bugs Bunny cartoons where the snake charmer charms the snake – or is it “i am going to be a man regardless of consequences”).
Is there no covenant marriage etc that the Christians can engage in? Since you are determined to marry rebellious sluts (sorry, ex-sluts), and afraid of confronting the pastors, maybe Dalrock should get a lawyer to post and hiding assets etc so you can at least be men in your femdom marriages.
David Collard,
“The Scientific American article I cited is hard to follow and I suspect some deliberate obfuscation for reasons of PC”
Yes, they fell to the forces of PC sometime in the late nineties. As with all our institutions, still a lot of good work going on, but on anything touching the hot buttons, there will be fingers on scales,
“Desiderius, I was interested in your distinction between hypergamy and the sexy son hypothesis. But I wonder if there is a real difference. Isn’t hypergamy a proxy for attraction to the kind of man who could be a polygnist, whether he actually chooses to be or not in a given social situation?”
No, hypergamy is attraction to a man with higher status, full stop. Who gets to determine that status and how is the key.
“All of these things are normally proxies or honest signals for something deeper. Moreover, if I saw a sexy looking woman, knowing that she is in fact infertile would not make her less subjectively sexy. In the same way, a powerful, exciting man might not choose to spread his seed around, but women would still find him sexy. It is notorious that handsome priests still attract women.”
That’s the base drive. Women find men with power over other men sexy – that’s hypergamy. They also find men with power over other women sexy – that’s polygamy/sexy son. The one is cultural, the other biological. As the latter takes over from the former, civilization suffers.
“What is selected for is potential. Women are hypergamous for powerful men. Whether they use that power to build a company or spend all their time skirt-chasing is not crucial.”
Actually, its everything. Do you want Achilles leading your army, or Paris? The men who get to mate (the best) will be the models upon which the next generation of men constructs their behavior.
“Arguably there is no point in spreading your seed around if you cannot supply resources for all those women. It is quite likely that the polygyny we see in the modern world depends on the creation of agricultural surpluses, and is a relatively recent phenomenon in human history, not relevant to the stage of human evolution in which our mating instincts evolved.”
That stretches credulity, although it is plausible. Pair-bonding is fairly widespread in human cultures – the question is how much culture there actually was in the evolutionary environment. In any event, in an environment in which property rights are relatively less secure, resource provision becomes less optimal and spreading the risk around moreso, which is likely why that approach is becoming more prevalent.
Paris’ time (power among women) is passing – Agamemnon (illegitimate power among men) is in the ascendent. Achilles (legitimate power among men) is justifiably furious.
“I think you mean the Second Wave — with which I identify myself. Those were the feminists of the 60s, 70s, or early 80s. The First Wave would have been the 19th century types like Susan B. Anthony and the suffragists. Those of us hitting 40 wouldn’t remember them!”
No, the first-wave (of this incarnation of feminism) were the Helen Reddys and Marlo Thomas’s – the fun feminists. There have been waves of feminism as long as civilization has been around – to imagine that the suffragettes were the first is to betray an intellectual easiness that doesn’t befit a woman of high standards.
My wife would tell me point blank that she didn’t love me and that I ruined her life. I tried to do everything she asked… to the point of completely submitting to her– and it just made things worse. We’re talking years of that. I believed I was loving her like Christ loved the church.
In the past few months… I stopped walking on eggshells around her and just flatly told her my opinion/feelings every time she wanted to fuss or fight. (I did not succeed in getting a six pack or increasing my earnings by $20,000 a year like Athol Kay said to do.) If she wanted rake me over the coals for being “mean” or unchristian… she got ever verse she flagrantly violates quoted right back at her. In this context… she knows better than to ask me stupid stuff like “does this dress make me look fat?”
Results? She occasionally finds an excuse to touch me lately… and she seems to be seriously mulling over the possibility of more children. She is an avowed feminist… but she responds to masculine assertiveness. I am doing the opposite of everything she *says* she likes, but she is noticeably happier and slowly warming up to me again.
@ DH
But first, in reality, casting the man as the “leader” often DOES lead to him acting like a tinhorn dictator. I’ve seen it over and over and over again. So the theory may be sort of innocuous compared to what I’ve described, but the reality not so much. We see it here on this thread, with folks like David Collard smugly reporting how he directed his wife to wear skirts.
What is the big deal about DC having his wife wear skirts? This is such a small thing his wife does to please him but you seem to be stuck on it as an example of a tyrannical leader. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. It starts with wanting you to wear skirts, then next thing you know he’ll be telling you to have his name branded to your forehead!
It’s the slippery slope fallacy in action with you – guarding against the smallest of requests lest a man lose all sense of proportion and start acting like a tinpot dictator, yet you’ve made no secret of your own dominance in your marriage and seem to be pretty smug about it yourself.
You are unwilling to accept a wife wearing skirts to please her husband, yet you think it’s OK for a wife to dominate her husband to the extent that she goes and gets fucked by other men and then comes home and tells him all about it? Perhaps your husband really is fine with it too, I really don’t care; but why do you have such a bee in your bonnet over a woman pleasing her man?
BTW, much of Christianity is about transcending hypergamy, but you’ve got to get there first before it can be transcended, and much of our society has fallen below even that, hence the confusion over the compatibility of Christianity and game. But Cane is right: much of what Roissy advocates – the exploitation of that fall into polygamy – is profoundly inconsistent with anything Christian, however understood.
@CL,
DH has a problem with any woman pleasing a man, just like all feminists. To her, men were created for women, even though Scripture is rather bold about the distinction that women were created for the pleasure of men.
By the way, this author has his metaphors wrong. People who use game aren’t like Cypher–if anything, this author say’s WE should be like Cypher. Dalrock and others are like Morpheus–saying, “Realize the truth and the lies and use them to your advantage.” Morpheus and the others realized the lies behind the Matrix–and they still used the programs constantly. They used the false world to communicate with other people, to train and learn, to recruit others and spread the truth. Cypher wished he never took the red pill, meaning he wished he was still unaware of the lies. Like a person wishing they still thought “being a sweet guy” will make girls want to date you. Which is understandable. The truth isn’t pretty. But who would want to go back to pretending you don’t need game, when you know that that world isn’t real?
marlon gets it
I’m telling you now, the only solution to those like DH is total and utter separation from them. Let them take care of themselves. At least in America you still have some State rights. Perhaps secession is in order in future?
No. Such. Thing. Exists.
God couldn’t prevent Eve from sinning so how can mere men keep their wives from rebellion.
Having internal frame has nothing to do with keeping your woman in check. I never said it did. It’s about not allowing another person to set the parameters for your life and what you will or won’t accept.
See, this is why I agree with Cane that the focus on game is problematic. It puts the focus on the wrong thing.
I honestly think there are some incorrect premises utlized by the OP.
I question why it is considered that the concept of “game” cannot be done to Christian women or wives? He cites the 16 commandments of poon as the bible of game and as an example of what Christian men cannot do.
I ask, why not? Why can a Christian man not apply many of these commandments? Some I can see, but most I cannot see what rules should prevent a man from doing such things?
Why can’t you ignore her beauty?
Why can’t you have her say “I love you” first?
Why must you play by her rules?
Those are just examples, but you get the idea. Christian men can absolutely employ game to keep their women in line. They are just too indoctrinated by the church not to do so. The church has been hijacked by feminism just like the rest of western culture. Christian men have yet to unite and overthrow the hijackers.
Why? Because Christian men believe they need the knowledge of the hijacked lords of the temple to help them understand the Bible. You don’t need an interpreter to understand God’s word. You only need to trust your interpretation. Break free from teh Church and the warped disciples, form your own conclusions and your own path towards God.
@Cane Caldo
I think you know I don’t disagree on the Bible. I made that case in the original post. However, The problem we have today though is that nearly all Christians have adopted a truckload of non biblical nonsense about men, women, and marriage and then reject any attempt to refute the nonsense because the refutation is either:
1) Biblical, but “sexist”, and we know better now.
2) Not biblical, and since they are Christians they don’t go in for all of that new fangled scientific stuff. All they need is the Bible (except for where it is sexist and therefore out of touch with science and modernity).
We need to never let them wiggle out of this.
If it is humbling to realize that you have been rejecting the Bible in favor of your internalized feminism only after reading game, then it should be. Christians need to not focus on telling the world how much better than Roissy or Evo Psychologists they are. We need to focus on repenting our abandonment of the Bible and giving moral cover to the debasement of marriage in the name of Christ. It should be humbling. Christians knew this truth, and that we have to learn it from outsiders should burn a great deal.
Dalrock,
Would you mind contacting me, via email?
[D: Will do.]
deti-
I think of dominant frame as the real deal. I think of being domineering as the mimicry of the real deal. The dictator has the techniques and tactics without the wisdom.
Doomed Harlot-
I have addressed your comment on my blog.
Cane-
Your commitment to Christian principles is noted, and respected.
@Some Guy
Thanks for chiming in. I’ve followed your comments over at CMD-N since you showed up. I often have you in mind when I think on these things.
@ar10308
I have shared enough about me as it is. It will just have to suffice that Dalrock thought enough of my arguments to give me the space. Whether you think I have authority or not has no bearing on whether the argument has it. You are, of course, free to dismiss anything I write.
@Anonymous_Guy
You’re picking up what I’m putting down, and thanks for the comments.
@theprivateman
Masculine Charisma is very good! I don’t read your blog, so maybe you’ve been saying that for awhile. It seems possible to me that masculine charisma is this “tool” in the set of Game that I keep hearing about, and, yes, it seems amoral to me. When you say: “this is semantics”, are you being derisive, or simply declarative? I think semantics matter; especially given the scope of the problem men turning to Game, the manosphere, etc. are facing?
So would these be acceptable definitions to the group:
Red Pill: understanding the existence of hypergamy, the Feminist matrix, and the implications
thereof.
Masculine Charisma: the set of skills and behaviors that men should possess in order to inspire attraction and devotion in others
Game: a superset of skills that includes masculine charisma, among other skills, especially as documented by PUAs.
I can live with that, if you can.
Cane I totally agree with your diagnosis of “Game” as a way to serve women in hopes they’ll toss you a favor now and then. It’s a shame that people like Dalrock, who are so astute in all other areas, fall for this hollow facade.
@Marlon… Hit the nail on the head.
The only thing I would might attempt to add is “discipline”.
The discipline of the spirit, body, mind, and soul.
To be a disciple of Christ is a serious undertaking and affects every area of ones life.
Be careful of appetites, know the consequences, choose wisely, and take care of the the machine ( the body).
Too many men unknowingly throw away their health and are “spent” by 45.
very few women … would agree to a formal relationship of submission
When I went to a secular University several decades ago, feminism was pervasive. When the subject of marriage would come up I used to openly tell every woman in the room that I would never get married unless the woman agreed ahead of time that I had the absolute final say in everything. I ended up with a whole group of quite attractive women – all friends with each other – around me who would cook, help clean my apartment, etc. I remember going to an academic awards ceremony with two gorgeous ladies on my arms. One asked me to marry her, only half kidding, when I returned my seat from getting my award. She told me that I was the only man she knew who she was certain would out-earn her. So while I think “Game” is a wrongheaded attempt to shoehorn “act like a man” into an otherwise empty toolbox, the notion that acting like a man will not get you female attention is empirically false.
(To the extent the “game” categories are valid at all rather than gross simplifications, I don’t think I am a “natural alpha”. I think I am probably part what the gamer types call omega and part what they call sigma. I spent long periods of time with no female attention and long periods of time with so much that it could get quite annoying. Also I was, though am now moreso, very “idealistic” about morals. I put “idealistic” in scare quotes because in fact acting morally
makes you happy in the long run.)
I do recommend the practice for young men. Just tell everyone, truthfully, when the subject comes up, that you won’t marry unless your wife is absolutely committed to you having ultimate authority in all decisions.
I told myself I was done here but after reading Michael Singer’s comments it has become clear that what I said has been sorely misunderstood.
I do not believe that natural game (impenetrable frame, whatever you want to call it) can keep a wife from sinning or rebelling. Every man or woman is responsible for his own sin or lack thereof. The idea that having a strong internal compass has anything to do with controlling your wife or keeping her from leaving rather than everything to do with being a disciplined human being and follower of Christ is why I reject the emphasis on game as an answer to the problems that ail Christian marriage.
And now, I am truly finished. Good post Cane, and good on you Dalrock for running it.
” When I read some game web sites, I’m struck by how men interpret certain actions as submission when perhaps the women don’t view them that way at all. In college, I used to run out and pick up the takeout while my boyfriend lounged around. Eventually, it emerged that he thought I was “submissive,” whereas I thought I was being kind and generous”
Hey, that is something I also found out. I asked what submissive meant and I got the response “puts out on demand” and “doting and does a lot of caring servicing things for me”. For me, those things mean I care and enjoy caring. So I wonder why it’s called submissive. Perhaps for most women, this behavior means they have submitted and decided to let the guy lead?
Maybe a better (or more obvious) question would be, how does a woman maximize her hypergamy in a christian context?
Answer: Feminize church doctrine until it’s compliant with feminine primacy.
@CC
I don’t believe you have remotely shared enough about yourself. Who you are and what you’ve done is what qualifies you to speak on certain topics. You haven’t qualified yourself to be enough of an expert on either topic.
I have been a Christian for nearly 15 years. I have been through a number of different Christian schools of thought. So I am very well versed in Christianity and the cultural birth pains it is currently experiencing.
I am a relatively new Red Pill taker (~6months), so I’m not that qualified to share my opinions on it, let alone act as some authority define it for others. But I am qualified to make observations regarding the parallels between Christianity and Game, because they practically shout to me now.
Finally, your frame doesn’t matter here. I think Dalrock made a mistake by lending his space for you to write this. You should start your own blog and let is stand on its own validity.
@Dalrock
That’s what I’m trying to say, but (clearly) very poorly. I respect Roissy. I hope some of that came through in the OP and comments.
Back during the DarwinCatholics episode, I thought a lot about the idea of enclaves versus being out in the world, and I came to the decision that–fundamentally–the DCs were right to pursue the pseudo-enclaves, but very wrong in the hardness of their hearts towards their neighbors. If their philosophy (stick with me Deti!) of concern for firefighting is the same as it is for sexual relations, then what good is being their neighbor–which caused me to wonder what good it is to be a Christian.
Similarly, I see time and again from the Christian commenters that we all just need to Game our wives within our own little worlds, and since the culture/spirit of the church sucks–and it surely does–then we’ll just pull out of church. It’s the DCs all over again. This is unsustainable. It allows the debasement of marriage in the name of Christ to continue in our churches, which will then churn out more passive men, which will then get very badly burned (without a firefighter or neighbor to call on), they lose their kids and income, and then they find Game at 30-40 years old. Now, under these circumstances, it seems highly probable to me that the 30-40 man is going to choose to use whichever tactics work; regardless of the consequences. He has been very badly treated, his worldview is shattered, and Hell is open before him. I just want to call them back from the edge. There is another way.
What you are ultimately pointing to, Dalrock, is that Christian men intent on restoring God’s order need to recapture the churches. That’s where I’m heading with all this, but as I have said, I think semantics and language are important. Game has become such a bloated, misconstrued term that a man can walk into a comment box and say “You need to Game your church”, and half the other commenters will high-five him. Conversely, some other confessing Christian will say that PUAs are doing the Lord’s work. Now this may be. God sent an evil spirit to torment King Saul, and we are told we will be turned over to our sins if we do not repent. However; it is monstrously uncharitable to wish this on anyone; even when justified. There is no Bad Samaritan parable where after he patches up the Israelite, then hides in wait to ambush other Samaritans.
What married Christian men are crying out for is submissive wives, but you can’t raise them in the wild, and church is even worse. You can’t Game them into it, either. We have to get them into church, and that church has to be a cleansing place. This is where the cowardice of men comes into it. I’ve heard plenty of men say they’d be run out of church if they declared scriptural headship and order, but I’ve never seen or heard of one trying.
Before Feminism can be cleansed away from us corporately, we need to clean out the washroom.
Furthermore the people with the best game tend to be young, fit, handsome –
Didn’t help me in the least. My “young, fit, handsome” years were the loneliest years of my life.
Now that I’m old, graying, and relatively unfit (due to injuries, not slacking off) — but have a high status job (GAME), a wedding ring (preselection/social proofing — GAME), and beautiful kids (demonstration of genetic quality– GAME), I get IOIs from women everywhere I go… even though I don’t want them.
What you are ultimately pointing to, Dalrock, is that Christian men intent on restoring God’s order need to recapture the churches.
I made earlier comment (on an earlier thread) that Amish don’t need game because the higher status of the husband is structurally imbedded in their culture. Hence hypergamy is automatically satisfied (and, is not inflamed by female promiscuity, either).
Breaking out of our church matrix may be the only way.
On that note — Cane, please see my comment here, re: “Project Minyan”…
http://societyofphineas.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/so-you-want-to-become-a-pastor/#comment-660
@Cane
I am being declarative with my remark on the semantics being at the heart of this whole matter. I’ve been using the word “Charisma” on my blog for over a year now because “Game” doesn’t quite cut it for me. Most other Manosphere bloggers stick with “Game”. It’s their choice.
“So would these be acceptable definitions to the group:
Red Pill: understanding the existence of hypergamy, the Feminist matrix, and the implications
thereof.
Masculine Charisma: the set of skills and behaviors that men should possess in order to inspire attraction and devotion in others
Game: a superset of skills that includes masculine charisma, among other skills, especially as documented by PUAs.”
This is is pretty much it.
This is starting to look like outright AVOIDANCE on the part of Cane Caldo and anit-Game Christians.
Even though I am not afraid of being boring by repeating myself, I will still make this short. We have yet to receive a direct response to the observation that Christians have been using “secular” knowledge to the benefit of Christianity, and we are not just talking math or engineering here. We are talking Secular Philosophy. So stop using that as your answer!!!!
stevie tellatruth above said:
Thomas Aquinas said that ALL TRUTH is GOD’S TRUTH.
Actually, St Augustine was the first to say this. In the first post, “Why Christians Need Game” I observed: ……it has been a long practice of Christianity to appropriate the knowledge of the secular world and use it for their own benefit. The two most famous examples are St. Augustine’s attempt to Christianize Plato and St. Aquinas’ intellectual embrace of The Philosopher.
Let’s be very clear here, like Game, Platonism is NOT Christianity.
Aristotelianism is NOT Christianity.
But yet the great thinkers of the faith used Philosophy. I believe it was St. John of Damascus who first said Philosophy is the Handmaiden of Theology.
Is there a reason anti-Game Christians will not answer this directly? I can only guess at the reasons. Maybe a blog like this does not want to go that deep into the discussion?
If you are not going to answer this, should we just read the Medieval Theologians who were against Athens to get our answer from you?
@ar10308
It’s Dalrock’s business, regardless. It could very well have been a mistake.
You can find all this somewhere here, or within one or two links. I’ve been a Christian for 27 years. Raised Souther Baptist, by a Southern Baptist minister in the old, good, ways of discipline: work, scripture reading, memorization, and writing, Matthew’s Commentary, C.S. Lewis, and pain. Married for almost 18 years. Became an Episcopalian/Anglican six years ago because it seemed to me they were in the most dire need of help of all the denominations to which I could subscribe. First saw Roissy in February 2010, and have been reading Game/manosphere sites ever since.
Now that we’ve established my clearly superior place to yours in this pecking order, what do you have to say?
@Elspeth. In light of Matt 10:34- 36“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword……a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
That is the mind set of the disciple whether married and/or with or without children. The first line of defense in a household is a man and his armor. Luke 11:21-22
When the fully armed strong man guards his palace, the things possessed by him are in peace,
but when a stronger than he comes, after defeating him, “he takes away his full armor”in which he trusted, and divides his booty.
Game is not “armor” – not even close.
Two people cant drive the same car at the same time – it is impossible. Fighting over the wheel will only cause a accident.
Discipline, obedience, self control, deferred gratification /patience are all needed to be a real disciple either male or female.
The typical “crossless” American Christian Christian is soft, immature, lazy, pleasure seeking, whinning wuss ( I’m keeping it light) compared to previous and others who are now persecuted.
Consider why the Jews that came out Egypt that didnt enter the promised land – they complained, whined, fearful, and didnt believe God. God destroyed them in the desert.
Only 2 from the original made it – Joshua and Caleb.
Consider Caleb in Joshua 14:11
“As yet I am as strong this day as I was in the day that Moses sent me: as my strength was then, even so is my strength now, for war, both to go out, and to come in.”
A real relationship with Jesus is a “secure and impregnable fortress” – look at the life of David and Psalms.
This may sound a bit harsh – but women and children are nothing but accessories (Job’s and David’s life).
In America- we idolize and spoil our children ad-nauseam to the point of ruining them(The same goes for spoiling American women). Take a look a 1 Peter 4:1-19 and the rest of the scriptures.
Keep Gods will first and learn righteousness- everything else will fall into place.
Cane: Now that we’ve established my clearly superior place to yours in this pecking order, what do you have to say?
This left a bad taste in my mouth. Smacks of unholy arrogance. It reminded me of this:
“Thou hast called me into Narnia, Rishda Tarkaan. Here I am. What hast thou to say?” – Tash
@CC
Cool.
Get your own blog.
You’ve wasted everyone’s time with another stupid “What is game” semantic discussion.
Sunshinemary: I keep hearing that most single Christian women are sexually active and are marrying later. How can this be? Consider:
Exhibit A: I was a non-Christian feminist when I married. At age 22. With a lower partner count than many Christian girls now have.
Exhibit B: Doomed Harlot is a non-Christian feminist. She married at 23 and had only slept with one other man before her marriage.
Yeah, that’s part of why I stick up for DH. Despite her recent detour, she’s still a lot more faithful and honest than a lot of Christian wives. She puts many of them to shame. And her “n” is a lot lower than most Christian wives… at least it was til about a month ago…
@VR,
Don’t worry about it.
CC is a natural asshole, so just like the pastor of your average Mega Church, he can’t possibly see why men raised in a more modern, feminized church could possibly need help with Game, because being an asshole comes naturally to him.
My guess is that he is around 40ish years of age. And he was raised Southern Baptist by a SB (uber-conservative) preacher about 3 decades ago, so he didn’t internalize much Feminism at all. The climate was very different back then, especially in a lot parts of this country. So again, if you need Game, then clearly it is your problem.
Cane is still hanging on. Dalrock it is time to get busy on destroying feminsm by way of involuntary childless spinsterhood. When the panic starts do not allow the new cultural baseline to be set by cane. Don’t give Gilligan the keys to anything.
Cane Caldo
This is something you posted up earlier
“It’s actually much more horrible than that. I purposefully left out naming the horror in the post until the comments could simmer up a bit. Roissy, Mentu, etc., are right: Virtually all modern Western women are, or were, sluts; including our wives; including the women who post here. The Christian man has to come to terms with this. He cannot Game his way out of it. The VRs of the world (while he may bitterly regret having to MGTOW for a very long time) has the almost unheard-of benefit of having a virgin wife. I’ve been in church my whole life, and I’ve never heard of that. Honest to God. So, he can be bitter if he wants to, but he’s been very blessed.
This is a dirty and diseased time we live in. All the garments out there are filthy. Only by the washing with the water of the Word can the soiling be cleansed.”
so you know better and yet you are still hanging on. You were blessed to live in a time when you get to make the sausage. no “nice’ and neat christianity for you. you get to clean the water. you get to be hated ,you get to be admired by the “wrong” people. dalrock was not kidding about the burn of finding the truth outside of the church. That is manly faith that i think you will get after a ffew days to reflect. let go of the churchianity.
BTW you won’t come out of this as pleasing to man.
“keeping the coming war on feminism from becoming a true war on women. As with the rise of feminism, many from both genders will enthusiastically participate in its demise.
I like that last part… This is what needs to happen.
Feminism & the sexual revolution need to be repudiated. They need to see themselves as repudiated and need to be seen as repudiated..
One of my lesbian polyamorist feminist law professor (from Harvard) admitted to me that same-sex “marriage” would be the gender lefts undoing.
Its ripe for a fall & is rooted from the inside out…
I think the real problem their having (our elites who control the narrative) is that they are the ones that have to do it because their the only ones powerful enough to do it.
There is a reason that Pope Benedicts coat of arms has a bear carrying a backpack on it.
@ Cane Caldo “What you are ultimately pointing to, Dalrock, is that Christian men intent on restoring God’s order need to recapture the churches. That’s where I’m heading with all this, but as I have said, I think semantics and language are important. Game has become such a bloated, misconstrued term that a man can walk into a comment box and say “You need to Game your church”, and half the other commenters will high-five him.”
(Of course, it was recently reported on Onion Radio that 75% of all high fives are unwarranted.)
Anyways… I have nothing to lose. I’ve been a dead man so long I don’t care anymore. As such…
* I ask Christian men point blank how their leadership manifests in the home. The answers are usually embarrassing.
* I ask divorced people who filed and what the given reasons of it were.
* I ask Christian guys what they think of the “sexist” verses.
* In conversations with my wife, I heap shame on the actions women that clearly can’t keep their pants on. This includes fictional women and Facebook type acquaintances. The reactions are predictable (ie, lack of agency, moral equivalency, etc.) but people seem to have no concept that women can be dangerous and driven by lust to destruction.
* I chew out preachers that teach men to submit to their wives… and I spread the word about these debacles. People think I’m a crank, but they can deal.
* I teach the scriptures straight at home… and in the manner that I want to do it.
I imagine its boorish and tiresome to some, but it’s more fun and engaging for me.
Desiderius,
No, the first-wave (of this incarnation of feminism) were the Helen Reddys and Marlo Thomas’s – the fun feminists. There have been waves of feminism as long as civilization has been around – to imagine that the suffragettes were the first is to betray an intellectual easiness that doesn’t befit a woman of high standards.
Oh, I agree that feminism has always been around, as long as women have existed! I’m only referring to the term “first wave” as its commonly understood.
@vR
I don’t think this way, generally; ar10308 does. I attempted to let it go, but he insisted. When a man dares me to gird myself up and represent myself, he needs to be ready to accept the judgment; especially when they are so minor as him confronting that he is less than he assumed.
Someone in this thread that is a far younger Christian than I has an email from me thanking him for humbling me on several points of scripture, and Godly living.
I’ll reply to your Minyan project over there.
@ar10308
Semantics can be very important. Sometimes it’s “You say to-ma-to, I say to-mah-to”, and sometimes it’s, “You say to-ma-to, I say get off my nuts.”
from The Abolition of Man (note, the Tao is traditional understanding of societal good, and Lewis is illustrating attempts to overthrow it with Reason):
VR, keep sticking up for the Jezebel, she will inevitably convince you of her greater stature. I remind you that she has told us that she would have slept with as many men as she pleased. She slept with both her boyfriend and her husband the first night they met. She only married because she was ‘decisive’ and not Godly. This women is a slut.
She’s now misusing her husband’s cheating and impotence as a reason to have an open marriage. She has no children. She has no belief other than being hedonistic and enjoying pleasures in life with no thought to consequence.
I would warn you of the sheep in wolves clothing but I think most Christians have missed the point entirely. Anyway, have at it.
Pingback: GBFM & Heartistes totally pwn and lead dalrock lzozzlzlzoz & why “gamey” christians detest the boldness and beauty of jesus christ « Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozl
FH: VR, keep sticking up for the Jezebel, she will inevitably convince you of her greater stature
Oh, I’m under no illusions as to how far off base she is. I merely point out that she’s better than some “Christian” women. Sunshinemary observed the same. But….better-than, doesn’t mean right: “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, ye shall in no way enter the kingdom…”
VR the point being, those ‘Christian’ women ain’t Christian. Just like DH, they are pretenders. They use Christianity to get what they want, not to serve God and certainly not to serve their husband in faithfulness and submission.
Re: Feminism & the sexual revolution…and its need to destroyed as a publicly exceptable philosophy
“Truth is power. But one can see that only in rare instances, because it is suffering and must be defeated as long as it is truth. When it has become a victorious others will join it. Why? Because it is truth? No, if it had been for that reason they would have joined it also when it was suffering. Therefore they do not join it because it has power. They join it after it has become a power because others have joined it.”
-Soren Kierkegaard.
It is my considered opinion that our current culture can continue down this path, just as the former Soviet Union required Ronald Reagan heating up the cold war & the arms race to bring about its demise.
We cannot simply wait for it to collapse because of it own internal contradictions… Its demise needs to be precipitated and then managed.
The frame for these comments is incorrectly tied to acceptance of hypergamy.
There is a reason the bible was (is) known as The Law.
Bible says : marry young and chaste.
This is for proper pair bonding for life.
Bile says no adultery or fornication.
This is for bonding and preventing loss of family and sexually transmitted diseases.
THERE USED TO BE A TIME THE LAW OF THE LAND reflected the laws of the bible and hence those of civilization.
Now we have courts that work for chaos,anarchy,and loss of family by rewarding hypergamy with cash and prizes.
THERE IS NO WAY TO HAVE A CIVILIZED SOCIETY WHEN THE LAW PROMOTES SUBVERSION.
The bible reflects natural law,what is healthy and good for civilization is exactly the contents therein as advertised.
leapofabeta said
“And Christianity is certainly not game. I find it humorous when people try to claim it is. It is simply a system that was developed and set in place by God so that hypergamous instincts that women have are controlled by society as a whole. This was to lessen the burden on the individual husband to do so, and free him up to achieve greater success with his family, his community, his Church, and humanity as a whole in terms of God’s purpose.’
He’s exactly right.
With the SLUT inspired lawz and the resultant lack of civilized values being enforced on the street anarchy reigns.
Want that neighbors wife?Just disrespect the fellow and show dominance over him and temporary value to the wife and she’s yours.
Woman wants the resources of a dozen men? Use her sex and extract value from each,and if one comes to gripe,set the law upon him.
You must see Christianity cannot operate in a non Christian society that actively acts against civilized behaviors.This is why the modern secular woman is so ARROGANT,she has the satanic courts behind her to violate the Godly man by Proxy violence.
Today that proxy violence outweighs and moderating pro-family,pro-life,pro civilization behaviors out there.
Want it?
Take it!
Christ was the ultimate respecter of property rights over persons,and he clearly defined marriage as two people who belong as property)to each other and NOT TO THE WORLD.
The gamers and sluts are of this secular anti-christic world,and operate by the principle of MIGHT MAKES RIGHT and to hell with guidelines for moral behavior.
The fact that most of the comments upon this thread are in the frame of modifying behaviors to accommodate the sin of sluttery show just how far astray this society has gone:that we cannot even remember WHY the Law was written, we just want some snatch,yet we want that snatch to be true.Well you cannot have it both ways,you cannot serve two masters.
Summation:
Very similar to most here due to the satanic nature of our courts and hence culture.
God is AMOG and he will let your society crash and burn by not listening to what he clearly wrote to you-out of a kindness that you might be spared,but no, like a dog back to the vomit women want MORE and men want those sinful women.
Marriage is dead,not due to hypergamy,but due to the courts and law of the land turning to satanic values over Christian values.
Whatever: but do not expect exclusive access to any woman,married or not,with this court system in place.
There will always be room for adultery,not matter how a man might try to be the ultimate all the time,she wants variety.The courts support her in that regard.
Frankly the Islamics
are doing the old testament punishments,and THAT IS WORKING to keep adultery and fornication out of wedlock to a minimum.
That fact that Hitlery uses this to wage war against them shows another arrogant woman wanting to fuck up a system where the family remains intact.
As Christians we are supposed to stomp the snake of sin out of existence,not learn to be snake handlers.
FH: VR the point being, those ‘Christian’ women ain’t Christian. Just like DH, they are pretenders. They use Christianity to get what they want
They’re worse than DH, because DH doesn’t pretend. Which, in a way, may make it easier for her to one day repent. (Although there’s no guarantee of that.)
CL says:
What is the big deal about DC having his wife wear skirts? This is such a small thing his wife does to please him but you seem to be stuck on it as an example of a tyrannical leader. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. It starts with wanting you to wear skirts, then next thing you know he’ll be telling you to have his name branded to your forehead!
It’s the slippery slope fallacy in action with you – guarding against the smallest of requests lest a man lose all sense of proportion and start acting like a tinpot dictator, yet you’ve made no secret of your own dominance in your marriage and seem to be pretty smug about it yourself.
You are unwilling to accept a wife wearing skirts to please her husband, yet you think it’s OK for a wife to dominate her husband to the extent that she goes and gets fucked by other men and then comes home and tells him all about it? Perhaps your husband really is fine with it too, I really don’t care; but why do you have such a bee in your bonnet over a woman pleasing her man?
I think this is a great, VERY reveailng, comment because it gets to the heart of what “domination” means and doesn’t mean. AR1038 in his (or her?) comment above also seems to think an unwillingness to be submissive to a husband is the same thing as unwillingness to please him.
It is almost as if the only way you all can conceive of pleasing a man is through submission.
CL, you are confusing a request from a husband with a command from a husband. There’s nothing wrong with a husband saying, “I always love seeing you in skirts, I wish you would wear skirts more often” and the wife then wearing skirts to please him. But that’s not what David Collard was talking about; he was talking about directing his wife to wear skirts. Don’t you see the difference?
And that’s one of my many beefs with the concept of male leadership and female submission, which I mentioned above. It robs the woman of many chances to show love and generosity, because, under a dominance and submission model, the man takes it as his due. For example, I believe it was David upthread who claims the man is “cheated” when the wife doesn’t cook for him.
As for my own marriage, we’ve gone arond and around on this on this blog to the point that everyone is sick of it, and rightfully so. But for the zillionth time, a mutual agreement to sleep around that came about after my husband placed an online profile seeking another woman, is hardly an example of me dominating him. Most women would have been filing for divorce, or demanding that he take down the profile.
@CC
You say “To-mah-to”, I say get your own blog.
I say it’s pretty damned simple.
If you are Christian man, you can use techniques in Game to better yourself and to do things that will increase your respect and attractiveness with women and avoid doing things that don’t.
Game doesn’t give you license to be sexually active.
If you are a Christian male and do not understand this, then you may need to go back to Sunday School.
“When a man dares me to gird myself up and represent myself, he needs to be ready to accept the judgment; especially when they are so minor as him confronting that he is less than he assumed.”
Judgement is God’s alone. You’d think your Southern Baptist father would have taught you that. I didn’t dare you. I requested it of you, as a courtesy. Much in the same way a guest speaker is introduced before an professional or religious organization before they are given the pulpit.
I was also raised in the church and Sunday School, so I could have added a few years to my being a Christian if I had wanted to, however I didn’t actively accept Christ until I was about 14.
“Now that we’ve established my clearly superior place to yours in this pecking order, what do you have to say?”
You couldn’t just point out that you are older than me with more experience and let me inherently respect you based on that (which I would have)?
You had to rub it in, thereby losing much of the respect I would have given you.
You’d make a great Pharisee with that attitude.
I do appreciate your comments, VR. It’s not so much that I need anyone to stick up for me, because there is no harm that can come to me in this anonymous forum. But I appreciate that you don’t distort who I am or what I’m about, even though you do disapprove of it.
@ar10308
How do you get through life carrying that giant chip? It’s so big it’s blocking your view. You don’t need to respect me. I don’t need you to respect me. Dalrock doesn’t need you to respect me. No one here needs you to respect me.
You really should take this up with Dalrock. I was asked to write this post.
David Collard says: Another point. SunshineMary’s remarks about Game and “play submission” are important. Play submission may not imply real submission.
I think this is a hugely important point. Plenty of women, including feminist women, have a submission fetish. Doesn’t mean that they want to be bossed around when they are done playing in the bedroom, any more than your classic-British-member-of-the-House-of-Lords wants to be a second class citizen after he emerges from the dominatrix’s den.
And then there is also the phenomenon of conservative women making a great show of submission, while using back-door techniques (such as passive-aggression) to rule the roost.
The center and circumference of Civilization was and is Property Rights.
Jesus & Moses taught “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor ass, nor your neigbor’s wive’s ass.”
The fiat bankers had to deconstruct the Great Books and Classics so as to assault and destroy the fundamental tenet of all Civilization–Thou Shalt Not Steal, as a fiat currency steals 24/7.
Dat is why da butthexter sodomite asscocker “Gamer” Tucker MAx rhymes iwth goldman sax & Ben Bernanke rhymes with spank me lzozlzlzlzoz
Prof. Ashur, I will trot over to your blog as soon as I have a moment. It looks like I have to figure out how to sign in.
stunned
right off the bat i post links that conclusively demonstrate that the idea of game as we know it is complete bs
300+ posts later… still arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin
folks getting laid is not hard, get in shape, get some decent style, hit on a ton of girls and escalate, escalate, escalate – that’s it, that’s game, that’s all, unless you have some sort of gross deformity or are socially deranged that is all there is to it – if you do the preceding somewhere between 1-10% of girls you hit on will bang you, usually around 5% – thats it!!!!!!!
the more interesting question in my mind is marriage which is clearly falling apart in the west and that is no bueno and not something that guys who actually get laid are tackling right now
i dont think things bode well for a society that cant keep its families together and i read dalrock primarily for his discussion of those topics i hope to pull off marriage and kids one day but it seems like an extremely risky proposition and there is a dearth of quality women hence plan b: getting laid and being a bachelor
whats a poor boy to do in this world? to say nothing of a christian boy at that
@ Doomed Harlot
”Plenty of women, including feminist women, have a submission fetish.”
Feminists have fetishized what used to be typical and still is normal for many women. Women have been propagandized into believing that their heart’s desire is wrong . These empowered women are UNHAAAPY but would discover security and protection in a hierarchy under a dominant benevolent masculine man.
300+ posts later… still arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin
Yeah, it would have been more fun to argue how many angels can dance on a pole…
/evil grin>
7man says:
Feminists have fetishized what used to be typical and still is normal for many women.
I don’t think feminists have created the fetish for submission. It is a very human tendency to cope with otherwise emotionally intolerable power imbalances by eroticizing them. That’s why a lot of British schoolboys who were flogged in school grew up to become sexual masochists.
Mencken says:
folks getting laid is not hard, get in shape, get some decent style, hit on a ton of girls and escalate, escalate, escalate – that’s it, that’s game, that’s all, unless you have some sort of gross deformity or are socially deranged that is all there is to it – if you do the preceding somewhere between 1-10% of girls you hit on will bang you, usually around 5% – thats it!!!!!!!
Indeed. Game is really a numbers game. It proves nothing universal about the nature of women or of men.
stunned right off the bat i post links that conclusively demonstrate that the idea of game as we know it is complete bs
They do nothing of the sort. Which is why you are being correctly ignored. You clearly have nothing worthwhile to add to the discussion.
Comment of the thread, from Suz:
Dear Christan-Game strategists, you are missing the following important point: The massive popularity of posts like these, of fusionist bloggers like Dalrock, and of talented hedonist truth-tellers like Roissy indicates that there is an unsatisfied constituency for simple truth telling. When the thirsty are not given the living water, they will drink pollutant.
Not only do we Christians believe the ends to which Roissy applies his insight are wrong, we know that they are inherently self-defeating and self-destructive: “The wages of sin is death.” Therefore focus on the elements of the hedonist truth-teller’s philosophy with which we agree. Cane Caldo’s (among others’) focus on the ways we differ with the accidental PUA ethos — even going so far as to call it oppositional, contradictory, and evil! — is making the perfect the enemy of the good. It reminds me of Catholics and Protestants who exhaust themselves over theological minutiae rather than uniting in a single, Christ-fearing front against modernity’s creeping paganism/nihilism/hedonism. We quarrel over angels on the head of a pin while the churches are ransacked. (Cf. Benedict XVI’s Regensberg Address)
If game were fundamentally incompatible with Christianity, it would be the den of iniquity Caldo claims of it — and this is simply not the case. There is a serious Christian contingent that is not afraid of consorting with prostitutes and tax collectors when we see the truth — the Christ — within them. But we are also prudent enough not to rub salt in the wounds of our incidental divisions! We do not challenge Roissy on his hedonism or atheism except when a defense is absolutely required. Rather we show him that the truth he professes is indeed applicable to a Christian way of living by saying, “Here’s how.” None of them, and I mean none of them (though many of their smarter proponents try) can make a serious case for linking hedonism or evo-psych or any of that neopagan nonsense with game at a level that is worth philosophically engaging, and that is the error Caldo perpetuates above.
The “Game is Incompatible with Christianity” cohort on both sides discount the accidents of history, specifically the end-times of the sexual revolution and feminism in which we will live out the rest of our lives. These lies must collapse, and when they do, the vast silent majority of eager readers will seek guidance in the right places. Will we meet them on profane grounds to provide it? The institutions are already collapsing and the thirsty are swallowing the fratboy PUA ethos whole because good Christians like Caldo don’t want to get their hands dirty. They wait for God to do the dirty work of cleaning up the streets, rather than taking soup and scripture down to the drug-addled whores of the red light district. We are the Body of Christ, his hands and feet, we are the instruments of his grace. In the sexual chaos already upon us, and in the great clash soon to come, we simply must represent The Way, The Truth, and The Life in all precincts to let lost souls know there is an alternative to nihilism and slow suicide. We are the candle in the sewer, we are the light of the world. We do not curse the darkness. We engage it.
Now we are engaged in a great sexual war, testing whether that culture, or any culture, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. Are we to retreat to the catacombs, wait for the war to exhaust itself, and then emerge as paradigm-defining survivors? Perhaps — an apocalyptic “prepper” approach has its attractions. Or are we to be “in the world but not of it”? Consider that we are commanded to
Eager volunteers, spontaneous militias of the Ecclesia Militans are clamoring to be armed, and Caldo would deny them the most effective weapon in this fight — game, as an unapologetic manliness has come to be known in the context of the denouement of the sexual revolution. Did Christ counsel a Quaker pacifism? No, and only a radically feminized Christianity imagines so, picking out the Gentle Jesus passages in order to neuter the defining example of righteous manliness, Christ himself. “Do not think I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Are we to shrink from the fight of our age, the one that will lead our culture toward either Jerusalem or Gomorrah?
Feminine passivity will not win this war, and if we are to be victims in our passivity, it will not be the conquering-victimhood of The Redeemer. Rather than martyrs, we will be sacrificed in the service of emasculating the world, furthering the repulsive cryptofeminism of the 20th Century’s reinterpretation of scripture as the bitch of profane ends. We will not have died in Christ, and we will therefore never rise in Christ.
What has happened since the Church Militant asked its male component to live the way of the beta? Rather than becoming beta, the congregations depleted themselves of men. We knew this demanded castration could not possibly be of God. We walked away, and I was one of those who abandoned The Body of Christ. Feminism thus achieved the greatest shit-test, daring to transform The King of Kings into a beta supplicant, with men whimpering in the face of such blasphemy — and Caldo signs onto the cause! By God, no.
We fight.
The Son of God goes forth to war,
A kingly crown to gain;
His blood red banner streams afar:
Who follows in His train?
Who best can drink his cup of woe,
Triumphant over pain,
Who patient bears his cross below,
He follows in His train. …
A noble army, men and boys,
The matron and the maid,
Around the Savior’s throne rejoice,
In robes of light arrayed.
They climbed the steep ascent of Heav’n,
Through peril, toil and pain;
O God, to us may grace be given,
To follow in their train.
Matt
@CC,
You don’t need me to respect you? Then why the neg at the end of your comment? You couldn’t let your experience speak for itself?
I’m not the only one calling you out on this. I was gonna let it slide, but then I realized I’ve done that most of my life and I don’t feel like being Nice any more.
You haven’t even tried to understand what I’m saying. Go feed the whores in the red light. I’m worried about the ones in our homes.
CC: Go feed the whores in the red light.
I’m worried about the ones in our homes.
Well said!
“folks getting laid is not hard, get in shape, get some decent style, hit on a ton of girls and escalate, escalate, escalate…”
See those three repeated words at the end of the quote? Yeah… any guy with masculine charisma could cope with escalating.
And how many guys in church have such masculine charisma? How many guys not in church have such masculine charisma?
Sure, getting laid is easy. I’ll be in the back giving lessons and collecting checks while all the other guys are getting constantly shot down for not having masculine charisma.
Freebird brought up a great point and it is worth repeating….
“As Christians we are supposed to stomp the snake of sin out of existence,not learn to be snake handlers.”
@ar10308
I probably could have done a better job in introducing Cane’s guest post. I considered putting a note introducing it but decided against it because the post was discussed in a previous thread and I also didn’t want to place his rebuttal of my own post on a lesser footing.
I assume most here understand not only that I disagree with Cane on this topic, but how and where I disagree with him. Even so, I asked Cane to contribute this post because in my mind the topic is extremely important and the discussion is needed. Cane is in that sense playing the role of devil’s advocate (from my perspective). I can only gain from the experience:
1) I can learn something new from Cane’s framing of the issue and his defense of his post.
2) I can learn something from the discussion of the post by others in the comment section.
3) I have an argument I can now focus on refuting (although in the process I may end up learning something instead via 1 &2 above).
If you feel that 1&2 don’t apply in your case, I would encourage you to at least take advantage of item 3. Don’t worry about changing Cane’s mind, but make your case for the others reading (there are far more reading than are actually commenting). It helps a great deal to have an opposing argument you can refute; otherwise you find yourself trying to present the opposing case as well as your own.
I respect Cane and his passion on this issue, and I have no question that he is approaching this from a sincere desire to come to the right answer. Writing this post took a great deal of effort and I am impressed with his submission. Cane and I are actually much closer I think than the discussion itself might lead one to believe at first glance. At the core I think we agree on 80-90% of the issue, but we probably are using different terms to define things or approaches to solve a given problem. I don’t know you as well but I can tell that you have great passion on this too; I look forward to reading what you have to share*.
*I haven’t read through the full discussion and probably won’t be able to for a day or so. I have been very busy both at home and at work.
NoOne,
“Is there a reason anti-Game Christians will not answer this directly? I can only guess at the reasons. Maybe a blog like this does not want to go that deep into the discussion?”
Oh Jesus H. Christ. It is because the advocates of game explicitly advocate using it for utterly Satanic purposes. The links are right there in the original post.
Their diagnosis of the disease is spot on, their cure pure poison. Could just be the fever that kills the infection, but in any event the recovery of the patient will be in Christian hands or will not happen at all.
“That’s what I’m trying to say, but (clearly) very poorly.”
Oh good God, man, you had enough sack to write the original post, don’t go all soft in the knees now. Your (false?) modesty is insulting. My time is valuable – I don’t spend it replying to dipshits.
Passionate disagreement is the sound of minds changing. Yours and mine. That’s how truth is discovered. See the Kierkegaard quote above.
You want men in the church, be enough of a man that we’ll feel at home once we’re there.
This isn’t going to be as fun as it looks in the brochure; not for the spurned old men, not for those women, and not for those people called to look after unmarried old women and orphans. If you find yourself fantasizing about this, you’re not very good at it.
Freebird & Micheal Singer
“As Christians we are supposed to stomp the snake of sin out of existence,not learn to be snake handlers.”
This seems to come up again & again in these threads. I think the pure game community just wants to get laid or improve their ability to deal with woman.
However: when you bring in the Christians with the same understanding of the problems of hypergamy, feminism & the sexual revolution you end up with a yearning for a different dynamic.
Various posters in this comment section and others keep calling for overthrowing the sexual revolution and reinsitating the patriarchy.
Thats the only real solution…period.
It will be difficult… but once men take the red pill they can come to realize the futility of seeking a traditional marriage.
The current culture’s framing of these issues within feminism & sexual liberalism makes it impossible to discuss these truth’s and gain any traction in the larger culture.
Hence the need for a counter-revolution..
“Dalrock, it is time to get busy on destroying feminsm by way of involuntary childless spinsterhood.”
There will be no hilarity in a generation of angry and frustrated men who can’t find girlfriends and/or wives. There will be civil unrest and violence. There are already 100 million surplus men in China – 100 million unattached, sexually frustrated men. Demographics is destiny.
As for the United States? With 60% of ALL college graduates female and most of those with serious debt, hypergamy is going to result in demographic doom for any girl not slender and feminine enough to land an alpha husband who can help pay down that debt.
@ Cane Caldo
“This isn’t going to be as fun as it looks in the brochure; not for the spurned old men, not for those women, and not for those people called to look after unmarried old women and orphans. If you find yourself fantasizing about this, you’re not very good at it.”
You sir, though I respect your opinions, are wrong. I am good at it. I am very good at it. In a way that you might not be able to understand. This “fantasy” as you lustfully call it is not a fantasy but a prophetic vision. The end of that vision is my reality.
@DH and Mencken,
Mencken says:
folks getting laid is not hard, get in shape, get some decent style, hit on a ton of girls and escalate, escalate, escalate – that’s it, that’s game, that’s all, unless you have some sort of gross deformity or are socially deranged that is all there is to it – if you do the preceding somewhere between 1-10% of girls you hit on will bang you, usually around 5% – thats it!!!!!!!
Indeed. Game is really a numbers game. It proves nothing universal about the nature of women or of men.”
Sure it’s a numbers game. But I have to point out that a success rate between 1 and 10 percent is a pretty wide spread. Nobody would believe that everyone is exactly the same on this scale. If you apply a bell curve to that success rate there would still be the outliers. The guys at the low end who face 99 rejections, some of which will likely be nuclear, just to get that one notch. On the other hand you have a guy hitting 1 out of 10. Exactly 1000 percent better. Who do you think is motivated to continue? You see the same in the PUA marketplace. Guys who have banged dozens of women versus guys who have slept with three women in their entire life with significant breaks in between each of the three.
For those of you who work in a sales environment you see this every day. Reps are pushed to increase their activity. Get more prospects! But the better reps have a better close rate. They don’t go on 10 times the calls as the next person. There isn’t enough time in the day. They are better at identifying the “buying signals” at work and the “indicators of interest” in the bar after work. They are even better at qualifying the opportunities so they don’t waste time on a customer that has no intention of buying (or banging). Sure, you can say that different people on the same team would have the same performance with the same experience and training, but it just isn’t true. Some have taught themselves how to be good at sales. Some just work harder (to a point as you can’t work 24 hours a day). Some are just naturally gifted. But they aren’t all the same. And thank goodness for that, because if they were every sales team would have exactly the same performance every year. Everyone would earn the same money. Where’s the fun in that? Running a good sales team with these people is a joy to manage and also very lucrative.
Let’s back it into a more basic sales position. Car Sales. Every rep in the dealership gets pretty much the same number of opportunities. The customer is in a position of power because they can go down the street to the next dealership and shop for the same thing the current dealer is offering. (Sound familiar folks? Especially to you ladies?) Every one of these reps is taught to “escalate, escalate, escalate” because they have a small window to close the sale. If the customer walks away they likely don’t see them again. Except when they see them driving down the road later on in a new car purchased at another dealer. (Again, sound familiar?)
But some Car Sales Reps consistently sell more cars in an environment that is still mostly cold approach sales. Why? It ain’t luck. And it ain’t just having 10 times as many prospects as the next guy.
Some people are just plain naturals and some are self taught, but they are still better at recognizing and acting upon social cues and dynamics. And whether they are selling cars or trying to get laid they do way better than the average.
Understanding the ebb and flow of social dynamics is all that game does. Whether you choose to use it for selling cars, getting laid, or managing your personal relationships doesn’t matter. The more you internalize it the more you improve your “close”rate.
Keep that in mind folks. You won’t sell a car to every customer you meet. You won’t bang every chick you meet. You won’t get your girlfriend or wife to believe that you are the single most important thing in the world every minute of every day. But if you improve your “close” you will certainly improve your life.
Cane,
“Go feed the whores in the red light. I’m worried about the ones in our homes.”
Isn’t a whore a whore? Do you deal with the whores in the red light district differently that the “ones in our homes?” Our homes are now IN the red light district.
You can play with words to define Game as something different than Christian male leadership (you whose manner oozes Game) and maybe there are differences in focus and motives. The bottom line is that they are parallel; they employ parallel techniques to achieve parallel results. Are you trying to obscure this truth from good Christian men, 99.9% (or more) of whom must marry and have children with “whores,” if they are to marry and have children at all?
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. What is the difference between Game, of which you disapprove, and Biblically-based Christian male leadership, which you promote? And what is the practical use of that difference?
@ Desiderius
At least you make your ignorance obvious . . . there is merit of a kind to that. You state:
“Oh Jesus H. Christ. It is because the advocates of game explicitly advocate using it for utterly Satanic purposes. The links are right there in the original post.”
It would be easy to quote ideas directly from Plato and Aristotle that are utterly at odds with Christianity. They were NOT disciples of Christ. Yet, the church fathers were able to extract “truths” and apply them within a Christian framework.
Cane Cado’s next post forth coming, “Socrates Problem, The ways in which Athens and Jerusalem should be separate geographically and intellectually.”
I’d read it…..
Privateman:
Good point. So now, young women will implore their beta suitors not only to ignore their past sluttiness; but also take on the premarital education debt of their brides to be.
Women’s answer is to add injury to insult. “I ignored you when I was 21. But now I’m 29, I see The Wall, and BTW, I have $50K in education debt which you’ll help me pay down, right? I love you, betaboy!”
What exactly does the man get out of this deal? A 50% chance that his wife will divorce him and take the kids. Shitty, baggage laden sex. A heart he never gets to see because of her “issues”.
@Deti
“What exactly oeees the man get out of this deal? A 50% chance that his wife will divorce him and take the kids. Shitty, baggage laden sex. A heart he never gets to see because of her “issues”.”
Yes. Yes and yes. Why more men are not just MGTOW but scorched earth is beyond me. I don’t preach, I act. Not, I think therefore I am, but I do.
@Desiderius
It’s not false modesty, it’s tired-Game. Har.
I think I did a pretty good job of laying out my case, though definitely made one mistake: I severely underestimated how sold many are on the idea of Game. Since I’ve been reading about it for a long time, and am still grappling with the implications, trying to corral all the related-but-seemingly-opposing-tangents, and come to a coherent (in the full sense of the word) definition, etc., then I assumed a larger group of others were, too. Personally, I’m not sold out on any idea except the Gospel, and the rest of scripture. Everything else is mutable.
Now, what I actually set out to talk about was Game in Christian marriage, and trying to reconcile that with Ephesians 5. Haven’t got there yet.
Furthermore, I started out under bizarre of conditions: Game is monolithic, and yet most here agree with it implicitly–rarely arguing against any facet or tangent thrown out as Game–,but can’t define it in a way that incorporates all those tangents. It fell to me to define it, though I believed I disagreed with it. This had to be done before I could even move onto the subject of Game in Christian marriage; which is what I really wanted to talk about. I never denied the possibilities of Game, but think they too often stand in opposition to what Ephesians 5 lays out.
There are already 100 million surplus men in China – 100 million unattached, sexually frustrated men. Demographics is destiny.
And soon their landing crafts will be hitting the Pacific Coast…
@Cane,
Very good post but I’m 359 comments behind so I wanted to briefly note it before digging through the comments. You are right that Game as a complete system is incompatible to the Christian ethic and you did a good job of describing why.
I believe it is not sufficient to simply have a marriage strike & MGTOW and expect feminism & the sexual revolution to stop…
These phenomena need to be reinforced by express politcal and social counter revolution. That is they need to be seen and understood as the phenomina it is, & the reasons behind it.
If this manosphere and MGTOW penomina does not end up becoming an express counter revolution then those mens sacrifice will have been for nothing.
The left has shown the pronounced ability to ignore the likes of the complete breakdown of marriage among the underclass (70% illigetamacy rates) & the human pain of 50 million abortions..
They will not be desuaded, or even put the pieces togther as far as the marriage strike is concerned.
To the contrary they will actively suppress that truth & one day you will find it being used & reframed to support feminism itself.
Cane Caldo
Here is a link to a little study, that will download the study in a pdf. It is not large.
http://www.people.hbs.edu/acuddy/in%20press,%20carney,%20cuddy,%20&%20yap,%20psych%20science.pdf
If that does not work, there is a clickable link here:
http://paleohacks.com/questions/24979/posture-increase-testosterone-decrease-cortisol#axzz23jbxYq3Zhttp://paleohacks.com/questions/24979/posture-increase-testosterone-decrease-cortisol#axzz23jbxYq3Z
The study uses a small number of men and women, it would be more useful with a larger N.
The purpose of the study was multifaceted. One part is useful for this discussion.
Here is the methodology:
“Forty-two participants (26 females and 16 males) were randomly assigned to the high pose or the low power pose condition. Participants believed that the study was about the science of physiological recordings and was focused on how placement of electrocardiography electrodes above and below the heart could influence data collection. Participants bodies were posed by an experimenter into high power or low power poses. Each participant held two poses for 1 minute each. Participants risk taking was measured with a gampling task; feelings of power were measured with self reports. Saliva samples, which were used to test cortisol and testosterone levels, were taken before and approximately 17 minutes after the power pose manipulation.
There is a section in the paper on the saliva collection and analysis, it is good work. The high and low power poses are shown in images in the paper.
The bottom line: standing in certain poses resulted in a decrease in cortisol and an increase in testosterone. Standing in other poses had the reverse effect: increase in cortisol, decrease in testosterone.
Note that the effects are physiological – the subjects thought they were doing something else. An increase in testosterone in men will have known effects – deeper voice, different odor to sweat, and so forth. This is why some aspects of Game work even when the man using them doesn’t believe they will because physiology rather than psychology is at work.
Take four men, and have them all assume “power” poses. One’s posing because God told him to do so, the second is posing because Game tells him to, the third is posing because he’s getting paid 20 bucks to do so, the fourth one was looking for a different office and got lost. The evidence of the study indicates all four men will have an increase in testosterone and a decrease in cortisol that is detectable, measurable, verifiable and repeatable.
This fits in perfectly with the experience of many men; skeptical, doubting, they apply a Game technique to yet another fitness test from their wife, and they get a different result than they have seen before when they have used the socially approved beta response. The results are independent of the intention of the man using it.
You say that you reject all Game. Ok, then you must completely, totally, utterly reject all of it, else you are doing exactly what you accuse other men of doing – taking some stuff out of the bucket, and keeping the rest. That means you must personally adjust your posture at all times, such that your testosterone will be decreased. Because standing up tall is part of Game. Here is a previous response to the short form of my argument:
2) No, I’m saying Christian men should walk tall because scripture says you have been given a spirit of power, and not a spirit of timidity. Game says you should walk tall to catch women’s eyes.
Standing tall in a powerful posture has the exact same results, whether one is doing it for God or for Cthulhu. The effects on testosterone are independent of the intent. There are other game techniques that no doubt are likewise independent of intent. They work because of the way humans are, period.
Analogy:
You show me two toolboxes. One is labeled Game. You open it, and I see a hammer, a small saw, some screwdrivers, a couple of pairs of pliers, a 3/4″ socket set, as well as some lock picks, a slim jim car unlocker, and other burglar tools. You declare this tool box is bad, bad.
You show me another tool box, labeled Not Game. It contains the exact same things except for the lock pics, slim jim and other burglar tools. You insist that the Not Game tool set is totally different from the Game tool set, but in reality it is just a subset in a different colored case.
Analogy:
We go to a Tae Kwon Do dojo. There is a man who breaks two boards with a hammer fist. I suggest that this could be a useful thing to know. You inform me that Asian martial arts are not of God, that they are bad, bad bad. You take me to another gym, the sign says Christian Fighting. I see a man breaking two boards in the exact same was as the man at the dojo, turn to you and say “Ah, the hammer fist again”. You get indignant and inform me “Certainly not, that’s the well known David Slingshot technique. It is completely, totally different”. Same actions, different label.
I repeat: if you reject Game, you must reject all of it, every single bit, including the purely physiological parts such as power stances. Otherwise, you appear to be taking that Game bucket, removing what you do not like from it, spray-painting the outside of the bucket a different color & slapping a fish-sticker on it, then claiming both the bucket and the contents are now completely different.
I’m late to the party, but I made notes as I read through, so I might as well chime in.
@Cane – I’m not saying that. I’m saying Dalrock doesn’t Game his wife.
I was kind of puzzled by the reaction to this article and the author’s comments on previous posts, because they seemed based on knocking down very well-constructed strawmen and always answering a slightly different question than the one being asked. But so many people were impressed that I started thinking maybe I was wrong and missing something. Then I read the line above, where you basically say, “No, people don’t get to define their own actions; I get to define them with Roissy’s terms so they support my position.” Thank you for clearing that up for me. There were some good comments to reflect and remark on, though.
Opus, as others said, you don’t have to be a Game champion to see excellent results. When I took the red pill at the age of about 33, I didn’t make any drastic changes. I just stopped supplicating, stopped acting like women were doing me a favor by spending time with me, and stopped suppressing my cocky, teasing personality around them. I had more dates in the next year than I’d had in the previous 33, despite being fatter, balder, and broker than ever before. (How broke? I’d tell women I couldn’t afford the gas money to go out, so they’d come to my apartment for dinner. No problem.) For such a small change — mostly just taking women off the massive pedestal I’d built — the results were astonishing.
To the MGTOW guys, I’ll quote that great ex-minister Sam Kinison: what are we gonna do, give sheep the vote? Sorry, but turning off the desire for a wife isn’t an option for many of us. I discerned my vocation a long time ago, and I’m *supposed* to be married. There’s a wife-shaped hole in my life that can’t be filled by any amount of weight-lifting or rock-climbing or any of those other self-affirming things men do when they’re trying not to care about women any more. I can’t fool myself about it. And if I’m called to marriage, that means God will put the right woman in my path — but it’s still my job to identify her and woo her. Enter Game.
I think part of the problem here is that people are looking at this as a binary situation: either she submits entirely, or she’s a feminist harpy that you shouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole. A man either maintains a perfect alpha frame at all times for his entire marriage, or he should give up women and join a monastery.
Those are false choices. It’s not an either/or; it’s a gradient. All women are hypergamous to some extent, but some more than others, and it’s not the *only* urge driving them. Very few are going to throw away a relationship they’re 95% happy with to shoot for 100%. On the other end of the scale, very (very, very) few will stay with a man who doesn’t give them any tingles just because it’s the right thing to do. Most are somewhere in the middle: they have some urge to move up relationship-wise, and society has removed the traditional restrictions on doing so. A man can counter that with a little extra alpha-ness that wouldn’t be necessary in a society that still shamed divorce and single motherhood. In the process, he gets a wife who’s staying more because she wants to than because the alternative is worse. Everybody wins.
Most men won’t leave their wives when she puts on some middle-age weight; they know they can’t expect to sleep with a 20-year-old for 60 years. But if she turns into an shrewish 400-pound land whale, he might hit the road. By the same token, most women aren’t going to leave a man because he’s not a perfect alpha all the time, but they’ll be happier and more likely to stay if he maintains *some* masculine qualities.
I don’t have time to read all the comments, but I want to say this:
In the BDSM world, they say “Don’t let the kink define you, you define your own kink.” What it appears to mean is that rather than saying “Well, according to how I see myself, I am a Top-switch ABDL and a bi-queer”, you discard the terms and labels entirely, and just be whatever you are.
We don’t need labels. Labeling yourself and others is dicey and often unfortunate.
Call it game. Call it philosophy. Call it hypergamy. Call it scriptural. In the end, all we are doing is arguing semantics. Dalrock said Christians need game, then everyone comes to debunk it and say he is wrong by changing the terms, and calling things something else.
Everyone damn well knows what he was talking about. The pissing match about how to say it perfectly is a waste of time because each person likes their own terminology for their outlook. The terminology usually says the same damn thing, if you take it apart. Further, we must allow that there are different forms of the red pill. It affects people differently. One man’s red pill is not another’s, or one man’s revelation causes a different perspective than another who is looking at the same thing.
This whole argument of “game” reminds me of “was this beta?”
There are 100 different ways to answer that, and some are right, some are wrong, and some are right for some and wrong for some. Terms like game, alpha, beta, are subjective in the context of manosphere discussion, so trying to define it narrowly is always going to get people arguing the fringes and the details, but using those distinctions to accuse the other of being wrong, when usually, they are both quite right, and closer to being in agreement than they want to admit.
The bible, God’s word, is not subjective. It says exactly what it says. Even still, people argue the interpretations, and in more subjective texts like the manosphere blogs, the interpretations abound even more. Everybody trying to explain why their position is right, and the other guy’s is wrong.
It boils down to the discussion being one of splitting hairs, and is therefore not very productive.
It’s the equivalent of people discussing pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib, while people are out there starving and freezing and dying.
All the different arguments here leave Dalrock with the equivalent of trying to herd cats. We need to find some basic common ground, stick to it, and reach out and help people with it. Men would do well to unite under a banner that is basic and generally well-founded, and march forth to help people.
Vain discussion is unbecoming for an effective man.
There needs to be more Scriptural references, not Matrix. It is disconcerting to use the universal of Matrix as an analogy to describe the real world. Sorry, it doesn’t work for me. It’s like talking about myself in the third person and not knowing where I stand or if I’m even being serious. It needs a rewrite.
What a disappointing thread. Most responses seem to fall into one of four categories:
1: But Game is ‘nothing more than an analytical tool’!
-No, it isn’t. There’s a reason why the single most widely-known exposition of Game on the internet is called the 16 commandments of poon, not the 16 observations or theorems.
2: But hypergamy is real!
-Which does indeed attack the weakest point of the essay, but not a critical one. The fact ‘Women are hypergamous’ does not, itself, imply anything at all about how men should or shouldn’t respond to it. Game is not just knowledge of hypergamy, but a prescription for how to respond to it, and the bulk of the OP was addressed to the latter, independent of the former.
3: But (prescriptive) Game works!/Game saved my marriage!/Game is why the whole of the time I don’t spend commenting here or sleeping is filled with priapic bliss!
-That’s very nice, but neither the worthiness of an end nor the effectiveness of a means toward it suffice to justify said means.
4: But (prescriptive) Game is just a tool! Like a gun, it can be used for good or evil!
-The proliferation of the gun analogy is a testament to the failure of the American educational system. A gun is an inanimate object; it has no moral qualities at all. Behaviors, on the other hand, do. Behaviors considered in the abstract can sometimes be morally neutral, though some (e.g. abortion) are arguably always immoral. On the other hand, a behavior in practice – not in the abstract, mind you, but an action in the world – is intrinsically moral or immoral. There is no such thing as a morally neutral act. Any prescription to behave a certain way in a certain situation, then, is either morally sound or a prescription for evil. And Game is, in part, a set of prescriptions to behave in certain ways in certain situations. To insist that Game is ‘just a tool that can be used for good or evil’ is therefore to commit a very glaring category error.
Suz asked:
I’ve wanted to ask this question for a long time, and since we’re attempting to clarify what we mean by certain terms such as “game”, it seems like now would be a good time to ask:
What is a slut?
I would find a precise definition useful; please don’t just say, “All women!” or “I know one when I see one.”
“how is Game anything but a round-about method of telling Christian men to Man-Up and Marry These Sluts?”
Because Game can be used in a Christian context, which would exclude marrying sluts. The fact is there are plenty of virgins for men to marry. Men can show dominance via game to increase the probability of marriage and the improvement of interpersonal skills will improve the marital relationship.
Feminism has ruined relationships and marriages between men and women. Game is a methodology that focuses on the new normal of Feminism. Christian women do not live in a vacuum. They have adapted to Feminism as well. It is important for a man to guide a woman and sometimes it means game can work on Feminist Christian women. The worst that can happen is men who are cowed by Feminism.
Men do not live by Bread alone.
SunshineMary, different men have different standards. Personally, I would say “a slut is a woman who has sex with a man she has no immediate prospect or intention of marrying”. Or a woman who is married but has sex with a man other than her husband. The latter I might call a whore.
If I had met an otherwise suitable woman who was not a virgin, when I was on the marriage market, and assuming she had not simply had recreational sex, I would not have called her a slut. But I wouldn’t have married her either.
SSM, what do you think a ‘slut’ is?
My personal definition is: Any woman who has sex with a man other than her husband.
5 pm this afternoon, somewhere near London, England
I thought I was being eyed up by the bird (quite acceptable) at the other check out – two down from me – I had other things on my mind, such as the responses to Cane Caldo’s essay, and whether the Americans will bomb us if we fail to collect Assange from the Ecuadorians. Then I realised she was the one I had had the strange conversation with a day or so ago, but she was definitely looking my way and her aisle was empty now, but in a moment or so, so would the one on which I had just unpacked my groceries. The check-out girl on mine also quite nice though just a touch plump,andt probably about twenty, moved the divider back and I forgetfully just picked it up and placed it behind the other one. She looked at me as if that was the wrong thing to do, so I picked up the first one and put it behind my groceries, though as no one was behind me – there was a lull in the day – it hardly mattered.
” Are you swiming backwards?” she asked.
“No I replied” though I could now see why she said that. “I am trying to get rid of an ache in my left shoulder” Too much internet, you see. I could see she was in a chatty mood and it occured to me that as the other one was interested, it would do me no harm to put on the charm and give her some rabbit (as we say), though what I said I now forget. I had my credit card between my lips then, – so I was being a bit deliberately goofy – she wished me a pleasant afternoon, but with more enthusiasm than her minmum wage warranted, I’d say. As I passed the other one (on leaving the store) I gave her that Opus grin they seem unable to resist.
Was I gaming those two or charming them? Clearly deliberate negs were not needed at this stage. Another day; another woman – that’s my motto.
What is a slut?
A sexually incontinent woman, no matter the partner count (all the sluts with 50+ counts started at zero). That includes those who appear continent but live vicariously while feigning holiness.
So, DC, is a slut only in the eye of the beholder?
No, SunshineMary, there are women no man would call a slut. And there are some women all men would call sluts. Unless they are being PC.
Some men are more tolerant. I am on the intolerant side.
@SSM
I go with Feminist Hater’s response; though there can be redemption. CL’s is probably more accurate, but mostly useless since we can’t know a person’s heart.
I could add that my break with Alte was partly due to my implicitly calling her an ex-slut. Although she had called herself one previously.
No. Game is navigating the *reality* of female hypergamy, which is a part of nature as the result of the Fall. Feminism made it worse by destroying the social restraints on it, but that hypergamy is part of reality since Adam and Eve ate the apple, just like death and pain. If Christianity destroys it, it won’t be until the end days. Christianity is about resisting the temptation to sin, not denying its existence. We have to live with Eve’s heritage (as well as Adam’s), and traditional Christian teaching provided a framework for doing that which has been discarded by our feminist society. Game theorists are trying to rediscover that framework, and having some success via the scientific method of testing and observation, whether they realize the Christian underpinnings of that framework or not.
Not at all. All study of the human mind is uncertain, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be studied and measured and general truths discovered. Somewhere there’s a 7-foot-tall guy who was so clumsy that he got cut from his high school basketball team, but that doesn’t mean we can’t say that height is a major benefit in basketball. Likewise, we can make general observations about the reactions of *most* women without getting hung up on the outliers.
Also, no Game theorist I’m aware of ever said that if you learn enough Game, you can bag *any* woman you want. As you say, there is such a thing as chemistry, and pheromones may play a part in things. She may have just fallen for some other guy, and have no eyes for anyone else at the moment. She may have just had a big fight with a guy and hate men that day. She may just have a beard fetish, and you’re clean-shaven. Game doesn’t promise you success in *every* interaction with women; it promises to improve your interactions with women *in general*, to best enhance your chances of meeting your goals with them. If 20% of women are attracted to you, your chance of finding a suitable wife is a lot better than if it’s 1%.
Other “philosophies” that don’t show up on a CAT scan: flavor, the profit motive, and gravity.
Hypergamy is a force of nature, just like the way things fall toward the earth or the way men’s eyes are drawn to hourglass figures. I can’t see gravity, and no one really even knows why it exists, but we can observe its effects, test it, measure it. I can’t see hypergamy either, but I do have an idea why it exists, and I can observe its effects and test it. It’s harder to measure, humans being more variable than planetary bodies, but you can measure it in general terms. I can count the number of women who dated me before and after I started to apply Game concepts. I can count the number of times I got the Let’s Just Be Friends speech after discovering Game (one, and she didn’t mean it) and the number before (please don’t make me remember!). If I really wanted to get scientific, I could go to a bar on Friday night and buy drinks for women and count how many give me their phone number, and then go the next Friday and *demand* that women buy me drinks and compare the totals. But I can already tell you which would work better.
The point is, this isn’t some airy philosophy or theory, it’s the facts on the ground. We’ve seen it in action, with Christian and non-Christian women, young and old. We’ve applied it to good effect with single women in dating and with girlfriends and wives in relationships. And when we assert this knowledge, you either redefine it as not fitting your personal definition of Game, or tell us we’re just plain wrong. That’s dirty pool.
Pingback: Ockham’s Toolbox « Zippy Catholic
CL has a good point – sluts are sexually incontinent.
I was speaking to a “Christian” woman who is sexually incontinent, who was horrified to be called a slut by a friend, yet she cannot and she will not keep her legs closed for more than a couple weeks.
In terms of partner count, I think Dalrock had a graph showing that after 5 men, the woman was basically sexually incontinent. Anyone else remember?
Cane, the heart of a slut shall be known by the anmount of wood.
Let me fix that:
Cane, the heart of a slut shall be known by the amount of wood she’s taken.
There’s no shortage of opportunity for a woman so her count will rocket up in a short time.
I agree with Feminist Hater’s definition of “slut” for Christian women.
I am not sure what to think of applying this term to non-Christian women. Is there a reason to believe they should be held to our standards?
I don’t understand what is meant by “sexually incontinent”. Does it just means she is sexually active? Also, what happens after N>5, marlon?
I don’t understand what is meant by “sexually incontinent”. Does it just means she is sexually active?
No, it means she has little self-control or self-discipline. A woman could be highly sexual and still exercise control over her actions; this isn’t a judgement on her sexuality but on what she does with it. In short, she is governed by her sexuality/tingles.
Certainly SSM, what happens if they, like yourself, decide to magically ‘become’ Christians? Should we merely say what happened in the past, stays in the past? Should they not bear the onus of their actions?
I’ve said plenty a time that a non-Christian’s actions don’t phase me in the least. I tell them of the Bible and of Jesus Christ our saviour and how he died for our sins; but I cannot force them to convert and nor do I want to. However, even if they do convert, the consequences of their actions will follow them for the rest of their lives. I don’t place forgiveness and lack of consequences in the same space. For God’s world to work, consequences are needed, they are a tool on which to learn the refinement of our being. Without them, we would learn nothing.
The problem for me though, is the more I learn and see, the more I get angry and frustrated. I don’t see a way out, I don’t know how to turn society around for the better. I’m not Jesus, I cannot be like him in the way he treats us when we sin. He is truly great. Which is why I find it incredibly hard to engage with those like DH.
Also, this doesn’t require different definitions for Christians and non-Christians; that is a needless complication. It isn’t a matter of “holding them to our standards”, but of a condition of the soul that afflicts Christian and non-Christian women alike.
So. To synthesize our collective definitions:
“Slut” is a permanent condition conferred upon any girl or woman, Christian or non-Christian, who has ever had sexual relations up to and including intercourse with a man (or should I say person?) who is not her husband at any point in her life.
And I still don’t see how sexually incontinent is different than unmarried and sexually active. By that definition, a woman who is in control of her sexuality but is sexually active is continent. That’s useless.
“sexually incontinent” – is an important point. I have Christian standards yet I remain realistic. The total amout of partners counts but so does the quality of those relationships. In my observation a woman at somepoint looses the ability to sexually bond with her lover after a number of sexual partners are reached..
It all goes back to trust issues for the deciding male. She may be in love with you (dick whipped) for a little while….but she has learned to (to coin a phrase) “abuse the glue”…
Much like a stamp can only stick to an envelope so many times.
The more times you stick it to an envelope and tear it off…the less it will stick to the next one.
Sometimes if it is stuck real hard to a single envelope and is torn off, it will have the paper on it and not be able to stick at all…
Problem: Sure I can spot a full on slut pretty easy, but I am not good at being able to tell if any given woman’s sexual history has turned her into a “sexual incontinent” …
Should we merely say what happened in the past, stays in the past? Should they not bear the onus of their actions?
I don’t know, FH. The quick answer that comes to mind is that they should still have to deal with consequences, and surely they do in terms of things like STDs, any children they’ve born out of wedlock, any abortions they’ve had.
But (and I’m asking, not telling) should they (or anyone) still bear the shame and the stain of sin that has been forgiven in Christ (this is NOT a man-up and marry the sluts comment!!)? As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions for us…
I’m just pondering this, and what it means in the context of Christian forgiveness, and what on earth young Christian men are to do given the all these factors…
Let’s have another stab at it:
Virgin = zero partners
Fornicator/fornicatress = 1 – 5 partners
Slut = more than 5 partners
sexually incontinent = unmarried + sexually active & married
That’s because a woman who is sexually active outside of marriage is not being sexually ‘continent’. She’s giving away for free the milk and thus depriving herself and her future husband the proper respect for marriage. Being ‘in control’ of her sexuality sounds mightily like Hussies to me, going from LTR to LTR.
It doesn’t really matter much anyway, since there are practically not many virgins and thus a man’s choice is between a slut with a high partner count and one with a low partner count. Yay, freedom of choice indeedy!
CL: What is a slut? A sexually incontinent woman, no matter the partner count
Correct. From Merrian-Webster online (http://www.merriam-webster.com/)
SLUT
1 chiefly British: a slovenly woman
2 a: a promiscuous woman; especially: prostitute b: a saucy girl : minx
Clearly we are talking about #2a. A promiscious woman, especially (but not necessarily) one who is paid for it. This is a surprise to me because where I’m from, “prostitute” and “slut” have different connotations — one is paid, the other is not. But… per the official dictionary above, “slut” can encompass both paid and unpaid promiscuity…. so… .next definition:
PROMISCUOUS
1 composed of all sorts of persons or things
2 not restricted to one class, sort, or person : indiscriminate
3 not restricted to one sexual partner
4 casual, irregular
Clearly we are talking about #3. So a slut is a promiscious woman, and promiscuous means, “Not restricted to ONE sexual partner.” Hence, SLUTHOOD begins at TWO.
Now of course, the dictionary doesn’t tell you everything. Generally the term “slut” carries a connotation of moral condemnation. A married woman who is widowed, and then remarries, has had 2 “partners” yet nobody would call her a slut. Similarly, an innocent gang-rape victim would not be called a “slut” either.
On the other hand, a girl who willingly goes from bed to bed, clearly meets the definition of the word. And so does a serial “monogamist” who goes from one “long term relationship” to another to another, although most such women bitterly resist the label.
First, it’s not necessarily a permanent condition, any more than any other sin. Unmarried and sexually active is incontinent, but it isn’t the only way to be incontinent. LTRs are usually only a method (wittingly or not) of cock-hopping, to be blunt; ONS is obvious incontinence no matter how much the hamster spins to paint it otherwise; being married and rubbing one off to porn is incontinence, as is getting a vicarious thrill out of listening to the stories of sluts doing things that one fancies one’s self too holy to do one’s self.
Is this making any more sense yet? Paul said that those who cannot control themselves should marry, thus, marriage is the only Godly outlet for sexual incontinence.
Fitz wrote
But isn’t that what Dalrock refers to as the “female” form of promiscuity, serial polygamy?
What I am looking for, as are many men, is the ability to stay stuck permanetly. Without this ability the stamp is rather worthless to me..
So, how to figure out if the stamp can still adhear permanetly..
VR, you do realise that my definition encompasses widows, right? If they remarry they are still having sex with their husband. A gang rape or a victim of rape is not having sex, they are being sexually assaulted. Rmaxd would disagree though, lol.
sunshinemary (writes)
” But isn’t that what Dalrock refers to as the “female” form of promiscuity, serial polygamy?”
I think its “serial monogamy” – I did not really explain..
A small number of LTR with men that are sexually active is worse in in my book than the same number of one night stands.
Again we are back to the glue idea….
The end point is that she either does or dosent have the abiltity to “inprint” on a man….and does she have the charachter and “glue” left to go the lang haul.
I don’t think this is hard. Any woman who has sex outside of her marriage is a slutting around. What do we call people who are, or are willing, to slut around?
SSM, yes that is right. LTR are the preferred form of female promiscuity as they get the investment from the man and status for having a boyfriend. It feeds her sexual lust and her need for hypergamy as well.
BUT–this does not have to be a permanent state of, ah, affairs.
CL, I understand what you are saying now. Thank you.
Well, CC, I think FH says it is permanent.
Cane and Cl, you’re right…what next then, having defined a slut/fornicator?
VR, you do realise that my definition encompasses widows, right? If they remarry they are still having sex with their husband.
True, as I noted. However Jesus himself endorsed the idea, that a widow is free to take a second husband if she wishes, without sin.
A gang rape or a victim of rape is not having sex, they are being sexually assaulted. Rmaxd would disagree though, lol
She’s not willingly having sex…. but it’s still sex…. As for Rmaxd, he is a rape apologist, the only actual one I’ve ever encountered (feminists would hang that false label on all of us…. sheesh)…. Rmaxd is not sane. I’m glad he’s banned.
The consequences are permanent, the question arises if you can find one willing to accept your faults and still marry you. Anyway, it was my personal definition. I’m strict like that.
So, I have found statistics that say around 10% of women are virgins when they marry.
All others are sluts. Many of them marry, and about half of them stay married for life. I’m just noting this for future reference in case we ever get around to answer my question from last night, “What next for the unmarried Christian man?”
Well, Jesus says it’s not permanent in the eternal sense – but He attaches the condition “go and sin no more” and one is not spared the temporal effects of the sin no matter what one might do as penance. (I don’t know if this is a specifically Catholic viewpoint). In the case of the slut, reformation is unlikely without a period – possibly of many years – of celibacy and no dating either.
The ‘reclaimed virgin’ thing is complete hogwash. The spirit may be “made new” but the consequences in this life are still in effect. So from the standpoint of one’s earthly life, it might be said to be permanent. You cannot undo what has been done, but I would posit that whether or not some reformation is possible depends on the individual and how much damage has been done.
If only I knew SSM, I’m all out of answers with respect to that.
Well, sunshinemary, (dare I call you SM? hehe) — what next for the unmarried Christian man?
Most men can’t endure permanent celibacy — even if they remain continent, it drives them half insane. So they’re going to have to make do with the choices available.
Not all men can accept MGTOW, but only those to whom it is given.
@ FH
The consequences are permanent, the question arises if you can find one willing to accept your faults and still marry you.
Very true.
So, I have found statistics that say around 10% of women are virgins when they marry.
SM, source?
Whoops. Change of plans: I just figured out Game. I was responding to a post on Alpha Game plan, and I had an epiphany.
Commenter Matthew Walker wrote:
To which I replied:
<Here's where I have a hard time with Game. Game works as you say, but Christ-like behavior does NOT work as you say. Galatians 5:16-26
"16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
Game is an act of the flesh. Batting practice is, too, so that doesn't make all acts of the flesh wrong, but very often Game gets elevated to this position of supremacy that I get uncomfortable with it. I don't think it was Game that leads you to elevate fake-it-til-you-make Christianity into a doctrine, but I think you can see how this can happen.
Christian behavior is the fruit of the spirit. It is not the result of years of practice; especially as it concerns those in our families. Sure you spank your kids for misbehavior, but the misbehavior is a lack of fruit, and the spanking is just a bulwark.
Whoa. I think I just worked Game out in my mind. Game is to wives as spanking is to children.
———-
You can read it in context, <a href="http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-failure-to-grasp-game.html?showComment=1345160087912#c1715004441428326066"here.
We are into semantics again.
Supposing there was a girl who was engaged to be married. She and her fiance had sex. Her fiance dies in a car accident. I would not call her a slut.
Converting or reverting to Christ can help wipe out sin, but not all the spiritual consequences. I still suffer the ill-effects of my sexual sins. I respect a woman who is genuinely an ex-slut, but I wouldn’t have married such a woman, no matter how beautiful and smart.
This is based on what people used to call a gut feeling. One reason I don’t always argue on these matters is that they are often intuitions for me. “The Devil can cite scripture [and “the latest studies”]”.
I insisted on virginity. Of course there are sad cases, hard cases, but one has to play safe. Whom you marry is probably the greatest decision of your life.
SSM, still waiting for your definition though.
vR I think ssm might be more prudent.
The stats I found were from a 2002 survey, but I can’t find the actual study, only reports of it in several newspapers, and they quote slightly different statistics supposedly from the same study. I actually have a hard time believing that 10% are virgins. Perhaps it’s wrong.
Good point, and I think this is how another person can know if the reformation is real. I had my oldest daughter watch a video, and it suggested to those teens that had already had sex, or were contemplating a relationship with a sexually-active partner, for a celibate (by choice) period of five years. Seems reasonable to me.
Agreed.
Heh. Under Marlon’s definition, I’m not a slut. Imagine my relief. (That is sarcasm, by the way.)
Also, woman who has sex outside of marriage may be sexually continent in the sense of exercising control of her sexuality, for example maintaining rules such as no sex with married men or sex only with condoms. Just because her standards aren’t the same as yours doesn’t mean she is without standards or control.
Sure DH, keep telling yourself that.
@ Cane Caldo
Christian behavior is the fruit of the spirit. It is not the result of years of practice; especially as it concerns those in our families. Sure you spank your kids for misbehavior, but the misbehavior is a lack of fruit, and the spanking is just a bulwark.
Whoa. I think I just worked Game out in my mind. Game is to wives as spanking is to children.
In that case, would you agree with my earlier point that Game could be a means for ‘washing your wife’?
SunshineMary, some of the 90% may have only been sexually active with the man they eventually marry. This used to be quite common. I wouldn’t call those females sluts.
The only reason my wife was a virgin on our wedding day was that it was my preference.
CL is good on the theology.
Kisses to you too, FH.
FH, I feel uncertain about giving a definition for non-Christians. As I said upthread, for Christians I suppose I agree with your definition; any woman who has had sexual contact with someone not her husband has been a slut. What I’m not sure about is if she stays that way forever and ought not to be married. I’m thinking about this more in terms of what men ought to do, but to figure that out, I need to be clear on what the actual condition of sluts is, both spiritually and in terms of marriage outcomes.
Did someone say Dalrock did a post with a chart relating number of partners to some other variable? I’d like a link if anyone knows.
SSM, perfectly fine with that. My definition is only to be applied to those who are Christian or want to be Christian. If someone wants to be a lifetime atheist or whatever, they need not worry about my definition or the consequences of their actions.
And I’m certainly not the be all and end all, there are many men out there, better looking and more qualified than myself, to satisfy all the women in the world. DH’s husband being the perfect example.
SSM, if you don’t mind me asking? Why do you even care? Your husband accepted you and you have been washed of your sins by becoming a proper, practicing Christian.
I don’t recognize CC’s authority to define what Game is.
_________________________________________
This is very very late. But this comment way up there says it all. Its not unlike feminism itself, or any number of things today……if you dont embrace, well then, you just dont understand. Here, lets get about refining this thing shall we, defining, debating, nuance, complexity, layers…all that.
Please……lets not.
If we can jump to definition as refutation, then anything goes anytime, all the time, and when it doesnt go, it wasnt what we were talking about in the first place right?
DC, why is the girl who had premarital sex with her fiance not a slut? Especially if she then does not marry him because he conveniently dies?
And why do so many people cite 5 at the magic number of penises that ruins a woman? I’m just curious. If I steal only one necklace from the jewelry store, am I not a thief?
DC: some of the 90% may have only been sexually active with the man they eventually marry. This used to be quite common. I wouldn’t call those females sluts.
Back in the 1950s, “premarital sex” really meant, usually, “premarital” — a couple that was planning on marrying, jumped the gun by a few months.
I think that’s relatively rare now. Those who, in the old days, would have conformed or almost-conformed to the rules due to social expectations are now in the grip of a totally reversed social expectation.
Whereas ALMOST the only people who still believe in ‘saving it for marriage’, are religious fanatics who actually WILL hold out all the way to the actual wedding night, for fear of the Lord.
SSM: And why do so many people cite 5 at the magic number of penises that ruins a woman? I’m just curious. If I steal only one necklace from the jewelry store, am I not a thief?
I had the same question. That’s why i quoted the dictionary definition. “More than one” partner. Sluthood begins at two.
SSM, if you don’t mind me asking? Why do you even care? Your husband accepted you and you have been washed of your sins by becoming a proper, practicing Christian.
FH, don’t assume I’m thinking about myself. I am not. I am trying as of late to fit together a lot of little puzzle pieces into a coherent world view regarding these issues. The part I’m considering at present is what are young Christian men supposed to do now? And also, what about those few decent girls who have not slept around – a young commenter named allamagoosa has made me consider how difficult these girls’ positions are, as they do not hand out the prize that most young men expect and thus are quickly disqualified. It’s terribly sad.
VR, I guess that makes us religious fundies then, doesn’t it? Should Dalrock perhaps call the SPLC or ADL on us?
No. Spanking your kids isn’t washing them, either. It’s a punishment, and it does not in-and-of-itself generate a good heart, therefore it does not generate good behavior; neither does Game. It simply makes them manageable in the meantime.
The problem I had in conceptualizing good Game was the elevation it too often receives as a cure-all for relationships. Mix that with the hopelessness of the atheist faction of the Game writers, and it becomes it’s own religion. Walking through this has been good.
Compounding that, I apparently practice pretty good Game, naturally; so I was having a hard time understanding how a man could go much farther than I do, and not cross into hedonism/adultery/abuse/etc.
Then don’t bother. There aren’t a bunch of non-Christians out there doing a cost comparison about whether to become a Christian or a Buddhist based on their respective slut-o-meter readings. Even if they were, it won’t get them there, and the Buddhists would win.
VR, SSM, one thing I have learned on the ‘net is that I am not a systematic thinker. As I said, some of this is gut feeling.
I wouldn’t call car crash girl a slut because she was giving it up for a man to whom she was betrothed. As I said, my wife gave me what I wanted and would have just lived with me. But I wanted to marry her and I kept her a technical virgin until our wedding because I wanted to.
Some of my attitudes are not specifically Christian. Some of them are personal preference and pride. For me, one penis before me would have ruined a girl in my eyes. I am possessive. To me, fucking a woman implies conquest.
Anyway, got a busy morning tomorrow so I’m off to sleep. Thanks for the talk SSM, enjoyed it. Don’t get too upset with me please, I’m working through these issues just the same as you.
Good night.
You see, for anything to change among Christian women, the older women *must* begin to instruct the younger women. But we are all redeemed sluts ourselves, so we need to be awfully clear on what message we are going to impart to them. I am trying to work that out in my mind. This is not an idle exercise for me, as I have five daughters, but also because I have been quietly spreading some of what I learn here onto blogs outside the manosphere. Reactions are varied, of course. One woman said in response to me that she stayed up all night reading Dalrock’s blog; she didn’t care much for what she read, but it did make her think…
@RolloTomasi wrote at at 8:20 AM
“I’ll say it again, the fundament of christian forgiveness is the lynchpin of hypergamy and the feminine imperative in a christian context. God’s forgiven them of exercising their fallen sexual natures, why can’t you? What would Jesus do? He’d forgive the adulteress caught in the act of cuckoldry and spare her from certain death, while reminding the men ready to stone her of their own sins.”
@desiderus replied at 9:06 AM
“That’s what is known as cheap grace. If that’s what your church teaches or your (prospective) wife believes, find a better one. Of both.”
May I suggest that this tendency within feminized Churches henceforth be known as
“sloppy (seconds) agape”…
@FH
I’m not upset at you; I enjoy talking with you because you are forthright.
Good night and sweet dreams.
SSM;:, what about those few decent girls who have not slept around – a young commenter named allamagoosa has made me consider how difficult these girls’ positions are, as they do not hand out the prize that most young men expect and thus are quickly disqualified. It’s terribly sad.
Yea, the lovely and gracious Lolo Jones, of all people, has actually admitted to trolling for dates on the internet. Not that there’s anything wrong with that… (that’s how I got married, after all)… but you don’t expect a knockout celebrity to have trouble finding someone. Yet she complains that she can’t keep a boyfriend very long — that her refusal to surrender her virginity before marriage, gets her rejected over and over and over.
WTF? She’s a Christian…. why isn’t she dating Christian men? “Do not be unequally yoked….” Or have things gotten so much worse, since my grateful departure from singlehood 10 yrs ago, that there are NO “Christian men” actually waiting?
That said, I myself, as a single man, got rejected on that same basis more than once — but I did run across plenty of women who respected the v-card and from time to time, I’d find one who still had her own.
Or perhaps Lolo is only dating EXTREME ALPHAS, as befitting her own high status? Because I’m sure there are tens of thousands of virgin Christian men in this country who would marry her TOMORROW…. she’s just not meeting any of them, and perhaps would not be interested if she did.
Maybe at the mighty Tim’s next football game, someone should start a chat:
Hey there (clap clap)
Te-bow (clap clap)
Ask out (clap clap)
Lo-lo (clap clap)
If you’re (clap clap)
Not gay (clap clap)
Call her (clap clap)
To-day (clap clap)
Take her to (clap clap clap)
Chick fil A (clap clap clap)
That is clever, VR.
Yes, I realize this is said all over the place, and I dismissed it. Bummer, that, but it couldn’t be helped. Without the framework of:
Hypergamy is the condition (never truly in dispute)
Masculine Charisma is the mindset/frame (and NOT Game, itself)
Then I can’t get to:
Game is a set of tools.
That being said, Game won’t change a slut into a wife. Only the prescription in Ephesians 5 will accomplish that.
The answer to your question, Sunshinemary, (and the whole point that I didn’t want to get to before I understood what I knew I did not understand) is this:
There are now too many cowards and sluts born of too many cowards and sluts, and there’s nothing humanly possible to be done about it. The only option is to be reborn, and for those who are already reborn, to be transformed by the renewing of the mind. This is best accomplished for wives by their husbands washing them with the water of the Word; praying; scripture reading; catechism. For the wife who’s husband is not transforming or reborn, her regardless submission that he made be won without a word.
For the unmarried: you are facing a world of sluts and cowards, and so only marry one if you really love her. For the man, she must be a garment that is so beautiful to him that he wants to wash her regardless of her stains. He should still be wise about this. If he finds himself attracted to sluts who haven’t quit sex for five years, he needs to recalibrate what he means by beautiful. The woman needs to do the same thing; she must only marry a man whom she trusts to present herself to wash.
van Rooinek
Back in the 1950s, “premarital sex” really meant, usually, “premarital” — a couple that was planning on marrying, jumped the gun by a few months.
I used to know an elderly couple who had been married twice. They did this back around 1940 or so. It seems that they had met in a social way far away from their families, and after a knowing each other for about 2 years they got married at a small church with two friends as witnesses. Then about 4 months later, they formally “got married” again, this time in her home town with family, friends, and so forth. So, being curious, I asked the little old lady why they did that:
“Well ! We were just darned tired of waiting, that’s all !” was the reply.
The biggest reason why even Christians need game?
Because hypergamy doesn’t care.
And if you are saying that that shouldn’t matter, that one simply needs to submit to Christ, and find a woman who also submits to Christ, then you are ignoring every lesson about the fallen nature of man and woman ever taught in the Bible and elsewhere, all the way back to the apple.
Because hypergamy just doesn’t care.
Van Rooinek wrote at 12:13 PM:
‘Oh, I’m under no illusions as to how far off base she is. I merely point out that she’s better than some “Christian” women. Sunshinemary observed the same. But….better-than, doesn’t mean right: “unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, ye shall in no way enter the kingdom…” ‘
VR, you said you have a PhD in chemistry, so you’ll probably get this.
DH’s status as “better” than many contemporary ex-Carousel (or secretly adulterous) Christian woman is a point (scalar). Her path, however, is better described as a vector, or possibly a vector field over time. cf C.S. Lewis in the *Screwtape Letters* about the best road to hell being a gradual one with no warnings or sudden turns…
@Grey Whiskers
“sloppy (seconds) agape”
LOL and yet so true.
@Rollo
I’ll say it again, the fundament of christian forgiveness is the lynchpin of hypergamy and the feminine imperative in a christian context.
The problem with sloppy seconds agape is that it is very bad theology. A woman/man who has slutted it up in the past has not caused any direct injury to her potential Christian mate. Therefore her Christian mate has nothing to forgive. Imagine you meet a known thief who has never robbed you. How then do you forgive him? You can’t as he hasn’t taken anything from you. It’s the same with a slut.
On the other hand, with regard to the thief, you’d be a total idiot if you left your wallet laying around no matter how much he had protested he had changed. Prudence dictates that you take some care. Likewise, the objection to marrying a slut is not moral but prudential. It’s not a hard and fast rule, but past performance is a reasonable indicator of future returns. The problem with marrying a slut is that she is a high risk.
Sloppy seconds agape is the result when weak minds conflate forgiveness with imprudence.
Cane, I give my wife an example by attending church regularly. She attends more now because of me. She has told me she is more honest now because of me. Sometimes I tell her not to read a particular book. I correct her theological errors. She sometimes purports to ignore me, but I think she is nevertheless watching and listening. If she brought home FSoG I would probably not object, but I have thrown out one DVD I disapproved of.
@ProfMentu,
For a moment there, I thought Dalrock had lost his mind.
Then I saw the author’s name and chuckled.
This is the text book definition of an ad hominem and is therefore the height of lame. You haven’t addressed him at all and further down you just introduce a tautology. If you want us to take you seriously you have to do waaaaaaaaay better.
@ar10308,
she will STILL need to be Gamed to keep the marriage alive and vibrant.
I think this is one of those points that discounts women too much. Yes, a majority of women will need this, but there are some that view their vows seriously enough that it won’t happen. I think this viewpoint is one of the most corrosive problems of Game centeric vs. Christian centric thinking. Women do have a social and religious responsibility to matrimony. The above posits them as completely amoral.
What you don’t realize is that women are CURSED by God in order to try to control their husbands and men in general. It is right in Genesis 3, when it uses the phrase “desire after your husband”, the only other place in Genesis that word for “desire” comes up is when “and its desire is to possess you” in reference to Cain, and it means “desires to control”.
And I’ll check my Hebrew Lexicon when I get a chance but I’m pretty sure you are _inverting_ Genesis 3 by both citing it incompletely and getting the nuance of “təšūqāṯêḵ ” wrong.
@Van,
(a) NACWALT. Not all Christian women are sluts. Some are still virgins, and some others are *geniunely repentant*, not just carousel riders looking for a beta provider. Simply put: there ARE good Christian women out there, that good Christian men can marry. If there were not, all discussion of dating, romance, and marriage would be utterly moot, we’d all be morally bound to celibacy and extinction.
I don’t think he’s making the mistake you are assuming here. Game assumes that the behavior is “stuck” even if we accept his caveats. Therefore the women you outline can’t exist. According to Game you are having an argumentum ad nihilum.
@Matthew Walker,
That’s a fact. And that’s game.
Which totally misses his point and leads me to believe you are of the Big Bang = Evolution crowd. I haven’t seen Cane argue that hypergamic theory is wrong. Nor does he do so in this post. He argues whether the use of Game as a superset which includes hypergamic theory is ethical and Christian.
@Deti,
What is more likely is that some men who learn Game (an understanding of female nature) will believe they are better at pickup than they are. They will fail, and no harm will be done, other than perhaps those men’s decisions not to pursue hardcore pickup lifestyles due to their failures.
And most married men who learn Game are simply learning what they never learned as boys growing up in a feminized society. They don’t want to leave their wives and sex up 19 year olds. They want to keep their wives, or at least make life more tolerable. They are trying to save their marriages, not end them.
Let’s read that under a Christian microscope and reverse the language a bit:
“Some men will learn game be successful and be damned to eternal hellfire.”
Cane and I aren’t saying that there are not “useful tools in the box” which seems to be the consensus argument here, we are saying that Game, as defined by the premier practitioners is a lousy philosophy. Most of the arguments here amount to:
“Look you can’t pay attention to Aristotle when you discuss Aristotlism”
This doesn’t make sense. Cane is being logically consistent in saying, to continue the analogy, that Aristotle is morally inferior and that the taint of his inferiority infects Aristolism. However, Aristotlism does have some stunningly good ideas that are echos of this system over here (Christianity). Where Aristotlism(game) echos the good system it should be endorsed and where it doesn’t it should be burned to the ground.
@Sconzey,
Its post like yours that make me despair because it is soooo close yet sooooo far.
In summary:
1. Humans are naturally hierarchical creatures.
2. Humans are naturally patriarchal creatures.
3. Humans are not naturally monogamous.
4. Human societies function best when monogamous marriage is encouraged.
This is not a “Biblical”/Christian frame as rule (3) is wrong. Rule 3 should read that Humans are naturally monogamous. Then you need to add a rule (5) that Humans post fall have a tendency towards hedonism that corrupts the above. That is each of the above has abuses like say with Rule (1) Master/Servant fetish.
The point you kinda sorta start to make — which I agree with — in your post, is that PUAs go astray by using their powers for evil.
He’s actually saying more than that. He says, very explicitly, that Game as a total theory _endorses_ evil. It belittles marriage, reduces women to complete puppets, and encourages “Cassanovaism”.
This confuses the descriptive and the normative. The woman should keep her vows by remaining chaste and submitting to her husband. The woman is attracted to and will willingly submit to a man who keeps himself fit, dresses well, projects calm confidence, calls her out on her temper tantrums etc. Your wife should be chaste and submit to you, you can make it easier for her by not being a sissy.
Cane is proposing, except for his closer, that the above is not true. I think he has a point. I think this whole post would have been stronger though if he had hewed closer to the Rules of Poon. I believe Game can be Christianized, as almost anything can be because Christianity is the source of all Truth and everything else is just a corruption of the same, but it isn’t there yet.
@Van,
even a simple defensive “redpill” understanding can prevent catastrophic mistakes that make you look a lot less of a man than you really are.
But what if, as Cane points out, the Redpill isn’t Game but just an understanding of the principle founding of Man by God? That’s the world shift that I at least am arguing for. Game works as much as it does not because it (I)s but because Christianity (I)s and game mocks some good bits form that. It creates false ubermensch who try to strut like New Adams, but these Adams have (per some of the above comments on rules) no grasp of the duties that their relationship to Eve brings.
@Deti,
The difference between the slut and the virgin is when P in V takes place. The woman’s mental and physical processing is the same.
Really? I mean really? That sounds like Game and not Christianity. The Virgin doesn’t have to go through her own trials to arrive there? She doesn’t have a profound sense of what the act means? Its just a random timing issue?
@Opus,
really an abuser or Rapist who should if given a chance, man-up. I think not.
I would say that Christianity proposes that women have reduced but not non-existant moral capacity due to their bodies nature as subordinate to the man. If you accept that then St. Paul, writing to Saint Timothy, is right. If so it is in the best interest of both the PUA and the Slut to marry each other as their worst impulses can be tamed.
ALSO SINCE I’VE SEEN IT AGAIN TOOL
Tools may be immoral even when they are generally amoral. Once again an iron maiden is immoral
@Dalrock,
There you go, Christian men. Love your wife as Christ loved the church EVEN when they do not submit to you and nail you to a cross.
It’s the Christian thing to do.
This is why I find linking to him lame. It is indeed Christian to love your wife even if she betrays you. However, this is framed to be purposefully offensive and is the worst of cherry picking. He is an ass. That he happens to be an enemy of _one_ of our enemies does not make him a friend. Nor does forgiving her as comments to Rollo later point out mean being an idiot.
@Cane,
Game usually says to remain devoted to yourself. Sometimes this is rephrased as being devoted to something (nearly anything) besides her, so that she “knows her place”. If you think this doesn’t come through to women–that you’ve placed something above them, and it’s not God–you’re likely in for a divorce.
Quibble, as I mentioned in the last thread I think this position needs to be more nuanced. Your wife is an integral part of your ministry and you cannot reject that as game proposes but she is not your sole ministry. I think this goes too far. I actually think the Biblical image is much better than the way you’ve reframed it. She is a part of you. Your ministry is to Christ and she is the chief functionary in your home Church. You are the “bishop” as it were and she is your “deacon” to borrow from Athol’s model. That ministry may mean the attainment of a certain vocation in addition to the marriage proper.
@CL,
But what if Game is a start – what if it leads to that washing? What if it leads to some form of redemption? What if the lack of the qualities that Game seeks to give back to men is to blame for the mess we’re in now? Game is anti-feminist in that way, and feminism has caused a lot of destruction.
I don’t think that’s the problem. I think the problem is taking if from the “Masters” of game in toto. For example, and I keep bringing it up, the reframing of Sarah into some sort of slut is just beyond bizarre. That every Christian on here didn’t jump on that is mind blowing.
@Rollo,
all of the precautionary sarcasm of “Man-Up and marry those sluts” and for all of CC’s want of a virgin-bride-goes-slut, the article of Christ-mandated forgiveness throws all of that gnashing of teeth about vetting your bride, and the debate about marrying sluts out the window. Christians are red-letter called to forgive unconditionally.
That’s a very modern and I think feminist corruption. St. David is a good example of this. He leads an exemplary life, fails, then is forgiven, then suffers all sorts of temporal retribution after being forgiven before he receives his eternal reward. Aslan is not a tame lion.
Christ said to love those who persecute you. I would assume that applies even to practicing thieves as well as practicing (or reformed) sluts. Love your enemy, right?
Loving your children implies they can watch the cookie jar? Think of it that way. Love is a translation of a word that means “Charity” that is the giving of something to someone else beyond their deserving, yes. It does not mean “stupid”. True charity gives what is good. Giving the enemy a sword to kill you is not charitable as it leads them to sin.
@Cane,
But if we think we’re consistent in that service, or in our trust of Him, scripture says we’re fooling ourselves. We aren’t Christ’s knights; the best of us are Christ’s wash-rags. The worst, are worse.
Too far into the Calvanist camp with this one. We are Christ’s Knights even in our fallen state. The Divine Spark doesn’t die in us.
@Van,
Your persistent inability (or refusal) to understand this, is infuriating. I suspect that, deep down at the core of your soul, there is some part of you that desperately, desperately doesn’t want game to be true.
I don’t think so, just like you correctly corrected Dalrock on the “Glass full/empty” with me (I think it was you…or was it David…) I think this is a subtle difference and that you two actually largely agree. However I think Cane wants to correctly force the issue that Game actually means something as taught by its masters. 7Man is right in rejecting Cane as a teacher but is he right in rejecting Roissy? What if hypergammy isn’t synonymous with Game?
@Cane,
Christian theologians did not send regular Christians to the temple of Odin to pick up tips on how to better worship God and conduct their lives; regardless of the overlaps (hanging on the Tree of Woe, fatherly, focus on wisdom, etc.).
My first serious disagreement with you. They most certainly _did_ appeal to pagan thought and showed a clear understanding of it. The first appeal is of course by the Apostle Paul while in Athens as recorded in Acts of the Apostles. This is far from the last time it happens. Justin Martyr, one of the earliest post-Apostolic writers, betrays an intimate knowledge of both Greek Philosophy and Theology in his “First Apology”. Of the modern writers CS Lewis goes a long way in arguing that even our conception of the Pagan gods as modern Christians is wrong in various works including the “Space Trilogy”.
@Deti
Facts just are. They are not good or bad, or they can be used for good or ill.
Which is of course a profoundly unChristian stance. Facts are True and True things have a dangerous beauty because they are reflections of God and therefore Good. Even the “bad” things because they show God’s primacy (e.g. I die because God has decreed it in punishment).
@Van and Marlon,
Hmmm…but as Cane pointed out…Eve in the garden plus women in real life…women sometimes rebel. I guess God’s game wan’t tight enough. He lacked an impenetrable frame since Eve did rebel.
But Eve didn’t nor does the Bible recall her as doing so. Nor is our current state attributed to her. Adam rebelled. Eve had a blond moment. She is presented in the whole narrative as having an inferior understanding of the world at large. If you want to use examples like this I’d use Hosea and the whore not Eve.
@Van,
Game explains the facts better than any other hypothesis.
If you change that to “hypergammy” then I can agree. Game is too broad and its masters propose things that are untrue. Hypergammy is also testable (broadly so at least).
@Unger,
What CC is suggesting – not without reason – is that a significant portion of the behavioral prescriptions of Game are similarly morally questionable, even before considering their intended uses. You’re assuming that the behavioral prescriptions are neutral, in the fashion of inanimate objects (e.g. guns), and that is the crux of the debate.
I’m just repeating this because I think some haven’t read it.
@Desiderius,
Thanks for the citation to Romans. I was looking for something like that and now I don’t have to.
I.e. keeping the coming war on feminism from becoming a true war on women. As with the rise of feminism, many from both genders will enthusiastically participate in its demise.
Which is why people like DH should be damn happy we’re having this conversation. Because when the system falls its going to be the Game Athiests/Pagans and the Old Time Christians left to pick up the philosophical pieces and one of them leads straight to the Oracles of Delphi and the Sybil cult, and that should terrify them in every nightmare soaked bed.
Actually, its everything. Do you want Achilles leading your army, or Paris? The men who get to mate (the best) will be the models upon which the next generation of men constructs their behavior.
Which is why I view Dalrock’s forgiveness of the PUA’s somewhat terrifying.
@Zippy,
Just tell everyone, truthfully, when the subject comes up, that you won’t marry unless your wife is absolutely committed to you having ultimate authority in all decisions.
That was my experience. I’m hardly an Alpha but projecting my standards did me a world of good. I had my first legal drink on my honeymoon.
@Anon E Myshkin ,
Great Lewis quote and perfect for the discussion.
van Rooinek
Those who, in the old days, would have conformed or almost-conformed to the rules due to social expectations are now in the grip of a totally reversed social expectation.
Yes, this is true. It is expected on many college campuses that if a young woman comes to college a virgin it’s just expected she’ll want to “cure” that condition before the end of her first year. And not with a fiancee, either. This was true on many campuses in the 90’s and late 80’s, probably in the 70’s. Another gift of the “summer of luv”.
@Van Rooinek wrote at 3:06 PM
“There are already 100 million surplus men in China – 100 million unattached, sexually frustrated men. Demographics is destiny.
And soon their landing crafts will be hitting the Pacific Coast…”
Make it either Siberia (sparsely populated, shorter supply lines) or Canada — sparsely populated, plenty of fresh water. According to Jim Jubak of MSN.com, some 400,000 people a year die of pollution in China. The city of Harbin once boasted a *billion* gallon benzene spill into the waterway.
To neuter China, let’s send over Richard Simmons, Elton John, and Barney Frank. They’ll teach the surplus young men alternative methods of relieving tension…/sarc>
@Anonymous,
An otherwise facinating post ruined by this:
You say that you reject all Game.
He’s explicitly in the former thread outlined items in the rules of Poon that are directly adoptable by Christianity. As such he has not done this and everything that follows is wrong. This looks
@CL,
No, it means she has little self-control or self-discipline. A woman could be highly sexual and still exercise control over her actions; this isn’t a judgement on her sexuality but on what she does with it. In short, she is governed by her sexuality/tingles.
That is, she is chaste (one of the single most abused words in the English language).
And SHEESH could ya’ll slow down a bit…that was like 20 comments while I was writing…
@ GKC
the reframing of Sarah into some sort of slut is just beyond bizarre
I must have missed something; I don’t recall that. Nevertheless, the whole point of ‘Christian Game’ is that it doesn’t take it in toto. The core principles of cause and effect are still useful without having to go the whole hog into hedonism.
One woman said in response to me that she stayed up all night reading Dalrock’s blog; she didn’t care much for what she read, but it did make her think…
The truth will set her free. May more do that
The eyes are the window to the soul,that damage to the soul is seen in the thousand cock stare.It occurs when the woman uses herself like an animal,and uses her natural expression of love,mind,and soul in a manner not befitting to any good and moral action,merely as recreation,like a theme park.
This reversion to animal is the direct result of secular life and willful DEFIANCE of God’s proper recommendations for a civil society and loving,intact homes,relationships,and most importantly the nuclear family.
The feminist movement is a strike at the heart of Christian families.
Ensconced in the lawz of the destructor,they rejoice in perversion.
Salvation is contingent upon repentance,repentance is contingent upon knowing the ENTIRE will of God,and submitting to those civilizing principles.Even the worst slut can be saved if she comes to faith through serious study and knowing submission to God’s will and learns to water her soul with the living water.
That said, it ma save her,but it would still be a mistake for a young man who tried to keep on the path from the get-go to marry her.
Unequal yokes and all that.She may be able to bond properly again,but it would be with a similar soul saved from darkest pit,well into life,and Not Starting a Family.
Do it for the children.Hypergamy kills fatherhood and destroys children,male and female.
I fear this generation may have to wander in the dessert for cleansing and as an example for early repentance and submission to God for the next generation.
(Instituting Genuine Patriarchy at the street level,not just the upper echelons of power.)
Excellent posts by Kingx,Fitx,and Cane Caldo.
Just look in the book, it has the answers to intact families,loving spouses,support in old age,keeping free of disease,both physical and spiritual.
Let’s show some soul and stop thinking with the crotch for animal pleasure.The gamers has as much “love” and compassion for his conquest as the fisherman does for the fish.That is not a spiritual metaphor,it’s a literal analogy.
First step to saving society:Bring the courts back to Biblical principles.
Once undermining proxy violence is removed men will be safe again to act human instead like animals ruled by animals.You get what you subsidize and JUDGEMENT BEGINS AT THE ALTAR/JUDGES CHAIR.
God will judge these destructors,by men will suffer until they too learn to stomp the head of the snake.
Stomp it or lose your standing before God as a righteous man.
We are called to fight sin.Nothing less.
You see, for anything to change among Christian women, the older women *must* begin to instruct the younger women
How to do that? Teaching the red pill in small doses might not be feasible. Perhaps full Dalrock plus subsequent discussion would be best.
Sunshinemary,
What’s a young christian man to do?
A
The church is overrun with feminist culture. The workforce for men is a lengthy nd sshallowly ascending gradient.
I would suggest that young men in their twenties forget about serious relationships. The risk is too high and their smv is still on the up. As VR attests, this extended celibacy neither natural nor desirable. Temptation is ever present. Secular women will make offers that good christian girls will not. But. . . the reality of divorce or a shrew for a wife is probably a worse outcome, as proverbs writes.
I would suggest ignoring women and treating them as the self centred children they are. Enjoy working hard, pick a recreation and contribute to your church.
Game is a tool that should be used sparingly. The more game required, the less worthy the woman is.
We-as a people have lost the FEAR of God.
The judge shakes his head and says “I am above reproach.” I just enforce the laws as written and policies as instructed even though I know it is unjust and unfair.He does not conceive of Standing to Account before the great white throne.
The gamer shakes his head and says ” I am above reproach,I simply adapted to the sinful conditions around me” He does not see himself standing before God,taken to account on what he did to the body of Christ.The harlot shakes her head and says ” I am above reproach” She does not see standing before God being called into account on her misuse of God’s temple.
THEY ALL say “make merry and and drink up for tomorrow we die”Fools! For living for today they kill tomorrow,the children,and the society.
@GKC
There should be more emphasis on the word “regular”. By regular, I meant ungrounded, untrained, open to temptation.
St. Paul was not regular.
Can you shoot me an email? cane(.)caldo(@)gmail(.)com
slumord
Sloppy seconds agape is the result when weak minds conflate forgiveness with imprudence.
One of the underlying premises of American churchianity…
GKChesterton:
@Anonymous,
An otherwise facinating post ruined by this:<
You say that you reject all Game.
Yup. That’s why his essay is entitled Christians Don’t Need Game, because at the time of the OP he rejected all Game.
He’s explicitly in the former thread outlined items in the rules of Poon that are directly adoptable by Christianity.
And in this posting, he walked that back and stated
Cane Caldo
This is what’s so deceptive about Roissy’s Sixteen Commandments: The things that a Christian husband can’t do, are Game; those he can, aren’t! Additionally, all of them focus on either the supremacy of the man applying them, or women’s hypergamy. “You do these things because it will subvert her hypergamy.” “You don’t do these because her hypergamy will be encouraged.” That frame is all wrong for the Christian.
He stated flatly that Game is wrong for Christian men.
As such he has not done this and everything that follows is wrong. This looks
As such he as done exactly what I wrote, and every step of my logic, from the science, to the analogy, is correct as a reply to Cane Caldo’s original posting as well as he reply to me. Please read more carefully in the future. Thanks for your participation.
Bonus Bad Science FIction Analogy
Since I have never been able to sit through any Matrix movie for more than 10 minutes or so, for a whole host of non-relevant reasons, much of Cane Caldo’s OP is without meaning to me. I don’t know who Cypher is and I’m not sure what an Agent is, and I really don’t care to be “enlightened”, thanks very much.
So just because I can, I offer up another bad SF analogy.
Game is like The Force, it has a dark side and a light side. In fact I think Athol has actually used this analogy a coupe of years back.
Discuss. Or not, as you prefer.
I don’t think hedonism is an appropriate term for the forces that corrupt human monogamous tendencies. This has been covered fairly extensively elsewhere, but basically observations suggest that males tend towards polygamy + opportunistic indiscriminate promiscuity, while females tend towards hypergamy + opportunistic discriminating promiscuity(adultery/cuckoldry). Females also tend towards securing attention and investment from as many other men as possible, without sex.
Pursuing the optimal sexual strategy isn’t hedonism. Occasional lack of restraint isn’t hedonism. A man with 2 wives who cheats 5 times in his life and has 2 bastard kids is not (necessarily) a hedonist. A woman who cuckolds her husband is not (necessarily) a hedonist. They are pursuing natural behavior.
The primary control on male polygamy is poverty/economy, the secondary control on male polygamy is female choice– whether one wife will tolerate a second. The primary control on male opportunistic promiscuity is female chastity, the secondary control is social shaming and punishment.
The primary controls on female hypergamy are chastity and a lifetime commitment to marriage, in a society with a strong marriage institution, male fidelity is also a control on hypergamy (when high-status males go off the market women can not marry them). The primary controls on female opportunistic promiscuity are social shaming and punishment. Male fidelity is a distant, distant second control on female promiscuity (it takes relatively few promiscuous men, the real hedonists, to satisfy the promiscuous urges of most women). Beta orbiters and female attention whoring are a consequence of promiscuous society and probably disappear in a society with stable lifetime monogamy and healthy friendships and community.
Those who insist on literal interpretation of Genesis, denying evolution and other empirical knowledge, will quickly find reality working against them in unexpected ways. So yes, rule 3 might not be a “Biblical” frame, but that’s because the Biblical frame is ignorant. Thus rejecting Christianity entirely starts to seem a lot more attractive than wasting time trying to answer the question about whether particular aspects of game are moral or not.
Game is like The Force
This thread has proceeded as I have foreseen
sunshinemary wrote at 6:58 pm:
“And why do so many people cite 5 at the magic number of penises that ruins a woman? I’m just curious. If I steal only one necklace from the jewelry store, am I not a thief?”
Yes, that’s true: but we are not talking just about partner count, but two things, both of which are *correlated* with partner count, but in different ways.
1) Sexual experience: how many times have you done it, so that sex with your spouse is no longer your only reference? Obviously here, even a committed LTR with someone else can ruin you for your husband (“five minutes of alpha is worth…” and all that); but then there is the problem of “imprinting” (what you come to see as “normal”, or the sexual habits, tempo, and intimacy learned and practiced with another); as well as ordinary jealousy of the vulgar sort, comical to hear of but not to experience (“Was he better / longer-lasting / *bigger* than me?”). (+)
2) The whole Athol Kay described biochemical mess of bonding and biochemical markers and oxycontin and dopamine and all the rest. Once you make out and/or have sex, not only are the biochemical triggers released, but the person’s very smell (smell is the sense most able to evoke memories; my guess is because it goes to primitive nerve centers) and pheremones get mixed in with the experience — for mating is *designed* to bond, and the mechanisms work whether you are having a quickie next to the Coke machine in the dorm laundry room, or on your wedding night — and as has been said above, to sunder the process is to pull a piece of scotch tape off of a sheet of paper. Do it wrong, the paper adheres immediately, and the tape cannot bond any more. Do it enough times, even carefully, and the tape loses its stickiness by attrition. (“Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, what good is it? It is only fit to be cast out…” etc.)
So, given that this is a psychosocialbiological issue (frantic hand-waving), there are too many variables to assign one number whic
h is guaranteed to hold all the time. Five is just a convenient rule of thumb.
Or, another way to put it is the remark of Nobel laureate in Physics, Leon Lederman, about a book he wrote on Introductory Physics. (“I feel like Zsa-Zsa Gabor’s seventh husband. I mean, I know what to *do*, but how do you make it interesting?)
(+) A good illustration of this, and of hypergamy and game in general, is from a letter written by a forsaken lover to the woman who has left him for another, in Dorothy L. Sayers’s *Clouds of Witness*:
“Simone,–I have just got your letter. What am I to say? It is useless to entreat or reproach you. You would not understand, or even read the letter.
“Besides, I always knew you must betray me some day. I have suffered a hell of jealousy for the last ten years. I know perfectly well you never
meant to hurt me. It was just your utter lightness and carelessness and your attractive way of being dishonest which was so adorable. I knew everything, and loved you all the same.
“Oh, no, my dear, I never had any illusions. You remember our first meeting that night at the Casino. You were seventeen, and heartbreakingly lovely. You came to me the very next day. You told me, very prettily, that you loved me and that I was the first. My poor little girl, that wasn’t true. I expect, when you were alone, you laughed to think I was so easily taken in. But there was nothing to laugh at. From our very first kiss I foresaw this moment.
“I’m afraid I’m weak enough, though, to want to tell you just what you have done for me. You may be sorry. But no–if you could regret anything, you wouldn’t be Simone any longer.
“Ten years ago, before the war, I was rich–not so rich as your new American, but rich enough to give you what you wanted. You didn’t want quite so much before the war, Simone. Who taught you to be so extravagant while I was away? I think it was very nice of me never to ask you. Well, most of my money was in Russian and German securities, and more than three-quarters of it went west. The remainder in France went down considerably in value. I had my captain’s pay, of course, but that didn’t amount to much. Even before the end of the war you had managed to get through all my savings. Of course, I was a fool. A young man whose income has been reduced by three-quarters can’t afford an expensive mistress and a flat in the Avenue Kleber. He ought either to dismiss the lady or to demand a little self-sacrifice. But I didn’t dare demand anything. Suppose I had come to you one day and said, ‘Simone, I’ve lost my money’–what would you have said to me?
“What do you think I did? I don’t suppose you ever thought about it at all. You didn’t care if I was chucking away my money and my honour and my happiness to keep you. I gambled desperately. I did worse, I cheated at cards. I can see you shrug your shoulders and say, ‘Good for you!’ But it’s a rotten thing to do–a rotter’s game. If anybody had found out they’d have cashiered me.
“Besides, it couldn’t go on for ever. There was one row in Paris, though they couldn’t prove anything. So then I got engaged to the English girl I told you about–the duke’s daughter. Pretty, wasn’t it? I actually brought myself to consider keeping my mistress on my wife’s money! But I’d have done it, and I’d do it again, to get you back.
“And now you’ve chucked me. This American is colossally rich. For a long time you’ve been dinning into my ears that the flat is too small and that you’re bored to death. Your ‘good friend’ can offer you cars, diamonds–Aladdin’s palace–the moon! I admit that love and honour look pretty small by comparison.
“Ah, well, the Duke is most obligingly stupid. He leaves his revolver about in his desk drawer. Besides, he’s just been in to ask what about this card-sharping story. So you see the game’s up, anyhow. I don’t blame you. I suppose they’ll put my suicide down to fear of exposure. All the better. I don’t want my love-affairs in the Sunday Press.
“Good-bye, my dear–oh, Simone, my darling, my darling, good-bye. Be happy with your new lover. Never mind me–what does it all matter? My God–how I loved you, and how I still love you in spite of myself. It’s all done with. You’ll never break my heart again. I’m mad–mad with misery! Goodbye.”
I wrote my bad SF analogy:
Game is like The Force
farm boy
This thread has proceeded as I have foreseen
It was inevitable. I just manned up…
This thread has proceeded as I have foreseen
Women, they chose poorly.
Apology not accepted
“But Eve didn’t nor does the Bible recall her as doing so. Nor is our current state attributed to her. Adam rebelled. Eve had a blond moment. She is presented in the whole narrative as having an inferior understanding of the world at large. If you want to use examples like this I’d use Hosea and the whore not Eve.”
GKC, Eve did not have a blonde moment; she was deceived, yes, but she sinned. Sin is rebellion against God so she did rebel – not in the way Adam did but she did rebel. Nor is her so-called inferior understanding of the narrative an excuse. She knew that the fruit was to be left alone.
Would deeper understanding have kept her from sin? No. We understand many things yet still sin. We don’t understand other things, yet we obey. Obedience keeps us from sin not understanding. Your inner white knight is showing here.
Nor did I put blame for our current state on Eve.
Now, what is this “reframing of Sarah into some sort of slut”?
Game makes sexual currency from hypergamy the way a con man makes money by conning his mark.
If I steal your money under false pretenses whilst you’re a gambler or spendthrift is that ‘willing’ turnabout fair play?
The entire idea behind Christianity is to recognize these failings and to help those folks turn away from such,not to exploit the weakness.Yes, I understand poverty can force sin,that is why the Bible indicates feed the sinner before preaching to them.I would say in the modern context the lessor sin would be to hire a prostitute rather than encourage a slut to slut more.
The difference being an INTENT to exploit.
Brothers,sisters,we are eternal fabric,can you imagine looking into all those lovers eyes forever and knowing all their thoughts of the moment?
We are not animals,if we where it would be ‘moral’ for me to take your woman,car,and home by force.No society can survive with all members acting as aggressive actors.The fact that the courts have taken corrective helpful counter aggression and demonized it as criminal,and then issues proxy violence to maintain that false standard indicates a concerted drive to the animal level that destroys society.They have subverted the corrective loving hand of husband to wife,parent to child.The societal “Justice” violence is Molock worship.The children are burning from the lack of a loving spanking,instead dad is in jail for trying to save his family from wrong behavior.These subverters of moral right need to be held to account.
Sunshinemary (asks)
“what are young Christian men supposed to do now?”
Take the red pill & spend the rest of their lives fighting against this madness…
Also if they are RC…the Preisthood, take back their Church,..
For the RCC I think their priest shortage solution is staring them in the face..
Especially for older men (35-40-50) whoo would bring a wealth of experience and less likley to shy away from politically incorrect subject matter & more willing (even eager) to address the problems of feminism and the sexual revolution.
I see that I have once again erred in my writing, in that I informed GKC that Cane Caldo entitled his OP Christians Don’t Need Game when in fact that is Point 3 of the original posting. I regret the carelessness that led me to this mistake, when in fact the title is Cypher’s Problem (something that means nothing to me, as noted previously).
I therefore apologize to GKC for carelessly informing him of something that is not true, and pledge to be more prudent in the future.
Everything else in that posting stands.
sunshinemary wrote at 6:58 pm:
“And why do so many people cite 5 at the magic number of penises that ruins a woman? I’m just curious. If I steal only one necklace from the jewelry store, am I not a thief?”
I’m the guilty one, ma’am. I cited 5 and then repented.
Farm boy,
You meant:
Proceeding thread foreseen have I…
Once again an iron maiden is immoral
Ah, yes. iron maiden is immoral. After all, it’s not like they warned us about things soon to come, or anything…
Proceeding thread foreseen have I…
Yodish, speak, I do not
@Cl- Love that term “sexually incontinent”absolutely removes the frame that women are not to account for promiscuity.
Women do have agency,they just love to deny it when it suits/serves them.They are not rutting animals incapable of self control.They just like to get the highest bidder via male competition and then not be held to account for all the bad fall out from such animalistic behavior.Once again, if animal is good, I can do anything to you,anything at all,then justify it hamster style.Most would be surprised what a razor thin line it is for a person to cross.Be careful what you teach the children..
Or, if you prefer an iron maiden from the ancient classical era…
This thread moves at ludicrous speed.
And wasn’t prince Valium the ultimate beta?
More proof how much Christianity is REALLY out of step with reality & has ALWAYS been out of step with reality
Women are LEVERAGING GIRL GAME & devestating the church as a result
What do christian men do as a result? They attack game, PUA, men asserting their masculinity & dominance
In short christian men attack one of the main defences men have, ie knowledge of how women use & manipulate men
Christianity has always sold out men, at every opportunity it gets
All with the flimsy premise of evil gamers & puas seducing their weak willed christian wives …
A few facts …
You cannot seperate game from PUA, as PUAs came up with most of the theories & ideologies gamers use today
You cannot learn game, unless you pickup chicks & learn how to rotate multiple women in a relationship
Reading about women is NOT game
Game HAS to be practised, which is WHY alot of guys in the manosphere have such warped ideas about game & PUA
What these so-called Christians dont realise society HAS CHANGED
Men HAVE to learn how to manage a soft harem, precisely because ALL women juggle multiple men & multiple relationships
Our society is no longer a male driven, male dominated culture
Its WOMEN who now juggle multiple men & multiple relationships
Women ARE NOW THE SEXUALLY PROMISCOUS CADS
Beta men ARE NOW THE INNOCENT VIRGINAL BRIDES, women take advantage of, after whoring their lives on the carousel
The ROLES HAVE CHANGED
Why dont these idiotic christians & manginas & anti-gamers get it?
The roles have changed
Thanks to the pill, & birth control in todays society, its women who are now the cads
Excellent post and commentary. I tried to make the same point in an earlier thread: “game” is accepting and navigating through nature; Christian manliness is RESISTING and OVERCOMING nature. Preserving Christian civilization requires a declaration of war against hypergamy — slut-shaming, criminalization of adultery (as was long the case), denial of custody to wayward spouses, etc. To argue that men should accept and apply hypergamy is to surrender to our lower natures, to grant victory to a decadent matriarchy (i.e., the matrix).
Unless you know how to juggle multiple relationships & multiple women, you will never be able to compete with women
This is what MOST MEN, who DONT practise game, dont understand
In order to biologically reproduce you have to learn how to compete
Want the hottest & fittest genes for your children? Learn to compete & beat women at their own game
A game theyve been playing for centuries
Juggling multiple relationships & rotating multiple orbitting betas
Men HAVE to learn this, as handling MULTIPLE relationships, DRAMATICALLY improves your social skills AND ability to know how to manage a stable relationship
As you now know all the road blocks, the hypergamy & biology women use to sabotage relationships
Women DO NOT want decent relationships, they want thugs & criminals
A soft harem, allows you to weed out, the highly hypergamous women, looking for a quick fix for a thug or panty wetting looser
Without having to invest the emotional time & energy, ie you no longer waste your time trying to find out if shes a carousel rider, or hypergamous
No emotional investment, means you can filter & dump unsuitable women, without becoming attached to them
Thanks to the pill, & birth control in todays society, its women who are now the cads
You’ve come a long way, baby
Good christian girls can be the cads if they wish. Ignore them until they hit the wall. Then date girls ten years younger, whilst the cat ladies experience the inevitable consequences.
Off topic
Men looking for love
http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/08/15/study-men-paying-for-sex-from-prostitute-looking-for-true-love/
Good christian girls can be the cads if they wish. Ignore them until they hit the wall. Then date girls ten years younger, whilst the cat ladies experience the inevitable consequences.
What is to keep the new batch from being cads also?
Hypergamy implies that many, many men will never be desired sexually by a woman. Indeed, these men can expect to go thru their entire lives without even seeing what a woman is like when she really wants it with you.
Here is a challenge: rebuild some kind of healthy family structure in the face of the fact that men are being taught this by women. Come up with some appealing arguments for men to accept a lifetime committment. I do not think it is enough to say, “Well, I am not such a loser!” Meanwhile, NAWALT.
Give an answer that works for guys who are introverted, not famous, and routinely get ljbf-ed.
I do not think that there is any honest advice that would be help-ful that did not begin and end Game Teachings. If a guy does not obtain gina-tingling competence, encouraging him to commit to a woman is an extremely immoral act – in part because there probably will be some woman out there willing to collect what you would be telling him to give away.
“begin and end with Game Teachings”
In other words, trying to skip over the issue of What Makes Her Moist is worse than incompetence once one knows the Truth. Because of the Roissy-ites, Christians are starting to know it.
It was never anything but hubris for modern Christianity to pose as something more holy and wise than the culture as a whole when the behaviors manifested are so indistinguishable.
The next gen of good christian girls (gcgs?) may well be cads.
But i think it is unlikely. Womens outrageously entitld behaviour can onlybe supported in good economic times. Tax revenues and all that.
When the depression is acknowledged, government jobs in hr and media will be long gone. Meaning women will suffer more and need to bag a serious other much earlier than they do now.
Rum, Game works. It can be used for moral purposes. Never listen to feminists. They lie about the true nature of women constantly. They resent the sexual power men can have over women. They want husbands to be miserable. They are like clever lawyers, expert at arguing a weak case.
Why feminists lie about female attraction:
http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/women-policing-the-hierarchy/
Meaning women will suffer more and need to bag a serious other much earlier than they do now.
Maybe, but more likely taxes will be raised to prop them up. But you can’t get blood from a turnip. It doesn’t look good
Never listen to feminists. They lie about the true nature of women constantly
@SSM
Maybe here is your educational starting point
The mass entry of women to the white collar world has ruined it. Everything they touch turns bad. Young men would be well advised to avoid the white collar world. Grey collar jobs might be ok. But the shakeout has barely begun. The charades will continue, until they cannot.
It is men that will barter and trade to get stuff in the midst of scarcity. Government price fixing will exacerbate shortages. It will not be pretty.
The problem with Mack PUA’s approach is it lacks any sense of Justice.
Sure – I man can steel himself, learn game and compete with hyper gamy..
But to do so you have to change your character – you have to learn to repress your very capacity to be a loving and committed Husband & Father.
I would rather have men devoting their time and energy to overthrowing feminism & the sexual revolution then having them lower the very sense of virtue required for civilization..
This PUA stuff as Mack describes it is Hobbsian – it is red in claw & tooth…
It ends up in a war of “all against all”
“Game is the applied science of attraction, most commonly expressed as the art of seduction. It’s based on the supposed evolutionary psychology of human; with a special emphasis on exploiting the condition of hypergamy.”
This is brilliant. I really like your definition here.
How can you start from such a good basis and get the rest so wrong? UNDERSTANDING what makes women attracted and ultimately satisfied is such a powerful thing. Why wouldn’t you want to learn that?
As I’ve said numerous times, I Love Women. http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/i-love-women-precursor/ Hence why I learn game. And it’s not a game that takes advantage of or manipulates women. It’s, as you say, the applied science of attraction, which isn’t a choice.
As Athol Kay says: “almost all men come to the point of learning Game, simply for the hope of finding a woman who loves them and wants them. Or keeping the woman they love”. What we do is motivated by love. Amen brother.
Cane,
“It’s not false modesty, it’s tired-Game. Har”
Fair enough, but its not any sort of Game. It is anti-game, and its use by the men who are in the church is killing the church. A man who tears himself down is literally sickening to a good woman, whether in the context of courtship or spiritual community, and it is the good women who bring the good men into that community and always have. We currently lack both.
The identification of anti-game is one of the many contributions of great value made by the game blogs. NoOne – fuck yourself. No one is denying that the game blogs offer some crucial insight, only that many of their prescriptions for action, and far worse their rationale behind that action, are inimical to the life to which Christ calls us all.
“I think I did a pretty good job of laying out my case”
Whatever. Judging the performance is beside the point.
You made your case. Now we’re talking about it. What matters is the ideas laid out, not you personally, one way or the other. Making it personal is again falling into the trap of acting feminine. You’re not a woman. Stop it.
“though definitely made one mistake: I severely underestimated how sold many are on the idea of Game. Since I’ve been reading about it for a long time, and am still grappling with the implications, trying to corral all the related-but-seemingly-opposing-tangents, and come to a coherent (in the full sense of the word) definition, etc., then I assumed a larger group of others were, too.”
Those who are were likely not provoked enough to respond. I was provoked by your slave mentality, not the content of much of what you said. See Ricky Raw’s deconstruction of PUA’s for similar thoughts. The game blogs themselves are changing in response.
“Personally, I’m not sold out on any idea except the Gospel”
Amen brother.
“Now, what I actually set out to talk about was Game in Christian marriage, and trying to reconcile that with Ephesians 5. Haven’t got there yet.”
Ain’t gonna. The value of the game blogs is in identifying what is and what not to do, not what to do.
“Hypergamy is the condition (never truly in dispute)”
I’ve disputed it. Polygamy is the condition. Hypergamy for status conferred by society, including older women as well as men, with the music stopping at the marriage vow, would be a huge improvement.
Rollo Tomassi says:
August 16, 2012 at 8:20 am
“What would Jesus do?”
Jesus would not marry the sluts.
So, I have found statistics that say around 10% of women are virgins when they marry.
All others are sluts. Many of them marry, and about half of them stay married for life. I’m just noting this for future reference in case we ever get around to answer my question from last night, “What next for the unmarried Christian man?”
The answer is to be patient, do not marry someone with a sexual history. This means you may not marry. In the contemporary context, this isn’t the worst thing in the world, given what is happening in marriages today. In that sense, I agree with Dalrock in that many men who are looking for this are simply not going to find it. The answer, in my view, isn’t then lowering the standard (i.e., “everyone is a slut, so pick one who is at least five years removed from her sluttery and shows that she isn’t a slut any more”),but sticking to the same standard. It’s still possible to find a woman who has no sexual history or a very limited one. The trouble most men face is that most of these women “go” fairly young into marriages. Still, there are some older ones as well, but men may need to be more flexible about other aspects (quite a few of these women are not going to be classic beauty queens if they are still virgins at 30 and beyond), but if the men are interested in spiritual beauty (as some of the posts in this thread indicate) that should be “do-able”. If you’re looking for an HB7+ who is also a virgin and otherwise spiritually beautiful, your best bet is a quite young woman, which is not often feasible in this culture for men beyond a certain age. If these guys — if you can’t be more flexible on the HB7+ side of things, you may want to accept that you could be waiting a long time, or simply not marry.
On the “what is a slut” issue, the question really isn’t about a numerical cutoff, which is why that’s generally an unfruitful way of looking at the question. A slut is someone who has an instrumental view of sexuality — that is, one who views sex in a hedonistic way for the most part. A person with this mentality towards sex will not link sex with marriage exclusively, because the view of sex is distorted and based on hedonic elements which we all know can well occur outside of marriage as well. That is, sex is about two (or more) human beings collaborating physically to bring each other sexual pleasure, and this is a “good” in and of itself as long as ‘enthusiastic consent’ is present. That is an instrumental/hedonist view of sexuality, and is the sine qua non of being a slut. That is the case whether one actually has a high n or not — lots of other factors go into one’s n, and not all of them are subject to individual control (although quite a few are). There are women with low n’s who nevertheless have a very instrumental/hedonist view of sex. Eventually, that will come out and express itself, even if it is decades later, because marital sexuality will eventually fail to hedonistically satisfy. The same holds true of men as well — men who have a hedonistic/instrumental view of sexuality are also sluts, whether they have a high n or not. The point isn’t that all of these people will “stray” sexually, if they marry — rather the point is that their relationship to sex is more hedonistic and less sacramental, and is therefore fundamentally distorted, and therefore will eventually lead to some challenges down the road. There are plenty of people who have fairly low n’s who nonetheless have a slutty view of sex, who then end up questioning their commitments later in life when they may feel they have “missed out” sexually — that is a decidedly slutty thing to say, because someone who does not have a slutty view of sex would not feel that they have “missed out” by skipping the opportunity to have instrumental/hedonistic sexual encounters and experiences when younger (or feel the interest in having them later in life) — they simply were not interested in having sex under those conditions because of their understanding of what sex actually is, and what it means (note that I am not suggesting it is always black and white in any person, and there are people who have non-slutty attitude towards sex but who may struggle with slutty thoughts about sex — that probably reflects a lot of people as well, which isn’t very surprising due to the generally sinful condition most of us find ourselves in).
So the issue isn’t really the “n” as much as it is the attitude. Note, however, that this really only works one way. That is, a higher “n” person is virtually always someone who has (or had) an instrumental/hedonistic view of sex — a slut or a (claimed to be) ex-slut. Someone who has a sacramental view of sex will generally have an “n” of zero outside marriage (but not always — some non-sluts do make a mistake due to sin, but still the number would be very low, like 1). So it generally isn’t the case that people who have higher n’s are not sluts (or were not sluts) — they were at the time. The question then becomes “are they still one”, and that has to do with their attitude towards sex and what it means to them. Conversely, a person can have a very low “n”, like DH, and still be a slut interiorly when it comes to sexuality, seeing it as instrumental and hedonistic — this just means that the person is selective in his/her hedonism. And, as I said above, and as we see in DH’s case interestingly enough, if this fundamental attitude towards sexuality remains intact, generally this will be expressed in some way at some point in life, either before one makes a “commitment” or, in some cases, after. It’s not that such persons can’t live a monogamous life — they can, if they take commitments seriously. It’s that their attitude towards sex can lead them to question the sexual aspect of their commitment more easily, and lead to regrets about it (or even earlier sexual reticence, as I note above) later as life marches on.
Which brings us back to your initial question. In an age where most people have an instrumental/hedonist view of sex, most people are therefore sluts, regardless of their “n”. I’ve written above about what I think men should do about that who are not sluts themselves (it should be remembered that many Christian men also have a slutty attitude toward sex, too, even if their own n is low due to low opportunity). If they are sluts themselves, they need to change that, if they claim to be Christian.
Just reading Brendan above, I was wondering whether the obsession with Virgins – or rather Female Chastity; rather like a Transylvanian vampire (I have NEVER met a man who even mentioned the point; or a woman, bar one – who was lieing – who was keen to emphasise her Virginity) is, I regret to say a specifically American Puritanical obsession. Suffice to say I have never met, a woman, either, who was insisting on Male Virginity at Marriage – perhaps they should!
May I also, take observational issue with Brendan as to the likelihood that if you want a virgin when she is aged Thirty one should seek out a ‘Plain Jane’. My experience again, is that the plain ones are the most promiscuous and the good looking ones are the ones who do not give it away for free, so, if you want a virgin, I say, go for the good looking ones – a win-win situation.
Brendan, interesting. Just a couple of quick points. Sex is not simply about pleasure for me. I think it is also about the drama of manhood and womanhood and, to be honest, about dominance. The second point is that I have never wanted a woman other than my wife. I don’t mean that I don’t notice other women. I do. But I only want the one I have and I only want sex with her. I don’t look back and wish I had bedded more women. I shall go to my grave only having had sex with two women. But I have no regrets.
Opus, marrying a virgin mattered to me. And I knew other men who felt the same way. On looks, the virgin I married was pretty, with a nice figure. I will not say she was cover girl material, but she was perfectly “bedworthy”, as one of my friends remarked.
@MackPUA wrote at 9:38 pm (in part):
“This is what MOST MEN, who DONT practise game, dont understand
In order to biologically reproduce you have to learn how to compete
Want the hottest & fittest genes for your children? Learn to compete & beat women at their own game”
Mack, this is more full of holes than a Swiss Cheese.
Let us take the example of a beta who marries one of the ex-Carousel riders who has hit the wall.
And he (not knowing Game) gets divorce-raped.
So what? He still reproduced, which is why we hear the wails of betas who don’ t get to see much of *their* children.
As far as the PUAs? Note that *avoiding children* is one of their goals — and it works, hence we don’t hear much of their offspring on their blogs.
So it isn’t evolutionary if it doesn’t lead to “allele changes in a population over time” — which can only come about if there *are* children to begin with.
@David Collard
You are a Roman Catholic and thus it is understandable that on your check list the future Mrs Collard had to tick Virgin – pity us heathens, who having failed to pay any attention in school lack any form of religious influence to guide us in our choice, because frankly the problem (as I always say) is ‘if she is not doing it before marriage she surely won’t be doing it afterwards’ – one just has to take ones chance with cuckolding – but you must understand this does not apply to America, as God clearly gave up on the British Isles as a hopeless cause ages ago – if indeed he was ever here; why even the snakes chased St Patrick out of Ireland – or something like that.
Opus, as I indicated above, my preference for a virgin was only in part a religious matter. Frankly, it was also pride. In terms of her putting out, I have no complaints. The poor old girl is still submitting to my hideous attentions. As for before marriage, she was quite anxious to share my bed, wedded or not. So I got the perfect wife, a horny virgin.
@David Collard
You obviously drive a very hard bargain. Some would say you have considerable Game, but I am Game-skeptic – and so I would remind everyone that where you come from men are men and sheep are nervous – or so I have been told.
Opus, I used to wonder why so many very acceptable young Catholic men I know married such fat, albeit estimable, young women. It would never have done for me. Game theory provided the answer. They are betas.
I must be some kind of alpha, despite being, as my daughter recently said, a “huge nerd” and “really weird”.
As for nervous sheep, may I congratulate you and your fellow soap-dodgers on your Olympic succcess.
@David Collard
It is curious that those who have been the least promiscuous are happy with a lower partner count; and those who have been promiscuous always need more. 😦 That rather calls the lie to the ‘I used to be a slut, but now I have changed’ assertion (as was made earlier I believe on this very thread) – these things are perhaps possible, but unlikely. Character does not tend to change – which is why I am doubtful that reading a manual on Game will in reality change the romantic luck of its practitioners.
I am thus reminded of the movies (not The Matrix which I have never seen) but some of the older films: whenever Gary Cooper is on screen, he oozes hero; or Cary Grant ladies man; or to be more up-to-date, George Clooney says reliability. (If you want to be a movie star ensure that your initials are a C and a G – You are almost there) I am suggesting that just as one instinctively responds (male or female) to those actors in a particular way, so in real life, people do likewise.
And talking of actors I am reminded of how in Lover Come Back, Rock Hudson, seduces Doris Day by pretending to be helpless and asexual, which is exactly the same plot device used in William Wytcherley’s Restoration Comedy, The Country Wife. There is no one right answer to success with females and it is even harder to keep them haaaaaaaaaaaappy therafter.
Opus, I am still thinking about these matters, and I probably always will. Physiognomy is not totally reliable, but we do seem to read character from face and figure. However I once said I have the personality of Jeff Goldblum stuck inside a George Clooney appearance. So I think I get misread a lot.
I think Roissyworld is having a bad effect on me too. I saw a sweet looking woman at the local shopping centre yesterday. Once I would have just smiled to myself happily, but I caught myself wondering about her partner number.
I do think my wife and I are just squares. We have had our little torrid moments, but we just pair bonded and that was that. It is not that my wife lacks hypergamy or I don’t put women in my fantasy harem. We just don’t “act out”.
Pingback: In Defense of Values and Control Of Self | The Society of Phineas
Opus —
That’s fine, but I think the discussion in the thread is about Christianity and Game, and SSM, who asked the question about sluts, is also a Christian, so my response was coming from that perspective (and I’m not a Puritan/Calvinist Christian myself). But for someone coming at things from the secular perspective, it’s very true that people don’t care very much about what I was writing about — so they wouldn’t really care much about who is a “slut” and who isn’t. Men still generally want to marry women with lower n’s than higher n’s, but since everyone is basically employing an instrumental/hedonist attitude towards sex anyway, they’re basically all sluts (under my way of thinking), and so hence the general emphasis we see being placed on pure “n” as a differentiating factor in this area (and not virginity, as in n=0, but “n less than X” type of analysis we see people engaging in, men and women alike, in terms of what is an “acceptable” pre-marital n).
David —
Yes, and IIRC, your wife was fairly young when you met and married her. My point about the non-HB7+ option was for men who are older, who did not choose (or perhaps did not *get* to choose) the prettier chaste women when they were younger. In my own personal experience, there are very, very few HB7+ women who are also chaste who do not marry by the mid 20s. Once you reach the 30s and unmarried stage, you’re mostly dealing with sluts (even if they have a low n, per my post) or women who are chaste but had lesser opportunity for one reason or another (one main one being appearance relative to other women their age) (and yes, Opus, I know that plenty of non-HB7+ women are not chaste — my point, again, is that if you are looking for a chaste woman over past 30, she’s overwhelmingly likely to not be an HB7+ because almost all of the HB7+ women are married well before then … if you’re trying to suss out someone’s “n” by whether they are an HB7+ or not, you’re making a big mistake, of course, and I agree there).
That is “almost all of the *chaste* HB7+ women are married by then” (i.e., by 30).
I do know one exception — woman who was an extremely picky/perfectionist type who was also a very chaste Christian woman — about an HB7 I would say, even when she married just after 40 (to a divorced guy who was a born again Christian). He was also quite attractive and quite Christian and probably ticked most of the boxes on the list other than the divorce box (although his divorce was “biblical” per evangelical-speak).
@David Collard
I believe that your last sentence hits upon the real thing: namely pair-bonding; as we do not adopt the Indian system of Arranged Marriages, we leave the hapless, lustful youngsters to get it right – and first time. This is not always easy; and thus (especially when no children have resulted from the Union) it is often kinder to allow the Dissolution of a Marriage rather than to force two mis-matched people to struggle on.
This puts me in mind of a woman I briefly knew. The only time I met her (possibly) was at a party at her house. Her Fiancee was in the room and she was allowing me to touch her up, – and not particularlily discretely either. They married. He was a scout-master in his spare-time, and so it will not come as any great surprise to you to learn they soon divorced; mercifully without children. She was a woman I would say who was born to be a mother.
Anyway: she has since remarried a man who is by chance a divorced Catholic. Apparently he feels great guilt over this, but they now have two little girls and it is clear from their facebook pictures that they are as well matched as one could hope for – there is even a picture of them in church at the christening. Aaaaah.
Mind you, if you can’t get it right the second time you probably never will.
A few failed relationships doesn’t automatically make a woman a slut, nor does the guy dumping her in those instances automatically qualify as alpha of the “5 minutes of alpha” sort.
The reason people mistake serial monogamy for “failing to find a suitable husband” is because they really do look very similar. It’s not true that every woman who has had a series of boyfriends is engaging in vaginally-motivated serial monogamy. A girl who does not shoot out of her league and makes legitimate attempts at a marriage-track relationships that fail for reasons largely out of her control (even non-alpha men get bored and dump girlfriends), is not a carousel rider.
@x2d4d
A girl who does not shoot out of her league
All women shoot out of her league (at least, at the beginning), because they can. High SMV men are willing to have sex with girls who have low SMV. This gives women a distorted view of her own SMV.
My experience with serial monogamy is that it is directly related to hypergamy. The more hypergamous the woman is, the higher the SMV of the guys she has a relationship with and the shorter the length of these relationships.
In a typical case, if the woman is a 7, her first relationship is with a 9 (he dumps her very quickly), then with a 8 (the relationship lasts a bit longer), then with a 7 (so the relationship can last a long, although the woman thinks that she has settled). Of course, I am simplifying but you get the idea.
By contrast, a slut who is a 7 is always having relationships with 9s and, as a result, these relationships are extremely short-lived. Slut = women with high hypergamy who is unable to settle.
Opus (writes)
“(I have NEVER met a man who even mentioned the point; or a woman, bar one – who was lieing – who was keen to emphasise her Virginity) is, I regret to say a specifically American Puritanical obsession. Suffice to say I have never met, a woman, either, who was insisting on Male Virginity at Marriage – perhaps they should”
This back handed swipe really bothers me..
“specifically American Puritanical obsession” – I happen to be Catholic and the lineage of the iconography of our Mother the Virgin Mary is not specifically American, or particularly rare quality to value in a woman.
Opus’s understanding is a-historical…It completely ignores the breadth and depth of the West’s sexual ethic and religious prescriptions.. One encounters this all the time in Feminist ranting’s…trying to characterize a perfectly understandable desire of men and time honored tradition of purity as some sort of “obsession” that is unhealthy or peculiar in nature. It is not.
40 years of our sexual revolution has shown us the wisdom of what was obscured by tradition. My own personal experience made me end up understanding the importance of female sexuality and promiscuity. Just because Opus “never met a woman who EMPHAISISED her virginity” – well of coarse they would not emphasize it…40 years of a counter cultural revolution on matters sexual have young women actually ashamed to mention it. In my old law schools divorce law class we had a discussion on this wide ranging subject, one young woman mentioned how there is “allot of stealth virtue out there”..a clever way of addressing the issue about shame felt by people who don’t sleep around.
I can count the number of woman I personally know (6) who relate the same exact experience. A combination of temperament & values led them to keep their virginity well into college… at that point they felt like they had delayed it so long that they “WANTED IT TO BE SPECIAL” – (If not plain old waiting for “the one”) . So they delayed it further in hopes of making it at least “special. These same woman all recount how eventually they end up just giving it up to “get it over with”…
I consider this one of the untold tragedies of our age..To a person it was not religious prescriptions and certainly not social pressure (that was in the opposite direction) that led them to keep their virginity so long. No these girls simply wanted to “give it up” to something other than a grouping drunk one night stand. This value is not simply one men hold… woman themselves value their virginity and dont dismiss the idea of marrying their one and only mate..
“That is, sex is about two (or more) human beings collaborating physically to bring each other sexual pleasure, and this is a “good” in and of itself as long as ‘enthusiastic consent’ is present. That is an instrumental/hedonist view of sexuality, and is the sine qua non of being a slut.”
Or, the person uses sex to bring him/herself physical and sexual pleasure without regard to the other person’s desires.
Or, the person uses sex to extract from others things she wants at the time: Validation. Affirmation. Approval. Money. Gifts. Entertainment. Favors. Commitment. Status. Marriage.
Or the person uses sex as a tool, for leverage or power. Such a person sees her sexuality as the only agency she has, or at least the most potent agency she has.
The feminine pronoun is used in the last two examples because it is women, not men, who typically are able to use sex in those manners.
Desiderius:
“Polygamy is the condition.”
Thank you for re-focusing. Nobody needs to discuss polygamy because everybody knows what it is; we obsessively pick over hypergamy so as to better understand it. But we tend to gloss over the fact that polygamy is a natural result of hypergamy. Properly managed hypergamy makes a stronger species, and (in most cultures) monogamy makes a stronger society.
In our current environment, rampant hypergamy is the greatest obstacle to monogamy, but monogamy itself, not the elimination of hypergamy, is the primary goal.
X2d4d, you bring up some good points. I have met plenty of serial monogamists in my time, some of whom I would have considered for marriage…well, one of them at least. Some of them I have considered to be slightly over the slut line with the monogamy as a cover and another who truly was looking for a good partner but had the most terrible taste in men I have ever seen. In this light, I do not consider serial monogamy to be horrible on the same lever as sluttery. It is not Christian, but I would still consider a serial monogamous more marriageable than a slut. The biggest problem with serial monogamy is that it wastes time that could be spent searching for a proper partner.
@GKChesterton
Dr. Larry Crabb wrote a book using the Fall and The Curse as the basis for this thesis. The book is called “The Silence of Adam”. There is also another Biblically solid gender study called “The Five Aspects of Man/Woman” and it uses that translation of the word as well. So I am not alone in using it that way.
I don’t purport to read Hebrew, but I can recognize sound Biblical teaching when I come across it.
I really enjoyed Brendan’s comment at 2:21 a.m. distinguishing what he calls an instrumental/hedonic view of sex (and indeed, he very accurately describes the view I hold) from a Christian sacramental view of sex. People keep asking why I come to this site and this kind of comment is why. It is a pleasure to see one’s point of view critiqued, rather than distorted.
I will say that one can have that instrumental/hedonic view of sex, while still keeping sex in its proper perspective. Social conservatives sometimes assume, I think, that sexual liberals are engaged in non-stop orgies and indiscriminate sex. In reality, as I think Brendan recognizes, one can have a view of sex as a mutually pleasurable collaboration without thinking that it it the be-all and end-all of life. While recognizing that sex as a deeply pleasurable end in itself, sexual liberals can and do understand that it is but one small aspect of life, and that other areas of life and other values are often (perhaps usually) more important and more rewarding — such as one’s relationships with others, ethics, hard work, keeping one’s commitments, raising one’s children well. This is why one can have a sexually liberal outlook and also have no difficulty living monogamouslly.
Brendan is quite right that one is more likely to question the sexual aspect of one’s commitment more easily, and will be more open to renegotiation of that commitment. I’m not sure that necessarily means that the sexual liberal is more likely to have an illicit affair, though the sexual liberal is more likely to view divorce as an option. (I do not, but I’m not necessarily representative in that area.)
That said, I think sexual conservatism can also encourage affairs (perhaps more so than sexual liberalism) because there is often (at least in American evangelical circles) such an emphasis on guarding one’s heart and resisting temptation and modesty that it seems people start to become a bit sex-obsessed. It’s like when someone says, “Whatever you do, don’t think about X!” which then means all you can do is think about X. As a sexual liberal, I (and I think many others with similar views) have never been particularly sex obsessed because sex has always been kept in its proper perspective as a simple pleasurable act, rather than as an enormous temptation to be guarded against.
I would be interested to hear Brendan’s desciption of the Christian sacramental view of sex.
“He was a scout-master in his spare-time, and so it will not come as any great surprise to you to learn they soon divorced; mercifully without children. She was a woman I would say who was born to be a mother.”
If I were to try to explain the particular nature of the fallenness of this generation to, say, a WWII vet, I think the above sums it up pretty concisely. The scouts likely disrespect him as much as she did, with her oblivious to her potential to change that situation, and in fact her need to do so in order to become what she was born to be.
@imnobody
This logic is flawed. ‘Women tend to’ would be the correct way to make this assertion. ‘All women’ is wrong.
Yes, this happens, but it doesn’t have to happen in every single case. Not all women are too stupid to recognize what’s happening. Not all women are so short-sighted.
I have known women like this. They dated decent guys, flawed guys with potential, near or below their looks-based rank. Some of them got married, some have children, others got dumped, others failed for logistical reasons, others simply ran into mutual problems that they were unwilling to work out, the list goes on. Sometimes those failed relationships lasted for years, and you wind up with a 25-26 year old HB7, n=3. At this point she may still decide to hop on the carousel, but she may not.
Stereotypes are used frequently to simplify discussion, be careful not to let these stereotypes color your reality too much. At that point, the red pill becomes a green pill or something– no closer to reality than the feminist dogma.
Desiderius, I think Opus may be implying that the chap was homosexual. Scoutmasters have that reputation in England.
“I can count the number of woman I personally know (6) who relate the same exact experience. A combination of temperament & values led them to keep their virginity well into college… at that point they felt like they had delayed it so long that they “WANTED IT TO BE SPECIAL” – (If not plain old waiting for “the one”) . So they delayed it further in hopes of making it at least “special. These same woman all recount how eventually they end up just giving it up to “get it over with”…
I consider this one of the untold tragedies of our age..To a person it was not religious prescriptions and certainly not social pressure (that was in the opposite direction) that led them to keep their virginity so long. No these girls simply wanted to “give it up” to something other than a grouping drunk one night stand. This value is not simply one men hold… woman themselves value their virginity and dont dismiss the idea of marrying their one and only mate.”
Beautifully written, and beautiful because true. The anger they, and we, often feel at the fallen norms and mores we in fact share can impede both of us from seeing each other as we truly are or the struggles we face as common ones.
Yes, it is a tragedy, and more tragic in that we have not seen it as one we share.
“Desiderius, I think Opus may be implying that the chap was homosexual. Scoutmasters have that reputation in England.”
That is entirely consistent with the point I was making. Both the prejudice (reputation is too kind) and the underlying truth which prompts it.
Making the common man a master takes considerable effort – on his part, on society’s part, crucially on her part. That effort is the lynchpin of Christian civilization at its best. We now see the results of abandoning that effort, or worse, making the common woman master at the expense of the common man.
The unhappiest with the current arrangement being the women themselves, with the scouts a close second.
“I have known women like this. They dated decent guys, flawed guys with potential, near or below their looks-based rank. Some of them got married, some have children, others got dumped, others failed for logistical reasons, others simply ran into mutual problems that they were unwilling to work out, the list goes on. Sometimes those failed relationships lasted for years, and you wind up with a 25-26 year old HB7, n=3. At this point she may still decide to hop on the carousel, but she may not.”
These women are the counterpart to the gameless, but often otherwise good, man.
Those men have been acting like women in the hopes it will land them a mate. Likewise these women tend to act like men in that context with similar results.
“That is, sex is about two (or more) human beings collaborating physically to bring each other sexual pleasure, and this is a “good” in and of itself as long as ‘enthusiastic consent’ is present. That is an instrumental/hedonist view of sexuality, and is the sine qua non of being a slut.”
Or, the person uses sex to bring him/herself physical and sexual pleasure without regard to the other person’s desires.
Or, the person uses sex to extract from others things she wants at the time: Validation. Affirmation. Approval. Money. Gifts. Entertainment. Favors. Commitment. Status. Marriage.
Or the person uses sex as a tool, for leverage or power. Such a person sees her sexuality as the only agency she has, or at least the most potent agency she has.
The feminine pronoun is used in the last two examples because it is women, not men, who typically are able to use sex in those manners.
Right, Deti, but you’re confusing liberal and conservative views of sex. Liberal views of sex emphasize mutuality and collaboration, an ethic distinctly opposed to the frequent conservative notion that sex inevitably involves the selling of sex by the woman for other things. It’s not liberals, and certainly not feminists, who came up with the phrase, “Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?” The idea of sex as a quid-pro-quo exchange may not be Christian exactly, but it is definitely embedded, and even endorsed, in many traditionalist views of marriage and relationships.
(I would also venture that using sex to gratify oneself without regard to the other partner’s desires is more of a male habit, partly born of the physiological fact that it is generally easier and faster for a man to climax than for a woman. And I don’t believe that sex can really be used effectively as leverage or power; sex appeal is too transient and too much in the eye of the beholder to be used as power in the way that money or authority can.)
DH…. You really need to read this article at Throne and Altar. Here are some excerpts.
On the unusually low libidos of Leftists. Here are some excerpts —
…There’s a stereotype out there, created by we conservatives, that Leftists are a bunch of lechers who have decided to tear down the moral patrimony of our civilization just so they can more easily gratify their own carnal cravings. Listening to them, though, I more often get the impression that Leftists are people with unusually weak sex drives…..
….Conservatives imagine that liberals are promoting promiscuity and perversion because of their own lust, projecting our own horniness onto them. Leftists accuse patriarchal conservatives of using sex as a weapon to establish domination, projecting their own obsessions with power, their own libido dominandi, onto us. According to them, men have sex with their wives to maintain our power over them. Why else would we do it, after all?
I can count the number of woman I personally know (6) who relate the same exact experience. A combination of temperament & values led them to keep their virginity well into college… at that point they felt like they had delayed it so long that they “WANTED IT TO BE SPECIAL” – (If not plain old waiting for “the one”) . So they delayed it further in hopes of making it at least “special. These same woman all recount how eventually they end up just giving it up to “get it over with”…
Well, I am not a woman but this happened to me. This is exactly my story. Yes, I was THAT beta.
@Desiderius
No. These are classic serial monogomists, albeit not as bad as the common carouseler. They are pursuing the standard script, that women need to test drive a number of potential husbands as boyfriends. If she decides she wants to marry him, she will then demand marriage. But she doesn’t want to be under any obligation herself until she has come to this conclusion. Under Brendan’s definition of sluts above they qualify as sluts.
@Marlon,
GKC, Eve did not have a blonde moment; she was deceived, yes, but she sinned. Sin is rebellion against God so she did rebel – not in the way Adam did but she did rebel. Nor is her so-called inferior understanding of the narrative an excuse. She knew that the fruit was to be left alone.
We’ll start with sin, sin is failure of perfection not rebellion. In that Eve sinned because she failed to act properly (this is how many of us are caught in day to day life). Rebellion however requires desire to overturn a stated order. For example, if I walk into a room and start outlining a plan that my boss unknown to me has just nixed, I am not in rebellion against my boss. The scriptures are clear that Eve was deceived so she did not rebel in a formal manner. So she both sinned and did not rebel.
Would deeper understanding have kept her from sin? No. We understand many things yet still sin. We don’t understand other things, yet we obey. Obedience keeps us from sin not understanding. Your inner white knight is showing here.
You are also here conflating the unfallen and the fallen state. Adam and Eve were like us in being human, but unlike us in being in a state of grace. The analogy therefore doesn’t work. And no, my white knight is not showing, I’m taking scripture as primary and game as secondary.
Now, what is this “reframing of Sarah into some sort of slut”?
In the previous thread someone argued that Sarah somehow seduced Abraham into entering an illicit relationship with Hagar and that she was trying to usurp the natural order by bossing him around.
Ha ha, touche, VR!
Suz,
“Thank you for re-focusing.”
Thank you for your kindness.
“Nobody needs to discuss polygamy because everybody knows what it is”
No, no we do not.
The bad boy is bad because he pursues, and successfully pursues his base instinct to spread his seed widely to the detriment of society. It is assumed by SWPL’s and TradCons comfortably keeping themselves aloof from the depth of our current fallenness that this is of course distasteful (although they are also remarkably incurious about the wellsprings of that distaste), but that the actual harm is limited in this era of birth control.
That is not true either. He’s not using birth control. He has a burgeoning brood by a string of single moms.
Everybody doesn’t know this.
Women are attracted to the bad boy not out of hypergamy. He does not in fact have higher status than her unless we validate the status conferred upon him by young women alone* (this is where Roissy is wrong and the game philosophy rankles). They are attracted to him out of their own base instinct to spread their own seed as widely as possible (sexy son).
That too is polygamy, not hypergamy, and nobody knows it.
“we obsessively pick over hypergamy so as to better understand it. But we tend to gloss over the fact that polygamy is a natural result of hypergamy.”
This is exactly backwards. Hypergamy for status legitimately earned is how we transcended polygamy. For us to win the war, Achilles has to get the girl. Not Paris (letting him get the girl caused their tragedy in the first place, and is at the root of ours). Not Agamemnon. It is the job of all of us to make that happen.
“Properly managed hypergamy makes a stronger species, and (in most cultures) monogamy makes a stronger society.”
Exactly.
* – in a Lord of the Flies sense, he then earns status among young men. The Law of the Jungle at its most raw.
“you’re confusing liberal and conservative views of sex.”
No. Political ideology is irrelevant. This is not about liberal and conservative. This is about fantasy and reality.
There is fantasy (women just want to get married, women have sex to get husbands, women are innately good, men are savage immoral beasts who think of nothing but sex).
And then there is reality (men are romantics who provide commitment and marriage; women are willing to use sex to get what they want, women are in the SMP to get sex with hot alpha men and hope to parlay that sex into a relationship; hypergamy operates at all times in every woman everywhere).
The hypergamy the manosphere decries is women using SMV in mate selection over MMV, or in other words those women recognizing the status illegitimately conferred by other women over the status legitimately conferred by society.
A young woman selecting a mate on the basis of MMV will necessarily be undershooting in terms of SMV die to biology, since the SMV of women peaks earlier than the SMV of men, so it feels like hypergamy (shooting higher) is the problem.
This is a red herring.
“No. These are classic serial monogomists, albeit not as bad as the common carouseler. They are pursuing the standard script, that women need to test drive a number of potential husbands as boyfriends. If she decides she wants to marry him, she will then demand marriage. But she doesn’t want to be under any obligation herself until she has come to this conclusion. Under Brendan’s definition of sluts above they qualify as sluts.”
The two categories are not mutually exclusive. I’m dating one now who is in the former but not the latter, but you are correct that most attractive women 25-40 have fallen into serial monogamy, as most men with a sack in the same cohort have fallen into some version of the game lifestyle.
Women under 25 are more likely to be merely unhappy, rather than UNHAPPY, with the current state of affairs and are seeking alternatives. This is in large part attributable to their greatly diminished career prospects.
My sons will be taught “game”. I want grandchildren with 2 parent households.
Christians don’t need game, LOL!
DH,
“While recognizing that sex as a deeply pleasurable end in itself, sexual liberals can and do understand that it is but one small aspect of life”
Deep or small. Your choice. Can’t have both.
“Women are attracted to the bad boy not out of hypergamy. He does not in fact have higher status than her unless we validate the status conferred upon him by young women alone*”
I disagree. Society doesn’t need to validate the status conferred upon him for a woman to mistakenly perceive that his status is high. If a woman believes through rationalization (and YouGoGrrrl groupthink) that a man’s status is high, she will mate with him regardless of his *actual* status. Women who mate with inferior men, convince themselves that these men are indeed superior, based on cues that they perceive to be dominant. How is that not hypergamy?
” Hypergamy for status legitimately earned is how we transcended polygamy. ”
But hypergamy doesn’t stop once the “ideal” status is earned. Even if a woman is married to the tribal chief, doesn’t she know exactly which man she will marry in the event of his death? Doesn’t hypergamy lead to both monogamy and polygamy, depending on how it is managed?
Am I (ironically) misunderstanding your use of “polygamy?”
The hypergamy the manosphere decries is women using SMV in mate selection over MMV,
Most women think their SMV is the same as their MMV. They don’t understand men’s willingness to have sex with women they are ABSOLUTELY sure they don’t want to marry. Most women doesn’t have sex with a men unless he is worthy or has potential.
Women are attracted to the bad boy not out of hypergamy. He does not in fact have higher status than her unless we validate the status conferred upon him by young women alone
The bad boy was a good catch in the Stone Age, where these guys were the ones who got the biggest amount of meat. Women’s instincts (aka “tingle”) have not evolved fast enough to recognize that the nerd with is a better catch than the thug.
Cypher’s problem was that the hypergamist Trinity fell for Neo instead.
“you’re confusing liberal and conservative views of sex.”
No. Political ideology is irrelevant. This is not about liberal and conservative. This is about fantasy and reality.
There is fantasy (women just want to get married, women have sex to get husbands, women are innately good, men are savage immoral beasts who think of nothing but sex).
Well, I agree 100% that these common views are fantasy. You sound like a feminist here!
And then there is reality (men are romantics who provide commitment and marriage; women are willing to use sex to get what they want, women are in the SMP to get sex with hot alpha men and hope to parlay that sex into a relationship; hypergamy operates at all times in every woman everywhere).
Ha ha ha ha ha. See, I just can’t take this seriously. It’s just the flip side of the MEN BAD, WOMEN GOOD view that you critique so hard — men as good and pure, and women as voracious gold-diggers. Cynicism fluorishes in both sexes, Deti. That is why Hugh Hefner exists and why the sex industry is run primarily by men. And, again, it’s the conservative view of sex as a quid-pro-quo, something women exchange for favors from men, that turns every heterosexual interaction, including marriage, into common prostitution.
The reality is that marriage and commitment are not something men “provide” women, i.e. it’s not some big favor you all do for us. It’s a two-way street — even traditional marriages, which I don’t even have an interest in defending — where both parties bear RISK and REWARD. It is a RISK for a woman to be married every bit as much as it is for a man, if not more so. (If he walks, she finds her standard of living and the assets she previously held jointly with her husband reduced by half. Moreover, she may have sacrificed her future earning capacity in order to stay home and take care of the kids. In the alternative, she could find herself shackled to jerk, either stuck with him for life or facing enormous financial consequences if she leaves.) Marriage is also REWARDING, but the reward goes both ways.
“The scriptures are clear that Eve was deceived so she did not rebel in a formal manner. So she both sinned and did not rebel.”
1 Sam 12:14-15 and other such scriptures –
If ye will fear the LORD, and serve him, and obey his voice, and not rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall both ye and also the king that reigneth over you continue following the LORD your God:
But if ye will not obey the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall the hand of the LORD be against you, as [it was] against your fathers.
Sorry, GKC, the scriptures you have a commandment, you disobey, then you have broken it, you’ve rebelled, you’ve sinned. Your inner white knight is showing. (Or if you prefer, being deceived, Eve rebelled in an informal manner).
And really now, fallen or unfallen, obedience to God prevents sin — NOT understanding. I don’t see what problem you could have with that.
The bad boy was a good catch in the Stone Age, where these guys were the ones who got the biggest amount of meat.
Don’t be too sure of that. Nerds can be really good hunters. Cold-climate peoples, where the plant life was far less useful, relied much more heavily on hunting… and those are the groups that seem to produce the most nerds.
Cypher’s problem was that the hypergamist Trinity fell for Neo instead.
Indeed, she was sure he was “The One”… she had a severe case of “oneitis” for him. But he was focused first and foremost on his mission. And so he got her…
Game. Set. And Game!!!!!
And now I need to unplug from the matrix for a while.
538 comments in, and finally someone says it. Thanks, van Rooinek.
I would be interested to hear Brendan’s desciption of the Christian sacramental view of sex.
Coming from my own background as an Eastern Orthodox Christian who was Catholic (Roman and later Eastern) from the cradle until 12 years ago, the crux of the matter is the nature of sex in connection to God and marriage (other Christians will view the following differently, as often “Bible” type Christians do not follow a sacramental view of marriage, or, in many cases,of anything in particular).
From this perspective, sex is ordained by God to occur between one man and one woman solely in the context of marriage — that is, this is the locus in which sacramental sex takes place. The reason for this is that a sacramental marriage is a sacramental union of man, woman and God together, and therefore the sharing in the unitive and creative aspects of God that is presented to people through sex is proper only in the context in which that unity and creativity is expressly blessed by God, and is expressly shared in by and with God through the sacramental nature of marriage itself. This is not to deny that sex is also extremely pleasurable for the participants — in fact, it is to emphasize that this at times sublime pleasure is a great gift from God given in the context of marriage, and is to be enjoyed in the context of marriage, because it is in marriage that the pleasure of sex reflects, in human terms, the ecstatic nature of the union of human unity and creativity with the divine unity and creativity, in forms humans can appreciate and appropriate. In this very real sense, the pleasure two sacramentally married people give to each other in sex is sacred and is intended to draw both persons closer to each other, and to also experience the pleasurable unity of God, three-in-one.
Seen from this perspective, sex outside this context in which it is an explicit sharing in the divine unity and creativity is misappropriating the gift — it seeks to appropriate the pleasurable aspect of sex (and sometimes also its creative aspect) without the blessing of the sacramentality that both confirms and facilitates the divine/sacred aspect of human sexuality in the context of a sacramental marriage. In a sense, it’s like stealing the pleasure, misappropriating it for a purpose which it was not intended to serve (i.e., as an end in itself, even if such end is shared by two people, rather than as pointing toward a shadowing in human terms of the ecstatic divine unity and creativity). So the issue isn’t one of denying or sublimating the pleasurable aspects of sexuality, but rather one of locating them in their proper context from this perspective, and limiting it to that specific context in which, from this perspective, it is designed to operate. Sexual sensuality, like all other physical sensualities, are gifts from God, from this perspective, each to be enjoyed as such gifts, in their proper contexts and in respectful moderation — that is, in a moderation that is respectful of the sensual pleasure given freely by God as a divine gift that we may experience, in human terms, the goodness, beauty and yes, sensual as well, of God, as the psalmist says “taste and see that the Lord is good”. However, sexual sensuality is also the most sublime sensuality, not only in physical, but also in terms of sacred/gift, because it is through sex that humans can share, according to our own limitations as “created beings”, in a shadowing of the ecstasy of the divine creativity and unity — and hence it is the most sacred of gifts, and therefore to be reserved to the context in which participation in the gift and its sacredness is explicitly blessed by God and in which God is also explicitly present.
I see, Brendan. So, to simplify matters, you are saying that in a more secular view of sex, the end of sex is pleasure. In a Catholic or Orthodox view, the end of sex is the participation in a unitive/creative experience with one’s husband or wife, and God; the pleasure is not an end in itself but a by-product of this happy experience.
You said you were Roman Catholic and then Eastern Orthodox up until 12 years ago, if I understsand correctly. What are you now?
“Cypher’s problem was that the hypergamist Trinity fell for Neo instead.
538 comments in, and finally someone says it. Thanks, van Rooinek.”
Yep. Achilles got the girl and all was right with the world. Hypergamy per se is not the problem.
I would say that from this perspective the pleasure is not a by-product, but is actually itself the experience of the unitive/creative ecstasy with the spouse and God — it’s all wrapped up together and experienced, sensually, as sexual pleasure.
I am still Eastern Orthodox. I was received by the Orthodox Church 12 years ago this month — probably should have worded that sentence a bit more clearly.
Gotcha. Thanks for the response, Brendan!
I think there is room in a secular context for people to define sex in other ways, although the instrumental/hedonic view you described is quite accurate. But you can choose to use sex to express exclusive loyalty to one person or love for another person (or multiple other people) or to view it as simply an animal act with no greater meaning or (I’m sure) a number of other variations. Of course, in these situations it is the individual defining the meaning of sex for himself or herself (and perhaps changing the meaning depending on the context), as opposed to a definition created by God.
Suz,
“I disagree. Society doesn’t need to validate the status conferred upon him for a woman to mistakenly perceive that his status is high.”
But it does not therefore follow that you, or we, then have to agree with her, to “validate her choices”. We have agency, and thus responsibility too. First and foremost to tell her in no uncertain terms that what she is doing is wrong. She is a bad girl just as much as the bad boy is a bad boy. And that judgement needs to have teeth for both.
By calling what she is doing “hypergamy”, mating up, we validate her illegitimate choice. The game blogs explicitly, the rest of us implicitly.
“If a woman believes through rationalization (and YouGoGrrrl groupthink) that a man’s status is high, she will mate with him regardless of his *actual* status. Women who mate with inferior men, convince themselves that these men are indeed superior, based on cues that they perceive to be dominant. How is that not hypergamy?”
It is a combination of cues, but the overriding one is not superiority or dominance, it is promiscuity, the ability to reproduce with the greatest fecundity. The other cues are indicators of that which her base instinct most urgently seeks. That is the prime directive, known by other generations as original sin.
Ask yourself what it is that is driving them to so convince themselves.
There is no “actual” status. Status is conferred socially, one way or another. If we fail to do so on the basis of legitimate male leadership, it will arise organically on the basis of ability to reproduce. We are seeing the consequences of our failure to adequately execute or duty to carry on the former.
van,
“The bad boy was a good catch in the Stone Age, where these guys were the ones who got the biggest amount of meat.
Don’t be too sure of that. Nerds can be really good hunters. Cold-climate peoples, where the plant life was far less useful, relied much more heavily on hunting… and those are the groups that seem to produce the most nerds.”
Exactly. The problem is not that the most masculine men are getting too much action. The problem is that many men, including quite masculine ones who are leaders among men, are not.
Hypergamy is not functioning properly.
The bad boy was not the one out hunting the meat, he was the one hanging around the women while the rest of the tribe was out hunting.
Sooo, Desiderius, women are not hypergamous but they should be?
imnobody,
“Most women doesn’t have sex with a men unless he is worthy or has potential.”
There is some hope that this is the way things are trending with the rising generation, and according to Dalrock’s (and Susan’s) numbers this may have always been absolutely true. On the other hand, there is a very significant swath of women 25-40 for which this was in fact the opposite of the case when they were at the peak of their SMV, due to them perceiving that it was “too soon” to get involved with men who were worthy or had potential.
That perception, combined with the imperative enforced by the culture that they have sex anyway was/still is profoundly disruptive to the health of society.
“Sooo, Desiderius, women are not hypergamous but they should be?”
Whatever. Of course the vast majority of you are in a myriad of ways. I’m saying that the focus on hypergamy as the problem distorts our understanding of what is driving it.
There seems to be a hundred different definitions or interpretations of what hypergamy is.
People use it as a noun, an adjective and as a verb. I think it’s more vital that we clearly define hypergamy than it is to define “Game.”
It is simply how the female sex drive is hardwired….or in Christian terms, it is how God designed her. All women are hypergamous.
AWALT. It’s a defining feature of her biological design…her primary mating imperative.
By “actual” status, I meant the status acknowledged by the larger group, rather than that perceived by an individual woman in isolation of other (restraining, suitable) social influences. If hypergamy is an instinctive or even subconscious behavior, it doesn’t heed logic. It doesn’t respond to what one’s parents or peers say is “high status,” it responds to the individual’s perception of what information she has, however limited and inaccurate that may be. Attraction is almost always immediate, and either increases or decreases according to exposure to more knowledge about the object of the attraction.
A smart woman restrains her hypergamous impulses until she knows enough about her man to be certain that he really has the status she believes he has, but she has the desire to mate with a man she perceives to be high status, *whether or not her perception is accurate.* It works at all levels. It makes a naive girl drool over the Varsity Quarterback, whatever his character, and it makes the calculating middle class soccer mom dump (or cheat on) he Good Beta Husband in favor of the Hunky Millionaire Handyman, whatever HIS character. Hypergamy doesn’t care if a woman’s perception of a man’s status is valid, it responds to the perception itself.
“It is a combination of cues, but the overriding one is not superiority or dominance, it is promiscuity…”
Isn’t promiscuity denoted by the man’s ability to “dominate” his environment? A sadistic rapist can be promiscuous, even if few women are attracted to him. A male virgin can be a chick magnet if he is perceived to have the ability to dominate his environment. The ability to dominate predicts the ability to acquire the resources necessary to feed his offspring. Men who are not dominant, rarely have the opportunity to become promiscuous, except by force. I think promiscuity is secondary to dominance, because women have a need to seek out the BEST sperm, not necessarily the MOST sperm.
KG: The fact of the Fall means that ‘how the female sex drive is hardwired’ does NOT necessarily equal ‘how God designed her’.
@unger
I know you were looking forward to me putting this in the OP, but I cut it for space. I don’t care for the “hard-wired” metaphor, because people don’t think through what it means to have a 1.21 Gigawatts of Knowledge of Good and Evil shot through a processor; blown transistors; melted circuits; etc.
@Fitz and Desiderius
I think it only fair if I attempt to explain where I am coming from – and that of course is not America (I am not sure whether that was obvious but I get to chat sometimes to David Collard in Australia just before he goes to bed and just after I have got up – we can do so as you Americans are pushing up the zzzzzzzzs). Whereas I acknowledge the diversity of peoples and beliefs in America, as a country it does start with the Pilgrim Fathers and thus a Puritanicalism seems (from where I sit) to exist and be pervasive in the States. You are, after all, the country that tried prohibition, and the Hays Code; a country where women lay out in the parks in summer in one piece (and I do not mean topless) bathing costumes – it was (for me) like going back to the nineteen fifties. Maybe, we, here, are beyond saving – but religion is something ‘we don’t do’ – it is electoral poison. A politician who advertises his faith is as Tony Blair correctly said, seen as ‘a nutter’. England is a land without religious fervour or belief. One of the things that really amazed me when I was a sojourner in your country was the ever-present religion. Like you, I too studied Matrimonial Law, at Law School but cannot quite imagine a lesson along the lines mentioned – on the contrary, I recall one of the (few) girls, when asked in Tort class what a ‘thing in action’ was, replied that she ‘always looked at the ceiling’ – very witty. We were nineteen. They all lose their virginity here in their teens – always have – it is only in Shakespeare that you meet Virgins. It is not a big deal. Were I to announce, even when I was younger, that I was looking to marry a virgin I would have been mocked or thought strange.
I don’t want to belabour the point but felt that some cross-cultural explanation might help.
As for the Scout Master, I am indebted to David Collard for correctly elucidating my meaning, though it may of course be worse than he implies, as to be entirely specific, Scouts tend to be pre-pubescent boys. I was.
Re: Conservative/Liberal – views on sex…
I don’t think much is gained in such representations because one side is always attempting to characterize or frame the other. However, if one takes a more historical approach it is possible to accurately label the two sides in the debate. Clearly there is a Christian sexual ethic that is discernable & were the purpose of sex and its proper social context is understood. Likewise one can refer to the sexual liberation movement & the sexual revolution as having a discernable approach to matters sexual and a distinct agenda as to its purpose and goals. When the left talks about sexual “liberation” this means by definition that people are being “liberated” from something. This movement can be properly understood in its origins in bohemian & leftist thought. The common understanding of marriage in such thought was that it is “bourgeois prostitution”.
Opus (writes)
“A politician who advertises his faith is as Tony Blair correctly said, seen as ‘a nutter’.”
Do you find Religion to be ‘a nutter’? Can you posit a sexual ethic beyond consent & adults?
“They all lose their virginity here in their teens – always have – it is only in Shakespeare that you meet Virgins. It is not a big deal”
“Always have?” – That’s hardly possible. They say America is 30-50 years “behind” Europe in cultural attitudes. I have been reading a lot of Chesterton and C. S. Lewis latley and they forsaw the begining historical ark of England & the Wests revolution in sexual mores. I dont know when you came of age but certainly you must have some rough estimation when things went from Christian to secular on matters of sex?
Lefty – no.
And we do not (yet) claim to be “oppressed by liberal elites” – that is your convenient characterization, – just ruled by them.
Pingback: Guest Post: A Voice In The Desert: What Christian Men Need Isn’t Game | The Left Half
For the Next great heresy is going to be simply an attack on morality; and especially on sexual morality. And it is coming, not from a few Socialists surviving from the Fabian Society, but from the living exultant energy of the rich resolved to enjoy themselves at last, with neither Popery nor Puritanism nor Socialism to hold them back….The Madness of tomorrow is not in Moscow, but much more in Manhattan. – G.K. Chesterton’s Weekly – 1926
Moscow is Orthodoxy now, yet terribly troubled by a misguided re-association with the vile state organs. Yet, still, Orthodoxy prevails in many, many churches in Moscow, a few of which I have personally visited (and I don’t mean the strictly Kremlin/tourist ones).
Yes, I agree with Opus. Australians, like Brits, rarely declare their faith, publicly. The current Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, is unusual in that he operates on Catholic moral principles. But Australians are not a confessing folk.
Americans do seem puritanical to me. Even the Catholics have been affected. I see it in the intense moral seriousness, the sloganeering, the rush for the moral high ground, in “shaming language” for example. And what Camille Paglia called “word obsession”, some of which we have seen here of late.
Desiderius, perhaps the bad boy sociopath is using the “sneaky fucker” mating strategy.
The hypergamy the manosphere decries is women using SMV in mate selection over MMV, or in other words those women recognizing the status illegitimately conferred by other women over the status legitimately conferred by society.
A young woman selecting a mate on the basis of MMV will necessarily be undershooting in terms of SMV die to biology, since the SMV of women peaks earlier than the SMV of men, so it feels like hypergamy (shooting higher) is the problem.
This is a red herring.
And this is a red herring to. Again, in Fireproof, who is the better SMV/MMV? The firefighter who nearly died saving a kid’s life, or the Doctor? The firefighter has more fame, legitimately conferred on him by society for successfully risking his life for it, and the doctor has more status, legitimately conferred on him by society by his position. The firefighter is probably far more physically impressive. The doctor is better educated. Indeed, we would expect a bunch of women to be split on who was ACTUALLY the better catch.
Yet, even when the difference is so small that women can’t even agree on who is “better”… or even the same woman at different times…. shrieking harpy “wife” stands ready to blow her marriage to pieces over the possibility that she might be able to take one more step up the hypergamy ladder. Or down. Depending on who you ask.
And that is the problem.
@Fitz
At 03.42 yesterday you asked me two questions, and I always endeavour to answer questions when asked of me on blogs, but for her life of me, I really am not sure what you are getting at or what you are asking.
For an idea, however, of what the teenage british are like, may I recommend a viewing (it is up on YouTube) of the 1968 film, Up the Junction, set in London’s Battersea – and in glorious colour. A little before my time but I’d say an entirely accurate description of the working class, who after all comprise the majority.
I am also indebted to David Collard for his explication of what I said – I would like to say more, but will perhaps leave it for later (hangover now) on the next thread, which is merely a continuation of this one. I have some very interesting and revealing things to say.
I am not consciously trying to be nasty to Americans.
@Fitz wrote on August 17, 2012 at 8:10 pm:
“For the Next great heresy is going to be simply an attack on morality; and especially on sexual morality. And it is coming, not from a few Socialists surviving from the Fabian Society, but from the living exultant energy of the rich resolved to enjoy themselves at last, with neither Popery nor Puritanism nor Socialism to hold them back….The Madness of tomorrow is not in Moscow, but much more in Manhattan. – G.K. Chesterton’s Weekly – 1926”
It’s depressing to have been scooped by over eighty years…
Even more depressing that the Church in GKC’s home, Merrie Old England has been completely steamrollered to the point that they are letting their daughters be prostituted by Islamic invaders.
Just so they’re collected in one place, here are the links to various blog posts in response to me:
The Left Half is the half I left off.
Alpha Game Plank in its own eye
UMan Defense Against the Dork Arts 1
UMan Defense Against the Dork Arts 2 (It takes two classes to understand how wrong I am)
Society of Amateur Gentlemen: Gollum Game
The Private Man’s Religion is Private, Man
Society of Phineas declines to deride me (much appreciated)
I invite everyone to read them, and the comments; all well under 100, so this isn’t a huge task.
whatever,
“And this is a red herring to. Again, in Fireproof, who is the better SMV/MMV? The firefighter who nearly died saving a kid’s life, or the Doctor? The firefighter has more fame, legitimately conferred on him by society for successfully risking his life for it, and the doctor has more status, legitimately conferred on him by society by his position. The firefighter is probably far more physically impressive. The doctor is better educated. Indeed, we would expect a bunch of women to be split on who was ACTUALLY the better catch.”
Well that’s the thing, The gospel at its finest is about transcending the status game altogether. One step in that process is creating many different legitimate sources of status so that the maximum number of men can be real alphas (in the best sense of the word – leaders of men in their sphere) and thus inspiring their wives, literally filling her with the Spirit, producing strong marriages and children. But across much of our society, we’ve fallen below the status game itself.
The great error is in thinking that transcendence abolishes that which came before.
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
– Matthew 5:17-20
In our zeal to transcend the traditional status system, aka the rat race, we have torn it down and delegitimized it via cultural relativism. Instead of thereby achieving the promised classless society, an organic status system has arisen as the original ones did – on the basis of raw reproductive capacity. The Lord of the Flies made real.
“Yet, even when the difference is so small that women can’t even agree on who is “better”… or even the same woman at different times…. shrieking harpy “wife” stands ready to blow her marriage to pieces over the possibility that she might be able to take one more step up the hypergamy ladder. Or down. Depending on who you ask.
And that is the problem.”
Oh, absolutely. The music of hypergamy needs to stop at the marriage vow. But telling her not to mate up at all in the first place, which is what attacks on hypergamy amount to, is likely to fall on deaf ears and should.
“Desiderius, perhaps the bad boy sociopath is using the “sneaky fucker” mating strategy”
No perhaps about it. Jacob was a pretty sneaky fucker too, so not all is lost.
Opus,
“I don’t want to belabour the point but felt that some cross-cultural explanation might help.”
Thanks, but I was already quite familiar with the widespread ignorance of our shared religious/culture heritage. My namesake wasn’t an American. He was a balls-to-the-wall Christian, however. As the hegemonic power of America declines, perhaps you will feel less compelled to maintain that ignorance. You’ll be able to to look down your noses at us for valid reasons instead of imagined ones.
Cane,
“I don’t care for the “hard-wired” metaphor, because people don’t think through what it means to have a 1.21 Gigawatts of Knowledge of Good and Evil shot through a processor; blown transistors; melted circuits; etc.”
Dead on the money. And yet our intellectual light brigades continue to charge away.
Suz,
“It doesn’t respond to what one’s parents or peers say is “high status,””
That was a convenient fiction for the Me Generation to maintain, to better to focus on their own self-actualization. It is, however, demonstrably erroneous. Even if somewhat true, there are means by which to restore the young woman’s responsibility – literally, ability to respond – to societal mores. Encouragement, support, mutual respect are of course ideal, but some failsafes may also be necessary where those are not present.
“A smart woman restrains her hypergamous impulses until she knows enough about her man to be certain that he really has the status she believes he has”
That’s the carrot. We are not currently dealing with, by and large, women behaving smartly however.
“Isn’t promiscuity denoted by the man’s ability to “dominate” his environment? A sadistic rapist can be promiscuous, even if few women are attracted to him. A male virgin can be a chick magnet if he is perceived to have the ability to dominate his environment. The ability to dominate predicts the ability to acquire the resources necessary to feed his offspring. Men who are not dominant, rarely have the opportunity to become promiscuous, except by force. I think promiscuity is secondary to dominance, because women have a need to seek out the BEST sperm, not necessarily the MOST sperm.”
That’s how things work in a reasonably functioning civilization. Many of your younger peers do not enjoy that luxury.
“That was a convenient fiction for the Me Generation to maintain, to better to focus on their own self-actualization.”
It’s not a fiction at all. The impulse exists independent of the behavior. The Me Generation used the existence of the impulse to JUSTIFY the irresponsible actions they CHOSE. Everybody has “gut instincts,” or senses cues subconsciously; how they respond to those cues is a choice that should involve rational thought.
“Many of your younger peers do not enjoy that luxury.”
Yes, because Hollywood, feminism and shelter from consequences, have trained them to wallow in the “feelings” generated by immediately acting on the instinct, rather than considering how to secure their future.
(What they don’t realize is that the ability to prey upon men and society, is conditional. Where there is no surplus, there is little mooching and lots of earning.)
@Desiderius
I was not looking down my nose at Americans – merely observing to David Collard a view of America which seems to be equally common in Australia. He and I may be wrong, but would you argue with De Tocqueville – himself a devout Catholic. This is what he says in Vol II Book Chapter xii:
” In the midst of American society, you meet with men full of a fanatical and almost wild enthusiasm, which hardly exists in Europe. From time to time strange sects arise, which endeavour to strike out extraordinary paths to eternal happiness. Religious insanity is very common in the United States”
but in case you found that offensive consider this (rather pertinent) from Vol II Book IV Chapter v
“Religious people and industrial nations take a particularily serious view of marriage. The former consider the regularity of a woman’s life the best guarantee and surest sign of her morals. The latter see in it the surest safeguard of the order and prosperity of the house. The Americans are both a Puritan and a trading nation.”
I am, by the way, perfectly familiar with who your namesake is, indeed I have visited the beautiful little church somewhat south-east of Canterbury where he was the resident Priest for a while.
The death of American Hegemony is, I suspect, greatly exagerrated.
“It’s not a fiction at all. The impulse exists independent of the behavior. The Me Generation used the existence of the impulse to JUSTIFY the irresponsible actions they CHOSE. Everybody has “gut instincts,” or senses cues subconsciously; how they respond to those cues is a choice that should involve rational thought.”
The fiction is the impotence of parents/society to affect those impulses. Those who were well raised (above their base instincts), who had a good upbringing (our very language refutes relativism) have different impulses than those who did not. Me generation parents convinced themselves that this was not true or didn’t matter to relieve themselves of the responsibility to pass on these higher values.
I don’t think they imagined just how base our natural instincts can be.
“I was not looking down my nose at Americans – merely observing to David Collard a view of America which seems to be equally common in Australia. He and I may be wrong, but would you argue with De Tocqueville – himself a devout Catholic. This is what he says in Vol II Book Chapter xii:”
Of course. Such people have never been near the levers of real power – economic, military, intellectual, or cultural, and they have never been further than they are today. Prejudice against them is more prevalent than any true sympathy with them, despite the fact that they have often supplied the foot soldiers, literally and figuratively, of all of America’s great achievements, from Apollo to the blues.
“Religious people and industrial nations take a particularily serious view of marriage. The former consider the regularity of a woman’s life the best guarantee and surest sign of her morals. The latter see in it the surest safeguard of the order and prosperity of the house. The Americans are both a Puritan and a trading nation.”
The whole point of this blog is the extent to which this is no longer the case, for which you and yours share no little share of the blame. The American female is particularly sensitive to being looked down upon, a habit she unfortunately did not leave behind when she left the Old World.
It would be helpful if our colleagues in Oz were more mindful of our common New World identity even if our religious heritage is a bridge too far.
“The death of American Hegemony is, I suspect, greatly exagerrated.”
Keep your powder dry. Empires are almost as expensive as faithless wives. We’ve presently set our hearts on both.
“I don’t think they imagined just how base our natural instincts can be.”
Truth.
“I am, by the way, perfectly familiar with who your namesake is, indeed I have visited the beautiful little church somewhat south-east of Canterbury where he was the resident Priest for a while.”
I take it you consider his Christianity accidental rather than essential to his life’s work?
@Desidirius
I am sorry that we do not, as I take it, seem to be, as we say over here, ‘on the same hymn sheet’. Perhaps a later Dalrock thread will bring better agreement.
I feel however obligated to make two comments:
First: With regard to De Tocqueville, who I assume you are referring to, above, at 6.36, where you say ‘such people have never been near the levers of Power’. In De Tocquevulle’s case apart from being an Aristo and a practising lawyer he was also Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in France – that is to say the equivalent of the post presently held by your Mrs Clinton. May I also correct my typing as I failed to type in at the first of the two quotes from De Tocqueville which Book from Volume Two of Democracy in America I was quoting. It was Book 2
Second: You make a suggestion at 8.31 as to my view of Erasmus. I have no particular view of him (it is along time since as an A level History student of Tudors and Stuarts I had cause to read about him and his considerable influence) and certainly the view you ascribe to me had not, I think, previously come to my mind. I do think, however, that if one were to marry one could not choose a better location than his old church out there on the Marshes.
“With regard to De Tocqueville, who I assume you are referring to, above, at 6.36, where you say ‘such people have never been near the levers of Power’.”
If something I say would imply that I’m a blithering idiot, rather than, say, an occasionally quixotic fool, it is safe to assume that you’ve missed my meaning. Of course I was not referring to De Tocqueville himself. My copy of Democracy in America, vol II sits on my nightstand as we speak, with the following passage marked:
“For my own part, I doubt whether man can ever support at the same time complete religious independence and entire public freedom. And I am inclined to think, that if faith be wanting in him, he must serve; and if he be free, he must believe.”
The surrounding discussion being exceptionally pertinent to the one we’re having now.
I was referring to those he was referring to in the passage you cited.
“if one were to marry one could not choose a better location than his old church out there on the Marshes.”
And here we have finally found a point of warm-hearted agreement.
@furiousferret
I always have a problem when this arguement is used by a Christian guy. 9/10 times these guys just can’t get laid. If their very life depended on picking up a girl to screw they just couldn’t do it.
With the obese being the exception, most women will get laid at any time that they desire. Hell even the obese will find a willing partner.
The argument was not a pickup line.
.
Romans 8:13
“13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.”
Pingback: I Heard You « Things that We have Heard and Known
Isn’t Christianity part of the “Matrix” as well? Why is this not discussed? [I think that’s the only valid portion of this rant, but read on if you dare attempt find anything else below:]
Where’s the alternative to both Christian re-adjustment’s in Dogma & theological praxis according to Time’s ever-shifting, seemingly cyclical, socially normative moral & ethical value-[less] system’s’ changes & Game?
Is there Shingon Buddhist Game? Thelemic/Golden Dawn Game? Mystical/Gnostic/Rosicrucian Game? Vampire (people who believe they are vampire’s) Game? Is there any “Game” which in no way manifest’s as nothing but being itself an extension of this pre-ordained “Matrix” line of thought?
Isn’t the point realized nihilistically that once you swallow The Pill (any pill for that matter), you’ve justly & simply chosen to swallow one pill over another; it doesn’t make a difference either way – beyond that it makes one think in depth & observe reality in a quite less optimistically framed point of view (lest you’re one who finds freedom in enslavement – to thought); Red Pill, Blue Pill, or Rainbow Colored Pill…one’s still choosing to swallow a pill that was offered.
Just like the Christian pill. Was it not swallowed by the majority of you? Is it not in communion taken as either unlevened bread & wine; or cracker’s & grape juice once a week (paid for with 10% of your income to supplement said attended churches growing program’s, acclimated to the ethnographic climate within which both attendee’s & church-promulgator’s swim, or prey upon, or utilize for their given Pastor’s message, coupled with the aesthetic appeal of attending church with a “family”, “wife”, and being one who is, due to having lived a life “bearing crosses” following their “Salvation” from their “sinful” or “youthful” way’s, saved & able to freely squander their resources as well as spout their bible-studied bi-weekly meeting’s message’s underlined passage’s with a violent fervor of being more Right than the next…(rant.)
How did culture’s flourish before us & view sexuality (how were they raised to view sexuality? – the Phoenicians’, the Druid’s, Babylonian’s, the Zoroastrian’s, the Cherokee, etc…? – was anything any more or less successful, or is it not evident in Myth that we’ve always suffered the same stunted perception’s as long as recorded history’s availably present to interpret?) the Always sacred or sacredly secret Secret of Secret’s being a Cock & a Cunt, right (or a Serpent or Sword & a Goblet or Fish (shape of Christian fish symbol being literally representative of a Vulva/Vagina)? Or, literally, every single sect of every single religio-mystical, psychospiritual, metaphysical, scriptural, poetic, & philosophic (maybe I’m just being way too broad here, but I think the point is seemingly peeking through the line’s) line of thought; even the recent surge in the religiosity of science (hence Game) & the Science of Religion & the Religion of the Science’s G-d’s to Scientology & L. Ron’s Alien’s; from the Hebrew Kabbalah to the Catholic Hierophant still raising his God-potent hand to bless us in Rome…All’s based on sexuality.
So, does knowing any of this really make a difference? Maybe we’d all be better off if instead of debating slut’s, player’s, marriage, the sanctity of sexuality, evo-psych, the philosophy of This & That….maybe if we just stopped, and moreso, stopped teaching the fabrications which breed the lies leading to the seething “unplugging” many come to indulge in or grow to abhor…maybe if we just accepted something, something that’s missing, we’d no longer have to teach how to be taught to not teach what we are any longer. Perhaps I’m making no sense. For this reason alone, I apologize.
In fact, we should just halt evolution, how about!? How do you remove the qualm’s of Society? Eliminate said qualm’s roots: at the bottom of it, it’s simply humanity. So we all must stop birthing more human’s. Eventually then we may devolve (happily?), then return to a primal state where conscious-less-ness is G-d & is Good & We won’t know the difference between the two[?]. Or, what happen’s if we all realize these basic nature’s of reality (as those between Man & Woman) in whatever complex version of analytical thought we so choose…what follow’s this in the grand scheme of Thing’s; is it all simply noetic? What’s the purpose if nothing’s going to change anyway?
What’s Quimbanda got to say? Or older Afro-Brazilian spiritual lineages of perception regarding Creation & our purpose? Why do we continue to add more symbol’s, more terms, more categories, and more avenues for thought to things which, whether comprehended or not, seemingly don’t alter the course of our histories trajectory any way?
Then again, I don’t know if I believe half of what I just wrote, even if there isn’t a single belief presented in it. Maybe what I’m trying to ask is, if we weren’t raised by the mythopoeic Hebraic & Greco-Roman turned Anglo-saxan turned Puritanical cult that is death-worship at it’s finest (Christianity; why, when, we have the Madonna-Whore complex taught to us from childhood as naturally correct, are we complaining about re-learning, altering, and justifying such archetypal realities? Complaining that our chosen Faith disavow’s us from a life we want, when the life we want isn’t apparently available, yet isn’t considerably comprehended nor understood to even be known by the majority of those who even question it’s purpose in the first place[?]; if we weren’t raised to believe in these moral Absolute’s, nor taught to question them, would there not be, still, an equal balance between the “Masculine & Feminine” [fucking] learned through our very obvious curiously inborn Nature rather than what’s again taught & having had to be re-learned by nature of our failed political[?] system’s re-taught as wrong, despite what “Truth’s” these Faith’s which [re-]endorse & amplify (radicalize, deconstruct, reconstruct, linguistically & symbolically even sagaciously both on the surface & beneath resurface throughout varying Age’s….) very core issue’s recycling of such failed perceptual interface’s….meaning, why even bring Christianity into the mix, if half of the problem’s stemming from the problem’s of Westernized society are either the acceptance of or rebellion against such angsty-hasty dogmatic’s in the first place?
Does any of this rant relate any relevant ideation? I doubt it makes any sense. No sleep 2 day’s straight. I can barely form a sentence.
Just curious why Christian’s even read about Game if they apparently can’t do it? And if they do Game, why are they fundamentally Christian? What’s so important about having a non-slutty wife? Virgin’s are terrible in bed, slut’s are terrible outside of bed. Screwed either way. Is it that great to bring another human being into this world? Is the only gift we have to offer the replication of our Self?
I doubt this will be read (or posted, at that) after 500+ comment’s. But I just wasted like 15 minute’s spouting this shit off, so if anyone meander’s through this meta-filled microcosm of now-aborted thought’s, may peace be with you, however doubtful that is. Again, don’t post this Moderator if it’s too much of something or another. I can copy-paste it and save it for my unreadable archives. Just did.
Also, I should add: with ignorance I chose to skip every single comment made by the previous 500+ poster’s. So if any of what I rambled on about above (if above is what I orig. posted) was covered, consider my Word’s null, void, &/or equally open to interpretation as the Greek Septuagint is to Gematria.
You’re new here, aren’t you?
Yes. To this blog. But not new to much of what’s talked about in blogs like this. Obvious, eh?
When I typed the above, one could say I wasn’t in the proper headspace. I was lacking much clarity, and foresight, in hindsight.
But it’s all dandy. You’d have been there too, were you in my shoeless feet at the time too!
Read the comments. They’re worth the time.
Pingback: Cane Reads the YSV Bible: 1 Samuel 17 | Things that We have Heard and Known
Pingback: Game Doesn’t Work. | 3rd Millenium Men
Cane Caldo is as usual blaming men like a typical churchian christian…
In this case PUAs
In typical christian fashion, he offers no solutions or any insight to the subject at hand, other then the usual youre all sinners bullshit routine, he pulls every sunday
Heres news for you Cane Caldo, theres different types of game, regular game, & relationship game
Go lookup Athol Kay, or the 100s of relatonship game blogs out there, & maybe learn about the subject matter at hand, instead of wasting our time with your christian sinner bullshit rhetoric
If you want to apply game to marriage or LTR you need relationship game … its that simple
Youll still need the basic precepts of PUA, as youll need to know how to manage women in general
FYI women need managing … you cant be in a marriage unless you know how to manage your wifes many bullshit tests, mood swings, hormone swings etc., the list is endless
Something youre never going to learn by being a virginal, christian chaste man
Its all about quality of life, either youre an expert in health, relationships etc., knowing how women are seriously screwed up, is one of the greatest gifts you can give to a man …
Either you have quality mastery of life, or you dont
The rules have changed
All women are essentially amoral by nature, precisely because man is by nature polygamous, not monogomous
Monogamy is an artificial construct
Christianity is an artificial construct
Our society has always allowed women greater rights then man, its about time you christians realised that fact
The PUA culture is basically expertise, if you want to apply game to a relationship, learn relationship game, but you still need experience with a multitude of women, to draw experience from
Human nature ie women, isnt something you learn by rote
Which is why you cant really seperate PUA from game, either you know how to pick up women, or youre at the mercy of who ever shows interest in you
Remember : Women HAVE game .. ALL women are PUAs by birth, their whole biology & gender culture is designed to attract men
They have ENTIRE INDUSTRIES designed to help women become PUAS, ie the MAKEUP Industries, Fashion industries, perfume, ENTIRE publishing houses devote their newspapers, magazines to women becoming PUAs, ie the millions of trashy magazines & newspapers for women
In our society, its a dirty word for men to get women, hence you wont get any magazines for men, apart from health mags … without hordes of screeching feminists getting their tampons in a twist …
The world today is so feminised PRECISELY BECAUSE MEN DONT PICKUP WOMEN
Do you really think we’d have HORDES of women on welfare today, if men actually knew how to handle 50% of the population? Ie women?
Civilisation is an artificial construct, in exactly the same way christianity is an artificial construct
In an artificial construct, everything is controlled, including everything popularised in christianity
REAL knowledge of human nature is a controlled substance, your thoughts as a christian are nothing but PRE-Manufactured content by social engineers, ie a society engineered by sociologists & feminists
Monogamy & marriage without polygamy, will ALWAYS give rise to feminism & lead to a slave state, of fatherless children, in service to corporations & government
The natural biological state of man is polygamous, without polygamy you have a corrupt nanny state government, designed to cater to women
As women are designed to be monogamous NOT men, hence a womans natural biology is to belong to a harem of one man
First-timer here. Discovered this place 2 wks ago and have been eating it up since.
Completed reading all 700+ comments on the post that spawned this one, but have only read a handful of the comments on this one so far. I may have more to say later, but I feel drawn to playing a litlle referee right now.
@Cane
Like Dalrock, I like your symphonic thinking. Where I depart from you is that I get the impression you are slightly neglecting the reality of “For those who love God, all things work to the good” Game in the hands of somebody who has truly subjected himself to Christ should not be a dangerous thing. Additionally, Paul also says to “test everything, keeping what is good”. Finally, others have used the example of Aquinas approriating and purifying and elevating Greek pagan philosophy. I believe there’s an analogy to be discovered here.
@those in disagreement with Cane
I believe Cane ultimately transcends his weak points and trumps all of you. His strongest point is when he talks about burning down Feminism or sending it to Hell. Gamers are content to accomodate Feminism and to mitigate the status quo, while Cane will have none of that. He is in favor of standing athwart. If confidence turns women on, there’s no more confident position than Cane’s — and it has the added benefit of *intrinsically* appealing to women, not merely as a pose, but by (as some have previously called it) an impenetrable frame.
BTW, my favorite part is the quote talking about those we want to save needing to be our enemies for the time being. This might be the best blending of the two positions above.
We have a winner. Anything in the hands of a man who does not love God turns to ruin. When the problem is marriages dissolving, I cannot fathom why more washing of the outside of the cup can possibly be the solution.
At some point, we’re going to have to confront (confront! confront! confront!) the fact that the churches aren’t full of Christians.
Finally finished all the comments. Suz was right. They were largely worth it (if a bit exhausting). Especially agreed with those by GKC, Logos, Fitz, Grey-whiskers, and CL. Honorable mention to Desiderius.
Somebody (I forget who) asserted that “Hypergamy does not care.” And that would be the basis for putting Game above the Gospel? Very pessimistic and cynical. No thank you.
I would not change anything from my earlier comment, except to add:
This supreme confidence I referred to earlier is that which comes from Christ assuring us: “You will have trouble in the world, but take heart, for I have overcome the world”.
Elements of Game might well be “in play” in our fallen world, but if they are, it’s on a strictly provisional basis. In the end, everything is subject to Christ. Everything.
@CC
Very late to the discussion I know, but you’re wrong about one major aspect.
“‘Many refuse to understand that Game can be used morally. Game is not exclusively about bedding numerous women.’
Roissy, Roosh, Rollo, VK’s Empire of Dirt, Krauser, and many other Game experts disagree with you. They say: If you haven’t bedded many women, you don’t know Game.”
Roissy has explicitly stated what makes a man an alpha (i.e. has game.) “In short, the alpha male is best defined by how many hot women want to fuck him.”
He has stated on numerous occasions that this has nothing at all to do with a guy actually sleeping with women, but simply that he could. That’s a huge difference. He does generally assume that men want to sleep with women, and therefore will do so given the chance, so he correlates game with women, but very clearly states that game is “how hot are the women he can attract, how strong is that attraction for him, and how many of those women find him attractive”, independent of whether or not the guy with game utilizes it for sex.
Pingback: Psychoanalysis for me but not for thee | Dalrock
Pingback: What is the manosphere? | Dalrock
Pingback: Having a Cypher moment | A Space Between Wonder and Why
Pingback: A Contrast of a Year « stagedreality
Pingback: Caldo’s Problem « stagedreality
Pingback: Unplumbed Wrongness | Things that We have Heard and Known
Pingback: More of Zippy on Game | Malcolm the Cynic
AAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!
OK, this is simple. Christians need only the components of game not contradicting Biblical values. Be a man, with with strength and integrity. Even looking a chickie in the eyes without turning away first will work wonders.
The only reason for the issues present is that Feminism has seeped into all corners of life, Churchianity included, and this has left most men questioning masculine traits (their own especially) in addition to their own confidence and self-worth compared to “the fairer sex” (an ironic name for the gender more likely to manipulate and lie, but I digress). As if somehow just being a man makes you a servant…or naval lint…or inhuman…it’s pretty hard to look anyone in the eyes when deep down you feel this way about yourself.
Hey Dalrock,
How abouts compounding a game-for-christians guide that spells some of these things out…bluntly if necessary. You know…item “#117 don’t turn your gaze away first”…or “#237193754 Do you have a harridan on your hands? You can’t physically discipline these days but…oh wait that doesn’t work so well anyways because it’s more ‘dominant male’ to keep your cool. Showing your displeasure/dissapointment is much more sophisticated and effective. Go to pray at your local church for a few hours. She will inevitably worry, if only a little bit in the back of her mind, if she hasn’t put you into a vulnerable place where some temptress might ‘steal’ you from her. This is enough. You’re not responsible for her thoughts as long as you say nothing to suggest anything one way or the other when you leave.”
Hmmm…now that I think about it THAT’S what “Game” is: Shorthand for “Mind Games”!
Pingback: Financial Frame | The Reinvention of Man
Excellent posts/comments all round here. Thank you. It’s always reassuring to get validation that you’re not just imagining these things; they’re real; they do exist; they’re not just imagination or even vain imaginings. Every commenter here has valuable input, and I appreciate it very much. I’ve been tempted to comment, but all I’d be doing is adding validation to validation at this stage. Rollo, Marlon, Cane, Deti, Dalrock, and all other posters and commenters: thank you. I have no substantial synthesis to add at the moment, but will do so at some point in the future. Adding all your comments together itself produces a valuable synthesis of the reality: plenty of meat to chew. Cheers for now from Andy in Australia.
Doomed Harlot:
“Thanks Deti. I do appreciate the clarification, but I definitely understand that “submission” as it is understood does not necessarily mean that the woman is a cowering doormat. As I understand it, it’s practice varies but it really comes down to the husband having the final say (as Sunshine Mary described) when the couple has a disagreement. That’s the understanding I have.”
Biblical, Godly submission is the key; the one and the same submission the Christian has to the will of God. As Christ’s authority on Earth, the wife is submitting to God, not a ‘mere male’. No Christian does it perfectly, but I certainly don’t think the wife’s submission (as a Christian) should be so imperfect as to come down to her having the attitude that she is allowing her husband to have the last word; sounds like belligerence to me; might as well marry a worldly.
The Godly husband is Christ’s authority and representative on Earth; in submitting to her husband, the wife is submitting to Christ. The Godly husband is the spiritual leader of his wife and family. He is the authority on all matters within the family. No need to even mention the word ‘final’, or ‘last’; he is the authority, period. Or will you have two bosses of equal authority? Can’t work, doesn’t work, won’t work, and the Scriptures tell us so.
Also, whenever I see the words dominate and dominant come up, a red flag goes up in my mind, and Cane explained the Biblical reason why: it’s not a matter of the husband dominating his wife; it’s a matter of God-ordained headship:
1 Corinthians 11:3 KJV
[3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
No dominance mentioned there: only headship.
Pingback: Decrease Your System is Noise Ratio | Things that We have Heard and Known
Pingback: How Christians can take credit for Game. | Dalrock
Pingback: Headship Game. | Dalrock
Re: “how is Game anything but a round-about method of telling Christian men to Man-Up and Marry These Sluts?” Game is a means to the end of achieving abundance mentality, and almost by definition Game allows a man to know he doesn’t have to marry the slut. There is no need for me to go further, since your premise has been blown to smithereens.
But I will anyway, since Dalrock requested we post our own definitions of Game. Game is conspiring with a woman to pick her up. Christian gamers are only allowed to act on picking up their own wives, but otherwise the method is identical.
Pingback: Dalrock tries to steal Game from the Great HEartistes by attempting to slide it into Jesus’s Bungholizlozzlzozozo. The Lying Dalrcok Bares False Witness Against the Great Heartiste, Lies, and Steals, while Accusing Heartiste of being a “Sinner
Pingback: Dalrock tries to steal Game from the Great HEartistes by attempting to slide it into Jesus’s Bungholizlozzlzozozo. The Lying Dalrcok Bares False Witness Against the Great Heartiste, Lies, and Steals, while Accusing Heartiste of being a “Sinner
Pingback: “Just Get It” Really Is The Answer | The Society of Phineas
Dear Dalrock,
Please never let this spineless faggot write for your site again.
Sincerely,
Superretarded Dog