If you are a Christian in the manosphere you likely have asked the question:
Shouldn’t Christians be able to learn what they need to know about men and women and marriage from the Bible, and not from the studies by pickup artists and Evolutionary Psychologists?
The short answer is yes. The Bible should be all you need.
The problem is Christians have decided not to follow the Bible on the question of marriage in specific, and men and women in general. I’m not just talking about Christian enthusiasm for providing moral cover for frivolous divorce. I’m also talking about the numerous sections of the Bible which modern Christians are embarrassed about because the sections offend their newer and more dominant religion, feminism.
Before we go any further, I want to acknowledge that Not All Christians Are Like That (NACALT). To avoid lumping all Christians together, I’ll outline the boundaries so those who don’t practice feminism first and Christianity second can take comfort in the fact that I’m not referring to them. What follows is not intended to be a complete list of areas where the Bible clashes with feminism, but it hopefully is representative enough of the conflict for you to determine which side of the fence you and those you know have landed on.
I’ll start with an admittedly contentious question, whether Christian women should cover their heads in church. Paul’s instructions to the church at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 seem to leave at least some room for interpretation. However, what is most telling isn’t just where one lands on this question but the reasoning used to arrive there. Consider for example the exegesis on the topic by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace at Bible.org: What is the Head Covering in 1 Cor 11:2-16 and Does it Apply to Us Today? Dr. Wallace lays out the case for several different readings. He tells us that he originally held the view that the passage means real head covering and is applicable today (emphasis mine):
The argument that a real head covering is in view and that such is applicable today is, in some respects, the easiest view to defend exegetically and the hardest to swallow practically. Since it is never safe to abandon one’s conscience regarding the truth of Scripture, I held to this view up until recently. Quite frankly, I did not like it (it is very unpopular today). But I could not, in good conscience, disregard it.
Later in the article he explains his new view that only a meaningful symbol of submissiveness is required today, although he isn’t able to suggest what might function as that symbol (emphasis mine):
Today, however, the situation is quite different, at least in the West. For a woman to wear a head covering7 would seem to be a distinctively humiliating experience. Many women–even biblically submissive wives–resist the notion precisely because they feel awkward and self-conscious. But the head covering in Paul’s day was intended only to display the woman’s subordination, not her humiliation. Today, ironically, to require a head covering for women in the worship service would be tantamount to asking them to shave their heads! The effect, therefore, would be just the opposite of what Paul intended. Thus, in attempting to fulfill the spirit of the apostle’s instruction, not just his words, some suitable substitute symbol needs to be found.
His argument is that head covering was intended as a gesture of submissiveness, and isn’t needed so long as the woman is in fact submissive. Yet at the same time he declares that actually being submissive would be humiliating to modern Christian women in our feminist world. There needs to be a meaningful symbol of submission, so long as it doesn’t actually symbolize submission. This is rationalization at its finest, and it also shows that when feminism and the Bible collide Christians very strongly tend to choose feminism while conjuring up a suitable excuse for disregarding the parts of the Bible they are ashamed of.
You will find Christians performing a similar dance where the Bible tells wives to submit to their husbands (I Peter 3:1&5, Eph 5:22&24, Col 3:18, 1 Tim 2:11, & Tit 2:5). The same occurs when the Bible says that women are to remain silent in church and not teach (1 Tim 2:11-12); how many Christians are comfortable with Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
I’ll stop here for a moment and ask my fellow Christians who are reading: Have you located your inner feminist yet? If any of the passages I reference above make you uncomfortable because they feel sexist, then you just did.
This is the reason Christians need to learn game. The Bible is sufficient, but it isn’t what 99% of Christians are following when it comes to men and women. Where the Bible clashes with feminism, feminism almost always rules the day. The problem is insidious because very often Christians have swallowed feminism without even realizing it. How many Christians that you know see the movie Fireproof as teaching about biblical marriage? How many see nothing wrong with the movie Courageous and the non stop modern Christian practice of cutting leaders off at the knees? Why do none of the amazon.com reviewers of Sheila Gregoire’s book To Love, Honor, and Vacuum: When You Feel More Like a Maid Than a Wife and Mother note that she has inverted the concept of submission? Why do none of the reviewers of Glenn Stanton’s book Secure Daughters, Confident Sons notice that he has an incredibly foolish and unbliblical view of women?
The answer to the question of why Christians need game is because Christians have adopted feminism over the Bible. Not all Christians have done this. For example, the Amish still follow strict gender roles including headship and submission. From what I can find they have a divorce rate less than 1%, and they are growing rapidly due to their high fertility rate. So if you are Amish, you probably don’t need to learn game. Of course if you are Amish you aren’t likely to be reading this either. For the rest of us, Christians need game because:
- 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.
- 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.
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 of course flies in the face of modern Christian thought. Modern Christians view the urge for sex as a somewhat distasteful need that applies almost exclusively to men. This is evident in the Christianese expression “hubba hubba”. For an example of this view, see the article Motivating Men to be Caring Communicators by Jay & Laura Laffoon:
Men lust after women. Women lust after being lusted after. Your wife wants you to want her. She desires to make herself desirable. Now we don’t mean lust as the world means lust- hubba hubba – we mean your woman needs to know that she is beautiful to you.
Note to my readers: Only follow the advice in the article quoted above if you want your wife to feel unloved.
Sheila Gregiore used the same expression in a recent blog post:
When a woman takes her shirt off at the end of the day, her husband immediately starts thinking sexy thoughts. When a man takes his shirt off, a woman tends to think, “Is he going to put that in the laundry hamper?” We don’t tend to think, to the same extent, “Oh, come get me, hubba hubba.” It’s not that we NEVER want to be taken; it’s just that our sex drive is far more caught up in feeling safe, and feeling cherished, and feeling loved, than it is in pure visual stimuli.
Sheila has a similar passage in the introduction to her book Honey, I Don’t Have a Headache Tonight: Help for Women Who Want to Feel More In the Mood:
While sex may be wonderful, for many women it’s not always worth the effort. And unlike our dear spouses, for us it is an effort. We don’t automatically get “in the mood.” When we glimpse our darlings getting undressed, “hubba hubba” doesn’t usually come to mind. Instead, we watch him shedding his clothes and think, “I hope he’s not going to leave that laundry for me.” We need to have our to-do lists ready, make sure everyone has something to wear tomorrow, and get the house somewhat livable before we even entertain the possibility of making love.
If you learn nothing else about game, learn that the quote above is absolute nonsense. Women do experience a strong desire to have sex, and it has nothing to do with whether she has finished her to-do list. The modern Christian misconception that women generally don’t experience strong sexual desire is a result of Christian wives not keeping their chastity prior to marriage and Christian husbands becoming less dominant and thereby less attractive to their wives (and the wives themselves rebelling). While there are of course medical exceptions, in general if your wife isn’t feeling “hubba hubba” towards you on a regular basis, something is very off. This isn’t just a harmless myth; large numbers of Christian husbands have learned the hard way that their wives do in fact experience strong sexual desires, they just feel them for other men.
Keep in mind that the condescending “hubba hubba” expression being used to shame husbands who feel sexual desire for their wives represents a sentiment that is anything but biblical. This kind of desire is exactly what Paul explains is the very reason to marry in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5. Far from minimizing this desire, Paul instructs husbands and wives to fulfil their spouse’s needs in this regard. Likewise, a husband thinking “hubba hubba” when his wife takes her shirt off is doing exactly as husbands are instructed in Proverbs 5:18-19:
18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.
At my church women are not communed unless they have their head covered. Usually one of the acolytes has one in his pocket just in case their is a visitor from a different church.
I totally agree with the need for Christian men to learn game. I have found that atheist/agnostic women are often much more forgiving and treat men much better in dating than Churchian (and even Christian) ones.
“There needs to be a meaningful symbol of submission, so long as it doesn’t actually symbolize submission.”
Gold.
The head scarf is a funny dividing line, my brother simply accepts it is a given and his fiancé is expected to wear it and does so without a fuss.
Out of a congregation of 150, apart from several babushkas she is one of two women that wear it. Surprisingly (or maybe not so surprisingly) the biggest blow back comes from other women who ridicule her for doing so.
I would certainly feel entirely inadequately qualified to advise as to whether or in what way the Holy Bible gives adequate precepts for the practise of Game, but I would like to say that I remain entirely puzzled as to whether Game is in any sense effective and even worse whether it really exists. Suffice to say the most successful Alphas I know, are quietly spoken, charming and courteous. That however is not a self-portrait; for I am far too acerbic, dismissive, and taciturn – but I am not an Alpha.
Four years ago, I joined a traditional Catholic (Latin Mass) church, where many of the women go veiled and no one except the priest and acolytes enters the sanctuary. When we were cleaning and remodeling the church to get it ready, I got to listen to some of the women talk about how much they looked forward to women being kept out of the sanctuary. Now, these aren’t mousy, “submissive” women in the sense that feminists think of the term; they’re actually very opinionated and outspoken. They’ve just seen what happens when you let committees of modern women run a church, and they want no part of that.
It’s actually the women of our parish who are most adamant about these restrictions on themselves. The men approve of them, but it’s the women who can tell you why they’re necessary, and who encourage each other to follow them.
Thank you for posting this. Seriously, just, thank you Dalrock.
from The Brothers Karamazov:
Forget covering their heads, it would be a start just to get them to cover their T & A. The church we belong to now gets lumped in with other massive mega-church types, but the teaching is solid. The women in congregration are not. Its a boner-fest every week as the women & teenage girls wear skimpy & revealing clothing with hoochie heels and sometimes ass cleavage hanging out. Some look like they just came from a slut-walk. The topic has been addressed directly from the pulpit, but it appears to go in one ear and out the other of the women. The men who allow their wives and daughters to dress like this are pathetic.
You must be reading my mind. Many people view scripture through so many filters, biases, and gate-keepers that won’t acknowledge, if not outright deny, the in your face game throughout their pages.
The last time I check the bible was written by a bunch of Jews with the exception of Luke.
I dont see game in the OT / NT. One might want to re-read Hosea on how he treated Homer.
The Proverb 31 woman is one smart business lady who works her butt off for her husband / kids and does it smiling.
Interesting. I actually had a back-and-forth with my pastor recently and in his response he talked about things, such as this. Here’s a good deal of the email. I omitted as much as possible to keep it to the point:
I’ve been thinking about your message and how to respond. Which is why I took so long to reply.
First, I apoligize that you were never made aware that we have female pastors in our denomination. After I read your message I looked in our “We Believe” booklet that you read, and I was dissapointed to find it wasn’t addressed in there. I spoke to our regional Discipleship Director and he informed me that they are in the process of rewriting that booklet and plan to include it.
I don’t think I would be able to convince you that women should be permitted to pastor and hold other leadership positions in the church, so I won’t try (too much). I did include a link to an article on Bible.com, at the bottom of this message, that I feel does a very thorough job in explaining this position. It is lengthy though. It does mention a few points that I try to emphasize in my preaching regularly:
1. Let the Bible interpret itself. Don’t take one or two verses and make them a command, unless they’re supported throughout God’s Word.
2. Consider who wrote or said the text, and who it was written to. Who it was written to is so important in most of the New Testament, since many times Jesus and others were speaking directly to Disciples (Christians), or a specific group or city and the message doesn’t apply to everyone.
Although I agree with you that there are doctrinal issues that should cause a person to leave a church or denomination. We need to consider carefully which beliefs or positions we’re willing to do so over. In seminary they taught us pastors, “Determine which mountains you’re willing to die on.” So although you disagree about female pastors, I believe there are greater reasons you should continue to fellowship with our church, and there is one that is paramount. Let me explain:
– I believe people should belong to a church very near to their home, in your community.
– I think all of the Protestant churches in [our town] allow female pastors.
– Most Protestant denominations allow females to pastor. The Southern Baptists do not and the Church of Christ does not (not to be confused with the United Church of Christ). Independant/nondenominational churches often don’t disclose the more contorversial doctrinal positions, and they can change as the pastor changes.
– With the belief that females should not pastor comes the belief that a woman should not teach a man in a church. That would eliminate female SS teachers, nuns, litergists, etc. Even the music teaches us. And women would need to keep their heads covered and not ever speak in church.
– Not all scripture is to be taken literally, but contextually & culturally. Otherwise we’d all have our eyes gouged out and hands cut off. It is important to understand the writing styles used in the Bible for a complete understanding.
– There are a few passages in the Bible that state that women shouldn’t speak in church. or serve as pastors. But there are literally dozens that call Christians to be an active part of the body of believers and regular in church gatherings.
– There are some issues that the Bible lends significant support to from opposing perspectives. This morning I was preparing for a message about eternal security. I was surprised how many passages support both positions. That said, there is some support of the position that forbids female pastors, but I believe there is far greater support for it.
– Our Denomination, Conference and church are led by males.
FYI: If you decide to come back, you should know that Barb is speaking this Sunday, and we’re debating eternal security the following Sunday. I’m taking a vacation.
Here is the aforementioned link:
http://www.bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=141
As an extension (pardon the pun) Paul also says in I Cor 11:15 “But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.”
It is amazing to me to see how many “Christian” womyn show up for worship services with their hair cut as if they are a young man who is enlisted in the military. Even when their hair is not that short you will see large numbers with haircuts that are masculine and quite short. This phenomenon is spiritually, physically and emotionally ugly. It’s also fascinating to overhear womyn encouraging each other to get this type of haircut (I know Dalrock has posted about this at length earlier). What I have also noticed is that the older womyn, who according to Paul are to teach the younger womyn, are the worst offenders on this point. I might add that of the older womyn there seems to be a very strong correlation between obesity and very short hair. Finally, the correlation is also strong between short hair, morbid obesity and womyn who are openly contemptuous (in front of other people) towards their own husbands as well as elders, pastors, preachers, deacons, etc. Oh, and by the way, the hippo is one of the two most dangerous animals in Africa… don’t know why that came to mind.
I might add that of the older womyn there seems to be a very strong correlation between obesity and very short hair.
My observation on this. Obese women use trips to beauty salons to get the sense of attention and pampering they desire, but cannot get, from men. They get to visualize their head/face alone, with the rest carefully draped. “Such a pretty face” and all that.
RTP, ask you pastor if he believes women are in sin, just like men, or if they are innately good. Then ask him why divorce rates are so high and yet the Church doesn’t talk about it beyond blaming the man. Then ask him why women are delaying marriage well beyond their most marriageable years, whilst sleeping with bad boys and not remaining chaste. Then ask him why women get away with this by having pastors tell the men to man-up and marry these women and then go on to reward these women with divorce and cash and prizes. Then ask him why children are expected to grow up in homes without both parents and without proper biblical restrictions and expectations being placed on them to teach them right from wrong.
Then point out that every one of his single arguments will detail why the Bible is no longer necessary and should be read with respect of the current culture and not as God’s word. Then point out that he is wrong and will continue to lose the fellowship as long as they continue to do Satan’s work and not the Lord Almighty’s. Then leave.
@Dalrock
Excellent post. I looked hard for something to disagree with (and I’m good at it). There are none.
There’s a whole lot of gobbledygook around the head-coverings passage related to the temple prostitutes of Dionysus, and that can be useful to study, but the point Paulis making is that women need to assume the position of submission. They must humiliate (humble) themselves to receive the blessings and display the glory of God’s order just as Christ humiliated Himself by becoming a man and subjecting himself to the powers of this world to be stripped naked, beaten, and killed. How’s that for being called to humiliation? These so-called Christian women (and men) believe themselves above that. They want the power to be Christ-like in respect, but refuse to actually model God’s ordained structure of authority to claim it–that even He subjected Himself to; offering Himself to Himself.
@RTP
you need to leave that church. Your pastor is teaching heresy and plain evil. By the way, there are diocese of the Episcopal church where women are allowed to be deacons, but not priests or bishops. There are no Roman Catholic female priests. There are no Orthodox female priests. The great breadth of Christianity is with you.
@Okrahead
Indeed. My wife and our girls all have long hair, and are expected to keep it that way. All talk of bobs are verboten, and even trims are given a warning glare. Now, the glare is unnecessary, and I don’t disapprove of trimming dead ends–I just like to keep them on their toes.
I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but a few observations from the heathenry:
@Opus: Yes Game exists, yes it is effective, and yes, you can use it within the context of the Christian religion, depending upon which franchise you like. The idea that Game is all about being Alpha is a common misconception. Game is the affectation of an Alpha presentation in an effort to allure a woman into a sexual relationship. The most effective means of this is actually developing your masculine Alpha qualities, but plenty of dudes fake it convincingly. Game is actually very complex and very dependent upon your individual situation, but as a rule-of-thumb guide to seduction and pursuit, you won’t find anything more effective.
And if women in the church I went to growing up had dressed more provocatively, I might have gone more and possibly even stayed with the religion. The general anti-sex attitudes of the Church and the Bible turned me off . . . but so did the sea of polyester and overly floral perfumes I had to wade through every Sunday. Yes, the women dressed “attractively” . . . but only “attractive” in terms of supporting themselves in the Female Social Matrix. But then, I suppose that’s what Church is for for many women.
….the teaching is solid. The women in congregration are not. Its a boner-fest every week as the women & teenage girls wear skimpy & revealing clothing with hoochie heels and sometimes ass cleavage hanging out. Some look like they just came from a slut-walk.
Same here. Righteous doctrine in the pulpit, sexy outfits everywhere. Who needs pornography when the women at church are far, far more arousuing?
That said…when the temperature is in the 90s, I understand the need to cool off; I myself wear jean shorts and a t-shirt to church when it’s hot out, and my wife may wear a knee-length dress instead of a floor-dragger. But there’s a difference between cooling off, and making an overt sexual display.
The argument that a real head covering is in view and that such is applicable today is, in some respects, the easiest view to defend exegetically and the hardest to swallow practically
FWIW, head coverings can be very, very sexy. I recall seeing veiled Mennonite women at a homeschool convention, who were smokin’ hot. Alte on her now-closed TC blog also spoke of veils and the eroticism of the veil was discussed in the usual Alte-blog fashion (ie, almost NSFW).
…..clarification… I mean hair covers… NOT face veils. Burkas are not Christian!
There is a common misconception about Christian wives and women in general having a stunted sex drive and less desire for sex. It is because of Christian wives not keeping their chastity prior to marriage and Christian husbands being less dominant and thus less attractive.
It’s been said many times. Here’s how it works.
Women bond strongly to the men they have sex with, whether they are married to those men or not. Each man she has sex with erodes that bonding ability. She also gets strong messages from the Church that sexual desire is bad, and it is something that only men experience. As a Christian girl she wants to be a “Good Girl” because she was a slut or a “Bad Girl” in her previous life. She further gets conflicted because she knows she has sexual desire, her husband usually doesn’t trigger it in her, and other men do trigger that desire. As a Christian she knows this is “bad” so she tries to repress it. Couple this with her marriage to a beta husband (whom she should have married 10 years ago, but she was not interested in until the baby rabies kicked in and The Wall suddenly appeared 10 feet away) whom she isn’t attracted to, she knows it and she hates herself for it, and you have a recipe for disaster.
This is why Christian husbands need Game.
Deti, a Christian husband shouldn’t marry such a woman in the first place. I would say not marrying such a woman would indeed save them from a lifetime of misery and heartache. Marry a chaste woman and use ‘game’ to allow her to bond more effectively with you.
@VR
This is how it starts. There’s always an excuse.
@ Deti “This is why Christian husbands need Game.” Well said but a better option at the other end of the telescope is not to marry a slut nor be a slut.
The bonding ability once eroded is eroded – it is simply gone.
The message she received from church ( if she attended) and parents (if they are still married) is sexual desire is bad but because of “grace/forgiveness” Jesus will forgive you if you sin – all of which are incorrect and carry consequences.
Sex is approved within the context of marriage ( I give kudos to the Mormons on this one – they get this right despite anti-semetic Joseph Smith theology).
To base a relationship on rise and fall of glandular urges is recipe for failure – some sooner than later. It takes one smart guy / gal to realize this – marriage is built on friendship, integrity, character, and love (glandular urges come and go).
To realize this means you were raised that way and your parents are simply doing what their parents are doing. The apple never falls far from the tree.
This is how it starts. There’s always an excuse.
No. Strutting around “f***-me” pumps with 5 inch heels, doesn’t keep you cool in the heat.
You know the difference.
Christian husband shouldn’t marry such a woman in the first place.
Supply and demand. There just aren’t enough chaste women to go around. Among college aga singles, surveys indicated that virgin men outnumber virgin women!
For many men, the choice is either marrying a reformed slut (who thus needs to be endlessly gamed), or, staying celibate for life. As to the latter option, “Not all men can accept this saying….”
Cane,
I’ve already left that church a couple weeks ago. There were other parts I omitted from the email that were also troubling. I had led many to the church. I wouldn’t say I evangelize, but I don’t walk away from conversations and if opportunity presents, I will look to lead someone to Christ. The pastor said that if I leave, the people I led to the church may leave and imperil their souls. Just shaking my head in disbelief at the thought/belief that I am now responsible for the salvation of others.
It’s a good barometer. If it comes down to feminism or Scripture, see which one wins. Draw your own conclusions.
VR, just another reason on why the Church has failed abysmally. Call it number 500 on the list. God does not call a Christian man to marry a woman who is not chaste. Expecting a Christian man to ‘game’ a tart for life is punishment, not reward for living a good life. Thus the premise still fails, a Christian man is not expected to ‘game’ such a woman at all.
hey dalrock
christians don’t need game
christians need christian wives
who honor and obey the bible
who honor and obey GENESIS which commands them
to serve their hunbandz over der butt tingleozlzozooz
christians need christian wives
who honor and obey their husbands
who honor and obey god
it’s pretty simple
christians need christian wives
who do not fornicate
nor fuck
outside of marriage
not even butthext
where just da tippy-tip of his cockas toucher her precious anuth
not even dat lzozozlzzozlzooz
christians need christian wives
who serve their children husband and family
over butt tingles and gina tinglez zlozlzlzoz
christians need christian wives
who follow moses’s TEN COMMANDMENTS
who do NOT lie so as to serve der anuth tinglelzozlzolz
who do NOT steal via alimoniez and child supportz
who do NOT covet thy neighbor’s husband
who do NOT commit adultery
real christian men do not need “game”
as “game,” like american women
is not “christian”
real christian men
act like christian menz zlzllzlolzolozlzozlzozl
He uses “fellowship” as a verb — all you need to know, really. I also liked that one of his main arguments was that all the other Protestant churches in town are doing the same thing, so you’re basically stuck.
I’ve heard many women say that long hair, especially straight long hair, makes the face look fatter. I don’t know if that’s true (I doubt it, personally), but I think that’s the rationale: looking for a hairstyle that doesn’t make the situation worse.
van Rooinek says: August 6, 2012 at 10:34 am
>Alte on her now-closed TC blog also spoke of veils and the eroticism of the veil
This made me think of when Sonny Bono banned particularly revealing bikinis in Palm Springs. And the girls responded by wearing diaphanous skirts over them. Needless to say this just made them sexier.
To fellowship or not to fellowship? That is the question…
Fantastic post!
Is it any wonder that women aren’t following some of the basics from the Bible regarding their appearance when Joyce Meyer is seen as a fine teacher for women? She looks like a man in gaudy blouse.
A word to the ladies on head-coverings – You should wear one, but you don’t have to look like a muslim, nor do you need to wear one of those little doily things. Go to Claire’s in the mall and buy one of those wide headbands with the four-inch wide scarves attached to it. You look modern and no-one even grasps that you’re doing the head-covering thing. Personally, I don’t wear them every day, only just to church.
I often read on blogs about women just needing to have a submissive heart, and that following the commands in the Bible about dress, hair length, head-coverings, and so on would just make you like a Pharisee. While there may be some truth to that, I actually find that if I’m not willing to submit to what the Bible tells me to do, I’m much less likely to have that submissive heart toward my husband. Obedience takes practice. So, practice.
There are no female pastors at our church. Women lead children in Sunday school up until the end of fifth grade; after that, it’s all men. I would never attend a church with a female pastor, and I hope more Christians will depart from churches which have females in the leadership (other than Children’s ministry). I think if the men leave, the women will follow; despite what you might read on shriek blogs, we actually want to be wherever you are.
Husbands need to learn game; pastors need to learn game even more in my opinion.
SSM, glad to see you have DH on your blog now. Please keep her, pretty please!
Hi guys, a little off topic, but you might like this. Faces of rejected bachelorettes. When all dreams of alimony, child support, status uplift, and hypergamy get thrown out the window.
http://facesofrejectedbachelorettes.tumblr.com/
Nice straw man you got there. We’re not talking about heels. Tell me: Why shouldn’t women cut their hair short? They’ll all tell you how much cooler it is; even the ones not in heels. They’ll say that it is easier to manage, and they’ll say how you’re focusing on the outward appearance, but their show hair allows them to focus on their “hearts”.
I’ve been where you are, and recognize it. You’re mistaken if you think that it escapes notice that you make a fetish of women in traditional dress, and then make excuse for your wife to avoid it. You confess to derive pleasure from women who wear head-coverings but then uncover themselves on blogs for all men to see. Yet you also confess that in your household you subject to your comfort in jean shorts, and allow her to deny dress which is pleasing for dress that is comfortable. This is twisted, and untennable.
Oh, just a quick FYI, we don’t have a returns policy.
@Sunshinemary
You beat me to the game of “hearts”. Well played.
@Sunshinemary
Excellent point, and difficult to overstate.
@FH,
Yes, I’m fulfilling a mission for the common good. 🙂 My blog isn’t nearly so busy as Dalrock’s, so it isn’t so distracting to have her there.
By the way, again to the ladies – look here for examples of head-coverings. What I wear is the head band-type scarf. And here’s another example.
The Bible commands husbands to “dwell with their wives with understanding”. Game is ALL ABOUT understanding women. Why are Betas and Omegas shut out? Because they do not understand women. Why are alphas in? Because they know what women actually need and desire (which is very rarely the same thing as what women say or even think they need). Of course “game” can be misused by PUAs…. but girl game can also be misused by immoral womyn. Does this mean Christian men should avoid having a wife who understands “girl game”? Perish the thought.
That is not up for debate. We are instructed to not forsake the gathering together of ourselves. We are instructed to observe the Lord’s Supper–corporately, and not alone, or within our own families. Beyond this, it is a sin for us to deny the rest of the body of Christ from what blessings He has given us. This includes the blessing of the knowledge of God’s revealed order.
Rock Throwing Peasant, “Everyone Else Is Doing It” is not an acceptable argument from anyone over the age of, oh, maybe 8 or 9 years of age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
You dont need a headband. Long, beautiful hair will do just fine.
You’re mistaken if you think that it escapes notice that you make a fetish of women in traditional dress, and then make excuse for your wife to avoid it.
What on earth are you talking about?
You confess to derive pleasure from women who wear head-coverings but then uncover themselves on blogs for all men to see.
Huh? This is an extraordinarily twisted misreading of what I wrote. The fact is that headcoverings can be alluring. Some chicks look really cute that way. Re: Alte’s, “NSFW” referred to the words, not pictures, just to make that clear. I don’t do pr0n blogs.
Yet you also confess that in your household you subject to your comfort in jean shorts, and allow her to deny dress which is pleasing for dress that is comfortable. .
Again, what on earth are you talking about? You make me sound like some sort of hypocritical controlling monster. I don’t “deny her” anything (within the limits of affordability) — I don’t have to; I married her because we shared preexisting convictions.
She and I both laugh at the Sunday Morning parade. The fact that she wears a knee length skirt is perfectly consistent with the ancienct Orthdox Jewish modesty standards, which I have elsewhere advocated for church use. Of course in cooler weather we both wear blue jeans… .
okrahead
Of course “game” can be misused by PUAs…. but girl game can also be misused by immoral womyn. Does this mean Christian men should avoid having a wife who understands “girl game”? Perish the thought.
For which definition of “girl game”?
Oh, and:
No. Strutting around “f***-me” pumps with 5 inch heels, doesn’t keep you cool in the heat.
Nice straw man you got there. We’re not talking about heels
Not a straw man at all. Real life. You should have been at church with me yesterday!
My point is that there is a clear distinction between dressing a bit lighter because it’s hot, versus overt sexual display; as a judge once remarked regarding pr0n: “I know it when I see it”.
As of today,
it is no longer enogh
to follow da bible
but it is now time to MAN UP
and learn
how to GAME your assocked, bernnkified wife!
it is no longer enough to follow CHRIST
nor da teachings of JESUS
but now, in order to be a successful
husband
father
one must learn how NEG one’s
buttc9cked, desouled, bernankifed wife
it is time for men to MAN UP
for good chirstian men to MAN UP
and instead of going to church
to learn GAME and read GAME blogz zlzozloz
GAME > THE GREAT BOOKS
GAME > THE BIBLE
GAME > JESUSTSHZ lzozozlzl
A great, great, great post. BTW, the verse looked odd when I read it. I didn’t realize the King James translated it in that fashion. Many other translations are a bit more graphic. The ESV (decedent of the KJV) translates it:
18 Let your fountain be blessed,
and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
19 a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight;
be intoxicated[a] always in her love.
anonymous reader,
Girl game: 1) Maintaining a healthy BMI (not overweight/obese)
2) Being submissive to her husband
3) Long hair
4) Knowing how to cook/clean house/do laundry
5) Being sexually available to her husband
6) Etc., I think you get the idea…
As of today,
it is no longer enogh
to follow da bible
I’m not disagreeing with you, but I see the practicality in learning game and other red pill concepts. What I’d add is (to mirror Dalrock’s words):
Where the Bible clashes with game, the Bible always rules the day.
Game can help someone understand the “why” of relationships, if they don’t have a Bible at hand or verses committed to memory.
instead of menz having to learn gamez
why not just stick by da bible
and wiat for womenz
to learn how
to cook
to claen
to erve
to honor
to close der legs and butthole
to wait for marriage
to ghonor
to honor god
truth
men childerne
husbadnazz lzozllz
why not wait for womenz
to honor jesusth
before bringing an embittered buttoccked owmen
into your home
who you have to game
to try and keep her
from taking your assettss
and alimoniez?
Couple of observations:
– I have seen increase in woman pastors of which their husbands had the backbone of a wet noodle.
– Feminine modesty is incredible sexy. I personally know a couple of Mormon women who dress modestly in dresses and are in incredible shape (size 0-4). This combined with feminine grace, education, kindness, and manners “absolutely melts me” ( very rare occurrence). Very, very classy – they are few and far between (Btw, I am a Jewish Christian).
If only more women only knew that a great physique, class, manners, modesty, graciousness, and feminine dress is so darn sexy and will command any mans attention.
THE MAJORITY of CHRISTIAN American women dress, act, look like entitled overweight loud strumphets.
Absolutely true. Occasionally I’ve heard the argument that women should cover their hair in church because its beauty is distracting to men, but I’ve never bought that one. I know plenty of women who only become more attractive when they put on a veil. (And hats are even better; what woman isn’t at least 50% cuter in a nice hat?) Making women look drab isn’t the point. As someone said, we’re not talking burkas here; we’re talking lace veils and nice dresses.
“Jewish-Christian”
Do you mean Messianic Judaism? or converted?
Okrahead hit the nail on the head.
Lets get back to what the bible says about courting, marriage, and husband/wife/children interaction. In review of scriptures and history – its too late. The damage has been done and consequences are in place.
Only those who were “wise” enough to follow Gods rules and have their house in order will survive the upcoming Gentile holocaust.
For once, I’m gonna disagree with GBFM. It’s not that Game>Bible, but rather, Game gives men the necessary programming to understand and recognize that Biblical Doctrine>Feminine Equality Doctrine.
Three years ago, I wrote my most viewed post ever at my blog: Game is the Red Pill. At that time, it was a response to arguing with several Christian men who rejected the idea that Game has any relevance to Christian men.
Those who are familiar with my back story, know that I was raised in a house of Churchianity with a beta-ized Father who had zero game, and a dominant mother who seethed in perpetual discontent and contempt. My Father was the head of our house, and he had her permission to say so.
Why do Christian men need game?
The blue pill is not just the delusions propagated by secular, femininst culture. The blue pill of feminism and misandry handed out by Modern American Churchianity is even more effective at promulgating familial dysfunction, because it is reinforced by mis-directed faith.
Understanding Game gives Christian men the tools to see precisely how and where their Church’s are going wrong, and exactly where feminism is subverting Biblical doctrine.
Game = understanding hypergamy and the role dominance and submission plays in inter-sex attraction.
Game = understanding that feminism is a shit test…especially Christian Feminism.
Man up, Christian faithful.
Don’t marry “born again” sluts.
And the women you do marry, LEAD.
Man up and be the head of your house.
Women, woman up and submit to the head of your house. Support him in his leadership and resist the desire to challenge or tear him down.
Woman up and give him the respect he is due as a husband and head of house.
Woman up and be his help meet.
Forget the secular message of “equality.” There is no such thing. Equality leads to mutual submission deadlock, which usually than defaults to the Woman getting her way…aka – “equality” in a marriage just means the Woman is the head of the household.
THIS is the “Game” that Christians need to understand.
I think you’ve misread both my words and my intent.
My intent is that you because you are a respected Christian commenter (by myself, too) that you not lead others astray; inadvertently or otherwise.
1. The fact that some women wear fuck-me-pumps (which I believe and can attest to myself) is so absurd (though also true; some things are both) that it is irrelevant to the argument. It can only be related as an excuse for the rest of the women, who are in more “sensible” rebellion. For you to bring them up only provides cover for the women who wear sandals with their spaghetti-strap mini-dresses; who cut their hair short for ease and comfort; who are free to focus on the “hearts” of their officemates while their children rot in public schools and their homes run to muck. This is where the philosophy of considering comfort gets us; of which there is an ENORMOUS surfeit in our culture. To even bring is up is to give way to feminist (in the Eve in Eden sense) mindset.
2. Porn is not just pictures, or words (as has been WELL-covered). Pornography is whatever is done to attract voyeurs. In the larger context of all the comments that I’ve seen of yours on several sites, I stand by what I said.
3. What attracts you, or makes chicks seem cute to you, is irrelevant to the imperatives of scripture. Why did you bring it up? And then why juxtapose it with your own practices?
4. I didn’t say you denied your wife. I said you allow her to deny you. It wasn’t an accusation of being a hypocritical control-freak, but a pushover.
She also gets strong messages from the Church that sexual desire is bad, and it is something that only men experience.
—————————————————
I disagree with this deti, she gets messages from the church that her sex drive is wonderful, but that its frequency and efficacy rest fully on the man
And totally irrelevant. The repeated affirmation of this, from several Christian commenters, is neck-craningly fascinating.
And totally irrelevant. The repeated affirmation of this, from several Christian commenters, is neck-craningly fascinating.
Right. Basically pandering to women who want to be Sexy Sexy Sexy! whenever whereever they wants.
@TCO
Bingo.
Has anyone looked under Joyce Meter’s skirt?
Eeeeuuuuwwwww, I said that????
Meyer…..HER skirt, not Joyce Meter, I dont know Joyce Meter, Joyce Meter is not a friend of mine, and Joyce Meyer is (likely) not a Joyce Meter
Okrahead, if you want to call that “girl game” it’s ok with me, but it looks more like “being a decent, loyal, useful woman who is worth being around”, i.e. what used to be considered “normal”.
Just be aware that the Hussies have their own definition of “girl game”, and it is not exactly the same thing.
empath, that would not be possible, since she almost always wears pant suits.
It’s not that we NEVER want to be taken; it’s just that our sex drive is far more caught up in feeling safe, and feeling cherished, and feeling loved, than it is in pure visual stimuli.
—————————————————————————————————
Right
Why must we Christians be subjected to this pure nonsense even from the pulpit? Anyone who has ever known a woman who has had an affair knows this is a flat out lie from hell. All it takes is proximate availability and , as she Sheila says, hubba hubba indeed.
How “safe” is it at the Best Western, or in the back of the Suburban in the state park parking lot anyway?
SSM, I know, it was the (disturbing) imagery I was after
Great post. Some thoughts on it:
Much of the problem really is religious feminism and how it’s creeped within the church. It’s not so much “game” that men are needing but to start being men again. This is a societal problem as well as a church problem. Feminism has made it so feminine qualities are prized and masculine qualities are demonized. This has led to a lot of effeminate men within the ranks of Churchianity. And after all, when you get past the tin down to the innate God-given wiring of women, they’re rejecting men because they aren’t acting like men. Now if “game” happens to teach men to act like men when dealing with women, and everyone else in their lives, then it’s a net plus. Otherwise, it’s not very useful.
Of course, the problem you have with a religion that has taken up the idol of feminism is that by tradition they will adapt what is in the Bible towards their aims. In doing this (feminists claim the right to redefine the world including Scripture to fit their thoughts and desires), they have done very well to sweep certain parts of Scripture that directly contradict themselves aside. This is also a contributing factor in the wide acceptance of the NIV “translation” (if you can call it that), which sweeps the undesirable anti-feminism of Scripture aside. This is in addition to the well known gender-neutral reassignments that they’ve gradually done since the beginning.
The NIV is indeed The Feminist Bible for a number of reasons, and its use should be held as a great caution by all those invovlved. While one can begin with God’s Word, when man gets his hands on it he For example, women are never “with child” in the NIV while they are in the KJV and NASB. The phrase’s presence Scripturally indicates that the woman has a child in her and therefore is distasteful to the feminists because it’s anti-abortion. But I lead in to an example related to the matter at hand:
Notice something missing out of the NIV one (the NIV explains it away as “the passive participant of a homosexual act”)? But just looking at the dictionary can dispel this one:
It’s not hard to argue that this is the religious feminist agenda as it has to do with men, and it’s hidden in the pages of the NIV. What woman really WANTS a woman-like man?
@GKChesterton
I did a quick comparison, I think it’s NIV. That’s what Biblegateway defaults to when you first go on it unless you change it. I know when I use that site I have to be very careful I’m not grabbing NIV scripture.
@RTP Leave that church and don’t look back. Please.
@All Since the topic of head-coverings came up, I suggest reading this, called The “New” Roman Wife which explains the conditions of marriage as they were in Roman Times, and paints a window into the things that Paul and Peter were addressing. It’s a 10 page PDF, so it’s not a big book. But the most interesting thing I find in it is how similar it is to the condition of marriage and relationships now. You can almost go through the whole thing and pick out every one of the familiar elements that are spoken of today. To the letter.
lzozoozozo
hey dalrock!! i noticed dat you missppelled a couple wordz!!!
i know it is summer time and dat you don’t always have time to check your work so i have taken some time outta my day to helpz!! i oftn helpz rosissy too! lzozlzozoz
Why Christians need to learn how to butthext.
Posted on August 6, 2012
If you are a Christian in the manosphere you likely have asked the question:
Shouldn’t Christians be able to learn what they need to know about men and women and marriage from the Bible, and not from the studies by pickup artists and Evolutionary Psychologists and butthexters?
The short answer is yes. The Bible should be all you need. But today good Christians need to man up & keep up with the Jones’s so as to satisfy their pre-buttcocked wife. They need to learn how to satisfy her butt-tingles by learning and applying buttocking gamez lzozlzlz
The problem is Christians have decided not to follow the Bible on the question of marriage in specific, and men and women in general, and thus, are not technically Christians, as Jesusth states dat Christiainity is about ACTING LIKE A CHRISTIAN. I’m not just talking about Christian enthusiasm for providing moral cover for frivolous divorce. I’m also talking about the numerous sections of the Bible which modern “Christians” are embarrassed about because the sections offend their newer and more dominant religion, feminism.
Before we go any further, I want to acknowledge that Not All Christians Are Like That (NACALT). To avoid lumping all Christians together, I’ll outline the boundaries so those who don’t practice premarital butthext first and Christianity second can take comfort in the fact that I’m not referring to them. What follows is not intended to be a complete list of areas where the Bible clashes with butthext ad secrteiv tapings of butthext, but it hopefully is representative enough of the conflict for you to determine which side of the butthextual fence you and those you know have landed on.
I’ll start with an admittedly contentious question, whether Christian women should cover their butts in church. Paul’s instructions to the church at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 seem to leave at least some room for interpretation. However, what is most telling isn’t just where one lands on this question, but the reasoning used to arrive there. Consider for example the exegesis on the topic by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace at Bible.org: What is the Butt Covering in 1 Cor 11:2-16 and Does it Apply to Us Today? Mr. Wallace lays out the case for several different readings. He tells us that he originally held the view that the passage means real butt covering and is applicable today (emphasis mine):
The argument that a real butt covering is in view and that such is applicable today is, in some respects, the easiest view to defend exegetically and the hardest to swallow practically, unless she swallows lzozlzolzlzllz. Since it is never safe to abandon one’s conscience regarding the truth of Scripture, I held to this view up until recently. Quite frankly, I did not like it (it is very unpopular today). But I could not, in good conscience, disregard it.
Later in the article he explains his new view that only a meaningful symbol of submissiveness is required today, although he isn’t able to suggest what might function as that symbol (emphasis mine):
Today, however, the situation is quite different, at least in the West. For a woman to wear a butt covering would seem to be a distinctively humiliating experience. Many women–even biblically submissive wives–resist the notion precisely because they feel awkward and self-conscious. But the butt covering in Paul’s day was intended only to display the woman’s subordination, not her humiliation. Today, ironically, to require a butt covering for women in the worship service would be tantamount to asking them to shave their butts! The effect, therefore, would be just the opposite of what Paul intended. Thus, in attempting to fulfill the spirit of the apostle’s instruction, not just his words, some suitable substitute symbol needs to be found.
His argument is that butt covering was intended as a gesture of submissiveness, and isn’t needed so long as the woman is in fact submissive. Yet at the same time he declares that actually being submissive would be humiliating to modern Christian women in our butthextual world. There needs to be a meaningful symbol of submission, so long as it doesn’t actually symbolize submission. This is rationalization at its finest, and it also shows that when butthext and the Bible collide Christians very strongly tend to choose butthext while conjuring up a suitable excuse for disregarding the parts of the Bible they are ashamed of.
You will find Christians performing a similar dance where the Bible tells wives to submit to their husbands (I Peter 3:1&5, Eph 5:22&24, Col 3:18, 1 Tim 2:11, & Tit 2:5) instead of engaging in premarital butthext. The same occurs when the Bible says that women are to remain silent in church and not butthext (1 Tim 2:11-12); how many Christians are comfortable with Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?
34 Let your women keep silence and not butthext in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to butthext; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to butthext in the church.
I’ll stop here for a moment and ask my fellow Christians who are reading: Have you located your inner butthexter yet? If any of the passages I reference above make your butt uncomfortable because they feel sexist, then you just did.
This is the reason Christians need to learn butthext. The Bible is sufficient, but it isn’t what 99% of Christians are following when it comes to men and women. Where the Bible clashes with butthext, butthextalmost always rules the day. The problem is insidious because very often Christians have swallowed butthext without even realizing it. How many Christians that you know see the movie Fireproof as teaching about biblical marriage? How many see nothing wrong with the movie Courageous and the non stop modern Christian practice of cutting leaders off at the knees? Why do none of the amazon.com reviewers of Sheila Gregoire’s book To Love, Honor, and Vacuum: When You Feel More Like a Maid Than a Wife and Mother note that she has inverted the concept of submission? Why do none of the reviewers of Glenn Stanton’s book Secure Daughters, Confident Sons notice that he has an incredibly foolish and unbliblical view of women?
The answer to the question of why Christians need game is because Christians have adopted butthext over the Bible. Not all Christians have done this. For example, the Amish still follow strict gender roles including headship and submission. From what I can find they have a divorce rate less than 1%, and they are growing rapidly due to their high fertility rate. So if you are Amish, you probably don’t need to learn game. Of course if you are Amish you aren’t likely to be reading this either. For the rest of us, Christians need game because:
Abandoning the biblical frame of marriage kills the attraction wives feel for their husbands. Butthext will help get some of it back. If you insist on indulging in butthext even a little, you absolutely need to learn and practice butthext.
Butthext will help you stop rejecting and being ashamed of the Bible when it comes to men and women. Butthext 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.
On the topic of wives being attracted to their husbands, the first thing most Christians need to learn from butthext is that it really is natural for wives to be attracted to their husbands. This of course flies in the face of modern Christian thought. Modern Christians view the urge for sex as a somewhat distasteful need that applies almost exclusively to men. This is evident in the Christianese expression “hubba hubba”. For an example of this view, see the article Motivating Men to be Caring Communicators by Jay & Laura Laffoon:
Men lust after women. Women lust after being lusted after. Your wife wants you to want her. She desires to make herself desirable. Now we don’t mean lust as the world means lust- hubba hubba – we mean your woman needs to know that she is beautiful to you.
Note to my readers: Only follow the advice in the article quoted above if you want your wife to feel unloved.
Sheila Gregiore used the same expression in a recent blog post:
When a woman takes her shirt off at the end of the day, her husband immediately starts thinking sexy thoughts. When a man takes his shirt off, a woman tends to think, “Is he going to put that in the laundry hamper?” We don’t tend to think, to the same extent, “Oh, come get me, hubba hubba.” It’s not that we NEVER want to be taken; it’s just that our sex drive is far more caught up in feeling safe, and feeling cherished, and feeling loved, than it is in pure visual stimuli.
Sheila has a similar passage in the introduction to her book Honey, I Don’t Have a Headache Tonight: Help for Women Who Want to Feel More In the Mood:
While sex may be wonderful, for many women it’s not always worth the effort. And unlike our dear spouses, for us it is an effort. We don’t automatically get “in the mood.” When we glimpse our darlings getting undressed, “hubba hubba” doesn’t usually come to mind. Instead, we watch him shedding his clothes and think, “I hope he’s not going to leave that laundry for me.” We need to have our to-do lists ready, make sure everyone has something to wear tomorrow, and get the house somewhat livable before we even entertain the possibility of making love.
If you learn nothing else about butthext, learn that the quote above is absolute nonsense. Modern, pre-butthexted women do experience a strong desire to have buttsex, and it has nothing to do with whether she has finished her to-do list. The modern Christian misconception that women generally don’t experience strong buttsexual desire is a result of Christian wives not keeping their butt chastity prior to marriage and Christian husbands becoming less dominant (as they will be incacertaed for being the hed of a household today) and thereby less attractive to their wives (and the wives themselves rebelling). While there are of course medical exceptions, in general if your pre-buttcocked and fornicated wife isn’t feeling “hubba hubba” towards you on a regular basis, something is very off, or maybe she just misses da lostas cocks carouslslelz lzozozozlzoz. This isn’t just a harmless myth; large numbers of Christian husbands have learned the hard way that their wives do in fact experience strong buttsexual desires, they just feel them for other men.
Keep in mind that the condescending “hubba hubba” expression being used to shame husbands who feel sexual desire for their wives represents a sentiment that is anything but biblical. This kind of desire is exactly what Paul explains is the very reason to marry in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5. Far from minimizing this desire, Paul instructs husbands and wives to fulfil their spouse’s butthextual needs in this regard. Likewise, a husband thinking “hubba hubba” when his wife takes her shirt off is doing exactly as husbands are instructed in Proverbs 5:18-19:
18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
19 Let her be as the loving behind and pleasant roe; let her butt satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her buttlove
Yes folks–you hears it here first.
In order for GOOD, CHRISTIAN MEN to save CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION, all they must do is MAN UP and learn BUTTHEXT.
There is no need for women to woman up,
and stay chaste before marriage.
There is no need for women to serve god and the bible
over butt tinglelzozlzl and gina tinglezzlzozoz
but all that is needed
is for men to MAN UP
and RISE
and learn game so as to service their pre-buttcocked wive’s butt tinglzozlzo. lzozlzlozzl
Given the popularity of FSoG, many women apparently feel safe, cherished, and loved when being beaten with a belt.
Sheila is wrong. FSoG is wrong too.
I keep telling women – Biblical submission is good for what ails you.
GB4M: sometimes less is more.
This thread is amusing. Here is a summary:
(a) Many Christian women are immodest, and therefore are sexually alluring to men.
(b) The solution is to return old-fashioned modesty — long dresses, long sleeves, headscarves…
(c) Modest clothing makes a woman sexually alluring to men.
Porn is not just pictures, or words (as has been WELL-covered). Pornography is whatever is done to attract voyeurs.
True, and there are places and discussions at the blogosphere that I’ve had to “walk” away from.
I didn’t say you denied your wife. I said you allow her to deny you. It wasn’t an accusation of being a hypocritical control-freak, but a pushover.
I still don’t see how you could derive either of these off the wall ideas from any of my posts.
LOL @ GBFM
I mean, lzozlllozz @ GBFM
Sorry, I shouldn’t encourage him, but that was funny.
Has anyone looked under Joyce Meyer’s skirt?
Eeeeuuuuwwwww, I said that????
At last, someone has found the cure for lust! Ugh… a bitter pill indeed!
The Bible makes it “Crystal clear” that a woman`s “Covering” is her “Hair”……
1 Corinthians 11:15.
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her HAIR is given her for a covering.
A woman would wear a “Hat” or “Hair scarf” on occasions, she wears her “Hair” all of the time.
As per hair…..
“Now we find out, in Numbers, the 6th chapter, that a Nazarite’s call, a Nazarite call was to separate themselves from all the world, to the Word of God. That is a Nazarite call, separated.
We find out that Samson was a Nazarite, unto the Lord, and he was separated from the, by a sign.
And this sign was that he was to wear his hair long, with seven locks. It was a sign of separation, that he was called for a purpose.
But I think, today, when we see our sisters wearing long hair, as the Bible said they should, I think it’s a Nazarite sign that they want to follow the Lord.”
William Marrion Branham.
In September 1989 the government of Malawi threw 11 women (and one two day old baby) from Rev. Dixon Kandoje’s church into prison for refusing to dance for the president, which the women considered immoral.
Here is Rev. Kandoje’s testimony of what they experienced in prison, before being released between 4 – 12 months later:
One day they were visited by the prison barber, according to the prison policy. The Sisters pleaded with them not to do it, but to no avail.
And as the barber set about to do his job, the Sisters knelt down and began to pray. The barber put the scissors to the hair of the first Sister, but could not cut through her hair.
He tried on the next Sister, and the results were the same. Not one hair could be cut! Again and again he tried, becoming more and more upset, but their hair simply could not be cut.
Finally, he went to another woman in the prison who was not a Believer, and the scissors cut her hair easily. After that, they never tried to cut the Sisters’ hair again.
When something’s repressed, as with any other emotional outlet, it ultimately will come out in very damaging and destructive ways. I believe this is what we are seeing with the FSoG phenomenon. It wouldn’t be anything if women just accepted the way that God made them and not tried to repress themselves to appear “holier” or whatever. They’d be safe, cherished, and loved while submitting to their husbands’ desires (and their own). Who knows, they might find some physical satisfaction in it, too.
Michael Singer
– I have seen increase in woman pastors of which their husbands had the backbone of a wet noodle.
Reverse the question. Has anyone, anywhere, ever seen a man married to a woman preacher who had any backbone at all? I admit that I haven’t made a survey. When people invite me to their church & I determine that women pastors are accepted, I tend to make a polite excuse and go elsewhere. Of the few that women preachers I have talked with, a couple were basically mousy social workers in the wrong job, a couple were clearly unmarried feminists “making a statement”, another was a wannabe-missionary who could not convince her husband to go overseas so she became an Episcopalian priest(ess). In some other cases, you see the soup-bowl haircut over the “sensible” dress and the “sensible” shoes that is the real power behind the nominal preacher; a man preaches, but all the soup-bowl hair ladies read from the Bible, say prayers, and pass the collection plate. it may not be overtly feminist, but it certainly is feminized, and run along the demands of the feminine imperative. In all these there are subtle clues: women who barge through the door ahead of their husband, rather than pause to allow him to hold it for her, for example. I always get grim amusement when one of the cows hands her giant purse to her husband to hold, in order to sail across the lobby, foyer, fellowship hall, etc. to size up and chat up a visitor. Extra points if she starts dropping IOI’s – although it is hard to fiddle with short hair, I’ve seen it done.
Anyway. It doesn’t have to be women preachers. Women in leadership, whatever the position name is, have the same feminizing effect.
Looking back in time, with my They Live glasses on, almost all the men involved with these women were beaten-down Betas, or even Omegas. I say “almost” because one mainline Protestant church I went to once had an old guy from Baltimore who was the head preacher, and he clearly had some Game – “Pastor Joan” all but sat at his feet while he preached, and his topic ultimately was about a split in that denomination over homosexual marriage. He’s probably retired by now – it was 10 years ago.
I’m not the man to discuss the theology of women preaching. But I am the man to observe correlations, and possible cause/effect relationships: based on my limited observations, any church that allows women to preach is feminist-first. Not necessarily overtly, but it’s there, it’s there.
It is no place for any man, and very much no place for any boy; hazardous to mental and physical health, due to the increased stress load that is inevitable.
@ ballista74
Exactly. This is what I keep saying about FSoG too. The hysterical Christians seem to have no idea, but then, the truth threatens their femDOM ideology.
All men need to learn game- what attracts women and what repels them- because even if you believe in God and the bible, the woman will only stay if you have game, and will always leave if you don’t (or curse your life with misery) regardless of what the bible says they should do, and regardless of how strong there convictions are/were.
A poor King will ALWAYS be overthrown.
The bible actually offers instruction in this- Dominance/submission, but since it has been discarded, many Christian men, including myself, had to come to the Manosphere to learn what the churches will no longer teach you, even at the expense of untold suffering due to mutinous feminism.
All the PUAs out there, in the end, teach Dominance. It works because women like it.
Church boys have it the worst because they get scorn and shame now, for doing what the bible instructs. At least outside the church they can follow these precepts successfully. Can’t even describe my amazement and disgust for this fact.
Samuel Solomon writes,
“A poor King will ALWAYS be overthrown.”
So tell me Samuel Solomon, was Jesus Christ overthrown?
Is that why “Christian” blogs are now advocating game, riches, and butthext so as to rule over fornicating, pre-butthexed, deosuled women?
CL, I have not read 50 Shades. So this is second hand, however it appears that the story as it develops in the later volumes is merely another version of flipping the alpha. The mysterious, totally self-contained man ultimately falls for the totally awesome woman.
Also note that in the first book, a tremendous amount of focus is on her orgasms.
So all that submission in the first book is merely a way station on the way to her sexual pleasure and ultimately obtaining power over the mystery man. Therefore, it appears to be merely another variation on the feminine imperative, as described so well at Rollo’s site.
And so, it should be no surprise that Churchian women eat that stuff up with a spoon…
Reverse the question. Has anyone, anywhere, ever seen a man married to a woman preacher who had any backbone at all?
——————————————————————————
Joyce Meyers husband is a manly man, a Marlboro man indeed, maybe these days a Nicorette or smoke free cig. he even has the mustache and the creases in the face, and the Jimmy Johnson hair!
Manly, indeed
@GBFM
You are treading on my turf, here. Keep it up.
“Is that why “Christian” blogs are now advocating game, riches, and butthext so as to rule over fornicating, pre-butthexed, deosuled women?”
Nah….real advocacy of game tells men they must be very discerning of mate selection, to learn how to recognize if a potential wife is a good bet to make a “’til death do us part” vow with, or if she’s already been butthexed and desouled. If she has, avoid one-itis and NEXT her.
Plenty of fish…don’t settle for the born again bernankified harlots
lozlzolzol
@ AR
I haven’t read them either, but that is apparently the gist of them. The plot is ludicrous anyway. I think there is a desire in women to submit, but it always seems to wind up subverted, which is why Christians need Game if it is the only place to learn about male dominance. When the techniques are used morally, it is not incompatible with Christianity. It is only relearning what has been beaten out of men.
AR referenced:
Excuse AR, I think the word you’re looking for is pastrix. 😉
Really? While I think that can be gleaned, real Game cannot and should not be separated from its truth as presented by its real apostles: Roissy, Mystery, Krauser, etc. Game is man’s wisdom of male/female relations based in a nonsense evo-psych frame. Christian Order and Authority is based on Christ and His revelation. Demons know the truth, for sure. That does not mean we ought to look to them for guidance.
Romans 3:8
8 And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.
How many here found game blogs before sites like Dalrock and CMDN?
How many found these sights, and similar ones (Full of Grace, Seasoned with Salt), and then went on to learn about game/Red Pill from other sites?
I admit. I was on game blogs first, then came here. I am less frequently on those blogs nowadays.
What if game/Red Pill sites lead more people to deeper discussions and understanding of the Bible, when they otherwise would not have reflected on it? Does the Red Pill make it easier to understand Biblical commands and concepts if you were raised in a feminist-baked school system?
Can game/Red Pill ease the transition to greater understanding of God’s plan? Seeing the “Why” of human nature does make parts of the Bible less enigmatic. Do any Red Pill types really fail to understand what transpired in the Garden of Eden? It’s hard to imagine how parts of that used to leave me questioning why Eve sinned. Abraham and Sarah. Samson and Delilah. David and Bathsheba.
hey keoni,
why should i have to “game” someone into being my “good christian” wife?
why can’t she just be a good christian on her own, without lotastat socockas cravings in her buttholiolozlz?
why should i have to learn
the art
of sodomy and butthext
just so i can risk
having a butthexted woman
take half my assetts
if i forget one night
to butthetx her ass
as game
demands?
zlzolzlz
@KG
As espoused by Roissy, Krauser, Mystery, etc. that isn’t true. You’re picking and choosing what you want to hear. You left out they believe that these women deserve to be treated as pleasure toys.
Try to make a biblical case for that. GBFM is absolutely right.
Exactly Caldo!
@KG
Nah….real advocacy of game…
KG thinks that you can just putt you cock in halfway to test the watrez lzozozlzo
and it isn’t butthext
if nobody seess iztz lzozozoz
KG is forgettng dat game blogs to not teach marriage
they teach GAME
they tearch the art of buttfucking someone’s future portential wife
which appeals to KG
more than the teaching of JESUS
on this blog JESUS is conidered a “poor king,” and thus he must be overthrown to make way
for buttcockerz zlzozloz
AR
Reverse the question. Has anyone, anywhere, ever seen a man married to a woman preacher who had any backbone at all?
——————————————————————————
Empathalogicalism
Joyce Meyers husband is a manly man, a Marlboro man indeed, maybe these days a Nicorette or smoke free cig. he even has the mustache and the creases in the face, and the Jimmy Johnson hair!
Ok, so to you he looks the part, right?
“Seeing the “Why” of human nature does make parts of the Bible less enigmatic. Do any Red Pill types really fail to understand what transpired in the Garden of Eden? It’s hard to imagine how parts of that used to leave me questioning why Eve sinned. Abraham and Sarah. Samson and Delilah. David and Bathsheba.”
Can I get an amen?
I don’t think anyone implied that Jesus was a “poor king”. That’s a bit obtuse.
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
Hey GBFM you couldn’t butthext women if you wanted to. Look where sitting around and waiting for a woman to be christian got Adam….
Even beginner PUA’s have a better understanding of women’s TRUE nature than you do.
“Genesis” is not just a clever name!
@CL
What part of “born in a manger”, or “rode into Jerusalem on a donkey”, or “mercilessly crucified” do you not understand?
Or do you deny that Jesus is the prophesied king?
“Seeing the “Why” of human nature does make parts of the Bible less enigmatic. Do any Red Pill types really fail to understand what transpired in the Garden of Eden? It’s hard to imagine how parts of that used to leave me questioning why Eve sinned. Abraham and Sarah. Samson and Delilah. David and Bathsheba.”
Can I get an amen?
Amen
Dear CL,
Samuel Solomon writes,
“A poor King will ALWAYS be overthrown,” in the context that poor = no money.
Jesus had no money. Ergo, Jesus was a poor king according to Solomon. Ergo, Samuel Solomon is calling Jesus “a Poor King.”
So tell me Samuel Solomon, was Jesus Christ overthrown?
Is that why “Christian” blogs are now advocating game, riches, and butthext so as to rule over fornicating, pre-butthexed, deosuled women?
GB4M- Jesus was an excellent King, the King of Kings, and was not overthrown in the least.
He wielded authority, and did so correctly and consistently.
I didn’t mean poor like ‘broke’, I meant poor like ‘lousy’.
It is no place for any man, and very much no place for any boy; hazardous to mental and physical health, due to the increased stress load that is inevitable.
Very true. I have a friend who was open to women as preachers and was a lay preacher at a Methodist church that had one. He conceded that men should be the head of a family but allowed some flexibility in who the church chose as a preacher. He’s now left the church and is on the long path through the counter-reformation.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
So do demons. Let’s join them!
Also, Jesus owns cattle on a thousand hills, and all without Him nothing was created, and I’d say that makes Him quite wealthy. Additionally, He even produced money from a fish’s mouth to suit his needs in a pinch. He may not have utilized much human currency in His 33 years, but the Creator of the Universe does not lack resources.
Solomon–you write,
“All men need to learn game- what attracts women and what repels them- because even if you believe in God and the bible, the woman will only stay if you have game, and will always leave if you don’t (or curse your life with misery) regardless of what the bible says they should do, and regardless of how strong there convictions are/were.
A poor King will ALWAYS be overthrown.”
Was Jesus a “poor king” because he did not game women?
Was Jesus not a man because he did not learn game?
Are gamers and buttcockerz better kings than Jesus Christ?
For dat is what you are saying zlzlzlzozlzl
“You left out they believe that these women deserve to be treated as pleasure toys. ”
This is where so many round these parts let their sense of moral propriety get in the way of learning what is actually being taught.
Most PUA-game bloggers all have posts about discerning the kind of women you want, what you want her for. In crass terms, Game advocates men discern what kind of women you should “game” into short term, one night stand “pump and dumps” versus the kind of girl worth investing your commitment in.
This applies doubly so to the serious minded Christian looking for a potential helpmeet. If chastity is a principle integral to your faith, than great…no need to pump, just dump.
Learning and understanding “game” helps men to clear up the fog of confusion in their minds…fog put there by the mass media driven, secular, feminized societies influence. Unless you are an Amish person disconnected from the larger society and insulated in your own tight-knit community, you simply cannot help but internalize many of the both conscious and subconscious influences it exerts on our thoughts and behaviors.
Actually Samuel Solomon, Jesus stated that one can not serve both God and Mammon.
Of course, as an exemplar of butthext and mammon, you must recreate Jesus in your own image, and turn him into a rich master of game, say, like Joel Olstein lzozlzlzlzlzoz
KG: If you define Game simply as ‘understanding hypergamy’ and ‘understanding that feminism is a shit test’, I don’t think GBFM would deny for a moment that Game is essential for Christian men. But Game is typically taken to mean more than that. If you asked for a Nicene Creed of Game, I doubt I’d be shouted down if I pointed you to Roissy’s Sixteen Commandments, of which at least a third, their undisputed attractive effectiveness notwithstanding, are explicitly denounced in Scripture, and another third are questionable at best.
In other words, GBFM’s (and my) view is that the sort of behavior that women this side of the Fall naturally like is sometimes quite different from the sort of behavior it is good for them to receive. If by ‘Game’ you exclude that behavior, then there is no objection – but what the word typically means does not exclude them.
why should i have to “game” someone into being my “good christian” wife?
Would you need to game a good Christian wife? Seriously.
First of all, how many of those women are typically where PUAs operate? So, we can cut down the target population considerably. Nightclubs, very few will go there, I imagine. So, we’re moving to Day Game. That is, game in more routine settings, rather than alcohol fueled spots with plenty of other men/women in the meat market mindset.
Next, you open her up to conversation. The “neg” isn’t typically used for day game settings. Really, day game is about chatting them up and setting up a second meeting. At the second meeting, what are the odds the good, Christian (future) wife engages in s*** tests? What are the odds she puts off the vibe of serious LTR potential? If you’re angling for a LTR (or in one), the game blogs tell you to ease up on things like “negs” because she’s already displayed enough value and is not throwing a lot of shields up or s*** tests. If you’re not in it for LTR, she’s going to blow you off (if she’s a good, Christian woman).
I’m not seeing the conflict, unless you’re arguing that women are pure and are only perverted because of men using game. The proponents of game do recognize that a guy must change when he has a LTR. When in a LTR, it’s difficult and unwise to keep a harem, because it risks the LTR with a woman who has shown herself worthy of investment.
Married game, such as Athol Kay’s style, is less about game and more about increasing beta while not decreasing alpha. I just finished a review of his Primer and I was genuinely impressed. He doesn’t advocate a PUA-style marriage. He advocates an alpha-marriage, but recognizes the success is based on knowing and internalizing game.
Game should never come before the Bible, but just as other philosophies can help you understand the human condition, game can help people understand contradictory messages (Women say they want X, but they jump for Y).
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
No you have no idea what you are talking about. Go read genesis 20 times. Female Nature!!!!!! Maybe it will sink it.
So do demons. Let’s join them! And so does God.
You argue like a feminist. Are you are man?
Ya know, take out the pre-marital sex insistences from my blog and I think I’d make a pretty good Game Pastor. Heheh,..
Well done Dal.
@RockThrowing,
I admit. I was on game blogs first, then came here. I am less frequently on those blogs nowadays.
I went to “Social Pathologist” first because of a link from some otherwise Christian site if I remember correctly. Then from his blog roll to here. Then to the secular sites. I spend most of my time here. Don’t underestimate a random Google search that includes “Christian” and “feminism”.
@Cane,
As espoused by Roissy, Krauser, Mystery, etc. that isn’t true. You’re picking and choosing what you want to hear. You left out they believe that these women deserve to be treated as pleasure toys.
As so many do. They are useful monsters. They don’t view women as human, which I believe goes too far by half. “Good game” points to psychological flaws in women where a man can reflect and say, “there but for the grace of God go I.”
@RockThrowing,
Abraham and Sarah
Huh? I think I’m with you on the others, but Abraham and Sarah was a case of a Captain completely blowing past some good first mate advise where the first mate didn’t press the issue.
This is where so many round these parts let their sense of moral propriety get in the way of learning what is actually being taught This isn’t a moral issue. This is a moron issue.
What PUA teaches about female nature is a separate lesson from what PUA teaches about how to use that knowledge. If you can’t see that well….
GB4M- God’s word consistently points out that wisdom and understanding is better than gold and silver and rubies. That points to the idea that true wealth is wisdom and understanding, of which Jesus had more of than anyone else on the planet.
I’m not going to tangle with your weird assertions of everything else. It would help if they were more coherent… but since you are trying to suggest that I want Jesus to be like Joel Olstein (whom I greatly dislike) you have no credibility with me, and I cannot engage further down a rabbit-trail of your errant confusions.
I think you have the wrong impression of me. I think we may even be on the same side, but I can’t tell. It seems like you are antagonizing needlessly. Surely there are more noble pursuits for GB4M then poking a stick at me, but feel free, if that’s what does it for ya.
lolzlolzlolzlolzlolz
Was Jesus a “poor king” because he did not game women?
He was not a poor king. He was…IS… the King of Kings. And he most certainly “gamed” women….but for a much higher and exalted purpose than trying to inspire gina and anuth tingles. lozlzolzol
Game, at it’s primary essence, is leadership.
“Here is where I will take you, would you like to follow?”
This is what a man asks of a woman when he uses “game.” Yes GBFM, Husbands must “game” their wives into marriage. He must lead, and the best leaders “inspire” the follower(s) to follow.
Jesus was the ultimate Alpha. His frame, his game, influenced and inspired millions of minds over the span of millenia.
@evilalpha
You’re new here, so maybe you don’t know that you’re not tall enough to ride this ride.
By the way: nice name.
“But Game is typically taken to mean more than that.”
Nope. Game is how you manage women. That’s why you hear the term “I’m gaming my wife”. You seem to have confused “game” with PUA which is all about banging sluts and never getting married.
Dear Keoni Galt,
you write, “Game, at it’s primary essence, is leadership.”
lozozozozozoz
so the entire “game industry” is all about men seeking to become good, christian leaders, as opposed to getting der cockas in pussysys and gina and buttholozozlolosls?
lozozozozo
i guess what you are saying is that butthexter tucker max rhymes with goldman sax is a great and noble “leader” because he can “lead” women into sectrieve tapings of sodomy lzozlzloz via game, which is, as you say, all about leading, just like christ lead, and thus was the ultimate gamer.
lzozlzozlzolzozozlz
Huh? I think I’m with you on the others, but Abraham and Sarah was a case of a Captain completely blowing past some good first mate advise where the first mate didn’t press the issue.
How confusing is the Sarai/Hagar relationship, knowing what you know about hypergamy?
You’re new here, so maybe you don’t know that you’re not tall enough to ride this ride.
By the way: nice name.
Cain???? Bitch. Shh…..
Dear Keoni Galt,
The Game World, which dalrock is exalting today, defines alpha as one who gets their cockas in lots of ginas and who fucks a lot of women. That is Alpha in the game world.
This is not Jesus.
So why do you write “Jesus was the ultimate Alpha.”????
would it not be mor eproper mor eproper to assert that Jesus was Holy and Good?
Samuel and Keoni, you’re both engaging in serious cases of bait and switch.
The fact is that Jesus interacted with real humans just like us, and we killed Him. Why didn’t he game them out of it? Sin in women is not a result of lack of game, or leadership. Eve was being led by Adam and God when she decided to sin. On. Her. Own. The Fall, that we’re dealing with now is NOT the result of Eve eating the fruit, but of Adam eating it.
By the way: He, too, sinned on His own–or is it your contention that God wasn’t leading Adam properly?
Therefore, since sin came about within the context of good leadership, then learning game certainly isn’t going to overcome it. It is, in fact, a concession to, and engages with but not against, feminism.
I’m not letting this thread go (as I normally would) because I’ve said what KG, Samuel, etc. have said in the fairly recent past. I was wrong.
What can I say RTP? I’m just humbly doing the Lord’s work.
“Eve was being led by Adam when she decided to sin.”
No she wasn’t.
Still too short, ea.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but that wasn’t my point. I was just remembering how I chuckled when people told me women needed veils to hide their beauty, and I looked around at these women whose veils (and modest dresses) only enhanced their beauty. Of course, beautiful and sexy aren’t the same thing, but both can be attractive and distracting. A beautiful woman will be beautiful wearing sackcloth. She has an obligation to dress in a modest way that doesn’t in itself inspire the baser sorts of impulses from men, but beyond that, custody of a man’s senses is up to him.
so the entire “game industry” is all about men seeking to become good, christian leaders, as opposed to getting der cockas in pussysys and gina and buttholozozlolosls?
False dichotomy. Why would a good Christian leader be opposed to getting his cockas in his wife’s pussysys?
Why would a good Christian leader be opposed to guiding the husbands of his congreation inot being the kind of man that is the head of his household, and that fulfilling that role helps them to get their cokcas into their wife’s pusyssusys as much as they’d like too? lozlzol
Who speaks for “the entire game industry?”
I don’t.
Oh I see. So, God making Adam first; making Eve from Adam; God presenting Eve to Adam; God having Adam name her kind, and then name her specifically; and in all ways putting her under Adam’s authority wasn’t an indication that Adam was her leader, or that God instituted this arrangement…
Keep going, ea.
in order to stem da tide of divorce
all men need to do is learn da game
and man up and strive to be alphas
butthetxing womenz and sevring womenz butt tinglez
in order to stem da tide of decline
all men need to do is learn da game
and man up and strive to be alphas
butthetxing womenz and sevring womenz butt tinglez
in order to stem da tide of fatherless children
all men need to do is learn da game
and man up and strive to be alphas
butthetxing womenz and sevring womenz butt tinglez
in order to stem da tide of debacuhery
all men need to do is learn da game
and man up and strive to be alphas
butthetxing womenz and sevring womenz butt tinglez
all bow down now beofre the gamerz
all bow down and worship game
for jesus chirts who never scored nor butthexted was a poor king
and today’s christians command us to forget his beta name
lzozozozozozo
evilalpha: Yes, ‘game is how you manage women’ – but how, exactly? Take, for instance, Roissy’s two-in-the-kitty rule, wherein you increase your attractiveness by seeing to it that she knows she is not your only option: is there any biblically-acceptable way to do that, given that divorce is forbidden except for unfaithfulness, and remarriage is categorically forbidden? I wot not how. It seems to me perfectly true that making her your only option will be a turn-off, and still perfectly true that one must do it anyway, and thus, that a good woman is (in part) one capable of recognizing this flaw in her fallen nature and choosing to behave as she should in spite of it. As a Christian, I have to believe that there is grace available to such a woman, if she really wants it – and if she doesn’t, it’s better not to marry her.
Just the opposite. She sinned in taking the lead, and he sinned in deferring to her. (Among other sins by each of them.)
Can I make an inquiry? I’m looking for help.
My family are traditionalists and naturalists as far as possible. My husband and I, being perma culturalists, grow most of our own food, much to the chagrin of some neighbors who would rather see a sterile manicured lawn instead of actual life giving food growing there, but hey, it keeps us healthy and our monthly grocery bill is practically nil. All of our births have been at home and the last one completely unassisted by even midwives, my husband delivered our latest baby girl all on his own with his own hands, bless him, and it was a lotus birth, with just him, me and our older children welcoming her into the world. I allow my children to ween themselves off the breast, which they have done gradually over about a 4 year period, and we co-sleep, allowing the children to sleep in their own rooms whenever they are ready. Here all of this is called “attachment parenting” when actually it is just normal parenting as it is done in hundreds of cultures around the world even today, with the except of course being lotus birth. Funny how Americans have to invent new terminology and new theories around what has been natural family living for thousands of years. Anyway, I’m not detailing all of this so as to present myself as some sort of superior Super Mom, I’m just giving you a background so you can understand my situation. So as you can imagine, the type of people my husband, children and I feel most comfortable around are those who do similar things, I guess you would call them holistic or healthy conscious or whatever. Now there is where the problem starts. The majority of people in those groups are either divorced and raising their children in single parent households or they never were married in the first place and are raising their children in single parent households. These are people who run themselves ragged to provide their children with the most healthy food, healthy holistic “alternative” treatments for their ailments, teaching them values like self-sufficiency and environmental sustainability, all good things, yet ZERO is taught about family formation. This is greatly disturbing to me because in my opinion the family is the foundation for all self-sufficiency, environmental sustainability, holistic healing, balanced mental health, spiritual growth, etc. If the family is not rock solid than all this other stuff is just patch work. Which brings me to my next conundrum.
The people with whom my family shares similar family values happen to be orthodox born again Christians. I’ve woven myself in and out of such groups to show my kids that there are other families like our’s out there, families with two parents who teach that in tact families are the bedrock of civilization. However, we are not Christians and as soon as that comes up, the Christians immediately start on their prosyletizing mission and we are not down with that at all. They unfortunately have no respect for other religions or understand the concept of religious freedom and religious pluralty. Moreover, they feed their kids junk food and pump them up with pharmaceuticals at even the slightest sniffle. As you can imagine, my family either has to sacrifice one value for another in order for our children to have friends, or remain completely isolated with no social life at all. This would be easy for my husband and I because we are adults, but for our children this would be extremely difficult and unhealthy.
When my children play with the former groups’ children, they learn that divorce and single parent lifestyles are normal and acceptable. When they play with the latter groups’ children they learn disrespect for freedom of religious choice, horrific eating habits, and other mainstream crap.
Continued below
Oh I see. So, God making Adam first; making Eve from Adam; God presenting Eve to Adam; God having Adam name her kind, and then name her specifically; and in all ways putting her under Adam’s authority wasn’t an indication that Adam was her leader, or that God instituted this arrangement
Wow. You are stupid.
God’s design =/= Adam’s follow through.
The fact is that Jesus interacted with real humans just like us, and we killed Him.
Who’s this “we?” “We” were not even born yet when that happened.
Sin in women is not a result of lack of game, or leadership. Eve was being led by Adam and God when she decided to sin. On. Her. Own. The Fall, that we’re dealing with now is NOT the result of Eve eating the fruit, but of Adam eating it.
Eve’s sins were certainly her own. She let the snake seduce her into breaking God’s commandment.
Adam’s sin was to let Eve seduce him into following her.
If Adam “had game” he would have held true to his frame, and called Eve to account and lead her back to the teachings of the Lord, instead of relenting and following her into sin.
@Aaron
So when a child disobey’s a parent, then it’s the parent’s fault for not being a sufficient leader for that child.
You haven’t thought this through.
There is no use even mentioning to the former group that single parenting may not be the best thing for kids and being raised by two loving, engaged parents under the same roof may do more for their children than any amount of homegrown, low-environmental impact, non-gmo, organic veggies If you even hint at such a thing you get deer in headlights looks. This is the default, mainstream form of parenting now and to suggest an alternative is just not done. Please read
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201203/should-we-care-more-women-are-having-children-without-having-husbands
and here
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/surviving-your-childs-adolescence/201111/why-single-parents-can-parent-adolescents-well
Similarly, to suggest to the latter group that we are perfectly satisfied with our own religion and are not looking to convert to Christianity results in the same deer in headlights look.
What to speak of when we tell them that no, our children are not going to be eating the genetically modified Chicken McNuggets their family serves as a snack and that we have never once taken any of our children to a hospital or fed them anything other than homegrown veggies, fruits, herbs and sprouted grains.
Does anyone here have any suggestions regarding where we can find people who share all of our values, not just the family values on the one side and the spiritual and health values on the other, but all of them, in one package? Do you know of any family oriented Christian groups that also live holistically and have respect for religious freedom? Any direction would be deeply appreciated.
Keoni Galt says:
“Who speaks for “the entire game industry?
I don’t.”
obviously not dude,
because teh game industry is not about getting married you fucktard!
the game industry is not about getting your cock into your wife’s pussy
it’s about egtting your cock into a plethora abundance of ginas and buttholez lzozoz
those who define game do not advoctae getteing married
heartisste does not advocate getting married
rossh does not advocate getting married
tom leykis does not advoctae getting amrried
jesus h. christ you “chirtsians” are hilarious, borrowing from pro-sodomy, anti-marriage game to “Save” your faith.
no wonder the west, christianity, the family, and civilization are all collapsing as you buttcockers all exlat buyttcocokcing over god, jesus and the bible lzozlzlzozozo
ye shall know them by their fruits. the fruit of keoni galt is divorce, debcuahery and butthext, picked fresh today from the tree of game he kneels beofre zlozzlzoz
Unger,
Roissy’s advice is for the weak minded beta who must keep multiple women because their natural tendency is toward one-itis kiss assiness. If you really truly believe that you are in command, then you don’t need a harem to exude dominance. Stop asking and start commanding. If you lead, women will follow.
Damned italic tags….correction:
The fact is that Jesus interacted with real humans just like us, and we killed Him.
Who’s this “we?” “We” were not even born yet when that happened.
Sin in women is not a result of lack of game, or leadership. Eve was being led by Adam and God when she decided to sin. On. Her. Own. The Fall, that we’re dealing with now is NOT the result of Eve eating the fruit, but of Adam eating it.
A lack of proper leadership is sin. Adam had not sinned yet when Eve sinned. Therefore Adam was leading properly. God explicitly says Adam sinned when he hearkened unto the voice of his wife, and ate the fruit…and not before. Therefore, Adam had the proper frame before and during Eve’s sin.
Still too short.
you “chirtsians” are hilarious, borrowing from pro-sodomy, anti-marriage game to “Save” your faith.
Because Christians never borrowed from pagans in the past to make certain Biblical truths known?
Are you suggesting that you would not have either clamored for His death, or hid from His side? The condemnation of the crucifixion is on all men. How do you not know this?
If Adam “had game” he would have held true to his frame, and called Eve to account and lead her back to the teachings of the Lord, instead of relenting and following her into sin.
Bingo.
Obviously Adam wasn’t ‘gaming’ Eve enough and thus she sinned and was easily deceived by the serpent. The idea that a Christian man NEEDS game in marriage takes us back to square one. That being, it’s always the man’s fault. Eve was willfully deceived, she needed no help from Adam and that was her sin alone. Adam’s sin was not standing up to Eve and taking a bite of the apple. The exact same sin that the Church is falling for today by allowing feminism to enter unopposed.
I value ‘game’ because it can make a marriage more worthwhile and understandable for men; but I sure don’t support it on the basis that if I don’t use it, my future wife will probably cheat and become a skank. That’s her responsibility to maintain her vows, she alone answers for her sin when she is placed in Judgment before Jesus. Just as I would want to maintain my vows should I find a woman I would want to marry.
A Christian man only needs ‘game’ is as much as he takes on a bride that follows modern day Christianity, more commonly known as Churchianity. I revert back to my previous statements and will only marry a chaste woman who follows traditional Christianity that upholds the man as the head of the household and the head of the Church. Feminists can take a fat royal hike up the hill to await their Judgment. I will have no part of that.
lozlozlzol GBFM…
obviously not dude,
because teh game industry is not about getting married you fucktard!
the game industry is not about getting your cock into your wife’s pussy
it’s about egtting your cock into a plethora abundance of ginas and buttholez lzozoz
The Game industry is about “selling” the knowledge of female attraction and masculine behaviors that inspire it.
You don’t have to buy it, you can find it for free….in the Bible…in the Great Books…on teh interwebz.
You’re talking about “Game” as the belief systems of Roissy, Roosh and other gamers intent on using the knowledge of game to indulge in promiscuity.
Ya know the old saying – Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people.
Game doesn’t cause promiscutiy. Guys who understand Game can use it for promiscuity…or they can use it to become a successful Husband, Father and head of his household.
Rolllo: Ya know, take out the pre-marital sex insistences from my blog and I think I’d make a pretty good Game Pastor. Heheh
Here’s a suggestion worth consideration: Repent, and fulfill your true calling. Reverend Rollo, Pastor of Game, speaking to the Promithkeeperth…
Keoni Galt writes,
“Who’s this “we?” “We” were not even born yet when that happened.”
Keoni Galt would have been first in line, pounding the nails into Jesus’s hands and announcing to the crowd that from now on we would all be worshipping Game and Butthext and Tucker MAx rhymes with goldman saxlzlzlz, as after all, Jesus was a poor king with very little money and absolutely no game as he never even got his cock in women’s ginas and anthuzlzozlholez zlozlzlzzloz
A lack of proper leadership is sin. Adam had not sinned yet when Eve sinned. Therefore Adam was leading properly. God explicitly says Adam sinned when he hearkened unto the voice of his wife, and ate the fruit…and not before. Therefore, Adam had the proper frame before and during Eve’s sin.
Men aren’t suppose to have hamsters. You know that right?
Now this is a good point. HOWEVER, context is everything. Examples of game can certainly be used within a biblical context to demonstrate the nature of women and male-to-female relationships–provided the context remains biblical, and the examples are game. Christian game blogs are usually just that: Game blogs with Christian examples. That is: blogs devoted to the context of game, but using Christian examples.
Jesus was a poor king with very little money and absolutely no game
Umm..Jesus had mad game.
That’s why he had all those followers one of which was a hooker.
@ea
Women aren’t either. You know that, right?
“Men are men, but man is a woman.” You know that right?
“For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church” (The church being man, therefore man is the woman.) You know that right.
Keep growing!
evilalpha: Then it’s just a problem of definition. Still, wouldn’t you agree that the word ‘Game’ was adopted and promulgated by PUAs, not Christians, and was and is used by the former to describe something more than just displaying some leadership skills, and that the former outnumber the latter by a very substantial margin? The definitional difference and resulting confusion is, as this thread shows, not just common, but deep-seated.
@ea
And now you break at least one of the Ten Commandments, and generally emit blasphemy.
Keoni Galt would have been first in line, pounding the nails into Jesus’s hands and announcing to the crowd that from now on we would all be worshipping Game and Butthext and Tucker MAx rhymes with goldman saxlzlzlz, as after all, Jesus was a poor king with very little money and absolutely no game as he never even got his cock in women’s ginas and anthuzlzozlholez zlozlzlzzloz
Pass the adderall, fucktard.
Game is about discerning TRUTH from the lies. You don’t “worship” Game. You seek it out for it’s own sake. When you find the truth, and you apply it, you know it.
God charged Adam with being the leader. Eve, the helpmeet.
God’s word was truth.
When Adam stopped leading and followed Eve, he went against the truth, and paid the consequences for it.
hey fucktard evilalpha
butthexual gamez didn’t get jesus his followersz you fucktard
his exalted teachings gained him his followers
jesusth never butthexed nor ginasexed all those hookers followed him, like the leading gamer blogs all do.
jesus was not a gamer nor a butthexter
he was an Exlated Teacher of Exalted Truth
Umm..Jesus had mad game.
That’s why he had all those followers one of which was a hooker.
Correction: One of those followers was an EX-hooker. An important distinction.
hey keoni galt you fucktard,
the passage you misquote comes form the bible, not form gaming blogs, you buttfuck
“God charged Adam with being the leader. Eve, the helpmeet.
God’s word was truth.
When Adam stopped leading and followed Eve, he went against the truth, and paid the consequences for it.”
also eve’s disobedience wasn’t adam’s fault you fucktard
it was eves fault
read the cufkcing bble and stop whacking off to buttehxtual game fananstasies where game replaces jesus in your perverted scummy univerze lzozozozoz
Remember that we’re talking about emotions here, not logic. It’s not that she needs to live in fear that you might walk out on her at any moment, or that she should literally think you are cheating on her. It’s that she needs to feel like you’re the kind of man who is attractive to women in general, who could get offers from other women. That helps her see you as desirable, to feel like she snagged something special when she got you. To turn it around the other way, if she starts to think she has a husband no other woman would want, she’s going to lose interest in him, for the same reason that she’d stop using a purse no other woman found attractive. Yes, I know that makes it seem shallow. Sorry.
Why Christians don’t need butthextual game.
Why Christians need the Great Books and Classics and the Bible.
If the child acts against the parent’s will or without his knowledge, perhaps not. But that’s not the situation here. Eve told Adam to sin, and he agreed. If a child disobeys to a parent’s face, and the parent goes along with it and approves rather than being responsible and holding the child to account, then yes, the parent shares in the responsibility.
butthexual gamez didn’t get jesus his followersz you fucktard
Hey GBFM. Stand up straight. Reach your hand out and say this. “Come, follow me and I will make you fishers of men.”
Straight game.
Are you confused? You do know that game is about characteristics of male leaders right?
Game and its teachings talk about the flesh, the natural, the carnal. The Biblical instructions set out the same basic teachings as Game does, but without the “why” that Game provides.
For those who follow the Bible’s maleDOM, femsub instructions, the “why” is unimportant. You read the word, you obey, Since most Christians engraft feminism onto Biblical teachings and distort them, the “why” has become crucial.
Why Christians don’t need butthextual game.
Why Christians need the Great Books and Classics and the Bible.
Why Christians don’t need game.
Why Christians need Christ & Moses, but not buttehxtxual pleaseres and lostas moenys and lostas cockas in da buttholez just to keep da brnankifieid wife happy lzlzoz.
This is a perfect example of the reversed context I was talking about. The context is game, and then sprinkled within is text to make it seem Christian. In contrast, Dalrock’s post was based within a Christian context, and used examples of how even game betrays the greater truth of Game.
@KG
Revealing. Christ says He is the TRUTH, and to seek him.
I know what you’re getting at, but when I read your posts on Game, I get the distinct impression that if I want more information on women, I would be better off reading more Roissy, but the Bible wouldn’t be a bad supplement.
evilalpha says:
August 6, 2012 at 4:19 pm
butthexual gamez didn’t get jesus his followersz you fucktard
“Hey GBFM. Stand up straight. Reach your hand out and say this. “Come, follow me and I will make you fishers of men.”
Straight game.
Are you confused? You do know that game is about characteristics of male leaders right?”
hey fucktardity fucktard
jesus christ and christiainity did quite well without all your fanboy game butthextual blogging actvities
why is everyone trying to redefine christiianity and noble jesus in terms of buttehxtual game and butthexting and lotsas cokas in lotassa ginaholez?
why not let Jesus Christ Lead with Light and Light instead of Butthext and Game amd Debahcery and Lotass Cokas in your wife’s gina hole to keep her satiated?
Why not teach her to act like a christain intead of an animal thta need sto be “gamed” like a little doggy? lzozlzozo
lozlzolzol
Now I feel like we are all engaging in an argument about how many angel’s can dance on the head of a pin.
I am merely backing up Dalrock’s initial assertion here:
This is the reason Christians need to learn game. The Bible is sufficient, but it isn’t what 99% of Christians are following when it comes to men and women. Where the Bible clashes with feminism, feminism almost always rules the day. The problem is insidious because very often Christians have swallowed feminism without even realizing it.
Game is simply based on recognizing the truth of gender sexual attraction.
The biological features of psychology and physiology that God intelligently designed when he created man and woman.
@Feminist Hater
I think we are on the same page, or very close at least. I’ve written about the basic topic in these posts:
Gaming your wife.
Should you game your prospective wife into submission?
That way rationalization lies
@Deti
This is simply a lie that we’ve bought. The truth is that it’s right there in the third chapter of the first book in the description of the creation of the world. There is nothing learned from game sites, or evo-psych, or statistical trends that does anything except reinforce the WHY as it is utterly dissected in the Genesis 3. Game is about the application to woo women–any women. Evo-psych is drivel badly extrapolated from the behavior we see around us to fit into the wholly imagined picture of what we think early man was like based on what spurious details we can squeeze out of a handful of rocks. In other words: it’s nonsense. Statistical trends are a recorded amalgamation of the Eve story played out again and again in the lives of every woman. The truth is that ONLY the scriptures tell us the WHY.
Dalrock said it best when he wrote (somewhere else) that Christians should be embarrassed that they have to learn the nature of women from PUA sites and evo-psych.
Yes!
“This is the reason Christians need to learn game. The Bible is sufficient, but it isn’t what 99% of Christians are following when it comes to men and women. Where the Bible clashes with feminism, feminism almost always rules the day. The problem is insidious because very often Christians have swallowed feminism without even realizing it.”
Because Feminism now rules the day, men must learn game and butthext and servicingtheir wive’s butt tinglez and gaming their good chirtian wives who are tingling to fifty shades of grey!
do not fight feminism nor porn nor satan, but join them!
become a butthexter and man up and serve your womenz butt tinglez in the name of christ ad christinaity!!!!
and all you fuckers wonder why the church and family are fialing
you shall know them by their fruits
and your fruits smell like…. butthetztz lzozozoz
lzzlzlzlzoz
KG: I think the bulk of the dispute is over the phrase ‘features of psychology and physiology that God intelligently designed when he created man and woman’. My impression – in which I’m hardly alone – is that Game, at least as described by the people who originated the term, tends to mean playing to corruptions of those features, not the features as God designed them.
“Why not teach her to act like a christain intead of an animal thta need sto be “gamed” like a little doggy?”
So now you are TEACHING her rather than WAITING for her like you said up above!!!
Good. I’m getting through.
I can only say this again: I know what you’re getting at, but when I read your posts on Game, I get the distinct impression that if I want more information on women, I would be better off reading more Roissy, but the Bible wouldn’t be a bad supplement.
And it’s not just you. It’s by far the majority of Christian bloggers and commenters in the manosphere. I have been guilty of this myself way too many times, on blogs, and in real life. I’ve pointed my friends to Roissy instead of taking them back to scripture and asking them: “Show me in here where you get X feminist belief from?”
GBFM goes to church & is repeprimanded! zlozozlozozozozlzo and sist in the pew and whispersz to his friendz!!
so i was in a shurch the other daay
i was in church the other day
and the minister had very nice hair
and a big smile
and i noticed dat all the young ladies
were shifting around in their seat
as they had sore buttholez
as the minister preached “ALL YOU MEN MUST LEARN GAME!
NOT CHIRST NOR MOSES
BUT GAME!
AS CHIRST AND MOSES CANNOT SERVE YOUR WIVE’S BUTT TINGLES
BUT ONLY GAME CAN!
JESUS WAS A POOR KING
AND THUS WE CRUCIFIED HIM
SO THAT THE GAMERZ
COULD WIN
JESUS NEVER GOT HIS COCK IN GINA AN ANUTHOLEZ
AND THUS HE WAS NOT AN ALPHA
BUT A BETA
DO NOT BE LIKE JESUS
BE LIKE TUCKE RMAX RHYMES IWTH GOLDMAN SAX!
BUTTHEX YOUR WOEOMNZ AND TAPE IT
SECTRETLY
GAME YOUR WOMEN
FOR GAME
AND NOT CHIRST
I THE WAY TO
SALVATION!!!!! Lzozlzozozl”
so i leaned towards my friend
and i whispered,
“a lot of da womenz in my genenrtion have sore buttes fom being buttcocked so much.”
and the minisiter
he heard me oh no!
he stopped his sermon
and walkd towards me his face turning red
and he said
“ABOMINATINETION!!!! WE HAVE A SINNER IN THIS CHURCH!”
he pointed at me, and all da womenz his harmez said “yah yah yah! a sinnerz!””
“THROUGH HIM, SATAN HAS DISGRACED MY CHURCH WITHTHE WORD BUTT-COCKED!!!!”
and he pointed at me as i cowered
in fear of hs thurndering lord’s voice
and nice hair and pleasnant TV preacher’s smile
owned by da bernaneknetworkz
and the womenz all said “SINNER SINNER SINNER!”
but yet i stood and said,
“who is the sinner–those who buttcock, or those who sayeth and observeth that ye all be buttocking, which is an abomination in the yees of my fatheer?”
“ABONOMINTAION! SINNER! SUCH LANUGUAGE SHALL NOT BE TOLRERATED IN THE HAOUSE OF THE LORD!!!” the minsister smited me and all the womenz followed suit with their handbabags lzolzlo
and so they killed the messenger of our Father’s will
as they had done to Jesusth
and so many poets and prophets
before
and
since
and while the church building let stood
its soul was buttcocked
into
obliviolnonomzlzozlzoozzozlzolzzozzlozzz
A quick note with my moderator hat on: Feel free to debate vigorously, but try to keep to debating ideas and not people. Likewise please avoid personal attacks (no need to explain your previous comments, please just follow this moving forward). I tend not to actively moderate individual comments, but if someone shows a pattern of disruption or personal attacks I will add them to the blacklist filter (eventually).
Thanks.
There is nothing learned from game sites, or evo-psych, or statistical trends that does anything except reinforce the WHY as it is utterly dissected in the Genesis 3
Wrong. Most men have a harder time understanding the nuances Genesis 3 than a game blog. Both you and GBFM definitely have been struggling at times today with the paradise lost story
Since most Christians engraft feminism onto Biblical teachings and distort them, the “why” has become crucial.
That struck home with me.
Would I really be looking for the “Why” in the Bible as much, if I were born 100 years ago? That’s not to say serious minds didn’t pose that question. It is recognizing a crucial difference between the pre and post feminist indoctrination.
If you were bathed in the blood from birth, the “Why” isn’t on the forefront of your mind and challenging beliefs.
If you were bathed in the menses from birth, the “Why” is the root of much of your disbelief.
Makes it clear where feminism sprung from, I think.
Cane it is the beginning of a counter counter revolution!
its no secret I certainly agree with your game take vs Biblical take
“Christians should be embarrassed that they have to learn the nature of women from PUA sites and evo-psych.”
Churches should be, yes. Pastors should be, especially. But when a decent man genuinely wants help and guidance on how to conduct his marriage, and he consults his Christian elders (with blue-pill advice), he should not be embarrassed. He should be PISSED at their betrayal of God’s word and effectively, him and his family, future, and children.
Genesis 3 doesn’t explicitly explain female nature in plain, easy-to-understand terms. A young man of perhaps 13, 14 or 15 will not glean female nature from the text. He needs a good pastor or a father who understands sound doctrine to help him with that, especially in today’s churchianity culture.
A clearer picture is in Proverbs 7.
And it’s not just you. It’s by far the majority of Christian bloggers and commenters in the manosphere. I have been guilty of this myself way too many times, on blogs, and in real life.
lozolzolzolzol
This brings to mind a conversation I once had with two Catholic married men (goes to church every sunday sort, not Holiday Mass types), commiserating on how their women are the bosses at home, and how they had to ask permission to do anything, and that sort of thing.
I interjected into their conversation to “give ’em the red pill.”
Did I tell them to go read Roissy? Nope.
I simply said, “Now what does the Bible say about who is supposed to be the head of the home? Why are you both letting your wive’s be the heads of your houses when the Bible tells you otherwise?”
They were both speechless for a few moments. Then they said, “Yeah right, like your wife is not your boss…” and they went back to their discussion, as if I never brought up the biblical point at all.
Maybe I should’ve told ’em to just google “heartiste”
lozlozlzolol
The point of game
all you douchetards
is not to use it on your wife
but to use it on other peopelsz future wives
so you can get er younger hotter tighert
fifty pounds lighter
than pass her off to the sucker dalrock and solomon are teahcing
“just use game on your pre-buttocked cock-caroulseled wife boy,”
and all will be good
no need for chirst or moses
but just sodomize her now and then
with abit f game a but of game
and she will respect you
lzozlzolzzzlz
@Cain RE: Hamsters
“Women aren’t either. You know that, right?
Really???? At a minimum we know Eve was cursed after eating the apple. We also know that prior to that she is susceptible to “beguiling”. Please take the bitches of the pedestal.
@GBFM,
I think you have misread me.
Gaming your wife.
This is what a beta looks like.
No rings for sluts
The point of game
all you douchetards
is not to use it on your wife
Wrong. The point of game is control of women via a mastery of their female nature. That’s why feminists hate it so much. Does all this mastery lead to butthexing? Yup. But as someone upthread said. Guns don’t kill people….
1. You’re moving the goalposts. The subject was “where the Why of female nature be found.”
2. Proverbs, generally, is a great resource. But it is more imperative, and less indicative.
3. You’re right on the need to train young men and women better.
@Samuel
We can be angry, but how far will that get us? They are as stupid as us. Feminism didn’t start in the 60s, or 1800s– it started in Eden. Every man from Adam down to us has fallen for it at one time or another…or another…or another.
“The solution to your butthexted wife sore anuth,” stated a famous Chirstian Blogger, “is learning the fine art of game and butthext lzozlzozozlzoz.”
Time out. Time out. Time Out.
GBFM
The point of game
all you douchetards
What’s this, has GBFM been Hooking Up Smartly? I kind of doubt it, but that is an interesting slur to show up in this thread, at this time.
is not to use it on your wife\
Why not? Why shouldn’t a man use leadership, applied psychology, and other techniques to lead his wife, thereby making her submit happily, thereby improving the marriage? Because you say so?
I don’t think so. All the keyboard diarrhea you care to spew won’t make that true, either.
There’s multiple definitions of “game” in this argument, and a couple of them are directly contradictory. Just a suggestion: y’all might want to figure out what you mean by the word “game” some time, if there is any interesting in “light” vs. “heat.
Ok, resume the mud fest, while I step out of the ring.
hello fucktard Anonymous Reader,
the gaming blogs define game
the bibble defines christianity
the bible does not endorse trying to make your wives butt tingle
the gamers do
most of the “christian” fuctrakdrs do not see the difference between jesus and butthext
and dat is why
da family and chruch
are failing
darock suggests saving the family and church
with more service to owmenz butt tinglez
instead of god
more game with a buttcoked women
than jesus
lzozllzozlzloz
Now we’re getting somewhere. I agree wholeheartedly.
Could you show me in the Bible where men are exorted to control women? Can you show me where Men are instructed to master the female nature?
Isn’t it true that we’re told to seek after the nature of God? Isnt’t is true that the goal of such seeking to become more godly?
Isn’t is true, then, that seeking mastery of the female nature will lead to becoming more feminine?
The common thread between ‘game’ and scripture is Male Dominance.
The fact that the bible teaches men to be Dominant confirms Dalrock’s OP. Men need game.
Say it another way- “Men need to be Dominant”. Both Game and Scripture agree on this point. It is the foundation of everything else.
What a man does with this Dominance, once he attains it, will depend on his principles and purpose. Some men use it to maintain happy marriages. Some men use it for ONS. This is where PUAs and Christians part ways.
Problem is, men are not being taught to be Dominant in church, and many broken hearts, broken homes, and broken children have suffered as a result. It is an affront that churches fail in this way.
jesus never taught us
to game and manipulate
to neg women
rather he taught us
to teach our women
not to butthext
becuase i agree with jesusth
that our owmen shouldn’t butthext
and that we should not malipulate them
all the buttcokers herewant 2 see
da GBRM crucfied
as they did to jesus chirst
lzozlzo
Feminist Hater at 12 p.m.,
Never fear, I’m still here. I just have nothing to say on this topic, except in a very tangential way, because I’m not Christian. It’s nice to know you missed me!
Guess garbage disposal didn’t come this week…
I love you too, FH.
Idle interjection: The Bible is quite clear about who should rule a household – but where does it give any general command for men to be socially dominant, or paint any picture of proper Christian society as all chiefs and no indians? The latter, let us note, is the attraction cue honed by Game; the former is simply a command to both husbands and wives, to obey whether they feel like it or not.
I agree with Dalrock that Christian men need (some amount) of Game. I agree that many Christians have traded the Bible for cultural trends and written away very clear teachings about gender relationships such as in Ephesians.
However, I cannot help but raise an eyebrow at the poor interpretation of the 1 Corinthians passage. Paul is addressing a culture-specific problem in a church, not making a universal proclamation for how women ought to dress in church (which will OF COURSE vary depending on the time and culture.) JP Holding, who I don’t always agree with, explains this pretty well in his commentary on this passage and IMO offers a much better explanation than Wallace, who’s usually a pretty good scholar.
[D: See link instead for full quote.]
Interestingly, it seems that from this passage we have a situation very similar to women in the modern church who dress like sluts. I absolutely think that’s a problem, but trying to impose a culturally-relative more like a head covering is mangling the text. If you’re going to operate according to that same logic, verse 7 means you guys shouldn’t be wearing hats!
Likewise, the “effeminate” reference is much ado about nothing. What is considered “effeminate” varies from one culture and time period to the next. The heroic men who founded the United States would be effeminate today if their powdered wigs and stockings are any indication. Obviously the Greek translated as “effeminate” has a specific nuance of passive homosexuality that the NIV highlights in its translation that might otherwise be missed. The entire purpose of a translation is to clearly articular the meaning of the original text, and since English changes over time, changes in translation are a matter of course. See also the famous Psalms verse with “suffer the little children” for another good example of how word meanings change and need clarification!
While I disagree with women being made pastors through a broader scriptural argument I’m not going to bother to lay out here, the letters to Timothy are a bad example because Paul is addressing specific problems happening in the churches and not making sweeping doctoral statements for how all worship ought to be conducted, in the context of women coming from pagan religious practices disrupting church services. Additionally, the verb that Paul uses for “I do not permit…” is better translated as “I am not permitting…” and does not indicate a command that extends indefinitely. For this reason, using 1 Timothy to say that women should not teach in church is based on very shaky ground. If you’re going to use that logic, then you should be praying with your hands in the air (1 Tim. 2:8) like Paul says!
I agree with completely with the very clear commands for wives to submit to their husbands found in I Peter 3:1&5, Eph 5:22&24, Col 3:18, and Titus 2:5, so I’m not trying to undermine Dalrock’s well-intentioned effort to call out the church for abandoning clear Biblical teaching about marital relationships. I just think we need to be careful to separate moral teachings from culturally contextual troubleshooting in the same way that we need to avoid mixing up relevant OT commands about morality and ones relating to ritual purity and temple codes in the Mosaic law (the latter to which we are, as Christians, no longer subject.)
1 Timothy 2:12
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet
Samuel Solomon says:
August 6, 2012 at 5:27 pm
“The common thread between ‘game’ and scripture is Male Dominance.””
OMG r u stoooopid zlzozozzo.
Scripture teaches MEN RULE UNDER GOD.
Game teaches men rule under BUTT TINGLEZ and GINA TINGLEZ zlozzoozlzozo.
I think it is aweomse how succesuufful da bernnakifiers have been in making sure you are all too stooopid o ee to see da diffenerence beteween GOD And your buttcockedz wives butt tingelzlz lzolzo
Could you show me in the Bible where men are exorted to control women? Can you show me where Men are instructed to master the female nature?
Genesis ring a bell? Ever wonder why feminists hate Christianity so much?
A Jesus neg.
The fact is, you have had five husbands.
evilalpha says: August 6, 2012 at 6:39 pm
>1 Timothy 2:12
>I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet
The slut apologists aren’t going to say anything in this thread. They are too busy cackling. The whole manosphere, including gameosphere and including gamosphere (e.g., here) are in the frame that somehow women must have their tingles. Tingle her yourself before someone else does, else you be cuckolded!
Breaking that frame means POV that the women should never have any tingles, and we must shame the players for seducing them when we failed to be ruthless enough in suppressing those tingles. Curse the players to crawl on their bellies and eat dust! Very slut apologist.
Pick any frame you like, you’ll find a group of wymyn already staked out the territory.
…or what GB4M said:
I think it is aweomse how succesuufful da bernnakifiers have been in making sure you are all too stooopid o ee to see da diffenerence beteween GOD And your buttcockedz wives butt tingelzlz lzolzo
^^^^ hey anon!
yes!
“the slut apologists aren’t going to say anything in this thread. ”
yes! Dalrock is a slut apologist, as he believes that men must obey and serve their women’s gina tinglzozlozlzozloz and butt tinglezlzozloz
lzoloz
expect future posts to comment on the preferred color for dilldos to use to serve one’s wive’s butt tinglez and gina tinagleilzozlozlo
Christianity before Dalrock:
God
Man
Woman
Children
Christianity after Dalrock:
Your buttcoked wife’s butt tingles
alimony and child support
the banking system
the state
game (c.s. lewis)
children
man
god
lzozozloozzloz
A woman comes intoeth Preacher Dalrock’s Chambers and says,
“Preacher Dalrock, I am having trouble in my marriage.”
Preacher Dalrock says, “how so?”
The woman shifts in her seat and says,
“My butt tingles, but not for my husband.”
Preacher Dalrock blesses her and sends her on her way.
Then her husband comes in.
Preacher Dalrock looks him in the eye and says,
“Son! You are failing!” He shakes his head.
“You have got neg your wife! Stop telling her that you love her! Instead, game her into bed, and go for her butt and do her hard as the Lord commmandeth! lzozoozl”
So the husband goes home and does just that.
Penetrating her in da butt as Game teaches.
And the sodomized wife,
Takes the man’s children
and savings
and alimonies
And the husband goes to the Minister Dalrock
who shakes his head and says
“BOY! YOU DIDN’T GAME HER HARD ENOUGH, AND THUS SHE WENT BACK TO THE BUTTOCCKERS WHO SERVED HER BUTT TINGLES WHEN THEY BERNANKIFIED HER! lzozzool YOU FAILED!”
And Satan looked up from hell
and smiled
at Game and all the Gamers
bowing before and worshipping
women’s gina and butttingles
which drove eve
to taste of the apple
long ago.
But now with Dalrock turning towards Game
and worshipping womenz butt tingelz
instead of God
Satan saw his chance
for buttehxtual victory!
lzozozozllzozo
Man’s first responsibility is to love and serve God.
Directing our house with authority is a fundamental part of obeying God. It is just a natural side-effect that women get tingles from that because God designed them to respond that way.
Men obeying God and wielding authority, and women getting tingles are not mutually exclusive. They are designed to work together naturally. That’s why it is God’s plan. That’s why God tells us to have authority in our homes. It is HIS order, and good things come when we follow God’s plan, just as He promised.
GB4M you are revealing how poorly your brain works, if you cannot see that, and continue to suggest that I am saying something I am not. Why don’t you look for some common ground, instead of starting arguments that don’t exist? I am disappointed in your obstinate, off-base, distracting remarks today. You KNOW what we mean, but you are picking fights anyway, just to accuse us of wanting gina tingles from women more than we want God, though nobody has said that.
you were doing so good, too. Turns out, you suck.
The whole manosphere, including gameosphere and including gamosphere (e.g., here) are in the frame that somehow women must have their tingles.
PUA’s are slut opportunists. Women having their tingles is no more a frame than water being wet is a frame. Tingles are a part of womanhood that must be managed. Adam forgot this and now others like you are making this same catastrophic mistake. You can be one of two things. A fool who does not believe in tingles. A man who uses tingles (for good or bad) to lead women.
Get bitches off the pedestal.
lzozozzoz
samuel solomon writes:
“Men obeying God and wielding authority, and women getting tingles are not mutually exclusive. They are designed to work together naturally. That’s why it is God’s plan. That’s why God tells us to have authority in our homes. It is HIS order, and good things come when we follow God’s plan, just as He promised.”
so it is god’s plan to have 50%+ divorce?
so it is god’s plan to have over 50,000,000 aborted?
so these are good things?
lzozlolzozoloz
all you buttlovers and butt tingle worshippers are perverting christainianatiezlzlzlzozlzlz
but don’t wory, jesusth still loves you, even though you exalt butt thingles and divorce and abortion and murder over god lzozlzl
he forgives you, for ye know not what ye do.
and i forgeiv ye too. lozlzozlz
Eve before GBFM: Gay Beta Feminine Moron
Put on pedestal by adam
Buttcoked by serpent
Buttcoks adam (Paradise lost)
Eve after GBFM: Gay Beta Feminine Moron
Put on pedestal by feminism, and churchianity
Buttcoked by PUA’s
Buttcoks GBFM (Christianity lost)
we have high divorce rates and abortions because of people NOT following God’s word and you know it.
Once again, you are picking fights where there isn’t one. I’m done with your antagonistic projecting, and I’m done with this thread.
out.
There’s a real simple solution here, and ministers need only to have the courage to implement it: anyone wearing inappropriate clothing is not to be admitted to Communion. Wearing revealing clothing is potentially scandalous, and it is a sin against Christ’s Body and Blood to give Communion to an unrepentant murderer, which is exactly what a seducer or seductress is. Likewise, people who are divorced and remarried, except for those whose first marriage was not between two Christians, or was initiated in fraud or coercion, or whose first spouse has since died, are not to be admitted to Communion, and neither are their so-called spouses.
lzozozolzoz
back when game did not exist,
back when your grandmotehr and great grandmother
were not gamed and buttocked
there was no abortion nor divorce
now that your future wife is gamed and buttcocked
there is a lot of doivrucoe divorce and abortion
the funny thing is
that you saloution solution to all da divorce and abortion
is more buttcocking and more game serving womenz butt tingles and gina tingles
instead of god and jesusth
Samuel Solomon says: “out”
yah fiinally he cums outta da clcoste clostet closet! lzozlzl
Galt, we killed Him because it was our sins that nailed Him to the Cross. He has left us a choice: either be baptized into His death or be counted among His murderers.
game, abortion, sodomy. You know, these are not the kind of theological discourses that I looked forward to in sermons in my youth. But then, that church now has a pastor named “Sherry.”
all the game blogs and gamers are pro-abortion and pro-sodomy
dalrock’s “Why Christians need game.” = “Why Christians need abortion & sodomy.”
and then you wonder why Men no longer go to church
lzozlzlzoozzolz
smetimssesz
i forget to say
and make clear
how much i lovez all of ye
all of ye who prefer gina and butt tinglez
over god and good
i still love ye
all of thoe who think the problem is with christian men not buttcocking enough
i loves ye
all of ye who think
dat if only christiman men wore furry hatz like mystery
and negged womenz
and lead them into bed for a butthexting
this would solve the divorce abortion epidemic
i loves ye too
i am quite patientz
for i have been talkingt to my good friend jesus
who is da alpha and da omega
who was here before time and will be after eternity
and he told me that even though you think he was an alpha buttocker
to frogivve ye
and pateinelt make you see
that jesus did not bow down before gina and butt tinglez
as you say he did
but that he followed da higher ideals and truths of god and moses and da propehtz
so i forgive all of ye
of little faithz
lzozlolz
all the game blogs and gamers are pro-abortion and pro-sodomy.
buttcockers don’t need abortion. You make no sense
Maybe I am confused about what “game” is; I don’t read PUA sites except for when dalrock links to something at UMan. I read MMSL sometimes, but I’m no game expert. I take it in a Christian context to mean that the man is more assertive, doesn’t let his wife’s emotions blow their boat off course, teases her a little, exhibits leadership, remains reasonably calm under stress, is somewhat sexually aggressive…that kind of thing. Is that about right? If so, why is that so terrible, GBFM? With the caveat of course that under no circumstances does the wife have the right to cheat/lie/withhold sex/divorce him even if he doesn’t “game” her. It just is a tool for maintaining the D/s dynamic that gives the relationship an enjoyable sparkle.
I don’t see a man gaming his wife as being all that different from a wife wearing lingerie to please her husband. Of course there is no commandment in the Bible that tells a wife “Thou shalt not wear granny panties when thy husband cometh to thee; instead thou shalt puteth on something lacy and crotchless”. Does that make it wrong? The husband must still remain faithful to his vows no matter what she wears in the bedroom, but it adds an element of fun. Without that sparkle, it’s just the law and the long, hard road.
“evilalpha says:
August 6, 2012 at 9:23 pm
all the game blogs and gamers are pro-abortion and pro-sodomy.
buttcockers don’t need abortion. You make no sense”
lozozzl
sodomy is defined as any extra-marital ejacualtionz sexual orasmszz orgasmz many of which result in pregancnacy many of those which are aborteddd lzozlzz
hey dalrock, do any christians comment here?
or just a bunch of nit-picky little gaming fanboyz who speaketh like child when they are childz trying to bust a nut and be blessed by chirst for doing it?
“But the head covering in Paul’s day was intended only to display the woman’s subordination, not her humiliation. Today, ironically, to require a head covering for women in the worship service would be tantamount to asking them to shave their heads! The effect, therefore, would be just the opposite of what Paul intended. ”
higher grade hamster.
Dear sunshinemary,
My whole point is that Marriage transcends game.
The moment I have to game someone, it means they do not understand Christianity and the Bible.
If I (as well as many other men) are forced into playing games, then so be it, but we ain’t getting married.
If women respond only to game and butt tingles and gina tinglezzlzlzozol, then I am certainly not going to enter in a contract with them and bring children into the world when I am living with a sub-human incapable of the greater glory of god, who must be manipulated and tricked so as make their vaginal walls wet.
Dalrock’s assertion that “Christian need game,” is exactly why men don’t need the modern church, as evidenced by societal collapse and chaos, led by good, game-exalting “Christians” who teach the art of making one’s wife’s anuth tingle over the Love of Christ.
Dear sunshinemary,
I don’t see a man gaming his wife as being all that different from a wife wearing a foot-long strap-on to please her husband. Of course there is no commandment in the Bible that tells a wife “Thou shalt not wear a foot-long strapon when thy husband cometh to thee; instead thou shalt strapeth on something with two heads for a double intruder”. Does that make it wrong? The husband must still remain faithful to his vows no matter what she straps on in the bedroom, but it adds an element of fun! Without that sparkle, it’s just the law and the long, hard road.
Dalrock’s next blog post: “Why Christians need sparkly foot-long strap-ons, without which, Christianity is just the law and the long, hard road.”
Well. I can’t argue with that logic, now can I?
Husbands job: 1. Love your wives 2. be respectable
Wife’s job: 1. Respect your husbands 2. be lovable
Some of the tenants of Game can lay out ways to be easier to respect. A woman being pretty, cheerful, and an enthusiastic lover makes her easier to love.
These things do not always come naturally. I am certainly not naturally pretty. I am not naturally cheerful, and sometimes I am not enthusiastic about sex acts. I have to make a willful effort to be any of those things.
A wifes good behavior is not dependent on her husbands good behavior…it simply makes it easier. Life is hard enough we shouldn’t make it harder to obstinately refusing to do X, Y, or Z out of some silly principle that it “shouldn’t be necessary”. That is a bit like saying that a woman shouldn’t have to lose weight because “he should love me anyway.” Its like..well ok…but you sure aren’t making that any easier for him.
there is no commandment in the Bible that tells a wife “Thou shalt not wear a foot-long strapon when thy husband cometh to thee; instead thou shalt strapeth on something with two heads for a double intruder”. Does that make it wrong? The husband must still remain faithful to his vows no matter what she straps on in the bedroom, but it adds an element of fun!
All this time I was puzzled over your obsession with anal se”, especially since most women don’t like to be taken that way. Now, I understand. I had you ..ahem… pegged completely backwards…. ass backwards…. lollzlolz… hope you have a good hemorrhoid cream for the morning after….
sunshinemary: I believe what he’s trying to say is that game is catering to something more than just>/i> a natural and moral desire for leadership – that there’s something inherently wrong with a woman who wants to be treated like a bratty child, and that it’s probably dangerous to both parties, at least in the long run, for a man to indulge that desire. I think he acknowledges that there’s something in the nature of women that makes them want that, but believes that this is part of fallen nature, not what God ordained.
^^^ yes unger!
where in the bible doth it command da man to treat his wife like crap and game her to moisten her vaginal wallswhile making her anuth tingllzozlozozoozoz?
such teachings are of dalrock, but they are not of christ and moses nor da GBFM lzoozozoz.
Unger, GBFM
Well, if game means “treating your wife like crap” then it is not what I was thinking it was. As for treating your wife like a bratty child…well, I don’t know. There IS a hierarchy, no? I’ve seen it put like this
Christ .> men > women > children > puppies
So in some ways it wouldn’t be wrong if he talked down to her a little bit, even if it was just to say “You’re acting like a bratty child. You will stop that now.” She ought not to act that way, but she’s a fallen sinner like we all are, so sometimes she does. His response keeps it from getting out of hand. The same way one of my children has to sit in time-out because she disobeyed me; she ought to obey me, but I’m here to correct her when she doesn’t. I don’t care if we call this dynamic game, or biblical leadership, or an anchovy pizza.
Another fantastic post Dalrock! I’m trying to get my friends from church to get on here so they can gain knowledge.
Sadly my megachurch here in Dallas, particularly the men’s group, has turned into a man bashing, womyn are holy and need to be worshiped! group. The last conference I attended was a year ago (I refuse to be a part of that men’s group anymore) and the men’s pastor decided to show this sick to my stomach video of how to appreciate your wife. In a nutshell, the video showed his hippo wife (short hair of course) wearing a lingerie dress (?) sitting in a chair with candles all around her. He approaches her with praise and compliments and begs her for forgiveness for being a man. I am not making this up. Then he hands her some roses. I will never get that scene out of my head for as long as I live. Worst of all, I paid for this conference! I left during his “sermon” and did not go to the rest of the conference.
sunshine,
you are talking about christianity.
when dalrock is talking about game, he is talking about heartiste’s sixteen commandments of poon: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/
sunshine, do you find this to be christian?
sixteen commandments of poon
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/
does your preacher teach these tactics? or does your preacher only teach you about the crotchless panties you brought up earlier?
see, gamers do not pretend to be christians. 🙂
sunshinemary: Well, that, by itself, I’d just call biblical household leadership. But Game goes farther than that, does it not? It posits – correctly, mind you – that one of the key attractive traits is social dominance. Naturally, not everyone can be at the top of a social hierarchy, but at least in my understanding of game, one of the key teachings is that acting as if you are at the top of the social pyramid, even when you aren’t, is attractive – that the simulacrum of being on top of the world works almost as well as actually being there. Looking around, I see no reason to deny that – but I see a lot of very good reasons to doubt that behaving so is a good thing in the long run. Women seem to like men with swagger – but that doesn’t mean it is really good for a man to do it.
One question for GBFM: have you ever been married?
No tapdancing, keyboard diarrhea, or endless excursions into your own fetishes, please, just a simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
Just one comment at this stage. As a Catholic husband, “Game” has helped me enormously. St Paul has it right: women primarily need love, men primarily need respect. A wife who respects her husband will be prepared to have sex with him to get love.
^^^^^
Anonymous Reader has a fetish for da gbfm butthole & he is tryiing 2 see if he can game it and devriginiziie it like a good chritsian gamer zlzozlzllzozzozlzoz
tacomaster: …call me paranoid, but that sounds like it’s moving out of mere victorian-style women-are-sweet-widdle-wuvable-dolls into new-age divine-feminine high weirdness.
St John Chrysostom writes in one of his sermons that the woman should wear a head covering and look down and be ashamed of the sin of Eve. Perhaps a little excessive, but I don’t think the idea was that the woman should be entirely comfortable in her place either.
OK, I read the 16 commandments. I don’t know what poon is – an off-color word for girl-parts I’m assuming? Of course there are serious problems with that list for a Christian, but some of the things can be adapted, no? That whole “be the oak tree thing”; I read that before when someone referred to it, and I think that is great advice for any man.
unger – why isn’t it okay for a man to swagger a little for his wife? I like it when my husband does. That doesn’t mean I’m addicted to it; he broke his leg awhile back and was laid up and sick…no swagger, but I didn’t then run out and jump the mailman.
I agree with you, SunshineMary, including on the theology of crotchless lingerie.
Yeah, if you are pretty alpha most of the time, the Missus will give you a pass on occasional beta behaviour. I had a cold the other night and was feeling wimpy for a while, but I was soon back to my more normal self, and I could tell my wife preferred it. A lot of this is unconscious, with the woman feeling more attracted, but not knowing why.
Let me think..no, I don’t think it was the preacher. I think it was some lady named Victoria.
What you’re straining at and missing is that the submission ought to be outward and conspicuous, which is exactly what makes feminists feel humiliated. Whether modern women ought to wear head-coverings is not the point Dalrock raised, but rather that the church allows women to get away with outward and conspicuous signs of rebellion.
*shrug*. Try to imagine Jesus swaggering, or permitting any of the apostles to. I just don’t see Scripture ever portraying what Roissy calls ‘irrational self-confidence’ in a good light, though I could spend the better part of an hour typing out all the references where that sort of thing is frowned upon, or gets someone in big trouble. And if you want to see what that does in the world today, read zerohedge.
Do note that there’s a difference between home life and social life, and thus, household dominance and out-there-in-society dominance. There may be no harm in doing a John Wayne impression (or whatever) if it’ll make a girl laugh, but that’s not the sort of social dominance they are talking about.
> Try to imagine Jesus swaggering, or permitting any of the apostles to.
paraphrasing.. don’t be glad that you can command demons; be glad that your name is written in the book in heaven
Christ was direct and he did not mince words. That was masculine. He was not troubled by making and taking a whip to the moneychangers. He was not afraid to offend those in power.
Husbands are to sacrifice for and lead their wives as Christ leads the Church. I believe there is wide discretion for a man in how he chooses to do this.
The Catholic men quoted who accepted that they were in practical submission to their wives are a disgrace to their sex and their faith.
On the matter of headcoverings, these were required of Catholic women in mass until very recently. The discipline has only faded in my lifetime. My mother covered her head, usually with a fetching hat, and my wife has done likewise when we used to attend Latin Masses together a few years ago.
@Unger
Spot on. One of the troubles with understanding relationships in the context of game, for Christians, is that there are many exceptions that have to be made, for the Christian. Your identification of “irrational confidence” being one such. Once all these are parsed away, what is left is unusable for the Christian or the pagan. I just pulled up Roissy’s Sixteen Commandments of poon. Here are the ones that square with a Christian worldview: 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15. Exactly half.
If you mix a quart of ice cream with a quart of feces, which is the resulting mixture going to taste more like?
David: True – but it’s worth keeping in mind that Jesus really was king of kings and lord of lords, the one to whom every knee shall bow. When he spoke harshly, or ran the corrupt out of the temple, he wasn’t putting on airs. And it’s also worth keeping in mind that, most of the time, he was not putting boot to derriere – that this same man washed feet like a household slave, grieved openly (and in front of women) for a friend, took no care for what we call ‘preselection’ and ‘social proof’, and…
For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
[…]
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
More omega than alpha, pardon the irreverence.
Probably worth adding that Jesus was the Messiah the Jews needed, but decidedly not the one they expected. They were expecting someone to return them to national glory – i.e. to be an obvious, natural leader. What he gave them really was leadership and glory, but they saw it not.
Which sounds an awful lot to me like EAPs waiting for God to bring them a handsome trust fund with a massive boy, or vice versa, ignoring genuinely good men who are right in front of them, but aren’t the charismatic Leaders *squeek!* they’re looking for.
unger, St Paul says that wives should respect their husbands and obey them as the church obeys Christ. It is not “putting on airs” to expect this. Do you really think modern Christian men need more lessons in humility in the home? It is this false humility that leads to wifely disregard and contempt. Wives are told to “see that [they] respect their husbands”.
Frankly, I would rather have a wife who is interested in me as a man, and wants my affection and gets wet for me in bed, than be a supplicating modern “Christian” husband. How did men get to such a low state? It is not in scripture or in tradition. It is purely in some areas of the modern church, which are mostly interested in pandering to women.
unger, Christ also noted that “the devil can cite scripture”. We are all thoroughly aware of the lamblike Christ, but we hear a lot less of the lionlike Christ. A good husband and father is both. But he remains the head of his wife and family. Just as Christ is the head of the church.
Maybe it is a Catholic thing, but I see no need for scruples in exercising legitimate authority. Christ instituted a patriarchal church when he selected The Twelve and his disciple Paul confirmed that patriarchal authority in the church and family.
I didn’t say it was putting on airs to expect wifely obedience, and I certainly didn’t say that men need more lessons on humility in the home. And if the contrary behaviors – leading one’s family and expecting those under one’s household authority to recognize and submit to it – is all you mean by game, then I don’t see how any Christian could object to it, and I don’t see anyone here who has even hinted at objecting to it. It’s just that that isn’t anywhere near all of what’s usually meant by the term. It’s the rest of it that bothers me.
“Game” doesn’t have a greatly defined meaning. You can even say that it’s general foundational location, the phrase “he got Game”, is actually from sports. (I’ve also seen it listed as a phrase about black pastors sleeping with most of the females in their congregation and why) So it’s a mark of a quality, however somewhat undefined.
At this point, it’s the “nature of effecting female attraction” in the more standard utilization. That’s why things get split up as “Day Game”, “Night Game”, “PUA Game”, “Married Game” and the like. So it’s better understood as a description of a tool or action, more than any ideological construction.
However, for a lot of people, it does have a very PUA nature to it. For a lot of us, it never really has. It very much depends how you came into this area of the internet and what you encountered early. I’ve actually barely read any Roissy. Maybe 3 pieces total. But I’ve read though pretty much everything here and a few other Christian-friendly places. (Though everyone quotes or responds to Roissy enough that you know what he’s on about)
The “Married Game” has always, actually, really been just two things: 1) having a Will to accomplish something and 2) enforcing legitimate boundaries. Simple in statement, very hard in execution. But most of life is that way.
On the main topic, part of discussing those is to not defend against someone else interpretation of the passage right at the beginning. Might sound like an odd statement, but I suspect most Christians have been “attacked” with a passage at random and had someone force them to defend it. You pick up this weird, reflexive habit of just whistling pass “hard” passages. And, of course, we’ve taken that into how we respond to feminism.
To take a very recent example of this problem, the whole Chik-Fil-A brouhaha. A lot of idiots are making noise about getting water from the store, as a reference to Proverbs 25:21. The smarter reader will note Proverbs 25:22 and laugh loudly.
Though the passage from Dr. Wallace is pretty troubling. Kyle lays out much of what was going on with the head covering and the implications that a “present time” reader would take from what Paul was saying. Yet Dr. Wallace was trying to please his reader and not address the actual issue, which as Kyle points out is about being submissive to a husband, not rebellious and not a tramp. Which is probably the last thing most of the people Dr. Wallace was writing to actually want to hear.
Actually, one of the things that this whole avoidance strategy does, that really annoys me, is that I’ve basically never heard a sermon nor seen much time actually spent studying the books of Timothy. I really need to do that, mostly so I feel like I have a much better grasp of the issue. We know there was a lot going on with the letters to Timothy (especially the oft quoted “root of all evil” passage), so it really cries out for an extensive study.
Good, unger. I certainly don’t believe in using Game to have sex outside marriage. I do, however, think that some of the principles can be applied in a Christian marriage. I have been using some of it for a few years now, and I think my wife and I are both happier. Strangely, she doesn’t appear to have noticed anything unusual about my behaviour.
I remain utterly mystified as to what Game is – and so you know that I am taking the Biblical possibilities of Game seriously, I (in the last few days) have been reading the last few chapters of Thomas Hobbes’ De Cive [1651] (in translation), wherein he discusses the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Future Life, and despite what I understand to be a rather idiosyncratic reading of The Bible – although much to my taste – there is no mention by him of Game for Xtians.
So, I was just having breakfast in the local Zippy when I gave my order to the young lady – Turkish or Curdish, I would say – she smiled and seemed most encouraging – so I smiled back but quietly and without demonstrating any natural dominance – more a ‘I am rich enough to eat in your Burger Cafe and thus I am someone to be reckoned with’ sort of body posture – at least that was my – on the spur of the moment – idea; for I recognized instantly that with her poor English and minmum-wage-slave job that she would be somewhat unsure of herself especially with someone of Anglo aristocratic-looks such as myself – so I could afford to go easy on the dominance. We met a second time twenty minutes later when I handed my credit-card over for payment. I must say – close to the daylight – those arms of hers are, of course, hairier than mine – so I must allow for the fact that my white pale skin will be a turn-on for her – so I wasn’t sure whether and how (at 9.30 am on a Tuesday morning) I could advance matters and whether I even wanted to – and anyway her Kurdish boss who has two girls to work for him – he looks a tasty-geazer – who look very similar to each other (but mine is the marginally cuter) might become jealous: those Muslims can be a bit violent I know -at least when it comes to females; so it would be a bit like negotiating my way round her pimp – so what is my next Game move? The answer of course is to forget her and go find another – but all that is instincive, I say – so what is so special about Game? Where in the Bible – seeing Hobbes failed to mention it – is there reference to Game, and why would the Bible waste its time revealing the bleeding-obvious?
Is this something peculairily American I wonder – I mean, half the time I read that all Amercian women are sluts and the other half that they are all impossible bitches with iron-knickers. Which is it? What I am getting at is this; if you need to figure Game then frankly you are a bit of a failure as a human-being: Being on the receiving end of female fickleness isn’t.
sodomy is defined as any extra-marital ejacualtionz sexual orasmszz orgasmz many of which result in pregancnacy many of those which are aborteddd lzozlzz
hey dalrock, do any christians comment here?
Sodomy is defined by what the sodomites tried to do… Which was buttock 2 angels, they thought were men.. even turning down a heterosexual virgin threesome in the process.
hey dalrock, do any christians with reading comprehension comment here?
Is this something peculairily American I wonder – I mean, half the time I read that all Amercian women are sluts and the other half that they are all impossible bitches with iron-knickers. Which is it? What I am getting at is this; if you need to figure Game then frankly you are a bit of a failure as a human-being: Being on the receiving end of female fickleness isn’t.
Both sluts and impossible bitches! American women are like videogames. If you know the secret controller combinations, well they are easy… but if you don’t…. you’re gonna spend hours being frustrated and feeling abused.
Here are the ones that square with a Christian worldview: 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15. Exactly half.
So you are 2 short of 10 good commandments and yet you whine.
Christ was direct and he did not mince words. That was masculine. He was not troubled by making and taking a whip to the moneychangers. He was not afraid to offend those in power
Jesus has been betafied…the feminist version of “crucified”
but I didn’t then run out and jump the mailman.
——————————————————————-
SSM this is funny because, on a Christian forum, I think it was Family Life but could have been CF, there was a woman who told a story that was tragic yet funny. She and her husband were Im guessing 60 +/-, she was complaining her husbands leg strength was inadequate for sex…..and I kid you not she ended up doing the mail man and one of the reasons she was attracted was his powerful legs when he did the walking route in his mail man shorts…..I am not making this up it appeared as a kind of confession. She went into detail, the mail man was in his 50\’s, and he took her standing and sitting and any creative way they could imagine the highlighted his legs…..months later she popped up again saying she had divorced her husband, and was still being serviced by the mail man.
This thread is insanely long given that the post just went up yesterday and I haven’t gotten through it all but Cane and Keoni have pretty well captured my views on the matter. I don’t really care for the term “game” so I’ll comment using a replacement term I picked up from a friend: impenetrable frame.
While I agree with Dalrock’s overall point that the church does a poor job of preparing men and women to follow Christian tenets of marriage and how it works, this isn’t where the problem starts, and it’s also why learning “game” isn’t enough. A man shouldn’t have to “game” his wife into being what she has vowed to be, especially if she is a Christian. Men to use “game” because they don’t have what they really need, and it’s not “game” which even sounds fake. They need to develop impenetrable frame, and they need to do it for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with posturing for or managing a woman.
The truth is you either have impenetrable frame or you don’t. You can develop it, but it won’t happen overnight and it’ll take a while for it to stick. You can fake it for a while, but the betatude will re-emerge about 2 weeks after the honeymoon ends if you haven’t internalized it.
Most importantly, it has very little to do with getting women. It attracts women, but it’s about so much more than that. You have to be resolute to stand against this increasingly bankrupt and PC culture. You have to be resolute to be a Christian. Most people are raised to be pragmatic, has its place in politics, but rarely in daily life. If it’s embedded in you to kowtow to your woman’s feelings, all the game in the world isn’t going to help you if you know it’s game. In fact, if you know it’s game LOL, it’s not impenetrable frame and she can penetrate it. That’s okay though if you have a woman committed to doing the right in spite of that.
It’s one of the reasons I say you either have it or you don’t. The best way I think to apprehend anything is to want for yourself no matter how anyone else responds to it. Gamers approach it from the mind of, “How can I score with more chicks?” Christian men with true impenetrable frame have the attitude of “I will not be controlled by my woman or anyone else except God. She can follow or wallow, but that’s on her.”
When it’s real, 9 times out 10 she’ll follow. There’s always that small percentage of Jezebels who will not be led no matter what, but they aren’t worth discussing.
Eve er Elspeth of course gets it wrong.
Woman,
You do not even understand your own nature! What then makes you think you should be the authority on men. Oh wait…
For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God
Women need to be managed!!!!!
To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.
So deflect with mumblings about game, frame, or fame all you like, but please don’t give feminist advice about follow or wallow. The attitude of Christian men SHOULD NOT be I will not be controlled by my woman or anyone else except God.
The attitude of christina men SHOULD be I will control my woman and be controlled by God.
Get off your damn pedestal!
Elspeth is largely correct. A Christian man has to take a wife with the fundamental attitude that she will be his; he will be devoted to her; but she will take her tune from him. It is not hard to tell if a woman will follow you, even before you marry. You have to be the man she bonds to, really wants, and will listen to, before her father or her friends. My wife has always known what my values are. I never hid them from her, and she came aboard anyway. The time to get her in line is before you marry her. And the woman, for her part, has to feel happy to sign up. Nothing half-hearted.
I don’t like the term Game either. But I know what is meant.
Another thing. There are no “women’s issues” that a man can leave to his wife. Contraception, childrearing, schooling: all these are a husband’s business.
So, we’re all in agreement that evilalpha is just trolling?
I don’t know if he is trolling, but I can’t see why he objects to Elspeth’s remarks.
Elspeth seems to be saying that a man has to just tell his wife what he wants. She can follow and comply – or not. But he won’t be swayed.
I think this is a valuable point.
So, we’re all in agreement that evilalpha is just trolling?
If you don’t agree with me speak up. Don’t be a feminist pussy about it and say “Oh he’s just a troll… (banished via girly ostracism)
I don’t know if he is trolling, but I can’t see why he objects to Elspeth’s remarks.
And I can’t see why you agree. Genesis 3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Elspeth is largely correct
No she’s not. God spoke directly to eve and yet she still managed to let herself be beguiled. Women need management!!!! This applies to christian women too David. Still pedestals for you eh?
evilalpha, I just said that women should accept their husband’s leadership. Elspeth says this too. Where is the problem?
Good post and good discussion. I’ve purchased the MMSL Primer 2011, for lack of a Christian “game” book. I tended to skip past the portions of the evo psych babble, it was a decent compilation of practical application. Until Dalrock self publishes a Christian variant, the Primer will suffice. I view the whole “game” concept as applied leadership within the framework of sexual dynamics and not the destination. As With any tool it can be used for righteousness or the carnal, the long term relationship or AMOG with pump and dump.
I believe game is the antidote to what C.S. Lewis wrote in Abolition of Men. As Lewis wrote, in Chapter 1 of AoM, Men Without Chests: (for orientation old education is patriarchy while new education is what we call feminism)
“If they embark on this course the difference between the old and the new education will be an important one. Where the old initiated, the new merely ‘conditions’. The old dealt with its pupils as grown birds deal with young birds when they teach them to fly; the new deals with them more as the poultry-keeper deals with young birds— making them thus or thus for purposes of which the birds know nothing. In a word, the old was a kind of propagation—men transmitting manhood to men; the new is merely propaganda.”
There have been no old initiative’s available for my generation, the church is sorely lacking for want of them. Below are a few of the consequences of turning away from God’s word and toward the new education, see if the any of them are familiar. The effects are as surely felt today as when they were written, eternal even.
Deuteronomy 28:30-32
30 You will be engaged to a woman, but another man will sleep with her. You will build a house, but someone else will live in it. You will plant a vineyard, but you will never enjoy its fruit. 31 Your ox will be butchered before your eyes, but you will not eat a single bite of the meat. Your donkey will be taken from you, never to be returned. Your sheep and goats will be given to your enemies, and no one will be there to help you. 32 You will watch as your sons and daughters are taken away as slaves. Your heart will break for them, but you won’t be able to help them.
At the moment I’m not sure what form a Christian primer would take. Overall I don’t see any contradiction within the Bible while the tool is used in righteous purpose.
Firstly, kudos Dalrock for all the heavy lifting.
Secondly, the use of the term “Game” by Christians is merely of consequence of the paucity in both terminology and thought with regard to the psychosexual dynamic of Christian marriage. Too many Christians conceptualise and ideal marriage as a sort of platonic relationship where our fundamental biology is ignored at best or suppressed at worst. Christian advice with regard to marriage tends to be based along the lines of, as long as you love God and obey the commandments, then no matter how fat, wimpy, unfeminine, unmasculine, indecisive, disloyal, flabby and unwashed you are, all will be well and blessed. Heaven forbid the Christian male who doesn’t want consummate the conjugal act because his obese wife’s fat apron covers her labia; he clearly lacks love. Or heaven forbid a wife’s frigidity when her fat bellied beer breathed husband reaches out for a grope; she clearly does not love enough either.
The fact is that when a man possess “alpha” qualities a woman will submit naturally to him. Too many Christian commentators, devoid of sexual allure, forget this fact and want to wave the submission stick instead of the submission carrot. The natural order is restored when the husband possess the characteristics which lead to natural submission. Game is about recognising those characteristics and applying them intelligently. The problem is that many blog commentators and game detractors are Aspergoids who don’t do nuance. To them, Game is all about adultery and one night stands…..and sex.
Whereas in reality, game is about recognising our biological polarity and and doing what needs to be done in order to gain it. For a man, “inner game” is probably more important than than the techniques used to appeal to a woman’s desire. Inner game is not about sex, it’s more about decisiveness, independence and self control. The Aspergoids miss this component completely.
My wife is an alpha female with good judgement and sense, she rarely, if ever says or does anything stupid. I’m more guilty of that at times. I tend to run things by consensus, but she knows that if she doesn’t or can’t make a decision I will. She appreciates that. We have a good marriage.
@myth buster
That would be a good start but it misses much of the fundamental problem. While it addresses serial marriage, it doesn’t address serial monogamy as a whole. What about the unwed mothers Mr. Stanton finds so heroic? It also doesn’t address the re-framing of Christian marriage, with Christian wives declaring themselves the head of the household and using denial of sex and threats of divorce to maintain that status.
evilalpha, I just said that women should accept their husband’s leadership. Elspeth says this too. Where is the problem?
DC, he’s just a false flag (mangina or fem-bot posting). He’s literally all over the place, looking to say the most outrageous things he can. There is no coherent philosophy because he’s imitating what he believes the manosphere says.
evilalpha, I just said that women should accept their husband’s leadership. Elspeth says this too. Where is the problem?
Seriously? I already gave you the core issue with Elspeth’s comment. Her view of women is wrong. So is yours if you agree with her. Case in point.
When it’s real, 9 times out 10 she’ll follow. There’s always that small percentage of Jezebels who will not be led no matter what, but they aren’t worth discussing.
Actually jezebels are required discussion. Womens nature is women’s nature. Even christian women. Within every women is a jezebel or an eve open to being beguiled. Again… Genesis 3!!!!
Evilalpha, I disagree with you. The only fault I can find with anything she said is that she lacks a phallus (argumentum ad hominem…mulierem perhaps?). She is not saying that a wife does not need to be managed, she said “and they need to do it for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with posturing for or managing a woman.” I think she is saying that the reasons for having an impenetrable frame goes beyond this. Basically, if all frame is to you is a way to manage the womenfolk, you are still ruled by them. In effect, you have pussy whipped yourself. I think this is possibly what GBFM was getting at. Men don’t “need” Game. They need frame. Christian men don’t need Game. They need to be Christians. Obviously, men who do this naturally don’t need to worry about it. Game and gaining frame are for people who have already failed to do so naturally and now must learn.
All human beings are born with a sin nature, evil alpha. Women’s nature can be redeemed in Christ just as a man’s nature can and since we’re discussing Christian marriage I fail to see what was so offensive about what I said.
Is it because I didn’t say that all women are Jezebels who will refuse to follow a strong husband’s leadership because we’re just oh-so-evil and oh-so hypergamous and oh-so-sinful that there is no hope for us? That’s not Biblical.
@Kyle
I was more interested in the reasoning than the end result. I’m not in a position to argue with Dr. Wallace on his reading of the original Greek texts. However, his argument after that point is clearly a rationalization.
With that said, I don’t find your explanation that Paul was speaking to a strictly contemporary issue to be convincing. Many of the statements Paul makes in the passage are universal in nature. Even if he was using these universal statements to address a local problem, the universality of those statements would still be there. With this said, 1 Cor 11:13-16 seems to leave room for interpretation. Even here though it doesn’t fit with the local only explanation, since if Paul felt the local issue was pressing and needed to be addressed why would he then do this? I don’t claim to have the answers on this, which is why I focused on Dr. Wallace’s reasoning post translation.
I usually enjoy Elspeth’s posts, but frankly… I really don’t want to hear another variation of “your wife would follow if only you’d lead right” from anyone.
At my house… I deal with a lot less crap than I once allowed. But really… when my wife says that she wishes I would man up and lead… in her heart she is merely yearning for me to magically read her mind of all her to do lists and then make it all done to superhuman standards of perfection. The idea that we should be content at some point is entirely foreign. Her drama levels and the amount shit testing she does is a function of how much sleep she gets, but she is never satisfied.
Managing her is a constant battle. She claims to want to follow… but she can’t let anything go from her wish list and she always places herself in the position of quality assurance. If I come up with an initiative, she hammers it with invented crises or passive aggressively tries to undercut it so that it fails. “Let’s talk” means she gets to play the widow to my unjust judge routine until I relent in whatever the latest issue is. It’s never about finding out what’s on *my* mind.
And if I point this out, well… it’s not her choice. The crises that engulf her and sweep her away are always reason enough to go over my head. Never mind the fact that the bulk of what the New Testament has to say to women don’t apply to her. From her perspective, my standing up to a shit test at any time is proof of my “meanness” and gives here a pass on any directives that apply to her as a wife. It’s *proof* that I’m not even a Christian… and she *has* to serve Jesus by calling me out on it. (Her intellectual and spiritual rejection of the verses about wives have nothing to do with it, of course– she’s just doing all she can to cope with having such a “wimp” for a husband. Poor thing!)
Leading in this context… it’s like a being in three legged race… and the well being of my family depends on our performance… but my partner is jumping around randomly and elbowing me every step of the way. But I *have* to lead, or we’re all screwed. If I follow her… her contempt for me is magnified, of course. So I’m literally dragging her down the field stopping for a committee meeting every ten yards or so.
@Cane Caldo
Who says you have to mix it? Eat the ice cream and leave the feces. Either way, it is an improvement over the 4 quarts of feces the church and culture are offering regarding men, women, and marriage. Men who believe what Sheila Gregoire and the other couple I quoted (see the whole article in the link) are telling them about their wive’s sexual nature are in for serious problems, and their Pastor/Priest/Priestess isn’t going to offer anything better.
Edit: More to the point, our focus shouldn’t be on complaining that Roissy is offering feces along with the ice cream, it should be on getting the church to stop offering 4 quarts of feces. Focusing on Roissy will only result in more circling of the wagons, culminating in another round of the best Christians only divorce 38% of the time back slapping.
All human beings are born with a sin nature, evil alpha. Women’s nature can be redeemed in Christ just as a man’s nature can and since we’re discussing Christian marriage I fail to see what was so offensive about what I said.
Is it because I didn’t say that all women are Jezebels who will refuse to follow a strong husband’s leadership because we’re just oh-so-evil and oh-so hypergamous and oh-so-sinful that there is no hope for us? That’s not Biblical.
So the first thing out of your mouth in defense is “MEN SIN TOO”. Yup Churchianity. If you understand Genesis 3 you wouldn’t need resort to the cult of androgyny like some feminist The relationship between god, the serpent, Adam and Eve are all distinct/unique down to the curses. Read it or something. Ok. “Christ redeems” all is a copout.
And yes there is hope for your oh-so-evil and oh-so hypergamous and oh-so-sinful selves, but it ain’t by keeping you on a pedestal.
@Anon Reader
If you propose this at the next Grand Council of the Manosphere, I’ll gladly second it.
@Some Guy,
Man, it really is like we are married to the same woman.
Has anyone any experience with Marriage Encounter? Catholics have a similar program (Revielle?). My ex flatly refused to go, but I’ve heard it works wonders. I just don’t know the instruction material.
My unsolicited advice is to find a church (Calvinist, maybe) that doesn’t dance around the discussion of marriage and find out which program they offer for marriages in trouble. Learn about the curriculum. Who wrote it. Research them. Most of the Encounters are free/low cost weekends away from the kids and the daily routines.
Koevot,
Sorry you can’t see the “woman on a pedestal” indoctrination implicit and explicit displayed in Elspeth’s comments. I’m really sorry you can’t. You wanna discuss it?
One question for GBFM: have you ever been married?
No tapdancing, keyboard diarrhea, or endless excursions into your own fetishes, please, just a simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
@some guy.
Eve (Your wife) is partially to blame, but so are you. When was the last time you disciplined your wife?
Impenetrable frame does not mean that your wife is always going to do the right thing, it just means she will be incapable of changing your mind. Its like you are brick wall..all her flailing and screaming isn’t going to do a darn thing to that brick wall..and maybe after awhile she will realize that punching it does nothing but make her own hand hurt.
evilalpha, yes I would be interested to see what pedestalization is present in her initial comment. I read it a second time before I commented and have just read it a third time and really am at a loss. It seems that she is arguing that men need to have frame control. I think the importance of frame is basic manosphere 101 stuff.
Koeveot,
Ok. Let’s begin. Please define pedestalization.
Koeveot,
Ok. Let’s start. Can you define pedestalization? I want us to start on the same page.
Opus: I remain utterly mystified as to what Game is
In 3 words: Understanding Female Hypergamy.
slumlord
Too many Christians conceptualise and ideal marriage as a sort of platonic relationship where our fundamental biology is ignored at best or suppressed at worst.
This is because we all swim in the sea of Marxist-Feminism, and so we have an unconscious premise to the effect of : Men and women are the same in every way except women can have babies and men cannot although in the last few years there is the addendum and men are icky, violent, sexual perverts while women are nice, peaceloving Good Girls. I’ve stated before, in various places, that if a man or woman is not actively rejecting feminist ideology, they are surely using it to think with – unconsciously or consciously.
Or to put it another way: since no one ever told the vast majority of people in any church that men and women are different at the level of fundamental biology, how would they know anything about it? Since no one ever actively told men and women in any church about the psychological differences, and since the wider culture is both actively and passively feminist, how would they know?
A while back in a different setting I commented that the androsphere is sort of similar to the Samizdat system in the now late and unlamented USSR. We type things up in the privacy of our own head, and pass them somewhat furtively to others who read them, critique them, and pass some part of the text on. Nowhere else are these truths being told. Nowhere.
Any church going man who wants to engage in subversion should find the nearest college campus and pass links along -furtively, if it suits you – to all the campus ministers. Never mind the preacher at First Mega Church, slip these subversive writings to those who work with college men and women. More better results there than anywhere else.
Dalrock
If you propose this at the next Grand Council of the Manosphere, I’ll gladly second it.
Consider that done, as soon as it convenes…
@ Gabriella if she is punching the man or the brick wall – it is over.
She will simply retaliate at a later date.
Any person who can not control their temper and resorts to this behavior is destructive to themselves and those around them. I use to laugh at my ex-wife when she hit me. Big mistake – turned out over the years she was emotionally, sexually, verbally, and physically abusive.
I now have leaned ANY verbal abuse that is “below the belt” and I am out the door and the relationship is done and all communication is limited to email / writing. I simply dont stand for bad behavior (My ex-wife a couple ex-girl friends since then found this out the hard way).
It was an imperfect analogy. One shouldn’t punch their spouse. A person is not a literal brick wall and is quite capable of bruising regardless of how good their “frame” is. Verbal abuse would also cause my husband to walk out the door. He wouldn’t divorce me but he would certainly take punitive actions..such as a week long silent treatment. The last time I did something he found unacceptable he gave me the cold shoulder *for an entire year*. Yes, I learned my lesson.
Part of the problem in the case of marriage is you have a harder time if you have set a precedent of inconsistency. Like with kids.. if you give in a few times to their manipulative whines then they will test you so many more times when you do stand by your resolve.
Not that it excuses a wife from bad behavior. In the context of Christianity- she will be held accountable for her own sins regardless of how good her husbands frame was.
Because it is mixed. Whatever you may want: we found it that way. I think it is folly to think we can separate the two.
I fully agree, and in the larger world I do in fact, focus on the church. I’m making another case here, within the context of your post, to those who seem to have taken a thing too far.
It’s the love, hate and apathy triangle. All three are opposed to each other. The goal is to love (that’s scripturally imperative behavior, in this metaphor). The church is serving up apathy disguised as love, which is particularly disgusting. Game–as it is most commonly understood and practiced by it’s best practitioners–is hate. Christ says in Revelations that he’d rather us be hot (love/scriptural) or cold (hate/PUA) than luke warm (apathy/modern church), and I do not argue against that. But it remains true that hot water is cooled by both cold and lukewarm water. Christians–despite what the modern church is doing–ought to be about keeping things hot. We have to avoid both to do so. In fact, entropy exists, and even left alone we must continually go back to the source of heat. Game is not that source. I cannot see how any time spent there is not a waste in comparison to going back to scripture; particularly in this apathetic age of the church where the scriptures are not known.
It may occur to some that we can’t read all things from scripture. For example, we are called to provide for our families, but there is no job search function in scripture. There are no directions for how to hunt and clean game. We must go beyond scripture to learn these things; though they be things that we must confess God created.
However; on the particular topic of marriage and female relations this isn’t just one more thing in the world. Christian Marriage is one of THE things in the world. The imperatives of Ephesians 5 have been well-documented here, and rightly so. But it always stops at verse 25. Verse 26 (which, by the way, is a continuation of the sentence in verse 25) tells us WHY this is important. And It’s NOT to have a happy wife, or happy marriage. That is where game makes the same mistake that feminism does in elevating emotional desires over eternal purpose. Here’s the purpose of Christian marriage:
Marriage isn’t about husbands and wives feeling happy. Marriage isn’t about sating sexual desires; though that sexual desire is a sign that one has been called to marriage, and is the only appropriate place for fulfillment of that good desire. Marriage is about being an outward display of the spiritual truth of Christ’s love for, and relationship with, his bride the church. Marriage is about being the only ordained place for raising children, so that God might demonstrate another mystery: the Trinity. Marriage is a symbol of the mystery of the Trinity; of how distinct persons are actually one. Just as the Father and Son are one, and the Holy Spirit is one with them, proceeding from them; so husbands and wives are one, and their children are one with them, proceeding from them.
Bringing disorder to the marriage through lack of love or leadership by the husband, or by lack of obedience from the wife isn’t bad because wives may stray, or have stray thoughts. Those are symptoms of a much more serious disease. It is bad because is a shot from Hell itself at the very nature of God, why He made us, and a rejection of His love for us. What needs to be done is not to teach Christian men about Christian women’s psychological nature so to have better sexual success and more marital fidelity, but to actually discipline men and women** (which the church is NOT doing today) to fulfill their God-ordained roles in the display to the world of God’s nature and Christ’s love for man, and in bringing forth children in the spirit of God; according to His revealed order of leadership, submission, and love. Find that in game, if you can.
Beyond all that: is there a single prominent game practitioner/blogger who is a confessed, practicing Christian we would hold in esteem for their faith? Where is the fruit of game, and what does it look like?
*As an aside: let’s note that she’s in need of washing. She’s dirty. So are we all. The modern church’s heresy (as best demonstrated by the works of Glen Stanton and Mark Driscoll) that women are all right, but men are the problem is monstrously despicable; particularly as scripture over and over again depicts all sinful behavior as womanly sinful behavior, i.e., harlotry. Yes, this is worse than PUA teachings.
**Part of that discipline will be understanding men and women’s natures, and as far as that goes, I have no argument. It is good for us to be wise about all things.
@Gabriella
So he disciplined you. Am I understanding that correctly?
I have no knowledge about how little slips of paper with the URL for Christian Men’s Defense Network keep getting into the back of the Divorce Care manuals in the book store at my church.
David Collard says: August 7, 2012 at 7:10 am
Elspeth is largely correct.
Except that she is largely incorrect. She is inside an apex fallacy. She notes that men she is attracted to usually have “impenetrable frame” but does not notice the other men with impenetrable frame. Yes, a man being highly self-directed and goal-focused is part of game, and marriage gamers clutch it tightly. But that is not enough to avoid being invisible to women. Women are still affected by many other things: physical attractiveness, displays of resources, physical aggression, and a host of others. For example, having female body language can teleport a man into the friend zone; and there are probably more men afflicted with this than in the past, with the lack of fathers in the home, and with the paucity of male teachers.
@Cane Cado
I think we are fairly close, but I also think you are far ahead of the class on the topic at hand. You already get the basics of playing the notes, now you want to perform a symphony. You aren’t wrong in wanting this, but there is much more foundational work to do.
But while we are waiting for the church to get its act together, what do we offer men like Some Guy in the meantime? He isn’t just looking to get laid, he is trying to stave off full force rebellion to save his children. This is deadly serious, and from where I sit it may well be decades before the church decides something is off. In the meantime, the tools of game can be used from a biblical frame to try to shore things up a bit. They also have the added side effect of generally cleansing one’s mind of feminism, and giving those men who want to regain the position of head of household at least a fighting chance of trying to do so. See the Catholic men in Anon Reader’s comment above. The idea was laughable to them, because to their mind there are no tools to even go about attempting such a thing.
Which is more telling, that none of the PUAs are confessed practicing Christians, or that no confessed practicing Christians are teaching men the basics of men, women, and marriage? If one of the PUAs showed an interest in converting, where would you take such a man to experience Christian fellowship? I’m not aware of any churches which the PUA wouldn’t see through immediately for being incredibly foolish on the topic of men, women and marriage, something Christians should be wise about. This foolishness isn’t of the Bible, but it is there nonetheless.
1. This simply isn’t true. Check out Voddie Baucham; whom I’ve enthusiastically robbed.
2. As I said to you privately: at some point we’re going to have to face the fact that a good number of churchgoers arent’t Christian.
3. But if Christ is in us, and we want Him to be back in the churches, then that’s where we must go.
To Christ. There is no other answer.
Focusing on Roissy will do nothing. King A (Matt King) does what he can to present a Christian perspective on androsphere issues, and does it quite well. He gets a lukewarm response, but one can only imagine what kind of an effect he has on lurkers.
Getting the gynecentric church to recognize and deal with female sin, confronting Sheila Gregoire half-truths like the “natural” monogamousness of women vs the “natural” polygamousness of men is enough work to keep all of us busy for a while.
I have to admit that most of the Christian hypergamy I’ve seen in action has been divorcees chasing the married men in the Church, so maybe Sheila’s audience is pretty stably monogamous. Usually the divorcees come from outside the Church. The boundary is, after all, very porous.
Voddie Baucham
Thanks. I’ve ordered a couple of his ebooks.
@Ballista,
NIV “translation”
Chuckle. I generally suggest using the RSV (_not_ the NSRV) as it is:
1.) The translation most common to the Orthodox
2.) Is used by most Catholics when they aren’t dealing with the abominable translation forced on them by the bishops (NABRE)
3.) Is the “American” descendant of the KJV (the English is the ESV).
I did check the translation above against the KJV at Biblegateway and it does indeed drop the concept of intoxicated.
@Sunshine,
Given the popularity of FSoG, many women apparently feel safe, cherished, and loved when being beaten with a belt.
I think there’s a bit of truth on both sides here. I think the correct formulation would be, “women apparently feel safe, cherished, and loved when faced with a man who could feel comfortable beating them with a belt.” That is, I don’t think that they are necessarily pure masochists but want the “strong man”. Which is why Game purposes you don’t have to be a total asshat you just have to act like you could be that asshat if you wanted to.
@Rock,
How confusing is the Sarai/Hagar relationship, knowing what you know about hypergamy?
Not at all. Sarah quite simply doesn’t care until she has her own offspring. This strikes moderns as odd but ancients not at all. At that point she asserts her position of “first amongst wives” and wants her offspring given his proper place. This is tradition and what has been promised by God so she should be on safe ground. Abraham loves both his sons and rather than dealing with the problem goes beta and avoids it. I don’t see how you are reading it. I’m just curious…could you explain?
@Cain,
Eve was being led by Adam when she decided to sin
While I agree in tone I actually think EvilAlpha (God help us) is right in calling you on this. Eve was deceived as St. Paul tells us. She wasn’t under the direct oversight of her husband at the time. Adam then bails on his only test by not correcting Eve and instead chooses to follow.
@Kenoi,
False dichotomy. Why would a good Christian leader be opposed to getting his cockas in his wife’s pussysys?
He would be expected to as a duty. He has a positive duty under Adamic commands to produce children. In this point you are right. However, it isn’t a false dichotomy. Rollo has already quipped that if you stripped all his references to premaritial sex then he’s the Lord’s own pastor. That is, he proposes premaritial sex. It is therefore not a false dichotomy.
Who’s this “we?” “We” were not even born yet when that happened.
The Scriptures teach corporate responsibility. That you reject this is troubling.
@Anon,
Why not? Why shouldn’t a man use leadership, applied psychology, and other techniques to lead his wife, thereby making her submit happily, thereby improving the marriage? Because you say so?
I don’t think that’s the point, or at least Cane’s point. The problem is one of primacy in a Christian context. I don’t think Dalrock (as his references show) has that problem. However, the problem of primacy does exist here in the comments.
@Cane,
Isn’t is true, then, that seeking mastery of the female nature will lead to becoming more feminine?
Now this I disagree with. It is true that men are called to be masters of nature full stop. We are given the world of which women are a part. Women are our greatest asset in this mastery. They have a special dignity in our quest to attain the Beatific Vision, but yes, we _are_ called to master them.
@Unger,
The Bible is quite clear about who should rule a household – but where does it give any general command for men to be socially dominant, or paint any picture of proper Christian society as all chiefs and no indians?
We’re not arguing no Indians. A socially dominance is required though. Else how does he look in a gathering of families? Do the children and adolescent men drive all over him? An older (married) man should be seen as an asset to the general community. I’d say that’s a constant Biblical theme.
@GB4M,
so it is god’s plan to have 50%+ divorce?
so it is god’s plan to have over 50,000,000 aborted?
so these are good things?
Sorry that’s just dumb. It sounds like you are implying sex must be drudgery. Serving God should be _generally_ (if not always specifically) pleasurable. You are calling the good that God has created evil. That’s just flat out un-Christian.
Arms are used in killing thousands of people everyday! Arms are evil! Stop supporting arms! This is the same as your “tingle” argument.
@EvilAlpha,
Sodomy is defined by what the sodomites tried to do… Which was buttock 2 angels, they thought were men.. even turning down a heterosexual virgin threesome in the process.
Actually you are terribly wrong. Sodomy across every Christian tradition till roughly 1928 included any act which was did not deposit seminal fluid in the vaginal tract. Hence, in a better day, oral sex was illegal under sodomy laws in many states. You sound ignorant when you don’t check this stuff first.
And good Lord, your correction of Elspeth addressed her _not at all_.
@Dalrock,
Focusing on Roissy will only result in more circling of the wagons, culminating in another round of the best Christians only divorce 38% of the time back slapping.
No, that’s part of the problem. Roissy is proposing a destruction of Biblical values. He’s not to be trusted. We can be “cautious as snakes” and use him to a good goal, but he should be vilified and we shouldn’t shrink from doing so. Not vilifying is “eating the feces”.
I have recently been reading Montesquieu’s 1721 novel Persian Letters: I think it would be salutary reading not merely for Feminists but MRAs too. In Persia the women are locked in Harems and cause their men nothing but trouble even though controlled by Eunuchs (who are rather like Cuckolds) and in Paris the women are free to do what they want (so much for Patriarchal oppression before the 20th century – but these are all privileged upper-class women, of course) and also cause their men nothing but trouble. I wonder how our Game Practitioners would have faired in either Persia or Paris?
@Ballista74
I set the Biblegateway links in the OP to not define a specific version. For me they come up with New King James but I may have selected that as an option at some point, I’m not sure. Normally when I find a link there it defaults to NIV, but this seems to be hard coded in the original link.
As to the final quote from Proverbs 5:18-19, GKC was correct that it was the original King James version. I used that version for simplicity (no copyright to cite) since it seemed clear enough.
I’d probably be more enlighteded here if I understood what “butthexted” is. Is there a lexicon for GBFM’s manner of writing?
What an outstanding thread.
Elspeth, I disagree strongly with “when its real 9/10 will follow. I do not disagree as in I’d propose a different number like 7/10 or something, I fully disagree with the concept because it finds it basis again in foisting things that are between human and God directly into being conditional on another human. The behavior of the wife is between her and God….period. Whether she will more likely follow or not depending on husbands behavior is utterly irrelevant and a dangerous point to make. It is the nature of woman that makes that point dangerous to make as she will exploit that. See “some guy” comment above, great description of todays churchian woman…strike that, not today’s, heck it is describing even women as old as my MIL in late 70’s and couples of that age from the most staid and conservative frozen chosen churches. It is simply her NATURE. It is her proclivity. So, saying a woman ought to follow and then stating this 9/10 thing is not a sufficient proposition.
Separately, I wondered how long it would take someone to start the nuance making about the word game…..”we need to know what everyone means by game”…..thankfully oh so thankfully it has not veered down that mystical trail because once that happens nothing else manages to claw back to the surface of discussion. Cane has done superlative work here, I hope someone takes it on board.
Still moderated?
@Dalrock
We look at churchgoers, and we say (rightly), “Look at how disordered their homes are! Look at the rampancy of divorce! Look at how their women covet and exhibit! Look at how their men grovel and sleep! Have they even read the scriptures?” We say something must be done. We look to the scriptures, and say, “No, this is too advanced, not informative enough. Something else must suffice in the meantime.” But the scriptures say
This is how we commit the same error we see in the churchgoers: denying the truth that has been revealed and faithfully handed down to us.
Furthermore: There is no meantime; or rather; there is nothing but the meantime. Romans 13:11
The whole chapter is worth reading as it is germaine to the discussion, and explicitly includes the centrality of God’s ordained structure of authority, and mentions the temptation of sexual sin several times. As you said to me, Dalrock, and I took to heart: Paul’s frame is so powerful, and unwavering. Elspeth described the same, above.
This does NOT mean that we ought not help each other, or not share useful knowledge. We certainly must, and I believe that your post has done this. All I’m saying is that it needs to be within Paul’s frame; which is Christ’s.
@asinusspinasmasticans
We will not fight feminism (whether of the Dworkin persuasion, or the Roissy) and win on this earth. It has been here since the beginning in Genesis 3, and will be here until the end of the earth. It is futile to fight feminism, and Christians are not called to defeat it. We are called to stand with Christ, and fight with Him. There is a huge difference between fighting for something, and fighting against something. David defeated Goliath not because he was bigger, or stronger, or hated Goliath, but because David loved the Lord. Samson did not prevail over the Philistines because he was cunning, or by his hatred, but because the Lord loved him. Love is supernatural.
Agreed. My original (way back there) is not to make a special condemnation of him or others like him, but to say we ought not decide that our scriptures are useful because they seem to line up with our feelings and experiences on game, or hypergamy. This is what a lot of Christian commentary in the manosphere has degenerated into; myself included.
I misspoke above when I stated that there weren’t any professing Christians teaching game. Vox Day’s Alpha Game on my blogroll is an example. I don’t count myself simply because while I am hopefully sharing some of the basics and the frame, it isn’t my primary focus with the blog.
Edit: Vox has a recent post up which helps explain the psychology behind rejoicing in the wife of your youth.
@GKC
I think you misunderstand evilalpha’s point of reference. He was really saying: “I can do this, and make her do that.” Though God is the master of all nature, that is not how He shows His mastery of us. Even if we were to accomplish it, we would recognize it as an evil. It’s a desire to control another; which is different from a desire to take your place in the authority structure, and expect others to take theirs. In fact, it’s the desire that Eve had that made her eat the fruit and then offer it to Adam.
@Anon,
Why not? Why shouldn’t a man use leadership, applied psychology, and other techniques to lead his wife, thereby making her submit happily, thereby improving the marriage? Because you say so?
I don’t think that’s the point, or at least Cane’s point.
Irrelevant. I was not replying to Cane Caldo. I was specifically dealing with one of GBFM’s little rants.
I’ve suggested before you need to read more closely, and pay attention to the content of what you read. I’m suggesting it again. Anyone can make an error in attribution, to be sure, but time and again you just do not seem to really pay attention to texts you are replying to, leading to confused statements on your part.
If you can’t keep clear in your head a simple comment on a low traffic blog, then why should anyone trust your memory in any other area, on any other written topic?
This would be the same Vox Day who says the Trinity is bogus, among other heresies.
@RTP
I think it was an investment very well-made.
Crap. I meant to say more strongly that this blog is different. I hope I have been clear on that.
Game IS. Whether it’s being pointed out and explained in detail by Roissy or the Pope doesn’t change what it IS.
Game is the abstract study of how attraction works between the genders.
It is based on recognizing the true nature of female attraction to masculinity and males attraction to femininity.
It recognizes the role of male dominance in female attraction, and female submission in male attraction.
As I wrote in my last response, I once cited the Biblical command that men should be the head of their household to two married, practicing, devout Catholic married men who were grumbling about being beholden to their wives as their authority figures.
These men read the bible, regularly.
And yet, my point simply did not register with them.
Thanks to secular progressive culture, and the feminist infiltration of the Christian sphere, the feminine imperative is the NEW normal.
Point men to the bible?
When the Bible was written, it was during a time of absolutely ZERO gender confusion amongst the faithful masses. Gender roles were clearly defined, masculinity was not demonized on a constant basis and femininity was not worshiped on a pedestal of infallibility, like they are now.
We are all sinners.
When a fellow sinner points to the truth, we would do best in recognizing the truthfulness of what he’s saying, instead of focusing on the sins of that particular sinner. I get your distaste for Roissy. But don’t focus on the sinner, focus on the truths he’s pointing out.
For many men, the idea that women are sexually driven, lustful, and capable of depravity is anathema to everything they’ve been brought up to believe…within their own Christian culture.
That’s the churchianity culture I was brought up in. No amount of bible reading or bible studying ever made a SINGLE person in my church question the practices or treatment of men and women in our congregation (women honored on Mother’s day, men chastised on Father’s day), nor cause a henpecked husband to stand up to his wife, nor stop the condemnation of a husband who’s wife frivolously divorced him — oh wait, he was “controlling” and “verbally abusive”.
When we in the “manosphere” point to Roissy, it’s not to say he’s some role model to be emulated. It’s to say, look at this sinner, he’s speaking truths that your own religious leaders have failed to, even though it’s in the bible, they either ignore it or reinterpret it to pander to the female members of their congregation.
When guys like Dalrock write about why “Christians need game” we all should focus on the message and not the messenger.
There’s multiple definitions of “game” in this argument, and a couple of them are directly contradictory. Just a suggestion: y’all might want to figure out what you mean by the word “game” some time, if there is any interesting in “light” vs. “heat. .
As I said earlier, Game theory simply means, understanding female hypergamy. Female hypergamy, as a hypothesis, neatly explains the woes that many of us suffered in the dating realm, the girl+badboy phenomenon, a big chunk of the divorce problem, and a host of other troubles.
The application of Game theory depends on one’s morals and life stage. It can be used for sinful seduction (Roissy), it can be used by a lonely single Christian man to break the rejection cycle and get married, it can be used by a husband (Christian or not) to better order his family life, etc. The application is different, but the principle is universal. This is why, for example, a nonChristian such as Roissy, who understands hypergamy, could do a far better job explaining a Christian man’s dating woes, than a clueless but well meaning pastor or female friend. .
Dalrock,
You write, “But while we are waiting for the church to get its act together, what do we offer men like Some Guy in the meantime? He isn’t just looking to get laid, he is trying to stave off full force rebellion to save his children. This is deadly serious, and from where I sit it may well be decades before the church decides something is off.”
So this is “deadly serious” and the church is ignoring a life-and-death issue?
Do you ever bring this up at church? Or do you just join in the ignoring, and tell men that they need to learn and study game so as to handle their buttcoked wives?
Who is the “church that decides something is off?”
Did Christ wait for decades for the Scribes and Pharisees? Or did he take action?
Did Christ strive to teach men how to handle buttcocked, desouled owmen with manipulative game, or did He strive to teach the world to avoid buttcocking and desoulment?
Dalrock–why do you side with the modern church and gamers against Christ and his teachings?
Would it help if ‘Game’ was classified as something else for Christians?
At it’s core ‘Game’ is simply interactions that allow men to build attraction with women. I guess that as with all things in a board nature, some moves are immoral while others are moral in terms of Christianity.
In modern Christianity, in some places sexuality is simply demonized and is supposed not to exist before marriage, thus any type of interactions that even hint of sex are poo pooed. The problem, I have with this is it’s simply another shit test and the ones that fall for it are the natural betas. Most natural alphas, Christian or not, will break though beta programming to get sex. Their testestorene will not let them. It would be like trying to hold a ferret on crystal meth. The betas however can be misled and they will not naturally escalate and will be the sexual losers. This extends to having to wait enourmous amounts of time for initimatcy to having a very selection of brides to choose from to having an unfilling marriage. How does any of this help anybody? Everyone loses. Man/Wife/Children.
‘Game’ is associated with people that commit pre-martial sex on a wide level so it’s automatically tossed out the window by most senior people in the Church. Maybe we could make some Christense style of 1984 doublespeak to get the point across? Something’s got to be done.
It seems that no one wants to touch sexual attraction with a 10 foot pole in church and all the calls to manliness are simply external band aids. I have heard that MMA is seeing an upsurge in church. It’s like they want to distract people from the real problems that they don’t want to face with literal games. I love MMA by the way but practicing martial arts while extremely beneficial is not going to help a man reclaim any type of dignity when his wife has his balls in a vice.
As for the married guy on here that was afraid to recapture his marriage because his wife has gotten entreched in power in their relationship. I think you go full style ‘Crash and Burn’ and reclaim it. Pull a Cortez and sink the ships and go for broke. It doesn’t seem like things will ever get better without you being brave.
I for one would recommend anyone who hasn’t to read Rollo’s blog. He’s has constructive critisim that both married and non-married men can use. His blog helps you see the big picture on having the correct mind set and frame.
Even spinning plates (aka pre-selection) can work in a Christian environment albeit modfied.
” I use to laugh at my ex-wife when she hit me. Big mistake – turned out over the years she was emotionally, sexually, verbally, and physically abusive.”
The golden rule is to leave the very first time they hit you because if they do it once, they’ll do it again. Even if as an adult you are able to withstand a hit every once in a while, who’s to know if they will not hit your future kids? And even if they don’t hit the kids, raising kids in a home of violence, however slight, is abusive in itself. Verbal abuse is something that all of us let slide but if one takes as strong a stance on that as should be taken wrt physical abuse, well that should be sussed out long before talks of marriage commence.
I’m curious as to how your wife sexually abused you?
@GBFM
I think you already know my secret. I do it for the fiat dollars.
lzozozzo
Were you an atheist gamer, it would be easy. 🙂
But as a Christian, it must chafe your soul to the very degree you are a Christian.
Even Judas did not accept fiat dollarzlzlozlz, but he was paid in silverlzozlzlzo.
But why are you seeking to tell men to not follow Christ and Moses, instead of trying to get the church to follow Christ and Moses?
Have you given up?
lozlozlzolzolzol
@ Sunshine Mary: Thanks for the links to the head scarves. I have always thought headscarves becoming, but in my town it is considered disrespectful for Christians to wear them. They have not been a part of mainstream American Christianity for quite some time and a Christian woman wearing one seems to generate a lot of attention and be counter to the humility the covering is supposed to exemplify. I think it’s silly, but that is the attitude in my home town.
I think a lot of the strong negative reaction to verses about a woman’s place in church and public life stems from pride and a lack of perspective. Dalrock is right about finding your inner feminist, when you feel yourself cringe at a verses about women not teaching. I certainly feel the cringe, but ultimately I am feeling a slight from an all powerful God, an all-knowing God who gave himself up for us. When I look at it from that perspective, my cringe seems less to me a mature, adult reaction against injustice and more of a complaining little girl, griping because she thinks her brother got a slightly bigger piece of cake.
GBFM, why do you tell men to read Shakespeare and the Iliad? You should be telling them to only read the Bible!
“As we advance in life, they all fall off, one by one, until we are left with Virgil and Homer, and perhaps Homer alone.” –Thomas Jefferson
Homer, Shakespeare, the Bible, Virgil
All are united against Keoni Galt’s will to manipulate and deceive–to game–so as to get his cockkass wetz zlozlzlzlzlzlzlzz
@GKChesterton
Actually you are terribly wrong. Sodomy across every Christian tradition till roughly 1928 included any act which was did not deposit seminal fluid in the vaginal tract. Hence, in a better day, oral sex was illegal under sodomy laws in many states. You sound ignorant when you don’t check this stuff first.
Really? So marriage is a union between two women because New York state law says so?????
The meaning of Sodomy derives from Genesis 18… and to this day if you ask the average person what sodomy is they will say butt sex between 2 men.
You are out of touch.
So I suppose Shakespeare’s tale of Taming the Shrew is not referring to the same concepts “Gamers” speak of, eh? It’s all about butthexting the Shrew…lozlzolzol
@GKChesterton
And good Lord, your correction of Elspeth addressed her _not at all_.
Oh so you like some many others can’t see the pedestal either? Of course you can’t!
On PUA’s “They don’t view women as human”
Now is this a quote from GKCherston or a quote from a feminist slut?
Permaculuture: Does anyone here have any suggestions regarding where we can find people who share all of our values, not just the family values on the one side and the spiritual and health values on the other, but all of them, in one package? Do you know of any family oriented Christian groups that also live holistically and have respect for religious freedom? Any direction would be deeply appreciated.
This type of person has a name: “Crunchy Conservative” (crunchy is a reference to granola).
http://old.nationalreview.com/flashback/dreher200505011459.asp
To find them… join the Weston A Price Foundation. NOT EVERYONE there will be a crunchy con — WAPF highly diverse, you’ll find both left and right, secular and religious, but you will find SOME in their ranks. Visit a local meeting, see what you find.
http://www.westonaprice.org/
Keonia Galt what sayeth ye?
Is it better to be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian???
One question for GBFM: have you ever been married?
No tapdancing, keyboard diarrhea, or endless excursions into your own fetishes, please,
just a simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.
Why do people respond to GBFM? He really is just a pure troll.
No furiousferret, while GBFM does troll, he’s brought to light many absurdities of the current system and simplified complex problems into simple schematics.
What you’re seeing here is a rare point of disagreement.
Otherwise, I concur with probably 98% of the things GBFM writes about.
How the Federal Reserve debases the currency and debases the culture to achieve the overall goal of convert their fiat currency into real world property.
How the debasers (butthexters) of the cultural heritage of Western Civilization do so to keep the masses distracted so they can continue to accrue power and expand their control over all our lives.
GBFM is usually right. Our disagreement here is, largely I suspect, a matter of semantics.
He is without question my favorite fucktard out here on the fringes of teh interwebz. lozlzolzolzolzol
“There has been only one Christian. They caught him and crucified him–early. They did this so that the “Christians” could follow the tenets of game so as to moisten the vaginal walls of their buttcocked wive’s ginas, instead of following Christ’s and Moses’s tenets.” –Mark Twain lzozlzozo
i luvs you allls o ye of little faith
to all the spinsters with cats
who teh fed tricked into spinsterhood/serving debt lxolllozlzl
to all the fanboys in ther single mom’s basements
whose dads they never knew because the fed tookawy fatehrhood lzozlzl
to all the broken familes
who were split up by the need to make two salaries to feed the kids
to all aging necon womenz celeberating secretive tapings of butthex without teh girlths conthent lzozllzlzozlzl they tircked you too
to all the spinster chix again i am sorry they sdesouled you
in asscokcing sessins drugged you up on prozac
told you to abort your kids no wonder your’re d[pressed and all fucjked up no lozlzlzlzling here
my heart goes out to you while tucker max & goldman sax laugh zlzolzlzl
too all the aborted fetushes we ask for forgiveness we deserve not and to all those tricked into aborting the gift of life lzozllzllzl we forgive u too and pray for teh fethuses, but not in school as prayer is illegal in school lozlzllzlz
to all those inthe rising genertaion who will have to pay off their parents cultural and monetary debts lzozlz war isn’t fun but it’s part of teh fed’s fiat bubble cycle lzozlzllz so like after th e country goes bust the war starts in the ultimate pump and udmp scheme you thought enron/worldcom/fannae mae was bad lolzozlzlz just you wait lzozlzlll i hope not and ai pray for peace lozlzlz maybe we can all learn to live and get along but i think we would have to start with truth and nobility and honor and ocurage and virtue and not with fiat debt and butthex lozlzlzl that’s just nmy gues from reading heroduts and the great boooks and classis in greek and latin zlzolzllzlzl
and the bible too about sodom and gomorroah did yuknow taht sodomycame form sodom and gonnoreah came from gommroah? lzozllz kidding about that second one i doubt it did but maybe who knows i have never had eitehr sodomy nor gonorreah and i ahve never been to sodom nor gomoorrah
sodom must;ve been a funny place lzolzlozolllzzll and a crazy party or two and the editor in chiefstress priscilla painton at simon and schuster would have fit right in publishing tucker max’s books yah i betin gmorrah they had a tower of babel with the ofices of simon and schuster at the top across the hall form the fed lzozlzlzllzlzlzlzllzlzlz
sometimes i wonder if poets and prophets can still change the world?
or have they trainde too, too many women to hate, and dumbed down and drugged up too many menz? have they destoryed too many fathers and killed to many families? have the y deocnstructed tyoo many books and spilled too much blood and aborted too many fetuthes as one is one too many. have they prescribed ritalin to too many cretaive sols in chool in prozac to too many who need to be depressed and face it when they abort fetuses as god gave us feelings and makes us not pay attention to boring stae corproate teachers as all creativity comes from not paying attention to the state lzozlzzll and now it is diagnoses as a diseas lzozlzlz.
lozlzlzzlzl
well juust wanted to say i luv u all and nice 2 know ya and welcomes abords lzozlzl
and 2 asnwer my own above questions
let me jsut say
teh great books
wouldn’t be great
if they weren’t immortal
and they offer us redemption
the moment we start living by tehir ideasl
and epic higher stories
so put down your hate and your secretive butthex tape
and pick up a cross
and come follow me
and let me shoulderyour burden
for my yoke is light
dante wrote la vita nuova–the new life
and it is time 4 u to find your new life
for to loseth one’s old way is to fuind the new path
so do not fear
lozlzlzlzlzlz omg wtf am i saying lzozlzlz
i almost blew my cover here as teh messiah lzozlzllll i hide it beind all my lzozlzllzlzlzlzlzlzlles but a couple of you ahve caught on lzozlzlzlzllzlzl
Why do people respond to GBFM? He really is just a pure troll.
He is the crazy uncle. Zany when on display but needs to be kept in the basement, mostly.
Now I’m curious? What is GBFM’s story?
Is it better to be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian???
This reminds me of a cartoon in the National Review during the 2008 election:
“Vote for McCain — at least he won’t destroy the country on purpose!”
The difference is mens rea — criminal intent. The wiseass Turk currently occupying the Oval Office, clearly means us harm. His foolish Christian predecessor, in all probablity meant well.
“The Continental Op says:
August 7, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Why do people respond to GBFM? He really is just a pure troll.
He is the crazy uncle. Zany when on display but needs to be kept in the basement, mostly.”
lozozlzozo The Continental Op wants 2 keep my lostas cockas in his back door basement, if you s knows what i menaz lzozloz, but dat ain’t gonna happen! lzozloozloz
i luvs you allls o ye of little faith
to all the spinsters with cats
who teh fed tricked into spinsterhood/serving debt lxolllozlzl
to all the chirstinaz lusting after game
and teacing the tenets of game gina anuth moistening game
insted of teh exalted tenets of christ and moses
i luv all yes of little faithz
what is da tsory of da gbfm?
when i was in third grade i asked my teacher, “what is the federal resevre?”
she sent me to da princicple!
o i asked him, “is it federal? is it a governemnt entity? is it a reserve? does it actaully have any moneyz or does it just create debts?”
he sent me to the uspeirnetdenient
so i asked himz “what gives them the moreal authorty to crate out of thin air that whihc i must labor for, and give it to tehir firendz?”
he send me to the chool nurse who prescievedbed me ritalaizinz and addeoeorloozlzozl lotass pillz lzozlzl for asking stooooopid quetsuzonzznz znzozlololzo
so i aske dteh nurse, “how is it that the cenrtal bank can create debt out of thin air and den cgahagr inetrest on it funding wars and fmeinsisnzmz and bostionrtoonz? and aborititonz? and why do christians never speak out agianst abortion, nor sosodomy, nor the detah of marriage and fatherhood? Why do chcistians instead kneel down before game, as if moisisntening buttcocked womenz’ gina walls is the greatest glory higher dan chirst ieven? lzozlzlozoozo?”
and the school nurse injected me with a ritalin addeorlloololzolzoz cocktail
and ever since den
i talked like thiss and shsook and shaked when i typex d zlllzozlzozl as i get eixicieted dat i see and hear and see thingsz that noboy else see nor hears
for tehy are of little fiath lzozlloz
but jesus jeusus he saves me
and tellz me dat while the gamerz win on erth in moisuienetig da ssoccked buttcoked women’z gina wallsz with tehir lies and decpetions and degradgations
christ tells me dat my ideas win
in his kingdom of ideealz idealz
and dat is da story of da GBFM
since yu akeskekd lzozozlozz
have a niczozoe day!! lzozlzolzoz
Now I’m curious? What is GBFM’s story?
lozlzozlzol…for that, you’d have to go and read ROISSY. GBFM has written 1000000000 lozlzolzls at the Chateau Heartiste going back 2-3 years – which is what makes this current debate so amusing. Apparently GBFM finds merit in the writings of the most prominent “gamer” on teh interwebz…
Some of his recent contributions here at Dalrock’s the first known sightings of lucid, grammatically clear prose.
lzozzloz I have vast respect for heartiste!!! in many ways heartistes is more chirtsian dan dlarock dalrock, as hearitses speaks da turth and does not try to transofrm chirtsisianity into game and gaminzuznagz lzozoz
there were two sons once
one said “i am going to the wedding feast.” (dalrock)
the otehr said “i am not going to the wedding feast.” (heartiste)
when dat final day came of da feast, heartsite went, and dalrock did not go lzozlzllzozo
for it is the truth which sets us free
not da corruption of christ’s christianity
lzozlzolzzlz.zl
He’s probably a super advanced sentient AI.
GBFM is not a troll. Ranting insults is just his debate style.
as hearitses speaks da turth and does not try to transofrm chirtsisianity into game
This is what you really think Dalrock is trying to do?
He’s actually the first blogger to achieve a respectable level of notoriety and millions of views, going after the false doctrines that permeate the church. Crediting the study of Game as providing the insight to recognize these false doctrines is hardly the same thing as “attempting to transform” Christianity INTO game…
lozozozozo
methinks ye need to elanr how to readz: “Why Christians need game.”
Dalrock should be writing “why eomn need chritsnaity,” or “why gamerz need chritsiinity,” or “why the church needs christiiniaty.”
unless you believe that game is higher dan da church and christsiinity lzozzozlozo
Isn’t Game pretty much a discovery though of social interactions that lead to a certain outcome?
It’s ammoral in that you categorize certain actions in an interpersonal context and view statiscal results.
Why wouldn’t everybody want to have more knowledge than less about social interactions and the results they achieve?
Maybe it’s just that ignorance is bliss?
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. – John 10:10
The thief? (Satan, feminism, feminist ideologies)
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realm. – Ephesians 6:12
This, spirit of feminism, is a well orchestrated attack by the accuser (Satan). And this stronghold on the world is only getting worse. How can we possibly overcome it?
For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have devine power to demolish strongholds. – 2 Corinthians 10:3,4
GAMING? Some morally sound gaming may need to be used to penetrate or infiltrate the enemy (feminism).
ok all my little lambs
who god did not grace with reason
nor perception nor coginition exaltd cognition nor sense
my poor little lambs
do you see any difference between these teachings:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/
and the teachings of jesus?
dalrock says that the church needs lest christ and more of sixteen commandments of poon, as dalrock has given up on christ women, and the church.
i say that women, the church, and christians need more christ and moses, not more wet ginas responding to teh sixteen commandemnts of ppooonzoz lzllozzlzzloz
lzozozozo
dalrock says that the church needs lest christ and more of sixteen commandments of poon, as dalrock has given up on christ women, and the church.
Where’s he ever said that?
dats EXACTLY waht dalrock says!
dalrock write a whole post titled “Why Christians need game.”
THE SIXTEEN COMANDMENTS OF POON = GAME!!!!
DALROCK’S POST IS TITLED “Why Christians need THE SIXTEEN COMANDMENTS OF POON”
Please Jesus Help Me!
For they have eyes but do not see!
The have ears but do not hear!
(Unless it helps them get a gina wet or make an anuth tingle, then they see & hear!) lzozozlzo
I have reading this site for about 6 months and the thing about GBFM is I always ignored him because I thought he was a spam bot.
You know, like I’m a rich doctor and lonely type of deals.
LOL
@KG & VR
I don’t think you’ve understood me.
Unless anyone else asks me a specific question, I’ll leave this post in peace; having said more than enough.
The idea of women having a symbol of submission goes back to humans being physical creatures. While the Christian faith is substance and evidence for things hoped for and not seen, humans like concrete examples of abstract ideas. In plain terms, talk is just talk, but it is the walk that matters. From the Holy Bible to Baptism to the Eucharist, humans do better with something tangible, something “real.” There can be talk of submission and modesty, but until there is something concrete that says, “I’m in submission” or “I’m modest,” then it is just talk.
Yes, outward appearances can be shallow, but at the same time, outward appearances can also be worth a thousand words.
Hey Dalrock,
Instead of tryng to replace the bible with the sixteen commandments of poon in your “church,” why don’t you just teach genesis?
13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
remember, jesus came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it.
i’m going to have to side with moses & jesus on this one.
you and your “church” can have fun teahing your “men” how to serve their “wive’s” butt & gina tinglzozlzozozlzozlzo
GBMF reminds me a lot of Ali G. Sacha Baron-Cohen, is that you?
really good GBFM, you sure gotta lotta patience, musta worked in a sewage treatment plant once
they want their God Game, they want their page-hits, they want their audience, they want their link-love, they want they want they want anything and everything but Christ
like to see yr reading list more like — BIBLE, THEN homeboy homer and the other guys
might be a couple actual Christians here (maybe) . . . the rest are sewage treatment plant donors — regular attendees!
Anonymouse Reader: you are just full of unanswerable accusations aintcha? you should get a job with Prosecutor Collard, little davie’s wifey and bosslady, youd give pilate a run for his money
Deacon Dalrock proclaims that “Christians need Game” tho Christ, the prophets, and the apostles failed to understand its crucial necessity — they predicted with tremendous accuracy what’d happen in the last days (our days) but somehow failed to anticipate that Christians would need Rossy, Dalrock, Mysterioso, and Game
vanity, petty spite, and stubborn, stubborn pride
shameful
amen ray,
jesus’s approval would have been quite ample, but glad you showed up too!
best,
gbfm 🙂
Instead of tryng to replace the bible with the sixteen commandments of poon in your “church,” why don’t you just teach genesis?
Because most people can’t understand Genesis even when spoonfed. I mean you just recently figured it out yourself. Nevertheless, I’m so glad you’ve decide to stop waiting for eve to do the right thing and instead man up like God intended, not the way neocons intended. You are gonna discipline your woman right?
@Keoni Galt
I appreciate the effort but his jaws have locked on this one.
Keoni, I’m going to have to disagree with you.
GBFM is just a huge attention whore, and little else. He reminds me of some of my regular customers back when i worked as a bartender, around half an hour before closing time. They liked to engage in pontification, too. At least I can ignore GBFM, I was paid to pay attention to drunks during last call. Sometimes we got to request that they leave, too. I was never a bouncer. But I did know how to assist the bouncers.
One day, GBFM will take his schtick too far on the wrong man, who won’t be as kind as David Collard was the other day.
ray
Anonymouse Reader: you are just full of unanswerable accusations aintcha?
Nope. I asked GBFM one question, three times. Looks like i have an answer to that question, too.
you should get a job with Prosecutor Collard, little davie’s wifey and bosslady, youd give pilate a run for his money
No, thanks. I have too many other things that need to be done. Have you ever thought of starting your own blog?
@Empath,
directly into being conditional on another human. The behavior of the wife is between her and God
This abandons any sense of communal guilt. It also makes certain points in the Law describes such preventatives. Consider the building of a parapet (cf. Deut 22:8) which is commonly cited as one of those interesting laws that enforces communal responsibility. Also consider St. Paul’s discussion of scandal in Romans 14:21. You are proposing an amazingly strong “God and me” theology that doesn’t have any basis in either Liturgical Christianity or confessional Protestantism (and is therefore very modern American Evangelical).
Whether she will more likely follow or not depending on husbands behavior is utterly irrelevant and a dangerous point to make
No it is an entirely just point to make and is where game and MRA in general is opposed to Christianity. Game doesn’t analyze whether men as the superior moral force in the world has any responsibility to our juniors. Your argument could be logically extended to:
“The angels shouldn’t care or involve themselves in our salvation after all we are all alone in this and their relative strength shouldn’t matter.”
-or-
“The Saints shouldn’t…(ditto)
And yes it is dangerous. I’m reminded of GK Chesterton’s famous quip, “it is not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting; it is that Christianity has been found difficult and not tried.”
This is where game ends (its too pat) and Christianity starts up again.
@Cane,
Though God is the master of all nature, that is not how He shows His mastery of us. Even if we were to accomplish it, we would recognize it as an evil. It’s a desire to control another; which is different from a desire to take your place in the authority structure
Ok, I’ll get that. But God _has_ been known to prod _very_ hard. As long as we recognize that. That is, fire and brimstone, pillars of salt, random lightening bolts, and the like. Most of the time he’s fairly gentle, but he can do more at some times.
@Anon,
…
I actually think you just need to be better read. Every time I attempt to engage you resort to either poisoning the well or some sort of ad hominem quip. I keep on forgetting the whole thing is fruitless.
@EvilAlpha,
Really? So marriage is a union between two women because New York state law says so?????
The meaning of Sodomy derives from Genesis 18… and to this day if you ask the average person what sodomy is they will say butt sex between 2 men.
You are out of touch.
How on earth would my definition of sodomy support that? I’ve said that all churches defined it the same and that the State (in a better time) _reflected_ this definition.
Thanks van Rooinek, I know about the Weston A. Price group. My family and I are lacto-vegetarians for religious reasons and that has sometimes rubbed some of those people the wrong way. I don’t know why because the official website and philosophy is somewhat lacto-vegetarian friendly.
@EvilAlpha
The meaning of Sodomy derives from Genesis 18… and to this day if you ask the average person what sodomy is they will say butt sex between 2 men.
You are out of touch.
I should have said more. In this you would be dead wrong. Interestingly, your definition allows for lesbianism, multiple partners, and a whole host of other items. It is not the historic definition of the Church. Please read before posting drivel.
furiousferret
(Regarding GBFM)
He’s probably a super advanced sentient AI.
Super advanced? Sentient? Hardly. It would not be difficult at all to write a rule-based ‘bot to reproduce GBFM’s postings. All that tedious repetition that makes up most of the keyboard diarrhea would also make it easy to reproduce the postings with high accuracy. Given enough phrases in the dictionary / database, and a not very complex algorithm to mix and match them, it’s a straightforward task. Something very much like that was done 20 or so years ago in the pre-WWW days, to amuse people on some newsgroups. The hardware was not complex, likely Pentium I platforms with all of 64 MB of main memory and a 500 MB hard drive.
Now, heck, someone probably could run a ‘bot of that sort on a smartphone.
I also want to make one thing clear. I think GB4M postings (possibly due to his atrocious format) is coming off way too hard on Dalrock. Principles _in_ Game I think can be Christianized even if I think Dalrock is approaching it from the wrong direction. However, that, given our fallen natures, isn’t exactly an offense that we should get too hot headed about.
My differences with him tend to be in flavor (for example my insistence on being much harsher on PUA’s). I think the “Sixteen Commandments” are a good place to start and that (was it Van upstream or Cane?) an analysis of _which_ ones could be with some modification Christianized is useful. The best lies are often mostly truth and I think the “Sixteen” are a great example of that. Maybe this could be a multi-post discussion as we dive into them one by one?
“GKChesteron”
I actually think you just need to be better read.
You are deflecting from your mistake. It is a common and childish habit of yours. When you are wrong, you might consider manning up enough to admit error, rather than changing the subject.
Every time I attempt to engage you resort to either poisoning the well or some sort of ad hominem quip.
If you pay attention to what I actually write to you, you would see that I do not put up with namecalling, passive-aggressive gameplaying, pompous pontificating, bait-and-switch, goalpost moving, or other bad behavior. I’m also not fond of hypocrites, as may or may not have become clear to you by now. Don’t bellow at me and expect a whispered response. Don’t talk down to me in a pompous, overbearing, mindless manner and expect any sort of respect back.
HINT:
On those rare intervals when you have chosen to write to me in an adult fashion, as you would want to be written to, I have responded in a calm fashion. “Treat others as you wish to be treated” – ever heard of that concept? Apparently not. But what do I know, I’m just a “mad dog” and a “baboon”, right? Do you ever talk to men face to face like that? I strongly doubt it.
I keep on forgetting the whole thing is fruitless.
it’s fruitless to try to bully me, or bluff me. It’s fruitless to keep trying to convert me to your worship of women. If you ever get through your head the fact that you have zero authority over me, that in a place like this I am your equal, we might be able to have a useful conversation.
Thanks van Rooinek, I know about the Weston A. Price group. My family and I are lacto-vegetarians for religious reasons and that has sometimes rubbed some of those people the wrong way. I don’t know why because the official website and philosophy is somewhat lacto-vegetarian friendly.
If you drink raw milk, eat grassfed butter and cheese, etc… you should be able to get by without meat. Any educated WAPFer should know this. Vegan and lowfat are utterly incompatible with WAPF but lacto-vegetarian certainly isn’t.
(Unfortunately lacto-vegs can’t hunt or fish… exceedingly great bummer…but that’s your choice.)
I’m probably going to hate myself for this but…
I don’t understand the theology some of you are touting. You seem to be saying that a woman’s lower ranking in the hierarchy is a punishment for Eve’s sin.
I thought pain in childbirth and relationship disharmony were the punishments?
How can submission be part of God’s original design AND a punishment?
Also..what do head coverings have to do with shame? I thought they were for modesty.
*Is confused*
I should have said more. In this you would be dead wrong. Interestingly, your definition allows for lesbianism, multiple partners, and a whole host of other items. It is not the historic definition of the Church. Please read before posting drivel.
Actually you’ve already said too much!
Historic definition of the church. Historic definition of the state. BlaBlaBla
Can you shut up?? The scriptural (Genesis account of Sodom)… which coincides with the modern common usage of sodomy is all that matters. And they both mean gay butt sex.
[D: No need to respond to evilalpha. He won’t be able to respond any further here.]
@Gabrielle
Before the fall.
“The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him”
After the fall.
“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.“
Anon E Myshkin wrote: She notes that men she is attracted to usually have “impenetrable frame” but does not notice the other men with impenetrable frame. Yes, a man being highly self-directed and goal-focused is part of game, and marriage gamers clutch it tightly. But that is not enough to avoid being invisible to women. Women are still affected by many other things: physical attractiveness, displays of resources, physical aggression, and a host of others.
This.
Turn it around. It’s one thing for women to understand that men like boobies, and any Christian can agree that, within a very limited sphere (i.e. marriage), there’s a correct place for their open display, and that public modesty need not mean wearing a burka, but anyone saying that it’s generally good for women to run around flashing them, even though most men would love it if they did, has left the reservation.
1: How much of game is ‘understanding hypergamy’, analogous to understanding that men like boobs?
2: How much of game is proper behavior in the married household, analogous to the legitimate display of boobs in the marriage bed?
3: How much of game is the acceptably chaste display of masculinity, analogous to a woman going out in public decently clothed?
4: How much of game is attractive but nonetheless bad outward social display, analogous to Girls Gone Wild?
I don’t think anyone denies that 1, 2, and 3, as applicable to either sex, are good. Most of the division over game seems to be over which behaviors are of the third sort and which are the fourth, with the opposition believing that the supporters are trying to pass off behaviors of the fourth type as those of the third. Some clarification is in order.
And, where Myshkin’s comment comes in: It should be obvious that, so far as ‘success’ goes, the fourth sort are the quick and easy path, and that confining one’s self to the first, second, and third sorts, especially if one is not visibly exceptional, risks invisibility, especially in proportion to the number of other people who do not confine themselves so.
This presents a fifth question: How much of the practical exhortations of Game amount to dismissing the first three sorts of behavior, or calling someone who confines himself so, unmanly, prudish, ‘beta’, etc., etc.?
Honestly, I’m a bit confused. The Christians I’ve had contact with don’t think like you people here. Most of them value intact families and there is very little separation. They are outliers?
PF: The Christians here value intact families very much. But yes, if the Christians you know have very little separation and divorce, they’re now statistical outliers – which is why we’re here arguing over how to fix that.
@Permaculture Farmaceuticals
Most of the regular commenters value intact families. There are many decent men on here that have been unwillingly subjected to a divorce and been forced out of their children’s lives.
Most Christians don’t care (about men or the children of men) or recognize this and therefore I agree with you that the majority of “christians” think differently. Society is crumbling due to destruction of the family and each “christian” will have to answer to God for the suffering of these children and the failings in their upbringing due to the fathers stripped out of their lives. Most modern “christians” are actually only churchians.
@Anon,
You are deflecting from your mistake. It is a common and childish habit of yours. When you are wrong, you might consider manning up enough to admit error, rather than changing the subject.
Here’s the thing. My comment was politely worded. Let’s assume that you aren’t being a twit, at the very least you should _assume good faith_. Note your comment doesn’t and mine does. Therefore, for all of the crying about name calling, that’s _exactly_ what you are doing. I assumed good faith in your comment, you did not do the same. Its boorish behavior.
You will also note that my comment, for all your quips about reading, contains a _conditional phrase_.
“I don’t think that’s the point, or at least Cane’s point. The problem is one of primacy in a Christian context. I don’t think Dalrock (as his references show) has that problem. However, the problem of primacy does exist here in the comments.”
See, I say that it may not be the point, and then I _clarify_ that it might not be Cane’s point (as opposed to GB4M’s). So no, you are wrong again. So contra your claim, I’m civil and you turn out to be an ass yet again. Nor will you apologize about it.
Don’t talk down to me in a pompous, overbearing, mindless manner and expect any sort of respect back.
I haven’t. I’ve used complicated topics in the assumption that you can handle them. It seems you are claiming otherwise and it get’s old. You don’t want to have a conversation and advance, on the contrary you want to be “pompous, overbearing, mindless”.
And indeed I have heard of “Treat others as you wish to be treated” in that I expect correction when I’m wrong. You on the other hand don’t as is evidenced in the above and in your insistence on finding fault. Did I call you a name in that comment? No. Can it be read in the way I proposed? Yes. Is that the best reading? Yes. Did you reach for the battle ax first chance? Yes.
So I’m closing down comments with you on this thread after this. I’m a glutton for punishment so I’ll try again in the future, but you really need to check out your aggression issues.
@Gabriella,
I don’t understand the theology some of you are touting. You seem to be saying that a woman’s lower ranking in the hierarchy is a punishment for Eve’s sin.
I thought pain in childbirth and relationship disharmony were the punishments?
You are correct. The “rank” of Eve was effectively eternal as she was created for the _purpose_ of being Man’s helper (and EvilAlpha’s reading of the same is both lame and wrong). It is interesting to note that some theological strands don’t see any “punishment” of God as punishment in most senses. That is, punishment can always be seen as an opportunity for blessing. I think Eve’s punishment is an example of this in that the good woman can look beyond the pain and look to the blessing that is child-birth.
@EvilAlpha,
Historic definition of the church. Historic definition of the state. BlaBlaBla
Can you shut up?? The scriptural (Genesis account of Sodom)… which coincides with the modern common usage of sodomy is all that matters. And they both mean gay butt sex.
Sigh. Really? So you know better than your Christian betters eh? A pathetic piece of revolution against the Saints that have come before you. I can imagine you spitting the same nonsense at St. Paul (you aren’t the Bible so there!!!). So I presume Sodom would have skipped out fine if they’d just had oral sex? I mean that isn’t “gay butt sex”. That of course must be licit! Maybe if they just fondled each other perhaps? Of course what you propose does not fit the Bible as a whole’s expression on sexual relations. Sex is for marriage and for the purpose (in Genesis no less!) of procreation. But don’t let the rest of the Bible stop you from your lame proof texting. You obviously only care about one or two verses.
PF,
I value intact families and hate divorce. i was like the Christians you know, before. I made extra efforts to commit to loving my wife. I remained faithful for the entirety of our marriage. I never raised my hand or even my voice toward her. I was good with money and never missed a day of work. I was active with my sons, as a coach and cubmaster.
However, my ex didn’t feel the same way and divorced me against my will, blew apart our family, evicted me from the house, seized a portion of my income, and lives without disruption in the house purchased using my VA certificate with all our furniture, dog and my boys.
Why? Because she was unhappy and the system didn’t just allow her to do it – it aided her in the effort.
Cane Caldo, I’m going to tiptoe up to the edge of my knowledge. You quote from the Bible that a husband is to “wash his wife clean”. Let me ask a question, that leads to an analogy. If this analogy is not anywhere close to what you mean, if I’m off in the rhetorical weeds I’m sure you’ll let me know.
Ok, here we go:
Have you ever bathed a cat? I have, back years ago when it was the only way to get fleas off of them. I had to bathe several, in fact, and in order to de-flea them a special soap had to be scrubbed into every bit of fur. Putting an animal that regards water as only for drinking into a bathtub with 2 or 3 inches of the stuff in the bottom, saturating the fur with water in order to work up a flea-killing lather, and then rinsing all the suds off lest the animal ingest the nasty soap – it’s truly a special experience. It’s for the good of the cat (and everyone else – fleas in the carpet are just nasty) but it’s painful for all concerned. And the best part is, due to the flea life cycle, it’s got to be done all over again 14 days later. And possibly 14 days after that, if they go outside. The only thing that made it possible was the fact that I was much bigger and stronger than any cat – the biggest one was all of 18 pounds or so. Not faster always, there were some interesting chases around the bathroom, but stronger. Seems to me that you are saying the Bible instructs men to “bathe the cat”, except the cat is not so small, and has some pretty big friends at the other end of a telephone call.
Now, please read Some Guy’s posting up the thread, in particular this:
Leading in this context… it’s like a being in three legged race… and the well being of my family depends on our performance… but my partner is jumping around randomly and elbowing me every step of the way. But I *have* to lead, or we’re all screwed. If I follow her… her contempt for me is magnified, of course. So I’m literally dragging her down the field stopping for a committee meeting every ten yards or so.
This is an excellent and clarifying analogy, and I am certain that many, many, many men could read that and just nod right along – “Yup. That’s exactly how it is for me, too”. He’s really not at all alone.
Now, explain how he’s going to “clean” his wife, when she bridles and rebels at every turn, and has the power of the entire court system behind her whenever she wants it.
Here’s my second analogy. Again, if I’m reading too much into your posting, just let me know.
It’s like taking a man out in a field where there’s a 200 pound sow pig in a huge mud puddle, handing him a scrub brush and a gallon of soap & telling him to clean up the pig, to make her fit for showing at the county fair. Except he’s not allowed to take her out of the mud puddle, he’s not allowed to harness or tie up or otherwise secure her in any way, and there’s spectators who will arrest him if they decide he’s being “cruel” to the pig. He can get pretty badly hurt by the pig, and also arrested, and fail in his task, because of the limits placed on him.
He’s got no chance to clean that pig in the mud. Only if he can exert some serious control over the pig, and her environment does he have a chance. If there’s no ring in the pig’s nose to put a leash to, if he’s prohibited from putting some kind of lead around her – if there’s no way for him to control the pig and get it out of the mud – he’s doomed to fail.
In the modern world, women have more legal rights than men. Most churches won’t tell her she is supposed to obey him. Society regards any attempt to limit her freedoms as a criminal act. That leaves applied psychology – Game – and there are those on this thread who want to take that tool out of men’s hands as well. I frankly can’t tell if that’s what you really are saying, or not. But if that’s what you are saying, then it seems to me you are saying the Bible demands that men be set up for a hopeless and impossible task, and punished when they fail to complete it.
Is that what you mean? Or am I totally confused?
GKChesterton:
@Anon,
You are deflecting from your mistake. It is a common and childish habit of yours. When you are wrong, you might consider manning up enough to admit error, rather than changing the subject.
Here’s the thing. My comment was politely worded. Let’s assume that you aren’t being a twit, at the very least you should _assume good faith_.
Why should I assume good faith from someone who has consistently displayed bad faith towards me, and towards men in general, from the start? Or do you consider calling me a “mad dog” because I dislike women who murder, and a “baboon” because I hold different opinions from you to be “good faith”?
Note your comment doesn’t and mine does. Therefore, for all of the crying about name calling, that’s _exactly_ what you are doing. I assumed good faith in your comment, you did not do the same. Its boorish behavior.
My comment was politely worded as well. No namecalling, simply a correction of carelessness that you have displayed multiple times. If the accuracy of my words stung your huge ego, your hot air balloon of pride, that’s not my problem, either. Again, you are deflecting and now you are close to whining. It’s childish behavior.
Also, once again you proudly display your hypocritical side – you’ve been a boor here multiple times, from calling me a “mad dog” near the beginning of your time here, to recently trying to bully sunshinemary over her beliefs…and you did that last badly because you didn’t bother to read her text, either. You can’t bully me with false accusations any more than you could by calling me a rabid animal.
All your Churchian tools – bullying, attempts at feminist shaming language, invoking your religion of For The Women pedestalization, waving irrelevant angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin esoterica, namecalling, etc. have failed. What’s left, eh? Is there any other possible way you can think of to relate to another human being?
AR: Nobody here wishes to ‘take that tool out of men’s hands’, at least for some definitions of ‘tool’. (That doesn’t sound right, but you know what I mean.) It’s just that there’s some dispute – reasonable dispute, I think – over exactly which applications of psychology are legitimate and which aren’t. Nobody disputes that women are hypergamous. I hope nobody disputes that not all ways of ‘demonstrating higher value’ are moral, socially beneficial, and non-corrosive to the demonstrator, demonstrated-to, and third parties. The question, then, is, which DHVs are legitimate, and which are just being, pardon my french, an all-hat-no-cattle dick who needs to be taken down a peg or three?
I wrote:
Don’t talk down to me in a pompous, overbearing, mindless manner and expect any sort of respect back.
GKChesterton:
I haven’t.
Bull. From the very start, when you called me a “mad dog”, you have alternated between pompous, overbearing attempts at bullying me, and Holy Joe mealymouthed passive-aggressivenesss.
I’ve used complicated topics in the assumption that you can handle them.
Yeah, “You are a mad dog” is very complicated.
It seems you are claiming otherwise and it get’s old. You don’t want to have a conversation and advance, on the contrary you want to be “pompous, overbearing, mindless”.
I have proven more than once that I am ready to converse with you as an equal, but I’m not going to knuckle under when someone deliberately insults me. You have shown an inability to carry on a topic for more than a short time without drifting into your bad habits.
And indeed I have heard of “Treat others as you wish to be treated”
But you do not choose to put it into practice, however. That’s why I’m a “mad dog”, right?
in that I expect correction when I’m wrong.
You admit that you are capable of error? Really? To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time you have ever done so.
You on the other hand don’t as is evidenced in the above and in your insistence on finding fault.
Piffle. I’ve admitted error on this site more than once. You can’t say the same thing.
You can’t take any correction of any error from me, because of your pride. ‘
Did I call you a name in that comment? No.
No. You were careless. I pointed out that you were careless, and that it is a bad habit. Now you are all butthurt because once again I pointed out an error on your part. Look, if you want to screech “You’re not the boss of me!” go ahead, it’s fine with me – it’s true, too. I wouldn’t want to supervise you, either.
Can it be read in the way I proposed? Yes.
No. Because I was replying to GBFM, not to Cane Caldo. So you are wrong, period.
Is that the best reading? Yes.
So now you know better than I do what my words mean? Do you have any idea how arrogant that is?
Did you reach for the battle ax first chance? Yes.
Whine, whine, whine. You just can’t admit an error, no matter how egregious, can you? Your pride and ego won’t let you.
So I’m closing down comments with you on this thread after this. I’m a glutton for punishment so I’ll try again in the future, but you really need to check out your aggression issues.
"GKChesterton", you really need to grow up. This passive-aggressive stuff, the whining, it's just not manly.
I’ll admit that I’m prejudiced, of course. When I hear the term ‘alpha male’, I think ‘high school football jock’ – as in, a bunch of sociopathic little predators who, to this day, I think would look better with bullet holes. (Maybe even moreso now. Half of ’em are now at Goldman.) I understand now why women were attracted to them, but I’m having a really hard time understanding why the Church should smile on it and encourage men to be attractive in that manner, instead of excommunicating the vermin who behave that way, excommunicating the vermin who like those who behave that way, and maybe making an exception in the no-euthanasia policy…okay, scratch that last part, but still, the other two.
Note carefully one thing. I said I was having a hard time understanding why the Church should encourage men to be attractive in that manner. I already know that none of the Christian game advocates are suggesting that men use that attractiveness to plow dozens of cheerleaders. I’m just saying that plowing the cheerleaders was the least obnoxious thing they did.
What is game?
I get the impression it is a method where men skillfully manage liberated women whose whimsical nature rules households and churches. If women managed themselves through meekness and submission, men wouldn’t need to manage them through game.
With feminine nature being so dominant, a man cannot simply step up and be a man. The consequences could include denial of sex, separation, infidelity, or divorce. The solution? Use game to manage the potentially volatile situation.
Of course, this is just my observation from reading blogs and comments in the manosphere.
@ unger
The churches should encourage men to be dominant leaders. A carnicature of this trait was what women were attracted to in the high school jocks.
Women are attracted to good benevolent dominant men. But men should not become that to attract women. Men should become dominant because it is masculine. The churches should encourage this and the side benefit is that women are attracted to such men and this is a basis for intact and strong marriages. Divorces would greatly decline if men learned to be dominat and churches taught it. A man must stop being ruled by a woman’s emotions while remaining empathetic toward his woman. But of course this will not happen because it is not politically correct.
jesus’s approval would have been quite ample, but glad you showed up too!
healthy thinkin
‘I’m just saying that plowing the cheerleaders was the least obnoxious thing they did.’
Laughed my ass off on that one.
About high school football jocks though, I think that they get a really negative stereotype that results from jealously and envy. Now there was were some at my high school that were the asshats, but there were alot of athletes that some of the absolute coolest guys around. I think that lesser alphas in high school are more prone to being an asshat than the regular alphas because they have something to prove.
Also alot of the betas were total douches as well. They just didn’t have the power and means to be act like jerks and bang the sluts.
unger
AR: Nobody here wishes to ‘take that tool out of men’s hands’, at least for some definitions of ‘tool’. (That doesn’t sound right, but you know what I mean.) It’s just that there’s some dispute – reasonable dispute, I think – over exactly which applications of psychology are legitimate and which aren’t.
That’s not been clear to me, thanks for the reply. I see multiple denunciations of Game and not just by GBFM, either. So if basic leadership and psychology is denied to men, if feminized churches refuse to tell women to obey, if the legal system rewards rebellion, you tell me what is left besides MGTOW.
Nobody disputes that women are hypergamous.
Well, I’m not so sure about that either, really. Seems to me that there’s an assumption in some of the comments that all a man needs to do is speak some Bible verses to his wife, and Poof! She’ll immediately obey his instruction, never back talk to him, never sabotage him, never tear him down in front of their children, never push him away from her in bed, never hiss “don’t TOUCH me!”, never tear him down to her “girlfriends”, and so forth. Yet if leading a wife was that easy, then all those men in churches wouldn’t be henpecked, or shoved into the divorce machine. So I see some magical thinking here – just say the right word in the right way, and you too can have an obedient wife. What am I missing?
I hope nobody disputes that not all ways of ‘demonstrating higher value’ are moral, socially beneficial, and non-corrosive to the demonstrator, demonstrated-to, and third parties. The question, then, is, which DHVs are legitimate, and which are just being, pardon my french, an all-hat-no-cattle dick who needs to be taken down a peg or three?
Look, I don’t see Dalrock suggesting that married men should engage in plate-spinning, or any of a number of other techniques. On the contrary, he’s pointing out that some of it works, and some of it is not appropriate for him & other men on this blog. So obviously, this is a case of “Take what works for you, leave the rest” as Bruce Lee and many other men have said over the years. Athol’s site has any number of ways to DHV that seem moral to me, have you spent any time over there?
Techniques of leadership are not moral or immoral in and of themselves. The same techniques for leading and motivating men can be used by a police chief, a counserlor in charge of young men at a summer camp, or a cult leader. Similarly, Game for married men must perforce employ some – note well the word “some” – of the same techniques that PUA’s use – married women are women, after all. So why is it suddenly bad and anti-Bible to admit that biology is what it is?
Frankly, the image I’ve gotten from this thread of some men’s idea of proper married sex is pretty bleak. Something to be done as quickly, furtively and pleasurelessly as possible, for purposes of making babies only. Which means, once the woman enters perimenopause, even that has to stop.
Given what we know about such compounds as vasopressin and oxytocin, it seems to me to be plan that is guaranteed to harm a marriage, not help it. But it could well be I’m reading more into some comments than is there.
Gabriella, I think that woman was created in subordination to man, in the Genesis story, but only after her sin (and the sin of Adam) did her subordination become painful. Head coverings are for modesty in a sense, but more to show a woman’s place in the hierarchy.
Now I have a question. What is FsoG?
Was EvilAlpha an agent provocateur? I had the feeling that he or she was trying to get someone to say something outrageous. There seem to be a lot of unhappy feminist lurkers around who watch the Manosphere sites quite closely. You would think they would have better things to do with their time.
On female pastors here is the argument in favor of it by a blue pill christian apologist:
http://www.christianthinktank.com/fem08.html
http://www.christianthinktank.com/fem09.html
FSoG = Fifty Shades of Grey. And again there is no Biblical precedent for women to wear extra things on their head for the sake of modesty. A woman’s long hair is her covering. If she doesnt have long hair, then extra headgear comes into play. And either way it has nothing to do with modesty. Scipture talks about prudence, and chastity, but the modesty mandate seems to be a manmade commandment which has been given the weight of a commandment of God.
Hey Alpha your wrong, scripture specifically commands woman to be modest…1Ti 2:9 . However her hair definitely is given her for a covering. Now how you interpret modest dress can be a bowl of contention. David, read the passage on head coverings and you’ll see the subject is actually hair lengths
Sheera, I have read the passage on head coverings and it is primarily about the order of creation.
@AR
Look, I don’t see Dalrock suggesting that married men should engage in plate-spinning, or any of a number of other techniques. On the contrary, he’s pointing out that some of it works, and some of it is not appropriate for him & other men on this blog. So obviously, this is a case of “Take what works for you, leave the rest” as Bruce Lee and many other men have said over the years. Athol’s site has any number of ways to DHV that seem moral to me, have you spent any time over there?
Techniques of leadership are not moral or immoral in and of themselves. The same techniques for leading and motivating men can be used by a police chief, a counserlor in charge of young men at a summer camp, or a cult leader. Similarly, Game for married men must perforce employ some – note well the word “some” – of the same techniques that PUA’s use – married women are women, after all. So why is it suddenly bad and anti-Bible to admit that biology is what it is?
Thank you for expounding upon this. I don’t find “game” anti-biblical at all but more as a leadership tool as it relates social sexual dynamics. How the tool is utilized is where I think certain posters are being led astray by thinking “game” is an end unto itself.
That was a lot to read through since my last post.
I stand corrected.
7man: But out in the world, most men can’t be dominant. They can be unquestioned Number Ones in their own households, but women seem to be attracted to men who are, or who can act as if they are, near the top out there. This is problematic, is it not?
FF: I won’t deny that my own prejudice contains some envy in it too. But the ones at my school were just gleefully sadistic people, in a way the other sports players (who were never as respected or coddled) seldom were. They liked smashing people on the field; they liked smashing people off the field; they never passed up a chance to step on anyone weaker, especially if there was an audience. It’s served them well in life: they were adored for it then, and, as I said, judging by my school newsletter, most are (very) gainfully employed for it now.
AR: That’s just it. I don’t know what the solution is, if any even exists in any timeframe any of us will see the end of. All I’ve got are questions and doubts.
A lot’s colored by simple incredulity. For instance, sure, I understand that women don’t want to be ‘pedestalized’, that they want to be taken down, made fun of, but I can’t understand why. My dog unfailingly does what I tell her to do without having to be mistreated; if I give her a treat and tell her what a good dog she is, she likes it, and it never crosses her mind to get bored by it or decide I’m less of a master for it. Or where my male friends and I are doing some task and I am directing, they don’t need to be negged or push-pulled or what have you into acknowledging my authority, and probably wouldn’t remain my friends if I tried that on them. Thus, when I hear that it’s totally different for a woman, my first thought is not ‘well, that’s natural’, but ‘what in God’s name is wrong with them?’ How can it be good to cater to that, even if it does work?
I don’t know. For all my bitching, I wouldn’t be here if I were totally certain that there’s no good in any of it, that all game is categorically bernankified and assocked and otherwise of de debbil. Maybe there are good answers. But at the risk of sounding like a chick: it feels wrong.
unger, it shouldn’t feel wrong. I have no trouble with it. I have always suspected women work like that, and reading what men AND women say on blogs only confirms it, plus my own observations on my wife over 26 years. Yes, it depends on her mood. Yes, sometimes we are just like friends. But women want that edge. As someone said above, they may not want to be belted, but the idea of a man who might do it turns them on. I assume this is some trope from FSoG. I haven’t read it.
Look, my wife is a respectable matron now, but she once asked me, when we were courting, to take her somewhere private and smack her around.
Mate, that is what they are like …
@Anonymous,
So now you know better than I do what my words mean? Do you have any idea how arrogant that is?
I can’t let this boorishness stand. IT WAS NOT YOUR WORDS YOU TWIT. It was MINE. So yes **YOU** are telling me what MY words mean when I included a conditional phrase. Your inability to parse basic English in the rush to claim offense is monstrous. You insist on calling fault and not apologizing. I’ve pointed out how _MY WORDS_ should be read and you insist on claiming that _I_ am avoiding the subject at hand.
For instance, sure, I understand that women don’t want to be ‘pedestalized’, that they want to be taken down, made fun of, but I can’t understand why.
I suppose you have never met a dignified woman? That is very sad.
David: I know they’re like that; I’m just very uncomfortable with the notion that we’re supposed to indulge it, instead of…well…directing them and aiding them to restrain these destructive impulses, the way we do all others (or are supposed to, anyway).
Gabriella: Isn’t it?
Rock Throwing Peasant, I’m always puzzled when I hear stories like your’s. How could you be clueless that your wife was losing interest in you? Body language, avoidant behaviour, tuning out, seeming distracted when alone with you, these are all tell tale signs. Was she behaving normally? Affectionate? Loving? I just don’t understand how a spouse could be clueless.
unger
AR: That’s just it. I don’t know what the solution is, if any even exists in any timeframe any of us will see the end of. All I’ve got are questions and doubts.
You’re in the right place.
A lot’s colored by simple incredulity. For instance, sure, I understand that women don’t want to be ‘pedestalized’, that they want to be taken down, made fun of, but I can’t understand why. My dog unfailingly does what I tell her to do without having to be mistreated; if I give her a treat and tell her what a good dog she is, she likes it, and it never crosses her mind to get bored by it or decide I’m less of a master for it.
You need to read about fitness testing. I suggest Athol’s site, because even though he is an atheist unlike you, his discussion is strictly in the context of married men.
Your dog sees you as the pack leader. Dogs are simpler than women, obviously. As long as you are clearly the pack leader, your dog’s loyalty is permanent. Some dog breeds will also test humans for a while, Scottish and other terriers for example.
Or where my male friends and I are doing some task and I am directing, they don’t need to be negged or push-pulled or what have you into acknowledging my authority, and probably wouldn’t remain my friends if I tried that on them.
Repeat after me: men and women are not the same. One reason, in my own opinion, that many men are hesitant to apply Game is projection – if I negged another man in public, I might get into a fight.
Thus, when I hear that it’s totally different for a woman, my first thought is not ‘well, that’s natural’, but ‘what in God’s name is wrong with them?’ How can it be good to cater to that, even if it does work?
Nothing’s wrong with them, they just aren’t men. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking of women as “defective men”, they aren’t. Just as we aren’t “defective women”, no matter what feminists may say.
I don’t know. For all my bitching, I wouldn’t be here if I were totally certain that there’s no good in any of it, that all game is categorically bernankified and assocked and otherwise of de debbil. Maybe there are good answers. But at the risk of sounding like a chick: it feels wrong.
It could be that it “feels wrong” because somewhere in the back of your head, you are still carrying around the false premise of feminism, that men and women are exactly the same except women can have babies. You have to actively reject that idea over and over again before you stop thinking in those terms.
The first time a married man applies some Game technique like push-pull or negging on his wife, and it works, it can be like something out of a Harry Potter movie – it shouldn’t work, because it would not work on him…and that’s the point. “She” is not a “he”.
Don’t give up. Keep digging. Keep reading and thinking. You’ll be better off for it.
“Look, my wife is a respectable matron now, but she once asked me, when we were courting, to take her somewhere private and smack her around.
Mate, that is what they are like”
No. She’s was not psychologically balanced. There were some feelings of shame, guilt, remorse, self-doubt, for her to ask you to do that to her. She needed to feel corrected or redeemed over something, possibly what she perceived to be a flaw in her character. It could have even been from her childhood, like if she was a mean or selfish kid or something and the guilt had set in and she was looking for release.
This is why continuous self-reflection and self-correction is so important to teach our kids. If they don’t have a growing self-awareness in their youth, in adulthood they will seek out dysfunction as a sort of punishment and release for issues they never consciously dealt with.
No, sorry, Permaculture, that is the usual explanation. Not true. It turned her on. Another girl I was close to was the same. I won’t tell you what she did. Many men just never see it. And many women deny it. But why do you think FSoG is a hit? There are buckets of them on sale at the local supermarket, for ordinary housewives to buy. They get off on rough treatment, or stories of it in the absence of reality.
You are medicalising normal female behaviour.
asinusspinasmasticans wrote:
This added with the general view of men held by women that they are sub-human, which comes out in the fact that there are women who do not view men as human beings like them with thoughts, feelings, emotions, and hurts too, especially hurts caused by their sinful actions. Unfortunately, this attitude has taken hold from the false teaching of marriage regarding the example of Christ which the women take as license to whip men in every which way (by their direct actions, through Churchianity itself, and their tacit acceptance of the false teachings within the church and the treatment of men without), along with the expectation that they’re just to shut up and take it because it’s Christ’s example. Sadly, I see this attitude all too much lately, especially when men DO speak up.
Case in point is the moderator who closed comments on a post that I recently linked to, who took great personal offense at men even speaking up. One of her complaints was seeing single women being referred to as promiscuous in the church (i.e. “man up and marry the sluts”). If women are angry at being referred to that way, good, but they misplace it. If they are indeed not guilty of it themselves (the surveys I read say 80% of single Christians are promiscuous, meaning they have pre-marital sex by habit, so to characterize the average Christian single woman that way is not far off base), and are virgins then they need to be mad at their fellow women for sinning as they do and turning men off of looking at them objectively. With a particular sin, there is a communal guilt when it’s not admonished, and even more so accepted by the others. I’ve heard too many stories of Team Woman doing this, especially when it comes to disrespectful public treatment of their husbands along with frivolous divorce, to not believe that women don’t care about the sin in their ranks. Sadly, it’s very difficult to look on a single woman and think that she has been chaste, especially since the preponderance of the evidence says otherwise, and to ignore sin in women is literally to partake in vagina worship. And overall, vagina worship in Churchianity is the root cause of all of this.
@RTP
Voddie Baucham is perhaps the only person who holds a pastorate anywhere that I’ve heard who has done a sermon on marriage and men (and women both) that I can buy off on as Biblically accurate, as well as something men need to hear. Unfortunately, that’s saying something given how feminism has poisoned most of Churchianity so thoroughly.
David Collard wrote:
I really have to agree with this part, especially the fact that in courtship a man needs to test-drive a woman when it comes to marriage. The courtship is the apprenticeship part of it. If a woman can’t act like a wife should before you’re married, especially when the attempt is being made of putting her best foot forward, how can she when she’s not? If her true values are not made crystal clear and are not correct and consistent with yours, then she is not fit to marry. And he needs to make the relationship so she is a value-add to him, not the opposite. Being resolute as a man is key to this. But I do read in Elspeth posts the “if you just man-up and lead she’ll fall in line” argument, too, which has grown patently offensive. Scripture stresses the submission of the wife, not the leadership of the husband. This is because the flesh nature of women is to rebel against their husbands, no matter what. The word used Genesis 3:16 usually translated “rule” indicates this as well, which is probably better translated to “master”, indicating a non-agreeable rule from the woman. She can be just as resolute as him or more and will always win because she has Churchianity and the State on her side as tools to force her husband’s submission if she feels it necessary. After all, the current definitions of abuse allow her to do this. Some Guy explains the failure in this hypothesis perfectly.
Keoni Galt:
The evil we’re fighting is not the sin nature, it’s the same one that’s always plagued the Church from the very beginning. Tradition. Men generally accept things as they are presented without checking them out, and after they hear them a while they do not question them and even search the Scriptures to justify themselves in what they have done. Feminism has been quite successful in implanting their own traditions into the Church in the last 50-100 years or so. When it’s gotten to this point of Scriptural justification, they aggressively defend these traditions as Scriptural and can not move past them without a “come to Jesus” moment involving judgment of some kind. (Jesus preached against this in Matthew 15:3-9)
Anonymous Reader:
Indeed. From what I’ve seen, there really wouldn’t be that many rules necessary in order to produce something that would GBFM butthex any text entered into it. My thought is that Eliza is much more complex than what is required to do that.
PF- Very true.
If you actually *want* to be humiliated then you have issues you haven’t worked through.
If you just like a bit of dominance and are not particularly sensitive to light-hearted negs then you are probably just a normal female.
When I am humiliated I react the way anyone does- Get angry and fight back or get upset and leave the situation. I’ve cried over relatively minor insults to my dignity. I’ve cut people out of my life for behavior I felt was mean-spirited.
I worry that men will go to an extreme in thinking of women as “the other” and start to assume all kinds of things about us that are blatantly not true most of the time.
Yes, men and women are different but we are not total opposites. There is some overlap!
Calibrate calibrate calibrate.
If I judged my husband by what the men in the manosphere say they like he would have dumped me by now.
I know this falls on deaf ears to all the commenters but I hope those who are lurking will seriously consider their wives distinct personalities before they try something extreme like smacking them or calling them a dirty slut based on the idea that women like to be humiliated. You could end up doing some serious relationship damage.
AR: I know women aren’t defective men – but I also know they’re all defective women. You really think they were this way before the Fall? That if it hadn’t happened, DC’s wife would still want to be smacked around, and FSoG would be the biggest non-governmental waste of paper and ink in the world, etc., etc.? DC’s comment above suggests that PF is ‘medicalising normal female behavior’, and that’s probably quite true, so far as PF’s remark in question was concerned, but generally speaking, in a fallen world, does the normality of an inclination automatically imply its healthiness? And if not…?
That’s why I can’t quickly dismiss the sense that it’s wrong, or at least, that it’s not the way things were really intended to be. If our impulses – men’s, I mean – are fallen, such that each day we must struggle to consciously suppress them, to willfully seek the goods we by our fallen natures would rather not, and avoid the poisons we would rather have, what of women? They fell as well. And since men and women are different, does it not stand to reason that the particular effects of the fall would be different for each?
And maybe it is necessary, something like putting on a tourniquet, sacrificing a limb to keep the patient from bleeding out. It’s just not the conclusion I’d leap to first.
Where the hell did smacking or calling your wife a slut every get brought up?
I don’t ever recall seeing that on this blog.
‘Playful domination’ is the best way to describe what people advocate. Ya know, it’s like a ‘game’. 😉
Unger-
I think you might be going to kind of an extreme here that might not be necessary. DC’s wife is not typical. I imagine that DC attracts highly submissive women because he is highly dominant. Selection-bias.
I can relate to the frustration over the “red pill” because I didn’t particularly like learning that I had to be a domesticated porn-star to keep my husband faithful.
Gabriella, I am not highly dominant. Most women are like this with the right man. If they are not, why are ordinary women reading FSoG in such huge numbers? People read what they find enjoyable and exciting.
That incident only happened once, and I did not fulfill her fantasies on that occasion, but in my experience with two fiancees they both liked some quite high level dominance. That sort of thing turns women on, especially young women.
I have never called a woman a dirty slut. I don’t know where that came from.
I don’t plan to read FSoG, but I am pretty sure I could guess the content, from what women fantasise about.
Gabriella: I wish I could still believe it weren’t typical. Sure, it might not be that a majority of women really want the full Rihanna treatment, or the credible threat of it, but A: at the very least, a whole lot of them do, judging by the success of FSoG, and B: a whole lot more – and I do think an overwhelming majority – want something of it, or not far from it. The laments ‘He treats her like shit!’ and ‘Why does she stay with such a jerk?’ are far too common, not just here and now, but for as long as people the whole world over have been writing about boys and girls, for it not to be so. I’m afraid I don’t take the slightest issue with the Red Pill wisdom about what women find attractive; my only difficulty is what the response to it should (or has to) be.
The Red Pill applications at least for Dalrock’s blog relates to men having a tool to keep their wife attracted to them. The main issues around here are that women don’t want the beta men that have been emasculated by the church which is actually kind of understandable and that Christian men let themselves be betaized to such a degree that wife’s divorce them.
About keeping husband’s faithful. That usually applies most to natural alphas. Alphas are the ones that have options with women and are much more likely to cheat. Most men that comment here are in the beta range at least in mentality that have broken social conditioning to emulate alpha behavior (‘Game’) so they actually have a decent shot to have succesful interactions with women.
Almost all of the PUAs that have blogs are betas that became alphas through studying seduction techinques. PUAs in general are not even interested in marriage and really just want to have a series of relationships with women. You can’t be faithful to something you never were committed. Interesting enought though, PUAs have moralistic lament on the current conditions of sexual interaction between mea and women in the US. I think mainly this is because they have seen it all and know at it’s core things in society as a general have gotten really bad.
If you read Roosh and Roissy, they make references that the SMP is a cesspool while at the same time taking advantage of it. You can tell that they wish that it weren’t so but accept it for what it is.
Dominance does not require humiliation.
I know the men are going to listen to you over me I just pray they don’t do something that gets them landed in jail because you convinced them that all women are exactly like your wife.
Rape fantasies are nothing like actual rape. In your fantasy you have an escape hatch but in real life you don’t. Being completely powerless in real life is TERRIFYING and routinely leaves people with PTSD. In fantasy and in most relationships there is always a sense that you can stop it when it goes too far. That is why FSoG does not speak to the real life desires of most women. Women want the *illusion* of powerlessness.
Permaculture Farmaceuticals says…The Christians I’ve had contact with don’t think like you people here. Most of them value intact families and there is very little separation. They are outliers?
We ALL value intact families, no divorce, etc. The Christians here do, anyway – (Not everyone in the manosphere is Christian.) We all want what those families have. But modern society, modern churches, and modern “Christian” women make it very, very hard to attain. So yes, the families you know, are indeed statistical outliers…. but they SHOULDN”T be. I know the type of families you are talking about, and they ought to be the norm. But they are not.
The Christian men you encounter on the manosphere, are those who earnestly sought out that path, and got severely burned. Broadly speaking, there are 3 groups.
A. Decent honorable nice guys who want to marry but are consistenly rejected and treated like DIRT by the Christian women they try to pursue, for no clearly identifiable reason.
B. Men who were once married and perhaps had kids, but lost everything in an unjustified divorce (which they usually did NOT see coming at all; men are genetically less able to read subtle cues, and often are honestly shocked when they are served papers.)
and
C. Those, like me, who have happy family lives NOW… but…. have a long stretch of A… or an episode of B…. at some point in their past. (I spent all my 20s and most of my 30’s in category A).
In short, they are guys who want that Christian family life you observe, but who’ve had a terrible time either achieving it or holding onto it.
Gabriella, she asked me, once. She was young and probably ovulating.
What I am saying is that this is within a woman’s behavioural repertoire.
I don’t believe women want the illusion of helplessness. They want the real thing with a man they respect.
As for your remarks about other men, they are big boys and can make their own judgements.
Anything I have done has always involved consent. And nobody forces women to buy FSoG.
PS… “In short, they are guys who want that Christian family life you observe, but who’ve had a terrible time either achieving it or holding onto it.”….
I should add: “….. through no discernable fault of their own.”
Their fault, van R, was probably, in many cases, trying too hard to be a nice guy.
In the “bad old days” when wives respected their husbands, none of this was a problem. I have said it before, and I mean it quite seriously, a man who wants to be a successful husband should read all the articles and books on modern marriage he can, study them carefully, underline the passages expressing the most modern and contemporary thinking – and then throw it all in the bin and do the opposite.
Their fault, van R, was probably, in many cases, trying too hard to be a nice guy
I didn’t have to work at being nice. It came quite naturally, it’s my default preference til I’m pushed to the absolute wall. (And at 6’3″/250, I find few people want to push me to that limit!)
And since when is treating people well, considered a “fault” anyway?
a man who wants to be a successful husband should read all the articles and books on modern marriage he can, study them carefully, underline the passages expressing the most modern and contemporary thinking – and then throw it all in the bin and do the opposite.
Right on target. Using most current relationship literature, and expecting it to produce a good marriage, is like reading The Screwtape Letters as a guide to being a good Christian!
(for those who don’t know, The Screwtape Letters is a novel by CS Lewis that takes the form of letters between two demons as they try to corrupt a man…)
trying to close italic tag
didn’t work
van Rooinek, I think Screwtape has turned all the words here to italics.
I am a naturally nice bloke myself. Most people seem to think so anyway. Perhaps I just grew up in a time and place that was more positive about the masculine role.
I always thought that what Christians needed was Faith: Faith Hope and Charity rather than Faith Hope and Game, was what St Paul wrote, unless I am mistaken. oh a 😉
The white-knighting useful idiots of Cracked are at it again:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-unhealthy-mentalities-internet-turned-into-movements/
It’s hilarious how Cracked seeks to attract readers who thing outside the box, reject the bullshit of the mainstream media etc. and then pander to the gynocentric, misandrist impulses of average women and manginas by posting crap like this.
If you’re interested, here is some brutally honest feminist ideas about the Bible. Just pray and don’t eat before reading because there is no love here.
Feminist Bible
Being nice and empathetic is normal for a man. To behave other wise is normal for a true alpha and a thug. A PUA is a normally nice man that has trained himself to turn that off to be sexually attractive to a modern feminised woman. That alone will cause any man to be completely disgusted with women. Infact the whole idea is terrifying as can be seen by all of the denial in every area of society. Women are now artificially granted virtue by everything from the pussy discount in crimminal law,the laws of misandry applied to all man female interaction all the way through to a right to kill an unborn child.
This article and topic itself is men discussing a way to make a marriage a feral woman (typical today) would want. Another lie but this time the man is aware of it. The way I see it “game” in a marriage is something a married man that has picked up the red pill has to use to survive. To go into a marriage with the intent of having game as a shield against the laws of misandry is just foolish and just another cruel way to condem another man to the meat grinder for those pro marriage types.
@ DC and van Roonik
I think Gabriella turned all comments below comment #50389 into italics by placing a forward slash after an italics tag. So if Dalrock could edit the post for formatting purposes that should fix the remainder of the comments.
I think DC is a fairly typical older Australian man, not Mr Uber-Dominant. People are exaggerating the ‘smacking around’ and going to the extremes of Chris Brown and Rihanna. This is not what DC is talking about and “women like his wife” are the vast majority of women.
@ Gabriella
It is not ‘humiliation’ nor undignified to the extent that there is trust that it will not be taken too far. It can appear quite severe without being injurious. Why on earth would you cry over a “slight insult” to your “dignity”? How is that not a sign of insecurity? You are projecting.
Rock Throwing Peasant, I’m always puzzled when I hear stories like your’s. How could you be clueless that your wife was losing interest in you? Body language, avoidant behaviour, tuning out, seeming distracted when alone with you, these are all tell tale signs. Was she behaving normally? Affectionate? Loving? I just don’t understand how a spouse could be clueless.
I wasn’t clueless, though thanks for the slam.
As I said, when I saw my wife slipping away, I did the usual “Church-approved” (i.e. “Fireproof”) work and found not only didn’t it help. It made things worse.
Clueless. What an obnoxious word to use, repeatedly (it was no accident).
@Gabriella
Husbands especially need to be careful how they implement game. Ideally they can start by passing obvious shit tests and stop doing the worst beta actions they have been taught by the nonsense in the quotes in the OP. If their wife isn’t in full rebellion this will do wonders and leave them both much happier. If she is in full rebellion it is much riskier, but it is still generally the right place to start. And calibration to the specific woman is crucial. I’m not aware of anyone here suggesting that husbands smack their wives, humiliate them, or call them dirty sluts.
Assuming the woman didn’t “settle” when she married but was actually attracted to her husband in the first place, this is an advantage to the husband implementing game. Her preference hopefully isn’t far from where his own comfort level of alpha is. You are worried that the average man reading about game will morph into a Roissy. What you don’t see is that the average man reading about game is saying to himself “This is terrible. I could never morph into a Roissy. That would be exhausting.” Some men are cruel and abusive by nature (dark triad). They are a minority and they don’t really need to learn game, it comes fairly naturally to them. These are men women need to avoid marrying even though they will find them sexually attractive. This is part of her duty to her future children, to select their father well. I’m not lumping DC into this group. I agree with you that he is more naturally alpha than many, but he is also loyal to his wife and very much concerned about her wellbeing. But part of his concern for her wellbeing has been to note how much alpha she needs (by calibrating to her actual responses, not what she says she would want).
@Permaculture Farmaceuticals
I see that RTP has already responded to this, but I wanted to respond to it as well. Men do notice when their wives are losing attraction. The problem is what they are taught to remedy the problem is the exact opposite of what generates attraction. This is why Shiela’s quote in the OP is so dangerous:
Again, this is pure nonsense, but you will see it everywhere. The same goes for the husband and wife article I quoted and linked to. It teaches husbands to do the exact opposite of what will make him attractive to her.
Your attitude is extremely cruel. Men are being taught the wrong thing and you come back with an “everyone knows” kind of attitude. From your exchange with DC above I’m sensing you don’t understand it yourself.
I want to make a few things clear. I have never been a “player”. Most people find me polite and easygoing. My wife and I are pretty happy after many years together.
Perhaps I shouldn’t have been so frank, but what I wrote is true. It was weird, but I doubt it was really that unusual. Another woman was a bit the same with me. I think it is just the way that women are. If we have learned one thing in recent years, it is that people are pretty strange behind closed doors. We all have been educated about how creepy ordinary men are. We are now starting to learn the same about women (FSoG).
My then girlfriend did once ask me to smack her around. Once. But more usually she has just enjoyed a spanking. Many wives do.
Are my attitudes due to being an older Australian man? Maybe. Or am I more alpha than some? Maybe. I suspect I am just honest enough to present the picture as I see it, “warts and all”.
I never thought of myself as “alpha” until I started getting reactions to my comments on Manosphere blogs. For example, it feels natural for me to tell my wife to wear skirts, not pants, but that simple remark garnered incredibly negative comments even on The Spearhead, and feminists are still bitching about it on their funny little blogs. This mystifies me. When did men lose their confidence with women?
Here is what the blue pill world always teaches men and what to do when a woman is losing attraction for him:
1. You are not being nice enough to her. Be nicer and she will be attracted to you.
2. She is not getting what she wants. You must give her what she wants when she wants it.
3. She is unhappy or dissatisfied. It is your job to make her happy and satisfy her.
4. She has an unsatisfying sex life with you. You must make her orgasm every time you have sex.
5. She is stressed out with work and housework. You are not helping her enough. You must take up the slack with childcare and housework.
Here is what is really going on:
1. she is not attracted to you and just plain isn’t into you. This can be fixed, but will take a lot of time and effort.
2. She never loved you or doesn’t really love you. Problems like that really are intractable and probably cannot be fixed.
3. You are not standing up for yourself enough.
4. You are not telling her what you want in the bedroom and you are not dominant enough in your sex life. You are far too concerned with her satisfaction and not nearly concerned enough with directing your sex life with her.
5. You are far too concerned with her happiness and not nearly concerned enough with charting out your life and having her follow you.
6. You let her feelings control the direction of your marriage.
Dalrock- My concern was when someone said “women like to be humiliated”..full stop. Now I know that while I like dominance I despise humiliation and the few times I have felt humiliated I felt betrayed. I can’t imagine I am a special snowflake in this regard even if I am in a minority.
I think you are probably right that most the commenters here are in no danger of over-doing the alpha but at the off chance that someone decides to pick up FSoG and try it out I wanted to chime in with a caution. I don’t want anyone going to jail because they thought that silly book depicted the real life desires of all women.
@David Collard
You don’t come across as excessively alpha. I do think that you are a bit more alpha than the average man, but I have no question your wife wouldn’t have it any other way. That is funny the amount of heat you have taken over telling your wife to wear skirts. My guess is most if not all of the outrage is misplaced jealousy by the feminists in question. They should be so lucky to have a husband who could stand up to them and who would posses them. They are trapped in a hell of their own creation.
Yes to what deti wrote.
@Gabriella
I can’t find the comment you are referring to even with a word search. Was this on another thread?
At any rate, I don’t think humiliation is the intended result of even the most dark game. Alphas can get away with a great deal, things which if a more beta man tried them would leave the woman feeling… humiliated. What I’m suggesting isn’t dark game anyway.
I agree that men need to be very careful. Just because Roissy can get away with something doesn’t mean the man reading Roissy can (or should want to). FSoG is probably worse because it is fiction written by a woman. Only a fool would use it as a guide to game (married or otherwise).
It can be an interesting experiment to try. Try being a little bit more assertive with a woman in your life, even just a woman serving in a shop. Nothing too aggressive. Just a teensy bit more assertive than usual. Then see what happens. The results can be surprisingly positive. They have surprised me.
@Opus
I always thought that what Christians needed was Faith: Faith Hope and Charity rather than Faith Hope and Game, was what St Paul wrote, unless I am mistaken. oh a 😉
1 Corinthians 13:13
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
If you are referring to this passage, it also doesn’t mention engineering, mathematics, and physics. This seems to be a reoccurring theme, “game” is not a destination but a tool. A tool can be used for a useful purpose or a destructive purpose.
Blue Pill Marriage Counselling: You want to talk about sex and she wants to talk about housework. Well… this relationship is clearly not at a point where we can deal with sex issues… so lets focus on the issues and assumptions surrounding the division of labor. But first… let’s work on our communication skills, shall we? [Wife uses new skills to precisely articulate her contempt for her husband. Husband reacts negatively at this utterly brazen rejection of her vows.] Actually… it looks like we mainly need to the husband’s anger issues before we address anything else. Shall we schedule an individual session for that then??
Christian Marriage Counselling: When your wife comes at you spoiling for a fight, you gotta do what Jesus did… which is die. You can’t have much of an argument with a dead guy…!
Unger 9:38 which led to people saying that FSoG was indicative of a woman’s true desires.
I’m not the least bit offended by requests that I wear something. What I don’t like is anything that feels like my humanity is being disregarded which would include name-calling, public groping, extreme condescension, belittling my ideas, laughing at me when I am dead serious, asking me to do something for the specific purpose of making me look stupid so you can laugh at me, etc.
That is funny the amount of heat you have taken over telling your wife to wear skirts. My guess is most if not all of the outrage is misplaced jealousy by the feminists in question. They should be so lucky to have a husband who could stand up to them and who would posses them. They are trapped in a hell of their own creation.
Choosing my own clothes is such hell. Invisible forces beyond my control compel me to present myself in mannish trousers, and it’s so difficult to resist. My husband is indifferent to my silent distress, oblivious to my secret longing to have him just order me what to wear and remove this difficult burden of choosing clothes from my frail shoulders. If he can’t put his foot down on the skirts-vs.-trousers issue, how can I ever hope for him to tell me what cereal to eat in the morning, whether I should take a shower or a bath, or when to check the mail? It’s pure hell, I tell you, having to figure out all these complicated things for myself! Why doesn’t he care about me? If only he would give me orders about random aspects of my life as if I were a litte girl who literally doesn’t know how to dress herself, I would feel so safe and loved, instead of scared and alone in the world!!!!
I’m starting to think the emphasis on ‘alpha’ is overblown. There are alpha qualities that are good to have, but one shouldn’t expect everyman to be a bona fide alpha male – by definition this is impossible.
It used to be that men were respected, the average man was not an emasculated sissy to begin with, and what is termed ‘beta’ was simply a normal man who was respected in his home. This ‘upper beta’ as some have termed him, is a good husband and a decent guy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this and if women are taught to have some respect, or led that way might be a better way of putting it, then there is less need for a caricature of alpha behaviour.
An ‘upper beta’ has some masculine dominance that is usually associated with alpha. He has the mix of both alpha and beta as Athol Kay advocates. An ‘upper beta’ can be a solid oak tree when her emotional storms occur and he can act a bit more alpha at times when she needs that (not to serve her necessarily but to manage her for her own good).
Maybe I am being a bit idealistic, but if both men and women could understand the hierarchy in marriage, things could be a lot simpler. It’s kind of frustrating trying to get this point across.
@Doomed Harlot — You don’t need a husband to tell you what dress to wear. You need a husband to tell you to keep it on when you are around other men.
Dalrock:
I think i’ve changed my mind about Doomed Harlot. She’s peeing on the carpet, crapping in the backyard, and always clawing at the door, wanting to be let out.
Can we take her back to the pound?
DH, I am really sorry that your husband isn’t doing the things he should be. Please allow me to help. Perhaps I shall make a suitable surrogate.
“If he can’t put his foot down on the skirts-vs.-trousers issue, how can I ever hope for him to tell me what cereal to eat in the morning, whether I should take a shower or a bath, or when to check the mail?”
Skirts vs trousers – skirts. Especially on windy days. I demand photographs to verify that you have complied.
What cereal – everyone is different and has different needs. For example, I had three bowls of raisin bran for medicinal reasons. God save us all. For you, let’s go with one bowl of Captain Crunch and see where it takes you. If you gain too much weight you might have to scale back to corn flakes or cheerios.
Showers for speed baths for comfort. Bath salts are nice and tingly, since that is what women want, just don’t snort them. Biting faces off will not help you make friends and influence people.
Check mail – Only do so if you must. Most of it is junk with some bills thrown in just to keep you on your feet.
(Don’t worry Deti, a pet is a lot of work, but I am here to help.)
Some Guy says: @Doomed Harlot — You don’t need a husband to tell you what dress to wear. You need a husband to tell you to keep it on when you are around other men.
The problem is, he tells her the opposite. She has plainly stated, he gets a kick out of her affairs. Given that…
“Who will not judge him worthy to be robbed,
That sets his doors wide open to a thief,
And shows the felon, where his treasure lies?”
Here’s a possible explanation… parasite manipulation of sexual behavoir:
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2011/05/demon-within.html
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2011/05/demon-within-part-ii.html
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2011/05/demon-within-part-iii.html
@Doomed Harlot
If you hadn’t recently disclosed (entirely unprompted) that your husband has a cuckold fetish, your attempt to ridicule women who want some dominance from their husbands might have had more persuasive power. As it is, it comes off as another plea for attention. Either way, I’m happy to let my readers decide which path is more natural and healthy. Those women who insist on dominating their husbands risk ending up with the very arrangement you now claim to enjoy so much.
DH
needs a good spanking followed by multiple rolling orgasms from vigorous intercourse. Or as deti put maybe taken back to the pound.
@Balista,
The evil we’re fighting is not the sin nature, it’s the same one that’s always plagued the Church from the very beginning. Tradition. Men generally accept things as they are presented without checking them out, and after they hear them a while they do not question them and even search the Scriptures to justify themselves in what they have done.
Tradition is not the enemy here at all. Tradition says all of the things you say. For the atheists all they ever needed to know about women can be found in “The Odyssey”. Feminism is a rejection of every tradition. By rejected tradition carte blanche we fall into the same trap. What society, what tradition of man or God, has proposed what feminism has? It is new in so many ways.
@VanR,
modern “Christian” women make it very, very hard to attain.
I’d argue that some of those women that go batty and make it hard to attain actually also want a good family. They are so divorced of the knowledge of their nature that they are incapable of attaining their goal. I had an aunt that looking back was a good gal in general but hyper-hypergamous (the uncle she divorced I’d argue was pretty close to Adonis in a bar if much more beta at home). She’s settled down for good now post-wall but I don’t think she wanted (in the logical sense) the first divorce. She and my uncle were both crippled by pop culture.
Right on target. Using most current relationship literature, and expecting it to produce a good marriage, is like reading The Screwtape Letters as a guide to being a good Christian!
Very nice. I’d also say that being nice has become harder for everyone. In a society where there is an assumption of “dignitas” for men in a marriage they _can_ be more nice. The current culture though makes nice a weakness that erodes marriage.
@Dalrock,
Men do notice when their wives are losing attraction. The problem is what they are taught to remedy the problem is the exact opposite of what generates attraction.
Quite right. I also think as I get older we are by far the truer “romantic” sex. Most of the worlds really good romantic poetry is written by men. Quite a bit of the really bad porn starting in at least in medieval Japan is written by women. I think both sides appreciate the work of the other to some level but when we go romantic we’re acting in a masculine way that is only interesting to women in _very_ small doses. Where this works for us is where, as has happened with some poets, the poetry that we generally write is redirected to laud God.
@David C,
It can be an interesting experiment to try. Try being a little bit more assertive with a woman in your life, even just a woman serving in a shop. Nothing too aggressive. Just a teensy bit more assertive than usual. Then see what happens. The results can be surprisingly positive. They have surprised me.
The _opposite_ can also be revealing. A few years ago I was ordered by a director I respected to apologize for a non-error to a woman manager I’d been in a tussle with. The woman was in hind-sight _extremely_ hypergamous. My gut said that an apology would be feeding the lion but men are by nature hierarchical so I followed the orders.
HUGE mistake. She smelled weakness and that was the end of me. I have since resolved to never apologize to a woman at work ever. Ever. Not once. Not even if I burned her house down. If I feel real guilt I’ll try to work it out via action but not words.
@CL,
Maybe I am being a bit idealistic, but if both men and women could understand the hierarchy in marriage, things could be a lot simpler. It’s kind of frustrating trying to get this point across.
I don’t think so. If this wasn’t true civilization would have collapsed. The problem is the methods of even mild enforcement for the beta’s is gone. This allows for a feeding frenzy for the alpha’s. And, as much as Dalrock seems interested in ignoring them entirely, historically in Christian societies dark alphas got chopped off at the knees and stuck with one of their one night stands by the mass of “upper betas” (you wanted her, congrats, you got her!). We will have to drift back to this model because feral behavior will ultimately destroy women and alphas for all of their proposed virility aren’t endless fonts.
DH needs to find the Lord. But it will be a real sacrifice for her… as she has stated, her husband has been impotent due to an injury, since before they met. Thus, through no fault of his own, he’s NEVER been able to get the job done au naturel. Presumably they’ve done *other things* together throughout their marriage, but there’s no substitute for the real deal.
So if she becomes a Christian, and gives up the cuckolding games, that means she gets no more real f****ing… ever… That’s a hard thing to ask of someone. Necessary… Biblically required… but hard. Sort of like telling a person with a homosexual disorder, that if they become Christians, their sex life is permanently over. True, necessary,… but hard.
I guess you could say, that theologically, DH is “between a cock and a hard place”, LOL.
In the RCC if you can’t consummate your marriage then your marriage is invalid and you can get an annulment.
“That’s a hard thing to ask of someone.”
Yep. It’s hard to explain that to a slut or a homosexual. Heck, I don’t even know what people are telling teenagers with raging hormones.
But for a husband that has been permanently sent to the doghouse/couch and is pretty much facing “no sex… evar!” there is no sympathy, no breast beating, no attempt to soften the blow. I know the wife (as Dalrock has pointed out) would *really* want to see a man cheat in that situation. But I sometimes wonder if the church really wants that, too. We’d all suddenly have a script to follow… and everything would fit the accepted narrative again.
@Van & Gab,
I’d actually agree that if this is true it constitutes a “defect in from” and could invalidate the marriage. Sex is important and purposefully thwarting it is wrong and disordered. However, I do believe that _knowledge_ of this before hand would make divorce impossible even in the Catholic Church. I _believe_ it would have to have been hidden with malice from the other partner (that is old people can still get married).
@GKC
It isn’t just that beta men have been cut off at the knees (although as you know I agree there). There is far more to the problem which I haven’t seen you acknowledge. The moment a woman decides she is going to delay marriage she is making a lifestyle choice. A very small percentage of these women do so with the true desire to remain completely pure*. The rest hide under the cover of pretending to be such a woman, or flaunt their intentions outright. You frame it as if the PUAs are seducing innocent women, but in our current culture this is all but impossible. Focusing on Roissy, etc is a waste of energy, and it is especially problematic because it feeds into the pathology of modern Christians. It feeds into circling the wagons and back slapping. You’ve seen this multiple times now since you have been on this blog, right? I’ll do some more posts on this if you think I haven’t made this case yet. When I pointed out the problem with the ever older age women married, Darwin Catholic brushed it away and even made snide references to the Taliban (something about young marriage not being feasible unless you wear white robes and carry an AK 47). Christians have massive guilt in this and need to repent, but blaming the cad is easy and allows those who do to pretend they are morally superior. I hold Christians to a higher standard, which is exactly what you are complaining about.
*Even here I would argue that most of them choose to delay marriage to avoid submitting to a husband. They are pursuing the feminist dream, and making it very clear that feminism is more important to them than being a wife. So be it, but don’t pretend they are innocent victims of modern day Don Juans. It is much kinder to young women to be honest about the role their own choices play in this. A young woman can easily avoid the Roissy’s of the world. He and the rest of the PUA sphere aren’t promising marriage. They generally aren’t even promising a “relationship”, and even there it wouldn’t change what the woman was engaging in.
Physical capacity for consummation lacking [15]. Per Canon 1084 §3 “Without prejudice to the provisions of Canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.” Both parties, however, must be physically capable of completed vaginal intercourse, wherein the man ejaculates “true semen” into the woman’s vagina. (See [2] for details.) To invalidate a marriage, the impotence must be perpetual (i.e., incurable) and antecedent to the marriage. The impotence can either be absolute or relative. This impediment is generally considered to derive from divine natural law, and so cannot be dispensed.[16] The reason behind this impediment is explained in the Summa Theologica:[17] “In marriage there is a contract whereby one is bound to pay the other the marital debt: wherefore just as in other contracts, the bond is unfitting if a person bind himself to what he cannot give or do, so the marriage contract is unfitting, if it be made by one who cannot pay the marital debt.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment
No semen in vagina= no marriage
It is essentially the same as homosexual “marriage”…it is invalid because semen+vagina is impossible.
I think everyone here agrees on what female nature is. The disagreement focuses on how to deal with it. For my part, I refuse to apply “game” because it signifies catering to what women want. A healthy, Christian society does not bend knee to prehistoric impulses — it ostracizes people who fail to resist them. And it strikes me as highly contradictory to assert on the one hand that men must take charge, but on the other hand that men must perpetually excite and please women or risk being mistreated and rejected. The church of “game” represents abject surrender and submission to matriarchy. I will be who I am. If I make a vow of fidelity, I will keep it and fully expect my wife to do the same. If she does not, she is filth and I will turn my back on her forever. If modern society is so thoroughly degraded that it refuses to uphold and enforce what is righteous, that is society’s problem rather than mine.
Alright. Honestly I don’t think I need to defend my spiritual beliefs, nor do I have any problem reconciling them with what I advocate, but let me begin by stating I am not a Christian in the sense that I ascribe to the constriction of an evangeical doctrine, but I am a Christ-Follower. I also understand that to be human is to be imperfect. Since we’re citing biblical verses let me pull out one that’s important to me:
“I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” – Matthew 5:28
Let me tell you how I interpret this scripture; what Jesus is showing (men in particular) is that no matter what you do you can not help but be sinful – it’s literally how we’re made to be. If the mere thought of tapping that beautiful ass is enough to earn you an enternity in hell, we’re pretty much fucked on whole. Now we can argue the semantics of what is defined as “lust” to the same degree that we can debate what constitutes “sexual immorality”, but that’s not the point. The point is that we endure a constant struggle with our biology, and the parts of that raw animalism that we have difficulty embracing is generally what we call sin. Biology trumps conviction in everyone, (because it’s inherent in our state of being) no matter how pious they appear; in fact the pious usually are the worst offenders of their own conviction. Personally, I believe Jesus said this to illustrate to us how screwed we all really are without faith in salvation.
So does that make Rollo Tomassi a hypocrite? You bet it does. It makes me a hypocrite, you a hypocrite and everyone else on planet earth a hypocrite who’s ever said one thing and done another. Our behaviors make liars of us all. My difference is I’m able to accept that, and embrace it. I’ve always stated, since day one on Sosuave, I advocate what I do not because I got it all right, but because I got it all wrong.
Damn right, I tapped a LOT of ass in my 20’s and I enjoyed all of it. Am I a hypocrite for this? I’ve been the worst of AFCs in my time as well, does that make what I write incorrect or irrational? You see, I don’t believe that one sin is worse than another; sex out of wedlock, homosexuality, and lying on your resume are equally as damning as murder, pride, avarice, and taking the Lord’s name in vain (which I’ve done a lot more times than chicks I’ve banged). I also understand that while the wages of sin is death, experiencing sin is the only way to learn certain things. Sin has an educational value that can only be learned by sinning. In the Bible King David had a man killed so he could tap his wife, and yet this is the bloodline from which God chose to have Jesus descend. And lets not even get started with Tamar.
I would challenge anyone to sift through my blog and look for any instance in which I advocate a guy going out and fucking as many women as humanly possible. I have stated on many occasions that it’s a man’s biological imperative to do so, but I’ve never implicitly said get as much ass as you can. To be sure, I’ve gone into detail about how it is in a man’s best interest to maintain as many option available to him as possible and to remain non-exclusive for as long as he can, but even in Plate Theory I explicitly advocate this in order to stay in a position of chosing – as the PRIZE – to reserve the freedom to become a better man in many ways, not exclusively sexual. If you want to see this in a Biblical perspective, then call it encouraging a man to be what God intended him to be – a Man.
In fact here’s a few other good verses I hold dear:
The prostitute reduces you to a loaf of bread, and the adulteress preys upon your very life. – Proverbs 6:26
A foolish son is his father’s ruin, and a quarrelsome wife is like a constant dripping. Proverbs 9:13
Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife. Proverbs 21:9
A quarrelsome wife is like a constant dripping on a rainy day Proverbs 27:15
The intent of my blog isn’t one of advocating to go out and get whatever you can because there is no tomorrow, but rather to prepare Men to be able to have the wisdom, confidence and prowess to make intelligent, informed decisions based on facts and sound judgement, all in an effort to avoid a lifetime of regretting life changing ones. Most times this involves experience in order to understand it. I think it’s naive and foolish to think that our convictions are stronger than our biology and circumstances, yet our determination and freewill make for excellent buffers against it. Being a chirst-follower (or christian if you prefer) doesn’t excuse you from thinking critically. In fact, if anything, I would say that having spiritual beliefs would necessitate more caution and critical thinking.
I don’t see a disconnect in being Game-aware (and disabusing oneself of childish idealization like the soulmate myth of the ONE) and having a firm belief in God. To be human is to be imperfect – remember, perfect is boring.
When I pointed out the problem with the ever older age women married, Darwin Catholic brushed it away and even made snide references to the Taliban (something about young marriage not being feasible unless you wear white robes and carry an AK 47).
I’m perfectly prepared to buy white robes and AK-47s for my 3 boys, if that’s what it takes to get them married before 20. Being involuntarily single til well past 30, really sucked for me, and I’ll do almost anything to spare my sons that fate. Allah-h akbar! /sarcasm>
It’s not so much what they want as what they need. I’m sure most women would tell you they want a White Knight who pedestalizes them. And they do want that, to some extent, and may even marry a guy like that. But those things don’t turn them on, so they’ll find themselves unsatisfied. What they really want (or need) is a dominant guy who becomes so devoted to them that he develops some White Knight tendencies (without losing his dominance).
I like to use the example of John Cusack holding the boom box over his head in the rain in the movie Say Anything, which made women of my generation weak in the knees. Men watched that and said, “Ah, so I should make a big emotional display of my devotion. Got it.” They went out and did that to the girls they liked and got rejected left and right. What they missed was that the girl in the movie already loved the guy, and was denying it over some plot contrivance. He wasn’t doing it to win her; he had already done that. This was a one-time gesture, what game theorists might call “vulnerability game.” So when a woman says, “I’d love to have a man do that for me,” whether “that” is the laundry or a crying apology, what she really means is, “I’ve love to have a man who makes me tingle do that for me. And now and then on a special occasion, not all the time.”
Just last night I talked to a friend whose daughter and son-in-law are having problems in their 20-year marriage. Her complaint is that he doesn’t help out enough and doesn’t communicate. But she didn’t really have any specifics; certainly nothing worth throwing away two decades and splitting kids from their father over. Just general unhaaaaappiness. They talked, and apparently he agreed to try to do better, which she’ll appreciate on a conscious level — anyone appreciates a night off from doing the dishes — but unconsciously she’ll find herself becoming even less satisfied, withou knowing why. Odds are she’ll withhold sex or otherwise find ways to dissatisfy him until he backs off on the helpfulness or becomes “emotionally abusive” and she piles up enough reasons to justify leaving. The relationship is doomed as long as he lets her set the frame that way.
That doesn’t mean he needs to go over the edge the other way and start giving her black eyes. But he would be better off if he took a stand and scared her just a little, gave her the feeling that maybe there’s a side of him she doesn’t have figured out after all. That might not work either, but it has a better chance than ramping up the supplication.
This implies that you’re able to comprehend 98% of what he writes, which I find unlikely. I stopped reading the comments at Roissy’s when they got overly cluttered with lolzz, and I nearly gave up on this thread for the same reason, which would have been a shame. I don’t read comments from people who don’t bother to capitalize and punctuate, so I’m hardly going to try to decipher someone’s personal version of Pig Latin. I’ll never understand that: if you have a thought that’s worth typing and posting, why do it in a way that encourages people to skip it? Don’t you want people to read it?
I concur with probably 98% of the things GBFM writes about.
This implies that you’re able to comprehend 98% of what he writes, which I find unlikely
lolzolozlzozlzozl !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Time to break my peace.
Dalrock said above that I’m working on a symphony while most here are just trying to learn the notes. Perhaps that is true. The problem that I see is that there’s not a lot of love for classical music. It has to be learned, and it can only be learned by listening to classical music. Slayer is not the way to do it.
If I want to learn to play classical music (which I insist is objectively superior to death metal) then I wouldn’t study Slayer, but Beethoven. Of course the argument comes back that some prefer death metal. So be it. Just remember we are talking about what you want to listen to for the rest of your life, for your children to listen to, and indeed for eternity.
I’m turning Dalrock’s very good question back on us. He asks: Why should Christians have to learn game from PUAs and evo-psych? I’m asking: Why are you learning about Christianity from game? That’s what I see happening: Game is too often the reference that makes Genesis believable. Ridiculous.
Thornstruck’s point about engineering and mathematics is common, but ill-considered.
Engineering and mathematics aren’t the method of God’s revelation of His nature, love and plan; men, women, and marriage are. There is no engineering course, examples, or cautions in scripture. Conversely, there are many of the nature of sin, men, women, and marriage. This suggests that it’s important for our eternal perspective, while mathematics is not.
To say, “Well, yes, but I’m speaking here only of how to get her to wear dresses, and not speak badly of me to her friends, and divorce me.” is to miss the point completely. If he loves her, he needs to be concerned with washing her with the water of the word, to be presented as spotless. We should always keep the frame that when we speak of Christian marriage we are always talking about things of eternal consequence.
Game, understood in a Christian context, is in conflict with washing. It comes from a different philosophy; similar to Plato’s Great Lies. “God isn’t real, but for society to function we must all pretend he is. You’re not really alpha, but for your home society to function you must pretend to be.”
No.
The truth is that you were made in the image of God, but have now completely fallen, and must be transformed to the Alpha you were meant to be. Learning game is like putting on a robe and sandals and telling people that you’re Jesus.
Good behavior is the fruit of the tree of washing. I think Dalrock gets this implicitly, but has yet to accept it explicitly. From one perspective, this blog–compared to many others–is a washing blog, and is becoming more and more so. And all us who comment here are, in a spiritual way, being husbanded by that good work; though we know that if it is good it is from God and He is the ultimately the one doing the washing. This isn’t queer theory 101.
Yes Rollo, im proud to call you my brother. Another game relevant passage is Proverbs 27:5 “Better is an open rebuke than hidden love”. Now i may be interpreting the passage wrong, but reguardless it reinforced for me the ideas that hopeless beta orbitting is foolish and that endlessly supplicating a woman who treats you with disrespect is also foolish. And when i say foolish, i mean fundamentally, detrimentally, destructively stupid.
Epic thread. One of Dalrock’s Greatest Hits.
@ GBFM (TM)
Fantastic Tom-Trollery! Really, I mean that! It took Dalrock’s blog to expose the inane ramblings of GBFM. His insipid arguments are trivially easy to refute. But his hazing of Christians on this blog, in an attempt to induce a guilty feeling for acquiring worldly knowledge, is as hilarious as it is old.
First, it’s good to see the ol’ time religion still making an appearance. GBFM knows who a real Christian is …..
“real christian men do not need “game”
as “game,” like american women
is not “christian”
Thanks GBFM. You just made a 2 thousand year old religion, with over 2,000 different sects so much easier to understand.
And I am sure the Christianity of 50 A.D. is the exact same Christianity of …say….A.D. 325 … or let’s see ….as in the year of our Lord 1517?
Second, 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.
Now, Christians, such as Dalrock, are using modern concepts of social dynamics or ….dare I say it?….uhhhhhh EVOLUTIONARY biology to strengthen relationships and teach moral men to be strong “alpha” leaders. But to you that merely steeps them into infernal idolatry. In your own words:
GAME > THE GREAT BOOKS
GAME > THE BIBLE
GAME > JESUSTSHZ lzozozlzl
For GBFM…anytime a Christian appropriates knowledge outside of the Bible he is making a mockery of TRUE (TM) Christianity.
I hope you never use Algebra GBFM…those heathen Muslims invented that.
ALGEBRA > THE GREAT BOOKS
ALGEBRA > THE BIBLE
ALGEBRA > JESUSTSHZ lzozozlzl
Here’s an example from the post:
Not only is that not the first thing learned from game, but game does not teach this. What you have there is an explicitly Christian teaching.
Here’s what game actually says:
It really is natural for wives to be attracted to whichever male within their environment is demonstrating the most socio-sexually dominant behavior.
What man does this describe, that he can ever hope to be his wife’s desire? It’s a recipe for disaster even among the best of circumstances; and even from a finite perspective.
The crux of the problem in the original statement is the word “natural”. Game says it is “natural”–by which it means “without effort, and in subjection to her emotions”–for a wife to be attracted to the most local alpha. Scripture says that It is “natural”–by which it means “good, intended, and holy”–for a wife to be attracted to her husband.
The crux of the problem with the idea of game for the Christian is that it’s predicated on the ideas of evo-psych–it’s just the way she was made. Rollo did a good summary of it above. He’s also completely wrong.
You can’t get there from here.
I think folks may be misunderstanding GBFM. He can’t really get too torqued about folks not understanding him since his style purposefully blurs his content.
He’s not saying worldly knowledge is bad. He’s questioning the word “need.” Does a Christian “need” game? In the same frame, does a Christian “need” algebra, knowledge of C++ programming, etc? Don’t get weighed down in, “Well, I need X for my job.” His point is that a Christian should only “need” God and the rest can be taken or left. So, do you take it (not “Red Pill,” but “game”)?
GBFM (likely) also ponders what happens if a Christian dabbles in game and does not see good fruit coming from the bad tree.
Some contend that you don’t need to pick the fruit from the tree, just observe it and possibly prune it from time to time (engage in the conversation).
GBFM (likely) thinks you’re better off just back-turning on the bad tree and put your efforts toward godly goals, since they are eternal.
RTP – “GBFM (likely) thinks you’re better off just back-turning on the bad tree and put your efforts toward godly goals, since they are eternal.”
In that case, he’s probably correct. The problem is, much of what we learn as people we learn from society, from other people. Christianity has always accepted this with it’s desire for a fellowship of Christians. Look at how much the Apostles drew strength from one another. Even Christ tells them that they must love one another.
This brings us to a major problem with our current society. It is not teaching men the correct things. You cannot learn social skills from reading the Bible. This is not why we have scripture. We learn it from the people around us. Now look at our society. Men are feminized and women are masculinized. Game and the red pill are just means by which men can overcome their flawed social programming and do that which should be not only natural but also moral.
Interesting then that so much of what the Bible classifies as sin comes so easily, so rationally, and so “naturally” to us. Perhaps because our ‘natural’ state IS imperfection?
Back to the apathy, hate, and love triangle…
Apathy/feminism from Gloria Steinem to Glen Stanton says: Women are fine, especially without men–leave women alone.
Hate/Game says: Women are dirty (it’s evolved into their psychology!), and men should treat them so–women respond to, and like it, this way.
Love/scripture says: Women are dirty–men should wash them, whether they like it or not.
Note that scripture does not deny that many–if not all–women like to be treated badly. Note also that it doesn’t say that (in this life, at least) she’ll enjoy every moment of being washed; scrubbing grime takes some force, and time. But if our frame is not on washing our wives–if our hearts and minds are set on matching our dirty behavior to our wives’ dirty preferences–then we are engaging in the very feminism that is corrupting us, our women, and our families; because that is what happens when we deny the word of God.
You can’t get there from here.
I appreciate everyone who has born the brunt of my deluge of words; especially Dalrock.
You cannot learn social skills from reading the Bible.
I won’t say you’re wrong, but the more I study the issue, the more I see the locus of the problem is in the house. You can call it beta, but when the man drops his godly, masculine frame (something that is taught in the Bible) and outsources the spiritual development of his children to “the Church,” he’s set the stage for his kids to be swayed by culture.
If he maintains Christian, masculine frame and instructs his children likewise, will they need the Red Pill?
I can’t say I really dropped my masculine frame for an extended period, though I did attempt the “Fireproof” type garbage, from time to time. I did, however, outsource the spiritual development and maintenance of my family to “the Church.” I will never go “Blue Pill,” but I dropped my duty to minister to my family. I did Bible study in my home, alone and with my sons. Even doing that, it was unfocused discipling and when my wife refused to join, I didn’t make a greater issue out of it (she’s never cracked a Bible and is only “Christian” on the occasional Easter or Christmas when her mom visited).
It’s up to fathers to train their families properly. A father has to be on guard for elements of Blue Pill (worldliness, feminism, equalism, etc) and be prepared with a Biblical response. He also has to set the example. So, I agree. We can’t rely on society to teach us. Further, we have to be mindful of who gives us Biblical instruction.
No easy answers. No magic pill. Christian/Red Pill parenting vs. Christian/Blue Pill parenting. One is hard and you’re outnumbered. The other is an easy path and the world will cheer you forward.
Cane: I am wondering how you are interpreting the idea of “washing” your wife. What exactly is that process?
You can make rules and enforce them but how do you make someone holy?
I am slightly worried by Game: One of its tenets is that women are attracted to the most socially dominant male – yet I am not aware that a corllorary is that men are attracted to the most socially submissive of women. If only it were true that women are attracted to only the most socially dominant males – women are far too variable for that, but for sake of example I will accept that it is true and that women are attracted to the most socially dominant males. Then what happens? – you fail to score with a woman, or your woman goes off you. Conclusion you are not sufficiently dominant! This looks likes Game’s version of Calvinism, where you are justified by faith. Or to put it another way, it merely repeats what the Socon’s aver: namely, that it is YOUR fault (not hers). As I said above, most of the men I know who are or were successful with women are very courteous and quietly spoken – but the Game theorist will doubtless say that I fail to see their dominance. Come to think of it, it also sounds rather like Psycho-analysis – You have a problem? Your shrink can cure you – you are not being cured? You need to see your shrink more often as you are obviously repressed and in denial. The same also applies to the fraud which is Alcoholics Anonymous – Still drinking? You have yet to acknowledge a higher power etc etc etc.
@koevoet — It’s not just that men are being taught the wrong thing. Concurrent with that… basic common sense truths about men and women are now considered politically incorrect. As has been detailed on Christian Men’s Defense Network, the church has gone even further than society by developing a theology to reinforce the new cultural status quo. To speak against this is to ask to treated with the full force of negative reinforcement that heretics are dealt. In the modern church in the English speaking world, this means social shunning, isolation, and rumors at the least.
Upthread… GBFM was chastising Dalrock for not bringing this up at church. But we all know what happens to people that don’t keep their heads down.
Apathy/feminism from Gloria Steinem to Glen Stanton says: Women are fine, especially without men–leave women alone.
Hate/Game says: Women are dirty (it’s evolved into their psychology!), and men should treat them so–women respond to, and like it, this way.
Love/scripture says: Women are dirty–men should wash them, whether they like it or not.
Well said Cane, but incomplete. See 1 Peter 3: 1-2. Wives in their submission have something to add to the development of their husbands who may not always be obedient to the Word either.
As I said above, most of the men I know who are or were successful with women are very courteous and quietly spoken – but the Game theorist will doubtless say that I fail to see their dominance.
My husband is a man of few words, but other people are always interested in what he has to say about a matter. Silence can be a sign of dominance as well, when coupled with that impenetrable frame that really is hard to miss when you’re around someone for a bit.
@Logos 11:57: I’m strongly inclined to agree – but, the problem isn’t just society’s, but yours too, unless you’re living in one of a few small and isolated cultures, or like risking celibacy or worse. What then?
@Cane Caldo
Your comments have been very interesting and thought-provoking. I’ve been pondering this whole thread a lot, just reading along and not saying much for the last two days of it and having some interesting conversations with my husband about the whole thing. I appreciate your taking the time to write all that you have written. This is a heavy topic.
Some Guy – the rot runs deep. Game is a tactic and is thus neither moral nor immoral. It is amoral. I have to agree with Dalrock in that it is one tool that men in this society can use to correct their own situations for themselves. Having a proper church with proper church-goers who understood and obey biblical teaching would preclude the need for game. As it stands, game is a tactic and failure to utilize it will often lead to defeat.
@Opus – I agree with you. One should not have to resort to bad behavior in a relationship.
The most desirable and successful marriages I have seen were based on mutual respect.
@Michael Singer and Elspeth
Thanks – but I fear that as I have some not inconsiderable difficulty grasping exactly what Game is, that anything I say about it will prove inadequate – so I will desist.
One of its tenets is that women are attracted to the most socially dominant male – yet I am not aware that a corllorary is that men are attracted to the most socially submissive of women.
Correct. Males are “status-blind”, a woman’s social rank doesn’t matter in terms of attraction. It might culturally matter (eg, “you can’t marry her – wrong caste,wrong religion, not our kind of people), but in terms of primal attraction, no – a woman’s status means nothing at all to a man. Indeed, if he aims “out of his league”, there is no genetic cost, just a social rejection… and, he might get lucky and WIN a high value mate, it does happen occasionally. So males have no selected tendency to be status-selective in mating.
However, females are most assuredly hypergamist. The most dominant male can generally provide and protect, better than an ordinary man. Hence status, or marks of status, and behaviors associated with status, are attractive to women. Status is context dependent of course — it means different things in a tribe of mammoth hunters, a corporation, or a biker gang — but everywhere and always, women prefer men with status as well as looks… while men only are attracted to looks. (Looks, to both sexes, are a good proxy for health and reproductive potential, which is why both sexes are looks-selective.)
Please undertand, however, that attraction is not compatibility. Status and looks are aspects of attraction. Compatibility is a different matter entirely.
@ Michael Singer
It’s not bad behaviour but dominant behaviour. There is a difference. Game is simply, as koevoet has pointed out, an amoral tool. It’s not the be all end all either, but one tool. 7man has used game techniques on me and I know it, but it still works and there is much mutual respect (and love) between us. That some use these techniques for immoral ends doesn’t negate the usefulness of the tool; you can use a hammer to build or to destroy.
When the dominant frame has been internalised, it is not unnatural either, no more than it is unnatural to know how to drive a car once you have learned that skill. I have had to learn certain skills too, it should be said. Some of us haven’t always had the best examples to follow so we have had to learn, often the hard way.
Cane Caldo:
I think you’re essentially correct, at least theologically. The bible is superior to game, no question at all about that. There are a couple of things (list alert):
1. The number of churches teaching what you espouse are infinitesimally small. in fact most churches are openly hostile to the correct theology you espoused. Where is a man going to get that instruction and the scriptural exegesis to back him up? I don’t see much difference between what you advocate and what Darwin Catholic and Mrs. Darwin suggested, which was that like minded men and women should cloister themselves.
2. Washing the wife in the water of the Word is correct, but only works if both men and women are believers.
3. Last but not least, we human beings can understand Eph 5:20-25 very well. We can understand wifely submission and expect it. Believers are supposed to take every thought captive and submit it to Christ, to be continually in prayer, and to crucify our flesh. But we don’t do it perfectly. We get in our flesh, we follow it, and we succumb to it. We know this because of Christian unhaaaaappy marriages and because of the heretical theology of feminism which perverts SCripture for its own ends. For those times, Game can be the stopgap that smooths out some of the bumps.
What I Want In a Man- Original List
1. Handsome
2. Charming
3. Financially successful
4. A caring listener
5. Witty
6. In good shape
7. Dresses with style
8. Appreciates finer things
9. Full of thoughtful surprises
What I Want in a Man- Revised List (age 32)
1. Nice looking
2. Opens car doors, holds chairs
3. Has enough money for a nice dinner
4. Listens more than talks
5. Laughs at my jokes
6. Carries bags of groceries with ease
7. Owns at least one tie
8. Appreciates a good home-cooked meal
9. Remembers birthdays and anniversaries
What I Want in a Man, Revised List (age 42)
1. Not too ugly
2. Doesn’t drive off until I’m in the car
3.. Works steady – splurges on dinner out occasionally
4. Nods head when I’m talking
5. Usually remembers punch lines of jokes
6. Is in good enough shape to rearrange the furniture
7. Wears a shirt that covers his stomach
8. Knows not to buy champagne with screw-top lids
9. Remembers to put the toilet seat down
10. Shaves most weekends
What I Want in a Man, Revised List (age 52)
1. Keeps hair in nose and ears trimmed
2. Doesn’t belch or scratch in public
3. Doesn’t borrow money too often
4. Doesn’t nod off to sleep when I’m venting
5. Doesn’t re-tell the same joke too many times
6. Is in good enough shape to get off the couch on weekends
7. Usually wears matching socks and fresh underwear
8. Appreciates a good TV dinner
9. Remembers your name on occasion
10. Shaves some weekends
What I Want in a Man, Revised List (age 62)
1. Doesn’t scare small children
2. Remembers where bathroom is
3. Doesn’t require much money for upkeep
4. Only snores lightly when asleep
5. Remembers why he’s laughing
6. Is in good enough shape to stand up by himself
7. Usually wears some clothes
8. Likes soft foods
9. Remembers where he left his teeth
10. Remembers that it’s the weekend
What I Want in a Man, Revised List (age 72)
1. Breathing.
2. Doesn’t miss the toilet.
@ Cane – I’m turning Dalrock’s very good question back on us. He asks: Why should Christians have to learn game from PUAs and evo-psych? I’m asking: Why are you learning about Christianity from game? That’s what I see happening: Game is too often the reference that makes Genesis believable. Ridiculous.
And here, I think, is where we come to our misunderstanding.
As many have pointed out before, much of what Game is, is re-discovering natural masculinity, contra to the social engineering of our mass media society saturated in misandry, that has had an emasculating influence on most males to some degree.
Game is not the reference to make Genesis believable…but rather gaining the understanding, and coming to the realization that Damnit, the Bible was right after all, it was saying it from the beginning.
When you are raised in a Churchian community thoroughly inculcated with misandry and the pedestalization of the holy feminine, you can read Genesis until you go blind, and still miss the real point of the story/allegory/parable or literal narrative of that particular scripture….because you are a part of a community that has TOLD YOU WHAT TO THINK about what you are reading. This is how so many Churchian congregations buy into justifications and rationalizations that rebel against what is pretty explicit teachings found in the good book.
“Wives submit unto your husbands” and “Women should be silent in Church” (paraphrasing here) is as plain as it gets…yet most Churches nowadays, mitigate it, ignore it, or explain it away so as to appeal to our now thoroughly feminized majority.
You think Christians needing Game to find Christianity is ludicrous. Of course it is. But the problem is just how far lies and untruths have infiltrated and become accepted as truthful doctrine by the Church at large in today’s Brave New World Order.
“Red Pill” Christian’s have that “aha!” moment after studying this thing we call “game” on teh interwebz, and suddenly many things they had no understanding of in their memories and experiences suddenly become crystal clear in hindsight once they grasp the truth found in “game.”
Game gives them the clarity and insight to be able to recognize which lies have infiltrated their denominations and just how deeply the rot has gone.
Game gives the insight for a guy like RTP to ask his Pastor/Reverend hard questions related to official church doctrine…so he can make better decisions and where and who he should worship with.
Game gives us the framework to discern hard truths from rationalizations, justifications, falsehoods and lies.
As for GBFM….commenter Breeze said it over at my blog, best:
GBFM is a genius. One of the modern prophets. His usual spiel about butthexing, tucker max and beta bucks sums up so much a great deal of the red pill truth so easily.
More importantly GBFM writes the way he does because if he came and said the truth he would be ignored. This way he slips red pill truth in sideways.
This is even more apparent when you review the instances where he dropped the schtick and wrote lucid prose here on this blog.
lozolzolzol
“Your attitude is extremely cruel.”
How so?
“Men are being taught the wrong thing and you come back with an “everyone knows” kind of attitude.”
Not at all. From my own personal experience counseling people, if somebody is itching to be slapped, there are underlying undealt with issues. In. Every. Case.
“From your exchange with DC above I’m sensing you don’t understand it yourself.”
I understand it very well because I counsel people with these issues.
DC said it seems to him to be young women who desire this and in my experience counseling young people they come from dysfunctional families and seek to subconsciously recreate the pattern in adult life or they may came from functional families but have some inner conflict, something they feel they to be punished for.
Not saying they are not *nice* girls or guys, just that they are not conscious that they are allowing their subconscious to rule them.
@ Permaculture Farmaceuticals
This is typical counsellor talk. Everyone is dysfunctional on some level and it’s a silly word, and even sillier to rush to label anyone who likes a D/s dynamic as psychologically damaged. If a husband and wife deal with their “dysfunctions” this way and it works, what is the problem? What is your “cure”, counter-productive “counselling” and drugs?
I disagree that these desires are necessarily dysfunctional or that they necessarily indicate past abuse or neglect, or even internal conflict, although doesn’t everyone also have some measure of this from time to time unless they are comatose?
Opus, you don’t have to be continually acting like James Bond to keep your woman. You only have to be dominant enough for her. And I don’t believe that the average man can’t do it.
Yes to CL’s point. Neither my wife nor I came from an unusual background. Just upper middle class families. It is just the way we are as a couple. And we are not visibly weird. We are a normal couple, who like going to the library together, learning ballroom dancing, and talking about our kids.
And without wishing to be unkind, any man who marries a girl who has a “history” is probably living with a woman who didn’t just have sweet tender love made to her. There is a good chance she could have written one of the chapters in FSoG.
@Dalrock,
It isn’t just that beta men have been cut off at the knees (although as you know I agree there). There is far more to the problem which I haven’t seen you acknowledge. The moment a woman decides she is going to delay marriage she is making a lifestyle choice. A very small percentage of these women do so with the true desire to remain completely pure*.
The above may be intentional in stressing that modern beta men are cut off at the knees but just for the record I did say Alpha’s historically were. That being said, if you feel I haven’t stated it clearly I will do so now: the modern system sucks and women are running rampant. I would assume my comments on “feral women” would cover that but it seems they didn’t. I agree with you about the larger problem, as I think I proved in previous tussles with others (say…Darwin), I just get the feeling that you’ve over-corrected too far the other way. It is a minor disagreement but one that, pendant that I am, I will be prone to point out.
You frame it as if the PUAs are seducing innocent women, but in our current culture this is all but impossible. Focusing on Roissy, etc is a waste of energy, and it is especially problematic because it feeds into the pathology of modern Christians.
If by “Focusing on Roissy is a waste of energy” you mean “paying attention” then I disagree. Roissy is sinner and his problems need to be outlined as such. If you mean making him a primary target than I agree.
To the rest, women aren’t all innocent after all NAWALT. However if we are to propose that men are superior in any fashion than the bulk of responsibility does shift our way. Otherwise we have to make the “just the same” argument and that doesn’t fly. This causes all sorts of difficulty because you are _right_ that the major problem is not with men _right now_. Men played nice and ceded authority (bad) and then women ran amok (very bad). So how do we express the truth (men are given authority) without feeding the hamster (its all men’s fault!!! and I’m freeeeeeeeee to be a slut!!!). I don’t have a pat answer for that. I can make it that far, I’m not clear on how to go further and I expect discussion in forums like these will help develop that next step. I will also note that due to general fallen nature that may be as far as we can take it.
@Rollo,
Your comments show a certain awareness of Christianity but it is a little like the tone deaf singing. I don’t mean that as a slight, in fact I see a latent love of it there and it should be encouraged, but I will point out that you don’t have it down right. I’ve met men that could follow Jesus command on having no lust in their hearts to a T. I am not one of them. There are those that are both born that way (asexual) and have trained themselves to it (virtuous). One of the advantages of monasteries for example is that you can separate yourself from pheromones which makes training the mind easier. Your comments lead me to believe you were raised with a TULIP background which I think leads to some pretty negative behaviors and degenerates both personal responsibility and discipline. I’d consider Christs and especially St. Paul’s calls to discipline.
@Cane,
It has to be learned, and it can only be learned by listening to classical music. Slayer is not the way to do it.
A perfect analogy. Classical can’t be just “picked up”. Most of us who like it now were forced in some way to listen to it when we were younger and to _learn_.
A spot on post even if I quibble with some of the closing tinges of Calvinism. Game can be adopted by Christian culture and sanctified by it…but it has to be in that direction. You are right that people are reading game then going to Genesis to puzzle it out. Genesis in contrast should be a correction of the excesses of Game (the comments here about Sarah and Abraham upstream I think are an example of this).
And an example of the same is here:
@NoOne,
And I am sure the Christianity of 50 A.D. is the exact same Christianity of …say….A.D. 325 … or let’s see ….as in the year of our Lord 1517?
Yes. Yes it is. World without end Amen. Christianity has been remarkably constant and is one of the few world religions that has worked out an understandable theology. For information on this you might want to try Benedict XVI Regensburg Address: “That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.”
At least back when Universities were for training clerics. Christianity proposes that God is knowable within certain bounds and can be ascertained in a reasonable way and that this reason presumes he acts consistently. We don’t worship the arbitrary God of Islam. We should therefore expect, as we can easily find, that Christianity works very hard to be consistent. Hence pietist movements within the Church have always stressed continuity with the ancient Church (Augsburg Confession on Ecclesiastical Powers): “Again, the authors of traditions do contrary to the command of God when they find matters of sin in foods, in days, and like things, and burden the Church with bondage of the law, as if there ought to be among Christians, in order to merit justification a service like the Levitical, the arrangement of which God had committed to the Apostles and bishops. For thus some of them write; and the Pontiffs in some measure seem to be misled by the example of the law of Moses. Hence are such burdens, as that they make it mortal sin, even without offense to others, to do manual labor on holy-days, a mortal sin to omit the Canonical Hours, that certain foods defile the conscience that fastings are works which appease God that sin in a reserved case cannot be forgiven but by the authority of him who reserved it; whereas the Canons themselves speak only of the reserving of the ecclesiastical penalty, and not of the reserving of the guilt.”
GB4M is correct in so far as where Algebra dares say something against Scripture (it doesn’t) that portion should be discarded. Game _does_ and so we should be careful about its use.
@Cane,
The crux of the problem in the original statement is the word “natural”. Game says it is “natural”–by which it means “without effort, and in subjection to her emotions”–for a wife to be attracted to the most local alpha. Scripture says that It is “natural”–by which it means “good, intended, and holy”–for a wife to be attracted to her husband.
Exactly. Some people are casting back onto Game things it just doesn’t say and wandering willy-nilly between Game and Christianity. Many of the comments on “nature” rely on an Aristotelian notion of perfect form that was borrowed in part (in the same way Game should be) by Christianity. It is natural and normal that humans should be right some of the time and produce theories that are worth further study and use. However, we should always refer back to “The Queen of the Sciences” theology. What does Christianity teach us about Game? What is holy? What should we ditch?
Game is primarily a _philosophy_ or technique with some scientific backing. It is therefore amoral at best and immoral at worst (tools can be so vile that they can be considered immoral [see: The Rack]).
Nor should we believe that this is entirely new. While the serious swing on feminism happened around the 1890’s – 1910’s in our epic these thoughts and problems have been around for a good long time (Eve [to the least extent of those listed], Jezebel, Helen of Troy, Circe, etc.).
Dalrock at 11:10 a.m: You respond to my satirical comment at 10:23 a.m. by characterizing at as me ridiculing women who want dominant husbands. Actually, I wasn’t ridiculing such women at all. I was ridiculing you. My comment was in direct response to your previous statement to David Collard that:
That is funny the amount of heat you have taken over telling your wife to wear skirts. My guess is most if not all of the outrage is misplaced jealousy by the feminists in question. They should be so lucky to have a husband who could stand up to them and who would posses them. They are trapped in a hell of their own creation.
Then in your 1110 a.m. comment, you say:
Either way, I’m happy to let my readers decide which path is more natural and healthy. Those women who insist on dominating their husbands risk ending up with the very arrangement you now claim to enjoy so much.
I am sort of in awe of the notion that a women who decides for themselves what to wear are “insist[ing] on dominating their husbands.”
Ha ha ha, VR, that was very good. Who knew that one could be theologically between “a cock and a hard place”? Excellent!
Per my previous discussion with VR on Sunshine Mary’s blog , I do understand that adopting Christianity might entail sacrifice if one tried to truly imitate Jesus, but for me the challenge would not be in the area of sexual conduct. I will say (and for the record, I did NOT bring up my personal situation on this thread) that I have felt the lack of traditional intercourse over the years to be perhaps a sacrifice but one well worthwhile in order to be married to my husband. If my husband expressed any reservations about our open marriage, I would revert to the monogamy I maintained for more than 15 years and I would expect the same of him if it started to bother me.
Since my husband is Catholic, I was aware that the Church would not consider our marriage valid. But I’m secular, not Catholic, and our marriage is absolutely valid in the eyes of secular law. Also, it was a very serious promise which I wouldn’t dream of breaking if I were inclined to, which I’m not.
” I will say (and for the record, I did NOT bring up my personal situation on this thread) that I have felt the lack of traditional intercourse over the years to be perhaps a sacrifice but one well worthwhile in order to be married to my husband. If my husband expressed any reservations about our open marriage, I would revert to the monogamy I maintained for more than 15 years and I would expect the same of him if it started to bother me.
Since my husband is Catholic, I was aware that the Church would not consider our marriage valid. But I’m secular, not Catholic, and our marriage is absolutely valid in the eyes of secular law. ”
This is odd, but interesting. Does the Catholic Church take a stance on mutually agreed upon open marriages? It cannot be considered adultery can it, since there is no cheating? Biblically speaking there was polygamy amongst some people of God. Is that considered sinful now?
@Rollo,
Interesting then that so much of what the Bible classifies as sin comes so easily, so rationally, and so “naturally” to us. Perhaps because our ‘natural’ state IS imperfection?
No. This is something like the posting on the video about Androgyny downstream. Most of Mankind (the inclusive old term) does incredibly noble things all day long. By and large we don’t kill each other, we obey traffic regulations, we tend not to steal, stealing wives isn’t nearly as common as it could be, we write music, we paint pictures, and we head out to lunch with each other. This is “us” functioning in our Natural state. Chesterton said that (and I butcher the quote here because I can’t find it) that a worldly pessimist looks at the world and sees black, a worldly optimist looks at the world and sees white; while a Christian looks at the world and see’s a fractured masterpiece.
BTW another good Chesterton quote I think that will be appreciated here:
“It [feminism] is mixed up with a muddled idea that women are free when they serve their employers but slaves when they help their husbands.”
These sins come “naturally” to us because they are corruptions of good things. That “piece of ass” leads to the beauty of a child for example. Sin is only good things used for ignoble ends.
@Gabriella,
You can make rules and enforce them but how do you make someone holy?
You can’t and Cane doesn’t propose that. God makes holy, but you can “water” (cf. 1 Cor 3:6). Sin is communal. Everything we do that is sinful ripples through reality and gnaws away at it. This is why I’m much more keen and chopping down Alpha’s than some here. Sin has lasting effects that can make virtue in others more difficult. Husbands do have a positive responsibility not to make their wives lives more difficult even if ultimately their state of grace is determined by God.
@Opus,
looks likes Game’s version of Calvinism, where you are justified by faith. Or to put it another way, it merely repeats what the Socon’s aver: namely, that it is YOUR fault (not hers). As I said above, most of the men I know who are or were successful with women are very courteous and quietly spoken – but the Game theorist will doubtless say that I fail to see their dominance.
At some level yes. The problem is some of what Game proposes is correct. That is, men should be leaders (dominant). I actually think Athol comes the closest of the Atheists to proposing a Christian solution to game. In fact some of his posts (despite his insistence on materialist premises) is remarkably Christian moral outcomes.
@Micheal,
The most desirable and successful marriages I have seen were based on mutual respect.
I’d doubt this is true or that Opus would agree with it as I don’t see it as directly Christian. We husbands must love but respect is secondary. Likewise wives must respect but love is secondary. Both will exist in each but the relation between both sexes will be different.
@Deti,
The number of churches teaching what you espouse are infinitesimally small. in fact most churches are openly hostile to the correct theology you espoused. Where is a man going to get that instruction and the scriptural exegesis to back him up? I don’t see much difference between what you advocate and what Darwin Catholic and Mrs. Darwin suggested, which was that like minded men and women should cloister themselves.
At some level isn’t that Christian though? We don’t conquer the world to the end so we should expect to be “ghettoized”. With Christendom we’ve enjoyed a good thousand year run but I don’t think anyone expected it to last. One of the good things that the Darwin’s did was not take their ghettoization as a fault.
Washing the wife in the water of the Word is correct, but only works if both men and women are believers.
No. This runs counter to Paul’s admonition and speaks “Game”. Consider 1 Cor 7:12: “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.”
One of Darwin’s chief complaints about the Manosphere was that it had (and in this I agree) a tendency to junk any sort of male responsibility. PUA frame enforces a “not my fault” world view that I find really distasteful and un-masculine. This is one of those areas where I think we have to be deadly careful about how to deal with Game.
Game can be the stopgap that smooths out some of the bumps.
Again no, appeal to the constant tradition of Scripture can smooth out the bumps. At my wife’s worst there has always been and always will be Ephesians. She respects God more than me (which is perfectly fine) so when she bucks I can call her on it rather than placating. That is, I adopt a “Christian Frame”. She can hate me all she wants, she can stomp her feet, but I am still her husband and she has responsibilities.
@Kenobi
When you are raised in a Churchian community thoroughly inculcated with misandry and the pedestalization of the holy feminine, you can read Genesis until you go blind, and still miss the real point of the story/allegory/parable or literal narrative of that particular scripture….because you are a part of a community that has TOLD YOU WHAT TO THINK about what you are reading
The formal term here is “heuristic”. And you are right. So you stop reading evangelical shlop like Rachel Evens and Company and you start reading St. Aquinas, St. Chysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Maximos the Confessor. Then you run up on quotes that just can’t be reconciled with a modern reading like (from St. Chrysotom’s commentary on 1 Tim 2:11-15):Great modesty and great propriety does the blessed Paul require of women, and that not only with respect to their dress and appearance: he proceeds even to regulate their speech. And what says he? “Let the woman learn in silence”; that is, let her not speak at all in the church; which rule he has also given in his Epistle to the Corinthians, where he says, “It is a shame for women to speak in the church” 1 Corinthians 14:35; and the reason is, that the law has made them subject to men. And again elsewhere, “And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home.” 1 Corinthians 14:35 Then indeed the women, from such teaching, kept silence; but now there is apt to be great noise among them, much clamor and talking, and nowhere so much as in this place. They may all be seen here talking more than in the market, or at the bath. For, as if they came hither for recreation, they are all engaged in conversing upon unprofitable subjects. Thus all is confusion, and they seem not to understand, that unless they are quiet, they cannot learn anything that is useful. For when our discourse strains against the talking, and no one minds what is said, what good can it do to them? To such a degree should women be silent, that they are not allowed to speak not only about worldly matters, but not even about spiritual things, in the church. This is order, this is modesty, this will adorn her more than any garments. Thus clothed, she will be able to offer her prayers in the manner most becoming.”
The above is totally brutal to the modern reading. Incredibly brutal. Like almost unreadable brutal.
@Perm,
This is odd, but interesting. Does the Catholic Church take a stance on mutually agreed upon open marriages? It cannot be considered adultery can it, since there is no cheating? Biblically speaking there was polygamy amongst some people of God. Is that considered sinful now?
It does. And that is one of the most silly questions I’ve heard in a good long time and exemplifies how far we’ve fallen. If you are interested there’s plenty of sources for reading about official Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican (pre-1928) and Lutheran (from the confessions I cited above) thought on marriage. None of which conforms to your understanding at all.
Permaculture Farmaceuticals says:
This is odd, but interesting. Does the Catholic Church take a stance on mutually agreed upon open marriages? It cannot be considered adultery can it, since there is no cheating? Biblically speaking there was polygamy amongst some people of God. Is that considered sinful now?
I don’t really know all the Catholic rules, but I suspect they would view it at least as “fornication” if the marriage at issue is not valid. Now it may be that an open marriage is not considered “adulterous” where the marriage itself is not valid due to impotence/lack of consummation. Since the Church distinguishes among different categories of sin (mortal sins, venal sins, etc.), it may be that “fornication” is not considered as bad “adultery.” I have no idea what distinguishes the different categories of sin, or what the different levels are, so I’m just speculating.
But what about an open marriage that is considered valid by the Catholic Church? I suspect that the Catholic church would still consider the outside relationships “adulterous” even though the spouses consent to each other’s outside relationships. “Adultery” is defined purely in terms of intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her spouse. This is certainly true in the secular laws I am aware of that prohibit adultery in some states; there’s no defense based on your spouse’s consent, though in practice these laws are not prosecuted.
Oops GK Chesterton beat me to the punch. And I suspect he knows far about this than I!
“Chesterton said that (and I butcher the quote here because I can’t find it) that a worldly pessimist looks at the world and sees black, a worldly optimist looks at the world and sees white ”
That’s loaded language 😉
“It does. And that is one of the most silly questions I’ve heard in a good long time and exemplifies how far we’ve fallen. If you are interested there’s plenty of sources for reading about official Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican (pre-1928) and Lutheran (from the confessions I cited above) thought on marriage. None of which conforms to your understanding at all.”
Well, I’m not Christian so naturally I won’t be knowledgable about Christianity in general or the Catholic sect in particular. Several comments above I wrote about my particular conundrum in dealing with Christians and asked for advice about it. You missed that I see.
Wait, what!? Did DH just say her husband is Catholic? Haha, open marriage, committing sin in direct confrontation of his religion. Hahahaha, hilarious!
Could you say that game is the set of behaviors that make you attractive to the opposite sex?
The problem with this as an endpoint is that people are sinful, and they may be attracted to sinful behavior, and as a Christian I’m forbidden from engaging in sinful behavior. Therefore, to me it is helpful to think of behavior as a Venn diagram. One circle is for Game, and the other is for Christianity. The two circles intersect, but not entirely. In the intersection are those behaviors that are consistent with Christianity. In the game part of the circle which doesn’t intersect are those behaviors which can’t be done because they are sinful. And of course, many Christian behaviors have nothing to do with game.
I say this because the Bible gives us the freedom to act. Take Dave from Hawaii’s example of going out to dinner. He can tell his wife that he’d like to eat wherever she wants, or he can say that they should go where he wants. Neither approach is sinful, but she was less attracted when he wanted to eat where she wanted. (I know you can say he wasn’t leading, but this would be an interpretation of leadership that isn’t spelled out in the Bible).
Feminist Hater,
My understanding (and the resident Catholics can correct me if I’m wrong) is that once you’re baptized in the Catholic Church, the Church considers you a Catholic ever until you are either excommunicated or go through a complicated Vatican process to undo your Catholicism.
Of course, just because the Church considers an individual to be Catholic, it does’t mean he has to define himself as such. It appears, however, that many Catholics raised in the Church embrace their Catholic identity for cultural reasons without agreeing with or much of anything the Church says. I can’t speak for my husband but he seems to be in this category.
Are you talking about the Athol who got into game because he was looking to cheat on his wife, the guy who pushed his wife into swinging and was disappointed that she wasn’t into it?
I have absolutely nothing against him at all, and I even read his blog now and again and found it interesting, but I have my doubts that he should be seen as providing a “Christian solution” to anything.
Koevoet at 11:05 a.m.,
Mmmmm, I love it when a strong man demands that I eat Captain Crunch! Yum. I bend to your will!
Can you please tell me what to drink when I get home? (Please say a several glasses of chardonnay, please say several glasses of chardonnay, please say several glasses of chardonnay!!!!) Seriously though, your advice made me smile. And bath salts, mmmmmmmmmm!
Fornication is a mortal sin. As is adultery, of course.
The Catholic Church is hardly a “sect”.
@sunshinemary
Athol is honest and was a Christian as a young adult. His basic morality is Christian and this can be seen in his writing. Yes I read those revelations of his. He was seeking satisfaction and was looking in the wrong places (and still may be) but he researched the impact of cheating and chose not to do that. He has empathy for other people and especially his wife. He is a loving husband.
Of course his world view differs from mine but I consider him a trustworthy man.
Also is was “softswinging” (which I know nothing about) but it seems to be different than sexual swinging. None of this interests me and thinking about it is kind of disturbing. I am a one woman man.
Can you please tell me what to drink when I get home?
DH…. Surely thou shalt drink chardonnay… and thou shalt put out for thine own husand…
Indeed SunshineMary. I’m not Christian myself but what Athol wrote is not congruent with my own religious and ethical values. And as far as men not caring about a woman’s status but physical attraction being the most important draw, just read the first blog of his that SunshineMary linked to at 5:57 above, and read the following comments. I have to say I think its a shame that people consider insignificant quirks to be “deal breakers”. One commenter even wrote that these things are why divorces happen, as if they justify divorce! Others agreed.
Just see how far down the rabbit hole this culture has gone when teeny tiny things mean more than shared values and life goals.
7Man – again, I have nothing against him. I read his blog now and then and get inspired to go Reverse Cowgirl after the kids are in bed, same as everyone else who reads it. But on matters of Christian faith? Someone suggested him as a providing the solution to “Christian game”. I must disagree. I, too, do no know what “soft swinging” is and will not be looking it up; I’m attempting to hold on to the few remaining shreds of my innocence. 🙂
no = not
Dalrock I don’t think your page views were suffering so much that you had to invite the game-cult over for tea.
Really though game is a marketing term for snake oil salesmen to peddle books. Married game & Christian game is just an extension of the marketing because the regular stuff is now available for free on the internet.
In short: It doesn’t exist.
“softswinging” (which I know nothing about) but it seems to be different than sexual swinging
“Softswinging” means, couples get together and have sex in a group setting — where they can all see and hear each other in action — but they don’t swap partners, they have sex with their own spouses only.
How they avoid the temptation to say, to hell with the rules, and turn it into a free for orgy, I don’t know. I could never do it, for precisely that reason. I don’t trust myself.
I, too, do no know what “soft swinging” is and will not be looking it up; I’m attempting to hold on to the few remaining shreds of my innocence
Sorry, I wish I’d seen this post 10 seconds ago. I wouldn’t have made my last post.
Living in California you can’t help hearing about this stuff….
Well. I have learned more about nasty sexual practices on this nice Christian blog than I ever wanted to know.
Ugh, you know how sometimes you just *will* yourself not to form a mental picture? I will not imagine a room full of middle-aged couples, guys with ear hair and ladies with c-section scars and saggy b**bs, going at it…
VR at 655 pm
Ooh, I like your commands too!
Ugh, you know how sometimes you just *will* yourself not to form a mental picture? I will not imagine a room full of middle-aged couples, guys with ear hair and ladies with c-section scars and saggy b**bs, going at it…
Oh, that’s axiomatic: There are no attractive swingers, there are no attractive nudists. Not that I’ve ever had personal experience in either realm but the folks that get into that sort of thing invariably seem to NOT have the bodies for it!
” I, too, do no know what “soft swinging” is and will not be looking it up; I’m attempting to hold on to the few remaining shreds of my innocence. :)”
Me too, but I’m losing it fast hanging out at this place 😦
I think soft swinging might mean they went out on dates with other people and possibly kissed/made out with them but no sex?
DH. Send him a text message describing what you’ll do to/for him. DO NOT repost it here.
And that’s all the advice I’m going to give you.
@VR
Thanks for the definition. Not going there
@sunshinemary
I agree that I do not look to Athol for Christian direction but much of his advice is not contrary to Christianity. As a Catholic Christian I agree with some and disregard the rest. It is likely that on some aspects I disregard more than you do. Birth control is the main one.
Ironically avoiding condoms and birth control is acceptable if it is called “fluid bonding,” “rawdogging” or otherwise fetishized but it is considered abnormal if practiced for religious reasons and embraced by accepting the physiological truth, emotional/spiritual bonding/deep unity of the natural one-flesh-union.
This discussion is getting so raunchy, in a moment I expect Saint Alte to drop in…..
Nudists and swingers tend not to be the same people and have vastly different motivations for what they do. Nudists/naturists have a philosophy that is inconsistant with swinging.
7man, just for the record, we do not use birth control, and I advise other Christians to consider seriously and prayerfully if using b.c. is truly God’s will for them.
If you are Catholic, I think you would only disregard one practice that I find acceptable.
Nudists and swingers tend not to be the same people and have vastly different motivations for what they do. Nudists/naturists have a philosophy that is inconsistant with swinging.
But they’re all fat.
See what happens to the lofty level of conversation when Cane Caldo and GKC leave?
@VR
“But they’re all fat.”
As are most Americans.
“Oh, that’s axiomatic: There are no attractive swingers, there are no attractive nudists. Not that I’ve ever had personal experience in either realm but the folks that get into that sort of thing invariably seem to NOT have the bodies for it!”
Swimming nude was the norm when I lived on Maui and we were all young and attractive at the time. Swingers as a general group might be older, past it and unattractive but there are some open marriage people who are young and attractive. That doesn’t count as swinging though does it?
Ironically avoiding condoms and birth control is acceptable if it is called “fluid bonding,” “rawdogging” or otherwise fetishized but it is considered abnormal if practiced for religious reasons
Indeed. Nature will not for long be suppressed; it comes roaring back at you in some other form. Decry natural submission, you get 50 shades of grey. Decry natural uncontracepted sex, it becomes the ultimate fetish.
Maybe we need to invent our own word for it. After all, this “fetish” rightly belongs to Christendom, does it not? Instead of calling it “rawdogging”, how about… duggaring?
Of course, Canadians aren’t exactly wasting away themselves. 🙂
Oh my. I just gave my son the link to this site to glean a bit of information.
Jacquie…. if he’s young, take him to the links at
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/category/finding-a-spouse/
…and even there be prepared to do some filtering.
He’s twenty-one so not sure how much filtering to do, and that is going to be his dad to discuss it all with him, the talk alot. He just split with the girl he was seeing, the epitome of an EAP. We are thankful for this turn of events and taking the opportunity to give him as much info as possible.
Over at Christian Men’s Defense Network, there is quite a discussion of EAPs as well.
http://cmd-n.org/
@Jacquie
He knows more than you think and would not be compromised by the discussions here. It is good education and most of the commenters here are way more moral than the general populace. We occasionally speak very frankly but are not afraid to address issues head on. He will pick and choose what resonates with him but will be exposed to ideas that will challenge him. He will then have to make up his own mind, which is what he must do even without information from the manosphere.
Oh, Jacquie, glad to hear about your son. I remember that you had concerns about the girl, which you mentioned several months ago. Ballista74 at Society of Phineas has had several good posts on single Christian men’s issues recently.
Thank you for all the information. I had the opportunity to spend some time with him today and talk so I led him to just a couple of sites. My husband will be giving him much more information when they talk. Also, he was overseas with the military for a couple of years so I am sure he probably learned much more than what’s on this thread.
Jacquie, I feel your pain. As a mother of children who will sooner than later be entering “that age”, and who is raising her children in a very grounded and healthy way (different from 99% of the rest of the country), it will be interesting for me to see how it all plays out, considering that our family’s values and overall lifestyle is so different from the majority, including different from the majority of people who’s general values or lifestyle we share.
VR, ha ha, thanks for the advice (or was it a command?) And no, I wouldn’t dream of reposting here.
Oddly enough, I was just talking with an old friend about the fact that whenever you see nudists or group sex people on TV, they always seem to be overweight. A notable exception is the new reality series, Polyamory: Married & Dating which portrays two group relationships, a “triad” consisting of a married couple and their girlfriend, and a foursome, 2 married couples who moved in with each other and all have sex with each other, often at once. Naturally, all this takes place in California. I don’t condemn this by any means, but it’s all a little too weird even for me.
I actually don’t think this was truly directly addressed in the whole comment thread, but it should be stated clearly:
Why do Christian Men need Game? Because you can do everything *as humanely perfect* as you’re told to do, watch your serious relationships fail and, when you try to figure out what you’re doing wrong, the Christian Leadership gives you a “please double down on what wasn’t working”.
THAT is why Christian Men need Game. When a system of operation consistently fails and produces bad results, the system very obviously doesn’t work well. Some of us actually can look at Cause & Effect and note something isn’t working. The longer it keeps “not working”, the faster a complete dismantling of the current order will happen.
Or, if you want the really short version: The Movie “Polyanna” & the character of Dr. Chilton is better advice for dealing with relationships than all of the years of discussion you’ll get in most Churches. <<—– that's a MASSIVE PROBLEM.
So, in an endeavour to understand what exactly Game is, where it comes from, and why neither Greek, Roman or Christian authors mention it, I decided to consult Wikipedia. There is an entry for Games but a look at its sub-headings does not include the Games played by the seduction community. There are entries for the two post-millenium books by Neil Strauss, and I am sure a search for Game Theory will provide a long article (Prisoner’s Dilemma – Nash Equilibria etc) – but there is no entry for Game. Surely it is time for a Practitioner of the Art of Seduction (or as it is called over here – in relation to young ‘vulnerable’ i.e. horny teenagers – Grooming) to provide an entry: In the meanwhile I am minded to agree with Yaboy, above, that Game is Snake Oil for the purpose of selling Books and it seems to me not dissimilar to that other presently popular scam The Secret – both seem to me to rely on Positive Thinking.
Of course that is not going to stop me attempting to Game the next young lady I see, indeed only yesterday, as my neighbour led me into her bedroom on the pretext of looking for the source of the emission from her over-flow pipe, ‘yes, you have decorated your appartment really well’ I was murmuring as she was expressing the hope that I, as a male, and thus de-facto, a skilled plumber could resolve her problems. Naturally I assumed the role and sensed her vulnerability and need for a strong man and she being so much smaller than I (she is Phillipino and we are both fluent speakers – though sadly in different languages), this was an easy position for me to adopt. I made my excuses of course as I cannot tell one end of a pipe from the other, and her female flat-mate was in the kitchen, yet she promissed to contact me again later so as to assist the real plumber when he arrives.
@ GKC:
“She can hate me all she wants, she can stomp her feet, but I am still her husband and she has responsibilities.”
True. But you can refer to Ephesians all you want and scream chapter and verse in her face, but she still has the court system and the laws behind her and she can leave anytime she wants, and destroy your life, hers and those of your children. Better to do what you can and use the tools at your disposal than to rely on her (hopeful) submission.
No, GKC is right. If she is a conservative Christian who believes in a wife’s duty to submit, quoting Ephesians at her during times of conflict is likely to be very effective. Indeed, religion is probably THE single most effective way of controlling women. If a man tells a woman, “You have a duty do what I say,” she’ll say, “Yeah, right.” But if you can convince her that God said so, then you’re golden.
Of course, GKC is wrong about this:
BTW another good Chesterton quote I think that will be appreciated here:
“It [feminism] is mixed up with a muddled idea that women are free when they serve their employers but slaves when they help their husbands.”
Apparently it never occurred to Chesterton that women could ever possibly BE the employer. Of course, I suppose he could respond that the employer is not free either because she is accountable to her clients or customers. Either way, he’s being deliberately obtuse. An employer-employee relationship is limited in scope, can be dissolved easily at any time, may offer opportunities for advancement, and provides an independent, contracted-for income. Chesterton has always been strong on pretty language, but weak on actual analysis. Most of his writing on feminism is merely a very pretty way of saying, “I don’t like it.”
@DH — “No, GKC is right. If she is a conservative Christian who believes in a wife’s duty to submit, quoting Ephesians at her during times of conflict is likely to be very effective. Indeed, religion is probably THE single most effective way of controlling women. If a man tells a woman, “You have a duty do what I say,” she’ll say, “Yeah, right.” But if you can convince her that God said so, then you’re golden.”
In the real world, religion functions primarily as a substitute for obedience to god– a form of godliness without the power thereof.
LOL @ DH thinking she’s smarter than G.K. Chesterton! (The real one, not the commenter here who goes by that name, although he is plainly smarter than DH as well).
Heavens, talk about an ego.
“Indeed, religion is probably THE single most effective way of controlling women.”
This is the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time.
You can test this by having one of your church pals open their bibles after dinner on Sunday… open a random book of the bible and explain how something in a chapter applies to his wife. Watch her response. Meekness and shamefacedness and humility, right?
Slightly more subtle. Read just a story from the old Testament where a woman is at fault for something. Watch the wife reinterpret it so that it really is the guy’s responsibility somehow. (“Adam was right there with Eve when the serpent tempted her and he didn’t do anything!” “David was supposed to be at war when Bathsheba was sunbathing!” And so on.)
Even less direct. Ask the husband to describe a spiritual principle that he and his wife have learned together since getting married. It is a rare wife that will not interrupt him or gainsay him somehow.
This is a generation of women that is thoroughly inoculated against the truth. Women are so much more spiritual than their husbands– just like they are so much better at commitment– and are ready in season and out of season to set the record straight should ever the word of God be spoken in their presence.
Mind you, this is not the only time it has happened to me. About six years ago a Dutch Girl and a German Girl – in their mid-twenties moved in next door to me. I had already spoken to the German, – who struck me as a bit overweight, not particularily attractive and a little insecure – but had not spoken to or even seen the Dutch one. That same evening – the German being out – I received a knock on my door. It was a September evening, dusk, and mild for the time of year. The Dutch girl was standing there in the half-gloom in her shorts, telling me – as I could see – that she had no light in the apartment, had no idea how to acquire it and could I – as a male and thus, de facto, a skilled electrician – thus assist. I was looking at her long legs and gradually moving closer to her as over the next five minutes or so we discussed her problem – that, in itself, told me the problem was probably not real and that she had an ulterior motive for knocking on my door. I was reasoning like this: Her friend the German – who must have told her about me – is out and the only plausible reason I can think of for her knock on my door is her desire to have sex with me; there may genuinely be some problem and I may be mistaking for amorousness her genuine concern. I must ascertain which it is: If I enter her apartment as she seems to be suggesting that I should and reveal myself to be a poor electrician this will do my reputation no good and she will see me as a loser, whereas if I go to the cupboard where I know the fuses to be and succeed in putting the lights on, that will kill the romantic ambience that is now being created – and the cupboard with the switches is too small for two humans. To test my suspicions, I suggested that she phone her Landlord, but she did not seem to think that possible, but anyway, whilst I was weighing these things up she went back inside alone. Perhaps I should have moved faster, but then, I did not want, at the least, to risk the embarrassement of rejection; or worse still, to risk a false Rape charge and neither had I any wish to be used by her as a free handyman. Some half an hour later I went outside on to the Patio to see whether her apartment was still in darkness. It was just like Genesis Chapter 1 Verse 14 and all the lights were on, so I concluded that she had been making a pass at me, but had, herself, got cold feet.
Later she and the German fell out and left: The German acquired a Boyfriend and as so often happens turned from an ugly duckling into a Swan: the Dutch girl, I see around sometimes, but she has put on weight and as they say, ‘hit the wall’ – quite unfanciable now – and also seems to have gone Lesbian.
@Deti – you are correct.
In review of this excellent blog – allow me to suggest that the term “game” is a bit misleading in the context of marriage.
A man / women is not marriage material unless they actually understand “Discipleship” which consist of picking up ones cross, denying oneself, and following Jesus which is sorely missing from current evangelical teaching ( In other words – they have to be seriously disciplined & “like minded” which is NOT YOUR TYPICAL AMERICAN “CHRISTIAN”).
If a “red pill” man marries a “blue pill” women regardless of religious profession – I suspect both will be miserable 80% of the time and will eventually end in divorce.
As you pointed out – Society, church, media, and courts are on the woman’s side and this is fed ad-naseum and unless it is recognized and seen for what is and “hated” by the woman ( ie red pill for woman). No married man stands a chance despite “gaming their wife” – its a tad to much “power” for someone who has the emotional maturity of a 18 year old – “gaming” is nothing but a short term fix imo.
Btw, I think a more accurate term would be “tough love” and absolute 100 % discipline- meaning what you say and sticking to it come hell or high water and cutting her off from attention, affection, sex , and be willing to walk away from everything if needed be ( btw it helps to stay in better mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual shape than her – healthy lifestyle, exercise and 6 pack abs go a long way).
Control of ones self goes a long way and stops “s__t testing” and commands respect.
GK Chesterton (the original) was one of the most insightful and influential writers of the early 20th century, if not the most. His columns influenced Ghandi to examine peaceful resistance as a means of social change, Michael Collins in his quest for Irish independence, and even CS Lewis’ move to Christianity.
His conversion to Catholicism was thoughtful and philosophically intriguing and his book On Orthodoxy is an amazing work. Not to be constrained to just one topic, he even developed a unique form of economy (redistributionism). All the while, he displayed such a wry wit (“Prince of Paradox”).
Yeah, having someone say that GK didn’t think things through is like, well, like something that I can’t even find a fitting analogy to explain. It’s that silly.
With the employer-employee analogy, there is no need to go through every possible permutation of that relationship to get to the truth. Nothing DH has said changes the underlying truth of Chesterton’s statement.
DH is using typical feminist argumentation techniques that only serve to obfuscate and deflect. There is no imagination or real intelligence behind what is merely clever sounding bluster.
Hey, I never said GK Chesterton wasn’t brilliant or influential. But I would say that he relies on his command of language, rather than an actual linear argument, in his writing on women. Either he made a deliberate tactical choice in doing so (persuade through the emotional power of language) or he was a brilliant guy who had a blind spot in assuming that what seems self-evident to him must in fact be correct.
CL, you can say that, but the fact is that the employer-employee relationship is limited, temporary and voluntary. Submission to a husband encompasses every aspect of life, lasts until death, and, under traditionalist thinking, is not supposed to be dissolved regardless of the desires of the people involved except in very limited circumstances. So Chesterton is incorrect to imply that the feminists are wrong to find more freedom in being an employee who does not submit to a husband compared to being a wife who does submit to a husband.
@ DH
You are severely limited if you think “linear argument” is the only way to discover truth. Nevertheless, Chesterton’s example that you cited couldn’t be stated more clearly. You’re just invested in disagreeing with such a statement so you are attempting to dismiss it, but there is is in plain English for anyone to understand.
As to your second point, do you at least entertain the possibility that there is a freedom in submitting to one’s husband? I realise this might be hard for you to fathom, but this is one of those things that, to crib from St Thomas Aquinas, to one who has not experienced such a dynamic, no explanation is possible.
Imo, the best game is “prayer” , scripture reading, and doing what it says:
– at least 1 hour a day alone
– at least 30 min a day with the partner
– at least 30 min with the family.
The spiritual leader is the de-facto leader.
Too many men don’t take Jesus or understand the rigors and benefits of discipleship and hence leave a open door.
DH is using typical feminist argumentation techniques that only serve to obfuscate and deflect. There is no imagination or real intelligence behind what is merely clever sounding bluster.
The likelihood that any feminist read Chesterton in any considerable length or depth is between slim and none. No tingles.
I chalk up observations by feminists on certain people/topics to the “Ulysses/Gravity’s Rainbow” phenomenon I ran into in college. I was a Lib Arts guy – English. The number of folks who said they read those works far exceeds the number that actually read them (and those that understood, even fewer). Good grief, listening to a class of 18-21 years olds muddle through Wordsworth or Coleridge was painful enough.
CL asks: As to your second point, do you at least entertain the possibility that there is a freedom in submitting to one’s husband?
No.
That said, I have shown that submitting to an employer offers more freedom than submitting to a husband, but Chesterton would be correct if his point was that submitting to an employer does not offer freedom in the absolute. Indeed, there is no such thing as freedom from submission to others altogether. All of us have to obey the laws of our society, pull over for the cop, follow the rules of our employment if we wish to stay employed, tell the customer that he is always right, etc. But I don’t see any reason to seek out additional authorities to whom to submit, or to submit in aspects of my life (such as skirts-vs.-trousers) in which I am currently my own authority.
Vox Writes,
” Being truth, Game is a subset of Christianity that happens to relate to an area of particular importance and interest to men.”
Heartsiste must be very flattered as Heartiste’s teachings are now a subset of Christ’ teachings as Witnessed Firtshand by Dalrock and Vox, during Christ’ other Sermonon the Mount which was a Seromon on Mounting Poon lzozozzoz! I did not catch this in Matthew, Mark, Luke, nor John, but I imagine Deacon Dalrock is adding a new book–the book of Dalrock, in which the sermon on the mount and all that crap about the meek is replaced with Vox’s idea of “Christianity as Game” lzozlzozooz which is all about pursuing and dominating poon and learning how to make a owman’s gina and butt tingelzzozlozoz:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/ (note that heartiste signs this as Your Lord and King, as Heartiste, acting through Christ as Dalrock & Vox insist, is their true Lord and King! lzozozozoz) :
Matthew,Mark, Luke, and John all had the day off, but Dalrock and Vox got up early to see Jesus preaching Game on the mount (the sermon on the mount was actually a sermon on how to mount poon! lzozozozlzlzoz)
Dalrock and Vox both Testify that they Witnessed Jesus Preaching:
The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon (the sermon on the mount–on how to mount poon)
(As originally taught by Jesus Christ as Witnessed by Dalrock and Vox)
Dalrock and Vox both Testify that they Witnessed Jesus Preaching:
I. Never say ‘I Love You’ first
Women want to feel like they have to overcome obstacles to win a man’s heart. They crave the challenge of capturing the interest of a man who has other women competing for his attention, and eventually prevailing over his grudging reluctance to award his committed exclusivity. The man who gives his emotional world away too easily robs women of the satisfaction of earning his love. Though you may be in love with her, don’t say it before she has said it. Show compassionate restraint for her need to struggle toward yin fulfillment. Inspire her to take the leap for you, and she’ll return the favor a thousandfold.
Dalrock and Vox both Testify that they Witnessed Jesus Preaching:
II. Make her jealous
Flirt with other women in front of her. Do not dissuade other women from flirting with you. Women will never admit this but jealousy excites them. The thought of you turning on another woman will arouse her sexually. No girl wants a man that no other woman wants. The partner who harnesses the gale storm of jealousy controls the direction of the relationship.
Dalrock and Vox both Testify that they Witnessed Jesus Preaching:
III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority
Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore.
Dalrock and Vox both Testify that they Witnessed Jesus Preaching:
IV. Don’t play by her rules
If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire. The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man. Polarity is the core of a healthy loving relationship. She does not want the prerogative to walk all over you with her capricious demands and mercurial moods. Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable.
Dalrock and Vox both Testify that they Witnessed Jesus Preaching:
V. Adhere to the golden ratio
Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you. For every three calls or texts, give her two back. Three declarations of love earn two in return. Three gifts; two nights out. Give her two displays of affection and stop until she has answered with three more. When she speaks, you reply with fewer words. When she emotes, you emote less. The idea behind the golden ratio is twofold — it establishes your greater value by making her chase you, and it demonstrates that you have the self-restraint to avoid getting swept up in her personal dramas. Refraining from reciprocating everything she does for you in equal measure instills in her the proper attitude of belief in your higher status. In her deepest loins it is what she truly wants.
Dalrock and Vox both Testify that they Witnessed Jesus Preaching:
VI. Keep her guessing
True to their inscrutable natures, women ask questions they don’t really want direct answers to. Woe be the man who plays it straight — his fate is the suffering of the beta. Evade, tease, obfuscate. She thrives when she has to imagine what you’re thinking about her, and withers when she knows exactly how you feel. A woman may want financial and family security, but she does not want passion security. In the same manner, when she has displeased you, punish swiftly, but when she has done you right, reward slowly. Reward her good behavior intermittently and unpredictably and she will never tire of working hard to please you.
Dalrock and Vox both Testify that they Witnessed Jesus Preaching:
VII. Always keep two in the kitty
Never allow yourself to be a “kept man”. A man with options is a man without need. It builds confidence and encourages boldness with women if there is another woman, a safety net, to catch you in case you slip and risk a breakup, divorce, or a lost prospect, leading to loneliness and a grinding dry spell. A woman knows once she has slept with a man she has abdicated a measure of her power; when she has fallen in love with him she has surrendered nearly all of it. But love is ephemeral and with time she may rediscover her power and threaten to leave you. It is her final trump card. Withdrawing all her love and all her body in an instant will rend your soul if you are faced with contemplating the empty abyss alone. Knowing there is another you can turn to for affection will fortify your will and satisfy your manhood.
Dalrock and Vox both Testify that they Witnessed Jesus Preaching:
VIII. Say you’re sorry only when absolutely necessary
Do not say you’re sorry for every wrong thing you do. It is a posture of submission that no man should reflexively adopt, no matter how alpha he is. Apologizing increases the demand for more apologies. She will come to expect your contrition, like a cat expects its meal at a set time each day. And then your value will lower in her eyes. Instead, if you have done something wrong, you should acknowledge your guilt in a glancing way without resorting to the actual words “I’m sorry.” Pull the Bill Clinton maneuver and say “Mistakes were made” or tell her you “feel bad” about what you did. You are granted two freebie “I’m sorry”s for the life of your relationship; use them wisely.
Dalrock and Vox both Testify that they Witnessed Jesus Preaching:
IX. Connect with her emotions
Set yourself apart from other men and connect with a woman’s emotional landscape. Her mind is an alien world that requires deft navigation to reach your rendevous. Frolic in the surf of emotions rather than the arid desert of logic. Be playful. Employ all your senses. Describe in lush detail scenarios to set her heart afire. Give your feelings freedom to roam. ROAM. Yes, that is a good word. You’re not on a linear path with her. You are ROAMING all over, taking her on an adventure. In this world, there is no need to finish thoughts or draw conclusions. There is only need to EXPERIENCE. You’re grabbing her hand and running with her down an infinite, labyrinthine alleyway with no end, laughing and letting your fingers glide on the cobblestone walls along the way.
Dalrock and Vox both Testify that they Witnessed Jesus Preaching:
X. Ignore her beauty
The man who trains his mind to subdue the reward centers of his brain when reflecting upon a beautiful female face will magically transform his interactions with women. His apprehension and self-consciousness will melt away, paving the path for more honest and self-possessed interactions with the objects of his desire. This is one reason why the greatest lotharios drown in more love than they can handle — through positive experiences with so many beautiful women they lose their awe of beauty and, in turn, their powerlessness under its spell. It will help you acquire the right frame of mind to stop using the words hot, cute, gorgeous, or beautiful to describe girls who turn you on. Instead, say to yourself “she’s interesting” or “she might be worth getting to know”. Never compliment a girl on her looks, especially not a girl you aren’t fucking. Turn off that part of your brain that wants to put them on pedestals. Further advanced training to reach this state of unawed Zen transcendence is to sleep with many MANY attractive women (try to avoid sleeping with a lot of ugly women if you don’t want to regress). Soon, a Jedi lover you will be.
Dalrock and Vox both Testify that they Witnessed Jesus Preaching:
XI. Be irrationally self-confident
No matter what your station in life, stride through the world without apology or excuse. It does not matter if objectively you are not the best man a woman can get; what matters is that you think and act like you are. Women have a dog’s instinct for uncovering weakness in men; don’t make it easy for them. Self-confidence, warranted or not, triggers submissive emotional responses in women. Irrational self-confidence will get you more pussy than rational defeatism.
Dalrock and Vox both Testify that they Witnessed Jesus Preaching:
XII. Maximize your strengths, minimize your weaknesses
In the betterment of ourselves as men we attract women into our orbit. To accomplish this gravitational pull as painlessly and efficiently as possible, you must identify your natural talents and shortcomings and parcel your efforts accordingly. If you are a gifted jokester, don’t waste time and energy trying to raise your status in philosophical debate. If you write well but dance poorly, don’t kill yourself trying to expand your manly influence on the dancefloor. Your goal should be to attract women effortlessly, so play to your strengths no matter what they are; there is a groupie for every male endeavor. Except World of Warcraft.
Dalrock and Vox both Testify that they Witnessed Jesus Preaching:
XIII. Err on the side of too much boldness, rather than too little
Touching a woman inappropriately on the first date will get you further with her than not touching her at all. Don’t let a woman’s faux indignation at your boldness sway you; they secretly love it when a man aggressively pursues what he wants and makes his sexual intentions known. You don’t have to be an asshole, but if you have no choice, being an inconsiderate asshole beats being a polite beta, every time.
Dalrock and Vox both Testify that they Witnessed Jesus Preaching:
XIV. Fuck her good
Fuck her like it’s your last fuck. And hers. Fuck her so good, so hard, so wantonly, so profligately that she is left a quivering, sparking mass of shaking flesh and sex fluids. Drain her of everything, then drain her some more. Kiss her all over, make love to her all night, and hold her close in the morning. Own her body, own her gratitude, own her love. If you don’t know how, learn to give her squirting orgasms.
Dalrock and Vox both Testify that they Witnessed Jesus Preaching:
XV. Maintain your state control
You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her.
Dalrock and Vox both Testify that they Witnessed Jesus Preaching:
XVI. Never be afraid to lose her
You must not fear. Fear is the love-killer. Fear is the ego-triumph that brings abject loneliness. You will face your fear. You will permit it to pass over and through you. And when your ego-fear is gone you will turn and face your lover, and only your heart will remain. You will walk away from her when she has violated your integrity, and you will let her walk when her heart is closed to you. She who can destroy you, controls you. Don’t give her that power over yourself. Love yourself before you love her.
***
The closer you follow the letter of these commandments, the easier you will find and keep real, true unconditional love and happiness in your life.
Best,
Your Lord and King
– http://heartiste.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/
lzozozlozolzlzoz
If you want to see more of what Dalrock and Vox Witnessed Jesus teaching, watch the videos of Roosh & Mystery! lzozlzozoozzlo
In the real world, religion functions primarily as a substitute for obedience to god– a form of godliness without the power thereof.
Indeed.
2nd Timothy 3:1-5
[with my comments]
1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
[Intuitively obvious to the most casual observer]
2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent [= old term for lack of sexual restrait], fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
[Sounds a lot like modern secular society.. but wait…there’s more]
5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
[OMG…. they’re not talking about the secular folks at all… This is a prophecy of Churchianity! They have a form of godliness — churches , worship service, etc — yet deny or resist the power to actually have their lives changed! Note the command: TURN AWAY from them!]
6For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
[is this a prophecy of the PUA Movement and the Sunday Morning Nightclub, running rampant through the bedrooms of the “evangelical” princesses?]
7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
[Most college education nowadays is worthless, either for getting a job or for understanding deep things]
God saw this all coming, long ago…
I’ll tell you who’s got very effective GAME. For anyone here, who’s got eyes to see and ears to hear, Satan the thief comes only to steal, and to kill, and to destroy (marriages, families, babies and children, men, male-female relationships, The Church), through his deceiving evil spirit of feminism.
WE ARE AT WAR!
But our fight is not against what most of us think. Our fight is not against flesh and blood (humans, women, feminism), but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
We are human, but we can’t wage war as humans do, in this war. We use God’s mighty weapons to knock down strongholds of human reasoning (FEMINIST IDEOLOGIES) and to destroy false arguments (FEMINIST IDEOLOGIES). We destroy every proud obstacle (FEMINISM) that keeps people from knowing God and the TRUTH. We capture their rebellious thoughts (FEMINISM)
Are their any eyes that see and ears that hear out there?
John10:10, Ephesians 6:12, 2 Corinthians 10:3-5
I have shown that submitting to an employer offers more freedom than submitting to a husband
But when an employer screws you, it is not a pleasant experience. Of course, it is impossible to submit to a husband while getting boned by a bunch of other dicks.
@ RTP
Indeed, I admit that Joyce was too difficult for me as it was for most people even at a top university – our tutorial prof didn’t even expect us to read the whole thing. So, I’m inclined to agree with your suspicions re: feminists and Chesterton.
But when an employer screws you, it is not a pleasant experience.
Ha ha, well that’s certainly an important distinction.
@Gabriella
Only Christ can make someone holy, and that’s what we see in Ephesians 5:26-30.
What St. Paul is describing here is a set of pictures, overlaid. There’s a translucent picture of the husband pouring out water and washing his wife. Through this picture, you can see Christ washing His bride, the church. If you look even more closely you can see that the hands of Christ are actually many husbands; each individually washing some small portion of the church; which is made up of men and women. (Note that men should teach men and women, but women exhorted to teach only women.) Even smaller those husband-hands are If we take a step back and look at the whole collection of art produced by St. Paul, and all the other writers of scripture, we see the God pouring out the Word of God, which is Christ, ([John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and Word was with God, and the Word was God]) on the world as a humble human; poured out in service to Israel as He traveled it during His ministry; and ultimately literally poured the Word out on the cross for the church.
The Water of the Word, which is Christ, is what does the work. He is the clean water that cleanses. The hands are there, doing what the head (Christ) commands, merely to move the water over the woman to be washed. That would look like reading scripture to her, and with her; praying for her, and with her; going to church, and bringing her with him; getting involved in care-taking legitimate widows and orphans, and having her help; taking her to do interesting things, and getting her away from television and magazines…generally living his Christ-centered life and asking her to come along with you, that she may be washed as he is washed.
By the way, this is the ONLY philosophy that addresses the paradox that women have their own moral agency, but that men are morally responsible for women. In the same way, mankind has its own moral agency, but Christ demonstrates a moral responsibility for us all. It’s called love, and is expressed by grace.
@Deti
The courts and laws are the just and natural condemnations for our corporate elevation of women and permission of feminism. Many game theorists have pointed this out; some explicitly, and some under cover of “enjoying the decline”. But we should be looking to our scriptures.
1 Peter 2:13-17
Now, is it really the case in very many of broken homes where we witness either a husband or a wife are living out the text of Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3 (which Elspeth wisely referenced above)? What I see most commonly is that he does not have the frame St. Paul describes, and she does not submit to his authority. In those very few cases where an earnest believer is defrauded of marriage, I would suggest that what we’re dealing with is people who call themselves Christians, but who, themselves, know they are not. This is horrible for those few faithful spouses, and we should help them by shunning the offender (though they be our mother, father, sister, brother, or cousin), and offering support through prayer, spending time with them, and up-to and including legal defenses, if necessary.
I’d ask that you compare the treatment of referring to Ephesians and screaming, to the treatment St. Paul prescribes. What you’re describing is the modern church’s answer: and as you have well-noted it is a recipe for disaster. And, for comparison, here is a summation of those tools you espouse at the end of your comment. From Heartiste, who is the epicenter of game theory, in his latest post:
That is a frame of pain, torture, and death, and it is ubiquitous in the game culture, because the game is the out-growth (the fruit) of disorder and feminism. They themselves know it, explain it, and delight in it. It is concerned with the destruction of people, so that others might learn how better to hide the truth with lies, for the purpose of seducing women. In no way can you ascribe goodness to that frame, and in no way does it resemble Christian marriage; which is–again–the temporal expression of God’s nature, His love for us, and His plan for us.
Look at the demands Athol Kay makes on himself and his wife. This is what game does–it tortures a good thing into a monster. Now, he or follower of his might come back with “Sex with your wife all the time? Yeah, some “torture”.” That’s not what I see, but instead a grueling regime that rules every aspect of his life.
You cannot serve light and darkness. You can”t get there from here; even with a noble goal of saving his marriage and others, like Athol Kay has.
I want to say that in the past, I have been extraordinarily bad about these things. It isn’t the case that I’m saying: “I’ve lived it! It works!” I can only explain it as that it has been revealed to me (I know: I sound crazy, if not idiotic.), and in no small way am I indebted to our blog host for this personal revelation. That’s none of your business, but I tell you so that it’s clear I am not lumping Dalrock in with others. This blog is not primarily concerned with game, but with the horror-show that produces game.
I also want to cheer Opus’ comment above, about not being able to find an ancient reference to game. Time is a great judge of character; in fact it is the measure of character. Game, at it’s best, is a Frankenstein; a cobbled-up mess of real ancient truths, and modern lies (just like that pathetic mess of text, “48 Laws of Power”, or whatever it’s titled) with a proclaimed goal of taking advantage of people.
Cane: The core of game theory, is the undeniable fact of female hypergamy. That hypothesis perfectly explained the romantic troubles of my single days, and those of many other men. Until you show us that some other hypothesis fits our experiences better, we are going to stick with female hypergamy as the explanation.
BTW, if you look around, female hypergamy is implicitly referred to in the scriptures; see the Song of Solomon for instance.
PUA is not “game”, PUA is simply one particular sinful misuse of game.
How to apply “Game” (understanding female hypergamy) righteously? Since biblical patriarchy assigns a husband to a higher social rank, the hypergamy problem is solved. As an earlier poster noted, Amish don’t need to “learn game”, it’s automatic in their social system… as it should be in ours.
How to apply “Game” (understanding female hypergamy) righteously? Since biblical patriarchy assigns a husband to a higher social rank, the hypergamy problem is solved. As an earlier poster noted, Amish don’t need to “learn game”, it’s automatic in their social system… as it should be in ours.
That’s absolutely fascinating.
You guys are funny. You have a hard time understanding why women get offended at being told they are stupid, pathetic, and hopelessly evil and need to be controlled like a naughty toddler to keep from ruining EVERYTHING.
Even if that is every bit true do you honestly expect it to go over well? We have egos too and most of us don’t particularly like being told we are societal baggage that needs to be “managed” lest we completely destroy civilization and send every soul to hell.
Frankly, even as a Christian I can admit that the Bible is offensive to my ego. I don’t try to make it mean something it doesn’t I just accept that it sucks to be a woman. Just like it sucks to be gay. Even if a certain percentage of the population being gay is an evolutionary adaptation to help deal with population crisis (as research into gay rats suggests) it doesn’t change the fact that being gay is a serious handicap in living a Christian life. Being a woman is a similar handicap because we are naturally more cowardly.
The way to deal with all us dysfunctionals..the women..the gays.. and stupid people..etc… is the same way you do a hysterical 5 year old wanting validation for their hurt feelings. Pat them on the head..tell them you are sorry reality sucks..and ask if they will color you a pretty picture of a unicorn. Don’t deconstruct the 5 year olds sinfulness and entitlement complex and expect them to be suddenly enlightened that their feelings mean shit. Even if they “get it” they would have been much happier with the crayons.
While women are (or should be) more rational than a 5 year old the fact remains that most women can be satiated if you just act (pretend) like you care and give us a job to do that is appreciated. That is kind of why a Game strategy is to turn everything sexual. It serves as both a distraction as well as affirming that the woman has some worth to you.
Here’s what I read: “I’m sinful, and I’ve been sinful. This sinful theory suits me because it fits in with my sin. I’m sticking with what I know.”
It is true that I can’t convince you of the Christian “hypothesis” through argument. That’s not my goal.
Nonsense. Married gamers PUA at home. This is vanity, and very different from loving your wife; as different as knowing God, and wanting to know like God.
@Gabriella
I’m not sure anyone is truly “handicapped” in Christianity. Why is it that “I can do all things through Christ Jesus” disappears when men start getting down to the nitty-gritty of scripture…? Have you not read that “God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty”?
Cane:
Game is a tool, not a way of life. The Christian can use the tool of Game without sinning. Game is properly used to manage hypergamy.
You are talking about the use of game for seduction. That is but one of its uses.
Game can also be used for male self improvement, setting frame, passing shit tests, among other things.
One can use Game in the service of his marriage. But if you have a wife who needs constant Game, and is in constant rebellion unless the husband is in full on asshole mode, then this is a wife who probably should not be married.
@GKC
The problem with this way of thinking is if you have 100 women who make a lifestyle choice not to marry (or to significantly delay marriage), and they have sex with say 40 alphas, how is it an improvement for the women if instead they only have sex with 30 alphas? You don’t need 100 alphas to service 100 marriage delayers.
Even worse, the moral focus on the alphas is taken by the women as absolving their own responsibility. You may recall Heather Fink from the Dr. Phil video. She had no shame in describing how she called the PUA up and arranged to come over for sex. Then she talked about what a shame it was that he wasn’t keeping his chastity and that he instead was (if I’m understanding the bleeped part right) acting like an unpaid whore. The irony was fully lost on her. You may also recall that she still planned to marry, and didn’t see her actions as creating any future problems there.
This is what Gilliganism brings us. If you want more of the same, all you need to do is stay on the same path.
However, if you want to start to reign in the rampant promiscuity, you will instead focus the bulk of your social efforts on the young women just as our ancestors did. They are the ones more susceptible to shame (note Heather Fink’s reactions in the comment thread), and the basic math is then on your side. Shame away 50 would be hussies, and you have 50 more women suitable for marriage. Shame away a handful of alphas (which is the best you can do), and all of the would be hussies are still unsuitable for marriage.
The only downside of course is that it gets in the way of the backslapping party, and you are forced to see the faces of unhappy sluts.
Me: The core of game theory, is the undeniable fact of female hypergamy. That hypothesis perfectly explained the romantic troubles of my single days,..
Cane: Here’s what I read: “I’m sinful, and I’ve been sinful. This sinful theory suits me because it fits in with my sin. I’m sticking with what I know.”
You read wrong. I was a virgin til my wedding night. I’ve never used this knowledge to sin.
This testable theory suits me because it fits in with my empirical observations and those of many others. As a professionally trained scientist, I’m sticking with this hypothesis
Until/unless it is refuted…. which you have come nowhere close to doing!
WE ARE AT WAR!
But our fight is not against what most of us think. Our fight is not against flesh and blood (humans, women, feminism), but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
@GregC
I very much agree with you on this point, and I sure hope that everyone here is on their knees in prayer before God about all these matters. I hope everyone isn’t just complaining or enjoying the intellectual aspects of the conversations. The prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (James 5:16) On my blog, I write Sunday Supplications and invite readers to join me in prayer for the Church; you could also just stop what you’re doing right now a minute and pray for the church to be brought to repentance. I sometimes will stop reading mid-thread and pray for someone who had commented, even though I don’t know them in IRL – I trust God will know who I’m praying for.
You know the saying “If you don’t vote, don’t complain”? Here is my take on that:
If you aren’t praying, quit complaining.
Cane:
What sin are you accusing van Rooinek of?
Trying to find a wife? Trying to get a date? Pursuing women he was interested in? Listening to pastors and teachers and parents who told him to “be nice, be yourself”?
Christian living requires obedience to the Word and the *courage* to suffer for the sake of obedience.
Women hate to suffer therefore they have a natural handicap.
Men don’t particularly like suffering but their aversion to it seems to be much less strong and are therefore more capable of heroic virtue.
@Gabriella —
You take a dim view of women, but I’m afraid you argue in vain. Why do you do it? Do you need an “out” to justify your own disobedience? The suffering that follows disobedience is far worse than that which follows obedience. The yoke of Jesus is easy, and His burden is light.
Sure, Satan has game, but again, it’s a tool. The guy robbing a store has a gun; so does a hunter who is shooting his own food. Satan also knows scripture, but that doesn’t mean Christians shouldn’t know scripture.
@ Dalrock
If they can be shamed into remaining marriageable and marriage-focused, then they have been done a great favor. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. Perhaps these girls can be saved from this fate. If so, it is worth seeing the unhappy faces of shamed sluts.
And here I thought all good things come from Christ…
You are blind. Not only are you blind, but completely contradictory and confused; babbling like you are frightened to death! First it’s a set of tools (let’s call this a philosophy, because that is what we call ideas that are a metaphorical set of tools) for understanding women’s hypergamous nature; then it’s a philosophy that is useful and good for every aspect of a man’s life. What you are espousing is a philosophy that is in direct competition with scripture; which says
“Narrow is the way, you must strive to get in”
“All good things come from God”
“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
“No man comes to the Father except by me”
“Seek first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.”
…or you can just Game it out of the women, society, and the universe as a whole. Opus’ comparison to The Secret was superb. You are blind. You CANNOT get there from here.
HAS THERE BEEN A WOMAN SINCE EVE WHO WAS NOT IN REBELLION? What game says, and what you speak here, but do not understand, is that the conclusion you must reach via game is that no man should marry. Not only is this ridiculous on its face, but it’s blasphemous; it’s a literal denial of God’s temporal expression of His nature, His love for us, and His plan for us.
I think what GBFM and Cane are getting at is the idea that a true Christian would even need game. As a Christian, you are meant to serve God’s will, not your own and not that of your wife. Thus to ‘game’ your wife or the woman you want to marry is to bend your will to her’s and not to God. I have to agree with that principle.
Put another way, if you have to ‘game’ your wife, is she in fact Christian or merely pretending?
The Bible takes a dim view of women. Have you read it?
I fully admit I am a coward but I don’t use it to excuse sinfulness. I’ll go to hell for disobedience regardless of the reasons for it. Just like a gay person goes to hell for homosexuality regardless of the fact that they may have been born with that desire.
A natural handicap is an excuse for diddly squat. The rules are the rules.
But if you have a wife who needs constant Game, and is in constant rebellion unless the husband is in full on asshole mode, then this is a wife who probably should not be married.
This is correct. After my redpill moment (ca 1998, before the term “redpill” existed) I was faced with a terrible choice: stay nice and keep getting rejected — or become a jerk, get a wife easily, and have to put on a false front of jerkhood for the rest of my life, at the cost of my soul.
I stayed nice. Wiser, but nice. And I kept on getting rejected, til I found a nonrebellious woman.
The Bible takes a dim view of women. Have you read it?
A feminist reading of it would make it seem dim. Are you sure you’re not “seeing” it through that lens?
Someguy, Doesn’t this whole forum take a dim view of women?
DH, doesn’t the whole world take a dim view of men?
@Gabriella
” You have a hard time understanding why women get offended at being told they are stupid, pathetic, and hopelessly evil and need to be controlled like a naughty toddler to keep from ruining EVERYTHING.”
Nah, we just have a hard time understanding how they don’t see it themselves.
Gabriella says:
You will need to elaborate what you are talking about since I don’t know what you are talking about. I have never felt that way when reading the scriptures. I have felt that many passages were misconstrued when they were taught in Bible studies and such. Could this be where you are getting your view from?
Feminist Hater,
Holy Non Sequitur, Batman!
(And for the record, I agree that many strains in our culture take a dim view of men, as well as women.)
DH: Doesn’t this whole forum take a dim view of women?
Only because it is populated mainly by men who have been very badly, badly hurt by women. And in order to be so badly hurt, the starting point had to be …LOVE.
The Bible laments over and over and over that women are TROUBLE with a capital T and must be ruled over to be kept in check. I don’t have to be a feminist to find that depiction less than flattering.
@Doomed Harlot —
This whole forum does not take a dim view of women. The people that argue that women have no moral agency are the ones doing that. Shining a light on the horror that has been unleashed by feminism is actually not anti-woman, hateful, or misogynistic in any way. It is merely a fact. Pointing out the consequences of those ideas may hurt some women’s feelings, but that is not the ultimate goal of these discussions by any stretch.
Gabriella,
“Just like a gay person goes to hell for homosexuality regardless of the fact that they may have been born with that desire.”
There goes that hamster again (women really do distort everything). A homosexual isn’t going to hell because they are sexually attracted to the same gender, they are going to Hell if they haven’t accepted Christ. Isn’t a sin to BE gay, just a sin to act upon the urge. Just like for a hetero couple who isn’t married.
I know, I know, when you actually break it down it clarifies the issue, but then the Cultural Marxists would have nothing to rail against.
Deti: “What sin has he not committed?” would be a shorter list, from the scriptural perspective; the scriptural philosophy. This is true of everyone.
No, you didn’t.
DH, of course it follows. This blog brings to light the failings of women because the rest of the world seems quite intent to merely lay the blame at the feet of men. Remember the scales of Justice? Someone has to argue the other side in order to maintain balance.
@Gabriella:
I may have missed this somewhere, but… are you a Christian? Do you accept the bible is true?
If yes, then… why on earth are you bitching about the Word of God?
If no, then… why are you fixated on anything that it has to say…?
Let me be clear- A person goes to hell for homosexual ACTIONS. I said homosexuality is a handicap.
I am very much a Christian because I believe it is TRUE. The TRUTH is UNFLATTERING to my EGO.
I am not insulting the Word. At all. I can empathize with the feminists who are insulted because it IS insulting. It just so happens to also be true. Truth hurts sometimes.
Cane,
I’m not sure I understand your argument. Would you be interested in writing a guest post making your case instead of defending it piecemeal here? You would still probably want to defend your case in the comments section of the guest post, but it would allow you to start on a better footing. I can’t say I will agree with your position, but at the very least having a countering view on something like this can be a good thing either way.
The Bible takes a dim view of women’s judgment. Huge difference.
Van Rooinek, I don’t mean to offend your wife, so let me take this further. If you found an unrebellious woman the last thing you should have done was marry her, and joined what is holy with what is unholy; for the two become one, and the result would be worse than the ingredients.
Do you see how what you had said is but one more iteration of the message of the modern church? “As a Christian, I recognize that I’m sinful, but I found a woman who is not.” ~ Glen “Van Rooinek” Stanton
If any religion has a level playing field it is Christianity. (“For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God….”)
Being a homosexual is no more of a handicap than being a liar is.
Have you missed the passages that tell women to be responsible adults and keep themselves in check, to be productive women, to earn their husband’s trust so he need not worry about what she’s doing. What about the part that instructs the older women how they should conduct themselves and teach the younger women to do likewise? Where is that being ruled over? A woman is told to submit to her husband so that she will have provision and protection, not because she is a troublesome child. A woman who behaves in a responsible and respectful manner is rewarded; this is in scripture also. So I am very confused as to what you are talking about.
Amen and amen to sunshinemary!
I see that you see and hear!
I will check your blog out this Sunday. Thanks!
Deti: “What sin has he not committed?” would be a shorter list, from the scriptural perspective; the scriptural philosophy. This is true of everyone.
True Cane but you are dodging the point: What sin do you imagine that I am excusing or holding onto, when I assert that, female hypergamy is a fact, and is root of Game?
[… Van Rooinek] found a nonrebellious woman.
No, you didn’t
Of course nobody is absolutely free of rebellion. But I found one who understands biblical submission, and therefore requires only minimal “management.” To use another gamer’s terminology, it’s a Captain/First Officer arrangement, because I can trust her as 1st Officer.
With her I don’t need game — old fashioned manhood is enough.
It seems that Gabriella has not come to terms with being female and thus finds the Bible insulting. This is the whole impetus behind feminism; that women are inferior to men and so need to be more like men in order to rectify that. Of course, this isn’t true at all, but to one with an excess of pride it could easily seem that way.
The Bible laments over and over and over that women are TROUBLE with a capital T and must be ruled over to be kept in check. I don’t have to be a feminist to find that depiction less than flattering.
And you can’t find many, many more books, verses, songs in the Bible that exalt women?
Feminists cherry-pick and pull things out of context to deliberately flatter the intellectual vanity of man and chip away at their faith in God’s authority.
man=many
the intellectual vanity of many
Jacquie- Of course the Bible tells women to keep themselves in check…by being OBEDIENT to their husbands or whatever male rules over them. It exhorts women to be submissive because intellectually and psychologically we are handicapped.
If you take a rosier view of the truth than I do then you are welcome to that view. I see much of the Bible as an exhortation to not be an obnoxious brat and for men to keep women from being an onboxious brat if she can’t manage it herself.
But I am kind of a glass-half-empty type so there you have it.
Oh, and I’m rather hard to insult, but the comparison with Glenn Stanton came perilously close to fighting words. It’s bad form to insult people on the internet, where you can’t be “called out” for it.
I read your most recent comment and understand where you are coming from now. But I want to address this
@Gabriella
“The Bible laments over and over and over that women are TROUBLE with a capital T and must be ruled over to be kept in check. I don’t have to be a feminist to find that depiction less than flattering.”
That’s because their actions weren’t very flattering
If you look at most of great characters the Old Testament, you’ll find that a huge number of them were brought down by women in some way or another.
Adam = Eve (eating of the Tree)
Abraham = Wife implored him to commit adultery
Noah = His daughters got him drunk and seduced him
Moses = Mother put him in the river to get rid of him
David = Bathsheba
Those are some pretty huge patriarchs who resisted some pretty massive sin only to be brought down by women or their influence.
Gabriella, I’m going to be blunt. Get over yourself. You won’t have to worry about your ego and it will not bother you so much.
Jacquie- I am self-aware enough to know my ego is bigger than it should be. But so is most women’s, hence the success of feminism and the fact that very few women are willing to accept the Truth whole-heartedly when they realize that it contradicts their lofty opinion of themselves.
In a perfect world we would all be as selfless as you and the other ladies in this forum. But if you accept that many women have big egos then they are easier to manage. Kind of like knowing child psychology makes it easier to manage children.
ar10308,
I think Gabriella likely agrees with you on that point and basically with Jacquie too. She is saying the truth hurts, but that she accepts it because she is not ruled by her ego.
I happen to totally disagree, of course, that women are naturally cowardly or bratty as a class. Some are, but so are some men.
No, Gabriella, by being obedient to God. This is where I think you are missing everything. We are not to serve man, but God. We are not to have our eyes on earthly things, but those things that are beyond this earth, laying up treasures in heaven. You say you are a Christian but your views say otherwise.
I’m not dodging the point at all; I’m just not answering the question in the way you want me to.
Though you (hopefully) haven’t thought about it, you want me to assume the role of friend of the Adversary: “See, God and all, and I will show you what sins that VR has done!” that you might defend yourself. But I have been called to take the role of friend of the Advocate: “You are in serious trouble, my friend; like me. Repent.” because I have caught a glimpse of the evidence against you, and the Judge is to be feared. You have no defense.
What happened to her hypergamous nature? Game says all women are hypergamous all the time, and inherently. Whatever you did, this is–BY FAR–a better result than learning game, so to enter a lifetime battle for authority.
By the way, what many are calling game, is actually called authority, and it was invested in each of us, from the beginning, according to our purposes. Even a harridan wife cannot take that away; even if she were to put you death, as the world did to Christ. In Him, yet still, is all authority invested.
@Dalrock
Yes, I would do a guest-post, and be honored to do so. It would help me if there were two things done first. Maybe just the first one, but I think two. You can email me if you would like.
1) I need a solid, corporately agreed-upon answer on: What is game?
2) Can you point to anything I’ve said that has been particularly confusing? It would help me organize my thoughts, and satisfy the request.
Noah = His daughters got him drunk and seduced him
No, that was LOT. After the destruction of Sodom, hiding in the mountains, the daughters of Lot thought they would never find any other men, so they got their father drunk, in order to get pregnant.
Noah also got drunk, but it was son Ham who “uncovered his nakedness”…. whatever that means. Some interpreters think it was simply mockery of a man who’d fallen asleep drunk and whose robe had slipped off, others think it was something far darker.
Great. I’ll send you an email later this afternoon Cane.
DH
“I think Gabriella likely agrees with you on that point and basically with Jacquie too. She is saying the truth hurts, but that she accepts it because she is not ruled by her ego.”
Yes, I understand that.
“I happen to totally disagree, of course, that women are naturally cowardly or bratty as a class. Some are, but so are some men.”
Of course. But men plainly admit that there are evil men, because they recognize those desires in themselves. HOWEVER, women have an extremely difficult time admitting that those desires exist within themselves, when their existence can easily be proven by their actions.
Jacquie- Submitting to our husbands, fathers, and godly male authority is how we serve God.
VR,
Thanks for the correction.
Don’t forget it was Gabriella who posted at Traditional Christianity on how to manipulate you husband through sins of omission and deceit. Unfortunately, the original post is unavailable now but I did extract some of it for my post.
Cane…. either you really have it in for me for some reason, or you *just don’t understand* what I’m saying.
“You are in serious trouble, my friend; like me. Repent.” because I have caught a glimpse of the evidence against you, and the Judge is to be feared. You have no defense.
Before God none of us has a defense, granted. But in the context of this discussion, you’ve not shown that I’m wrong. Telling me that I (like you) am a sinner in general, is not an argument.
With her I don’t need game — old fashioned manhood is enough.
What happened to her hypergamous nature?
She told me plainly, I was the first man she ever met, who was a strong enough spiritual leader, that she could confidently submit to me.
CL- You took the entire thing out of context and people who read what you wrote will have absolutely no idea what the actual thing was about.
I make myself VERY easy to hate because I am brutally honest about my flaws but I do so because I would rather people hate me and understand that so many women are more similar to me than to the women who post here.
But please…go Read CLs post so you can understand what a triflin bitch I am and I can add to the ever so lengthy list of people who think I am despicable. Then let your horror do some good and pray for my husband.
@ Gabriella
I don’t hate you. I just think you are wrong.
And what “context” is there for advocating dishonesty?
Thank you for the reminder of the post, CL, I didn’t make the connection of who I was trying to communicate with here. I remember reading that post on your site and thinking that I got similar advice from Christian women I used to know.
I’m also not sure about Traditional Christianity site. Now that they have gone private it’s difficult to know what kind of writing is going on. I only know that a couple of weeks ago I got alot of traffic over on my blog from there. I’ve wondered what kind of things were written about me. Now I may have a better idea.
@van Rooinek (just noticed the V isn’t capitalized. Not sure if it’s important)
I confess that I did mean to sting you (It’s The Problem of Pain, you see.), but I intended for it to spur you to greater thought.
———————–
As an aside: I think it’s fascinating that the more influential game theorists, have made almost no rebuttal to my arguments–because they’re not my arguments. All I’m doing is blurting out what the Source of Authority has to say.
It’s also fascinating that the majority of women in the comments are here, and there, and everywhere with their talk; but almost none of it in direct response to what I’ve largely just thrown out there. Silence, nearly all around, on the scriptural statements and implications. Though, one woman asked me a direct question, which I pondered overnight before giving a lengthy response, and that, too, was met with silence.
It’s honestly fascinating; I’m not being facetious. I point it because it struck me as something that I should have known before.
@ Jacquie
Ah, so they are still gossiping behind closed doors. I see.
The context was that some women are married to men who don’t want to know everything they do. That was what the first 4 paragraphs were about. Knowing your husband and adjusting accordingly.
Jacquie -We were discussing your post about writing a letter to your husband confessing your sins and whether our own husbands would want us to do that. There was nothing gossipy about it, but given that we get real personal it only makes sense to keep it private and among a small group of friends.
@CL
I remember the original post from TC. It was one of the last I ever read there because it was so against everything I believe in. Manipulating one’s husband so as to avoid obeying him isn’t something I need to come online to get help doing; it comes naturally to me, and I need to guard constantly against doing it, not seek out advice on how to do it more efficiently. I seem to remember either in the original article or in the comments, someone’s husband had asked her not to buy yogurt cups because they were too expensive; she felt this was unreasonable and expected the other women to support her. My feeling is that she should have respected how hard he worked to earn that money, and then learned to make her own yogurt at home.
Forget it Gabby, the gig is up. That’s nonsense and you know it. Your post was specifically about doing things of which your husband would not approve and instructions on how to go behind his back and do them anyway. I see you are still defending your position, therefore, you are a waste of everyone’s time here.
I do! I do have it in for you! Because you’re this close. Because you don’t understand what you’re saying. Because you argue against me, but sometimes you write my argument for me. Like this:
You did not learn this from game!
Scripture. Set. Match.
@ CC
I’m reading everything you write carefully. I’ve been talking it over with my husband in the evenings. I don’t want to make a fool of myself by weighing in at this point although I agree with a lot of what you have written. I felt really confused by day 2 of the discussion on this thread. However, if there is a direct question you have for the ladies, I’ll take a stab at posting a response.
Cane,
I think the “silence” (though there have been active responses) is because you’re laying out a thoughtful argument. Not to blow sunshine, but I think a good number here not only appreciate it, but are slow to speak.
@Gabriella, that is pure rationalization. I didn’t want to know what my wife did, for most of our marriage. You know what? I didn’t ask and she didn’t need to lie. I trusted her.
You looked to manipulate your husband and teach others how to manipulate them, rather than have an open, honest relationship. The writing’s on the wall.
No, that isn’t true at all. You are playing at “frame control”..but I can do that too. You are wrong, your post was mean-spirited, and you’re whole “Her argument is invalid because she is THAT girl” is an ad hominem attack. Even if I was wrong about everything I ever said in my whole entire life it wouldn’t change whether or not I had something valid to say THIS time.
Of course. But men plainly admit that there are evil men, because they recognize those desires in themselves. HOWEVER, women have an extremely difficult time admitting that those desires exist within themselves, when their existence can easily be proven by their actions.
I think there is some truth to what you say here, and I think it’s a consequence of what you all call “pedestalization.” In various times and places in western culture, women have been put up on a pedestal. There are some strains of feminism that perpetuate that, and other strains of feminism that resist it. In either case, it makes it hard for many women trying to live up to that ideal to admit that they are every bit as dirty and lusty and greedy as the men. That is, we’re just as good but we’re also just as bad! But somehow it seems worse to many people if a woman wants to screw someone else’s man or assault someone or steal something, because we are supposed to be more pure and more virtuous. And because it seems so much worse due to pedestalization, women do sometimes have a hard time in our culture acknowledging our baser instincts.
That said, I don’t think we are any less capable of governing ourselves than you all our, nor are we more cowardly or irrational. I don’t object to the notion that all women have faults. I do object to the fact that the faults you all acribe to us are the ones that just happen to justify the lower social rank you wish women would hold.
Not to blow sunshine,
Obviously, part of the expression “blow sunshine up your dress” and not directed toward sunshinemary’s timely response.
Rock Throwing Peasant- Don’t accept CL’s frame here. I took it down because I figured it was poorly written and did not have enough qualifiers. My husband told me not to tell him everything I do because it causes him to worry in ways he doesn’t want to worry. I wrote in the article to ONLY KEEP THINGS FROM HIM if you have his permission to do so. CL’s frame is “no man would ever want a woman to keep something from him, therefore Gabriella is wrong”.
Cane.. I’ll try to answer your question.
a. Game is simply the understanding and application of female hypergamy.
b. Hypergamy — the desire of a woman for a higher status man — is age-old, and not in any rational dispute. As also is their temptation to rebel against that authority.
c. Biblical patriarchy — the husband is the head of the wife — automaticaly assigns a higher status and a place of authority to the man. Thus hypergamy is satisfied.
d. Bible based cultures — including America of our forefathers and outliers such as the Amish and Orthodox Jews of today who still practice biblical patriarchy — thus satisfy female hypergamy structurally — hence “Amish don’t need game”. They have the young marriages, low divorce rates, and high fertility that we’d like to restore to society at large.
e. In the decayed remnants of Christian America, game has at least 2 applications.
1. One is sinful: to psychologically target women’s instinctive need for male authority/dominance, and exploit it for purposes of seduction. You and I agree in rejecting this.
2…The other is to get men back into a mindset of dominance in an environment where the culture at large does not support it — in other words, practicing biblical patriarchy in a hostile environment, and (this is where it gets controverisal) being aware of the need to consciously activate dominance triggers that otherwise should be automatic. Intentionally playing with a woman’s dominance triggers is controversial because it “shoudn’t” be necessary, and because some of these methods (eg, negging) are immoral even though they work. However, at a minimun a man should understand hypergamy enough to not be in a position to unwittingly compromise his dominance — in other words, “first do no harm”.
(Option three, we all convert to Amish, may be a good idea but most of us won’t go there til the oil runs out, at which time the Amish men will have the highest status of all!).
Now… answer mine. What sin do you imagine me to be guilty of, based on the above set of beliefs (and not merely based on the fact that I’m a generically sinful human like you — a fact I readily concede.) ?
Cane Caldo- I accepted what you said. It sounded correct to me. I didn’t respond because I didn’t have an argument so I figured my silence would be seen as “no argument here”.
I took it down because I figured it was poorly written and did not have enough qualifiers.
This may or may not be true but the whole blog was made private shortly after Gabriella’s article was posted, so there is really no way to verify this statement as fact. Of course, you could choose to trust the word of someone who would promote the deceiving of husbands I suppose…
@Gabriella, I can split the two without issue. I’ve been married and can separate one instance from a current discussion. That said, you’re kidding yourself if you think you weren’t deliberately manipulating your husband, chipping at your relationship’s foundation, and instruct others how to manipulate.
I didn’t care about the details of where my wife went. She could go with her friends whenever. However, if I learned she deliberately lied to “spare me,” you bet your sweet ass I would throw the flag and end the, “I trust you 100%” agreement.
You rationalize that your manipulation was to “spare” your husband. You have no respect for him or he is an incredibly weak fella.
And in case my point is getting lost in all the bickering I will restate it and then be on my way: Generally speaking it is useful to remember women have a bigger ego than they should so telling them to do something because they are stupid and need to be controlled (even if that is true) is frequently less effective than the parental strategy of empathize then redirect.
Gabriella
If you do decide to write a letter such as I wrote and you want it to have a positive effect on your marriage, then you really do need get over yourself and let go of the ego. And I do mean this sincerely. If I had not gotten my attitude right first, then it would not have been received by him at all. My husband would have known if it was not genuine.
@van Rooinek
Perhaps the body can make a corporate decision on your game thesis.
I have already given you the answer. You won’t get another.
@Gabriella, Sunshinemary, RTP
I’m not condemning the silence, but marveling at it.
I do, however, think what most of the women have been talking of lately is worthless. Even many of the arguments made by the women, in an effort to support male leadership and female submission, have been riddled with senselessness.
DH
“That said, I don’t think we are any less capable of governing ourselves than you all our, nor are we more cowardly or irrational. I don’t object to the notion that all women have faults. I do object to the fact that the faults you all acribe to us are the ones that just happen to justify the lower social rank you wish women would hold.”
I think the current crop of reality shows demonstrate otherwise. And I think the social problems that have resulted from women’s expanded roles in society also demonstrate otherwise.
Rock Throwing Peasant- I never advocated lying. I admonished against over-sharing if you are married to the kind of man who doesn’t like that. That is all. That is it. Perhaps my intent was misunderstood because of poor writing but I am telling you right now that this was my intent. I never advocating lying.
I fully accept that you do not believe me and would much prefer others interpretation of my motives. If you are hoping to convince me my writing was poor I will acknowledge that possibility. If you are trying to tell me my intent was to encourage deceit I will respectfully disagree.
@Cane:
Part of the lack of response on some points is that you’re arguing semantics. You obviously believe “Game” is a full philosophy. You need to lay out what you believe that philosophy is, as many around here don’t view it in that context. (This mostly deals with your response to Deti, much of your other posts have been good)
Is “Leadership” a philosophy? That’s the same context I view “Game” in. There are people with “Leadership” and it rolls off them. Jesus Christ being one of those historical types with amazing “Leadership”. Being someone not possessing great natural or taught skill of “Leadership”, I look to examples to emulate and understand how you operate in that manner. (I’m a pretty decent story teller these days, as a result) But the great monsters of military history also had amazing “Leadership”. So, should I not study “Leadership” because it can be used for Satan’s hand effectively?
You seem to view it closer to a Gnostic heresy, while others view it as a skill set that is just hard to define, though there are some basics you can point out. You should probably state your view cleanly, otherwise it could get somewhat nasty.
I have already given you the answer
I only hear crickets…..
Jacquie- I know my ego is too big. I have admitted as much. That is why your tone sometimes sounds a bit like a pot-shot. Its like if I said “I am fat” and you said “You shouldn’t be fat”. Its like..OK..now wave your magic wand and make me hate cupcakes. Its just not that easy.
I think you are probably a nice person but I think you see me as an easy person to make an example of..like CL does.. as though I somehow lack self-awareness and you guys can make my sinfulness more obvious to me. I assure you my problem is not a lack of knowledge of my problems and I did not to come here looking for a cure but just wanting to share some of my perspective.
I’m fully aware that the cure is prayer and the Sacraments. Just that some cures take awhile.
@Looking Glass
I will try very hard not to respond to this thread any further, but save it for the guest post. Once it has been decided what Game is (Dalrock being the final arbitrator of that, but it would be very helpful if there were a consensus.) I will begin it. You raise some very good points that I will address in that post.
@Gabriella —
You lack humility. Your frame is also insufficiently biblical. The former is a direct result of the latter. You may well be unjustly accused of something here, but you aren’t handling it well. Please find an older Christian woman to get with and work with you on this… in private. Your belaboring of the point in these comments is just digging a deeper hole for yourself.
Possible titles for Cane’s guest post:
Christian men: To Game or Not to Game
Game: Condemn or Condone?
Cane and Able
Raising Cane
Where’s Caldo?
Cane’s Inquisition?
Gabriella,
The only reason I first commented to you is what you said about your view of scripture. I don’t wish to make an example of you. I also am a work in progress. I get it wrong too many times, as I am sure some who comment here will attest to. This is where I see God’s Word telling me to be responsible, to own what I do wrong, ask forgiveness and work to be more like who I should be. I didn’t agree with your perspective and I pointed that out.
Some Guy- I may have well been wrong in my suggestions but then I am guilty of bad advice. The accusation of encouraging deceptiveness is what I do not accept. Saying my advice sucks or my writing sucks would be a subjective judgment I would accept. Saying I advocate deceit is an objective judgment I do not accept.
LADIES – I think it would be wise if we must continue this conversation to retreat to one of our own blogs and hold a salon rather than continuing to tie up this blog with our yip-yack-yap fest.
Jacquie- Scripture calls women the “weaker vessel” and points to how Eve sinned first and was made second to Adam. All that adds up to Man > Woman. That is a blow to many delicate egos even if it is nevertheless true.
Women have a purpose and when they skirt that purpose they mess things up. When they live up to their purpose they stop being a liability and become an asset.
Oh good grief. There’s the accusation of gossip again, LOL. I do not expect anyone here to believe me because the die has been cast and the frame is set: we are a bunch of butt hurt women off badmouthing everyone on the ‘net. It’s not true.
However, because I actually have a measure of respect for Mary I will try to express the context in which her post was discussed. This is what I said, when I linked to your post Mary. Quote:
there are a couple of Christian women (who emerged in manosphere comboxes) writing some pretty good stuff. I saw this post by Jacquie recently where she determined that the way to build trust in her marriage was to admit to her husband every negative thought and doubt she had about the marriage from day one:
and there was an ensuing discussion about the nature of and seasons of marriage, how often we grow and reset and whether or not we should mark those seasons and resets the way you marked yours. We do not allow one another to gossip about individuals, and we take that seriously.
I realize that my posting links to various posts that the blog authors will know that we have linked to that post. However, because I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of, I don’t bother to do what a lot of private forums do and hide the pingback.
It’s not what people want to believe it is, but if there is one thing that life has taught me it’s that people are rarely prepared to come outside of their pre-dug trenches. Since I’m not at war with anyone, I really don’t care, LOL. I was the one who linked to the post.
The Open Italics Tag of Doom claims another victim.
I meant to address Jacquie, not Mary. Sorry. But you’re right that this is neither the time nor place for us to be having this discussion.
The Open Italics Tag of Doom claims another victim.
LOL. Bye Gabby. See you around…
And Some Guy…if it makes you feel any better Elspeth will probably chastise me later for my prolific comments on this blog since I usually end up crying that “nobody understands me” whenever I do this. Which is about once a month until I learn my lesson and go back in hiding. See you in September when my momentary lapse of good sense compels me to comment again.
Ladies, I am begging you – I will put an open thread on my blog if anyone wishes to talk further. Please. If we ever wish to be able to make a comment here in the future and have it taken seriously, we need to STOP TALKING NOW! We are confirming every horrid thing men think of women by our behavior.
@GBFM Your antagonism is interesting. I view Mystery, Roissy, Roosh, et alii as just practitioners of a modern day Pythagoras cult. They make excellent observations of male and female dynamics however their execution is entirely hedonistically centered.
There has yet to be written a modern day Christian primer on courting and marital relations that expounds upon what the Bible has already established.
We can sit around, sad and moping, that Western society has come to this or we can start discussing and expounding ourselves. I think the discussion is certainly worth having.
Yes, gabby. You’ve broken Dalrock’s first rule of holes, LOL. It goes doubly so when there is no one willing to toss you a line. Triple when those looking down are throwing the dirt back down on you.
I think I’ll take Mary’s advice and go. now.
I dont see the issue with what Gabriella has said. I havent read her now controversial post on her own blog, but submission to all earthly authority is indeed what we are called to, and God rightly gave men authority over women, women are the weaker vessel, and Eve sinned first. Where is the issue here?
Cane… trying one last time to bridge the gap between us, then I give up:
I assert that …
a. female hypergamy is a fact, known to the most ancient civilizations.
b. understanding this fact and its present day implications, goes a long way towards explaining the sexual, romantic, and marital catastrophe of our current society and church.
c. based on this understanding, a wide variety of possible countermeasures may be conceived — some of which are moral, and some of which are not.
I stipulate that …
d. many of the people who first understood how female hypergamy applies to our current society, were from the dark side, and used it for immoral purposes.
I suspect that…
e. due to (d), you don’t see the “moral” measures, as part of “game theory” at all
f. thus to you, ANY advocacy of game-as-truth seems sinful.
I counter that…
g. about half of Roissy’s 16 rules, are perfectly in harmony with Christian faith.
h. and that the understanding of human nature, that underlies ALL of them, is sound — though the specifics of his application are sin.
I call your attentiion in particular to:
Roissy #III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority
Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore
This is so right on target, the Apostle Paul himself could have written it. In fact, he actually advocated that it was better to remain celibate than compromise your mission, if the two are in conflict. Gamers decry the “pedestalization” of women; in an earlier age this would be called “idolatry” — and women “do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence”. Indeed, a woman deeply wants a patriarch to whom they can “subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out.”
@sunshine,
Again note the qualifier “closest to” of the pure-game folks. He’s married and he does argue for moral outcomes. He’s not coming over to dinner though anytime soon.
@Deti,
But you can refer to Ephesians all you want and scream chapter and verse in her face, but she still has the court system and the laws behind her and she can leave anytime she wants, and destroy your life, hers and those of your children. Better to do what you can and use the tools at your disposal than to rely on her (hopeful) submission.
Sorry no. I moved through a lot of work in the courtship process to make sure she wasn’t insane. I’m going to presume a certain amount of submission. She’s grew her hair out for me and we’ve been married for over fifteen years with two kids. I’ve also warned her that I shoot straighter.
I’m also a little miffed that there are at least two negative comments on my wife here even though ya’ll have never met her. These are fighting words in many cultures. I’m willing to argue the general case but chose some care in those that aren’t here.
@Some Guy,
Watch her response. Meekness and shamefacedness and humility, right?
Yes there was. I’ve done this several times. I’m amazed sometimes that you guys seem to have such a problem with it. That doesn’t mean there isn’t some huffing but I’ve never seen my correction not take hold. Ever. Note I AM NOT SAYING THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN. I’m saying I HAVE NOT SEEN IT. Lest this turn into some sort of validation debate…
Adam was right there with Eve when the serpent tempted her and he didn’t do anything!” “David was supposed to be at war when Bathsheba was sunbathing
Again never heard this. I even pushed the first part through in a public school course (“Bible as Literature”). The second…well that’s true. David wasn’t pure as the snow and was supposed to be somewhere else. The Jewish sages also don’t pin the blame on Bathsheba who was after all dealing with an “Oriental Despot” even if he was an otherwise holy oriental despot.
@RockThrowing,
First, upstream you talked about some of your faults. Don’t hit yourself too hard. Your wife was sick.
On Orthodoxy is an amazing work
I actually like “Orthodoxy” the least (strangely) and “Everlasting Man” the most. The concept of humans as always artists is a really powerful idea.
The likelihood that any feminist read Chesterton in any considerable length or depth is between slim and none. No tingles.
Actually…you’re dead right. Reviewing all the books and essays I’ve worked through Chesterton is a desert for a modern woman. What a horrible loss. On the plus side I’m considering doing a discussion on feminism at next years Chesterton Society meeting…I’d love to see if I can spark fireworks.
@GB4M,
You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority
I couldn’t wander through all of that because even if it was fairly well worded for you I latched onto this point. If anything THIS IS Christian. A man must love God first (his mission) and then his wife and then his children. Not to mention his vocation to some artform may take a sort of “transitory precedence”. That is a soldier will focus on being a soldier in order to accomplish the _long term_ goal of defense of his family.
@Gab,
I just accept that it sucks to be a woman. Just like it sucks to be gay.
That is lame feminist claptrap. You guys got St. Mary (Queen of Heaven) and the birth of Christ and your going to begrudge us leading in a war zone? I mean really? Saying stuff like this doesn’t make us respect you more.
@Deti,
Game is a tool, not a way of life. The Christian can use the tool of Game without sinning. Game is properly used to manage hypergamy.
As I noted above tools are not necessarily amoral. A wrack for example immoral in nature. Game as presented is amoral because of “The Laws of Poon” that define it. Now I _believe_ that a rework is useful. But we’d be fashioning something new in the same way that All Hallows Eve remade the various days of the dead it replaced.
@Dalrock,
The problem with this way of thinking is if you have 100 women who make a lifestyle choice not to marry (or to significantly delay marriage), and they have sex with say 40 alphas, how is it an improvement for the women if instead they only have sex with 30 alphas? You don’t need 100 alphas to service 100 marriage delayers.
You are framing this as an “either/or” and I say “both/and”. I believe it is sinful to frame it in this way. There is a general societal benefit in targeting sluts but the God doesn’t solely target them in either the Law or in the New Testament. The sole targeting is an _argument of game_. It is very convenient for a alpha to say, “hey don’t look at me!”. I’m Christian so I don’t buy it and neither should you. Nor do your numbers hold because we’ll never eliminate all the sluts nor should we expect to. We _know_ that the Church Militant will contain “weeds”. This is one of the reasons absolutist arguments like those from Deti and Anonymous come off as Donatist.
Even worse, the moral focus on the alphas is taken by the women as absolving their own responsibility
So be a leader and tell them “no”. Again, I’ve done this in a real live situation. I had a woman try to blame drugs and alcohol for anonymous sex. The answer was, “so why exactly were you in the bar alone? No you own what you did and there will be outcomes of that.” We shouldn’t wall ourselves off to either/or. Chose “and”. Chose what God chose.
This is what Gilliganism brings us. If you want more of the same, all you need to do is stay on the same path.
Gilliganism is a game term and shouldn’t be used to browbeat Christians (and I view it as designed to defend alphas). In a Christian context you could view Giligan’s as ignoring women. I do not propose that and you know I don’t.
@Van,
This testable theory suits me because it fits in with my empirical observations and those of many others. As a professionally trained scientist, I’m sticking with this hypothesis
I think this confuses social science free of feminist constraints and Game. Game isn’t really testable beyond giving Alpha’s a pass. Some of the science cited by game is useful and interesting.
@Cane,
HAS THERE BEEN A WOMAN SINCE EVE WHO WAS NOT IN REBELLION? What game says, and what you speak here, but do not understand, is that the conclusion you must reach via game is that no man should marry. Not only is this ridiculous on its face, but it’s blasphemous; it’s a literal denial of God’s temporal expression of His nature, His love for us, and His plan for us.
Spot on. This is why much of the MRM comes off just weird. Yes all women suck at some level but we know that and the assumption is Christians will marry. We have Biblical guidelines for avoidance (some of Dalrock’s strongest articles are exegis on this) of the worst of the worst. But pointing out that Churches are bad (weeds) and that women have problems (Eve) should be a given. In the same way that men have problems (Adam). Game as a total philosophy distracts from this truth.
Game stripped down might have useful elements in it, but as long as we are distracted by things like “spinning plates” then we will have failed as Christians.
@Gabriella,
The Bible takes a dim view of women. Have you read it?
Many of us have. Your reading of it is substandard and I suggest you review it. You are equating power with dignity as feminism proposes that you should. This isn’t Biblical. You will notice that none of the men here are saying, “the Bible takes a dim view of men, look at those angels!” Please review what you have read and try again, but harder this time. Also thank-you for the correction on the guidelines for marriage that you published.
The Bible laments over and over and over that women are TROUBLE with a capital T and must be ruled over to be kept in check. I don’t have to be a feminist to find that depiction less than flattering.
Again, try this, “The Bible laments over and over and over that men are TROUBLE with a capital T and tend to kill, maim, and enslave one another and must be ruled over to be kept in check”.
Please not that the Bible argues for essentially a long term Theocracy. We are to be ruled by a divine king and brought to “toe the line”. That you can not see the lecturing about men (which takes a up a majority of the text not dedicated to Christ) for the minority rebuke to women is telling.
@Cane,
No, you didn’t.
Er…I think that’s straining. I think we can, and I know many have missed this hear, speak with the assumption of a certain baseline of the fall. Anyways I’d hope so.
@Ar,
Adam = Eve (eating of the Tree)
Abraham = Wife implored him to commit adultery
Noah = His daughters got him drunk and seduced him
Moses = Mother put him in the river to get rid of him
David = Bathsheba
This is the stupidest list I’ve seen in a long time. We are told by no less an authority than St. PAUL that Eve was deceived whereas Adam was not. Abraham was blessed by his interactions with Sarah who is recognized as a Saint and told _by GOD_ to listen to her voice. Moses was saved by his mother and his sister working in concert and eventually by an Egyptian maiden (who has been praised for thousands of years for that service). Bathsheba was taken and remained loyal despite the civil war. And as is noted elsewhere by Van you totally butchered Noah.
This is essentially a gut wrenching summary of Cane’s argument. Game has supplanted the Scriptures. Please at least _try_ to read some serious Christian exegesis before posting blather like this.
@Cane,
Even a harridan wife cannot take that away; even if she were to put you death, as the world did to Christ.
You sir are on fire. This is a line every man here should take to heart every day and why the “screaming about Ephesians” line comes off so lame (and I don’t mean this as a poke in the eye to the people who said because they did speak openly…it just does).
Other Roissy Poon Commandments compatible with Christianity:
IV. Don’t Play by Her Rules (husband is head of the wife. He, not she, makes the rules. He not she, is the final arbiter of what direction the family unit will take)
IX. Connect with Her Emotions (husband is to love the wife and rejoice in the wife of his youth, just about all of Song of Solomon)
X. Ignore Her Beauty (Thou shalt have no other gods before Me)
XII Maximize your Strengths, Minimize Your Weaknesses (As a man thinketh, so he is; the power of life and death are in the tongue)
XIII Err on the Side of Too Much Boldness, Rather Than Too Little (Christ’s life as recorded in the Gospels; His confrontation of the Pharisees and His detractors)
XIV F*** her Good (The man’s direction in II Corinthians to have sex with his wife and both spouses’ directions not to withhold themselves from the other)
XV Maintain State Control (The nine Fruits of the Spirit, especially faithfulness and self-control)
XVI Never be Afraid to Lose Her (Do not Fear; Fear Not)
GKC: You took my “scream chapter and verse ” comment personally as referring to your wife. It does not. I used the vernacular “your”. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Respectfully, where you and Cane are missing the point is your continued insistence on this “Game as philosophy” claim. It’s a strawman. Again: Game, or the understanding of female nature and hypergamy , is a tool. It is not a way of life, or a dogma, or a philosophy, or a belief system, or a creed. Nor is it intended to be. I don’t think anyone here is making that claim. I suggest you point out who and where the claim was made. If you cannot, please stop arguing the point.
If you scroll up (waaaay up, so far that I’m not going to look for it) I listed which half they are.
The rest will have to wait for my post. Your comments have been very helpful.
@Deti,
You took my “scream chapter and verse ” comment personally as referring to your wife. It does not. I used the vernacular “your”. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Fair enough then. I should have tried to read it more charitably.
I don’t know if “Game as Philosophy” can be seen as a strawman. Maybe wrong, but we aren’t attempting to misconstrue the argument to make it simpler and knock it down. We are attempting to directly address this as presented at the very least through “The Rules of Poon”.
I’d even go so far as to agree with what you lay out here and I think Van’s reduced scope as shown in his posts above is largely unobjectionable (though I admit to not giving it a very thorough read as I should have). I don’t think individual concepts in game, say hypergamy, are problematic. I also don’t think, though I can’t speak for him, that Cane would see them as problematic.
As far as it is a philosophy that drives anti-Christian assumptions see the above comments on women in scripture. Sarah most certainly did not attempt to get Abraham to commit adultery yet this is being presented as a “Gamecentric” way of reading Scripture. Now, I’m not saying that _you_ did that, but I am saying that people are being led to some odd conclusions based on their understanding of Game as having primacy.
I’m going to actually hold off until Cane posts his article. My feeling is that I’m to the “left” of Cane and to the “Right” of you and Dalrock. I actually think Van is more moderate in his views than the argument is shaping him as but that his moderation is fueling Cane’s ability to spot nominal flaws and allowing Cane to set some boundaries. This is unfortunate for Van, who I generally agree with, but fortunate for the argument as a whole.
If I do get any vote on Cane’s questions I’d suggest we use “The Rules of Poon” as a starting point. But I don’t own this house.
Cane Caldo
1) I need a solid, corporately agreed-upon answer on: What is game?
That would be a long, drawn out thread in and of itself. I have no idea how long it would take to arrive at any partial consensus of such a definition. Much earlier in the thread I suggested that all concerned in this thread should state what they mean by “game” and apparently only Dalrock saw the comment. Likely there are as many definitions as there are participants, although surely there are some overlapping attributes. A Venn diagram of “game definitions” would be very fuzzy, with a lot of circles barely intersecting at all with some other ones. It’s similar to arguments about “feminism” or “socialism”, in that way.
Cane: it’s your exposition, you properly should define your terms and state your premises at the beginning of the essay. Then use the defined terms only as you have defined them, and remain within whatever restrictions your own premises place upon you. Chop your logic as you see fit, and the chips fall where they may. That’s my suggestion.
If you don’t define your terms up front, then the most likely result will be an endless definitional argument. Which would, as I stated one paragraph above, be long, drawn out, and probably inconclusive. The parable of the blind men and the elephant comes to mind.
[D: Great advice.]
Sunshine Mary at 3:01 p.m.
Oh nooooooo!!!!! Men might think less of us! The horror!!!!! Clearly their thoughts and opinions set the standards because they are MEN! And losing their good opinion would be terrible!
Sorry for the sarcasm, Mary. I don’t mean you any ill will, but pandering to these guys will never earn their respect. The vast majority of male commenters on this site will NEVER take a woman’s opinions seriously unless she simply reflects what the men have to say. I think sometimes women buy into this shite because they believe men to be more important and hope by appeasement to gain male approval. In reality, male approval is not more inherently valuable than female approval. And besides, appeasement does not work.
vR: I counter that… g. about half of Roissy’s 16 rules, are perfectly in harmony with Christian faith.
CaneL If you scroll up… I listed which half they are. The rest will have to wait for my post. Your comments have been very helpful
Glad we’re closer to understanding each other. Still haven’t figured out what sin you thought I was committing, but, whatever…
and can I add ONE MORE to my list. —
(i) most romantic advice given to young men nowadays, by family, friends, and church, ignores female hypergamy and its implications, and thus is dreadfully counterproductive — resulting in good men getting rejected over and over.
No doubt you will answer: a careful examination of the Scriptures SHOULD have been enough to undo all this bad advice. However, the cold hard fact is, that though the church SHOULD have discerned all this using Scripture, the historical fact is that they did NOT. Credit must be given to the Pickup artists, who learned the importance of female hypergamy empirically, and popularized the idea first. Christian men stumbled upon it later, recognized it as the truth, and were outraged that the church misled them. Only God knows how many good men were led by this frustration to embrace the dark-side wholly.
It’s not the first time the Church has been late to the party: “…for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.”
Where men gather they set the standard. That’s a simply truth. Where women set the standard there are few men to be seen.
This all begs the question though. Why are you still here DH? There are plenty of places to go where a woman sets the tone for the debate. Go there and be rid of us unkind men that don’t respect women.
I promise, I won’t miss you at all. I can’t speak of the other commentators though…
Telling your spouse every little thought about him or her that passes through your mind?!?!?
Ah hell no!
There’s this movement now called “Radical Honesty” where you make a commitment to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in every area of your life to every person in your life. See a hottie you’d like to bang? Well just simply walk up to him/her and tell him/her so! No need for this thing you call “game” uh? Your best friend’s tick gets on your last nerve? Tell ’em! The bolder the better! They claim if everyone in the world got on ship with this we’d all be happy, get what we want out of life, and never have to tell a little fib just to keep the peace ever again.
What is all this? I’ll tell you. Its the result of a culture, nation, society, world and people that have no control over their thoughts. There are techniques and practices that are rooted in Eastern traditions like Buddhism and others that teach practical disciplines on thought control and letting those thoughts come and go without taking over our minds and lives. Much of the conflict you see in relationships, whether marriage, parent/child, friends, co-workers, whatever are because people have not been trained in any mind discipline. There minds are a boat without anchor. They are lost in a sea of raging thoughts and ego identification. Even regular church goers or dedicated Christians have no discipline over their minds because they don’t have a practice. There is nothing practical taught to them about this, no techniques, nothing. This became an issue when for the sake of my kids’ socialization I joined a Christian play date group. The parents there saw me as a wise person of sorts and would come to me with their problems and I when I tried to help them by teaching them practical techniques, they shunned them because according them, it was against their “beliefs”. I told them they could substitute mantras for whatever names of God they pleased, visualize whatever they wanted, as long as it was steady, and remember verses from the Bible during breath work but they still had issues. Needless to say because they are so opposed to mental discipline they are still in the same boat they were when I met them. Nothing has changed, if only to get worse. Theory, moral stories, etc do not discipline the mind. It takes practice and there are techniques for that.
I agree with Cane Caldo who said Athol’s program seems torturous to both he and his wife. Sexuality is fluid. Libidos wax and wane. The important thing is that a couple communicate their needs, wants and desires and tune in to the flow of each others sexual rhythms. Its about love and respect for your spouse. Also, if you do not have a spiritual discipline then things like sex will become all important. Try meditating together. That can also produce a type of orgasm and does wonders for bringing a couple closer together a type of intimacy that is rare and transcendent.
Really, people are so spiritually lost that it pains my heart. Including or especially “religious people”.
I’m here because I find you guys and how you think interesting, and it’s more interesting when I interact with you. There are many men and predominantly male groups I love and respect and whose good opinion iI value. But I don’t view the respect of men as somehow more valuable than that of women.
@PF
Scripture instructs us to take every thought captive and make it obedient to Christ.
We are also instructed in Philippians 4:8-9:
8 Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. 9 The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you.
We are indeed supposed to train our minds.
@ Deti
Your pet bit me. Will you not muzzle it?
Permaculture: when I tried to help them by teaching them practical techniques, they shunned them because according them, it was against their “beliefs”. I told them they could substitute mantras for whatever names of God they pleased, visualize whatever they wanted, as long as it was steady, and remember verses from the Bible during breath work but they still had issues.
Joshua 1:8
Keep this Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.
Psalm 1:2
but whose delight is in the law of the LORD, and who meditates on his law day and night.
Psalm 48:9
Within your temple, O God, we meditate on your unfailing love.
Psalm 119:148
My eyes stay open through the watches of the night, that I may meditate on your promises.
that’s just a sample…… tell ’em to do an online Bible word search for “meditate”..
Really, people are so spiritually lost that it pains my heart. Including or especially “religious people”.
Matthew 23:13
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
On the other hand… I can see why they fear meditation….
I am Governor Jerry Brown
My aura smiles
And never frowns
Soon I will be president…
Carter Power will soon go away
I will be Fuhrer one day
I will command all of you
Your kids will meditate in school
Your kids will meditate in school!
[Chorus:]
California Uber Alles…..
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/deadkennedys/californiauberalles.html
@Van,
However, the cold hard fact is, that though the church SHOULD have discerned all this using Scripture, the historical fact is that they did NOT. Credit must be given to the Pickup artists, who learned the importance of female hypergamy empirically, and popularized the idea first. Christian men stumbled upon it later, recognized it as the truth, and were outraged that the church misled them. Only God knows how many good men were led by this frustration to embrace the dark-side wholly.
The Church _did_. Remember that quote from Chrysostom way above? The “Recent Unpleasantness” aside we have a long tradition (both “T/t”) of rejecting feminism. It isn’t like this is the first time we’ve dealt with this. After all, priestesses were fairly common in the ancient world and the Church nuked those _very_ early on.
Except you crazy Anglicans. <- said in good if sad humor.
We're going through a bad stretch. It will shift, as it always does. We just have to keep the fight up. The commentary that assumes this is new tends to set me off. It really isn't.
Another full day of posts I see!
Whether you are grounded in the “EvoPsych” camp or the “Divine Design” camp (or both), Game boils down to this: realizing what women are hard-wired to desire and acting upon that.
Interpreting Scripture through the lens of Game can be just as problematic as interpreting it through the lens of feminism. A better (and more biblical solution) is to address both of these philosophies with the Scriptures. Anything else leads to “picking and choosing” pet verses or rationalizing away what doesn’t fit our preconceived conclusions.
Game, in and of itself, is not “Christian.” Professor Mentu and Athol and Heartiste and Ian Ironwood and others who reject the Christian label embrace Game without reservation. From a Christian perspective, I find this completely understandable. If we were all designed by God to operate a certain way, one does not have to believe in the God of the Bible in order to recognize that. In other words, one does not have to have correct theology in order to embrace a correct anthropology.
I hold that what we consider Game comes closer to Scriptural understandings of how men and women are hard-wired. However, it should be considered for what it actually is: a “reformational” movement against the excesses of feminism. The Bible is a corrective for feminist ideology, but it is runs counter to some elements of Game as well. I see that not only in rejecting the pump-and-dump of the PUA, but also at times when I have spoken against Athol explicitly stating that certain Christian teachings should be discarded as “unworkable” in order to improve one’s marriage.
So, coming back around to the original post: how is Game valuable for the Christian? Even though we should let Scripture govern our sociological perspectives, the fact is that all of us bring our sociological baggage to the table when we open up the Bible. What Game does is not help us understand the Bible, as much as it works to dissolve those feminized presuppositions that permeate Western culture today. In other words, Game and the Red Pill help to remove the veil of feminism as a “starting point” for our theology. As long as we let Scripture address and inform (and, when necessary, correct) the central tenets of Game, as well as shape what we do with this knowledge, Game is extremely valuable to the American Christian in 2012.
@Permaculture,
Even regular church goers or dedicated Christians have no discipline over their minds because they don’t have a practice. There is nothing practical taught to them about this, no techniques, nothing.
Though the Christian West isn’t keen on it there is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesychasm
We have to be careful that we don’t narrow down the general based on our specific experiences. The Christian West does have some formal methods from the various “disciplines” but Protestantism, outside of some very narrow movements, tends to be oblivious to both.
Doomed is typing with one hand and masturbating with the other when she is posting here. Once you have rationalized yourself to that it becomes routine to simply scroll past.
Women are incapable of offering anything constructive to an argument as there is a set pattern to any discussion that takes place. Women follow a script:
1.) Deny the existence of the issue
2.) Create a false equivalency
3.) Shame
Once the pattern is clear, again, it makes it easy to just scroll on by 🙂
GKC referred to my quoting St John Chrysostom. Yes, the Church has a long history of rebuking feminism. Arguably, Christ Himself implicitly rebuked feminism by not giving leadership positions in his movement to women. As Alte, of happy memory, once wrote, Christ kept women at the groupie level.
But, but … GKC I assume you are a Catholic like me, and you will probably agree that the last pope was something of a pedestaliser. Not so much the new bloke, Benedict, but the Church has been pretty soft on women for a generation or so. The reason Rome is only now getting around to disciplining the American nuns is because, I assume, they couldn’t believe that the sweet dears could really have gone so far off the rails. An absolutely classic example of male obliviousness and female ferality in the absence of male authority.
Doomed is typing with one hand and masturbating with the other when she is posting here.
Somebody’s gotta say it: Pics or it didn’t happen!
Yaboy,
If only. Somehow picturing a bunch of angry dudes foaming at the mouth about uppity women doesn’t quite do it for me. A few photos of shirtless European football stars would brighten the place up though.
To continue, Scripture and Tradition contain a lot of good anti-feminist material, or rather pro-“game” material. The wife is to “see that she respects her husband”. She is to “obey in all things”. She should emulate Sarah, who called her husband “master”. No doubt later Church writings could be mined for good material too, but I am no expert. Game is perhaps simply a secular rediscovery of biblical precepts, which is Matthew King’s point I think, and maybe GBFM’s, although it is a bit hard to see through the verbal fog.
I think it was Pope Pius XII who, in a sermon to married couples in about 1946, told new husbands to exercise “firm command” and wives to show “docile obedience”.
And the first secular codification of Game principles of which I am aware may be found in these lyrics by Irishman Percy French, written about 100 years ago:
http://www.contemplator.com/ireland/eileen.html
yaboy, I could really have done without that mental image.
Feminist Hater says:
August 9, 2012 at 5:28 pm
“I promise, I won’t miss you at all. I can’t speak of the other commentators though…”
I don’t read her, yet I would miss evryone mocking her. Not enough to tell DH, Go and good ridance to bad rubbish.
DH…. oh, go get another glass of chardonnay.
That’s an order.
Correction: “But not enough to not…”
GKChesterton, I know the Eastern Orthodox Churches emphasize meditative practices to some extent, but the science of mind is nowhere nearly as developed as it is in Asian traditions.
LongLostFriend says:
August 9, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Very good.
VR, Yes Sir!
@ GBFM
What a wonderful inundation of limp wristed intellectualism from GBFM. It is here that the real seed of GBFM’s thought takes root and blooms into his real “nickname” ….Tertullian!!
Who, after all, said with much more verve and spice …. “What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?” Tertullian’s question hits a little closer to the nerve though…huh GBFM? And sadly with a little less lzozlzozoozzlo
But why quibble with Tertullian’s sense of humor. After all, he thought one of the pleasures of paradise would be watching the torments of the damned. We can’t have everything.
There was a great debate throughout Medieval philosophy with what to do with the knowledge of Athens (i.e. the secular world). Tertullian lzozlzozoozzlo came down on the side of those who believed Athens had nothing to offer.
Other great thinkers, as mentioned in my previous comment, appropriated the knowledge of the secular world. They can be found in the …not sure if you have ever heard of this… the “Great Books” of Aquinas, Augustine, Boethius, to name only a few. Aquinas, et al., used the knowledge acquired from other sources for the greater glory. And they had the discrimination to discard what was evil!! That can be done with game.
So do you believe the Great Books of the Great Thinkers of the Middle Ages were putting Athens above Christ? Is this what you are accusing modern Christians of doing when they use Game, or Science? This is the direct question you and GKC failed to address. Dodge ball is a fun game for kids, “but when I became a man, I put away childish things”
But then again, there is some amusement to be had. We can all just watch GBFM-Tertullian’s insipid brow beating of Christians on Dalrock’s site because they dare appropriate the thinking of Heathen Heartiste.
I would say that I am ready for the return service, but I am still awaiting the first volley.
I was going to try and add something to the discussion, but after nearly 700 comments, I think this post has been beat six feet into the ground. Moving on …
699?
700 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Good night.
LongLostFriend’s post is good in that, through an omission, it helps illustrate one of the problems I hope Cane expounds upon. LLF gives two possibilities for why women are they way they are: evolution and divine design. These are not the only two possibilities. There’s at least one more, which needs either to be disposed of or shown to have no bearing on questions of how one ought to respond to it.
Bam, 701.
Pingback: Female Sexual Repression – A Perversion of Normal | The Society of Phineas
If you are referring to “nurture” as opposed to “nature,” unger, I do dispose of that when I refer to women being “hard-wired” a certain way. I am not going to expound upon that, because that is dealt with daily in all corners of the Manosphere.
I don’t think it is even fruitful to worry about why women are the way they are. The Evo/Psych explanations are simply fairy tales – you can make up any evolutionary explanation that you want, and there is no way to prove or disprove it. It will just fit with one’s preconceived notion of how the world works. I believe that, following the order of creation, that women were created to help men, to follow their leadership, and thus women look for a man who can lead them. And the behaviors that women respond to as indicating a man who should be followed are many of those that people term “Game”.
But they are just behaviors that can be used for good or bad. Unfortunately, our churches tell men to eschew the behaviors that indicate their firm leadership, and instead to follow the lead of women. (Father’s day sermon this year at a church I visited: “If women aren’t following your leadership, then you aren’t leading right.” A few minutes later: “What should you do to make your marriage work? Do what your wife says.” I don’t know if the preacher even realized that this was logically incoherent. It was one of the most depressing experiences I’ve had in church).
But now we have a non-natural situation where the normal constraints of biology have been circumvented, and we can see the after effects. Normal behaviors are distorted, and hypergamy is magnified and runs unbounded due to contraception and divorce laws.
@David Collard,
GKC I assume you are a Catholic like me, and you will probably agree that the last pope was something of a pedestaliser.
I’m an extreme Catholic sympathizer but I’m Orthodox. The last Pope was a great man but he did sympathize yes. As I think you noted elsewhere there are some pretty valid reasons for that in that he was a survivor of communism which completely destroyed the female and male person. He also was more blunt than many expected in denying women the priesthood. So, weak yes, but hardly a disaster.
And I’d say his position overall was superior to some here. There is a thread in Game and in the wider manosphere that women are cattle as has been evidenced on this thread. Yes we are the head of earthly creation but I’d rather be heading demi-gods than cattle.
Also, as you note, we had really bright spots not to long ago. In the history of the Church we are in a very, very, very short term rebellion that because of our own meager lifespans looks crushing. We need historical perspective.
@Perm,
science of mind is nowhere nearly as developed as it is in Asian traditions.
I’m a bit of an Asian history buff and one of the things I hate is turning them into superhumans. I’d say pretty much any “science” or method is way more advanced in the West than in Asia. Heck, the Japanese borrowed heavily from the West in order to develop Judo. Good Western men that we are we tend to be a bit self-effacing. We’ve won every war and trumped every advancement since China burned their own fleet. And for the record katanas did not slice apart machine guns like lightsabers in WWII. I’m not saying you said that, I’m just saying some people think it.
@NoOne,
So do you believe the Great Books of the Great Thinkers of the Middle Ages were putting Athens above Christ? Is this what you are accusing modern Christians of doing when they use Game, or Science? This is the direct question you and GKC failed to address.
Hey I brought in the Donatists first! I’d actually say comments here like “women can’t form…argument” are more Donatist and therefore more like Tertulian. However, you are correct that some sort of enculturalization should be possible. I’ve specifically mentioned it upstream when I’ve discussed direction…but this is a long comment thread and it was easily missed. Cane has also shown that _some_ of Game can be used.
My personal beef is the emphasis especial in a realm of moral behavior. Therefore it is not the same as Science (Athens). As I noted above someone felt (was it you?) totally comfortable bashing Sarah the archetype of what we would hope of all wives. This is Game becoming THE moral philosophy versus it being helpful in part.
What would be useful is if we had the equivalent of the Scholastic movement where St. Aquinas helped finish the unification of Aristotle and theology on theological grounds. I don’t think any of us are going to pull that off. Also my belief that an “Aquinas” is possible I think puts me to the “left” of Cane. I’m not sure.
LLF: No, I was speaking of a third possible meaning of ‘hard-wired’.
GK Chesterton, “I’m a bit of an Asian history buff and one of the things I hate is turning them into superhumans. I’d say pretty much any “science” or method is way more advanced in the West than in Asia. Heck, the Japanese borrowed heavily from the West in order to develop Judo. Good Western men that we are we tend to be a bit self-effacing. We’ve won every war and trumped every advancement since China burned their own fleet. And for the record katanas did not slice apart machine guns like lightsabers in WWII. I’m not saying you said that, I’m just saying some people think it.”
I don’t think anyone is “superhuman”. What I meant by “science of mind” was the rich body of philosophical theory and practical techniques that arose out of Asians traditions like Vedanta, Samkhya, Yoga, and later traditions like Buddhism and such.
Permaculture… I found this quite interesting, even from my Christian perspective:
http://www.fajing-chuan.co.uk/books/Zen-and-the-Martial-Arts.pdf
I keep seeing the argument that if a man were a “real Christian” he wouldn’t need Game. But that’s like saying if a man were a “real Christian” he wouldn’t need a boat to cross a river, because Jesus told Peter just a tiny bit of faith is enough to walk on water. Yes, if we have the faith of a great saint, we can walk on water, and presumably God will bring us a good wife. But even St. Peter, with Jesus right there telling him to do it, only maintained that level of faith for moments. How great a faith would it take to maintain a marriage for decades, if that faith isn’t combined with any practical awareness of what your spouse truly needs? (And that’s a bit of a strawman anyway, because if you have a strong faith, presumably one of your strongest prayers will be, “Please make me a good husband/wife,” which could be answered by providing that awareness.)
Game is a set of tools for dealing with the fact of life that is female hypergamy, just as a boat is a tool for dealing with the facts of life that are gravity and drowning. If some guy uses a boat to smuggle drugs, that doesn’t make boats a bad thing. And it’s silly to tell a guy, “You don’t need a boat, just walk on the water.” God didn’t tell Noah to ratchet up his faith a notch and walk on the water; He told him to build a boat. He also, through Scripture, told men and women certain things about how they would and should interact, and the Church and the saints have further developed that into a useful paradigm for dealing with each other.
If that set of tools looks a lot like a set developed by non-Christians who start instead from assumptions about paleo fitness and evolution, that doesn’t mean we’re wrong. It just means that our God is a God of Reason, which means that you can observe the way things work and come to reasonable conclusions that are true. At least we can say we had it figured out first, centuries ago.
Do Christian men need to read Roissy and immerse themselves in some pretty harsh and sometimes disrespectful talk? Maybe not (at least not for longer than it takes to get shocked out of your beta-tude). But do they need to learn to use some tools to combat female hypergamy and the lies they’ve been taught about male-female interactions? Absolutely. And those tools are going to look an awful lot like Game, whether you call it that or not, or whether you give the likes of Roissy any credit for it.
The fact that you want to accomplish a certain task says nothing about the morality of any means of accomplishing it. You’d surely agree that not wanting to have kids does not legitimize many means of birth control? Well, then, for the exact same reason, you should be able to understand people having some skepticism that wanting one’s wife not to be a frigid shrew or worse legitimizes narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy – or, if you insist that that’s not what game is, that there exists a defensibly workable sort that does not require those. ‘It’s just a tool!’ will not answer the question.
Sup just got home its oppressively hot here this time of year.
Game is a tautology.
‘What is game: Its what gets you laid”
“What gets you laid: Having Game”
Its also a fraud an a myth.
Aight I’m going to berd later peace from Nice lmao.
‘What is game: Its what gets you laid”
“What gets you laid: Having Game”
Human beings are meant to transcend animal life.
yaboy: Don’t be ridiculous. Anyone who’s at all paying attention to the world around them knows that there are personal characteristics, especially certain traits, behaviors, and affectations, that women strongly tend to find attractive, and others that they strongly tend to find unattractive. These are not immediately obvious, but are open to investigation and cataloguing; the supposed tautology, then, isn’t.
Permaculture, what you are suggesting is not true humanism, but angelism. Human nature is real and denying it never does any good.
I don’t believe in angels David. Sex is not the be all and end all of life. I’m surprised to see that so called “spiritual” people have drank the kool aid that they are supposed to be having sex with the frequency of a horny teenager when they are on the better side of 40. There’s a reason why testosterone levels drop severely in middle age. Embrace it. Its a different phase of life meant for different things.
Angelism does not refer to a belief in angels. It is the belief that humans should be like angels.
As for testosterone levels, mine seem still to be quite high. And I am still married.
I comment on these blogs to find out how to have as happy a marriage as possible and to pass on what I have learned to men who might find it helpful.
‘What is game: Its what gets you laid”
“What gets you laid: Having Game”
Human beings are meant to transcend animal life.
I still get hungry 3 times a day.
I’m surprised to see that so called “spiritual” people have drank the kool aid that they are supposed to be having sex with the frequency of a horny teenager when they are on the better side of 40
Well I didn’t have ANY sex when I was a horny teenager. I never went all the way til my wedding night… which through no choice of my own (and perhaps due to LACK OF GAME), was delayed til age 38. I made the choice… the extremely difficult choice…. to wait, for SPIRITUAL reasons.
So I find myself now, at 49, spiritually MARRIED, meaning sex is now spiritually OKAY, still trying to make up for all the sex I DIDN’T get in my 20s and early 30s because I was so damned spiritual. (I had plenty of chances for one night stands, the wrong path was wide open to me… but the spiritual path, marriage, eluded me for all those years.) And now you tell me I’m just supposed to forget about it ’cause I’m old…. not happening. Oh, and FWIW, my dad was 49 when I was born, so I guess his sex drive continued late in life too… genetics anyone?.
Besides… the sexual peak isn’t 18 as we are often taught. My sex drive started at 11 and was agoniziingly intense by 18, true, but it got even stronger through my teens and twenties and peaked in the mid 30s. Now it’s in a slow decline — at 49 I have the same sex drive I had at 19 (meaning. I want every day). So yeah, my body (not “society”, which I ignore) tells me to have sex with the frequency of a horny teenager!!!! Evere morning, my body wakes up screaming “Sex, sex, sex!”
It’s not kool-aid, it’s testosterone. God made testosterone. Frustrating? Yes? Unspiritual? NOOOOOOOOOO….. that’s the gnostic heresy. The body and the things of the body (food, sex, etc) are not intrinsically evil or unspiritual, they have their place.
van Rooinek, yes, the gnostic heresy. Mixed with angelism I suggest.
I didn’t have sex til I was 26, largely for religious reasons. I didn’t masturbate for years for religious reasons. I married at 30. At 57 I still notice women and want sex with my wife. She is 51 and still interested. The male sex drive may decline, but in my experience it doesn’t drop off a cliff. Also, after many years, a man knows what he likes most. I have had the best sex of my life in recent years.
No, my wife is not the cute, slender brunette I married. But I still find her attractive.
Perhaps this is TMI, and I am certain that like everything a man feels, it is somehow “wrong”.
The whole point of marriage, in the Biblical sense, is to channel those carnal desires to one mate for life and in the productive sense of bringing up the next generation in a wholesome environment. Humans have a spiritual nature but we also have a physical nature. It’s madness to deny that on the basis that ‘we should transcend animal life’. Of course we transcend it, we’re communicating through a technology far, far, far above that of the mere animal. Are we not? God has given us a way of channeling that carnal desire for sex and companionship into something good. It’s called marriage. The real focus should be on how to get marriage back where it once was, to get it back to the place where it was indeed a life union. Not a sham with divorce around the corner.
One more thing, Permaculture: All that raw milk, grassfed butter, organic vegetables, etc…. the whole “holistic” (I prefer the term “primitive”) nutrition trip… makes a man HORNIER. The supposed decline of the male sex drive later in life, is due to crappy industrialized diets. A 40 year old living on potato chips can expect a plummeting sex drive; put him on a diet of grassfed buffalo meat, and you’ll get a very different result.
It’s 5:45 am…. time to go running…
Permaculture is a perfect example of why I can’t stand ‘counsellors’. If she is a marriage counsellor, she will tell men with frigid wives “life isn’t all about sex” and tell him he shouldn’t pressure her.
A lot of the time people who think like Permaculture are just repressed and they dress it up in some ‘spiritual’ sounding language. If vR wakes up with a hard-on every morning, who are you to tell him he should ‘grow up’, as if wanting sex is somehow juvenile? Piss off, ya flake!
O. K. – I just have to say something..
#1. I’m new to this blog and to the entire “manosphere” world of red & blue pills and beta’s and alpha’s and the like. (been reading up silently for a week or so)
#2. I’m a Christian (RCC)
#3. I’m highly educated and well read and pride myself on this aspect of myself.
#4. I’m really, really impressed by the genuine dialogue, authentic nature of this milieu the general awareness of the shambles feminism and its enabler’s have caused. (i.e. – I am on the same page)
#5. I particularly am impressed by this topic thread of Christians trying to work out how to use “game” (read ONLY “the psychology of the modern female mind”) WHILE staying authentically Christian and (somehow?) establishing a proper Christian marriage/household.
#6. Kudo’s to Dalrock, David Collard, GKChesterton, Feminist Hater, sunshinemary, Rock Throwing Peasant , & all the rest I missed.
#7. I shall continue to read and perhaps post. FYI – I am a single 40 year old attorney that was force fed the “red pill” by life. Dont really pursue females but relish the insights of “game”. Am totaly didicated to bringing down the feminist madness that is modern life between male & famle -{for the greater glory of God}
#8 Conservatives and traditionalists and (especiall) Christians need to understand that we are NOT conserving anything,,,We are OVERTHROWING something.
#9 Without the above understanding we doom the next generation to the barbarism and wasted potential of the present.
#10. Thanks..
van Rooinek, your’s is an usual case, being single and celibate to such an advanced age. And you may be of particularly high testosterone, or not, I don’t know. I’m speaking about the general trends of western culture. The ads for “increasing testosterone” in older men and the pressure on them to perform like they did in their youth. Our culture is sex obsessed and its not natural. T levels naturally decline as men age, why fight it? Why take pills with high risk of serious side effects when the sheer joy of not being burdened with a constant libido could be embraced?
Again it goes back to western culture not having a “science of mind”.
“van Rooinek, your’s is an usual case” meant UNusual case.
And the diet thing, you’re right. However cultures that have science of mind also have lists of particular foods to avoid during temporary periods of celibacy (for self purification and self actualization) or for those who are committed to life long celibacy, so as not to aggravate the passions. The traditional yogic diet, otherwise known as sattvic diet or “pure diet” is one example. There are many others. The problem with Western culture is that we just don’t know these things. We don’t have a culture for these things.
van Rooinek, your’s is an unusual case, being single and celibate to such an advanced age. … I’m speaking about the general trends of western culture.
I’m not so uncommon as you think. A LOT of guys… maybe not all, maybe not a majority, but a very significant minority, say that the 18-yr peak is nonsense, that their sex drives are even higher in their 30s and early 40s.
The ads for “increasing testosterone” in older men and the pressure on them to perform like they did in their youth. Our culture is sex obsessed and its not natural. T levels naturally decline as men age, why fight it? Why take pills with high risk of serious side effects when the sheer joy of not being burdened with a constant libido could be embraced?
All of the above only applies IMHO to people on UNNATURAL DIETS, as you conceded. If you eat like the ancient patriarchs you will have a strong sexual appetite well into old age, just like the ancient patriarchs. Guys scramble after things that increase T levels because at some instinctive level they know they should NOT be fading out so early in life.
Again it goes back to western culture not having a “science of mind”.
Your earlier posts made “science of mind” sound almost attractive. Now you’ve convinced me that I never, never, never want anything to do with it — that I willl warn my sons and grandsons and greatgrandsons, to avoid “science of mind’ like the plague.
And the diet thing, you’re right. However cultures that have science of mind also have lists of particular foods to avoid during temporary periods of celibacy (for self purification and self actualization) …the traditional yogic diet, otherwise known as sattvic diet or “pure diet” is one example.
Is that what vegetarianism is really all about…dietary self castration? Is that why the left pushes it so hard — to blunt our resistance to the takeover by the satanic NWO? This warning makes all the more sense now:
1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
There it is: celibacy + food restriction. From “deceiving spirits and things taught by demons”….
The problem with Western culture is that we just don’t know these things. We don’t have a culture for these things
And we DO NOT WANT IT. It sounds to me like something to be resisted at any cost.
van Rooinek, I am 57 and I thought by now I would be quietly sipping tea and reading the classics in a comfy chair, with no detectable libido. But no.
Not long ago I was having regular quickies with the Missus first thing in the morning. Even now, I am still interested. I think I am starting to cool off a bit, but subjectively I still seem to have plenty of testosterone floating around.
I wonder if guys like us, who are a bit slow to get started, last longer.
BUt I wasn’t “slow to get started” hormonally… Puberty hit at 11… hard….very hard….. so to speak.
I meant with women, real live ones.
Male athletic peak is 22 to 27, only drops 10% by age 35 and only slowly declines from there. So a 45 year old male “burning” at roughly the same clip as 18 isn’t surprising in the least.
On the Testosterone lowering effects, don’t oversell a Warrior or Paleo type diet. It really has mostly to do with inflammation and general health that leads to lowered Testosterone. Those diets are useful, but they’re really not all that like the diets of the “olden days”. Which included far more fecal matter than you want to really think about.
But, losing a lot of weight/getting in shape will restore Testosterone levels to their natural level in a man. Which means, yes, they will still be pretty horny well into later age.
“paleo diet” is a joke because nobody is eating paleo unless they are living a 100% authentically hunter gatherer lifestyle, which nobody is doing in the US. All of our food is unnatural, processed, transported, stored and aged, even the 100% organic grass fed beef.
If you grow all of your own veggies and fruits, and eat only that, then maybe you can be considered somewhat generally close to paleo but by no means real paleo.
There’s no reason why old men should be concerned with keeping their T levels up to the point they were in youth. To what end, exactly? For what purpose?
@Permaculture Farmaceuticals
I called out the last two and they just disappeared never to comment again. You are a more sophisticated infitrator. Go away. And yes, I know tht I am likely on the “red list.” I will stand on my principles!
(By infiltrator I mean someone that is paid by others to subvert truth.)
There’s no reason why old men should be concerned with keeping their T levels up to the point they were in youth. To what end, exactly? For what purpose?
First of all, perhaps they actually ****enjoy sex****. And, if they are married, there is nothing wrong, nothing “unspiritual”, about enjoying sex. All who contend otherwise, are from the devil.
Secondly, a healthy diet and life style, will automatically keep T levels a lot higher. So, caring for our bodies the way we’re supposed to, maintaining the body as God intended…. WILL cause the sex drive to be a lot higher than eating the SAD (standard American diet). So even if the intent to increase T and sex drive isn’t there, if you do the right thing physically, it’s an inescapable side effect.
@Aaron,
I keep seeing the argument that if a man were a “real Christian” he wouldn’t need Game. But that’s like saying if a man were a “real Christian” he wouldn’t need a boat to cross a river, because Jesus told Peter just a tiny bit of faith is enough to walk on water.
No, that’s not really the argument per se. The argument is on primacy. That is, there is an attempt to cede so much primacy to game that it becomes a tool for exegesis as above. Where that happens something has seriously gone off the rails.
@Ugar,
that women strongly tend to find attractive, and others that they strongly tend to find unattractive. These are not immediately obvious, but are open to investigation and cataloguing; the supposed tautology, then, isn’t.
_If_ that is the definition of game then I don’t think it is a problem. However its a weak definition for anything and isn’t the “Laws of Poon”.
@Van,
I think you are right that he is trending generally gnostic but there is something to be said about being more than “animal”. I don’t think that is gnostic. We should be able to control and channel our drives as you did. We are after all the under-lords of this particular realm. The drive itself is a good thing if pointed in the proper direction (your wife and the creation of children). I’m not sure that a crunchy-con diet will lead to a higher sex drive. I am not a crunchy con (though markedly younger). I think studies have shown fat reduces male libido by increasing estrogen. So too many potato chips vs. potato chips themselves are problematic.
@GKC
I don’t think you are referring to me when you write “above”, but for the record I want to state that I agree. 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.
@VR- there is a lot to said for a healthy diet and lifestyle. The worse thing for any man to do is be a “typical American”. While decreasing T-levels do naturally occur – it is a lot slower than one thinks.
Not to attempting to brag – I am in the same shape at 47 as I was at 22. Can do 115 lbs dumbells for sets on chest and 500 lbs squat sets and combined with a clean diet and sleep the results are single digit body fat, 6 pack, and the ability to do anything physically I want (In addition, much young women will approach me).
Discipline goes a long way and is beneficial for body, soul, mind, and spirit (outcomes are predictable as one will reap exactly what they sow).
Post submitted.
Yikes.
Post submitted. Where Cane? You started your blog?
Looking forward to Cane’s post with great eagerness
Third draft just went back to Dalrock. Could probably be posted tonight. Both Dalrock and I have been busy elsewhere.
Well, I can partly understand why Christians resist so hard against accepting basic tenents of the game.
When an average plain wannabe PUA swallows the red pill it feels like: “Weee, I am gona get sooo laid! Amazing grace! Life is good!”
But when an average responsible Christian man swallows the red pill, it feels more like: “OMG, them women are actually criminally insane! And they are ruling the society! They will destroy my family, church, country, civilization and everything I know and love, just for the sake of their petty feewings and gina tingles! OMG,OMG, The end is near! We are all gonna die!!! ”
It’s like reading one’s own cancer diagnosis. Such ugly texts can drive the bravest men into voluntary illiteracy. Hell, even Jesus sweated and whined a little once the police was out to get him and crucify him.
Daniel 1 vv 11 – 16
My wife was a virgin at marriage, and she doesn’t feel ‘hubba hubba’ at an instant. (I was a virgin, too.) You have to warm up the engine for a little while before you drive the car.
Pingback: Cane Reads the YSV Bible: 1 Samuel 17 | Things that We have Heard and Known
The church is a woman, and she preaches with great might under the authority of her husband. That is what healthy marriage looks like.
The following scripture is often taken out of context. Notice the semi-colon following the first verse. What does that mean? hmmm.
Ephesians
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Many an effeminate preacher today loves proclaim that passage loudly, out of the shame of previously and sheepishly, no less, having to say “Wives, submit to your husbands”. They like to make it so the former didn’t have the power that was intended, by scaling up the latter.
Truth is, the complementary verses to verse 25, further emphasizes the initial headship claim. Notice it says, “That he might present it to himself”. It’s still about him, but it is to her total benefit.
Bible mad-libs. Why? justification: “even as Christ ”
Christ and Church:
The church fully submits to Christ. Christ loves the church, and will do anything to keep the church lovable to him. He will give his church a thorough cleaning, such that it will be to his liking. And forever cherish it, even if he has to die to do so.
Man and Car (not really a car enthusiast myself, but you get it
The car fully submits to man. Man loves the car, and will do anything to keep the car lovable to him. He will give his car thorough cleaning, such that it will be to his liking. And forever cherish it, even if he has to die (go broke w/time or money) to do so.
Insert Husband and Wife.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hmm, I wonder if the church will ever not see the glory of it’s relationship to Christ, and rebel against for a seemingly more prominent role. And thus forfeit the only washing that could keep it pure.
Pentioptus , I added two to your name because I give your post a +2!
Mv,
That describes a lot of my perspective lately. Them bitches be crazy! And they vote!!
Pingback: Christian denial and institutional resistance to change. | Dalrock
Pingback: If you challenge femDOM churchianity, the White Knights will attack: an update on Joseph of Jackson. | The Woman and the Dragon
Pingback: Fifty Shades of Frivolous Divorce | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: More MRAs insanities : Christian PUAs | no more mr nice guy
Pingback: How much game should the Christian wife require? | Sunshine Mary
Pingback: The Bright Red Line « Artisanal Toad's Hall
Pingback: Men’s Sphere Thought Experiment II: Divorce is Just a Tool | Things that We have Heard and Known
Pingback: Dalrock’s inherent unmanliness and unBiblical, frankfarter tendencies playing gamey word games while exiling Jesus and disrespecting the Word, Words Man, and God. | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4M
Pingback: Dalrock–Destroyer of Words, the Word, and Men’s Souls: Dalrock’s inherent unmanliness and unBiblical, frankfarter tendencies playing gamey word games while exiling Jesus and disrespecting the Word, Words Man, and God. | Great Books For M
Pingback: Dalrock–Destroyer of Words, the Word, and Men’s Souls: Dalrock’s inherent unmanliness and unBiblical, frankfarter tendencies playing gamey word games while exiling Jesus and disrespecting the Word, Words, Man, and God. | Great Books For
Pingback: “Just Get It” Really Is The Answer | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: HALLAEJULLLAH!!!! DALROCK HAS SEEN THE LIGHT! WE HAVE SAVED DALROCK’S SOUL!!!!! WELCOME HOME PRODIGAL SON DALROCKAS!!!! LZOZOZOZOZOZ | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl
Pingback: gaming made him (dalrock) a better christian. lzozozlolzollzlo just as he writes “Slutting made her a better Christian.” | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl
Pingback: why/how did feminism succeed? because dalrock, vox and their flock of frankfartian fanboysz want it to. | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl
Pingback: How to tell if you are a godly man. | Dalrock
Pingback: Women as responders | Dalrock
Pingback: Real Men Step Up to Fifty Shades of Rationalization. | Dalrock
Pingback: Men find their own solutions to the gender wars
Pingback: Pick Up Game – Does it serve the needs of Men, or is it for Women? | Σ Frame
Pingback: Dissident Write II: Dissident Boogaloo – The Portly Politico
Pingback: Why does Game work? | Σ Frame