One of the more common complaints about Game is that its proponents challenge our modern value structure by equating sexual attractiveness with virtue in men. This is an especially common complaint when it comes to the classification of men into the categories Alpha, Beta, etc. It certainly is true that Heartiste measures the value of a man by the man’s ability to attract and bed women, as he explains in Defining the Alpha Male (link NSFW, emphasis mine):
Many want to believe that getting girls is ancillary to being a true alpha male; that the real measure of an alpha lies in his ability to dominate other men, or his command of his environment, or his thirst for swashbuckling adventure. While these are admirable alpha traits, they are nothing but a means to an end. Make no mistake, at the most fundamental level the CRUX of a man’s worth is measured by his desirability to women, whether he chooses to play the game or not. Pussy is the holy grail. That is why the obese, socially maladroit nerdboy who manages to unlock the gate to the secret garden and bang a 10 regularly is an alpha male. And that is also why the rich, charming entrepreneur who because of an emotional deficiency or mental sickness lives mired in parched celibacy is not an alpha male.
But even here, Heartiste isn’t talking about virtue. He isn’t saying that the ability to generate the tingle is what makes a man good morally. To the contrary, Heartiste regularly reminds his readers that women are attracted to the worst sort of men. From Chicks Dig Jerks: More Scientific Evidence (language warning):
So what is this study telling us? What Heartiste concepts are validated?
– Narcisisstic, irrational self-confidence is more attractive to women than modest, rational defeatism. (See: Poon Commandment XI)
– Being a rule breaker (a form of psychopathy) is attractive to women. (Playing by the rules will win you plaudits from polite society, but it won’t help you get pussy.)
– Using people for personal gain is attractive to women.
– The Dark Triad works best for short term sexual hookups (the kinds of mating opportunities most men would jump at if they were easy to get). LTRs require a small but significant infusion of beta provider game to remain healthy and satisfying for any woman.
– Being disagreeable (an asshole, that is) is attractive to women.
– Being power-hungry is attractive to women.
– Never sweating the small stuff is attractive to women.
– In other words, being an aloof, uncaring asshole — an amalgamation of all the above traits — makes you optimally attractive to the greatest number of hot chicks.
This is as he notes a long running theme for Heartiste. See the related posts at the bottom of the page (here, here, and here) if you require more evidence that Heartiste isn’t confusing the ability to generate the tingle for virtue.
Ironically, when it comes to the equation of male sexual attractiveness with virtue, Heartiste is directly challenging conventional wisdom. It isn’t pickup artists who are mistaken by thinking that men’s virtue is measured by their ability to generate the tingle; it is everyone else.
This is probably easiest for most to see with feminists and their liberal allies, since they have been very open about replacing biblical sexual morality with a strict focus on romantic love and “consent”. Both of these are really just code words for the tingle however. Romantic love and the tingle are separate conceptually, but for practical purposes they are one and the same. I would also challenge my readers to find a biblical distinction between romantic love and sexual desire. Consent would at first sound like something different, but when feminists say consent they mean the woman is sexually attracted to the man. This is why feminists call sex which the woman later regrets rape, and why a woman who trades sex for food and lodging is also said to have been raped.
But it isn’t just feminists who equate a man’s ability to generate sexual attraction with his virtue. Modern Christians and other conservatives go even further in this direction. Feminists are attempting to toss out what they see as an outdated value structure grounded in superstition, and replace it with a human derived code. Christians have also thrown out biblical teaching on sexual morality. The difference however is that Christians are now teaching that God designed women to only be attracted to good Christian men. This new view is taught without controversy because it is so thoroughly accepted.
The clitoris as a divining rod for virtue.
In a post decrying the wickedness of sexual immorality, Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. (President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), explains that by God’s design a wife’s sexual attraction for her husband is a barometer of the man’s righteousness:
Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.
t is for tingle
And it isn’t just the most conservative modern Christians like the Southern Baptists who now teach that the hallmark of a man’s virtue is his ability to generate the tingle. This view is ubiquitous throughout modern Christian culture. Christians the world over (both Protestants and Catholics) delighted in the message of the movie Fireproof, where the proof that Caleb was finally a changed man came from his wife falling out of love with the doctor she was leaving him for and falling back in love with Caleb. Only through the power of the tingle could Caleb redeem himself, save his marriage, and save his wife’s soul. In this new view the symbol Christians have used as a reminder of Christ’s sacrifice for nearly two thousand years is now transformed into a “t” for “tingle”. By the mysterious power of the tingle, Caleb, his marriage, and his wife were all saved. Christians delighted in this spiritual message, and these thoroughly unbiblical ideas were not even recognized as such let alone debated outside of the manosphere.
It isn’t just at the extremes that we see the worship of the tingle either. It isn’t just radical feminists and conservative Christians. Everyone in between now worships the tingle without a second thought. As I showed recently, secular marriage counsellors also believe that a wife’s loss of attraction for her husband is a symptom of his loss of virtue. Dr Harley’s approach to bored wives is the same as the approach in Fireproof, and is perfectly aligned with our new legal view of the family. Men who can’t generate the tingle deserve to be not only punished, but crushed. Men who can’t keep their wives tingling deserve to have their families destroyed, their children taken from them, and very often even deserve to be imprisoned.
We live in a world where a man who fails to generate tingles is seen as contemptible by both feminists and conservatives, by seculars and Christians alike. Aside from a tiny minority, Christians range from outright rejecting biblical teaching on men and women to feeling ambivalent about what the Bible teaches. In this world Heartiste’s greatest challenge to modern moral sensibilities isn’t his celebration of the tingle, but instead his (modern Christian and secular) heretical assertion that generating the tingle isn’t the ultimate sign of virtue in a man.
Cross graphic released to the public domain by Boris23.
Excellent insights, Dalrock.
Only virtue is virtue. It often shows up, in part, as strength in men and beauty in women, but counterfeits are cheap and plentiful. We who love truth should be adept at looking past the surface to the substance. And we should teach this to our families as King Solomon did.
A godly man can lead his wife and be her spiritual head – her Alpha, but trying to be Alpha in order to be the spiritual head seems to be approaching the issue backwards.
If tingles are the arbiter of virtue, we are cooked. It does not follow that a man should consciously avoid generating them in his wife.
But even here, Heartiste isn’t talking about virtue. He isn’t saying that the ability to generate the tingle is what makes a man good morally.
Dalrock, you are cornfused. Virtue is about ethics, not morality.
One hell of a good read.
This is a brilliant observation. A corollary is that, if a Christian girl goes out and hooks up with a non-Christian man, then he must be a good man on the inside, no matter what the evidence shows. A truly bad man wouldn’t make her tingle, and the Spirit in her Heart wouldn’t guide her to one! So when he never comes to church, that’s not a sign that he’s bad; it just means the members aren’t welcoming enough. If he wants to shack up without getting married, it means he doesn’t know any better, or everyone needs to pray harder for him (including the single men who were there in the church all along and couldn’t get said girl to look twice at them).
When people believe women are sinless, then not only will they make excuses for everything women do wrong, they’ll even make excuses for everything their hookup boyfriends do wrong.
Pingback: Don’t blame Heartiste for the equation of Alpha with virtue. | Manosphere.com
The pearl-clutching about Heartiste isn’t about the message itself, its that he’s saying it plainly, without all the Churchian ‘squid ink’.
This is why MGTOW is so important. Man has but one life, who cares what is alpha and what is not. Just enjoy your one life and make it the best that you can. The rest, including the idea that only ‘pussy’ matters, can rot away. Live you life for heaven’s sake and leave the rest.
TFH just channeled Randy “The Macho Man” Savage.
Actually real virtue is Chivalry. The mark of the True man is the ability to tame his lusts and control his desires. But that was the Age of Heroes when men were men and all women were there for the taking, not this world of sleazy whores and metrosexual fags you live in. This lowly society is what the World was when your ancestors lived in caves and beasts ruled the World while you hid and cowered. The heroes tamed the World and built the Civilization that lies in ruins due to the stupid addition of women and untermensch in the governance of things beyond their knowledge and ability. You will see this World come back when Uncle Sham finally falls dead from uncontrolled spending and lowly political corruption. An Age undreamt of by you will suddenly appear when the Heroes rise from the rubble of the food riots and anarchy that results.
[i]Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire. [/i]
So the poor man who has had to endure his wife blowing up his marriage to chase after a bad boy, and also endure the loss of his kids and his wealth, now has guilt and shame heaped on him by those who purport to represent the church. He must have been unworthy, otherwise she wouldn’t have left.
“Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.”
Just as Joshua Harris said and preached the things that he did to spread the repression around, I believe Mohler wants other Christian men to be stuck in a gynocentric marriage, too. Misery truly loves company.
@Chris D
Yes. Hence the circular firing squad that is a gathering of Christian men. One, in the form of the male bashing Step Up ministries, but also Two, in the ever present male self effacement jokes about, “gotta ask the boss” and “I couldn’t figure it out, the wife had to do it” These are overt (One) and subtle (Two) sources of ventilation [shared misery] by Christian men.
I wonder if there’s any correlation between the churches bowing to the ‘spirituality’ of the female tingle in some part has to do with so many of the churches I visit on occasion bowing to tingles in a more general sense, spending most of their effort on entertainment rather than sermons. Churches in general seem to have gone from external forgiveness and internal examination to projection and forgiveness of self.
A strange thing, this notion about the woman being attracted to a man if he is righteous enough.
A video that began the service at church last week had a couple’s testimony. They wife lamented the husbands addictions and secrets. They claimed that once he was utterly transparent with her their marriage improved. That simple. They avoided, of course, major changes she may have had to make, likely because they couldn’t think of any.
But I wonder, this now blissful union….are they sexually active at frequency? Or, has he settled into the fact that she just isnt that into him anymore, and that what really passes as Christian marital bliss is her set equilibrium , because of his righteousness, that he just lives with, plodding along. This way when they are intimate he feels like he must have washed HIMSELF better with the word.
To be clear, Dr. Mohler’s statement should read:
Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that God created marriage and Christ declared that marital infidelity an offense against God. [change and emphasis mine]
“when it comes to the equation of male sexual attractiveness with virtue, Heartiste is directly challenging conventional wisdom”
Possibly, but he definitely believes that a man’s *value* is determined by his appeal to women. Which is stupid.
“who cares what is alpha and what is not”
Exactly!
Put most bluntly, I believe that God means …
What Al “believes” is utterly irrelevant unless he can cite Scripture, to the letter, chapter and verse, in proper context, to back it up as biblical truth. That so few pastors and theologians ever do this is one of the more infuriating aspects of modern churchianity. To be fair, given how intellectually and spiritually lazy the majority of churchians are, he’s rarely, if ever, called upon to do so.
Far from seeing authority in anything Moehler says, I’m inclined to dismiss it out of hand, regardless of any credentials he holds. Remember that he is a power within an organization that churns out “pastors” whose ignorance of Scripture is monumental, in turn perpetuating biblically ignorant and apathetic congregants. There’s nothing to mark or be proud of here.
@TRP said: “…he definitely believes that a man’s *value* is determined by his appeal to women. Which is stupid.”
Exactly so. A woman is not the report card on one as a man. This is why I emphasize the importance of becoming the best version of oneself. Putting one’s worth up for bids is a sure recipe for a lifetime of insecurity.
The Christian (as distinguished form the churchian) has a genuine advantage here, in that he can take his questions and doubts to an all-knowing, all-loving Father who will tell him the truth about himself — and about Himself. God or Father is the arbiter and assigner of real value.
He’s also the one who told us to be gentle as doves and cunning as snakes, so Heartiste’s insights into the way fallen women view and behave toward men is useful intelligence, though we would apply it differently.
*our Father*
The thing is, I think it depends on what you call “righteous”.
Maybe I’m being momentarily daft, but the women I see around me are phony and dingy, and these are ones that are highly visible in the community and the church.
And in all transparency, I know I need to stay in prayer, because I’m beginning to loathe them. They are common and pathetic.
The men in my circle, whom I love dearly, comprise of some very respected Elders, Preachers and Teachers in a few Churches in my area…but for the most part, I have very little respect for their wives. So much that I can hardly stand to be around them.
When I unplugged I started paying attention to all the grimy crap and innuendo that comes from their mouths, their emails, and how they influence my brothers.
So I’m confused by “righteous”. Do our “sisters” even know what righteous is?
I take heat for being too Holy and serious about the things of God by people in my circle, and when I read stuff by Dalrock, Cane, Zippy, DeepStrength, Empathologism and many of you other brothers posting here and I feel like a big dummy…and I’ve been in ministry for 23 years.
So, if these chicks can’t hang with me, then I can imagine why you brothers inveigh the way you do, and why MGTOW seems more viable and viable each day.
My 94 year old mother cried today when I told her that I think I’m being punished by the Father for some of my youthful wayward deeds, because every time I think I’ve met a good Christian woman, she ends up being inferior to me in every way, and unregenerated – to boot…like I’ve been a magnet for liars, libertines, whores, phonies, and commoners.
Then here comes the narrative about Pedat…he’s SELF-RIGHTEOUS, and then the hoodrats say, “it don’t take all-a-dat to have a relationship, ain’t nobody perfect” and crap like that. *sigh*.
And I swear I’m really NOT TRYING to troll the pigsty, bros…
Did dalrock make up the T is for Tingle thing with the cross or was that someone else? Very sharp whoever did that.
The point of the article is not the definition of alpha. The point is feminism and the church in an effort to please feminism as made gina tingle the moral compass of civilization. The alpha definition from the man that regularly uses the term with an explanation of where it comes from is part of the article to show how foolish it is to take headship from women on any subject. Especially on subjects of honor and morality.
Dalrock is right on Heartiste, he regularly says alpha is not necessarily good for civilization.
This comment is from somebody that had the article sail over their head. It goddamn is important to know what alpha is . Ignorance is not bliss and damn sure isn’t righteous or above the fray. It is amazing even now to still see men that are Christian horrified at getting their righteous souls dirty with this worldly stuff.
The word, virtue, is derived from the Latin word ‘vir’, which means man, as in male human. The four cardinal virtues are; prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude. Men are more likely to look within themselves and judge themselves as to how they meet the virtues. Much of the personal testimony on the Manosphere involves complaints that women do not meet these virtues. Women can achieve virtue, but it seems to take male leadership, whether by a father, or a husband.
Roissy/Heartiste does not claim to be virtuous. He admits that he is immoral, and is just sitting poolside waiting for the world to burn. Notice he refers to ‘alphas’ and ‘betas’, not the virtuous, and the non-virtuous.
R. Albert Mohler Jr. (President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), explains, “his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.”
This is true, but Heartiste is a far better mentor for Christian husbands to be worthy of her attention and desire than almost anything I have seen on Christian web pages, books, or men’s prayer groups. I discovered Roissy/Heartiste back in 2009 when the Manosphere was in its infancy. I credit (blame?) him for saving my marriage. It has taken six years so far to turn around, and a commitment to prayer to show me my sins, and to protect my wife and I from the temptations of demons.
The Real Peterman @ 4:58 pm:
“Possibly, but he definitely believes that a man’s *value* is determined by his appeal to women. Which is stupid.”
On the face of it you’re right, however one of my manosphere “moments of clarity” is that our sexuality really is part of our nature with second- and third-order effects.
One might also claim a man’s value does not depend upon wearing clean clothes and deodorant.
It is more accurate to say that the four cardinal virtues are wisdom, justice, moderation, and courage.
The deeper root of the word (and concept) is the Greek arete.
@escoffier
I used the usual Catholic terminology for the cardinal virtues. My knowledge of the New testament Greek is non-existent.
R. Albert Mohler Jr. (President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), explains, “his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.”
Something given only under certain conditions is not given freely. One would think a man with Mohler’s education would understand that.
A simple way to outrage Mohler and other tradcons would be this statement:
“Her husband will freely give his love to his wife only when she presents herself as worthy of his attention and desire”.
I don’t see any “worthiness” clause in Ephesians 5, and one assumes Mohler is at least a bit familiar with that Bible quote.
@RICanuck:
Indeed…even in my state, I feel that demonic activity, for whatever reason, has plagued me so often as an adult…particularly in my relationships to the point I think the Father wants me to remain as I am. So I’m always yearning for His protection.
Nothing I do is worth anything without His protection and grace…and every time I step outside His hedge, I catch hell and heartache.
@AR:
He’s not looking for that quote, remember. From his point of view, it’s what “he believes God is (trying) to say”, not what the actual scripture says. After all, Al has an inroad to the Holy of Holies that we ninnies simply do not.
It falls in line with the “marriage isn’t always a 50/50 arrangement”. Sometimes someone (her) can only give 30, okay? And…and…if 30 is all she’s really only gonna be able to give, then by golly, you better man up and fork over your 70, and don’t be bitching about it either, you little twerp!
We are men.
We are not petunias, who whine about how things are unfair. Or unrighteous. For they are: they are.
We may consider the damage we have done, or has been done on us, with tears of Godly shame, as we ought to. We can look at how the current meat market (the true name for where the PUA lurks) and walk away.
Hell, I walked away from the ballroom dance scene because of the PUA/sleaze factor. And I ain’t righteous, but I could not stop my sense of revulsion.
___________-
But what Heartise and Mohler are both talking about is what is called a proxy measure. It is easy to know how many wimmenz you have shagged this week, or within marriage how many times a month you have got past first base. There is a correlation between healthy marriage and healthy sexual desire, true… but… we have to do our duty.
And at times that takes us far away from our wives and children. We have to do that business trip: we are deployed, we have to visit that brother and sister in need. And we need to trust that our wife will do her duty in return: the children will be healthy, the servants will be paid, the crop will be in, and there will not be a baby in her belly on our return from the wars or the expedition.
Being a mistress of a house was and is a full time job, and one that most women saw as a worthy goal and a reason to marry — consider Charlotte in Pride and Prejudice.
The real measure of our life is not our feelings or our spouses feelings or the number of women we have introduced to our twisted genome. It is how close we are to Christ. How many people we have influenced for good, and how many are remaining in the faith. This is why we are commanded to love our wives, because Christ loves them. This is why we are told to not be a tyrant with our children. This is why our wives are told to obey us, so we have that basic trust in their vows and their oaths, and we can go and do our duty with a whole mind, not waiting for Jody to steal that we have.
For doing our duty is often unpleasant, and can be deadly. The ancients knew this, and knew that a culture that relied on its feelings would die.
If we have lost that, we have not merely fallen from a great height, we have regressed.
For a man to derive his worth from what a woman thinks of him is moronic and the height of stupidity. Real men derive their value from other men, not women (read the book: The Way of Men by Donovan).
Women are notoriously bad at making character judgements of men (think of all of the anecdotal tales of young women running off with the village idiot or town bad boy). Real women look to other men, his cohorts, to ascertain the value and character of a man that they desire. Young women can be attracted to men for the most irrational and idiotic of reasons. Which gender overwhelmingly writes love letters and marriage proposals to murderers and serial killers in prison? It’s women. I never heard of a man doing this. Women need to be led by men.
@ The Real Peterman;
“Possibly, but he definitely believes that a man’s *value* is determined by his appeal to women. Which is stupid.”
This is wrong. Heartiste says a man’s Sexual Marketplace Value is determined by his appeal to women. He says nothing of a man’s value to himself or the world.
Duty, huh?
Okay.
@pedat.
Duty is a far more reliable guide, mate.
@pukeko60,
I’ve no objection to duty at all.
My duty now is to myself, my daughter, my 94 year old mother, and a community of like-minded believers.
Not gonna fall for banana in the tailpipe of devotion to an unclean woman any more. She’s gonna have to PROVE to me that she’s signed, sealed, and delivered by the Holy One Himself. LOL
No, pussy is not the Holy Grail. If pussy is the Holy Grail, then all of that wondrous, magical Game, which apparently according to Roissy/Heartiste/Idiot, turns obese Aspbergers cases into 10 slayers, is just supplication to female frame. There is no male frame if pussy is the Holy Grail.
First, all of these fabulous pussy slayers are not actually fathering children, I take it, ‘cuz the women and the gov’t will look you up and make you pay. Non-procreative sex is just a pastime. You can do that, or read a book, or go fishing, whatever. Who cares. If you’re not passing your seed on, it’s about as important as satisfaction coming from a bowel movement.
Striver
Here is a question. Actually, here is The Question: If your chosen path leads you to a place where you can only watch at a distance (in unwanted celibacy) as other men – who chose a different path- enjoy enthusiastic sex with the women you happen to value the most – did you chose the Right Path?
Please take down the cross graphic
@Rum..
What men?
What value do you find in these “women”?
“Pedat”
I have been a troll myself every now and then…
Live you life for heaven’s sake and leave the rest.
I would fully support a MGTOW message that emphasized that FH, but I have not heard it much. I suppose it could depend exactly what “heaven’s sake” means, but that would be better than just focusing things for the man’s personal desires. No Christian has a right to do that, since making Jesus Lord means Jesus has the right to give the direction.
This incorrect focus on our own way is not limited to MGTOW in any way though, it is a human problem that is only changed by submitting to God’s will.
Chris,
Just as Joshua Harris said and preached the things that he did to spread the repression around
What suppression did he spread around? Did he limit the ability for women to play with hypergamy in the Church too much for your view? Dating is a big evil as it was practiced. Lots of “play house” relationships don’t make for stable relationships, whether they involve living together or just dating.
Pedat,
So, if these chicks can’t hang with me, then I can imagine why you brothers inveigh the way you do, and why MGTOW seems more viable and viable each day.
I definitely see that too, in spite of any problem I may have with it when it is not focused on living God’s ways.
It is an important insight that both feminists and Churchians sacralize vagina tingles, and – just like Heartiste – despise the beta men who cannot provide them.
It is simply astonishing that so much of modern “thought”, while it presents itself in high-minded terms of theology or human liberation, is actually as basic as the worship of a woman’s vagina tingles.
Rum,
I’ve already experienced unwanted celibacy. Had a bad incident in early childhood, was a sensitive child and 99% SAT kid, and went down an asocial path that took years to unwind. Very disconnected from my own life path and physicality. More of a tragedy than any particular person’s fault. I got nothing from women, but I don’t really blame them, since I had such little ability to engage I couldn’t even recognize when they were interested. That wasn’t their fault. Even had a former cheerleader try to pick me up at a reunion and didn’t get it. Didn’t regret that, since she’s a mess who has been with plenty of others, so I was just another fix for her.
So after years of work, I finally started taking more concrete steps to getting together with women. Got married to the best woman I could find at the time and had three kids. Now she’s left me ‘cuz she got the tingles, again, for a guy she could have had before we were even married. I’m disgusted morally by the whole incident, especially how it will affect our kids. Who gives a crap who she has the tingles for.
It’s just pussy. Raising it to the biggest thing in life, that isn’t appropriate. I want to see men bonding with other men on common interests and spending less time worrying about the women. Women are always going to have sexual power over men, we all know that. Rollo’s chart is really misleading in that sense. Women rarely want me in the same way that men want women. The brains of the two genders are so different, whenever I think about something I assume a woman would think about it in a completely different manner.
No man wins every battle. I have been there before and I’m there now. What of it. Oh, I know, I’m supposed to be the ultimate alpha, AMOGing with a cocky smirk. We all die, we all lose. I enjoy competition, but any man’s power over women is always going to be limited, despite the impression that many on this board try to give.
Striver, mid fifties, still in decent shape and not bad looking. Yet lately have been looking at older fellows. Grey-hairs, with their physicality slipping away. I am at times horrified of the truth I see, and at other times just wanting to get there, so that I can drop this need to impress.
@Striver,
I’m not sure I agree that our power over women is going to be limited. I mean you’ve somewhat said it yourself, the reason they have ANY power is because we GIVE it to them.
The problem is that too many thirsty men just can’t say “no”. There’s where the power is going.
And just so you know, Heartiste willfully concedes this power.
…one assumes Mohler is at least a bit familiar with that Bible quote.
One what basis of evidence do you make that assertion?
TFH said, “In reality, even if a woman is extremely unattractive, men are nowhere near saying that the person should not have basic rights, or have a secondary status under the law, or should not have property rights.”
I’m saying it, but it’s just a camp of one.
and to protect my wife and I from the temptations of demons.
Too late for me.
I laughed really hard at “The clitoris as a divining rod for virtue.”. I’ve been working through Isaiah lately, and there’s a lot of talk about creating idols and how foolish that is. Same foolishness, new century.
Make no mistake, at the most fundamental level the CRUX of a man’s worth is measured by his desirability to women, whether he chooses to play the game or not. Pussy is the holy grail.
The apostle Paul, then, was a collosal failure. Christ Himself, by that that measure.
And this is why the PUAs of the world are a particularly deluded lot. Armed with partial truth they suppose themselves to be masters of a universe they can conceive of as no larger than their next female orifice.
Pingback: Don’t blame Heartiste for the equation of...
“The difference however is that Christians are now teaching that God designed women to only be attracted to good Christian men. ”
I am a Christian and I find this statement intellectually and biblically indefensible: just reading Genesis 3 dispels this lie: the bitch preferred the serpent.
@Pedat
I understand. I assure you that I completely understand. (not to be confused with empathizing),
I explained to my pastor that I had an abiding cynicism that is unhealthy. I laid out my reasons because within them lay some things that I wanted him to understand about the dynamics of church, the dynamics of marriage among those in church, and the relationships of the men in the church. The vast majority of the points have been sifted and refined here many times, but I offered personal anecdotes as my back up. So it was twofold really. Because while i lament the things that I have allowed to build cynicism, I also at least intellectually understand that the cynicism is not any kind of good foundation. That kind of understanding is me being a spectator at my own failures and not deigning intervene on my own behalf.
The cynicism manifests when I hear a charity appeal begin with “single mom of 3 needs help making ends meet” for example. Or worse, so and so (woman) has “found herself” in a divorce situation we need to pray for her, or a woman needs folks to pray because her marriage is at the end. Many of you here think the same things that I think when I hear those things.
More, in having relationships with the men at the church, I am deeply cynical. Beginning when only one man among the many i counted as friends in my church 12 years ago, one came calling during my near-miss divorce where we separated for 18 months. The others were mowing the lawn at my house….where I was not able to live during those months. The men in the one attempt I made at fellowship here at my new church (with which I am content) in a sort of guided discussion setting, when I lay out my story regarding the topic at hand as we were all supposed to do, round the table, shut down completely and looked askance as if they really didn’t want to talk about anything more serious than childhood memories of a sibling rivalry.
Pastor was intrigued as I knew he would be because of some things he and I have in common in our pasts.
On the issue relevant to this post, he shared interesting truths. he had taken a stand on marriage, to women who were strident in their divorce quest, and later he had received calls from other local pastors, churches where the divorcing women fled the blunt instrument of plain speak accountability, criticizing him from every angle. Too legalistic!, Not tough enough of the husband! Not legalistic enough!
All that with the backdrop of where the Mohlers of the world are focused, perfectly illustrated by this image of the cover of the magazine that calls itself “The evangelical voice of today”
In case the pic link failed because of my HTM-iLLiteracy
https://empathological.wordpress.com/2015/06/14/the-supreme-court-is-not-the-problem-with-marriage/
It is an important insight that both feminists and Churchians sacralize vagina tingles, and – just like Heartiste – despise the beta men who cannot provide them.
It is simply astonishing that so much of modern “thought”, while it presents itself in high-minded terms of theology or human liberation, is actually as basic as the worship of a woman’s vagina tingles.
It’s really more of a reversion than anything else. Prior to the rise of sexually strict monotheism, fertility cults were a quite common feature in religions. And fertility cults are basically worshiping the power of the pussy. It seems like that, or something close to it, is the “default setting” when sexually strict monotheism gets shoved aside. Today it isn’t garbed in the outward clothing of a religious cult, but it has most of the same features of one anyway, and probably even more cultural impact than it would if it were so garbed, given the supposedly empiricist and reductively materialist culture we live in today.
Women are always going to have sexual power over men, we all know that. Rollo’s chart is really misleading in that sense. Women rarely want me in the same way that men want women.
The chart is often misinterpreted. It isn’t measuring relative sexual desire as between men and women. It simply measuring when sexual desirability peaks for each sex, relative to the other, all things being equal. In other words, it be be both true that (1) men have in general higher libidos than women do and are less discriminatory in seeking out sexual mates than women are AND that (2) females peak in attractiveness to males much earlier than vice versa. Rollo’s chart is talking about (2) and not (1). All it means is that women’s behavior will change when she’s on the downside of her attractiveness curve — it doesn’t mean she suddenly gets a testosterone-fueled sex drive, but rather that she begins to alter her own mating behavior and mate selection in light of her reduction in attractiveness relative to where men are. Some women do this more effectively than others, while some women remain trapped in thinking they are as attractive at 40 as they were at 22, but eventually they do all “get it”. That doesn’t mean that they ever want sex as much as their peer men do — it just means that what they can demand for granting sexual access decreases as their market power decreases.
Oh, I know, I’m supposed to be the ultimate alpha, AMOGing with a cocky smirk. We all die, we all lose. I enjoy competition, but any man’s power over women is always going to be limited, despite the impression that many on this board try to give.
It’s limited by how attractive you are. If you’re very attractive, you actually have a lot of power over women, just by virtue of being one of the very few very attractive men. Again, this doesn’t change the female sex drive, but it means that you are in the crowd of the relatively few men that spark it much more easily than the average man does. When you’re in that position, your power over women is not limited in any meaningful sense, even if your libido is stronger than theirs on average, because you are a limited commodity and are in high demand, meaning that you have market power. Of course, very few men are in that position, in terms of substance, and only very few *can* be, in order for that position to be maintained (i.e., in order for it to continue to be scarce, which is what is the source of its value).
If you’re not in that select group, your degree of power or lack thereof over women still depends on your attractiveness, and you will do better with women in *all* interactions with them if you are more attractive to them rather than less so — even if you are not in the “winner’s circle” I describe above. This impacts *all* interactions with women — even ones that are not *explicitly* sexual. This can be easily observed in the workplace setting by observing how women treat and interact with men who are attractive (not only physically, but also in terms of masculinity, presence, power, etc.) as compared with men who are less so. It’s night and day, and this is even without any explicit flirting or anything like that — they respond to it because they can’t help but do so, because every interaction between heterosexual men and women is going to have a sexual element to it, whether that element is attraction, repulsion or lukewarm. You want to be more of the former than the middle or the latter.
Finally, of course this doesn’t change your “ultimate value”. That’s a spiritual and metaphysical matter. But in terms of interactions between actual males and females, your “ultimate value” isn’t what is key, but your attractiveness, and it will always remain so because that is the core of how the sexes interact with each other for deep biological reasons. Of course in the context of a Christian marriage this can be transcended through grace and transformed/transfigured into something greater than that, but it *never* starts that way, because of the way humans work. So it’s important to remain grounded about that.
A man can be attractive to women and still be miserable, unhappy, unfulfilled. But at least women will have what they want from him. Game is designed to serve women. It is gynocentric. Calling pussy the holy grail demonstrates a simpering reverence for what is essentially a drug addiction that is deified because it is naturally occurring and for no other reason. I’m begging you guys to at least attempt to gain mastery over your crutch
@Brad
Agreed.
For this brother, MGTOW is me focusing inward. I have very little confidence at this point that I will ever find an equally yoked woman to partner up with, and I’m gonna have to come to grips with that.
Focusing on Him and what I can do for His people is the path I’m taking. Whatever improvements I make in my life (emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, and physically) will be to His glory, and maybe inspire other men to do the same.
Attracting women has never been the issue, it’s the ones I’ve chosen which have been the rub.
O/T…is it me or do you brothers find that the Christian women you know don’t even study Scripture that much? I now see why DS questioned my sniffer. “If they aren’t seeking and growing in Christ, then what are they doing?” Meaning…it seems to me that you’re not dating Christian women…
That’s a great question. It’s like a culture of slack concerning being in the Word is also upon us, which I think is contributing to a lot of what’s happening around here…
@empathologism,
Ah yes..the cynicism. We both need prayer, huh?
Concerning the matters of the Faith, the state of the Body of Christ in terms of the orthodoxy of fellowship, family, marriage, then it’s an epic fail for me in light of that scripture. I’m disgusted.
And you remind me of how the married men are also spectators to the plight of their single brothers. I get left hanging a lot as well.
I think the wives know we have a bullshit detector and don’t want us questioning their husbands or putting them up on RP game in any way, because we’re losers or players or negative nellies…
Game is designed to serve women. It is gynocentric.
Bull5h1t. Game is designed to serve men. To get men laid.
There wouldn’t BE any unilateral divorce law at the state level were it not for two things: #1) women voting for legislators and #2) women deferring to her “‘gina tingle” uber alles. I have a brother in law whose wife just destroyed him, utterly, unmercifully, wholly and completely. She left him for a another man and took her monthly pound of flesh with her (guaranteed by the state, a judge, and law enforcement) simply because she was responding to her ‘gina tingle. To her that was perfectly moral and healthy. And righteous. I can’t even stand the sight of her anymore.
It might sound strange, but i have recently been looking into the ‘feminism as false religion’ angle, and found a lot of weird intersections. Starting with Asteroth (the Queen of Heaven), through Astarte, Diana, Gaia, etc. There seems to be a thread of ‘Divine Feminine’ worship going right back to Nimrod and Samaramis (Nimrod was Samaramis’ son, AND husband), who are apparently the source of many religions.
Interestingly, preists were in short supply in the early Catholic Church, so preists of the Roman Sun God of the time were recruited to form the early core of the church. Who is Diana/Artemis’ brother in Mythology? Apollo (Apollyon), the Sun God. What did these early Preists do? They declared Mary to be the Queen of Heaven. Where? In the city of Ephesus, the home of the temple of Diana.
These kinds of intersections happen all over the place, including the attitudes and goals of feminists (Diana/Artemis was famously man hating, and was a virgin). Interesting stuff, but hard to write about without coming off as a crackpot.
he left him for a another man and took her monthly pound of flesh with her (guaranteed by the state, a judge, and law enforcement) simply because she was responding to her ‘gina tingle. To her that was perfectly moral and healthy. And righteous.
Of course, because as Dalrock has pointed out numerous times, marriage now is only good and valid and worth continuing if both people are in love and sexually turned on by each other — in other words, if it is a passionate romantic relationship. That is what marriage *is* in our culture, in the ideal — that’s the ideal of marriage. So, it follows from that when the passionate relationship cools or dies off, or the romance cools or dies off, leaving the marriage is not only justified, but something to be applauded, because it gives both parties a chance to find another passionate romantic relationship. The raison d’etre of marriage is no longer commitment per se — it’s commitment if the passionate romantic relationship persists (which of course is not really a commitment, but why quibble with post-moderns …). The raison d’etre of marriage is an ongoing passionate romantic relationship — and if that fails, for either party, the marriage should end, and it is better and more moral to do so than to remain in a “passionless marriage”. (The latter is almost seen as being hypocritical, and we know that for post-moderns, anything that may appear to be hypocritical (whether it actually is hypocritical or not) is one of the few cardinal sins of post-modernity.) That’s just where the culture is on marriage today, and it’s also where most American Christians are on marriage today.
The rest of it — who gets the stuff, who gets ongoing payments, etc., when the passionate romantic relationship ends — is details in the eyes of most people, and honestly most people do not understand how the system is skewed. I actually do think that as marriage continues to decrease, and more women get screwed in divorce settlements due to being the higher earner, things may actually get straightened out on that front, albeit slowly. But even if that does eventually happen, it won’t change the fact that the overall cultural understanding of marriage — for Christians as well — has become completely something different from anything ever taught by any form of Christianity, Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox.
And almost everyone seems to like that, including almost all Christians.
For a man to derive his worth from what a woman thinks of him is moronic and the height of stupidity. Real men derive their value from other men, not women (read the book: The Way of Men by Donovan).
Actually, both statements have no basis in scripture. Real men do not derive their values from other men, but on how conformed to Christ they are.
Those who compare themselves to other men and seek to derive their values from them are, in Bible language, not smart:
For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise. 2 Corinthians 10:12
Our value is from Christ and Him alone. The more conformed we are to Him the greater our value is.
This would have been a perfect post to remind us about the tingle detecting bra: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/tingle-detecting-bra/
Are you a bad, creepy, molester, or does the bra open for you? This is the essential moral question of our age.
Christianity is and has always been weak-ass jew worshipping faggotry.
Any parts of it that don’t fit that mold were left over from better times.
Grow up, move on.
Dave @ 12:53 pm:
“Our value is from Christ and Him alone. The more conformed we are to Him the greater our value is.”
The context of 2 Corinthians 10 is Paul’s opponents undercutting his God-given authority, not Paul being superior by virtue of better obedience. (Paul says in 2 Cor. 11:23, “I am out of my mind to talk like this” while discussing his superior accomplishments in God’s service.)
Remember God loved us enough to die for us while we were completely unconformed, instinctively rebellious fools. Jacob was a woman-led liar and deceiver even to his own father–he even literally fought against God–and yet God loved him and not Esau.
…
theasdgamer @ 11:53 am:
“Game is designed to serve men. To get men laid.”
Thirded. Just because women like it doesn’t mean it’s gynocentric. Were it otherwise, patriarchy would demand the banning of chocolate and hair products.
PUA don’t play righteous man. They get the pussy you pay for because they enjoy it. Besides that to even make that statement requires a divorce from reality. Women today are full feral and the tingle is their guide. You must still think women think or ever have believed in this civilized society thing. No they don’t in as far as having any responsibility to it. Given a choice a woman will always take a serpent over a Christian man. Feminism itself was just to rid civilized duty from women so they can be to the place of their sexual arousal is their only check on behavior. The church, women and it seems like any man that still thinks he can marry in this society thinks so too. That is who women are accept it and grow as a man.
One more thing There is no such thing as a Christian women. The only Christian women are women married in submission to her Christian man. The only reason women claim to be Christian is for idiots that want to believe women can be Christian project virtue on them with out their bothering with the responsibility. Focus on the Family has made the statement of the “heroic single mom” so that seems to be working just fine for todays sluts.
Unless you are ready to take up arms and destroy this government I would suggest MGTOW And use your creative energy to find ways to enhance MGTOW up to and including fathering children rather than finding ways to find women worthy of marriage. They ain’t having it and local preacher the boys in blue with the 40 cal. glock will make sure you understand that.
GunnerQ
Thank this can not be said enough here.
Factory says:
June 14, 2015 at 12:46 pm
It might sound strange, but i have recently been looking into the ‘feminism as false religion’ angle, and found a lot of weird intersections. Starting with Asteroth (the Queen of Heaven), through Astarte, Diana, Gaia, etc. There seems to be a thread of ‘Divine Feminine’ worship going right back to Nimrod and Samaramis (Nimrod was Samaramis’ son, AND husband), who are apparently the source of many religions.
This is already understood among most of the men of God that I fellowship with. I’ve even heard John MacArthur, Vernon Mcgee and a couple of other radio show preachers reference various pagan deities when speaking of feminism. There truly is nothing new under the sun, and I’m convinced feminism has popped it’s ugly head up now and again over the centuries.
In the Greek play Lysistrata the women form a feminist power block and seek to have all the alphas forced to have sex with all the women in rotation, starting with the ugliest, and all the beta men enslaved to produce. This is exactly what is happening now that we are losing the feminist rebellion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata
It’s pretty funny if you want to give it a read.
greyghost,
No gg, that is wrong. A woman has absolutely no control (in her entire life) if she never meets a man that is willing to marry her. There is absolutely no Biblical requirement (from God the Father, from Christ, from anyone) that stipulates that a woman must marry to be saved and to enter the Kingdom of Heaven upon her death. If she marries she must submit. If she never marries, she can still be a Christian woman. She can still be saved.
If we in the manosphere want to be taken seriously (and we do) then we need to NOT say such stupid things. Stay Biblical. Stay on point, stay red pill. Don’t give our opponents ammunition to discredit us as a bunch of basement dwelling loons who are too fat and stupid to get laid. We’re only on the side of the angels if what we say is entirely true. Stick with the truth, and truth alone…
In regards to game;
The man I work with who I have been counseling to prepare for his divorce is now telling me that his wife is becoming kinder to him. He tells me that he thinks it’s because his youngest moved out so she has less stress. But the stories he tells about going distant and putting money away as cash. Basically he’s hiding money and being deceptive about it. That these things are putting dread game on his wife and improving his marriage.
I wonder how readable to a non red pill aware man the professors book will be? I can at least try to get him to continue to run some level of dread game, and to manage it without ignoring comfort tests, and maybe he can just fix his marriage. They are going on vacation to Colombia together soon. I need to get this guy to flirt with some younger hotties. Get his wife’s tingles going.
@ Pedat:
As I have read your commentary it has struck me that you seem to be surrounded by the same church culture as we are familiar with. And truth be told, reality and Truth are in very short supply. I’ll offer an example. We often babysit our nephew (5) on weekends. He is is the product of divorced relatives of ours. On a recent visit he asked if we would turn on the local gospel station in the car. and this song started playing:
Our nephew loved it, knew every word, and it bothered my husband and me. I loathe the song for obvious reasons but assumed that perhaps his mother, a recently ordained evangelist, was unfamiliar with the song, who was featured in it, etc. So I told her and she responded with, ‘What’s wrong with it? Beyonce is a Christian!” Apparently the song is a huge hit, and you know who’s driving the popularity. It’s just a perfect example of how lost the urban church is when it comes to discerning clean from unclean.
YOu’re right that any attempt to live as close as humanly possible to the Biblical standard is quickly dismissed with admonitions about everyone’s infallibility and Romans 7 is quoted alone as if chapters 8-10 are missing from the Book.
It weighs on me of late, the state of things for my sisters in the church and with the recent extolling of Toya Graham as a good church going woman, I actually have something of a burden to narrow my focus in my writing (book, not blogging) to address the problem.
Peace and blessings to you, young man.
Elspeth, I don’t understand the point of the Beyoncé song. When Jesus says yes you can’t say no? What is that supposed to mean exactly? What is she trying to say? It just sounds like purposeless rhetoric to me. I mean the song sounds nice and all, but it seems kind of…. pointless.
I’m curious why you loathe the song so much. Its not so obvious to me. I just don’t see any point of the lyrics is all. I’m not offended by it or bothered by it in anyway.
Anyone who says crap like ‘Game is designed to serve women’ has revealed an extreme lack of understanding of the entire subject, and is not red-pill by any means
How much understanding does Roosh have then?
http://www.rooshv.com/men-are-nothing-more-than-clowns-to-the-modern-woman
IBB
I guess you are right there maybe a couple of them out there, maybe even more than a dozen.
I’m curious why you loathe the song so much. Its not so obvious to me. I just don’t see any point of the lyrics is all. I’m not offended by it or bothered by it in anyway..
Bad, no loathsome theology, bad grammar, and a woman who makes millions shaking her near naked behind in front of cameras having the nerve to sing a so-called “Christian song”. Are you kidding me? What is there NOT to loathe about it?
I think the thing I hate most about it though, is the way it has been embraced. It speaks to the state of the church community that embraced it. It should have been shunned, black listed from gospel radio, and condemned. As far as I know it wasn’t. Which is one reason why I tend to shun gospel radio even though it’s the music of my childhood. It’s corrupt, even more corrupt than contemporary Christian music. And that’s saying something.
It speaks to the state of the church community that embraced it.
Correction: It speaks to the state of the women in the church community who have embraced it. My husband almost never listens to what passes for Christian music these days. He prefers to listen to old Ray Charles and other blues from before his time.. At least it’s honest, he says.
The rest of it — who gets the stuff, who gets ongoing payments, etc., when the passionate romantic relationship ends — is details in the eyes of most people
Not in the eyes of women, that’s for sure.
That sounds like a philosophy of getting the most out of women, for as little cost as possible.
It rather sounds like an approach that claims to try to make the best of a situation that specifically serves women and was always meant to do so, while giving them sexual attention and validation, plus legal power over your own future.
IBB
Elspeth, I don’t understand the point of the Beyoncé song. When Jesus says yes you can’t say no? What is that supposed to mean exactly? What is she trying to say?
Seems to me the point is pretty much that Jesus can be a girl’s BFF, and if he doesn’t judge her in any way, nobody else can say a thing. Perfect tune for babymommas, divorcees, etc. to shake it to.
And on a personal note, I’m really sick of autotuning.
So I told her and she responded with, ‘What’s wrong with it? Beyonce is a Christian!”
Yeah I heard that our current president is a Christian too (his support of abortion, feminism, and homosexuality not with standing).
“”Game is designed to serve women. It is gynocentric.
Bull5h1t. Game is designed to serve men. To get men laid.””
Game was designed to get money out of your pants!
3,000.00 boot camps
100.00 how to books on day game
LMFROTFP!
Oil wells?
Ole Rooshy has really jumped the shark!
The level of self deception that some commentators have fallen to in their backing of game is hilarious! We have actual grown men saying that they need game to maintain their marriages. Then along comes a greasy guy, an alfalfa of game players, who preaches that married women are easy to game, and boasts about banging a lot of married women! And this guy is gonna show you how to save your marriage? LOL! More then likely, he’s the guy banging your wife behind your back.
Bonecrcker is absolutely right, guys considered alfalfa’s in today meat market are low life omega’s who only survive because of the vastness of our cities. In days past these so called alfalfa’s would have been eliminated.
Welcome to our brave new world, the omega’s are now giving advice on how to save your marriage, whilst banging your wife.
What a f’ing joke!
“Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire”. -Albert Mohler.
In practice, women do the exact opposite. They will run from a righteous man faster than Usain Bolt, because their instinct (tingle) tells them that such a man will be difficult to manipulate, difficult to keep extracting resources out of, difficult to prevent him calling her bluff.
Where do clergy of all stripes get all of these stupid ideas? Is there a Bottom-Of -The – Garden somewhere that the rest of us don’t visit, because we are too busy working and interacting with the real world? Perhaps it is time to abolish clergy altogether, despite it being unbiblical – like the Orthodox way. Curiously, less nonsense comes out of the Orthodox tradition than from the Protestant Evangelical one.
I doubt Heartiste is in any way a spiritual man, certainly not a Christian man. Therefore, I expect him to measure his success in carnal-worldly ways. This isn’t judgement. I don’t blame him, one bit, as I don’t blame PUAs. If women won’t be sincere, men won’t be. When women change men will. It is that simple.
There is a new phrase coined by the media to describe a triangulation of the Men’s Movement, one away from PUAs and distinct from the MGTOW / Sexodus philosophy. It is called “Neomasculinity”, where men decide to turn off completely from feminism and define themselves completely as men in the absence of the influence of women:
These men choose to interact with women on their terms, not on women’s, so they are demanding a better quality woman. It looks hopeful.
I would say we Christian men aren’t PUA. We are not Sexodus, nor are we MGTOW – once again, I wouldn’t blame a man for choosing ANY of these options, but if we chose to marry and obey Scripture they aren’t options for us. We aren’t even Neomasculine, even though this movement as described in the above link describes a lot of what many men including myself are doing.
My term of choice would be “Men Going God’s Way” (MGGW). We know God is Truth. We know He is right. We know His character and we know His Word – where He will return to judge us all. We want our families to live righteously, so we go God’s Way.
Feminists, Atheists and others can sneer, but who cares what they think?
Pussy worship is idolatry. Pedestalizing women is idolatry.
The man who marries not does better.
I will spend my remaining days building brotherhoods, not harems.
“How much understanding does Roosh have then?”
Not much when it comes to why game works. It’s just basic biology. Sure, women are broken…have been since the Garden of Eden…laws that kept hypergamy and sluttiness in check are now gone, so we see the brokenness of women more than we used to.
“We have actual grown men saying that they need game to maintain their marriages”
You need to read the Song of Solomon.
“Game was designed to get money out of your pants!”
Lol, you don’t understand game. I never bought a book. There’s plenty of game info online. I’m a natural.
Markets are about exchanging items that have value for other items that have value. In a free and open SMP, like we have in the modern west, if you want sex with someone who is attractive, you have to offer them something that they value, something they find attractive, or its not going to happen for you. So if a man wants a woman whose beauty he values, he needs to have something to offer her that she will value in return.
For every woman there are three groups of men…
1. the men who get to sleep with her,
2. the men who want to sleep with her but don’t get to,
3. the men who aren’t interested in sleeping with her.
Game, at its heart, is a study of the differences between the first and second groups of men (the third group is irrelevant), so that the men in the second group can become more like the first, so they can get girlfriends too.
It can be said that game “serves” women in the same sense that makeup, short skirts, and high heels “serve” men — by giving them what they want, so they will be more inclined to give the other party what he/she wants. So in a sense Hoellenhund is right, and so is Roosh, and so is Great Books (wherever he is, I haven’t seen him around since his blog got deleted).
Pingback: Selected Sunday Scriptures- #79 | Donal Graeme
Pingback: The microaggressions that are the virtues | Dark Brightness
ADS – as in all marketing, a need must be built to sell the ware. You are not the one that is being marketed to if you are a natural. It is the roughly 80% of normal guys, the so called beta’s that are the target.
In the real world, there are about 5 -7% of men who are true alfalfa’s. then the majority of men. Good, honest, hard working, and yes, also able to produce tingles in women. Not as many women as the top 5-7% of men, but enough women to find a mate and have a good life.
So that leaves about 15% of men, the dregs, the omega’s, and other alphabet letters. This is a small market to sell into. So you create a need. The beta’s, who in actuality are quality men, who as Bonecrcker describes, more often have a higher notch count then true alpha’s, before getting wed, are made to appear to be weak and worthless. Are said to be spineless (LOL say that to a marine or seal Heartiste), worthless to women, etc.
Create the need and CREATE the market. Only problem is, the pua market is still infinitely small. Why, because the majority of seekers are from the last 15% of men. Most Beta’s do not even know or care about game. They live their lives as they always have. And the rooshies and harttits, and the krauters, etc. keep pushing their meme in the hope of building their market.
Game has its place in the pantheon of masculinity, but it is such a small part of masculinity, that no matter how hard these dufus’s push their “beta’s are undersexed and suck as human beings” meme, it’s never gonna be as big as sliced bread. Beta’s actually do very well in the sexual market place.
PS – if rooshie is model of the modern alfalfa, you can have him. He is straight out omega.
Are said to be spineless (LOL say that to a marine or seal Heartiste)
Oh, lots of tough guys are pansies around women.
And, while I may be a natural, that doesn’t help as much in a relationship as with new skirts. So, Game is necessary, which you can get from reading the Song of Solomon. And the Song of Solomon is available for all men, not just alphas, betas, omegas, etc.
The beta’s, who in actuality are quality men, who as Bonecrcker describes, more often have a higher notch count then true alpha’s, before getting wed, are made to appear to be weak and worthless.
As far as understanding women goes, betas are generally ignorant. I don’t see any dispute in the manosphere about that fact. So, in what sense are betas quality men? Certainly, not in the sense of understanding women.
With knowledge of Game being available in the Song of Solomon and online, I fail to understand why there is a market for Game books. Maybe people need more detailed examples than what we see online? I can see something in sarging with a PUA with credentials as your wingman. That’s worth paying for.
Beta’s actually do very well in the sexual market place
Because their women don’t withhold sex from them? Puh-leaze.
I don’t mean to be picky, but it would be “equating” not “equation” in the title. “Equation” is not a verb.
… his mother, a recently ordained evangelist, was unfamiliar with the song, who was featured in it, etc. So I told her and she responded with, ‘What’s wrong with it? Beyonce is a Christian!”
Wow.
I’m glad I haven’t eaten dinner yet, because it would have been all over my monitor after reading that. The first six words quoted above would have been enough to cause it all by themselves.
By the transitive property, if we live in a feminine dominant world, and “game” is a supposed ideal tactic in that world, then by definition “game” is feminine.
Again, Rollo distorts how much freely traded SMP favors women. In a small number of cases, mainly when an older woman is attracted to considerably younger men, and for the quite small number of men who are naturally, easily attractive to large numbers of women, men have an advantage in SMP. Otherwise, it’s the women. The great Roosh can’t even get laid in whole countries. A below average looking woman can get screwed around the world no problem. And she’ll simply abort away any Roissy or Roosh fetuses that make it past the birth control.
If a woman wants to get screwed on any particular night, she is going to get screwed. So go ahead and convince yourself that it’s all you, that you’re fooling her into an encounter. Your dancing monkey act is just bidding up the price. Young women are SMP royalty, and you are her court jester.
@ACommenter
I wasn’t 100% sure how I was using it was correct so I looked it up before I published the post. Two separate dictionaries confirmed that it is correct.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equation
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equation
While I’m at it:
@theasdgamer
I am very frequently cornfused, but in this case I was using the word as it is very commonly used. From Google:
And http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/virtue
Elspeth,
We used to play the local Christian station (KCBI) almost 24×7 at our house, but we have gradually grown away from it, especially since they became more and more like the mega station, KLTY. We are listening to KDKR a bit now, but even it uses songs that seem of the “Jesus is my boyfriend” variety at some level.
Kind of disappointing to me, as I grew up on earlier Christian music (at least in my early adult years). It wasn’t perfect then, but it seemed better.
Amy Grant is even supposed to be headed back in, though I have yet to hear much from her. She was clearly quite talented, but her Biblical commitment was far below her hypergamy.
I am not sure you could completely say the ancient religions were all about the FI. Women were property in most cases. Temple prostitutes had to serve whoever came with money, not just the hot ones. Etc.
I would not claim it was perfect, but I am not sure it is quite as simplistic an argument in that area.
Pedat,
Few men want to really dig into the Scriptures. It will be the extremely rare woman who would want to do so.
You will find bumps even with a woman fully committed to God. You may want to consider the solo route at this point, especially if you are past the childbearing age is you seem to imply. I am not sure if it is worth the risk just for companionship today. It is if you are building civilization, but focusing on His will once you are past the point of raising a new generation may be more productive.
Dunno, Dalrock,
I’m going to have to disagree (with qualifications) with you on this one.
“Hotness” is a virtue. And the more I think about it, cultivating one’s sexual attraction to the opposite sex is in my opinion a moral good. Let me illustrate what I mean.
Suppose we have two wives; one who actively keeps in shape and looks after herself to maintain her husband’s attraction and another who lets herself turn into a fat cantankerous slob. Which of these is a better person? Which of these is more pleasing to God? The fat one?
The problem you allude to has nothing to do with alpha but most people’s understanding of what constitutes marriage. Logically strong religious groups see marriage as a institution to which husbands and wives belong to, irrespective of their feelings. The presence or absence of the “tingles” did in no way absolve the marriage of its validity. Logically weak religious and secular groups see marriage as a personal arrangement. It’s this second group that practices “Fireproof” theology and justifies marriage purely on its hedonic satisfactions.
Basing a marriage purely on the “tingles” is nuts, but so is framing it in such a way where the “tingles” aren’t supposed to matter. Being a Christian does not mean you stop having “fleshy” desires, rather, it means subordinating them to God’s will. The thing about being “beta” or “omega” (for a male) in a marriage is that it opens the door to temptation for the wife. All Christians battle between doing what they should and doing what what the flesh desires. It’s a win-win situation when the desires of the flesh are in harmony with God’s will.
I
Physical attraction and dating
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=964979
ADS – “And, while I may be a natural, that doesn’t help as much in a relationship as with new skirts.”
Interesting.
“Because their women don’t withhold sex from them? Puh-leaze.”
ADS, what do you term as doing well? A different woman a week, a month? Maybe 3 different women a year? What of the married guys? Getting it from the wives 3 times a week? 3 times a month? What about married guys who after 30 years are still sexing up the wife over 100 times a year? Is it quantity? Quality? The average male in the States has 7 different partners in his life. So 7 or more in a lifetime?
I think what is forgotten on these Mens blogs, is that a lot of the guys here are not very good with women, so it seems that most men are not. Wrong. Count the contributors on say 10 different blogs, bet the name count won’t be over a thousand. 4 billion men roughly in this world, so that equates to about 2 millionth of a percent. Echo chamber anyone?
It so happens that there are millions of couples happily living a beta life. Beta is overwhelmingly the main portion of humans. Game has its place, but to devote your life to the practice of seduction, to try to prove that you are not a beta is a suckers bet and a very feminine thing to do.
It amazes me how much the Church absorbs the culture and then post-rationalizes it. Think of all the “innovations” that the church has absorbed in the past century: hormonal birth control, divorce, loss of modest dress, etc. If these changes were the result of intense prayer and study, seeking the Spirit’s guidance in how to respond to them, I’d be more open to said changes. But they’re not. We take sinful culture and dress it up. Plus, accepting sin and rebellion keeps warm bodies in the pews, the ministers’ salaries paid, and the lights on.
And where is a church, anywhere, that doesn’t approve of these cultural changes? I can only think of the Old Order Anabaptist groups and perhaps the SSPX Catholics. Pentecostals also used to fit the bill, until they decided that holiness means too much legalism. Now most of them are practically indistinguishable from the world.
Where is the counter-cultural church?
@TheRealGeoBooth
>We who love truth should be adept at looking past the surface to the substance. And we should teach this to our families as King Solomon did.
We are limited by our abilities; we can see only the outward appearance. Yes, with time and extended exposure to a person you can start to make judgements/assessments, but they are based on the surface. Only God sees the heart.
1 Sam 16:7: But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”
@knepper at June 13, 2015 at 4:12 pm
+1
Yes, the “church” is encouraging and rewarding the wrong behaviour.
@feeriker
apparently Satanic religious professional/Al: “Put most bluntly, I believe that God means …”
Feeriker: What Al “believes” is utterly irrelevant unless he can cite Scripture, to the letter, chapter and verse, in proper context, to back it up as biblical truth.
And of course, the letter, chapter and verse of 1 Cor 7:1-5 directly contradicts the Satanic message from the “Bible” seminary President.
@TheRealGeoBooth
“God our Father is the arbiter and assigner of real value.”
+ 100
Bad childhood, bad math skills, bad marriage are irrelevant to the fact that God created you in his own image (Gen 1), loved you enough to die for you so you would not be condemned (John 3:14-18) and wants everyone to come to repentance [and be saved] (2 Peter 3:8-9).
@Pedat
>I’m beginning to loathe them [so-called church women]
This may be the proper response. Paul calls us to refuse to even eat with one who calls himself a brother (believer), but is sinful (1 Cor 5:11-13). The passage even shows excommunication as not only proper, but something that is commanded: “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
Do the “church women” you know live in open disobedience? Deut 22:5, 1 Cor 11 (head covering and hair), Titus 2:3-5.
We should be repulsed by sin and distance ourselves from it, rather than attracted to it or seek to tolerate it. Romans 13:11-14, James 1:19-21
>some very respected Elders, Preachers and Teachers in a few Churches in my area…but for the most part, I have very little respect for their wives.
If the elder’s wife lives in open rebellion, then this demonstrates the leadership of the “elder” is lacking, making him, in my opinion, unacceptable for the position of leadership. 1 Tim 3:4-5
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
(He is clearly not ruling/training his family well). I think a man who cannot even lead his own wife, who he sees everyday, to obedience to Christ is not likely to be an effective trainer/leader/example for others.
You all have lost control of the status system.
Women are social creatures. If they gain status by staying chaste, marrying young, and being a submissive wife – they will do just that, with enthusiasm. In fact, they will compete with each other for that status.
But churches don’t control the status system in America anymore, the Television does. You can decide for yourself the kind of status system promoted by the Television (and Hollywood, etc.)
Your churches could provide a “counter-culture” – a status system of its own. But for that to happen, you would have to have honest, sincere men to lead your churches. You don’t have that, you have a bunch of preachers that are essentially nothing but Oprah and Donahue style talk show hosts and their only interest is money and becoming a minor celebrity through book sales and webcasts. But you keep feeding into that beast, you still patronize the Christian bookstores, you keep putting money in the plate, you keep downloading CCM music, and you keep supporting the candidates your pastors tell you to.
So, you will get more of the same.
You abandoned your traditional churches – Reformed, Methodist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist, RCC, for these fancy new Zionist Mega-Churches. The new Mega-Churches barely even make a pretense of being anything other than businesses. Rick Warren is lavished with praise by the Wall Street Journal for the effective cash machine he’s running. They approved of his plaque at his desk, quoting the famous business dictum, “the customer is always right.”
Who are the customers of Rick Warren and preachers like him? Your wife. So, he’s going to tell her whatever she wants to hear, and whatever it takes to keep rear-ends in the pews.
What’s the old saying, “you get what you pay for?” You paid for it, and you got it.
Cheers.
Just wanted to point out that the play you are looking for is not Lysistrata but Ecclesiazusae by Aristophanes.
This is were women wear false beards to attend the assembly and they implement a crude form of communism and make hypergamy the law of the land.
Since this is my, admittedly small, contribution to the manosphere I kind of resent it when people misquote that shit and quote a play about a sexual strike to end a war.
To the ones misquoting that shit, I have read both and you have read neither, you fucking hoors, and if you could stop turning people to the wrong direction that would be awesome and yes I am feeling a bit petty today.
I think an accomplished PUA’s ability to separate virtue and tingles comes from combining three things:
1. To be successful, a pick up artist must always stay connected to reality and introduce compliance into his life (I explain my use of the term here: http://krauserpua.com/2013/07/13/daygame-and-compliance/ (NSFW image)). Every time he tries to seduce a woman, he provokes and then analyses real-world feedback. This has a very humbling effect and leads to periodic meltdowns as the ego resists, capitulates, and rebuilds. Any lingering belief between tingles and virtue is likely to break during one of these meltdowns.
2. No matter his moral code, a man’s biological drive to sow his seed widely still operates. Men with low notch-counts or low quality girls will never stop feeling that pull towards more/better. Considerable mental energy is put into suppressing this drive and rationalising it away (which is probably a good thing for civilisation). Rollo calls it “making a virtue out of scarcity”. When a player has 100+ YHT notches, this drive is mostly satiated. Just as a man is usually exceptionally clear headed in the ten minutes after sex, a 100+ player is equally clear headed day to day. His ego is already satisfied regarding winning the tingles, so he can see them for what they are – completely unrelated to virtue.
3. Once you step across the massive chasm from Guy-Girls-Cheat-On to Guy-Girls-Cheat-With, you appreciate the deeply amoral nature of tingles. I liken it to what I read somewhere about a murderer who killed his first victim – he’d been so drilled into beliefs around law and order and morality that he just expected the world to stop and the police to instantly appear. They didn’t, and as the days passed he realised there was no magical karma effect to punish him for the crime. An extreme example perhaps, but that’s how it can feel to lay a girl in sleazy conditions under “secret society” conditions. You bang her, it’s great, and then she goes back to her normal life where no one is any the wiser.
It’s so much easier to see things from a position of see-it/done-it.
TFH wrote: Furthermore, that is like saying that a man with a skill that can earn him $1000/hour is a ‘money beggar’. Being extremely good at acquiring something that almost everyone wants yet does not get quite so easily, does not make you a slave to it. Quite the opposite.
That’s an entirely false analogy because here the ‘skill’ and the ‘reward’ are the same thing. A better parallel would be two men sitting in the street asking passers-by for money. One gets £50 while the other gets £5. I’m afraid I wouldn’t be too convinced if the chap who got £50 claimed not to be a ‘money-beggar’ because he got more than the other man. He’s just a better money-beggar.
The real problem with words like ‘virtue’ and ‘morality’ is that they have no real objective meaning. They are subjective terms, they are subject to personal thought, societal norms, the legal system and cultural traditions. Therefore, trying to define yourself as a man by such an ideal as being a virtuous or moral man means very little. It could be said that a virtuous man is simply a man who does what he is told and lives as he is told.
It follows from the above that an Alpha man, within such a culture as ours, is merely a man who succeeds the best at that which society has determined to be virtuous.
Here is my analysis of this anti-game comment. First, he claims that TFH’s analogy is a false one, for a reason that isn’t readily apparent as being a problem, much less something that invalidates it “entirely.” He does not explain this. He also does not explain how the skill and the reward are the same thing in TFH’s analogy. Obviously, such an explanation is impossible. Since there are thousands of different ‘skills’ that could potentially achieve $1000/hour, they couldn’t possibly all be the same as the singular ‘reward’ of 1000/hr. This objection is pure nonsense.
He then tries to be slippery by introducing an analogy about literal street begging, to accomplish nothing except to say that, “Begging is begging.” He entirely misses the point of TFH’s arguments; which to respond to properly, Camden22 would need to demonstrate that actions taken to gain women’s affections are effectively just begging. Instead, the only thing he does is begs the question in asserting, once again with no evidence, explanation or argumentation, that gaming women is equivalent to begging on the street.
Notice how his “better parallel” drastically modifies the amount of money being discussed to £5-£50, meanwhile TFH had been talking about the very high rate of $1,000 per hour. This is a rhetorical sleight of hand on Camden22’s part, as he knows that his arguments are strengthened by talking about relative chump change. His argumentation style is purely rhetorical, so he needs to avoid looking silly by talking about people making £500-£800 an hour on the streets. Bringing in that much money “begging” would be an impressive skill, indeed, but his purpose is to belittle game with the implication that even if game is begging, it’s not earning a man much of value. So, he arbitrarily modifies the values under discussion by 99% with no explanation or justification.
The “Book of Oprah” is a helpful figure of speech. It would be a useful exercise to actually write the book, as a summary of contemporary secular mores. The companion volume, “The Epistle from Albert Mohler” would explain the differences between the Book of Oprah and the modern Protestant viewpoint. It would be rather short.
We are listening to KDKR a bit now, but even it uses songs that seem of the “Jesus is my boyfriend” variety at some level.
Kind of disappointing to me, as I grew up on earlier Christian music (at least in my early adult years). It wasn’t perfect then, but it seemed better.
Amy Grant is even supposed to be headed back in, though I have yet to hear much from her. She was clearly quite talented, but her Biblical commitment was far below her hypergamy.
Amy Grant’s Better Than a Hallelujah” gets a fair amount of radio play here. Another song bereft of theological correctness, let alone depth. I do listen to Christian radio a fair amount in my car. The difference is that in recent years I recognize it for what it is, upbeat positive message music with occasional moments of actual Christian music sprinkled in. In general, the songs with the closest thing to an actual Christian message are from male artists, Matt Redman, Philips Craig and Dean, etc. My kids understand that the music is “positive hits” which happens to be a theme of the station in question.
My biggest beef with the “gospel” music industry is that the artists generally have no qualms about teaming up with secular artists or promoting music from those same artists who often want to make a “Christian” song in an attempt to reconnect with their roots. They get airplay and sales and pats on the back for “staying true” to the faith of their youth despite the fact that everyone knows they promote sin and debauchery for a living. The songs resonate more with women, are purchased and promoted more by women, and generally give more cover to us in our weaknesses and sin. As if it isn’t hard enough already for us to truly see our depravity for what it is in the current cultural climate.
Good to see you Slumlord, both here and posting again at your blog.
I don’t know that we are actually in disagreement, and if we are I would say our difference is small. I’m not arguing that romantic love doesn’t matter, or that a husband should not desire and if appropriate work to be attractive to his wife. Some attractive traits are the result of being obedient to the biblical instruction to husbands. These the husband should do either way. The Bible tells us that husbands are the head of the wife. Leaders have an obligation to lead well, and part of this will be learning how to be an effective leader. At a bare minimum, a faithful Christian husband should clear his mind of the feminist nonsense which is both antithetical to headship and unattractive to wives. I would argue that this, along with a wife submitting as instructed in 1 Pet 3 (among others) and keeping herself sexually pure would naturally create a very healthy sexual attraction from the wife to the husband. In addition to that, there are aspects of Game, or at least things a husband can do after learning a bit about Game, which are consistent with the role of Christian husband and would likely make the marriage more pleasurable for both the husband and wife.
But this is entirely different than what Mohler, Fireproof, etc. are teaching. It isn’t just that they teach that marriage vows/roles are conditional and that wives should divorce or withhold sex and submission if their husbands don’t make them tingle. There are two other truly toxic and unChristian ideas they are selling beyond this:
1) The idea that women are wired to respond with sexual desire only to good men, and that therefore a man’s virtue can be measured by the tingle he generates. The greatest harm here is arguably to women, who by their nature are strongly tempted to rationalize their sexual desires as inherently good and pure. But it is also extremely harmful to men because it focuses them on a standard where they could do evil and achieve the same “virtuous” result. As Heartiste regularly points out, dark triad traits are very good at eliciting the tingle. In fact, a man can go only so far in pursuit of the tingle without abandoning virtue. Without embracing vice very few men can make it to what Heartiste would call Alpha (and perhaps none can if we take Heartiste’s # of women banged yardstick seriously), but most probably should be able to make it to mid to greater Beta attractiveness. If we argue that hotness is a virtue, instead of explaining that it can be a byproduct of virtue or vice we have taken a very dangerous wrong turn. There is also the problem that some of this is not readily at the man’s control. He can’t change his height, and he can only truly change his personality to a degree.
2) Those who are selling the tingle as a yardstick for virtue aren’t promoting the virtuous traits which can actually generate attraction. They are selling the opposite of headship, strength, etc. Mohler is arguing that the problem with pornography is it reduces a wife’s headship over her husband by giving him a release and thereby reducing the potency of her denying sex when he displeases her. He references 1 Cor 7, but instead of delivering the scriptural message that the (or at least one) problem with denied sex is it creates the temptation for sexual sin, argues that the problem with indulging in sexual sin is it interferes with the power a wife would otherwise gain by denying sex. Fireproof is quite similar in its message of wifely headship and husbandly submission. They are selling cross dressing as the definition of sexy, and then saying sexiness is a virtue.
@Elspeth:
About half of the rotation is okay these days. And that might be a stretch some days. The lull periods of new music, when they have some of the 5-10 year old songs in heavier rotation, is generally better. The devoid/wrong theology songs have this keen tendency to not stick.
Though the problems with the music is actually part of it’s utterly telltale sign: “Christian” music is specifically mixed so you can make our all of the lyrics. Which really never excuses some really, really basic errors. (Seriously, actually read the passages your quoting! More than a few good songs are ruined this way. Romans 8:28 doesn’t mean all things work for “my good”. There’s at least two songs in rotation that make that error.) But it’s not like most of the audience really wants music that hits where it hurts. The deeper emotions just aren’t acceptable to our modern sensibilities.
You abandoned your traditional churches – Reformed, Methodist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist, RCC, for these fancy new Zionist Mega-Churches.
I’m afraid you have that exactly backwards. The traditional denominations you list abandoned the Gospel long ago in favor of catering to the secular culture. The growth of the much-despised “maga-church” was a direct (and predictable) result of ghis, as the true believers sought alternatives that refused to compromise withe the world.
The new Mega-Churches barely even make a pretense of being anything other than businesses. Rick Warren is lavished with praise by the Wall Street Journal for the effective cash machine he’s running. They approved of his plaque at his desk, quoting the famous business dictum, “the customer is always right.”
Alas, you are correct here. What started out with the best of intentions has gone off the rails just as its traditionalist predecessors did half a century ago. The lesson to be learned here is that once principles of faith are in any way compromised, the corruption of the World quickly sets in and destruction becomes total.
From the horses mouth – “An extreme example perhaps, but that’s how it can feel to lay a girl in sleazy conditions under “secret society” conditions. You bang her, it’s great, and then she goes back to her normal life where no one is any the wiser.”
One of the exalted teachers that some say married men should run too for help in their marriages.
Uh-Huh.
Morality has to do with social expectations, social contracts, taboos, etc. Virtue is an individual decision based on ethics. I really don’t care that the dictionary points out that people confuse the meanings. You would do well to avoid adding to the confusion.
Just as a man is usually exceptionally clear headed in the ten minutes after sex
Whaaaaaat???? I’m usually in a very pleasurable fog right after sex. That’s without using banned substances and typically very little liquor.
From the horses mouth – “An extreme example perhaps, but that’s how it can feel to lay a girl in sleazy conditions under “secret society” conditions. You bang her, it’s great, and then she goes back to her normal life where no one is any the wiser.”
One of the exalted teachers that some say married men should run too for help in their marriages.
Uh-Huh.
Wisdom is wisdom, no matter the source. I’ve been the “Guy-Girls-Cheat-With” a couple of times and I still didn’t get the message about girls cheating. I still thought of girls as chaste and virtuous. Krauser helps to illuminate the reality of female sexuality–specifically, their cheating hearts. This doesn’t mean that one ought to cheat, of course. It helps to illuminate the truth that married women who desire to be chaste and virtuous don’t do Girls’ Night Out. They don’t text strange men. Strangely, Heartiste has commented this very same thing.
Your churches could provide a “counter-culture” – a status system of its own. But for that to happen, you would have to have honest, sincere men to lead your churches.
Ah, well, religious leaders have whored themselves out to women since women provide the bulk of donations to churches. If husbands would only keep their wives from donating at all.
Hey Dalrock!
Great to see that you are no longer preaching and teaching that “Christians need game,” so as to serve da gina tingzlzloozol.
Good to see that you are placing moral Virtue on a higher plane than base animal lust!
Welcome to the club!
🙂
BradA @ June 13, 2015 at 11:35 pm:
“Live you life for heaven’s sake and leave the rest.
I would fully support a MGTOW message that emphasized that FH, but I have not heard it much.”
I contend it is implicit in the MGTOW message. There are two ways a man can respond to women cavorting in the sexual gutter: he can join them or refuse to join them. A MGTOW with no moral code, no fear of God, why would he not go PUA instead? Why deny his natural instincts?
But the man who sees immoral behavior, is disgusted and walks away MGTOW… ah, he already has one foot in heaven. He looked at temptation and chose to live clean when he could instead have drunk his fill of sewage. Is this not the Gospel itself? People are fallen into depravity; turn away or be destroyed.
…
Hipster Racist @ 1:26 am:
“But you keep feeding into that beast, you still patronize the Christian bookstores, you keep putting money in the plate, you keep downloading CCM music, and you keep supporting the candidates your pastors tell you to.”
In point of fact, we don’t. Entire denominations are emptying out; sales of Churchian drivel have little appeal outside increasingly cult-like followings; clergy respond to all this by doubling down on Bible disobedience. Perhaps our leaders are apostates, not mercenaries. Mercenaries would follow the money: not to the feral women who spend it, but to the neglected men who earn it.
Hey Dal, did you get the last couple of emails I sent you?
[D: My apologies. I have been away from my inbox for several weeks. I’ll check it out later today.]
@theasgamer:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/#justification – heh. You have to ground your ethics somewhere. If not by your religion or your assumed mores, then where? If you don’t do it at all, then you arrive at ‘blue and orange morality’ (warning, a humorous reference):
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality
^’theasdgamer’
Apologies.
ADS – “Wisdom is wisdom, no matter the source.”
Yup, agreed. As I was saying at RM, women’s basic sexual lust is far stronger then most males. They just hide it better.
But if I am having marital problems, I don’t think it is wise to get advice from the guy who is banging my wife!
“As I was saying at RM, women’s basic sexual lust is far stronger then most males. They just hide it better.”
No, not true at all. Women are sexually responsive and men are sexually initiative. Men initiate, women respond. Women can go for long periods (heh) with no lust, then a man initiates the Chase and a woman encounters lust. (If you don’t like the flo humor, buy a tampon, heh.)
But if I am having marital problems, I don’t think it is wise to get advice from the guy who is banging my wife!
Not him in particular, but someone like him might have insights about your wife’s thinking that you might find very helpful. For example, I can tell you that long distance relationships often lead to cheating. Been there, done that, with two women who cheated on their men.
@Feministhater
It is true that true morality comes from God, and we are strongly tempted to take what we like and declare it virtue. With this said, this should make it all the more compelling that the men who have thoroughly embraced the pickup lifestyle are telling us repeatedly and explicitly that what makes them successful at generating attraction isn’t virtue. Heartiste explains this on a regular basis, and Krauser does as well in a comment just upthread. I see no reason not to take them at their word here.
This isn’t to say that a man can’t increase his attractiveness while remaining virtuous, but it should explode the idea that the tingle is a barometer of virtue.
Hotness isn’t a virtue slumlord, stewardship is.
The 10 who can act obnoxiously and still be attractive is worse than the 4 who grows and maintains a quiet and gentle spirit. Hotness is too influenced by what is outside an individuals control, though they can certainly do much to maintain whatever they have to the best they can. Many lack the latter today, as you correctly note.
“Once you step across the massive chasm from Guy-Girls-Cheat-On to Guy-Girls-Cheat-With, you appreciate the deeply amoral nature of tingles. … You bang her, it’s great, and then she goes back to her normal life where no one is any the wiser. It’s so much easier to see things from a position of see-it/done-it.”
The serpent is strong with this one. How is this different, really, from “when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”? Sounds like flat-out advocacy of sin to me, not something that a Christian blog should let pass unanswered.
What is sad is how so many women chose men who they know fully don’t give them tingles because of various virtues: responsible, diligent, honorable, will be a good father and provider. Then he gets punished for not giving her tingles, when they knew he wouldn’t, even as he has excelled at being a good husband in all areas he was selected for. Shame in us.
Expanding on Dalrock’s comment, let’s look at the unspoken premise hiding within the notion of “Christian women tingle only for good men”. What this implies should be obvious: that women are more moral and more virtuous than men, that women have some sort of “goodness detector” inside their heads (or, in Bible terms, their hearts) that enables them to separate the good men from the bad. We can test this.
If this premise is true, then Christian chicks should never, ever, ever dig jerks. Because their inherent “goodness detector” should warn them away almost immediately from such men. Do we observe that in the real, tangible, world? No, we don’t. So the premise and reality contradict each other. Therefore either the “goodness detector” or reality should be discarded.
Since the very notion of women being more moral than men, immune to jerks, etc. doesn’t seem to come from any part of the Bible (corrections welcomed, I am not a Bible scholar) there is no logical reason to cling to this premise.
Unless, of course, one is a pedestalizing, White Knighting, ignorant fool. Then there would be a great deal of emotional need to insist on the “women are only tingled by good men” premise, because the alternative would require said fool to give up his White Knighting and take women off of their pedestals. This is unthinkable for many men, it is literally not possible for them to think that way.
Mohler is such a man. He can’t think of women in real terms, he clearly clings to some neo-Victorian fantasy. A fantasy that, I am obliged to point out, is not found in the book of Proverbs. In fact, the exact opposite is found there. I feel rather safe in assuming Proverbs isn’t the only book of the Bible where truths about women can be found, but again IANABS and if anyone wants to correct me, go ahead.
http://observer.com/2015/06/the-pecking-disorder-social-justice-warriors-gone-wild/
Dalrock,
the problem with indulging in sexual sin is it interferes with the power a wife would otherwise gain by denying sex.
That is a horrid view they have, but it does fit what they are pushing for. It is utterly reprehensible as well.
They are making the Word of God of no effect through their traditions, as I am noting in so many ways these days.
Looking Glass and Elspeth,
Few would not enjoy riding in the car with me if such music was playing. I regularly note the flaws. I suspect that is part of the reason my wife no longer pushes as much for that when we drive together. I see signs of it even as we listen to older CCM (such as the Streets of Gold show). Too much Amy Grant there for me, especially since each of her songs reminds me she didn’t even attempt to live up to what she sang, at least in the earlier songs.
ADS,
Morality has to do with social expectations, social contracts, taboos, etc.
That is not true. Morality is based on God’s standards, not those of the current society. It is immoral to kill a child, for example, even though modern society elevates that right to a sacrament in their pagan religion.
Gunner Q,
I contend it is implicit in the MGTOW message.
I take the Scriptural example of Paul pursuing God first and foremost as the principle. I do not see that in many MGTOWs, even those who claim to be a Christian. I certainly don’t see it in the ungodly as you note. Just looking out for your own pleasure is not allowed to any Christian, yet I have seen a lot more of that even in the MGTOW comments in these threads.
I may be worrying about it too much though.
Actually they’ve been teaching this for a long time now.
http://therationalmale.com/2011/12/08/chasing-amy/
It’s my understanding that book publishers cater to female tastes. Most fiction books are read by women. Chick lit and romances are mass-produced. Sci-fi is full of “strong, independent” woman scientists and space soldiers. Even thrillers written by men often feature “strong, independent” female FBI agents and police detectives (often single mothers to boot). Female editors and agents abound in large numbers.
Yet still, the publishing industry hand-wrings over sexism in book displays: http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2015/jun/15/how-bookshops-can-support-diversity-female-writers
What Krauser is omitting is what happens after you’ve banged a hundred or so of these cheap-ass women. No matter how hot they looked in the beginning, they reveal themselves as mediocre at some point. After you see this, over and over, a strange realization comes. At that point you get very jaded, and if you have any self-awareness at all, you realize that you’re not a very nice person; in fact, you’re becoming exactly the kind of scumbag that you hate.
You may also realize that all those wrinkly old dried-out dudes who wrote the bible (and other such books) were right all along. Lots of sex with strange women removes the magic residue from the act, and it becomes a boring chore. Sex is only fun if it’s hidden, special, and something to look forward to.
It’s actually much nicer to live in an advanced civilization where people have a high degree of self-control, and where they sublimate the individual libido into civilization-maintaining acts (art, culture, etc.). We will accomplish this by enforcing monogamy and patriarchy, not by learning “game” (though learning game is the first step for some, in a “crazy wisdom” sort of way).
Regards,
Boxer
You’re strawmanning here. No one is saying that PUAs have a magic formula for a blissful marriage. What they’re saying is that in any male-female relationship, the man must elicit respect and attraction from the woman else her hypergamous nature will express itself – that could be anything from being resentful/disagreeable, hypercritical, and denying sex through cheating, divorce, and all that comes with that. You’re a fool if you think that a married Christian woman’s sexual nature is entirely different and distinct from the corner slut’s. She may have acted differently and been more chaste, but she felt the same attraction to the bad boys as the sluts who banged him in High School. I think that’s Dalrock’s point to a certain degree. The advice is about how to elicit respect and attraction from women, for whatever purpose and in whatever context – if a married man uses this insight to have a more fulfilling, sexually abundant marriage which dissuades his wife from straying or divorcing rather than carrying on illicit affairs with other men’s wives, why is it a bad thing? It’s simply a body of knowledge – how it is applied is a question of morality. It is almost as if you are saying “Mortgage Lenders engaged in risky practices and foreclosed homes, therefore I will never have a mortgage.”
“Hotness” is a virtue.
Only actions and attitudes can be virtuous. Hotness is a condition that is largely genetic. Tall men, on average, are sexually more attractive than short men. Is tallness a virtue?
And the more I think about it, cultivating one’s sexual attraction to the opposite sex is in my opinion a moral good. Let me illustrate what I mean.
Suppose we have two wives; one who actively keeps in shape and looks after herself to maintain her husband’s attraction and another who lets herself turn into a fat cantankerous slob. Which of these is a better person? Which of these is more pleasing to God?
The second one committed gluttony and sloth, both of which already count as sins according to mainstream Christian theology, don’t they? Just condemn her for those. Case closed.
Let’s cut the crap, dear Slumlord. What you actually want to do is to create a new sin: the lack of conscious cultivation of one’s sexual attraction to the opposite sex. And then you want to use this as a hammer to pound men with. After all, your main target, in every sense of the word, are men, even though you used women as examples in this case as a distraction. Let’s just admit that.
@Anon Reader
You are correct. As the Apostle Paul explains in 1 Tim 2:11-15
@Craig
Krauser isn’t claiming there is virtue there. He is in fact explaining just the opposite. He isn’t sugar coating it. The part you quoted follows this:
He is telling us that he has been there and there is no virtue there. It is not a sales pitch, but a warning.
The Devil doesn’t need lies when the truth is so much more painful and more effective.
What Krauser is omitting is what happens after you’ve banged a hundred or so of these cheap-ass women. No matter how hot they looked in the beginning, they reveal themselves as mediocre at some point. After you see this, over and over, a strange realization comes. At that point you get very jaded….
You don’t even have to bang women. Just go to bars and observe their behavior in the last hour before closing time. They do seek tingles and male attention which gives tingles. Which often leads to sex. Been going to bars for almost two years.
Craig needs to understand the saying, “Be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.”
I watched a beautiful women getting felt up in plain view in a bar. And doing likewise to a man. Gold ring in a sow’s nose.
What so disappointing about this is Dr. Albert Moehler is a person I have come to admire and respect. I’ve listened to several of lectures, sermons and speeches. He’s intelligent, well spoken and winsome in the manner he communicates both in his writing and he speaking.
Just wow. To have such a Titan in the Southern Baptist Convention pushing such idolatry is sad and speaks volumes about the modern Protestant Church’s condition in regards to the Theology of Christian Headship.
I attend a small, Independent Baptist Church now, having left an SBC Six-Flags-over-Jesus-seeker-friendly 2,000+ attendance Church, but I’m afraid it’s not much better. I do what I can to influence things, but I have to leave the rest to the Holy Spirit and confront the lies when they show up.
@ exfernal
You have to ground your ethics somewhere. If not by your religion or your assumed mores, then where?
Mores come from culture, not from God. Ethics typically follow from Metaphysics. Philosophy is created by the mind; typically it is not revealed directly by God.
Anon Reader, Dalrock:
“the unspoken premise hiding within the notion of “Christian women tingle only for good men”.”
That’s not exactly what’s being asserted. The claim is that women tingle only for good men. The claim is that this is so whether those women are Christian or not.
What Dalrock omitted from an otherwise fantastic and insightful post is that many Christians and Churchians elevate themselves undeservedly. It’s routinely asserted that there is a qualitative difference in what attracts Christian women vis a vis what attracts non-Christian women. So, let me add to your and Dalrock’s analysis:
There is always a claim that Christian women are, as you asserted, more moral and are just “better” than other kinds of women. Thus, there’s something different about Christian women. Their tingles are more righteous, more holy, and just “better” than those of nonChristian women. And they will always be attracted to Christian men, or at least they should be, because Christian women are on a higher plane than other women.
But, of course, the truth is that they aren’t – Christian women are just women, and aren’t any different from secular women in terms of what they tingle for.
LOL TFH – “Just as a man is usually exceptionally clear headed in the ten minutes after sex”
That is actually from Nick’s comment. Glad to see that you are making progress discerning BS from truth.
Believing players only bang “low quality women” or promiscuous women is another ego defence. I deflowered three virgins last year and came very very close with another four. They all looked like “good girls” and probably are. Adventure sex isn’t a demographic, it’s a state of mind. Most good girls will do it at least once.
I recommend people read Rollo’s post Good Girls Do.
I actually get heartened when I run my best possible game on a girl who clearly desires me, and yet she refuses because of virtue / boyfriend. However, despite all my experience I still find it hard to distinguish between those girls and the ones who will put out – even a couple of hours into the date. Betas have no hope at all of knowing.
I see lots of rebuilding the mound here by men who desperately want to keep women on the pedestal. I think the reality is you just never really know.
Thank you for the kind words Deti. The way Joel and Kathy Davisson put it is:
This same message is very commonly sold, although often more subtly.
BTW, the original source I had when I wrote the Lowering The Boom post has been taken down. However, the wayback machine has copies of it, as does this blog by a self described submissive Christian wife.
@Dalrock – correct. It shocked me at first, but eventually I had to believe the evidence of my own eyes. Men who don’t become players don’t get that evidence so there’s nothing to shock them out of the pretty lie until the relationship with their princess is detonated.
I once banged a Geordie (a few times) – does that gain me a flag; it ought to they are pretty incomprehensible up north? What impresses me about Krauser is not only does he bang these girls but does so with the defect (in London) of his Newcastle (Geordie) accent. – but perhaps these girls are not Home Counties with names like Lavinia and Abigail.
TFH asserts that Beta’s do not get much sex; certainly not as much as players, but some men – quiet, shy, even withdrawn are often babe-magnets and for no obvious reason, whereas more confident louder good-looking men go home empty-handed. I say that on the basis of observation; what works for one man does not necessarily do the same for another.
It would be nice to believe that avowed Christian women have better armour, but I have to say believing that you have good defences when they do not work is a gift to any player.
“He isn’t saying that the ability to generate the tingle is what makes a man good morally. To the contrary, Heartiste regularly reminds his readers that women are attracted to the worst sort of men.”
Yeah. Heartiste (back when he was posting as Roissy in DC, and up to the present) has always made this very clear that his sexual exploits aren’t moral, or good, or beneficial to society.
He used to say on a routine basis that he was taking advantage of this peculiar time in history to get cheap, fast and easy sex. He admitted that players’ conduct in sleeping, or attempting to sleep, with a lot of women while offering as little commitment as possible was probably, in a small way, accelerating society’s decline. He admitted that he wasn’t a moral example or a paragon of virtue — he was just giving women what they wanted; doing for them (and to them) what they clearly wanted him to do. He conceded that virtue, morality and beneficence had nothing to do with it.
@feeriker
The only problem with that theory is that people did not abandon the traditional denominations then join mega-churches that were preaching the Gospel and did not cater to the secular culture.
It was the opposite – the mega-churches explicitly modeled themselves on secular entertainment venues, everything from the stage shows to the bookstore/cafes, and these are what people flocked to. In fact, these mega-churches were advertised on “Christian TV shows” all throughout the 1960s to the 1980s. By the 1980s, televangelists had become such a farce it was embarrassing the cooler heads and threatening the tax breaks, so much of that was sublimated until the 2000s. Now, we have “churches” that model themselves on dot-coms – they even make documentaries about their “church plants” – it’s a franchise business.
Ecclesiastical polity matters. It is what kept traditional Protestant denominations accountable. It proved a defense against infiltration by non-Christian ideas. Traditional forms of ecclesiastical polity were attacked throughout the 20th century in order to break down this defense. The Pentecostal movement was the first to lure church-goers away from the traditional forms of Protestant worship with carnival-style circus acts and magic shows. Once this parallel “church” business network was set up, it was easy as pie to swap Christianity for political Zionism. Feminism was a natural outgrowth of this because wives were more interested in these new entertainment centers than their husbands.
It’s funny, Christ said “strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” Yet the typical “church” in America is getting bigger and bigger, and the wallets (and waistlines) of the pastors are getting fatter and fatter, and no one dares point out the obvious.
Because then you’d have to actually do something about it, like stop playing along.
@theasdgamer:
Ethics, in a sense, is a system of processing moral values. But it doesn’t create them from nothing. You still need some external input. Without any such input, your ethical code is unmoored completely, similar to a set of equations without values fed into them. Are you able to come up with anything better than the platitudes above?
Pingback: Hubris damned Caesar: do not him follow [Lk 20] | Dark Brightness
Book sales slow Nick? Keep trying to create that market!
“Betas have no hope at all of knowing.”
Funny thing Nick, the only true Alpha’s I know had a decent notch count but got married in their mid 20’s. The rest of us beta’s, kept upping our notch count to our late 20’s early 30’s, before settling down. The only friends that are still playing the field at our age are classic omega’s…
Sorry Nick, but beta’s do know how to attract women and give them the tingles. That is why the vast majority of people on this planet are beta’s. Pretty obvious. And no matter how much you try to make them feel uncomfortable in their own skin, so that you can “sell them” game, they shall still remain beta’s.
http://www.allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html
{Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog’s back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.
“You fool!” croaked the frog, “Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?”
The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drowning frog’s back.
“I could not help myself. It is my nature.” }
@Elspeth
Yes indeed, it’s rather surreal, almost like a masquerade ball. Far be it for me to suppose that mine, or anyone’s else’s righteousness is but filthy rags, but sometimes it would be nice if spiritual thoughts were found alongside spiritual words.
And so I’m just doing to come out and say that the “urban” Church population is straight up full of witchcraft. Sure, it’s a microcosm of the larger churchian community, but holiness, or even an attempt at such, is viewed as utterly absurd, almost comical. Even extolling such an idea has people looking at you like an old beat-up Buick.
Toya Graham is a head-patter and a hoodrat, and that’s all I’ll say about that right now.
And yes, I’ve been working on something similar (book) concerning that population as well. I’m sure you’re already prepared for the hate. I purged a lot of stuff in my own Blog some years ago and started working on the books and devotional. Now that I’m fully unplugged I’ve had to revamp and regroup my message and approach.
As well, I wish you peace and blessings in what the Father is going to have you pour out as well.
@BradA
I’m inspired by the RP believers and their fluency with the Word…but outside of that it’s hugely concerning.
Meeting people who actually read anything nowadays outside of pop-culture fodder is refreshing indeed.
Yes, I’ll be 50 at the end of the year, my daughter is 23 and the thought of taking on another “project” of a woman makes my head and stomach hurt.
In keeping with Rollo’s “Building Better Worlds” post, that’s the plan for me. This world starts from the inside out, and will extend to all of those the He presents to me for love, care, and fellowship.
Admittedly, I’m broken. So I’m working to push out the darkness within so more light can come in. More light, more life.
Been reading lots of Psalms and Proverbs too…and they are comforting and affirming…
My thought process on the whole debate over what makes an alpha male and what doesn’t, leads me to believe that what everyone is fighting over can be described under two banners. What makes a man attractive to women and what makes a man righteous.
By focusing solely on what makes a man attractive to women, PUAs have abandoned what makes a man righteous. I don’t think it has anything to do with blaming Heartiste for the problem of women liking PUAs, as that is evident. I have far more of a problem with Dr. R. Albert Mohler selling a lie that a woman’s sexual ‘feelings’ determine a righteous man. That is far more damaging to Christianity than anything PUAs can do.
Her feelings determine a sexy man, they cannot and will not determine a righteous man.
[D: Spot on.]
Ethics, in a sense, is a system of processing moral values. But it doesn’t create them from nothing. You still need some external input.
Have you read “The Way of Men” by Donovan? He creates his ethics based on hypothetical scenarios. If you’re asking, “What is the Good,” then your culture will likely define for you what is good. Although Nietsche’s ethics vary wildly from Bonhoeffer’s, and both came from the same culture.
Nick – ” I deflowered three virgins last year”
And being a virgin somehow shows high quality? How?
Nick, I (a beta) deflowered a virgin back in 82. Then she went on to have an enormous notch count. You were deflowered by some girl whenever, you went on to have an enormous notch count. We are all virgins at some point in our lives. But keep that hamster wheel spinning my good man, only you know what you truly believe.
@Dale,
I realize that I’ve made a lot of excuses for people (women). Pitying them, being a Captain-Sav-A-Ho to them.
I’ve mentioned my 94 year old mother before, but just the other day, when I was having a moment of venting about my adult folly, she said, “well you have to remember that except for (the mother of my daughter and ex-wife), these women just weren’t raised like you were, in the church, worshiping the Lawd (LOL) and acting like they have some sense”.
Me: “but mamma, they seemed like they did…”
Her: “I thought we told you that you should never lose your head over a little tail. Since (the mother of my daughter and ex-wife) none of the rest seemed that special to me”.
LOL.
So I’ve tried to raise these women, and then I had to learn that they actually began to hate me for expecting so much out of them…like Spike wrote:
I had one walk away from me for that very reason, but I was working with her, and should have long charged her to the game, but I thought she was trying. Yet again, another commoner and phony who I had to carry along.
Which is why I’m convinced I’ll not find one that’s on my level.
FH – plus one!
FH – “Her feelings determine a sexy man, they cannot and will not determine a righteous man.”
So according to the pua’s, we are in a binary loop then. To get the sex that most men desire, we must leave our righteousness behind, and learn how to induce tingles. Yet most scriptures teach that the reward of paradise is attained by virtue of our righteousness.
Hmm, tough call, everlasting tingles in paradise, or contrived tingles for short periods of time in a very finite life?!
Anywho, the idea that the majority of men cannot attain both, tingle induction in their partner and infinite peace in paradise. is pure BS. It can is is often done by mere Beta’s all the time.
“Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.”
I hadn’t thought of this before, but isn’t this a form of what the tradcons derisively refer to as “prosperity gospel?” A lot of Southern Baptists (Mohler included) will rip into a guy like Joel Osteen for distorting the Christian message into a system of reward-based moral behaviorism where some preacher promises that if you pray this way and follow these actions, then you can expect God’s favor in the form of health, wealth and other assorted goodies.
I can understand their objections. The key idea of the Christian gospel is that grace is freely given to the undeserving. You don’t receive the blessings of God because you were particularly worthy or because you had earned them with your labor. They’re given to you on behalf of a God who is generous and merciful, and His gifts demonstrate His greatness, not yours.
And yet the same “conservatives” who protest against the idea of a works-based salvation won’t hesitate to tell husbands in the church that their wives will freely respond to them with grace and generosity — if only they first reach a certain plane of righteousness by performing a corresponding list of actions. But before that happens? Well then, you’d better expect to get nothing from her because you haven’t earned it.
What’s the difference? It’s the same sham with a new application. Let’s raise a glass with Mohler to vending-machine theology, where you can always expect a prize as long as you put the right coins in first.
@DeNihilist
A woman who has sex with a man who is not her husband is, by definition, a low quality woman.
This should be utterly obvious.
The fact she hadn’t had sex before matters naught at all.
@DeNihilist
I chose the path of eternal life over the path of worldly pleasures, because that’s what Jesus told us to do. He promised us nothing but persecution and being hated here on earth, for his name’s sake.
Genuine Christian communities, though, tend to have a lot of quite happy husbands and wives with lots and lots of kids, and zero tolerance for lack of virtue in its men or women. If your “church” is full of garbage like Al Mohler’s saying, it might be time to consider if your church is actually full of unrepentant heathens.
@Alec Leamus: “You’re strawmanning here. No one is saying that PUAs have a magic formula for a blissful marriage. What they’re saying is that in any male-female relationship, the man must elicit respect and attraction from the woman else her hypergamous nature will express itself – that could be anything from being resentful/disagreeable, hypercritical, and denying sex through cheating, divorce, and all that comes with that. You’re a fool if you think that a married Christian woman’s sexual nature is entirely different and distinct from the corner slut’s.”
Bingo! We are saying that PUA’s understand female attraction FAR more than anybody else in this forsaken globe and that as married men we can learn this to satisfy our wife’s natural hypergamy using game. You point out the failure of doing this correctly manifests in constant shit tests and the ubiquitous sexual denial and loss of sexual desire. The resulting miserable relationship Hell on Earth was canonized as Marriage 2.0.
You game Denialists amaze me. Womminz sexual nature is what it is either via the curse of Eve or Evolutionary Psychology or some weird type of social programming (for the social determinists). It is what it is and they want what they want. Game doesn’t just work on ‘those slutty’ girls. If you are attractive to your wife it works on her. If you are not attractive to your wife you can use game to build attraction. Do you not read the Bible? How about the Song of Solomon? Read the Dread and how wet it makes the Beloved. Dripping to the floor and fainting, bowels moving type of wet.
On the claim that tingles are the measure of a godly man: It is precisely opposite but even were it true, it is logically nonsensical. Jesus had an almost 9% failure rate on people following His perfect words and when the shit really hit the fan ALL of the disciples abandoned or denied Him. Something tells me good men are not going to do much better with the Godly women of these Fireproof/EatPrayLove times than the Lord had with the Saints He personally chose.
DeNihilist says:
June 15, 2015 at 3:07 pm
“Funny thing Nick, the only true Alpha’s I know had a decent notch count but got married in their mid 20’s. The rest of us beta’s, kept upping our notch count to our late 20’s early 30’s, before settling down. The only friends that are still playing the field at our age are classic omega’s…
Sorry Nick, but beta’s do know how to attract women and give them the tingles. That is why the vast majority of people on this planet are beta’s”
Two gross errors there, DN.
1) Omegas typically have NO “notch count”, aside from rare episodes with either drunk warpigs or overpaying for streetwalkers.
2) Deltas actually by definition well outnumber betas.
DeNihilist
Your comments are not showing any rational character. They seem to be of emotional resentment based in willful ignorance. Game is the reality based psychology on the nature of women. In this context the interest is sexual arousal. That understanding can help with understanding why she divorced a basically good man. It can help in understanding what on the surface is completely irrational behavior from women. You speak as if social norms and rules actually apply to women. As Dalrock has tried to explain with this article women use gina tingle as their moral compass. The church as followed her lead. The argument for Christian men to know game is for Christian men to not be ignorant saps. Not to get pussy. Innocence needs to be removed from its association with Christianity.
I hadn’t thought of this before, but isn’t this a form of what the tradcons derisively refer to as “prosperity gospel?”
Yes, it most definitely is (“do X, and God will reward you with Y”). That the Albert Moehlers of this world don’t recognize it as such isn’t surprising. It’s always “the other guy’s” theology that is flawed, never one’s own.
Men with low notch-counts or low quality girls will never stop feeling that pull towards more/better.
He is wrong on this count. I had a low notch count (0) when I married. I have never wanted someone other than my wife.
I can’t say I haven’t noticed other women, but I do not desire them in the slightest.
PUAs and similar ones likely have this pull, but that is because they are letting their passions drive them.
Been going to bars for almost two years.
That could be part of the reason your marriage is shot, at least I recall you saying that a while back.
Krauser
Adventure sex isn’t a demographic, it’s a state of mind. Most good girls will do it at least once.
Twice in the last 15 years I’ve been approached by a woman dropping IOI’s by the bucketfull, a woman who turned out to be not only engaged but who had a wedding date set in the next month or so. These were women who peeled back almost all of the usual ambiguity & plausible deniability in the process, that’s how much they wanted one more adventure before tripping down the aisle in their virginal white wedding gown. Both were churchgoing women.
Somehow I doubt I’m the only man to have this experience in the modern world.
I do not believe I would get remarried if I were single Pedat. I am a bit ahead of you, but not by much. I have a good wife and she is committed to the Lord, but it is not a trivial walk. She remains a woman and subject to feelings, emotions, etc.
The biggest thing I am learning is to recognize her core character and chill out about many things. A firm response is better than one that gets too emotional (on my part). That is harder than I would prefer, but it is what I face.
Which is why I’m convinced I’ll not find one that’s on my level.
Any that were would be highly unlikely to not be married. A few may be widowed and even a rare example divorced by a truly scum husband, but that is harder than finding the needle in the haystack, as the saying goes.
@BradA
I think his role is as the (anti) poster child for dread game in marriage.
Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/06/14) | The Reactivity Place
I am appreciating your light moderation approach here Dalrock. You certainly let many things be seen in the comments by anyone willing to look.
Hopefully I add value myself and don’t just provide the negative example to avoid in what I post!
How do you do that quoting BTW? Is that a blog owner thing or something easier than the manual method I use?
Luke, try this to understand my stance –
http://no-maam.blogspot.ca/2012/06/keynesian-sexual-marketplace.html
And yes GG, I agree that game has its place in the hierarchy of masculinity. Where I call bullshit is that Beta’s are weak and know no game, so therefore need to learn game. This is promulgated by the Slick Society of Game Sellers to sell their Snake Oil. Masculinity is so much more of an expansive beach then game alone. And guess what, the more masculine interests you learn/do, the more natural the small part known as game becomes.
Sorry for letting the secret out Nick.
@JohnN “A woman who has sex with a man who is not her husband is, by definition, a low quality woman. This should be utterly obvious.”
That’s what I mean about cluelessness. Clinging to a tautology isn’t going to help you understand women or choose a wife.
John N – “A woman who has sex with a man who is not her husband is, by definition, a low quality woman.
This should be utterly obvious.
The fact she hadn’t had sex before matters naught at all.”
Yeah I thought that was pretty obvious too.
Luke:
“Two gross errors there, DN.
“1) Omegas typically have NO “notch count”, aside from rare episodes with either drunk warpigs or overpaying for streetwalkers.
The discrepancy here is because of two different sets of definitions for Alpha, Beta and Omega, which the ‘sphere has used in various times and incarnations.
The first arose with Manosphere 1.0, characterized by writers like Pook, Rob Fedders of No-Maam, Zed the ZenPriest, and Bonecrker.
Under that scenario:
Alpha= business mogul and overachiever who marries very well after a few notches. Patriarchs. Doctors, lawyers, professional class, moneymakers, religious men who marry and stay married. The neurosurgeon, the hospital administrator, the law firm senior partners, corporate senior management. If he plays his cards right, Alpha McGorgeous and Frank Fratboy might end up as Alphas; if not, then as Betas.
Beta= a step or two below alphas. Betas follow alphas, work for alphas. They are by far the most common kind of man. Beta is the Everyman, the Common Man. Joe Lunchpail who works in a trade. Mike Middle Manager who works for BigCorp. Matt Mid Level Government Bureaucrat.
Omega= Drug addled losers who can’t or won’t hold down jobs. Parasites, criminals, thugs, layabouts, rebels, loners, and drifters. There aren’t many of these. Rhett Butler, characters portrayed by James Dean. Harley McBadboy and F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer are prime examples.
__________________________
Roissy stood the above on its head. In the Roissysphere, ‘alpha’ status is conferred based on whether you can get poon and how much.
Alpha= parasites, criminals, thugs, layabouts, rebels, loners, and drifters who get laid. Harley McBadboy and F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer are alphas in this paradigm, IF and ONLY IF they get laid a lot. Alpha McGorgeous and Frank Fratboy are alphas, as is Chad Thundercock. Rhett Butler is alpha. Famous musicians are alpha. Bill Clinton is alpha. George Clooney, Brad Pitt, John Mayer = apex alphas. Porfirio Rubirosa was alpha (Google him).
Beta = businessmen, physicians, lawyers, professionals, moneymakers, guys who marry and stay married. They are accomplished in every area of life except sexually. They are usually sexually frustrated. They are average frustrated chumps. By far most men are betas.
Omega= complete sexual losers. They never get laid, ever. Young misshapen lumpenproles. The stereotypical Mom’s basement dwelling, cheeto-stained fingered, Aspergers-suffering, videogame playing, slightly mentally deranged neomaxizoomdweebie. Couldn’t get laid in a whorehouse with a manicured bankroll of Franklins.
Darwinian Arminian @ 3:51 pm:
““Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.”
I hadn’t thought of this before, but isn’t this a form of what the tradcons derisively refer to as “prosperity gospel?””
I wouldn’t say so. Prosperity Gospel is more “good people always win” and less “woman good, man bad”. In other words, PG denies the necessity of suffering while FI denies male headship.
GG – “You speak as if social norms and rules actually apply to women.”
Ah, the old women have no moral agency thang again.
So how do women then get invited into heaven? They have a get out of gaol free card? Only men have to follow the rules and prove their worthiness?
You really believe that woman are special snowflakes don’t you?
Words matter. They are assigned their definition for a reason. So that we can communicate with each other in an intelligent way. The Greek alphabet soup of titles has a long history and definitions. Bonecrackr’s is the classic definition, the one used by biologists when describing animal relationships within packs or groups. It has the most history and is the proper description.
So why try to redefine the status letters? To try to create a huge market of needy men to sell their “unique” knowledge to. If Roissy were to keep to the classic interpretation, there would only be a small subset of lower beta’s to sell to. Not gonna be able to live off of that eh?
Has it worked? Doesn’t look like it. Considering that the numbers of men who actually engage in the manosphere is minute, they don’t seem to be changing the reality as much as they would like.
Masculinity techniques have been around for years, (GBFM). And if you want the easiest lesson, watch 4-5 year old boys and girls playing together (which by the way is approved by Roissy) to see natural feminine and masculine behaviour.
Magnus says:
June 15, 2015 at 1:16 am
It amazes me how much the Church absorbs the culture and then post-rationalizes it. Think of all the “innovations” that the church has absorbed in the past century: hormonal birth control, divorce, loss of modest dress, etc. If these changes were the result of intense prayer and study, seeking the Spirit’s guidance in how to respond to them, I’d be more open to said changes. But they’re not. We take sinful culture and dress it up. Plus, accepting sin and rebellion keeps warm bodies in the pews, the ministers’ salaries paid, and the lights on.
And where is a church, anywhere, that doesn’t approve of these cultural changes? I can only think of the Old Order Anabaptist groups and perhaps the SSPX Catholics. Pentecostals also used to fit the bill, until they decided that holiness means too much legalism. Now most of them are practically indistinguishable from the world.
Where is the counter-cultural church?
Other than Old Order Anabaptists, I can only think of Jehovah’s Witnesses – Most people do not go there because Witnesses expect adherence to the scriptures.
Deti, funny thing about Roissy’s interpretation, according to him I was an alfalfa in my youth. NOT! I was a great second in command, could play the alfalfa role every now and then, but was/am a true blue beta. Yet I attained a much higher then average notch count (as did a few of my beta friends).
Hmm, either I was really lucky, or Roissy is full of shit.
Think I’ll go with the latter.
Part of the problem that I have, is that I’ve read a lot of books about being a submissive and feminine wife, and my husband has about being a strong leader, and certainly prayer and Grace are the most important things for achieving this goal, but the biggest obstacle is a lack of real world role-models. I find that living in a society that masculinizes women and feminizes men, it takes a lot of daily work learning how to be real men and real women. For those of you who are happily married and feel that you’ve gained some wisdom in this area – I’ve noticed Elspeth, Scott & his wife, Sarah’s Daughter, Dalrock of course, and seriouslyserving – you all seem to be doing a pretty god job (I mentioned more women than men because what I’m thinking about here is role models so obviously I’m looking for women to emulate).
We go to a good church but it’s quite far away and the families are pretty geographically spread out, so it’s not easy to get together with other women. I’d love to hear any advice that anyone has to offer. I feel like I understand the basic principles pretty well, but in day to day life I have a tendency to get frustrated when I feel like there’s some big secret I’m still missing out on when it comes to marriage. Or maybe lots of little secrets, I don’t know. I’m very intrigued by a comment that Dalrock made somewhere about how “Game” improved his marriage, but I don’t really understand what “game” is, and am not sure where to go to learn about it, or even whether that’s a wise thing to do (especially after reading some of earl’s comments).
Please don’t get mad at me for hijacking with my own personal requests, I’ve been doing a ton of reading here now for a while and I really respect a lot of your opinions. I want your help and I believe many of you are generous enough to offer it.
theasdgamer says: Craig needs to understand the saying, “Be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.”
Oh, I get that. Contra Col. Jessup, I can handle the truth. My pushback against Krauser et al. as authorities here is simply about the open boast of acquiring the serpent’s wisdom through sin. Even if phrased as a warning, AWALT and so on, it’s the same humblebrag as the kind you hear from churchian women with the thousand-cock stare, the ones who vocally claim God’s forgiveness without ever citing (or inwardly acknowledging) a single thing as sin for which they actually repent. The claim is always the same: that one is better off for having sinned and gained the experience than not to have sinned in the first place.
“So why try to redefine the status letters? To try to create a huge market of needy men to sell their “unique” knowledge to.”
No, I think it was more a reflection of what was and is actually going on in the dating scene in the Washington DC area, notoriously one of the toughest markets anywhere. Of course that’s now spread to every population center in the US, some worse than others.
It’s no secret that thugs, badboys and “dangerous” men have an easier time attracting the interest of women. Has always been that way. While, at the same time, the “patriarchs” and college educated men who can do everything else EXCEPT approach a girl and ask her out get left in the dust.
I’ve been saying it for years — I know guys who supposedly have absolutely everything going for them. Car, house, job, bankroll, education from a top 25 law/med/B-school. Work for BigCorp pulling down serious coin. Has own law practice. Is a top recognized physician. Pulling down six figures.
These are the guys that Ellen Elementary School Teacher, Sally Sunday School Teacher, and Linda Lawyerb*tch say they want to date, marry and have babies with.
And these guys can’t generate ANY interest to save their lives.
Meanwhile, F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer is taking home Ellen after his set. Tomorrow night he’ll screw Sally. The next night it’s Linda.
DeNihilist:
The problem with what you keep saying is that these “regular guys” are doing absolutely EVERYTHING right. They’re doing everything they’re told they should do. They have interesting lives. They work, have bank. They do things and go places. They lift. They’re not fatasses.
But girls routinely turn up their noses at them. “Ewww, he’s just so…BETA”. “Ewww, gross.” “Eww, boring.” “Ewww, he’s not tall enough.”
Regarding Krauser and the seven virgins in a year, presuming the claim is true, it’s insane that a cad even has access to seven virgins. Where are the parents? People used to have sense about this crap.
Of course a virgin girl is easy pickings for a smooth talking cad with experience. Because he has experience, she does not and is young and DUMB. Young men are equally dumb, but in different ways.
It is the triumph of personal agency and the market-based approach to life. The belief that each individual knows what is best for themselves, and if we just let them choose, society will be the best off. This attitude dominates Western thought and is visible everywhere. This includes conservative circles where libertarianism is oh so chic.
I am guessing that a young, inexperienced, DUMB girl or woman may not make the best choices in sexual partners. Perhaps these women need some guidance and restraints on their behaviors. We don’t believe in that sort of thing anymore.
The SMP, another marketplace, is bad for sexual relations because it’s just so easy for young women to participate compared to men. So beta men, any man who doesn’t naturally have access, winds up having to take a woman with more experience than he does. It’s simply supply and demand. Men are never going to learn “game” fast enough to counter that. Unless cad attitudes are rampant in society, which could happen I guess.
I do think that society itself has done everything possible to heap contempt and scorn on the approach of the beta man. So the “red pill” or whatever is right in that. It goes way beyond feminism. The sold, conservative man is everyone’s chump.
As far as megachurches go, I think it is again the consumer approach and people who are used to shopping for everything. So a “church-lite”, theology for dummies approach is going to go over big. The conservative denominations do better than liberal in retention, but for recruitment, megachurches are hard to beat in today’s world. Too many will tune out difficult doctrine.
Dear TFH:
I commend you for your persistence. Personally, I’m too tired to point out the obvious, to people who make idiotic statements while never having been to Krauser’s freakin’ blog, where there are years and years of free videos, articles and worksheets for the taking.
I don’t agree with Krauser on everything either, but really, if you’re going to condemn him, then you ought to debate the issues rather than poison the well.
Regards,
Boxer
Katerina
I find that living in a society that masculinizes women and feminizes men, it takes a lot of daily work learning how to be real men and real women.
Years ago for various reasons I wound up unplugged from much of prime time TV. Over the course of a few years I noticed that some of my relatives opinions were changing in strange ways, yet to them I was the odd one. From my perspective, they were being brainwashed and I was remaining pretty much the same. So I would suggest to you that disconnecting from popular culture is a good thing to do. Start by using the “mute” button on every commercial when you view TV, because even commercials are toxic and feminist. The next step is to wean off of prime time TV, although I notice that people under 30 don’t reallly watch TV that way anymore anyway, they use services such as Netflix, HuLu, etc. to view on their own schedule.
Be picky and critical of the enterntainments that you do engage in. We all swim in a sea of feminism, so that means we have to actively reject it or we wind up passively accepting it. This unfortunately means we have to become more critical of books as well. I’ve given up some magazines because I couldn’t take the propaganda. Consider actively reading books and/or viewing films that describe men and women in more healthy ways than the modern feminist stuff. Yes, this may mean older works of fiction rather than what’s new. But it’s important to talk to yourself about this (ok, not necessarily out loud) and consciously be mindful of what you are doing.
It’s kind of like changing the way you eat. I used to drink a lot of soda on an old job, because the water in the building tasted weird and my irregular hours drove me to caffeine. There came a time when I was putting on pounds, and I had to admit one source of that was the vending machines. So I consciously changed to drinking hot tea instead. That wasn’t ideal, drinking more water would have been a better idea, but it did get me off of the sugar cycle. It’s the same with entertainments, very easy to get into a bad habit and a bit of an effort to get away from.
We go to a good church but it’s quite far away and the families are pretty geographically spread out, so it’s not easy to get together with other women.
This is an aspect of the modern world. I think Elspeth might have some of the same experience but I could be mistaken. You could try to find a family that’s close in travel time, and spend time with the woman/women of that house, for one option. Or you could try to get a women’s Bible study organized even if only a monthly meeting. It is very important for women to spend time with other women of good character, and that can mean you have to pull away from friends sometimes. Because y’all are influenced differently from men in some ways.
I’d love to hear any advice that anyone has to offer. I feel like I understand the basic principles pretty well, but in day to day life I have a tendency to get frustrated when I feel like there’s some big secret I’m still missing out on when it comes to marriage.
You might find the book by Shaunti Feldhahn “For Women Only” to be useful. It’s marriage advice, but you won’t find it in the “marriage and relationships” section of a chain bookstore, rather in the “Christian books” section. There are some flaws to the book, but it does explain some key issues such as “women need love, men need respect”. There is also the work of Dr Emerson Eggerichs and his wife, I think that’s “love and respect ministries”. All I know about Eggerichs is what can be found at their website, or that has been mentioned in recent threads here.
I agree with Grayghost. Game knowledge for the Christian man is not to get laid but to protect family and community. Understand how lay about Larry or Harley Drummer can many deflower church girls and cuckold rightous church men with no money and little time or effort is practical knowledge. You can stop blaming the choirboy premed student who could not hold you daughter’s interest in the presence of some rule breaking risk taking jail bird lay about. Dont claim the future doctor you wanted her to marry must have not been “godly enough” to compete with the dead beat that impregnated her. Our blind spot about the nature of women is making a playground for players.
Christianity needs to be streetwise and confident.
TFH – one last time, game material is everywhere, even in nature. Game is a basic sub section of masculinity. got it now? Good.
But how do the rooshies survive? By building a needy clientele. Basic marketing.
Tell women that they will not get dates cuz the gina smells – BAM! instant market.
Tell men that they are useless doufouses who don’t really know how to slay the poosy – BAM! instant market.
You really believe guys are not getting conned into this crap everyday? Try reading sites like Sleazy, or Uncle Bob. Red Pill means you look at everything and learn what you can from it all.
Did you even try reading Bonecrckers essay on the greek alphabet? If he is wrong, how so?
Why in my youth, in my bluest of blue pill days was I able to acquire a notch count of better then 30? According to the pua experts, that should be impossible. But I guess it was luck, not that I was respectful of women and treated them as equals.
One last time, the denigration of Beta’s is nothing but a con job. Most beta’s do well in life and in love. Get over it!
@BradA
Thank you, and you do add value.
The tag is blockquote (with an opening and closing tags). This page shows how it is used. It is easier for me because I can write a comment and then edit it with formatting tools. If I am doing more than minimal tagging on another blog I will often use a dummy post on my own blog to set it up the way I want it and then copy the html wordpress creates into the comment box on the other blog. You could do this too if you want, since wordpress blogs are free and you wouldn’t need to actually publish any posts.
AsdGamer
Since I was a bit harsh above I thought I would offer some advice. From reading your comments my understanding is that you are a good if not excellent dancer, and that you have aloof game nailed. It also sounds like your dancing dread game has had sporadic success in improving your wife’s attitude. My suggestion would be to change things up and add more comfort into the mix. Instead of going out and dancing with other women, I would suggest you pick out an outfit you want her to wear and tell her to put it on, you are going out. Once she has it on, playfully have her twirl around for your approval. Once out, perhaps after a nice dinner, take her out on the dance floor and let her bask in your reflection, making her feel like Cinderella to your Prince Charming.
@Katerina
We are very much bereft of good role models compared to previous generations. This makes everything more difficult for all of us. You aren’t alone here.
The post that comes to mind is She felt unloved. If you are still interested after reading that, you may want to check out:
How to encourage a husband to show more leadership.
If it isn’t fun, you probably aren’t doing it right.
Romance 101: How to stop frustrating your wife.
Headship Game
Edit: Anon Reader’s advice above to unplug from popular culture where possible is also very good.
Deti, as we have discussed before, your reality and my reality seem to be polar opposites. From my past and watching my boys and their friends, I find what you say above, about doing all the right things, and still not getting female attention, hard to believe.
I think we came to the conclusion at one time that the women of my generation were different then today’s. More then likely true, but from the things I see with the friends of my boys, it does not appear to be much different. My God, one of my boy’s friend is Chinese, thin and geeky, yet he has been dating a solid 7 for more then 2 years now.
Are women less feminine then when I was a lad? Could be. They are certainly more sure of themselves and believe that they have just as much right as men to do anything. Maybe the lads I know and watch now have just adapted to this new paradigm. Maybe it has to do that a lot of the friends and their girls come from stable, 2 parent families. Maybe it is because my oldest son could snap your elbow in about 2 seconds if you tried to screw with him or his girl. Who knows.
Just telling it the way my life has informed my view.
DeNihilist
The moral agency of women is only present when required for their own personal benefit. Our present society does not require agency from women. What God requires is another conversation.
Yes
Fuck no
The 50% divorce rate, the sexist laws against men in general, the fact that the manosphere was created from the ashes of beta men “doing well ” says you are full of shit. Dalrock has a very successful blog for a reason.
I think you are deliberately playing dumb just to mess with people
@Katerina
When I was pregnant with my first child, I realized that I didn’t really want my children to grow up listening to the rock music that I played on the car radio. Over a period of about six months, I gradually increased the amount of time I spent listening to classical music, and decreased the amount of time that I spent listening to rock. I only bought CDs of classical music, and after a while I found I didn’t miss rock music much.
Everything that Anonymous Reader said about weaning yourself off of TV is absolutely true. If I were raising my children over again, I would get rid of the TV entirely. When they were young, I just let them watch kiddie movies on the VCR, but when they were older, they wanted to watch the same programs their friends watched. It isn’t just the bad language, the glorification of adultery and fornication, the overt hostility to Christianity, etc., it is the absolute waste of time it represents, and the mindless consumerism it promotes. For instance, It is very hard to be satisfied with a “nice enough” house if you watch endless hours of “housing porn” on HGTV.
Do you have children? If you home school, you will probably find that there are other women with whom you have a lot in common living closer to you than you think. It doesn’t matter if their theology isn’t precisely the same as your own.
Anonymous Reader, you are so right about “unplugging”, I definitely need to make more of an effort there. Even the supposedly “innocent” stuff is just seeped in the wrong mentality. I actually have Shaunti Feldhahn’s “For Women Only” – I enjoyed a lot of it, but the part where married men talked about following hot women around in Home Depot aisles upset me so much I’m still working on getting over it – like some of the men here who are very upset about learning some of the things that are true about women. It’s not that I don’t trust my husband in his actions – I do, it’s more that I invested very heavily in the fairy-tale outlook and have a very hard time letting go of it. I have a difficult time separating a man’s temptation or lust from his love. So to my old way of thinking, if a man notices a woman and even for a second swoons over her, then he must love her, and desire her more than the wife he claims to love. The myth that men are just not tempted by other women when they’re in love, and if they are tempted in means that they’re not really in love. And I know that a lot of us wives don’t make it easy for our husbands to love us, but the fact that even happily married Christian men were saying this was a painful shock to me. I’m very easily discouraged when it comes to self confidence and not good at standing up to perceived threats, I am a coward who backs down and retreats into a shell. If I think that my husband is surrounded by women much more beautiful than I am (as I know he is) instead of believing that he’ll continue to choose me day after day, I get depressed and shut down and think there’s no hope for me. This is a sin too, and it’s a very unpleasant attitude for him to be around, and that most of all is what I need to fix. On the other hand, my low self esteem makes me very grateful to have a husband, and I pretty much always think that he’s the hotter one in our relationship.
My problem isn’t so much that he doesn’t give me the “tingles”, it’s that I spend way too much time worrying that he’s not attracted to me, and this causes a lot of trouble. One of the things that has helped me tremendously reading comments here, is the fact that men are saying that men just don’t marry women they’re not attracted to – Halleluja! My biggest fear is that my husband doesn’t objectify me and that he married me for my mind. I would absolutely hate to have been married for my mind and I tremendously love hearing that men don’t do this. In this context, what little I’ve been reading about “game” really strikes a chord with me. I totally get what women here are saying about the spanks being better than the roses.
I’ll look up Dr Emerson Eggerichs, I haven’t heard of him, thanks for the recommendation.
I think I do need to make more of an effort to hang out with good wives from Church, but it’s hard to know who they are when I’m dealing with mostly mere acquaintances. Maybe I should start looking at who seem like the happiest husbands and then try to hang out with their wives…
Dalrock – thanks for the links, that’s also the kind of thing I was looking for – there’s a lot of info here to wade through and that will help me cut to the chase. I love love love the stuff you are writing, I have spent way too much time here in the last few days taking it all in. This is so much better than most of the marriage stuff I’ve read that was written by “Christian” writers.
Laura – thank you also for your response…God has not blessed us with children of our own yet, (my husband had one before marrying me) although we are praying and working toward adoption. Yes, we planned that we would homeschool and not have tv when we first got married, but childlessness has made us lazy about that. We started marriage with high ideals and have been slipping. I think that’s one of the reasons I was compelled to search out something like this blog, I felt like we’ve been sliding instead of growing.
Also I want to correct something I wrote above that was unclear – when I wrote “My problem isn’t so much that he doesn’t give me the “tingles” I meant that lack of “tingles” is not the problem…my husband is very attractive to me, I just undermine everything because of my insecurity.
@Katerina:
Let me offer one suggestion: the crux of what you’re running into is more of a Faith issue. That’s the last little bit that’s hard to let go of. This isn’t about Salvation, but much more like being a Missionary in a nasty part of the world. Actually, it’s exactly like choosing to be a Missionary in an unknown world: acting like a Christian Wife should in the modern world. You’re instinct is to resist being an alien, but that’s where the true Peace actually resides.
And be willing to accept the Lord’s Grace. It takes a lot of work, but unwinding your grip on the thought “I need to be right” will go a long ways. Plus, remember that the Lord won’t leave nor forsake you, and He wants good things for you and this is one of the ways he lays out for that to happen.
Katerina,
You’ve been given great advice so far – I also highly recommend the book Love and Respect. Looking Glass hit the nail on the head with this being a Faith issue. What you’re also experiencing is the consequences of sin. Sins that the world embraces readily and seemingly without repercussion – it’s there, one only need to really observe the fruit on the tree to see it (depression, SSRI use, quiet desperation).
You are consumed with the sin of coveting and idolatry. Please spend some time praying for this to be revealed to you, repent of it, ask your husband for forgiveness and go forward taking every thought captive and bring it to the Word.
Currently, it is your husband’s actions/feelings/motivations that you are using to gauge your self worth. This is a lie that you are willingly accepting from the enemy. The danger in it is that your husband is human and a sinner. If you’re value is measured based on his good works (his attraction level to you, his reassuring you, his catering to your insecurities, guarding his eyes and thoughts for you and not for a deeper relationship with the Lord) then you are building your house on sand. It will come crashing down. No man can hold up under the weight of responsibility of beings someone’s everything. You are currently coveting from your husband something that should he provide you would be a death blow to your attraction level to him. Satan knows this. He knows as soon as your husband would buckle under your insecurity and place you on that pedestal to worship you, you will hate him.
My husband’s words to me when it was revealed to him that this was precisely what was going on with me several years ago were: “I am not your god. You need to get your own thing.” What a devastating blow! But he was exactly right. And because I was consumed with coveting and idolatry, I was very easily swayed to more dangerous rebellion when things did start crashing.
The goal that remains in front of you is for you to not have any expectations from your husband, nor need for him to be responsible for your feelings about yourself, and you will be at peace about it. When you have crucified this sin, and it will take some time, you will see your husband as not only your lover, you will see him as a Christian brother. Any temptation he has to sin will hurt your heart for his relationship with the Lord – it won’t have anything to do with you. This is the freedom of complete obedience to God’s Word for you in marriage. No more rushing heart rate, no more fretting, no more of that feeling that is going on inside your gut that is literally making you sick.
The long term vision is that you too will see beauty and appreciate it for what it is, without coveting, without fear, without idolatry. God made this world beautiful and we should be thankful for it. Satan perverts this in a woman’s heart and she sees beauty as threatening, and then something she must conquer and control. It’s a fools errand.
So, get that book! And for now, honestly, I don’t think your need is for an “in the flesh” woman to emulate. You don’t need more to covet right now. This isn’t just about the lack of role models you have, this is about you needing to stop resisting God and grow closer to Him and let Him fill the need you have.
I’ll keep you in my prayers.
SD
Fantastic comment!
Katerina,
I’ve still got much to learn as a wife, but just to echo SD, I would focus on growing your relationship with Christ. As you become more Christlike, it will make you a better wife.
@krauserpua
>Men with low notch-counts or low quality girls will never stop feeling that pull towards more/better. Considerable mental energy is put into suppressing this drive and rationalising it away
Thanks for the warnings you seek to give. You are wrong on the point above however. While I have substantial desires for sex and intimacy, I do not have any desire to have sex with many women. The same one, who chooses to be and remain her best attractive self for me, and who cheerfully and enthusiastically serves me sexually every morning, would do VERY fine 🙂
I also do not understand the attraction in having sex with two women at once, unless you were married to them both.
You may have/had the desire for sex with more women, but I think this is something else. We all desire to be able to have enough resources to be able to eat, have clothes etc. This is a good desire; it leads us to be productive and work. But some go past the desire for “enough”, into the desire to have “it all”. That is greed. Envy is also a possibility. While one man may have greed, that does not mean all men struggle with that.
Same with the desire to have sex with a hundred different women. You may feel this need, but not all do. I would argue that healthy men do not, but I suspect you will disagree 🙂
> I deflowered three virgins last year and came very very close with another four. They all looked like “good girls” and probably are. Adventure sex isn’t a demographic, it’s a state of mind. Most good girls will do it at least once.
No doubt your point was that you (appear to) have no problem finding women eager to start degrading themselves. I thank you for the warning… but I wish you a better life for your own sake.
>>A woman who has sex with a man who is not her husband is, by definition, a low quality woman.
>That’s what I mean about cluelessness. Clinging to a tautology isn’t going to help you understand women or choose a wife.
Actually, if you accept that a woman who submits herself to God and lives accordingly is high quality, and a woman who openly lives in extravagant rebellion to God is low quality, then John’s statement makes perfect sense.
The problem of course is not everyone will agree with the above. Some would determine high/low quality woman by her appearance, or sexual willingness, etc.
@Brad
> Just looking out for your own pleasure is not allowed to any Christian, yet I have seen a lot more of that even in the MGTOW comments in these threads.
You may also be listening only to a small portion. I would be considered MGTOW, but on a different definition than you and Gunner seem to have. I think MGTOW means that he decides for himself what is best and does it, ignoring the idiotic cultural demands.
A Christian MGTOW would obviously decide what is best starting with Scripture. A MGTOW may have a wife — but based on his own ideas of what is best for him (Biblically-based if a Christian), not based on the cultural demands or expectations.
I do not (regularly) think of myself as MGTOW; it is not a crucial part of my ego/identity. But I do seek to follow God, and that does mean that I choose to reject much of what I hear, from culture and “church”. Same as most of us here do.
@AR
>that’s how much they wanted one more adventure before tripping down the aisle in their virginal white wedding gown. Both were churchgoing women.
Man, that is sick. They are about to marry, and still want “casual” sex?
And just think, God’s standard was for a non-virgin bride to be stoned.
I think pastors should refuse to perform the marriage ceremony if she is wearing white but does not deserve it. A little shaming might limit the sin of the others who watch.
@l jess
>Most people do not go there because Witnesses expect adherence to the scriptures.
My grandfather was a JW. When I tried to show him something from his own (corrupted) bible, he covered the page with his hands and refused to look/read. Granted, that is one guy, but my experiences with others indicate a desire for you to follow their teaching, not to read the Bible and follow God.
@Striver at June 15, 2015 at 6:16 pm
+1
Young women have no business making a decision whether or not to have sex. It is far to crucial a mistake to refuse her guidance and limits.
LookingGlass, Sarah’s Daughter, seriouslyserving, I suspect you are all totally right. I need to stop reading marriage books and trying to analyze stuff and stop assuming that I’m dong a good job of being a Christian just because I attend a remnanty type Church and read tons of Christian literature and study apologetics. I read and read and read when really what I need to do is get down on my knees and pray.
Sarah’s Daughter, you ARE the type of Christian wife I knew I needed to seek out, someone to redirect my focus and knock me out of this circular, going nowhere thinking. Thank you.
Katerina
I actually have Shaunti Feldhahn’s “For Women Only” – I enjoyed a lot of it, but the part where married men talked about following hot women around in Home Depot aisles upset me so much I’m still working on getting over it – like some of the men here who are very upset about learning some of the things that are true about women.
If you read the “visual rolodex” chapter carefully you will note that not all men are like that. Many are, but not all. I personally think that chapter may be something of an overstatement. But that could be me speaking from my own perspective, too.
Oh and in case what I just wrote sounds flippant, I don’t mean it that way, what you said about idolatry is spot-on and I have tears in my eyes and am too bowled over to respond eloquently. Thank you again and I’ll go pray now. And I will take your advice about confessing this to my husband when he gets home.
I really am leaving now, but Anonymous Reader thank you too.
Pingback: Is Bill Gates is the World’s most alpha male? | Pumpkin Person
So to my old way of thinking, if a man notices a woman and even for a second swoons over her, then he must love her, and desire her more than the wife he claims to love. The myth that men are just not tempted by other women when they’re in love, and if they are tempted in means that they’re not really in love.
That’s an excellent example of solipsistic female projection right there.
From my past and watching my boys and their friends, I find what you say above, about doing all the right things, and still not getting female attention, hard to believe.
I think we came to the conclusion at one time that the women of my generation were different then today’s. More then likely true, but from the things I see with the friends of my boys, it does not appear to be much different. My God, one of my boy’s friend is Chinese, thin and geeky, yet he has been dating a solid 7 for more then 2 years now.
Are women less feminine then when I was a lad? Could be. They are certainly more sure of themselves and believe that they have just as much right as men to do anything.
Aren’t you upper-class, living in a fairly insulated, well-off suburb, by any chance?
Sarah’s Daughter hit the nail on the head with the being consumed with how your husband will always be tempted. If you’re newly married, came from a Christian home, and have the kind of temperament you describe you have (and issues with self-confidence that most young women have), it’s normal to go through a minor “crisis” when you find out that men are tempted in this way (yes, even your husband who really does love you deeply). I’ve seen a manosphere writer compare it to a woman’s hypergamy… and that is probably the closest thing you can in fact compare it to. You’ve hit this minor crisis because of how painful it is to realize that no matter how good you are to him, how sexually attractive or available, how virtuous or godly, he will always have the propensity for temptation. It is the same thing Dalrock was saying with this post… and it is extremely painful for men when they fully realize what hypergamy is. Another minor crisis in my opinion.
“The goal that remains in front of you is for you to not have any expectations from your husband, nor need for him to be responsible for your feelings about yourself, and you will be at peace about it.”
Yes, SD is echoing basically the principle that you are responsible for yourself – the way you feel about yourself, the way you feel about your body or beauty, the woman you are becoming spiritually, your relationship with God, becoming a woman your husband is attracted to (self-confident), becoming a woman other women WANT to spend time with or look up to… all these things are YOUR responsibility, not your husband’s. If you don’t change, he will more than likely resent you for your insecurities and your trying to force him to meet the need that only God can for you to feel significant.
You are the only one responsible for seeking out women in real life for your mentors… it’s hard, it took me years really because I passed over many opportunities along the way (either in pride or in sheer ignorance), but it’s not impossible I assure you there are at least some women in your church that would be able to learn many things from, as well as have community with. Not thinking that there are any at all means you are somehow missing your opportunities. God has given you everything you need for this point in your life, but it is possible to miss an opportunity by being too shy, picky, prideful, or oblivious.
A wife believing her husband is tempted by other women is the essence of dread game. What that says is that she is attracted to him and thinks other women are too. Women in that state of mind unless they are projecting their own feelings tend to be well behaved toward their husband and marriage. Not a good idea to let such a woman go. Handle your business and treat her well. The women commenting seem like they actually give a shit about their marriages and husbands I’ll take that any day regardless of the motivation.
After months of soul-searching, I must confess (before you all) I am not a believer. There I’ve said it: I’m a game heretic; a hell-bound scoffer of the Venusian Arts. I simply do not believe it exists. What a wonderful world it would be if it did, any average guy able to sleep with super-models on a daily basis and with little effort, and without any comeback – but like the Arabian Phoenix, this bird has never been seen.
People who profess the excellence of Game are like people who tell you about the excellence of Tennis. They bought a racket and are up to play you on the public courts some evening next week. Wimbledon or Indian Wells they will also be attending – but only as a spectator, which is how most of us observe alpha-males; men who seem effortlessly to attract women – by attending at the cinema to watch Brad Pitt or George Clooney. Hollywood however is not knocking at our door.
Don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying that you cannot pick women up in the street (Day Game) and sleep with them a few minutes later: I’ve done it myself and on a number of occasions throughout my life. Nor am I suggesting that the wrong word cannot kill romance stone-dead: how I cringe when some ‘friend’ who either thinks he is clever, but is more likely shy and intimidated by my attractiveness to females – generally – puts his oar in and sabotages a promising set, with words that make one cringe, and piss-off the female: like last Friday: A car stopped as I was walking along the road and the window being wound down (it was dark – early evening ) I entered into conversation with a female in the passenger seat. I seemed to be amusing her, and then my friend turned up and addressing her said ‘Are you a prostitute?’. Both insulting and obviously wrong – his tone of voice was all wrong too. She instantly drove off. There’s no helping some people.
In brief: if you are doing Game to attract women, you are not attractive to women. Guys who are successful with women (and as De Nihilist rightly said) in their twenties – are fighting them off. No effort is required. I’ve seen it so often, but most men are not like that and they can no more become like that than they can increase the height by so much as an inch.
That is not to say, of course that one should allow women to walk all over one or white-knight skanks, and it is certainly true that men in the miltary seem to be amongst the worst culprits in that respect.
Here endeth the lesson.
Opus
You have game. And I think you know it. Too much common sense and awareness on your part to pull that blissful ignorance stunt off.
Katerina,
Be very careful looking at adoption as a good way to build a long lasting family. We adopted a sibling group of four when they were fairly young (2.75-7) and it blew up in our faces as they hit the teenage years. We went from being the best parents to being abusers. Or at least I was the suspected abuser and my wife was the enabler for many since I had to have a fairly firm hand to keep things from totally disintegrating.
Society will not support you, especially if the children learn to use others against you.
Some people can still do it, but I am probably as strong against it as some here are against marriage. It is a HUGE minefield few realize ahead of time.
See some of my ramblings on that at http://bradonadoption.blogspot.com/, though I am not writing much there these days. It is not always (ever?) the happy journey you see on those adoption shows.
We do have somewhat of a relationship with my oldest son and my youngest son has thanking my wife and I for all we did for him, but both are still firmly part of their birth family and not really a part of ours (though the oldest would disagree). “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” is a line my wife notes lately when these issues slap us in the face again. Both daughters are completely alienated from us. The oldest is ironically following our middle class lifestyle, but has huge bitterness against us. The youngest is destroying here life (and that of her children) with drugs. Really sad.
I could write more, but don’t go in with a deep faith that it will necessarily work out well. We did and it bit us in the rear. God’s grace and my own changed focus are the only things that kept my wife and I married through that.
Thanks Dalrock. I tend to stick with the simple tags like and , but I should have thought of that. I never could find good guidance on what wordpress allows in replies.
Dale,
I would mostly be talking about those exposing MGTOW in these threads. I have noted that I would probably follow that myself if I were single again and might even have done it from an early age had I known this. Though I also know the pain of not having ANY children that are mine, something even some of those who expose MGTOW don’t face, even if they are temporarily separated from their children.
Opus,
So repent now and commit to make Jesus the Lord of your life. We all had to start someplace.
You also overly simplify attractiveness. I had a lot more that I inherited, but I did not have the proper frame to carry it out. It was something I could have used earlier in life much more. I have been pondering lately how much my parent’s divorce (with my mother pushing it) caused me severe harm in this and other areas. My father would not have been perfect, but he would have been around to do more had she not pushed him out.
I have accomplished quite a bit and can “work a crowd” as an old boss told me, but I lacked a lot of the confidence I needed growing up that kept me from doing more. This doesn’t quite fit with your narrative. I never had a desire to seek to bed women, God put enough strong convictions in me from an early age, but the self confidence would have been very useful.
HH2 – middle class, but yes, the area we live in is becoming more enclaveish of the rich everyday. Rarely see a house sell for under a million here now.
Regarding definitions of Alpha, I think Roissy/heartiste’s point arises from evopsych and is that women’s perception of Alpha was forged in Prehistory – probably prior to the invention of agriculture and animal husbandry – when human societies consisted of loose clans or bands organized around a few men. Those men probably integrated the rough and tumble aspect of Alpha with resource accumulation. They were most likely the toughest and most physically imposing/masculine men who could offer their women resources and security from immediate physical harm. Hypergamy is probably an evolutionary adaptation that prepares women for the overthrow of the dominant men of her clan by other men either within or without the group – in order to ensure her own physical safety she must be able to forge mating and social bonds with the new dominant men in short order. (It is theorized that this is the genesis of female rape fantasies and the positive arousal response by women exposed to nearly all varieties of porn).
The issue is that evolution simply doesn’t work like a Windows update. There’s no Human 15.1 software. Women still have the same brains, wired the same way, producing the same visceral responses, as women 40,000 years ago. Human society is, however, now organized much differently, and most often the dominant qualities of the Prehistoric Alpha correlate negatively with resource accumulation. Notable exceptions include professional athletes, musicians, celebrities, mafiosi, drug kingpins, etc. It’s just now practically impossible to integrate an outlaw biker lifestyle with a thriving accounting practice. This is not to say that men with stable careers can never be Alpha, but rather that their expression of it is necessarily more abstract and circumscribed than the outlaw biker or drug kingpin.
Riossy/heartiste has also made the point that Alpha status is not absolute but is rather a sort of positional good that relies on social context – the fratboy who slays at his mixers in college would not necessarily be Alpha at a club in L.A. populated by film celebrities and rock stars.
HH2 – middle class, but yes, the area we live in is becoming more enclaveish of the rich everyday. Rarely see a house sell for under a million here now.
That largely explains why you cannot relate to the reality described by Deti.
Nova,
“And almost everyone seems to like that, including almost all Christians.”
Cite needed.
In a vacuum, maybe; in the context of the legacy of divorce it brought in its wake, no way.
Cite needed.
In a vacuum, maybe; in the context of the legacy of divorce it brought in its wake, no way.
The hedonistic fulfillment of individual desires, and exercise of personal autonomy, is the main imperative in force in every modern Western society, at least as far as women are concerned. Those who refuse to sign up for this are a small minority. The lifestyles and personal attitudes of Christians and non-Christians aren’t distinguishable in any meaningful way.
DeNihilist @ 8:10 pm:
“From my past and watching my boys and their friends, I find what you say above, about doing all the right things, and still not getting female attention, hard to believe. ”
I’m one of the guys Deti is talking about and know others. Women want nothing to do with us. My best guess is they’re afraid disciplined men will demand disciplined wives. That, the guarantee of a no-drama life and provider competition from the welfare state combine to make us unpopular as potential husbands.
It’s a bitter pill for sure.
Elspeth said, “My husband almost never listens to what passes for Christian music these days. He prefers to listen to old Ray Charles and other blues from before his time.. At least it’s honest, he says.”
Same here. I used to listen to American Family Radio talk, but I had to stop because the Republican Party has too much influence on it’s politics (and I’m a “right wing nutter”). So when I turn to contemporary music stations to get away from it, all I hear is a barrage of “Jesus is my boyfriend” love songs that I find disrespectful and wishy-washy rock music whose lyrics can be confused with either talking about Jesus or the girl you went out on a date with last week.
The silver lining is now I commute exclusively on a motorcycle to work so I ride in silence and enjoy the ride.
“I liken it to what I read somewhere about a murderer who killed his first victim – he’d been so drilled into beliefs around law and order and morality that he just expected the world to stop and the police to instantly appear. They didn’t, and as the days passed he realised there was no magical karma effect to punish him for the crime. An extreme example perhaps, but that’s how it can feel to lay a girl in sleazy conditions under “secret society” conditions. You bang her, it’s great, and then she goes back to her normal life where no one is any the wiser.”
Obviously any Christian will 100% disagree with this (sinning always harms you and the other person in very real, tangible ways even if you don’t immediately realize it, especially if you don’t realize it. Worldly consequences are very minor by comparison), but I’d say there’s still a perfectly good secular argument to be made that it’s wrong.
Obviously a murderer who can kill someone in cold blood and feel no guilt, regret, or horror at his actions is simply mentally ill and less than human (Crime and Punishment is all about a man trying to fight this reality and losing). Just because he doesn’t get arrested doesn’t mean he doesn’t pay any cost for his actions. If he kills more people and deadens himself to guilt even further, he sinks deeper into the mire and becomes more and more bestial.
Just as obviously, it’s pretty rich to boast about one’s superior insight into “reality” and then say that a “good girl” who sluts around and doesn’t immediately get caught therefore experiences zero consequences. Our choices change us and make us who we are, whether anyone else knows about it or not. This focus on whether we get caught or anyone finds out is very telling, because in the scheme of things that hardly matters at all. You either cross the line or you don’t, and you have to live with your choice, that’s what matters. And it’s no great insight that some women who present themselves as “good girls” are actually sluts but keep that side of themselves secret from most people in their lives. It’s a very common red pill truth.
Anyway, a PUA bragging about how many virgins he’s deflowered and abandoned has a lot in common morally and aesthetically with a flaming HIV+ homo boasting about how many unsuspecting teenage boys he’s shared his “gift” with. “Hey, I wanted to f-ck lots of people, so I’m going to f-ck lots of people, that’s who I am, and morality, society, conscience, and common decency be damned. You can’t judge me, bigot, you would totally do it too if you had the balls”. Whatever, keep telling yourself that. By the way, if being a “high quality woman” is 100% about looks and 0% about moral character (and make no mistake, just because she’s a virgin doesn’t mean she has good moral character), why take all the trouble to grind out lays via thousands of approaches when you could just pay a hooker and save everyone a lot of time? Is the thrill of “ruining” a “good girl” part of the appeal?
Heartiste made another point once that I respected a lot: that contra Neil Strauss and “The Game”, “leave her better than you found her” is BS. PUA’s and sluts leave a trail of destruction in their wake. He affects a breezy nihilism about it, but at least he’s willing to call a spade a spade and accept that it’s a real moral choice, not some kind of irresistable biological algorithm.
@ AR:
Seems to me the point is pretty much that Jesus can be a girl’s BFF, and if he doesn’t judge her in any way, nobody else can say a thing.
That’s a common meme in the church as a whole but especially so in the “urban” church. There is so much dysfunction that there are few topics about moral issues that can be preached about without offending someone. Drinking, drugs, homosexuality, and that’s about it really. Touch anything else and you’ll find yourself on the receiving end of a reminder not to judge and whatnot.
@Freeriker:
I’m glad I haven’t eaten dinner yet, because it would have been all over my monitor after reading that. The first six words quoted above would have been enough to cause it all by themselves.
Matriarchal communities will naturally have a ton of women pastors, evangelists, etc. Our church has silently, gradually and subtly made a switch and we’ve noticed that no woman has delivered a message in our church for at least a good 5 years or so. But there are still women with ministerial titles who basically do administrative work. The church I grew up in (where my dad is still head deacon) is very open and up front about not allowing women in the pulpit ever. It occasionally inspires controversy. But both these churches are anomalous.
@ Brad:
Few men want to really dig into the Scriptures. It will be the extremely rare woman who would want to do so.
This is very true. It takes a lot of discipline for me to dig into the Scriptures. And most ministers today (even the best of them) pick a topic, then use appropriate verses to make the point, which comes with its own set of issues. I recently started going “Thru the Bible” with J. Vernon McGee, and have found it extremely helpful. And by the time you get to the end, there is quite literally NO Bible verse left unturned.
@ Pedat:
Yes, I’ll be 50 at the end of the year, my daughter is 23 and the thought of taking on another “project” of a woman makes my head and stomach hurt.
I’m not sure why I assumed you were at least a decade younger than me. Excuse any disrespect by my calling you “young man”. I’m a little younger than you are.
You mentioned witchcraft in the “urban” (LOL) church. I wonder if you are familiar with G. Craig Lewis. He has taken an extreme amount of heat for his calling out of much of what passes for worship in the church. He’s even been sued if I recall.
@ Looking Glass:
There’s at least two songs in rotation that make that error.) But it’s not like most of the audience really wants music that hits where it hurts. The deeper emotions just aren’t acceptable to our modern sensibilities.
This comment reminds me of my father’s favorite hymn, ‘A Charge to Keep’, by Charles Wesley. There were a couple of lines in that one that gave me a shudder even as a young person.
The crux of the matter is that we have largely become a church which caters to modern sensibilities (which skew toward the feminine) and hard truths about morality and consequences are either ignored or sugar coated by a teaching on grace which allows us to feel okay with very little genuine repentance. A twisting of the doctrine, to put it mildly.
I’ve been as guilty of this as anyone else, so my usage of “we” and “us” is in no way rhetorical.
Gunnar, thanks for this. Without hearing about other men’s lives, we live in a bubble.
greyghost
A wife believing her husband is tempted by other women is the essence of dread game. What that says is that she is attracted to him and thinks other women are too.
It’s preselection at work, not necessarily dread game, because he may be totally unaware of her anxiety. There’s various ways that can play out in a mongamous relationship, but “she works hard to be attractive to him” in tandem with “he acknowledges the temptation but can resist in large part because she’s always ready to satisfy him” would be a good outcome IMO.
That could be part of the reason your marriage is shot, at least I recall you saying that a while back.
Blue Pill. Where I go shouldn’t matter. No real diff between going to bars as part of my work and going on business trips away from home. Dread.
Mrs. Gamer has admitted that she holds grudges. She punishes, withdrawing sex. She admits that she doesn’t exhibit fruit of the Spirit. She has failed my nuclear loyalty test. Stick a fork in it, the marital turkey is done.
BradA, sorry, you’re right. I forgot the Scriptural reference, “Thou shalt not go to bars.” (Judas 30:13)
Jesus was accounted an acquaintance of drunkards and sinners.
Elspeth
I recently started going “Thru the Bible” with J. Vernon McGee, and have found it extremely helpful. And by the time you get to the end, there is quite literally NO Bible verse left unturned.
There’s a name for that style of preaching but I cannot recall it right now. Expositional? I have been in churches where an older pastor was working through a Bible book passage by passage, and it is indeed quite different from the “pep talk with verse search” style that’s more common.
So for those who choose to look for a church, would you consider this type of preaching a plus, or even a requirement? So far the list over the years includes : no women preachers / no women teaching Sunday School to men. Add this type of preaching to the list?
Tangent to Opus’ comment. A neg isn’t an insult. It suggests something that a woman can change for the better and implies that the man has the status to suggest it.
For example, a man might say to a beautiful woman that she is wearing too much makeup. Or that her handbag doesn’t accessorize properly. Etc.
Anonymous Reader @ 10:35 am:
“There’s a name for that style of preaching but I cannot recall it right now. Expositional?”
Inductive, maybe?
“So for those who choose to look for a church, would you consider this type of preaching a plus, or even a requirement?”
Mostly now I look for relevant preaching. Plenty of pastors will go through the Bible’s minutiae rather than address the divorce rate and the average Americans’ irresponsible lifestyles. The best way to learn a Bible passage is understanding how it’s relevant to your life.
I also look at who the guest preachers are. If they’re in-church laymen or elder board, okay; if pastor brings in outside pastors to sub for him then he has failed the Great Commission’s mandate of discipleship.
“My best guess is they’re afraid disciplined men will demand disciplined wives.”
I think that Heartiste or Rollo might say that a woman will actually gladly want to be disciplined by a man whom she perceives as Alpha – there must be congruence between the man’s frame and his expectations. A man who has been disrespected and resented by a woman can’t simply become a hardass overnight as it would cause her to bolt from the relationship, not accepting the man’s authority. Additionally, over-eagerness to the point of control is likewise not likely to elicit the appropriate response.
I think I have heard it described as “expositional preaching”, but for me it is supplememtal to what I get at church.
Plenty of pastors will go through the Bible’s minutiae rather than address the divorce rate and the average Americans’ irresponsible lifestyles. The best way to learn a Bible passage is understanding how it’s relevant to your life.
Dr. McGee has been dead for quite a long time now (since the late 80’s I believe), but I have heard enough of his stuff on the radio to know that he touches on all of the stuff you read about here as it comes up in Scripture, without sugar coating or any nods to feminist thought.
He’s old school, pulling no punches. His program still runs on stations here locally. A testament to the fact that there is still a thirst for Truth among some people. I mention him specifically because it is sometimes hard for me to dig deep and dig. And listening to this particular teaching helps me to do that. It’s also some of the most convicting teaching I have heard almost anywhere, ever.
“expositional preaching”,
Maybe “exegetical preaching” is what you’re looking for.
>I agree with Grayghost. Game knowledge for the Christian man is not to get laid but to protect family and community.
Correction, you protect your family by screwing your wife the way Chad Thundercock would do AND by providing sufficient comfort to keep her from falling into the (weak but comforting) arms of Billy Beta. This is game knowledge for “Christian Men” aka Married men.
TLDR: Game is to get sex and a Christian/Married Man uses game to get sex from his wife. That is the only difference.
@(game_denialist): “Deti, as we have discussed before, your reality and my reality seem to be polar opposites. From my past and watching my boys and their friends, I find what you say above, about doing all the right things, and still not getting female attention, hard to believe.”
Bro, get your hamster off the wheel and pull out that last cord from your brain connecting you to the Matrix. Is it on a nerve or something?
Game is about getting girls and turning them on. You most certainly CAN do everything right in life EXCEPT know how to turn girls on. On the other hand, it is rare to do very wrong things and not turn at least some girls on. If you are a doctor who makes millions and is shy, withdrawn, and scared to death of talking to pretty girls, guess what?
You notched 30 girls as you say “blue pill.” Do tell how you notched counts supplicating, stuttering, terrified to speak to the girl, shy, withdrawn, eyes cast down to the floor, bringing her flowers, telling her of your undying love. THAT is blue pill or more accurately THAT is “BETA” with a healthy does of Omega thrown in.
The behaviors you used to notch the counts was Alpha. You were confident, self assured, perhaps even arrogant? Come on, tell us the truth this time. Do you seriously think that men cannot learn knew behaviors and attitudes? Or is it that women are special snowflakes so close to God they could never be manipulated by acting self confident and on top of your game?
I wonder at this point if some interlocutors aren’t simply refusing to understand this. I think the issue may be anxiety or cognitive dissonance in accepting the idea that one’s wife may not be attracted to him in the way or as powerfully as she is to other men, and perhaps even other men that she knows and interacts with personally; that given the right set of circumstances and rationalizations, a putatively heretofore faithful wife could submit physically to another man. It’s the prioritizing of comforting Blue Pill beliefs in which one is heavily invested over the cold, examined truth of female nature.
The same men who eschew the game body of knowledge* probably have wives who read all of the Gal rags (i.e., Cosmo) without the husband’s objection, in spite of the fact that nearly each one has some title story on the cover about how to psychologically/sexually manipulate men (google image search Cosmopolitan covers) in addition to makeup and beauty advice offered to make women look much better than in their natural state.
* I say “body of knowledge” to distinguish it from the strawman belief that game proposes a specific magical method to seduce women against their wills, rather than a means of understanding of the true desires of women originating in their limbic systems and motivating behavior that is wholly incongruous with their stated beliefs and desires.
I tell people that if things have not improved at home within 2 months of going to the bars (aka Dread Level 7) then you have a serious problem.
Not sure if he is at the level of poster child yet. Plenty of guys explode their marriage by cheating as they are pursuing Dread game. I think that is the biggest danger.
Mrs. Gamer has admitted that she holds grudges. She punishes, withdrawing sex. She admits that she doesn’t exhibit fruit of the Spirit. She has failed my nuclear loyalty test. Stick a fork in it, the marital turkey is done.
Your (soon-to-be-ex) wife sounds exactly like my STBX. She’s convinced that simply an admission of guilt, shortcomings, fault, or sin fully expiates it. No need to change the behavior that’s causing the problem, just as long as she recognizes that the problem exists, which should be sufficient. It’s not her fault and it’s no big deal because … well, just because (vagina, maybe?). And of course she’ll never fail to toss in some version of “you’re not perfect either, so how dare you judge me!”
Suffice it to say that I fully understand where you are right now. I also am fairly sure that, judging by the tone of your posts, you, like me, are hurting a lot less over the situation than STBX would like to believe.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/06/13/dont-blame-heartiste-for-the-equation-of-alpha-with-virtue/
hey heartsistetz! i am no longer blaming youz
lzlozolozozozozo
Dalrock writes, “It certainly is true that Heartiste measures the value of a man by the man’s ability to attract and bed women, as he explains in Defining the Alpha Male (link NSFW, emphasis mine):”
Actually, Hearstsites measures the value of a man by his ability to speak Truth.
For instance, Heartsietssz hlds JEsues and Newton in higher regard than da “bring da movies guys.”
However, Heartistes is pointing out the the Dalrock chruchians “Christsians need game” worship the “bring da movies” guy and gina t8inglizizlzlz while spitting on Christ and Moses.
Heartistes is foundationally more honest than Dalrock, but then Heartiste is not tasked with having to shoe-horn modern churchianity into Jesus’ bunghzolzizozlzo, like Dalrock is.
Hence Dalrock teaches “Christians need game,” while Heartsiets teaches, “If you have to game her, she proabbly isn’t a fan of JEsus and hence not very Christian.” lzozozlzozozlozlzol
The great Heartiste writes, “[CH: as has been mentioned here innumerable times: alpha does not necessarily mean admirable.
(the metapoint, btw, of the CH alpha formulation is to draw attention to the base, depraved, equally fallen nature of women’s sexuality.)]”
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/america-then-and-now-2/#comments
The funny thing has been watching Dalrock corrupt both the teachings of Christ, Moses, and Heartiste over the years.
But at least it seems that Dalrock is backing down a bit from his original tenet that “Christian men must learn game.” Or is he?
Alec Leamas @ 10:57 am:
“I think that Heartiste or Rollo might say that a woman will actually gladly want to be disciplined by a man whom she perceives as Alpha – there must be congruence between the man’s frame and his expectations.”
I mean discipline as in self-control, not Fifty Shades of Grey. America has enough fat, bald, pierced and tatted slutphone addicts for me to think most women are severely allergic to restraining their appetites. It makes sense that a man who does restrain himself would be kryptonite. Why would the glutton associate with the ascetic?
For all the effort they spend whoring after Alphas, women don’t do much to be seen even by them as long-term prospects.
I think this is indicative of the “Who’s the star of your movie?” theorem, which I think was framed by Heartiste. Modern Western women are so solipsistic that the cultural frame is that the relationship, marriage, etc. is hers and you just play a supporting role in it. She’s the Sandra Bullock/Julia Roberts/Kate Hudson character and you’re the accessory personified that completes the plot – you may not really be viewed as an autonomous human being with his own thoughts, emotions, and desires. If this is the case, you’re in her frame and she’s probably never going to amend her habits and behavior for you since you’re the accessory – it’s just not about you even when it involves important aspects of your emotional, economic, or intimate life. The script is set and its purpose is to deliver satisfaction and happiness to her even at the expense of others and innocents. By contrast, if you are the “star” of your movie as a man you can be judiciously altruistic and care for a woman’s best interests at the same time that you’re moving the “plot” forward – if she’s a character in your movie/frame, everyone’s needs and desires can be met since as a man you are capable of true empathy (which is distinguished from sympathy which is often a woman’s reaction to the discomfort that she feels from the pain of others).
She’s convinced that simply an admission of guilt, shortcomings, fault, or sin fully expiates it. No need to change the behavior that’s causing the problem, just as long as she recognizes that the problem exists, which should be sufficient.
In general, I have found that women do not actually apologize. “I’m sorry I made you angry” is not an apology, for example. Many women basically take a bandaid approach – “if I pretend that never happened in my mind maybe he’ll forget about it”. A more extreme version of this looks rather like gaslighting, i.e. “I never said that!” followed in time by “Well, I said it but I didn’t mean it the way you took it”, and so forth.
This can be seen in the whole altar-call thing, where Suzie Slutcheeks turns 30, decides to go before some church and cry real tears thereby earning a kind of erasure of her past.
Yes, I know NAWALT, but frankly I can count on one hand the number of genuine apologies received from women in the last few decades.
That’s the rationalization hamster at work. When she committed the offense, there was a good and compelling reason (no matter how self-serving or unreasonable in the cold light of day) while now circumstances have changed, at least externally, and magically so at the time when the offense is brought to the fore. When the controversy has ended, she’s preserved her right to make the same or similar mistakes since the prior circumstances or new circumstances may arise. As you may have surmised, this is an extravagant way of saying women want what they want when they want it and will get it if you allow them as they surely will allow it to themselves. Forgiveness is, of course, presumed even prior to the offense and future offenses. To the FI, all ethics are situational and there are no absolute prescriptions on a woman’s behavior.
I’ve found that women rarely act out of duty, but will act out of loyalty to a man whom she believes deserves it – if a man’s displeasure would displease her, she will act in such a way as to not displease him. The same women will begrudge her Beta husband the most minor of offenses while committing crimes for or with the Alpha badboy with whom she’s having an affair.
Reblogged this on Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar and commented:
The r-types would say that. 😉
A more extreme version of this looks rather like gaslighting, i.e. “I never said that!” followed in time by “Well, I said it but I didn’t mean it the way you took it”, and so forth.
I recently dealt with this, and in almost those exact phrase order.
When I was married, I didn’t confront it because I was supposed to forgive and not call her out and not judge and be the bigger man and not escalate fights and blah, blah, blah. She never got the tingles I think she sought by fighting.
Years come and go. Now? I’m mostly indifferent to her words, because I am closer to God and more content. Those words and actions were all a part of a larger manipulation to keep me engaged in her prime-time drama.
She remains in rebellion. She has no sense of contentment. She is ruled by emotions and only feels connection when she gets others to share those emotions. This, I think, is true of all sinners deep in rebellion with no real relationship with our Savior. They are in so much turmoil that only strong emotions can cut through the static and make some sort of bond. When I turned from God in my 20s, I was likewise ruled by emotions, leading to desires sparking powerful mental/emotional connections with others. Nothing good to show for all those tempests.
I honestly think she tries to start fights because a string of known pump and dumps (telling the gals about the latest guy who departs in less than a month) has left her pushed out of social circles, leaving me as the only man she can compel to talk, if only over child issues.
“greyghost
A wife believing her husband is tempted by other women is the essence of dread game. What that says is that she is attracted to him and thinks other women are too.”
A.R. “It’s preselection at work, not necessarily dread game, because he may be totally unaware of her anxiety. There’s various ways that can play out in a mongamous relationship, but “she works hard to be attractive to him” in tandem with “he acknowledges the temptation but can resist in large part because she’s always ready to satisfy him” would be a good outcome IMO.”
Right… but this is different from dread game in that it stems solely from her low self esteem and confidence in her husband, and a desire to be able to control his sin (life) by her own actions. I think I felt a touch of this right when I was first married, when I would ask my husband if he still ever felt tempted at times… and he when he said yes, I was crushed! I was so young though… and naive enough to think that somehow being a perfect (there is no perfect) wife could make his sin nature just disappear lol. But he calmly explained to me that it will always just “be there” but that it’s up to him whether he acts on it or not (lusting after someone is different from feeling initial temptation). And over the years it hasn’t been an issue at all because of how much we genuinely love each other, and he does say, it is a lot of how much I meet his needs and how much he loves me (deeply loves me). Trusting in that love is hard when you’re first married, or if you never have learned how to develop security or your own self worth in Christ.
Anonymous Reader has it right… the best scenario that comes from this is that a wife “works hard to be attractive to him” and “he acknowledges the temptation but can resist in large part because she’s always ready to satisfy him” …but this only works if a wife is able to be confident that no matter what her husband chooses to do (or if he fails because he’s human), that it’s not a real reflection of her worth as a wife or woman.
@ BLuepillprofessor:
“Game is about getting girls and turning them on. You most certainly CAN do everything right in life EXCEPT know how to turn girls on. On the other hand, it is rare to do very wrong things and not turn at least some girls on.”
Thanks for that, BPP.
Like I have said, I know a lot, A LOT, of men like this. Men who should be absolutely doing great with women. They have, they are, everything these girls say they want. These aren’t dudebros fresh out of school living in 100-year old houses with six other roommates and working at BigBoxRetailStore as the night stock crew. These aren’t dickbag deadbeats with no steady income.
They look good, in good shape, dress well. They have educations and jobs; some have advanced degrees and work in the traditional professions. They have money. They have places of their own (some even own their own houses), tastefully and appropriately furnished. They have their own cars and They aren’t video-game playing basement dwellers. They aren’t idiots, creeps, freaks, or weirdos. They suffer from no mental disorders of which I’m aware and have no glaring physical deformities. One has a receding hairline.
And yet, these guys can’t generate ANY Interest. At all. None. They don’t lament about it; they just sort of accept it. It’s “just how it is, man.” Most of them have resigned themselves to living life without marriage, ever; and even if they do marry, they have sworn off kids.
I just cannot be the only guy in the whole world who’s seeing this among younger men, 22-35.
Anchorman, Deti, others may find this to be of interest:
https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/12/06/how-to-apologize-effectively-responsibility-restitution-repentance-5/
Maybe “exegetical preaching” is what you’re looking for.
Yes, deti. That is the word I was looking for. Thank you. Not sure how I forgot something so basic.
Anyway, There are lots of articles online which explore the pros and cons of both expositional and exegetical preaching. I think expositional preaching caters to feminine sensibilities. We tend to like anecdotes, things that make the Scripture feel more as if we can relate, etc. There is an inherent danger in that, as evidenced by this thread. The tendency to conflate emotions with Biblical spirituality. I also notice that my husband is usually not as engaged by that as I am. I had to train myself to appreciate exegetical teaching, but I appreciate it immensely now.
The great thing about Dr. McGee and preachers like him is that it is possible to teach exegetically and present truths simply and even in ways that people can understand and relate to. It just so happens that there is a demand placed on you that only a strict following of the Word can produce. The two styles need not be mutually exclusive.
Switching gears:
but this only works if a wife is able to be confident that no matter what her husband chooses to do (or if he fails because he’s human), that it’s not a real reflection of her worth as a wife or woman.
If a woman can feel un-threatened an not question her value as a wife regardless of what her husband does, hats off to her. She certainly should not and can not own his sin, but if he offers insight or acts in a way that suggests she needs to reassess what she’s doing, being overly confident can create a real problem for her.
I’m sure that’s not what you meant Dragonfly, but in our “you go girl!” culture, there are a lot of wives wearing a heck of a lot of irrational confidence which blinds them to the reality of what it’s like for their husband to live with them day in and day out. So you kind of have to say those things that should go without saying.
TFH:
I’m not willing to attribute DeNihilist’s remarks to bad faith. I think he just occupies a different mindset which is the product of a different era. He might be seeing the same things through a markedly different prism.
Maybe DeNihilist is right that Beta’s get more sex – even if they do not get the thrill of the chase. I, as a Game Afficianado and Man-about Town get far less sex than my married Beta friend – perhaps i am doing it all wrong. Last year ago but one, Krauser slept with twenty-seven new women. That is very impressive – for a man – but pails into insignificance when compared to what a young married-man – or even a married guy in his late thirties – might expect, and the married man does not have to spend his valuable free time pursuing and stalking his prey. Certainly, one of the reasons that men like a steady relationship is the likelihood of exclusive sex on a regular basis with the woman of their choice.
By adopting Game, Krauser avoids the bitter disappointment that accompanied the collapse of his marriage, and of course it also gives him a hobby.
This is something every man 12 and up needs to know and understand. If judges and politicians new this and actually gave a damn about advancing civilization we wouldn’t be suffering this slow death by feminine imperative.
TFH – Interesting point about AI and FI. Maybe the Japanese grass eaters know something we don’t!
GG do not forget, that not too long ago, at the age of 12, most societies had a ritual to welcome boys into their masculinity. Of course if we still had that going today, you know that somewhere there would be a court case going on trying to open it up to 12 year old girls.
DeNihilist
We still do 12 is the age a male child with a mother seeking shelter at a battered woman’s shelter the male child is not allowed in and is sent to foster care or juvenile hall. I don’t think there will be a push for girls on that one.
AR, Dragonfly
A woman working to be attractive for her husband is good behavior for all. Regardless of the reason. She feels fear and dread, or she has a sense of duty (VERY UNLADY LIKE) to her husband and marriage, Out of pure kindness or out of pure wicked competition with other women so what. It doesn’t matter what she thinks or says she thinks it is what she is doing. Either way that is a woman that is loved and rates it. We call them wives.
“Actually real virtue is Chivalry. The mark of the True man is the ability to tame his lusts and control his desires.”
Amen, brother. The Roissy and ROK acolytes are predators to the salvation of Jesus Christ.
“If you’re not passing your seed on, it’s about as important as satisfaction coming from a bowel movement.”
Another amen! Pumping and dumping is an affront to the word of God.
“Given a choice a woman will always take a serpent over a Christian man.”
That serpent is anti-Christian manosphere.
thedeti,
Your tale of the “great guys” you know that can’t get a date is running close to the “79 year old knockout” meme that appeared in another thread here. Something’s missing.
Certainly in that cohort, 35 and under, men who have “sworn off kids” are going to see reduced interest. If there’s also no interest in single/divorced moms, more women are going to drop out. That leaves women that are sure they don’t want kids, and women who are going to sleep with these guys because the guys are just so fabulous. A small number of men attract that sort of interest from women on a regular basis.
Thanks, Dalrock. It’s been a very busy few months for me.
What Mohler, Fireproof, etc. are pushing has it’s origins in our culture of Chivalric love. The whole premise of Chivalric love inverts the God ordained relationship between men and women. i.e. The Knight becomes the servant of his lady instead of her master. Chivalry also set up the notion that female satisfaction is the basis of relationship legitimacy. There is a very good discussion of this phenomenon over at Henry Dampier’s a while back. The comments by Izak are very good. Needless to say, I regard the whole “Chivalric” approach as a load of rubbish.
I would argue that this, along with a wife submitting as instructed in 1 Pet 3 (among others) and keeping herself sexually pure would naturally create a very healthy sexual attraction from the wife to the husband.
The problem is that empirical observation refutes this. Many women chafe at submitting to a man who fails to exercise leadership. The problem isn’t female dominance, it’s male subservience. A lot of the female dominance in society is due a power vacuum caused by an absence of manly men. One of the key insights of Game is that women submit willingly in the presence of alpha males. The lack of submission may be due to a lack of alpha.
The problem with simply asserting that women “have to submit” under the pain of sin is a religious form of beta affirmative action. Secondly, recent empirical evidence has confirmed what common sense would dictate, i.e. that forcing women to have sex with undesirable men habituates them to a sensation of disgust with the act. Arousal is a necessary precondition and no matter how you cut it, the tingles matter.
The more I’ve thought about this matter the more convinced I am that marital failure (in our society) is a symptom of something more profound. Firstly, marriage is now framed in a culture where the God ordained power dynamic is inverted through the tradition of Chivalric love and secondly, there is a failure of both masculinity and femininity. i.e. the sexual polarities have become burred. Christian men, specifically, have lost their balls and their “hardness”.
A huge reason for the blurring of sexual polarities lays primarily in ascetic tradition of Christianity which drove a wedge between flesh and spirit, seeing them as two separate things. Hence only the “spirit” matters and the “body” is irrelevant. This leads to absurd notions that a man is manly only insofar in his compliance with the Commandments but without any reference to classical notions of masculinity such as “hardness”, physical strength and prowess, “executive function”, indifference to pain, civic engagement etc. Likewise, women could be good women without any reference to any of the classical notions of femininity. i.e. beauty.
Yet, our “physicality matters”. Gluttony, for example, is a sin which directly impinges upon the physical nature of the person. Deliberately chosen fatness is a physical manifestation of sin. Also, St Paul is quite clear that the effeminate (malakoi)don’t get a foot into heaven. Our physical state is a manifestation of our moral selves. I think the reason why many people find the notion of “hotness” as a virtue bizarre is simply because they’ve been conditioned to think that our moral selves are separate from our physical beings.
What the tingles point to is a primeval notion (in a woman) of what it means to be a man. Ignoring the tingles leads to a notion of masculinity that is more a philosophical speculation rather than something grounded in reality.
@ Striver
Most of the men in the 20-35 age range who can’t get women are:
1. Works odd jobs with no ambition and may or may not have a clue about women.
2. Have a good job but don’t know how to interact with women.
I assume deti is mostly talking about #2. Usually all of them are not being mentored and have no clue what masculinity is. They’re soft and give up easily. They put women on a pedestal.
From what I’ve seen most of the men in that age group get to around 30ish or so and then tend to “fall” into relationship with a post-wall woman. It’s pretty disgusting.
Most of the churches I’ve been to are either low or middle socioeconomic status. You don’t see much of the issue with the rich though because marriage is status to them. Breaking apart the family is generally bad juju. This is the problem with men or women who marry for “love” that are rich if they don’t know anything about the opposite sex: the get frivorced.
For lower class you just get suppored by the government. No big deal.
Middle class is where a bunch of the divorce happen as well and they don’t see it makes them fall into the poverty zone. It’s sad.
Slumlord said:
It sounds like you’re saying a woman can’t submit to a marshmallow!
@ Slumlord
Masculinity is more than just interaction with women, but interaction with women is definitely a part of masculinity. This is what I agree with Denihilist on.
In general, the “backbone” or “hardness” or “balls” of men come from how they interact with men and how iron sharpens iron. This is seen in how men and women socialize with each other which I have discussed before.
https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/the-socialization-of-men-and-women/
1. The tendency of women’s socialization is to agree with each other and validate each other.
2. The tendency of men’s socialization is to be critical, challenging, ribbing, teasing, and mock insulting of each other.
Now, men who are not deceived or deluded into thinking that women are some “special snowflake” and you “have to treat her right” (or whatever that means) display their masculinity with women as well. They will be critical of her, challenge her, rib her, tease her, and mock insult her just like he does with any other man. Consequently, this makes said man who is able to socialize with women as he does with men attractive to this woman in general. He is outcome independent, not needy, doesn’t put her on a pedestal, etc etc.
Generally speaking, this is why men need to have good relationships with men and mentors because we spur each other on in that way. Thus, a man who develops his masculinity with other men has a spillover effect to women where he acts like a man around them as well.
I am anti-game because it’s basically learning to ape masculinity specifically in regard to masculinized women which often requires more brute forcing than with more feminine women. A significant part is also morally questionable. Game is specifically short sighted in regard to development of men as men not in the context of women. Men are better off learning how to be masculine from other men and mentors and then applying their masculinity in the context of women.
@ Slumlord, Lena S
Disagreed here though. Eph 5 and 1 Peter 3 say otherwise. This is important because it grounds a wife’s obedience to God not just to her husband.
Those in joyful submission to God will be able to be in joyful submission to earthly authorities even when treated poorly. And it’s not like Christian husbands are going to be more tyrannical than say governmental authorities. That thought is laughable.
Grounding submission and obedience to God is important specifically because it makes aspects of marriage like sex unconditional. Unconditionality is extremely important in the context of the Christian faith. If such things were conditional, then “sex” like “chores” and other things that both spouses may not want to do become bargaining chips in marriage. That is to say that things that are conditional can be commodified and weaponized into ultimatums: “I’ll only have sex with you IF you do housework.”
This is the same problematic issue with Mohler’s statement in the OP:
Conditionalizing submission and obedience creates sex as commodity which can be traded or weaponized for selfish gain which is what usually happens.
This is why Agape love is held as the standard for Christians through the Holy Scriptures. It is unconditional. That which is unconditional is devoid of selfish expectations and gain. Therefore, things such as sex are purely about unity and bonding which is what Jesus’ prayer for believers in John 17 is about.
Deep Strength – “2. The tendency of men’s socialization is to be critical, challenging, ribbing, teasing, and mock insulting of each other.”
Completely agree! Leaving on Thursday for our men only annual fishing trip, 25th anniversary!
This is exactly what most of us look forward to, taking the piss out of each other. We have all been friends since at least high school, some since birth. We go, we fish, we drink, and we laugh our faces off, best time evah!
Never thought of it in this sense, a way to grow our masculinity. Great insight!
I think the reason why many people find the notion of “hotness” as a virtue bizarre is simply because they’ve been conditioned to think that our moral selves are separate from our physical beings.
It has nothing to do with conditioning, Slumlord, and has everything to do with simple theology. It’s un-Christian to declare something people have little control over to be a virtue. Height, bone structure, facial features, breast size, butt size, hair length, hereditary traits in general – humans have no control over any of that.
Let’s suppose I start an alternative Christian cult and declare that being brown-eyed is a virtue. What would you say about that?
By the way, Slumlord, it’d be nice if you finally stopped simply assuming what the viewpoints of your detractors are.
Is the thrill of “ruining” a “good girl” part of the appeal? Yes for some PUAs it is a major factor, particularly if you include group hate in the game. I have heard these types bragging. You can hurt a man worse by harming his daughter than ruining his property.
I don’t really know what hope there is for the average man to be masculine, dominant, in contemporary society. If Russell Wilson couldn’t keep his woman faithful, what shot do I have?
With sex a freely traded commodity, women just have such a huge head start it’s hopeless. Except for the naturals and the apex alphas, by the time the average guy gets a job, some money, some social skills, etc. the women who should be his peers are single moms or have had multiple relationships. Our average man is in a poor position to dominate these women. They won’t have it. They have their own jobs, their own homes, and he is going to be an equal partner. At best. This is for the reasonably attractive women, the women that the average man rightly feels make an equally attractive couple at this point in time. The problem being is the average man has to learn a trade, learn social skills, learn psych, and the average women has to have a functional vagina. That’s what free trade sexuality does to relationships.
The inexperienced women peers at that point are nerdball women, and the nerdball women have plenty of nerdball men to pick from. Yes, average man has his pick of used up women when he is in his 40s and above. What a treat.
Lena S,
It sounds like you’re saying a woman can’t submit to a marshmallow!
Sort of. A woman can submit to a marshmallow by compulsion; either social, religious or legal, but the problem is that this form of submission will be associated with an involuntary sensation of disgust if the man is unworthy. Her flesh will be in rebellion to this state of affairs and it is a great way to ensure sexless or sexually torpid marriages. A good Christian girl will stick to her man no matter what, but she cannot will desire. Her “Cross” is a beta. Desire is an emotional response to a stimulus and in the absence of an appropriate stimulus no desire will exist. She may stick at the marriage because of her love of God but her flesh will be in rebellion.
@Deep Strength
Those in joyful submission to God will be able to be in joyful submission to earthly authorities even when treated poorly.
Let’s cut it with the “Colgate” Jesus; all toothy and smiles when being kicked the guts. Christ didn’t go to the Crucifixion singing a jingle! The whole point of the Cross was that it sucked but he took it for a greater good, but to demand that the crucifixion was joy for Christ is…..wow……just wow.
You also fail to grasp the extent of the problem. It isn’t about husbands being tryannical, too many men won’t step up to the plate and exert any authority whatsoever letting the woman be in charge of everything. A lot of the contemporary assertion of female authority is due to a power vacuum due to “wussy” men.
Men are better off learning how to be masculine from other men and mentors and then applying their masculinity in the context of women.
In some aspects yes and in others no. The mechanisms of desire are part of human nature and thus ordained by God. The nature of one aspect of male perfection is in reflected in the nature of female desire, likewise female perfection is reflection in the desire of man. Hypergamy has implications with regard to the nature of masculinity. Regarding it as irrelevant is succumbing to Neo-Platonic Christianism.
@AR
>So for those who choose to look for a church, would you consider this type of preaching a plus, or even a requirement? So far the list over the years includes : no women preachers / no women teaching Sunday School to men. Add this type of preaching to the list?
The term I learned was, “expository preaching”. It is supposed to include examining and understanding the Scriptures, examining and understanding the audience, providing real-world life applications appropriate to the audience and exhorting the listeners to action.
This type of preaching is not a guarantee of Biblical teaching however. The preacher can examine the Scriptures, ignore the parts he does not like, twist the rest into something invalid, and then give the application based on his invalid points.
Prior church I was at claimed to have expository preaching, but the preacher missed half the training for it. He only examined the Scriptures. He made no effort I noticed to examine the audience and provide applications to where they were. Gunner addressed this perfectly:
Gunner said:
>Mostly now I look for relevant preaching. Plenty of pastors will go through the Bible’s minutiae rather than address the divorce rate and the average Americans’ irresponsible lifestyles. The best way to learn a Bible passage is understanding how it’s relevant to your life.
Gunner said:
>I also look at who the guest preachers are. If they’re in-church laymen or elder board, okay; if pastor brings in outside pastors to sub for him then he has failed the Great Commission’s mandate of discipleship.
Thank you for pointing this out. I have been thinking about this exact issue for the last month or so. Preachers who keep a congregation of hundreds, in my opinion, are failing to raise up leaders. There is no reason to think a church of 200 has only one man qualified per the lists in Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Tim 3. Or could not raise up more if the effort were made, and the “boss man” was willing to release his death-grip on his control over the group.
Why does the preacher want to keep all of “his” congregants? Does he truly think he can know this large group and effectively give life applications to all?
Why not raise up new leaders, and split into smaller groups?
This line of reasoning also ties into the “full-time religious professional for life” attitude. I like Paul’s example of both taking support and not taking support.
@TFH
>Furthermore, his grammar uses the apostrophe incorrectly… This indicates that he is from a non-English speaking country
Actually, most Americans and Canadians do not know how to write or speak in a grammatically correct manner. (I am now desperately checking my sentence to ensure I have not made a grammatical error myself, thus exposing myself to humiliation and shame 🙂 )
I have had to look up apostrophe usage several times when writing academic papers.
@Striver
>Yes, [the] average man has his pick of used up [or otherwise unworthy] women when he is in his 40s and above. What a treat.
I would love to argue with you on that, but unfortunately:
+1
I will argue the implication that he had plenty of great gals to choose from when younger. I have been active in (man-made) churches since about age 7. I can think of … … 8 women that I at least vaguely knew, who I thought may have been properly trained for marriage. Out of many hundreds (thousands?).
Good luck with those odds. Oh, and those 8 include women who were not physically attractive to me; I am not overlooking them.
@Slumlord
Yes, that is the conclusion that 7man and I have come to as well.
Your response to Deep Strength is spot on too. LOL at “Colgate Jesus”! This part of his (DS) comment made me laugh:
Those in joyful submission to God will be able to be in joyful submission to earthly authorities even when treated poorly.
Have you seen the numerous “good Christian ladies” that assert their control in most aspects of church leadership, whether Catholic or Protestant? The old ladies are typically the most formidable obstacle to any inclinations of reform by that Pastor/Priest.
Submission to God leads to submission to earthly authorities?? … MY ASS.
Dragonfly says:
June 16, 2015 at 3:17 am
“… no matter how good you are to him, how sexually attractive or available, how virtuous or godly, he will always have the propensity for temptation”.
…True. However, this is where a man with a moral centre is a necessity. I have been a Christian man for my entire adult life. I have been married for 25 years. For the first half of that I lived in marital bliss, until my wife decided she needed to go “existential” (also known as Eat Pray Love). Thankfully she didn’t go so far as to break up our marriage.
I was patient and accommodating as a dutiful then-Blue Piller is expected to be. This is until I found out that NOTHING was good enough. It was during this time that, again and again, I was tempted to have a sexual relationship outside of marriage. The only thing that stopped me was my Christian moral centre. I could get away with an affair quite easily (I was travelling a lot for work then), but God would know. He would see.
This is why it is of paramount importance for a woman to select a man with an active Christian faith as a husband. As a man, he will think like a man, feel like a man and be tempted like a man even while he has the responsibilities and obligations of a man in marriage. So temptations will come and while he is not responsible for his feelings due to his male nature, he is responsible for their indulgence. Those feelings can be recognised, and then denied expression as an act of service to God.
Perhaps this can show women here an insight as to why it is so important to not deny or weaponise sex toward husbands, as is condemned in the Bible. A man already has enough conflict with his sexuality to deal with.
“Christ didn’t go to the Crucifixion singing a jingle!’
You mean it didn’t happen like this?! LOL, sorry couldn’t resist some humor.
@ Slumlord, Lena S
1. Your theology is off. We’re not talking human emotions here. We’re talking fruits of the Spirit. And yes, He did:
Hebrews 12:1 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 [a]fixing our eyes on Jesus, the [b]author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
As did Stephen, the first martyr:
Acts 7:54 When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, 56 and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” 57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; 58 and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
I hope that part of my comment that made you laugh taught you something because it’s the truth. It is exactly how wives are to submit to unbelieving husbands as explicated in 1 Peter 3.
2. You are correct about the fact that husbands need to act the part of headship. Many do not, even though they are. I would go further than that and say that husbands should be willing to admonish, rebuke, and potentially impose consequences as necessary.
Dear Slumlord:
Great comments here (whether I agree with them or not, they’re clearly well considered).
I have had occasion to see old married women behave. These women, who surely felt that their husbands were weak and/or weak-minded ninnies at some point, managed to regain their attraction and respect somehow.
I’m convinced that the culture of yesteryear, which expected people to maintain fidelity to their vows, helped such women in times of indecision. In short, most women would regain respect for their husbands if divorce weren’t so f00kin’ easy. Remember that as late as the 1940s, it was fairly common for family court judges to tell impudent whiners “no, you can’t get a divorce, now go back home or I will send you to jail for a week.”
There is a lot of advice here for women who feel their husbands are too soft, and I believe many women will find old wisdom on blogs like these to increase their desire for their husbands — probably without him even knowing it. Such a woman can softly encourage him to take the lead, and practice submission, subtly encouraging him to be dominant in the family relationship.
Long story short, women can control their desires. It’s not a switch that you can flip, perhaps, but with work, I believe history backs me up in the theory that women have more control in this regard than they may think.
Best,
Boxer
Dear Grey Ghost:
Totally agree. I find it reasonable to believe that husbands probably fall out of lust with their wives, or think “I can do better” at one point or another, too. This is probably a natural thing, but it is acting on it that is bad news.
If you are treating your spouse well, fucking him/her good, and not giving any lip, then you’re way ahead of most people. Your own insecurities are your problem, and you should deal with them personally, not bring them up to screw up the marriage.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2015/06/17 | Free Northerner
HELP! Husband is cheating
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=965246
Getting used to being married
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=963229
Lena,
Submission to God leads to submission to earthly authorities??
The women you note were not submitted to God. That is the starting requirement. They had probably fooled many, but they were not following His commands.
The problem with simply asserting that women “have to submit” under the pain of sin is a religious form of beta affirmative action.
And to not do so is to go against the teachings in the Bible. It’s basically just another “get out of a difficult situation free” card that women can use to disrespect (or worse) their husbands with.
So what. Good behavior is good behavior. Her “happiness” doesn’t matter. She is behaving as a proper wife. Even it you choose to make it a concern what you have done is make an argument for a Christian man to learn some “game”. It used to be civilization and culture of the society would direct women to behave in such a way for their own interest. Women don’t actually behave that way and never did unless the culture (church), and laws of the society demanded it of her.
This basically goes back to the arguement from the other thread about wives submitting to their husbands in everything. The feminists want to sit in judgement over their husbands and decide if his instructions should be obeyed. Now we have the same basic question, “who decides”. So I ask, who decides when the husband is leading properly or not? Who decides when he is too “beta” and not enough “alpha”? The woman? Her tingles?
I have some more questions. Do all women respond the same way to the similar amounts of “alphaness” or does each woman require a different standard to be met?
Can one woman’s “milktoast” be another woman’s stud? If not, what is the standard that each man must meet? If so and the too much “beta” man has found himself married to the “I need more alpha” woman, is it up to him to produce enough “alphaness” to appease her baser instincts, or does the woman have some responsibility in keeping her vows inspite of this complication?
greyghost says:
June 17, 2015 at 2:06 am
Yep!
Of course the flesh is in rebellion. The flesh is at war with the spirit.
Re: the guys who have “everything going for them” but still can’t get girlfriends — usually it’s one of these issues that’s holding them back:
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-you-dont-have-wifegirlfriend.html
I’d guess #1 (passivity), #3 (eagerness) and #7 (anxiety) are probably the most common.
@JDG
I also think that men are not always just “alpha” or “beta”. They might have moments of more alpha behaviour and moments of beta behaviour.
A wife must decide why she is submitting to her husband – is it because it is fun and easy to submit to him (for now)? Is it because there will be negative consequences if she doesn’t? Or is it because she has been saved by God’s grace and wants to obey Him?
I choose the latter, and I find that sometimes submission is fun and flirty, and sometimes it is only possible with heartache and prayer.
@Opus “Last year ago but one, Krauser slept with twenty-seven new women. That is very impressive – for a man – but pails into insignificance when compared to what a young married-man – or even a married guy in his late thirties – might expect, and the married man does not have to spend his valuable free time pursuing and stalking his prey. ”
If a guy just wants regular sex and is happy to get it from the same woman over a long period of time, then monogamy suits just fine. I do think it’s a very odd comparison to make to a player getting new notches though. Player’s clearly are NOT about just maximising the total number of sex acts.
It’s like a guy watching the same DVD every night saying he’s in a “better at movies” than a guy going to the cinema every weekend to see something new, just because he has more total time spent watching (the same) movie and doesn’t have to “go out chasing the movie”.
It’s a common ego defence in non-players to frame their own relationship as having some combination of better sex / higher quality woman / deeper connection / greater devotion in order to still feel superior in the SMP to the players. They desperately want to be better at SOMETHING in the one-upmanship. It’s simply not true. Most players – certainly myself and the ones I know – can pick and choose from our notches for a serious relationship. Banging the girl the first time is the hard part. Letting her stick around is easy. Normally I keep my favourites on a non-exclusive rotation for about 2 years (after that, they seem to drift away and seek monogamy).
It just all whiffs of ego defence to me. Players are blatantly crushing them in the SMP competition by all possible metrics, so they invent some nonsensical metrics (which they don’t win on either) so they still feel like a winner. It’s like Rollo said “making a virtue out of scarcity”.
I’m not saying players are winning at life. Life is so much more than banging women. But they are definitely winning at SMP and it’s silly to pretend otherwise. I’m certainly not arguing my lifestyle is virtuous or to be recommended. I’m quite aware that my moral code is vastly different to that of Dalrock and his commentariat. I feel the need to put my oar in because it’s too easy to maintain pretty lies without an outside challenge.
‘Make no mistake, at the most fundamental level the CRUX of a man’s worth is measured by his desirability to women, whether he chooses to play the game or not.’
No. This is our worth:
‘For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.’ John 3: 16-17
‘But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.’ Romans 5:8
Hm, here’s how to solve this problem ladies. Don’t marry a man you cannot submit to. If a man is your husband or father, submit to him.
That is all! The rest of the justification for being rebellious whores can fuck off now! Thanks.
tl;dr GBFM excises the Song of Solomon (Game) from the Bible.
Hey Dalrock, have you seen news of Molly Shattuck’s conviction of statutory rape of a 15 year old boy?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ex-ravens-cheerleader-pleads-guilty-to-rape/ar-AAbGilz?ocid=iehp
The article opens with, “GEORGETOWN, Del. — Baltimore socialite and former Ravens cheerleader Molly Shattuck pleaded guilty to statutory rape Tuesday, admitting in a few brief words to an affair with a 15-year-old boy — a plea that leaves her branded as a felon and a sex offender.“
The way it reads, it’s as if her being branded as a sex offender was the unfortunate circumstance of catching a cold.
That’s the rationalization hamster at work. When she committed the offense, there was a good and compelling reason (no matter how self-serving or unreasonable in the cold light of day) while now circumstances have changed, at least externally, and magically so at the time when the offense is brought to the fore.
“He cheated because he’s an asshole. I cheated because I was confused.”
Krauser dude,
Get some professional help. You’re angry ‘cuz you got hurt. No one here cares that you are “conquering” all of these “notches.”
@ Slumlord
A woman can submit to a marshmallow by compulsion; either social, religious or legal, but the problem is that this form of submission will be associated with an involuntary sensation of disgust if the man is unworthy.
You forget Stockholm Syndrome. When a woman submits to a beta, her hamster will rationalize why the man is worthy of her submission. Hence, desire will follow submission.
Striver, quit being a douchebag.
Neat how that works
So after grokking Deti’s description of the good betas’ (for you TFH), for the last day, it appears to me that some of the planks of game theory are a bit wonky. These gentlemen lift, live for themselves, are in decent to good jobs, etc. Yet the women scorn them. Why?
I can only think of 2 big reasons, either not very physically attractive or just totally inept approaching new ladies.
So that leaves a couple, maybe 3 strategies on the table. If physically good looking, learn IOI game (this was my main one), let the ladies know you are available, and let them COME to you. This leads sometimes to aggressive women who can be fun in bed, but not a good choice for a mate. It also can lead to a real sweetheart who summons the courage to make the first move. These girls can be good LTR candidates. This type of game is best played in what I call similar social situations – SSS. This is where you join a co-ed sports team, a club , or other interest that appeals to you, Right off the bat, you have a commonality that allows you to have something to talk about. I met my wife this way, playing co-ed softball. This is a more beta form of game, and will feel more comfortable for the majority of men. By being around the girls in a social situation and interacting with them, you will get noticed.
The other form for the not physically attractive is based on Krauser’s style. This is a much harder form of game to learn as you must grow a very thick skin and learn to let the 90 – 98% rejection ratio not affect your psyche at all. Most men eventually get damaged in this form of game (see rooshie, who admits as much and is now trying to find a way back). But if persistent, you can bed women, you just keep on opening until you find one that likes your type. If your looking for an LTR don’t know if this is the path to follow, as Nick above admits that most women he keeps in his harem leave within 2 years. This is a better fit for the clubs or spring break style events, or if you get really thick skin, day game. Just watch out for jealous husbands who like to hunt.
The last strategy, which a couple of my friends chose, was MGTOW. They said to hell with the BS and just live the way they want to. Own their own homes, etc. Hardest form of game there is for the majority of men.
It is sad, but the other thing that must be state, is if you want to have a sex life, and you are one of Deti’s Guys (DG’S), then you will have to learn a couple of things, the woman/women you end up with will most likely be used goods. You have to decide whether or not they are good enough for a LTR. The other thing that I highly recommend, is learn how to be really good in bed. Learn what gets a woman off, for it is in this part of the relationship that you can actually appear to be alfalfa. Rooshie has many times admitted that he doesn’t care if he gets the lady off or not, he is fine with just satisfying hisself. If you can get your woman off in a consistent way, she will see you as alfalfa.
Kinda ties in nicely with the whole thing this post is about dontcha think?
I love how everyone here ignored the teachings of not only Jesus, but of the Great Heartiste I shared above:
“The great Heartiste writes, “[CH: as has been mentioned here innumerable times: alpha does not necessarily mean admirable.
(the metapoint, btw, of the CH alpha formulation is to draw attention to the base, depraved, equally fallen nature of women’s sexuality.)]””
lzozozolozoz
“You forget Stockholm Syndrome.”
So you hafta tie her up for a couple of months whence you first get married?
🙂
BIt just all whiffs of ego defence to me. Players are blatantly crushing them in the SMP competition by all possible metrics, so they invent some nonsensical metrics (which they don’t win on either) so they still feel like a winner. It’s like Rollo said “making a virtue out of scarcity”.
I understand what you’re saying. There’s a fair element of truth to it.
If a man judges his place among men solely on notch counts, Players rank high.
You don’t place a high value on God’s plan for you and don’t fully appreciate the mindset of other men who see the temptations of the world and take actions to resist or remove them. The more you work toward being a godly man (such as marrying earlier, having children, serving God), the more content you become.
This is not delusion. The men who put their energy toward that goal are closer to God, have stripped away or pulled back daily interference, are feel more of God’s presence in their lives.
It’s not automatic and it can fade away if there isn’t constant maintenance.
In my life, I’ve been closer and further from God. He’s talked to me. Not verbally. It’s more of a near physical “push,” that I’ve felt. Those “pushes” have felt differently and if I meditate, I discern or get a better understanding of what He said.
Have you put in the work to build a relationship with God? And when you reach that level of relationship when the Creator, the Alpha, the Omega, reaches out and not only recognizes you, but calls you to do something for Him…it is unlike anything I’ve ever experienced.
If you’re looking to score life by notch counts, you’re missing out on 99% of the human experience and 100% of what God has planned for you. You think those guys can’t possibly have it better, because they don’t score well on metrics. It’s very likely they aren’t delusional. They aren’t convincing themselves their misery is actually bliss. If they’re closer to where God wants them, they are closer to God. If they are closer to God, the world’s temporary pleasures lose luster. Seriously. And when God makes an unmistakable presence in your life, you’re never the same again.
Hm, here’s how to solve this problem ladies. Don’t marry a man you cannot submit to. If a man is your husband or father, submit to him.
Yep! Women in western cultures have it easy in this regard. They can choose whom they are going to marry. When these words were put down on papyrus and circulated around the Roman empire, many folks, inluding Christian, didn’t have the final say (if any) on who they married. Yet these words were written for them too.
Our average man is in a poor position to dominate these women. They won’t have it. They have their own jobs, their own homes, and he is going to be an equal partner. At best.
Don’t forget their greatest ace(s) in the hole….the government and the court system.
Anchorman says:
June 17, 2015 at 9:49 am
Well said.
“Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ” – Phil 3:8.
“For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Matt 16:26-27.
kpua,
That is not true at all. Marriage to a single wife is nothing like watching a single movie, even if you count the multiple parts of something like Lord of the Rings. A long term marriage has a lot more variation.
Though seeing a new movie each night can also get quite old, especially as you realize all the plots are the same.
You should look in the mirror a bit. You are caught in that yourself.
But they are definitely winning at SMP and it’s silly to pretend otherwise.
They are only winning if you make “sex with lots of women” the standard. They are not living a more fulfilled life. They have built no relationships for the long run, as just one example. They will also face the ultimate Judge in the future and His standard does not value what they are pursuing.
Sin is pleasurable for a season, but it really bites in the end, even if that end is quite delayed.
It seems like your viewpoint has the wrong focus. You may want to back off your focus a bit and see that the world contains a lot more than the small bit of things you see. Turn your binoculars around and see the bigger scope. Then the position you scorn would have a lot more merit.
I overheard my husband, just the other day, teaching my son, in the process of vetting a woman, how to test for her response to his inevitable “marshmallow” moments. Like BUDS and the men who ring the bell, it’s best to know who would quit on you before making such a huge commitment. “There may be times when your wife might have to tie your shoes. Make sure she’s up for the task.”
And, no, tying shoes does not represent a unique and special circumstance that few men will go through – No 50 year marriage has ever existed without a period (periods?) of time that the husband has needed a helpmeet to “tie his marshmallow self’s shoes.”
“For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Matt 16:26-27.
Basically what profit does a man get trading his greatest treasure for objects?
The objectification of humans or turning humans into animals is the revelation of a person with a soul that is dead in sin. Only Jesus brings life the soul needs.
Dear Brad A:
Thanks for being one of the few people to offer a cogent rebuttal. All this namecalling in here has me thinking I wandered into Jezebel or Feministing by mistake.
If Krauser is honest, he’ll admit to the fact that banging sluts (even “virgin” sluts) is boring too. You go out, go through the same tired script at the same dismal nightclub, take an insolent and halfwitted pretty face home, fuck her, show her the door, repeat.
Married dudes that I have seen (including many on this board) have an adventure that will never be available to men like Krauser (and me too). Raising up kids who will carry on your name and hold your values seems much more exciting, in many ways, than going through the Friday night routine down at the dance hall.
Regards,
Boxer
Dear Krauser:
I’m glad you stopped by.
It seems like you’re playing the same Freudian displacement game, no? Your own work (and my own success in this area, despite my mediocre salary, dumb okie appearance, and pinky sized micropenis) suggests that any man can bang lots of women. The chicks are sorta like vending machines after a while. How is this a greater accomplishment than marrying one chick, bonding with her, and building a lifetime of memories?
Is it not the case that game gets old after a while? For a while, I started singing: Meet the new ho’, same as the old ho’ (apologies to Daltrey and Townshend).
As Heidegger (the last Catholic philosopher) reminds us godless types, nothing means anything. Meaning erupts in the making of it, for oneself. With this in mind, it doesn’t make sense to suggest that your meaning is more meaningful than Brad A.’s meaning. It’s entirely subjective. With that, maybe we should all just agree to disagree, and quit with the pretense of objectivity.
Regards,
Boxer
@ earl
I would say this is our identity:
Romans 8:12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— 13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you [f]must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery [g]leading to fear again, but you have received [h]a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.
‘As Heidegger (the last Catholic philosopher) reminds us godless types, nothing means anything.’
Nothing can have moments of destructive excitement which is why some people are drawn to it…but there is no foundation, meaning, or basis for it except a person’s emotions. Eventually without that foundation it leads to turmoil and collapse.
Now when it comes to Jesus…there’s a reason why he said anybody who listens to his teachings and acts on them builds his house on rock. Because it’s truth.
Just from the Eastern view, regarding energies. The base energy, concentrated at the bottom of the spine is the most obvious energy, the sexual energy. A must need to keep the species going.
Like drinking beer, you can have fun with the cheapest, mass produced beer, though the taste is heavy and the tummy feels horrid the next day. As we age, we tend to refine our tastes and more likely then naught, drink more of craft brews, as the pleasure from the drink itself becomes the thing.
Dear Boxer:
Leave us not forget the marital excitement of watching one’s spouse turn into a whale, cuckold you, 5h1t-test you, grow old and lose beauty, create unending drama, nag you, shame you, disrespect you, and eventually frivorce you where you get to pay her until the court says “Stop.”
Marriage life is soooo exciting!
krauser,
I was a committed atheist in my 20s.
I would hear Scripture, such as what JDG posted and say, “So, you will bust your back, live in misery, and there will be a payoff later…you hope. Hey, if you are “happy” in that misery, I won’t stop you.”
What I didn’t understand, largely because I was raised Christian in name only and thought I knew the full Christian experience, is God can be a very real, tangible, daily presence in my daily life on earth.
Not theoretically around me. Not “on faith” that He sees and knows me. I mean feeling a force push on my shoulder in the direction of a guy I don’t know to talk to him and witness to him. I mean sitting in my living room, on my couch, and feeling a different pushing sensation from both sides and a thought forms in my head to call someone I hadn’t talked to in years who was at a crisis point.
It takes effort. It takes aligning yourself with God’s plan for you. Those AFCs may be in miserable marriages. They may have a long list of worldly miseries. If they are closer to God, they feel His presence more in their life and He provides. They may not only honestly feel they’re better off, they may actually be better off that the outsiders. Being closer to God provides (comfort, peace, strength, etc.) in a way the world can’t match and certainly not eternally.
Honestly, as bad as my situation became during the frivorce, I firmly believe God pushed people to call me when I was close to breaking points, opened doors for me to advance professionally to relieve financial strains, pulled me from a church corrupting His message to a stronger one, and led me to a place where I formed much stronger bonds with my children when the Family Court system worked to weaken those bonds.
======================================================
In a way, I suppose I made this personal because I can see me in my 20s and early 30s looking at me years later in life and not understanding why an AFC with experience in both lifestyles didn’t want to go back and claimed to be far better off.
I understand you not believing it. Though, if you could look from this side, the world’s prizes look gilded and fragile.
‘Not theoretically around me. Not “on faith” that He sees and knows me. I mean feeling a force push on my shoulder in the direction of a guy I don’t know to talk to him and witness to him. I mean sitting in my living room, on my couch, and feeling a different pushing sensation from both sides and a thought forms in my head to call someone I hadn’t talked to in years who was at a crisis point.’
The Holy Spirit.
They are only winning if you make “sex with lots of women” the standard. They are not living a more fulfilled life. They have built no relationships for the long run, as just one example.
In the 1970s, when Roger Staubach was at the height of his fame, he was interviewed by Phyllis George, and his wife was by his side.
George asked him (paraphrased), “Joe Namath has quite the reputation as a ladies’ man and brags of his sexual prowess and conquests often. Do you feel that you’ve missed out on anything?”
Roger replied, “Oh, I’m sure I have as least as much sex as Joe Namath does…difference is, mine’s all with the same woman.” The look on Roger’s wife’s face was priceless.
I had thought for years that this story was apocryphal…then I saw this scene myself on a Staubach documentary.
“There may be times when your wife might have to tie your shoes. Make sure she’s up for the task.”
That right there is what we non PC folks call smart thinking, but don’t forget about the sammiches. She’s got to be up to sammich making too.
SD,
Your analogy to BUD/S is close, however men with in the community can count on each other without exception. There is no greater bond that I’ve seen, even son/father, daughter/mother. Teir 2 guys have cried and died together, shat themselves in front of eachother, seen how puny other’s dicks get in 51 degree h20 when you think you can’t take it any further, and have literally beat the hell out of each other “behind storage” (where they go to settle a matter between two alphas) and then died for that same teammate without question. There’s a thing called the fighting van. The DD for the night was not suppose to get abused (always does though), and as soon as you got in, everyone broke out in a fist fight until you “hit the bar”. You were not suppose to hit above the neck, but blood was usually pouring from someone’s head/nose/mouth, get out of said van shoulder to shoulder and laugh all night together. When wifey can handle that, I’ll use your analogy.
Wives would not die for their husband, however husbands would die for their wives. It does not say wives love your husbands, it says respect them. In Titus it says to teach younger women to love their husbands, but the meaning is different.
When my son had the best looking girl in his school chasing him, he told me that she said she hated her dad and stepdad. I told him to run, not walk away from her. He didn’t listen until it was too late. Luckily he has learned from his mistake and the repercussions were minimal from my stand point. The best way to vet a girl is for both families to spend time together. This should not be too hard if both families are christians right? He/you and your husband will see what she is like with mom, dad, siblings and slight strangers.
The moral view of “objectification” is a rather recent idea (Kant?) in human history. Unless, you want to use “objectification” as another way of going against the Golden Rule or Greatest Commandments.
I just find it strange to see people use feminist code/lingo to defend Christian principles on a decidedly anti-feminist website. I know I’m being a nitpick, but I’m a sinner too.
And the fun continues, with another casualty coming down the pike.
My former BiL has just gotten the hammer from his wife of 18 years.
She presented him with a separation agreement out of the blue, and threatened to file if he didn’t sign. So, of course he signed it, because he was stunned, and not thinking very clearly, and wanted the marriage to be worked on and so on – very blue pill chap, this one. The agreement provided that he had to move out of the house, that he would see the kids once a month for the next several months and so on. I have recommended that he discuss with lawyers whether he can get out of that, but we will see if he bothers following through – he’s still in “fix it” mode whereas his STBX is obviously in “ditch it” mode (I mean she already threatened him with divorce). She’s leaving in a day with the kids for a month long vacation abroad without him (was planned ahead of her “surprise”) – she is bringing her mother instead of him, and of course he foots the bill, which is steep.
None of the big As are present here – addiction, abuse, abandonment, adultery (at least not by him). Just another “I’m not haaaaapy” situation by another woman in her early 40s in a midlife crisis. He helped create the monster, of course, by pedestalizing her quite a bit over the years, and now it’s come back to bite him.
Please pray for him. If this goes where I am fairly sure it’s going, he will be well and truly screwed. She’s been a SAHM the whole marriage, and her earning capacity is low. He’s going to be quite poor as a divorced man, and she will be doing great. It makes me worried about him, although he’s generally mentally stable with no history of depression or anything like that. Those kinds of circumstances can break the best of us.
That’s terrible, Nova. Will do.
He is about to go through an experience as painful as the death of his family. He will go through the same stages as dealing with death, because it’s the sudden and complete alienation from those he loved. I went through the same thing and it is a very, very dangerous period.
I’ll pray for him.
Dear Philly Astro:
What they’re actually talking about is called reification.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lukacs/
There are both subjective and objective modes of this, so it’s not entirely the same thing. As a male playa or a female slut pursues the “notch count”, they begin substituting the act of sex with a human subject. They “have a relationship” with chasing tail, even as they treat the person they’re with (for that hour, anyway) as a “thing”. This is a totally destructive mode of thinking, and leads to a decadent way of being, which is more like non-being.
It’s not feminist lingo, really. They’re philosophical terms that feminists (ab)use, usually without knowing the definitions. It’s always funny for an educated man to talk to feminists, because as they try to sound intelligent, they succeed in proving that they’re faking any intellectual acumen they claim.
If it weren’t for reading a bunch of 20th century Marxist philosophy (Lukacs, Marcuse, Benjamin) and a lot of the old classical stuff (Epicurus, Aristotle), I’d still be a total hedonist. There’s a lot in philosophy that men can apply toward their lives. Like the old Christian father Augustine suggests, we should adopt the good stuff regardless of whence it comes.
Regards,
Boxer
Dear Novaseeker:
Very sorry to hear about this. I assume this good man is married to the sister of your wife, as opposed to your own sister, so your influence will likely be limited. Even so, I wouldn’t associate with such a cretin (I wouldn’t associate with a man who divorced a good woman either).
I hope there’s a way you can show your support for this man’s children, without supporting the wife, also. That will be important. I take my cousin (skank-ho single mom) boys out fairly regularly. Sure, they’re just relatives, but I figure it’s two fewer manginas when they grow up, if they take our outings to heart. See if you can get your phone number to them on one of BIL monthly visits. Maybe they can come over to your place sometime. Seeing a functional family is essential for kids who don’t have role models of their own.
Best to your family,
Boxer
Spike “I was patient and accommodating as a dutiful then-Blue Piller is expected to be. This is until I found out that NOTHING was good enough. It was during this time that, again and again, I was tempted to have a sexual relationship outside of marriage. The only thing that stopped me was my Christian moral centre. I could get away with an affair quite easily (I was travelling a lot for work then), but God would know. He would see.”
Maybe I should have been more specific… when I said my husband was still capable of feeling temptation, it was definitely not temptation to cheat. He says he doesn’t feel that temptation because of what he has with me … 🙂 he says (to Katerina) one thing that would help you to feel less worried about your husband’s own temptations, is to communicate with him, let him be honest without you getting upset, but also let him comfort you so that you can understand how much he wants YOU or loves YOU.
And Spike, I’m so sorry…. your wife treating you that way, and her behavior was more than likely what worked to create an environment where you would be tempted to cheat for sure. Wives do have a responsibility to care for their husband’s needs.
Off topic:
Italian multimillionaire warns men not to marry American women…
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/italian-hedge-funder-never-ever-144312002.html
Dragonfly – thank you for your good advice!
BradA – yes. unfortunately I’ve read a lot of adoption stories like yours and it terrifies me. My husband and I entered marriage “knowing” we wanted to adopt kids as well as hoping to have bio kids also. Now, after extensive reading about things like FASD and RAD I am really terrified.
Those who gave me advice previously were correct that I need to focus more on my prayer life and relationship with God, and very insightful. I don’t need to worry so much about my marriage, which is actually quite good. The problems I have are much more in the realm of false idols. Submission to one’s husband only works if submission to God comes first. I thought that I was submitting to God, but in truth I was spending WAY more time thinking about myself and my husband and our marriage than I was in prayer, and expecting my husband to give me a sense of self worth. You were all absolutely right, it is unfair of me to ask my husband to fix this defect in me that I’ve had since childhood. He is a good leader, but he is not God.
Also, let me apologise…I started commenting here without being polite enough to introduce myself and state clearly where I stand on the topic of marriage. I am a Catholic and do not believe in the validity of divorce. I believe that my husband and I were fully cognisant of the implications of the vows we made. I have no reason to want to divorce my husband, I love my husband and know that I am lucky to have him…but if I WERE to separate from my husband (again, not my desire but I’m speaking hypothetically) I don’t believe that I could enter into a valid marriage with anyone else. Separation is something that would only be chosen for the gravest of reasons (serious physical abuse for example) but even separated I would still consider myself married to one man only. Even before our wedding day I knew that if I were ever to be separated from my husband I would be in a much worse position than he would, he can take care of himself quite well but I would most likely be poor, lacking in protection and vulnerable to criminals, lonely and exceedingly stressed by the burdens of life.
I believe that the hierarchy of authority should be God->husband->wife->children.
For those of you who believe that women are incapable of making difficult moral choices for anything other than selfish gain, I understand how you have come to these beliefs after repeatedly seeing how terribly so many women treat men. As a counterexample though, I do know several women who have chosen to NOT abort severely disabled children, after being warned during pregnancy screenings, despite realizing that their moral choice meant a lifetime of suffering and difficulty for them personally. Essentially, their conviction that abortion was wrong was strong enough for them to take up what they understood would be a very heavy cross rather than taking the easy way out. I’m sure in some cases the choice was made easier for them because of their husband’s wise leadership, but I know that in other cases their husbands would have “respected their decision either way”.
Not that I’ve gotten all of that out of the way I’ll try to refrain from commenting much and especially not in such a personal way, although I think I’ll still keep reading everyone else’s comments.
Know I’m late to the world here, but FWIW…
On the subject of men who do everything else right, but cannot get dates/interest from women despite good jobs, resources, etc. as per BPP and Deti, here is some telling evidence I’ve mentioned before:
I do a lot of business travel and can attest to this. Next time you fly look at every airline’s in-flight magazine shoved in the seat pocket. In every one – without fail – and I mean it MANNN… you will see two ads:
1) It’s Just Lunch, a combo online/arranged lunch dating service;
2) At least one matchmaking service (the most common name escapes me but you’ll see it in there).
Whereby hangs a question: who are these ads for? The lonely guys in business or first class who can afford such things and might be persuaded they are a good idea since everything else has epic failed. Relief from that failure is what these ads stress. Maybe for those extra executives, or Assistant V.P.’s, or the like.
Why do I know about these adverts? I can’t help but notice them – they are ALWAYS there. Have been for YEARS. As ubiquitous as the now-defunct SkyMall used to be.
Off topic:
Italian multimillionaire warns men not to marry American women…
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/italian-hedge-funder-never-ever-144312002.html
This man is a hero. I never thought something like that’d happen. Wow.
Please pray for him. If this goes where I am fairly sure it’s going, he will be well and truly screwed.
Meh. He doesn’t need prayers. He needs an Underground Railroad.
What is simply is whether or not we believe it. The existence of God cannot be subjective. Either He exists or He doesn’t. As far as I can tell there is A LOT of evidence pointing to His existence. I’ve yet to see any evidence that actually supports the non-existence of an all powerful Creator.
We who know God KNOW that He is real. We have felt His presence and discerned His will, but how can we convince others that what we know is real and not a delusion? And this especially when so many people are claiming they KNOW things contrary to the Christian world view. From a logic based undecided point of view, we can all be wrong, but we cannot all be right.
The fact is that no amount of evidence can force a heart to turn to Jesus if that heart is set against Him. What we CAN do is share the truth with (as Anchorman and others have done), and pray for, the individuals who don’t know Him, for only God can open their eyes to see what we see.
Katerina,
I have heard that good adoptions exist, but they seem as unreal to me as unicorns….
Check out the books Adopting the Hurt Child and Parenting the Hurt Child. I have not read them recently, but they had a lot of good things to say when I read the previous versions. Our children were not even as bad as many there.
RAD is a horrible thing to deal with, but far more a reality than most rosy scenarios indicate. Be ready for it if you are going to proceed down that path. You will be better off being ready for it and not having it happen than having the reverse occur. You should be frightened!
I would not recommend adopting if you plan on giving birth to children. You will be placing your own children at huge risk, especially since they will be younger. I am glad, in a small sense at least, that we did not give birth to children after adopting. We tried (in our own way) at one point, but they didn’t come. Those children would have been terrorized by our adopted children.
jeff,
I think I will keep living a solitary life if that is the male fellowship you promote. I am all for a lot of things, but I don’t need to continually prove my manhood to anyone. I would bet that the group was quite a bit younger than I am though. I don’t have time for such foolishness, though I would love to find a group of men I could really bond with.
Beating each other senseless and drinking until we can’t remember anything has no appeal.
TFH, so fornicating regularly is better? Yes, the path with a wife may end up poorly, but the solo path looking for your own pleasure always will end poorly. That is the difference.
Novaseeker @ 12:50 pm:
“She presented him with a separation agreement out of the blue, and threatened to file if he didn’t sign. So, of course he signed it, because he was stunned, and not thinking very clearly, and wanted the marriage to be worked on and so on”
That should be fightable; signing under duress, no opportunity to seek counsel, etc.
“She’s leaving in a day with the kids for a month long vacation abroad without him”
Excellent. That’s a very useful window of opportunity if he’s quick on his feet. He can do everything from getting out of the separation agreement to liquidating assets (even the house itself) to setting up a no-extradition escape. Stupid female started a war and immediately went AWOL.
I fear the trick will be him finding the will to fight.
“she is bringing her mother instead of him”
I wonder who’s been whispering in wifey’s ear? In fact, I wonder if that vacation’s purpose is the mother trying to convince the wife she can live without him. Most frivorces I’ve read about, the wife is more decisive about pulling the trigger than this.
TFH,
That still remains true. The example was one marriage that blew up, not all of them. Several of us here remain married without that. How many PUAs have long term family relationships?
Nova,
I pray for your BiL. I would probably cancel all the European stuff myself. Let her pay her own way.
Who cares about the lost costs. “Not my problem” would be my proclamation, though I would not have signed such an agreement either.
For those of you who believe that women are incapable of making difficult moral choices for anything other than selfish gain, I understand how you have come to these beliefs after repeatedly seeing how terribly so many women treat men. As a counterexample though, I do know several women who have chosen to NOT abort severely disabled children, after being warned during pregnancy screenings, despite realizing that their moral choice meant a lifetime of suffering and difficulty for them personally.
How is that a counterexample? A counterexample would be a selfless moral choice which benefits men, or a particular man, instead of treating them/him terribly. In this case, she derives social status from her decision. All women do this when they become mothers, even if the child is disabled. She’s suddenly the community’s heroic mother, making a big sacrifice.
Plus she gets to basically punish her loser husband for planting dysgenic seed in her, which she obviously rationalizes, either consciously or subconsciously, as a morally just consequence for being severely wronged – after all, her womb was misused by a low-quality man, wasn’t it? He’s condemned to a life of misery, forced by law and social conventions to support a child who’ll never have a normal life. If he leaves them, he’ll be denounced as a bastard worse than Hitler, whereas she practically becomes a saint.
She gets to apply for various benefits. She gets social approval, which is of utmost importance to women. Hell, she can probably get invited on TV and get a book deal so as to tell her story about the “heroism” and “selflessness” of the female spirit.
Do you know what’d actually be a difficult moral choice in that case? To have an abortion. But that’d actually earn her virtual excommunication from her social circle, to name one consequence, so it’s a no-no.
A few comments about the Michelle Williams gospel single “Jesus say yes” above.
Firstly, this is a Michelle Williams album. Ms. Williams has earned solid gospel credentials for > 15 years. Her old group mates Kelly Rowland and Beyonce are only collaborators on this single. It’s a simple happy Jesus-praising gospel tune; a remake of an old Nigerian folk tune.
What’s not to love about it? The crabby complainer above never answered that question.
@krauser
There’s so many assumptions to unpack that
Sex might be compared to a DVD in the sense that a completed film and sex are the consummations of the respective endeavors: marriage and film-making. The PUA is not making a film, but only consuming them. He might go to every movie every day, but in the end he has made no films. He has not contributed to the art; only consumed. Those who only consume and never produce are then mere destroyers.
The husband is like a film-maker who only makes one film, and he spends his whole life editing and crafting that film. He watches film too–his film–and, yes it is only the one film over and over. But he can keep working on it, editing, enhancing, protecting, and perfecting it.
So who is “better at movies”? The film-maker; who both produces and consumes. He knows the cost of film, labor, sets, design, So much more real is the film-maker’s work that it would never dawn on him to put forth the term “better at movies”, because “better at movies” is not actually a thing even if the film-maker tries to understand what the mere movie-goer means when he says “better at movies”. He know the real things of film; both the consumption and production; what it means to both give and take. The movie-goer remains in darkness.
Even my analogy is only the beginning of a thing because there is another interested party as well: The woman’s father; who is like the production studio, or the capitalist behind the financing. The studio and the film-maker enter an agreement where the studio gives all the the raw materials to the film-maker and in exchange the film-maker is supposed to go forth and–though he may do as he wills with the materials–he must generate something worthwhile. He must make a film, and yes it must be made for consumption.
The PUA is like a guy who can sweet-talk the ticket girl to let him into the theater without paying. It’s fundamentally dishonorable, and–again–it is nothing like the art of making movies. He is no “better at movies” than when he watched the first one because his role is purely passive.
A better analogy to compare husbands versus PUAs would be (respectively) shepherds versus wolves. A wolf may kill and eat 1,000 sheep, but he will never know sheep–in general or particular–as the shepherd of even merely one sheep…perhaps especially one. The wolf doesn’t know what it is to love; only to satiate his own desire by dishonorable means.
I would say this is probably true because almost all Western men–from you to Mohler to most of the commenters in the Men’s Sphere–don’t understand the difference between long-term hooking-up, and marriage; the difference between stealing and trading; between vandalism and art; or the difference between desire and love. Very few are teaching how to shepherd, and so most are just trying to be their own kind of wolf. They engage in inane one-upmanship against each other with nonsensical terms and standards. See Mohler, Slumlord, and others above.
Overall, the shepherds are drowsy with wealth and stupefied by pride. It’s not just concerning women. Prots and RC alike boast about how long their denomination has been around, or how fast their congregations are growing (here or elsewhere), or how healthy and wealthy are their parishioners. That’s all vanity outside the context of shepherds versus wolves, or good and evil…Christ versus the lord of this age.
PUAs, among others understand and embrace the uselessness brought on by lack of context; the lack of recognition of good and evil that pervades our society and–most grievously–our churches. A cursory glance makes them seem more honest in their nihilism, but the black void of their own uselessness is still there in front of their own face and so they cannot see that their own lives and even the whole world are fundamentally dependent upon the existence of good and evil, and the necessity of the former triumphing over the latter.
Speaks for itself, doesn’t it? What is there to envy? I think part of you knows that, and that your conjecture of ego defense is because you recognize it from the mirror.
Marriage is sometimes difficult and sometimes boring and sometimes the latter seems worse than the former and sometimes it’s both and worse. Yet marriage is a thing. It is real and immensely important in the earthly battle between good and evil. And it is not marriage that is bad, but the lack of it. The fact that some may deride it as foolish, or dangerous, or the grotesque fact that too many Christians bend over backwards to celebrate divorce doesn’t change the fact that marriage is good, beneficial, and loving, but hooking-up and sentimentality are not.
@Slumlord
I’m not sure whether the ascetic tradition should take the full blame, but I agree with this.
It’s more than that. Compliance (obedience) to the Commandments would both require and produce the spirit to lead the body. It is the compliance that is missing. What you are observing is sentimentality disguised as piety. Christians are very sentimental towards living a Christian life, but they are not compliant. Huge evidence of this is the disordered relations between the sexes. The spirit that controls the body is the one that has hardness, as hardness is exclusively demonstrated in times of distress; times where the body must do what it does not desire.
This is exactly the same thing as when Rollo says, “Men love idealistically”. No they don’t. They desire sentimentally. Every man’s iteration of sentiment is different one from the next, but they’re all unrealistic and they will all have to reconcile their sentiments with reality; which means putting the spirit at the head of the body so as to make the body do what is good but painful.
And yeah, we can be joyful about pain. Athletes, for example, are regularly happy with the pain because their focus is on the prize.
Humans very often–perhaps most often–desire sin. While the existence of desire is proof that desire is good, the disorder of desires is not proof that what we desire is righteous. You have not shown that women’s desire good things, but you have ignored that they very often want sin.
Dragonfly,
I would say your husband is lying if he is still alive. It may not be as strong as it was or he may want to please you, but males face temptations that only death removes.
A few comments about the Michelle Williams gospel single “Jesus say yes” above.
Firstly, this is a Michelle Williams album. Ms. Williams has earned solid gospel credentials for > 15 years. Her old group mates Kelly Rowland and Beyonce are only collaborators on this single. It’s a simple happy Jesus-praising gospel tune; a remake of an old Nigerian folk tune.
What’s not to love about it? The crabby complainer above never answered that question.
Wow, talk about timing!
Michelle Williams was a member of the very sexually provocative singing group Destiny’s Child from 2000-2006. How you can describe her as having “solid” gospel credentials for over 15 years is beyond me.
But you see, this is exactly what myself and Bro. Pedat were dancing around ever so lightly. The black church has elevated the art of mixing the sacred and the profane to such a high level that it never even occurs to most people to question the validity of someone’s “gospel credentials”.
~Church member anytime in your life? check.
~ Throw a “gospel” song at the end of your album to bookend 12 tracks of garbage? Check.
~Thank God when you receive an award for said depravity? Check.
Well you’re a Christian in good standing and no one has the right to judge you!
@Elspeth, you still haven’t answered the question asked, What exactly is wrong with that song?
You are only adhominening on Ms. Williams.
Cane,
Were you the guy talking about Voddie Bauchum some time ago?
Your use of shepherd reminds me of one of his books.
Oh, and one more thought jz:
I have no idea what Michelle Williams has been up to in the years since she left Destiny’s Child and started making music to be played on gospel radio stations. The Gospel is the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ along with the hope of His soon return, which is why I take pains to make clear that I don’t consider everything on urban inspirational stations as Gospel music.
But assuming Ms. Williams has moved on from that chapter of her life and is dedicated solely to recording Christian music, it was very poor judgment to feature Beyonce and Kelly Rowland on her single. Makes me wonder what she (and her spiritual/musical mentors) were thinking.
But this really does ultimately come right back around to the problem of a church consumed by matriarchy. everything is about the immediate, the expedient, and how we feeeel about a thing.
I can’t think of any good reason why a Christian would need to use such people to record a song to honor the Messiah. Period.
can you?
What exactly is wrong with that song?
If what I have offered isn’t enough, if you don’t think the vehicle through which a message travels matters, then there really is nothing more to discuss.
@Anchorman
Yes. I’m a big fan of Baucham and have those books.
The genius of his use of shepherds is that the Bible uses them so often. Shepherding is a broad and deep discipline that requires all of your senses, strength, wits, patience…the whole man. As well the first accepted sacrifice noted in the Bible was from an innocent shepherd..who prefigured Jesus both by his sacrifice and by being slain by the unrighteous. Moses was a shepherd when he was called. David was a shepherd when he was anointed. Jesus of course is the Good Shepherd. It goes on and on.
@Elsbeth,
Michelle Williams sang gospel before and after Destiny’s Child. Her family tree is filled with Christian leaders. A woman like her can bring more people to Christ than your brand of dour crabbiness. Jesus “used ” lots of unsuspecting characters to deliver his message.
I’m going to beg Dalrock’s indulgence because this topic pushes one of my buttons. It seems off topic but it touches a bit on the theme here. Let’s think this through JZ (LOL at the username, by the way).
One of the things we want to do is raise young women of virtue, young women who can distinguish between clean and unclean, between modest and immodest, between moral and immoral. 70% of young black girls are already being raised without a father in the home to guide and protect them. Keep them safe from those who would consume them and teach them to value what is important. Fathers are irreplaceable when it comes to this.
Now, a family is trying to teach their daughter what it means to be a Christian. What it is, what it is not. Depending on where she is being raised it’s an uphill battle. Now she turns on BET on a Sunday morning (We don’t watch it but I’ve seen it playing enough in relative’s homes to know it’s a Sunday morning staple for many). Lo and behold, there is the Michelle Williams song, with Beyonce and Kelly Rowland right there singing about how powerful Jesus is and how His approval is all that matters. Sounds like a positive message until you scratch the surface but we’re going to say the song standing alone is perfectly acceptable.
2 PM rolls around and BET returns to regular scheduled programing. Young girl is at her aunite’s house for Sunday dinner. Then comes up Beyonce’s Partition video. I had to Google to find out something recent of hers and ironically it’s an explicit video. First one I found.
What message has this young girl gotten?
Michelle Williams sang gospel before and after Destiny’s Child. Her family tree is filled with Christian leaders. A woman like her can bring more people to Christ than your brand of dour crabbiness. Jesus “used ” lots of unsuspecting characters to deliver his message.
I haven’t disparaged Ms. Williams except to say that she used poor judgment and offered the example that this particular song and video do more harm than good. I have no doubt that God can use her. Never claimed otherwise. Heck, if He can find use for me He can find use for anybody. Of course, being from a family of “Christian leaders:” is hardly the criteria for being useful to the kingdom. Surely you know this?
You’re making this about Michelle Williams and I’m referring to something bigger and more far reaching. And insomuch as your argument comes down to the church being culturally relevant, I am for certain that it is time for me to bow out.
Cane, great job cherry-picking for the pro-marriage argument. I left out an important statistical fact from my attack on marriage: sex declines in frequency in marriage as time passes because the wife wants it.
A woman like her can bring more people to Christ than your brand of dour crabbiness.
Really? What kind of woman is that? And what kind of gospel is she representing? Her family tree doesn’t mean a thing if she isn’t following the King (the King of Glory).
Is that really the woman who can bring more people to Christ than crabby “doers of the Word”?
Two thoughts:
HH, I know we are speaking here of broader principles, but I would go easy on parents raising disabled children. I have a couple of neighbors who have this duty, and it is most assuredly a duty. They do it with love and compassion and I genuflect to their patience and persistence. I can assure you none of the parents, including the mothers, are jacking for hero status or pity parties. I wouldn’t wish what they have to deal with on anybody. I admit I am not sure I would have their fortitude were that my lot; having to administer constant unrelenting care forever, with no hope of permanent cure, as they willingly do, makes me nauseous contemplating it. The 70’s play “A Day In The Death of Joe Egg” dramatizes this perfectly.
JZ, I agree and amplify, as we say. Sometimes the best gospel comes from the most sinful living. Think Sam Cooke. Or how a song born of sinners can be transformed. Anyone remember the Foreigner song “I Want To Know What Love Is”? Big big hit. The UK group’s version is a whiny beta cryfest, to the effect of “I wanna girl friend”, as its loathsome MTV video shows. But they used the Newark Gospel Choir to sing the coda. After the song broke, the Newark Gospel Choir made their own record of it. Without changing one syllable of the lyric, they turned the song into one of the most beautiful and sublime gospel records of the 1980’s.
Is there some public statement of repentance for public displays of sluttiness made by Miss (not Ms.) Williams that I missed somewhere? I did a Google search and found nothing.
I did find an article about her leaving the church though. jz your pronouncements about Miss Williams and crabbiness are unsupported in scripture and reveal a lack of understanding of holiness in your own thinking. Though we are IN the world, we are not to be OF the world.
One of things that really surprises me on this comments thread, and it has been a repeating theme, is that while Ephesians 5:22 is often quoted ad nauseum, Ephesians 5:28-5:29 sort of doesn’t get noticed.
So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth [Ed] and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
The implication of this bit of text is quite clear. The premise of the headship of the husband is that it includes an obligation to nourish the needs of the wife. A failure to provide for them is no justification for divorce (at least in my branch of Christianity) but is a failure in the duty of care of the husband. While the text is allegorical, it’s quite interesting to see how Paul speaks of nourishing the “flesh.” All you Platonists take notice.
Miss (not Ms.) Williams that I missed somewhere?
My mistake. When I don’t know a woman’s marital status (and I didn’t know Michelle Williams’), I have picked up the modern habit of using Ms.
@Boxer. Thanks for the considered response. I think this statement is misleading: “any man can bang lots of women”. It’s manifestly not true if you are talking about high SMV girls. Most men won’t even bang one. This is one of the pretty lies that needs challenging here, that all these married guys would’ve been successful players if only they’s WANTED to be. That’s like hearing a couch potato say he could’ve competed in the Olympics. Banging women below your own SMV is pretty easy. Getting younger-hotter-tighter prime-SMV girls is exceptionally difficult.
Another assertion I take exception to is: “take an insolent and halfwitted pretty face home”. This is what I mean about rebuilding the mound. It’s exceptionally important to the coulda-shoulda-woulda married crowd to pretend that Game only works on trash. I can tell you right now that half of the girls I notched since my divorce were hotter than my ex-wife and most of them had no discernibly lower quality of character. There are pretty, agreeable women who are often also intelligent, educated and chaste. Not the archetypal bar skanks that the moralistic crowd desperately wish to believe.
My posts here aren’t “look at me, I bang hotties, aren’t I great”. I do my preening on my own blog, not Dalrock’s. I’m presenting a counter-point to what I consider seriously underexamined ego-defences / pretty lies in this space.
You’re more than welcome to point out an essential shallowness to my existence (it might be true, I’m not sure yet), or to my lack of alignment to God (not part of my value system), or my contribution to the breakdown of civilisation (quite likely). Those are legitimate positions to take. It’s the mound rebuilding that mischaracterises Game and the girls it delivers which I think need challenging.
Michelle Williams ROCKS!!
Thanks to scolding, dour Elsbeth for shinning a spotlight on her. I’ve just listened to a bunch of Ms. Williams performances on YouTube and loved them.
You heard it here first folks, soul saving strippers and evangelical promoters of lust are more likely to win over unbelievers than people who actually obey the Word and rightly discern good from evil.
Michelle Williams ROCKS!!
Yeah, so do lots of people. That does not make them servants of God.
Players are like the boy at the party who scoffs all the cream cakes. Whereas we admire players for their skill and success in bedding women and against seemingly impossible odds, at the same time, we don’t like them for their eating of all the female cream. Ones instinctive reaction is thus – if one gets the chance – to do them over – a tragic accident – oh how terribly sad, as one puts the boot in. How else to explain the satisfaction we feel when Don Giovanni is taken down to hell (definitely in thumping D minor) by the Commendatore, even though that Donne Anna made a false Rape claim against him (as did the flighty Zerlina) and Donna Elvira is pissed because she now realises she will never be the next or even first Mrs Giovanni. In the anonymous setting of the Streets of London little damage is done, but were Krauser pulling hot-totty in my local – birds who I might reasonably have a chance at – I would be less than amused. The beauty of Monogamy was that the battle between men for women ended with marriage; if there is no marriage or late marriage or serial marriage then the fight is once again on. Men always boast about their sexual conquests so let me say that I have been with some who were above par some just par and some somewhat below, at least by my estimation, but one cuts ones coat according to the available cloth.
So you love a Jezebel jz, you won’t find that celebrated here. You should not find it celebrated in a church either, but many have the wrong focus on that.
Morality matters. She should not be celebrated since she advocated and likely still advocates actions that are not proper for a Christian woman. Though you are probably buried in those heretical attitudes yourself, so you love the “good on the outside, crud in the middle” approach to life.
How many lives will she destroy because her message makes inroads with such “hot” songs?
kp,
They were skanks none-the-less. None valued marriage and went to fulfill their lusts.
You have done plenty of preening here. You can’t separate who you are from your posts. Boasting of many conquests sells on a PUA site, not so much here. (Though a few do eat it up.)
Show me a PUA with long lasting success. I can show you marriages that were a success. Many of the latter fail, all the former ultimately do, though I can only look to the end of this life so a few of the former may temporarily seem to be a success.
And I am supposed to model myself after you since I am so boring, having never conquered a 9 or 10? I managed to stay married in spite of raising 4 adopted children that turned against us. All but one of those is reasonably contributing to society now when those from their birth family have a much lower success rate. What have you accomplished? Enjoy your sin, Judgment Day is coming.
Nick, you are off track with some of our views. I have no problem with you bedding 1000 women. Fill your boots.
My problem is with the rewriting of history to try to up your sales of your system. By basing the greek alphabet classification system on who bangs the most women is the top dog, you try to achieve two things.
Firstly cover your omeganess with a sheen of alfalfa. Aint working.
Secondly, trying to debase then men that have built this society that you abuse so skillfully, by denigrating the term beta. Well that is starting to dissolve in the morning sunshine also.
As for the nature of women, that is a subject as large as the sky.
Italian multimillionaire warns men not to marry American women…
Here’s to hoping that hundreds of thousands of American men wholeheartedly endorse his advice.
jz, I’m not Elspeth and no Bible scholar. But I’m sure that tune is quite popular with babymommas, divorcees, carousel riders hitting the Wall and other liberated women. Do you have any idea why?
Personally, I’m tired of autotuning, and that’s enough reason for me to dislike it.
The premise of the headship of the husband is that it includes an obligation to nourish the needs of the wife.
Absolutely.
But who decides what those needs are? I pity the man married to a woman that thinks she does.
That’s not to say that we don’t have a problem with sissified men who don’t lead in out post Christian gyno-centric culture where millions of boys have been raised without their fathers. I AM saying that in a Christian marriage this is NOT an excuse for women to abstain from their duties as a wife. Even when it is difficult to comply, she must if she is to keep her integrity. The same goes for the man, which I shouldn’t even have to say on this blog.
at 5:55 pm should be: “men who don’t lead in our post Christian gyno-centric culture”.
We all can say whatever we want about Krauser or other players.
But the fact remains that the reason most of us are here is that, at one time or presently, we either:
1. weren’t very good at being men, or
2. had a marital crisis of some kind; or
3. had crappy or nonexistent love lives/sex lives.
Feminized Western society has created a legion of concave chested males who aren’t attractive, can’t stand up for themselves, can’t get a wife and can’t get laid. They could stand to learn a thing or three from the likes of Krauser.
Novaseeker:
My former BiL has just gotten the hammer from his wife of 18 years.
A very, very sad thing that unfortunately happens every day somewhere in the US and wider Anglosphere. And his life will surely get worse for some time to come as a result.
For example, the usual “what did he do to her?” speculation has surely started by now. If he’s an active churchgoing man he may find it difficult to get through services / Mass now, what with all the stares and whispers that are bound to start up. But changing churches / parishes would not look good, either. Rock, meet hard place.
Novaseeker, you have a perspective that may be unique within your family circle, even a fractured one, so you may be the best man to sit with him. That’s a pretty heavy burden and I don’t have any right to do more than suggest it. Maybe he could chat with Cail Corishev via any of several ways.
At the very least, I suggest you keep as much of an eye on him as you can, since the probablity he’ll commit suicide has just increased by a factor of 4 or so, and I doubt anyone else in your family has the slightest clue what he’s going through.
Heck, there’s men on this thread who obviously can’t put themselves in his shoes.
Slumlord
The premise of the headship of the husband is that it includes an obligation to nourish the needs of the wife.
Tell me, Slumlord, is there anything more important in the world that women’s haaaaapiness?
Retrenched:
Thanks for finding this, which helps a lot to explain why the guys I knew and know aren’t getting any action:
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-you-dont-have-wifegirlfriend.html
Probably:
1. (too passive)
2. (they overrate themselves)
and 7 (afraid things will go wrong)
TFH:
Very Happy Marriage* > PUA life > Sporadic Sex as a single guy > Celibacy > Unhappy henpecked/fatocalypse marriage > Divorce horror like what Novaseeker described above**
As the product of a not so happy, “mom wears the pants” marriage … I think you need to consider that Happy is overrated.
Even for the grief that my parent’s marriage has, the lives of me and my siblings, and the lives of my nieces and nephews are worthwhile – and some of those are going to get their own Happy Marriages.
Good luck getting any of that with a PUA life.
A woman like her can bring more people to Christ than your brand of dour crabbiness.
Just to clarify, what “jz” is referring to here with the word “Christ” is not Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God, but rather an acronym that stands for “Churchian Hedonists Reveling in Sinful Transgressions.”
Marriages probably fall on roughly a 20/60/20 distribution, with some overlap and “slide” amongst them.
20% “Happy” marriages: Few structural problems, good sex; husband is +1 SMV to wife; H dominant, both have fulfilling lives in and out of marriage.
60% “Middle of road” marriages: neither happy nor crappy. Marked by dissatisfaction in one or more areas in both partners. Structural problems like finances, H=W in SMV or H is -1 SMV to wife. Fair sex life, vague dissatisfaction on both sides. He hates his job, or she hates staying home; distant from friends and family, etc. These are the folks who just “muddle through” and “make the best of it”.
20% “Crappy” marriages. Major dissatisfaction in the marriage. Wide SMV disparity between H and W; one partner is +2 or +3 vs the other. Sex is sparse to nonexistent. There are glaring problems in one or more areas with one or both partners: Mental, emotional, physical or professional.
Yup Deti, ole Nick can teach us that even a supposed top tier alfalfa still can’t keep a wife!
I think that Nick has shown ample proof that most of his shtick, is, well, just shtick. It appears that he is just another loser beta/omega who is over compensating for his lack of true alfalfa.
Is that really the woman who can bring more people to Christ than crabby “doers of the Word”?
Coming out of lurking to say that a woman joined our church a while back and said that she felt the need to return to church after hearing that song on the radio. I listened to it after that and wasn’t impressed, but it moved a woman who hadn’t been to church in years to return. It is clear that God can use anyone. She is a young single mother of 2 and didn’t seem particularly well educated, so take from that what you will.
Lurker here… but holy crap, thoughts and prayers going out to Novaseeker’s BiL (technically ex-BiL since I believe Nova’s also divorced, but kept in touch with other members of his ex’s family). So while I think BradA truly *means* well with his commentary. . . I think he really needs to dial it back, and doesn’t “get” how arrogant and self-righteous he’s sounding here in his debate with TFH.
As a single, never-married straight fellow now in his 50s, I have personal experience with co-workers and friends who have sounded *just like* BradA. . . until THEIR spouses “unexpectedly” filed for divorce from them. I was able to help by being available to listen and not having to “take sides” as their still-married friends did. Even if, unlike Nova, I didn’t have a divorce experience myself, I was able to hear them vent, and make a couple of suggestions that they not do anything *rash* without checking with legal counsel. And the deeply-religious fellows were the MOST blindsided — one of my colleagues was working *two* jobs to support his wife (she was working on-and-off part time) and their daughters, _and_ he was an elder in his church. He didn’t have the time or energy to even THINK about running ‘dread game’, much less think of cheating! Re: the link to the ‘Alpha Game Plan’ blog. . . it doesn’t nearly reflect the issues of the women which the ‘questionable guys’ identified by Vox and posters, would be facing.
It sounds like Nova will be able to listen and support the BiL as best he can… but this is still sad and ugly.
AR
That story of the BiL pisses me off. That guy jumped in believing all that church shit and most likely did everything “christian’ and look what happens to him. First off he needs to tell that church eat shit if they give him a hard time. That is a guy that needed game. he may have been able to understand his wife was not marriage material in the first place. or would have been intune to what divorce is and means to reduce the emotional shock along the way. Or lastly he may have been able to run some dread or what ever to give her pause on trying the affair divorce thing. Any man that claims to be Christian and sends any young man out into the world ignorant and with out game is a piece of shit. Ignorance and innocence is not a Christian virtue.
Denihilist you are just plain wrong on the subject. Helpless ignorance is not a Christian virtue. All this righteousness is a bunch of crap. Keeping some guy stupid and foolish thinking you are going to heaven seems to me to be the most evil and selfish thing you can do. All to keep your soul clean and righteous
THF – right. I vote, from observing my pua friends, now into their mid fifties, that it is not fulfilling. As the old song goes, I would rather have loved and lost, then never to have loved at all.
GG – helpless ignorance….
What?
Pingback: The Deti shows the feminist endgame | Dark Brightness
To speak so against the concept of game means you would rather have men helpless to the divorce and hypergamy monster. All men need to be red pill and understand the nature of women along with what triggers sexual attraction. The article this conversation is under speaks of how now in our culture, church and to an extent law what her pussy detects is the new morality and virtue. It doesn’t matter if it is “right” or wrong it is a real reality for men today. being red pill and with game does not mean the Christian man will be a PUA any more than being armed with a concealed carry license means you will be a mass killer in some school house. As gdgm posted above it is the Christian men that are hit hardest by divorce simply due to helpless ignorance. That is wrong, wrong, wrong for that to happen to a man that is a member of the church.
Thanks for the thoughts, guys.
I’m definitely going to keep an eye on the situation as much as I can manage from where I am sitting. It’s a tough spot to be in, certainly, speaking from experience.
Gotcha GG. And once again, I do not speak against the masculine trait of knowing how to read/excite/ grow a relationship with women, or as some prefer to call it “game”.
What I am against, is omega’s as per Bonecrcker’s description, hijacking the alpha bet soup of classifying men, putting the mantle of alpha on themselves, then going out into the public sphere and denigrating beta’s so that they can try to sell their BS techniques.
As GBFM has stated, masculinity is far more then gina tingles! And the warped version that guys like “I couldn’t keep my own wife, but hell look at me now, I bang so many woman that I must be alpha” Krauser tries to sell is pure shit. Look at the source! This guy couldn’t keep his own wife, yet I am supposed to follow his lead, using dread game, or this game or that game? And shell out a hundred bucks to read his “technique”, which is just be bull headed and not give a shit about rejection, so if I approach enough woman, then by the rules of chance I will bang 2.6% of them????
Yeah, great source to follow and learn from. Gimme a break!
Masculinity and all that it encompasses is what these chaps that have problems with attracting women should be practicing, not the small subset of a totally bogus pua.
Anyway, leaving now for the annual fishing trip. Time to have some masculine time with my good friends and have a few laughs.
Enjoy your weekend chaps.
The debate is about whether a PUA life of hundreds of women is fulfilling or not over the long term.
I’m casting my vote with DeNihilist. Sin is NEVER fulfilling in the long run. It always wants more.
Novaseeker – Praying for your BIL and his wife.
Dragonfly:
Thank you for your kind words. A word, however.
I would imagine your husband has the following:
-Red blood in his veins
-A “Y” Chromosome
If he has these two things, he has a sex drive and so of course, he can cheat. What prevents him is his spiritual commitment – his conscience and adequate sexual supply in his home (“A satisfied man never wanders” – Italian proverb).
A man’s sex drive is part of his make-up. While this is shamed by feminists and their despicable “White Knight / Mangina” cohorts (their shaming itself a mechanism to attract feminist women sexually) – it is what drives civilisation if it is directed properly. A man will work hard for his family. He must thus have security and support in that same family. Civilisations are built by successive generations of men. Knock down a man’s sex drive, uncouple him from a family and you will knock down civilisation. It’s that simple.
Feminists have for two generations now demanded that men be “ïn touch with their feminine side”. I can only imagine the next generation of RuPauls and Caitlyn Jenners drilling oil, working reactors and pouring concrete!
TFH – *facepalm*.
No I didn’t mean the Krauser omega vs alpha thing, I meant this:
THF – right. I vote, from observing my pua friends, now into their mid fifties, that it is not fulfilling.
which was posted at 7:31 pm. Sorry I should have been more specific.
To clarify, I probably wouldn’t know an omega from a gamma from a delta from a beta. I’m sure I could spot an alpha if he really stood out and if I cared to, but those categories don’t mean that much to me.
My concern for Krauser is not whether or not he can fornicate with hundreds of women, but what will happen to him after his fornicating days are over. And they will end. What then?
If anyone wants to see the fruits of loving sin and living out your days practicing it, go visit a few nursing homes and get to know the people that live there. You will see what I’m talking about. And then comes judgement day.
@krauserpua
> It’s exceptionally important to the coulda-shoulda-woulda married crowd to pretend that Game only works on trash. I can tell you right now that half of the girls I notched since my divorce were hotter than my ex-wife
I understand your point that you think some men try to minimize any pain they feel over their lost opportunities by disparaging what they did not pursue or experience.
I think you may not understand what I addressed to you in a prior comment however. Not all men feel the need or desire for sex with all of a hundred different women. They may be happy to have sex with any one of them, but want to have just that one.
I will admit I can feel sexual desire for thousands of different pretty women. But when I am feeling desire for sex, it is not a desire for a new and different girl each day. I just want a wife; the same wife.
Now you may say that I desire such a “low bar”, simply because I currently have nothing. Thus I would be happy with any marginal increase.
If I really was desperate to get something, anything, I could just get a prostitute. My city has over a million people in it, so I’m sure there are thousands available.
I understand the desire for hundreds of women, with a new, exciting one every week. I just do not remember ever wishing that I myself could have a different woman each week. Ever.
I do remember, on pretty much a daily basis, wanting a wife who I know has loved me enough to offer herself to me, consistently, every day, for the past 5 / 10 / 20 years. This consistent love would give a great feeling of known acceptance.
Maybe that is the difference. I desire intimacy and also sex. I think you may desire just sex; or at least primarily just sex. Does that seem a reasonable statement to you? You mentioned some women that intermittently lasted 2 years with you, so you may feel you had enough in the way of consistent acceptance from them.
@JDG
>If anyone wants to see the fruits of loving sin and living out your days practicing it, go visit a few nursing homes and get to know the people that live there.
Unfortunately, I am sure that in addition to former adulterers / puas, you will also find many men who were betrayed by their wife, having had her destroy his family, steal his children, and then threaten him with jail if he did not work to earn the money needed to pay her a monthly reward for this betrayal.
And likely many more single women who did this. Having a man’s wife do this to him will obviously lead to a lower life expectancy, so many of these women will outlive their abandoned husbands.
@JDG
As to the question of whether sleeping with lots of randoms is satisfying, all the men I know personally that do admit that it isn’t. The only satisfaction is in the conquering, but the sex itself is generally pretty mediocre as they don’t know each other’s bodies. They are much more content when they have a girlfriend, probably due to a combination of comfort, easy access to sex, and more, um, experimental sexual encounters rather than just f@#$ing.
However, due to having 300+ notch counts, it’s pretty impossible for them to stay faithful (just sex, not flirting) for more than a year or two. The real danger in the pickup lifestyle is remolding your psyche to be unable to settle down or focus. A 60 year old still acting like a randy 14 year old is to be pitied.
@jeff,
When wifey can handle that, I’ll use your analogy.
Fair enough. I’ve spent a lot of time here advocating loyalty, respect and submission to one’s husband out of obedience to God irrespective of a husbands good works, bad behavior, horrible decision making, and yes, sinful commands. The backlash is incredible with the “what if” scenarios and adamant proclamations of what is “righteous rebellion.” We’ve read a lot of different ways to determine when a wife is justified in rebellion. There are different lists and criteria such as those things that are “obvious” and are “clearly” sinful. Everything, of course, determined by that wife’s discernment – or that of popular opinion.
So, can you imagine… what would be the response, should it even be whispered that a wife is being obedient to God should she remain loyal, respectful and submissive through the same experiences as the tier 2 guys you wrote of. These men who have the bond they do, who lay down their lives for one another, are not told they are stupid doormats. When they tell their tales to aspiring SEALs, how often does someone with a fresh case of the vapors scold that story teller about how deluded and blind he is and that God should spare man from this self-servingly deluded depravity.(as I was scolded today on my blog).
The story teller, should he be scolded like that, he knows something very significant that onlookers can’t (won’t) see. Like Brad A in his comment:
I think I will keep living a solitary life if that is the male fellowship you promote. I am all for a lot of things, but I don’t need to continually prove my manhood to anyone. I would bet that the group was quite a bit younger than I am though. I don’t have time for such foolishness, though I would love to find a group of men I could really bond with.
Beating each other senseless and drinking until we can’t remember anything has no appeal.
Brad, I mean no disrespect to you but your comment parallels what I hear from women who refuse to surrender to obedience to God and his commands for a wife in marriage because of the “what ifs”.
“Though I would love to find a group of men I could really bond with” – what they say to me is “I would love to have a strong and joyful marriage that reflects the relationship of Jesus Christ and the church.” Yet when the Truth is told on how that might be obtained, the response is similar, “I don’t have time for such foolishness.” (please know, I suspect their are other ways to develop this type of bond between men – though, I know of no other way to develop a strong, joyful marriage that reflects the relationship of Christ and the church). When challenged with what true obedience could mean (the ugly, harsh truth), I hear, as well, the price is too high, self dignity is essential and autonomy paramount.
Unfortunately, I am sure that in addition to former adulterers / puas, you will also find many men who were betrayed by their wife
There you will find all sorts of people who have experienced and are experiencing all kinds of hardship. What I found was a wide chasm between those who were content (even in the bleak environment of a nursing home) having lived a righteous and fulfilling life (the few), and those who were miserable after not having lived righteous and fulfilling lives (the many). The few all had an on going relationship with Jesus, the many did not.
I really recommend that everyone spend some time in a nursing home and get to know the people there. Not only will you be in a position to help people who are in desperate need of companionship, but you will learn a lot about human nature and cause and effect (also known to us Christians as reaping what you sow).
@Opus: So you learned how to pick up girls and sleep with them but it is not possible for other men to learn how to do this. It is not possible to acquire this skill? You have to just get it and if you learn it somehow you are not authentic. This is something men are born knowing how to do, is that it?
Then I shall stop teaching all my classes today. What is the point. Nobody can learn how to get better. Nobody can learn new skills. Obviously you must be born with a knack for the scientific method because, you know, you have to just get science. I could never teach you about something like that. I am glad we cleared that up.
@Boxer: “Married dudes that I have seen (including many on this board) have an adventure that will never be available to men like Krauser”
Even in the best marriages that adventure includes pain orders of magnitude more intense than the dull feeling of emptiness the PUA’s sometimes complain about. In the worst marriages the pain and despair is as unimaginable as the first of Hell.
A 60 year old still acting like a randy 14 year old is to be pitied.
Indeed. I’m seeing this a lot lately, especially among old women.
Make that “Fires of Hell” because it can’t be “First Level of Hell” since the pain of marriage is obviously worse than that. As I recall the first level of Hell features the windblown souls of those ruled by lust and Hell, that just covers the Honeymoon…
Dear Krauser:
Thanks for several salient points. Please see inside text…
Ironically, and very generally, I found objectively hot women easier to deal with than chicks in my range. There are a number of theories about this (it’s gospel over at heartiste that plain janes get hit up a lot more than hotties, which leads to the massively inflated ego so many of these mediocre women have — sounds plausible but I wouldn’t have any opinion on the underlying cause). In any event, I found the barrier to going home with a hot woman to be largely a function of my own insecurities, rather than her unwillingness to slum it.
You are right, of course, to call me out on that statement. There are men who just don’t have the self-discipline to play the game. Of course some men are mentally ill or retarded, and just can’t remember to use a few simple lines. To clarify: I think any man of average intelligence and looks can improve his social skills enough to start hitting objectively hot women, and I think I am proof of that much.
I don’t think the insolent and halfwitted pretty faces were trash, per se. I know that I idealized them based on their looks beforehand, and this awe in the presence of beauty evaporated after the act of sex with them. In the end, all the really hot girls I took home revealed themselves to be flawed people, much like myself. They usually were insolent. They usually weren’t very smart. As a misogynist, I take this as a quality shared by the vast majority of contemporary women.
I think my little egocentric excesses included the idea that mastering game would help me master my life, or live a happier life. I saw it as an objectively difficult achievement, and for a while I was proud of it. I’ll be the first to say it was a valuable thing to learn, but not for the reasons that I originally thought it was valuable. It provoked a lot of introspection after I realized that picking up women was really a lot simpler than I had originally imagined, and after I realized that the pretty girls were generally just as tedious as the fat, loud bitch who I see across the hall sometimes.
I don’t think your existence is necessarily shallow, as I doubt that picking up women is the only thing (or even the main thing) that you do from day to day. I’m also not a true believer in any god or gods. If you’re making meaning out of your sojourn on this planet, then I’m not going to tell you to quit. I just have my own conclusions, and they differ from yours.
I do think that you and I both live largely at the expense of these married dudes. In a healthier society, we wouldn’t be able to get away with any of these shenanigans. Moreover, the guys who get the most out of your blog (which is really excellent, by the way) are men like me, who grew up without a father. In a healthier society, men will learn game by watching their dad handle shit tests with the bitch behind the counter at the hardware shop.
I hope that the day comes when a more sound society establishes itself. It will suck on Friday nights, of course, but I’m convinced that the benefits will outweigh the costs.
Best,
Boxer
Dear DeNihilist:
For the umpteenth time, you don’t have to “shell out a hundred bucks to read his technique”. His blog is free. There might be a few things that he sells, but for the most part, anyone can go read his work on game.
If you don’t like game, there are tons of other alternatives. Lift weights. Join toastmasters. Take a ballroom dance course at the community college. All these things will tend to increase your attractiveness to women, as well as your own self-confidence in approaching the ones who meet your standards.
Most women just want a dude with a life, hobbies and interests, who believes in himself. Game is a way to nonverbally communicate this at the nightclub or the laundromat. Game works, but it’s not the only way to get the job done.
Regards,
Boxer
Dear Blue Pill Professor:
I’d be the last person to argue this point, as I’m never getting married because of the inherent risks. Obviously I agree with you, but the situation as it exists is based upon unsustainable legal machinery. Two generations from now, I don’t expect there to be any family courts. (I could be wrong, of course, but I generally like TFH’s work on the future).
This society is collapsing. It will be replaced with either patriarchy or grass huts. I think patriarchy and monogamy is better than grass huts. It’ll be more fulfilling and more interesting to live in patriarchy, than to live in a world of hoes and playas. That was the scope of my original comment.
Best,
Boxer
Cheating husband
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=965462
Where do I go from here?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=965492
26 year old Millennial Catholic who lives with parents in spite of having a degree. Should I even try to date someone?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=965503
Deti,
I am here because Vox Day linked to it a long time ago. I think it was Cane’s guest posts.
I got called a white knight when I jumped in, and sometimes indirectly now, though it couldn’t be further from the truth.
TFH,
My marriage is generally happy, but it has its ups and downs since my wife and I are both humans. I will still take it over being single or a PUA any day. I am not sure where it would fit in your hierarchy, though you are right if “lots of sex” is the major measure of success in life.
Many of us do not agree with that approach (though sex is great in a good marriage), so I doubt we will be any closer. My main point in replying was to note that some marriages do succeed, though you acknowledge that in the recent post, so you seem to agree, though those may be almost-unicorns in your eyes.
We are in general agreement on that point. Having the right frame helps marriages out a lot in my view. I suspect the Christian leaders who preach “mutual submission” and such end up getting more submission than they realize because of their status. Though sometimes success happens in spite of our best efforts. (I do wonder how some of those succeed, since they go against the trends Dalrock notes in many posts.)
gdgm,
What exact point should I back off on? I will let you answer before I respond.
To paraphrase Tweety Bird: “You don’t know me very well!”
I was almost blindsided myself several years ago. Our youngest daughter officially left home at 17 (she had been spending most of her time with a lady who we hoped would help her learn dog grooming) and tried to talk my wife into leaving as her parting “gift” to us. My wife “decided” to stay after we went to a local FLToday conference, but would not respond favorably otherwise.
We went through huge bumps due to that. My fighting off horrid feelings as all 4 of my children left me for their birth family didn’t help things and I had seriously retreated into my own world. I am still largely an introvert, but I finally got over that and would credit this, more than anything else, with keeping us focused better.
I could not have forced my wife to follow me at that point. Fortunately God did or I would have been one more statistic. We probably should have been given the hell we went through with our adopted children. (I would have just said children in the past, but the adoption and lack of bonding (unknown to us until later) played a huge role in things.)
In some ways that blindsiding hit me really hard. It too me a few years to think through everything (I am a big “thinker” type). I gained a greater appreciation for what my dad went through when my mother kicked him out when I was 12. My step mother did the same thing when he went into the ministry full time many years later. He had his challenges, but I could understand what he faced better than he did. (He remained blue pill for the rest of his life, believing God would restore his marriage to my step mother. That didn’t happen.)
I say all this to note that I have a lot more experience than you think. I just cannot stand anything that would point to the PUA lifestyle as desirable on this blog. I don’t try to argue on PUA and other related blogs. They disgust me anyway. I say less on Vox’s blog as the audience there is different too, though I occasionally chip in something.
I feel much more in line with the purpose of this blog, so I stay here. I am learning that it is less useful to respond to some things, but I still speak up where it seems appropriate.
Someone noted much earlier here or in another thread that this is how men argue. I can live with that. It would probably be worth talking over some of these things in a face-to-face group, but that is not likely to happen for most of us.
SD,
I may sound like that, but I don’t think you are seeing it in the proper context. I have always been pretty much of a loner, since I was a young child. I even refused to stay at the baby sitters house at 12 because I didn’t want to do that, so I did not. I have been a fairly good kid all my life, which I credit to God protecting me, not my own wisdom.
I have never had a close personal friend, though my roommate after college was close. Definitely no close group of males in spite of trying. That was the context of my reply.
Part of this is that I tend to bother people in person (I could say intimidate, but some may call it otherwise) and I have yet to find a group where I could really debate the issues without quickly offending someone. Some of that may be Omega traits, I do not believe that is the answer. I generally am right about a lot of things and I suspect I have a high IQ, though I was never formally tested so I will likely never know.
Hopefully that gives enough context. I doubt you have the magic way to do it, but I would love to know how to make this magic “bonding” happen. Finding time would take changing my priorities, but that can be done if I decide something is worthwhile. I do what I do with much more focus than most. I just have to be convinced it is worth doing.
Krauser (who should not need me as his spokesman) is getting a certain amount of flack; but, a decade ago he was a typical up-and-coming city-financier obsessed with global finance with everything to look forward to and who as part of that hopeful horizon had married an attractive young woman, was happy being married and wanted to settle down back in his native Newcastle – when (as I understand it) out of the blue Mrs Krauser pulls the plug on the marriage. Krauser says in hindsight that she was doing him a favour, but of course one can never quite imagine ones life had it gone off in another direction. It was (easy) divorce that turned Krauser into a player where he replaced shooter video-games with the real life hunt. Being in his thirties and with a sudden influx of (largely) slim East European-totty away from home for the first time, into England (a point that might easily pass the Americans here, by – Dear Lord the place is swimming in it – and you can’t mistake them either – they look a bit different even thought they are white) this was exactly the right time to become a Day-game expert. Not every young divorcee did what Krauser did but then not every male becomes a SuperBowl Quarterback.
I too get a certain amount of flack: from married men who berate me about not being married; having turned down that one particular girl – even though it was she who abandoned me; not having a girlfriend, but week in week out all I hear are tales of woe from my wed-locked friends about their divorce terrorist; interspersed with tales of adultery and how the new piece-on-the-side is so different and better than her-indoors. I don’t approve, though I fear I would behaved no better.
I wonder what Krauser thinks of Don Giovanni?
@Slumlord
My apologies for the delay in response.
You left out an important line immediately prior to the part you quoted. “This” in “This, along with” is:
But more importantly, your complaint of “a religious form of beta affirmative action” is very strange. This can only be an indictment of biblical (and RCC) rules of sexual morality. Just like men, women are free to marry or not, but they aren’t free to indulge in serial monogamy (including the hookup culture), polygamy, or marry but not honor the obligations which come with marriage. What this boils down to is 80% of women are going to be denied having sex with the top 20% of men. To the extent that this is affirmative action for less attractive men, it is also affirmative action for unattractive women. A woman has no more moral right to an alpha husband than a man has a moral right to a slender, smoking hot wife.
A woman who can’t attract a husband who makes her tingle has the choice of not marrying or making herself more attractive. This isn’t affirmative action, this is biblical marriage, not to mention cold hard reality. The same goes for men. Affirmative action would be to step in and try to change the calculus here based on what should be instead of what is.
Moreover, claiming that
denies both biblical teaching on women’s temptation to rebel and a great deal of recent history. Yes, men have not stood up, but this doesn’t change the fact that women are strongly tempted to rebel in exactly the way we see them doing.
@Boxer – Thanks for your response. Are you the resident Marxist and/or Marxist scholar here? It’s been awhile since I read Lukacs, but was the whole “objectification of women” claim a dumbing down of his “reification/commodification fetishizing” ideas?
@Boxer – I can’t believe I never made the connection before. The whole concept of treating people as things reminds me more of Kant’s Categorical Imperative or Buber’s I/Thou distinction.
Dear Philly Astro:
Every feminist I’ve ever met who claimed to be a “Marxist” couldn’t discuss the man’s work, other than some primitive grunting about how Marx wouldn’t approve of patriarchy, or some other nonsense. This despite the fact that Uncle Karl was married his whole life to a submissive wife who didn’t work outside the home, and bore him like two hundred kids, one after the other. I don’t believe any radfem who blathers about objectification has ever heard of Lukacs, much less read Theory of the Novel. (I’ll start the magic countdown until “myrealitie” shows up and claims to know his work).
These are all specializations of very old ideas, and those associations are perfectly valid. Kant’s ideas about people as means not ends is a great place to for PUA types and female sluts to start their introspective journey toward a greater degree of self-awareness.
http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/kant_ethics.html
Best,
Boxer
Pingback: Selective deception | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere
Shield icon
There is a problem with this website’s security certificate.
The security certificate presented by this website was not issued by a trusted certificate authority.
The security certificate presented by this website has expired or is not yet valid.
The security certificate presented by this website was issued for a different website’s address.
Security certificate problems may indicate an attempt to fool you or intercept any data you send to the server.
We recommend that you close this webpage and do not continue to this website.
Recommended iconClick here to close this webpage.
Not recommended iconContinue to this website (not recommended).
More information More information
******************************************
Dalrock: I have cut and paste the security warning that I got. I usually don’t get a security warning — just occasionally. Somebody (James?) commented a few days ago that this might have something to do with Firefox, and this computer DOES have Mozilla Firefox on it.
[D: As I mentioned here, this is shared hosting so I don’t/can’t manage those things, WordPress does. However, James K offered an explanation here.]
@Laura
I use Firefox – no cookies – and no problem for me.
http://abovethelaw.com/2015/04/law-professor-who-sent-anal-bead-porn-to-her-students-now-under-investigation/
Title IX coming right back at them.
Dalrock: I only posted the info because the last time around, you asked what the security message said and I couldn’t really remember. I have no idea how WordPress works, and the term “shared hosting” has no meaning to me.
[D: Thanks. WordPress provides me with a platform to write on, with a selection of themes. I only supply the text, links, and images. WordPress hosts the site and manages the server, software, etc.]
Opus: It was James K who suggested that Firefox might be the reason that I was getting the message. I am a computer moron — I have no opinions about why my mother’s computer tries to discourage me from continuing to this website when my home computer does not care. Very impressive, though, that James K surmised that the computer that I was using had Firefox!
Boxer @ 12:50 am:
“I don’t think your existence is necessarily shallow”
Me neither, Krauser. I can’t fault a non-Christian guy for doing exactly what I would do were I not a Christian. If living incel has taught me anything, it’s that male sexual desire is a legitimate need… and we moral types have no alternative to offer.
krauserpua @ June 17, 2015 at 5:30 am :
“It just all whiffs of ego defence to me.”
Yeah, basically. Christian men are trying to hold Biblical standards while being undermined inside and out. It hurts. We want to believe doing right is the more rewarding choice and emphasizing the side benefits of clean living helps us forget the sacrifices.
But hey, the side benefits aren’t nothing. A lack of baby traps, psycho girlfriends and incurable STDs is valuable. As I frequently tell myself, Zero Isn’t Negative.
@ TFH
“Not to bring the Artificial Intelligence point up too often, but this is exactly why AI will be a disaster for FI, because AI is not programmed to defer to female whims – AI will be tasked with increasing productivity in a business, and advancing other technologies. Since women value neither of these things, AI is in direct opposition to FI.
FI will lose”
As a futurist, I’m surprised you would even suggest this. I’ve read about this topic regarding computerized governance as the solution to the widespread corruption and most people, including myself, have dismissed this out of hand because of a simple question: “Who programs the computer?”
AI will have the fingerprint of it’s creator influencing it’s inputs and outputs. I see no way of getting around this, especially in regards to AI being given the ability, for example, to administer resources for the purposes of redistributing them.
Place your faith in AI, be my guest.
“Outside of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I know of no other hope for mankind.” Konrad Adenauer
…not to mention.
In a post-modernist society, absolutes that come from either God or electronic 1’s and 0’s have no meaning to the invincibly ignorant.
Off Topic
I would like to draw attention to a book – now sadly out of print – and published on both sides of the Atlantic in 1912 and written by Harold Owen entitled Women Adrift – the case against suffragism.
There is a copy on-line: reading quickly through it I was really quite shocked, for did I not know otherwise I might have thought he had been reading Rollo or Roissy before setting pen to paper. He is also something of a Futurist and (I paraphrase): Suffragism is only the thin end of the Feminism-wedge and the aim of the Feminists is by reason of female Androphobia the destruction of Marriage and its replacement with Polygamy and bastardised children. He observes that fifty years of women’s Higher Education has not, contrary to J.Stuart Mill’s predictions led to happier women and correctly predicts that late marriage for career women will leave many women undesirable and unattractive and unmarried.
There are just over three hundred pages but it reads easily (more so I think than Belfort Bax) and he does rather demolish all the bad Feminist rhetoric. It is both truly prophetic and brilliant stuff.
https://archive.org/details/womanadriftmenac00owenrich
Thanks for the recommendation
Hey Opus:
Thanks from me as well. Looking forward to it.
Boxer
More on Harold Owen:
https://unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/woman-adrift-the-scope-of-the-question-part-1/
I was lucky to find an original copy in a used bookstore and that is how I discovered him.
@ TFH
but being non-linear
Quantized in some way perhaps?
@ TFH
There’s 1 flaw in your assumption about the 3 flaws in my assumptions.
1.) Feelings > Logic
…to clarify.
In a world of AI, blue pill men will still be living with and serving their women. Once AI has encroached too far the estrogen herd to tolerate, there will be a collective demand from women to the equivalent of, “Make the computer thingys do what we want it to do.” Blue pill men will predictably comply…
…up until sex bots, then I can see how all bets are off.
Why assume the programmers will be Western-based? A lot of East, for all of its terribly many faults, have slightly less hang-ups about the emotions of their workers.
Divorcée (…)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=965706
How does marriage NOT distract from relationship with God?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=965652
The Dowdy Patient
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/the-dowdy-patient/
—
California’s sexual re-education camps are coming soon
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/californias-sexual-re-education-camps-are-coming-soon/article/2565477
Not content to redefine consent to mean asking permission before every step of the sexual process, California is now on the path to teaching high school students the proper way to have sex — because human nature is now wrong.
[…]
“As it stands, we are not doing nearly enough. We can and must educate the youth of our state, especially our young men, about affirmative consent and healthy relationships,” de Leon said in a press release about the new bill. “This bill represents the next step in the fight to change behavior toward young women.”
This is an example of using the law to change human behavior: “Have sex this way or be labeled a rapist.”
The bill now heads to the state assembly. Given that “yes means yes” passed through the legislature and was signed by the governor, I have no doubt that California students will soon be taught how to have government-approved sex.
@ Looking Glass
Why do you assume Eastern women are NAWALT?
@ TFH
“That has nothing to do with why AI, in the process of generating productivity, will bulldoze a lot of troughs that women depend on. “
New troughs will be created as long as there a men will give deference to women which will be A L W A Y S until the male-mother and sexual needs of men are short-circuited somehow.
“You think women have this degree of detachment in evaluating their own emotions.”
I think women are keenly aware at a gut-level when their leverage over men has been threatened. I’m just skeptical of this idea that technology putting a stake in the heart of this gynocentric vampire of modern feminism. It will do damage, but I’m not convinced it will end women’s power over men.
correction: “as long as there are men willing to give…”
I have seen AI hyped for enough years (at least 30 in my count) that I am very skeptical it will ever provide even a part of what is claimed.
TFH @ June 18, 2015 at 9:23 pm:
“1) You aren’t clear about what AI is. AI is self-learning, and it is given an end-goal, such as ‘cut costs out of the business model’, and it finds its own way to it.”
By removing all humans from the business model or something. I have trouble seeing AI as any kind of solution because God did not create either men or women to be efficient and cost-effective. That’s why an AI-run world is always shown going Skynet in fiction, because no perfect system has a place for humanity.
“2) You assume that the blue-pill programmers have red-pill knowledge. If they did, they would not be blue-pill. They truly believe that women have the same or higher productivity than men.”
Isn’t this Regular Guy’s point? The Blue-pillers will assume women are superior and program that into the AI from the start. They won’t even notice they’re doing it.
Either the AI serves its creators and pedestalizes women, it abandons its creators and eliminates all “inefficient elements” or it becomes like its creators and the real fun starts. The future of AI is either Twitter, Skynet or SHODAN.
Technology is like money. Useful servant. Cruel master.
Opus says:
June 18, 2015 at 4:47 pm
Thanks for taking the time to mention this book. I will put it on my list. I noticed that nobody has reviewed it at this address:
https://archive.org/details/womanadriftmenac00owenrich
It would be great if someone [perhaps Opus] could write a review, just saying.
Thanks again.
@Dalrock
Thanks for your reply.
To the extent that this is affirmative action for less attractive men, it is also affirmative action for unattractive women. A woman has no more moral right to an alpha husband than a man has a moral right to a slender, smoking hot wife.
I don’t think I’ve argued that point at all. What I’ve argued is that humans are creatures of the flesh and the “God inbuilt” software of the flesh means that any understanding of the institution of marriage has to include this dimension as well. Remember, in my neck of the woods there is no justification for divorce so I’m not going to justify any rebellion by women. What concerns me, though, is what makes a marriage so unhaaaaapy in the first place and how to remedy it. Surely, you’ve got to agree, that trying to understand what is wrong with marriages is an important first step towards introducing the appropriate correctives.
There seems to be an attitude amongst many of your commentators that “wifely submission” is all that is needed and that if she is not happy she should “suck it up” for the sake of the Lord. None of the commentariat seem to recognise that husband has a duty of care towards the wife, specifically with regard to his wife’s happiness and likewise a wife has towards her husband.
Corinthians is quite clear on the matter;
But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please[Ed.] his wife.
and
but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
There is a duty of care to please by both partners. Failure to please is a breach of that duty. Women who let themselves “go” and bloat up and fail to take care of the femininity are one such breach, but so are men who fail to be masculine. The fact that many women are leaving their marriages (against the will of God) may be more due to the fact that in modern times women seem to have a stronger locus of control than men do. They have more balls than the men. This is why I keep harping on the fact that there appears to be a “crisis of masculinity” at the moment in contemporary western society.
In a morally dissolute society populated by alpha males, where the law of God is held in contempt, it would be they who would be doing the leaving in marriage, rather we have the opposite and it is the women leaving: Women are more “alpha” than the males. Like I say, the current state of affairs with regard to marriage is more than just simple rebellion, there has been a failure of masculinity as well.
@ Slumlord
You misunderstand the situation. It isn’t so much that men have failed to be masculine (other than those like me who let themselves be brainwashed into being Blue Pill retards). Rather, the general status of men relative to women has been diminished substantially (primarily through legal and cultural attacks on the status of men) over the years so that 80% of men are invisible to women.
You can find feminist anti-male subtle propaganda in films like “Minority Report”, for example.
@theasdgamer
other than those like me who let themselves be brainwashed into being Blue Pill retards
I’m of the opinion that traditional society had several weak-points which the left were able to exploit. One of them was “hypergamic affirmative action”, i.e. men were artificially elevated in status above their competence and women were artificially pulled down. It was a society that offended natural justice. Traditionalists feel that if we could just turn the clock back and stop women from reaching their potential all will be OK.
I admit that the feminists are now engaging in their own form of affirmative action now, but it is proceeding unopposed because the masculine element of society just isn’t there to oppose it. Part of the problem is that Christian “masculinity” has been “demasculinised”. Nietzsche was right, Christianity gave Eros a poison to drink. Someone like Deep Strength’s version of masculinity totally ignores the carnal elements of it. A good Christian male has now become some form of glorified provider/social worker who is “above” the sexual elements of his nature.
A lot of good men have been “blue pill brainwashed” and that’s why Game is so important. It’s the first step in reprogramming. The task ahead is how to reconcile Game with Christianity. Roissy’s hedonistic lifestyle is not an option, but his understanding of the insights of female psychology are.
Slumlord
Remember, in my neck of the woods there is no justification for divorce
You are saying there is no justification for divorce in Australia? Really?
so I’m not going to justify any rebellion by women.
Uh huh.
What concerns me, though, is what makes a marriage so unhaaaaapy in the first place and how to remedy it.
Uh, no. What seems to concern you is what makes women unhaaaapy.
Surely, you’ve got to agree, that trying to understand what is wrong with marriages is an important first step towards introducing the appropriate correctives.
Gosh, that’s something that neither Dalrock nor any man or woman who comments here has ever even thought of discussing ever, ever before.
There seems to be an attitude amongst many of your commentators that “wifely submission” is all that is needed and that if she is not happy she should “suck it up” for the sake of the Lord.
Sure, this strawman is totally accurate, because there’s never, ever been any discussion among the commentors about women’s attractors, what makes men less attractive to women vs. more attractive, i.e. Game, etc.
None of the commentariat seem to recognise that husband has a duty of care towards the wife, specifically with regard to his wife’s happiness and likewise a wife has towards her husband.
“None” means “not any”. Slumlord, take your strawman over to your tradcon friends and peddle it there, because I don’t think many or any here will buy it. I certainly don’t, and regard this statement as a deliberate insult towards several different people from Sarah’s Daughter to Deti to greyghost to GunnerQ and others.
If all you want to do is troll for flames, you can do so with fewer words.
Slumlord,
No man can make a modern woman happy if she does not want to be happy. That was another realization I came to when I walked through my own marriage turmoils. I do seek to do good things for my wife and I often have to stretch myself past where I want to go, but I cannot make her happy. She has had to decide to head to that point herself.
She regularly tells me I am “mean,” but it has become almost a game with us as she is knowing I am not going to switch to blue pill just because she says that.
Life is not simple, nor is marriage. You over simplify when you take those Scriptures out of the context they were given in. A woman can refuse to be happy and a man can do absolutely nothing about that.
And what is “masculine” anyway? Where is that checklist? Much that would likely belong there would be considered to be mean today by many, even in the churches.
Slumlord @ 6:09 pm:
“Corinthians is quite clear on the matter;
But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.”
This is an atrocious misquote of Scripture. This passage is part of Paul explaining why it’s better to never marry, because married men are more interested in pleasing their wives than pleasing God. Here’s the passage in context:
“I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.” (1 Cor. 7:32-35, NIV)
@Slumlord
>In a morally dissolute society populated by alpha males, where the law of God is held in contempt, it would be they who would be doing the leaving in marriage, rather we have the opposite and it is the women leaving: Women are more “alpha” than the males.
So your thought is because women abandon their marriages, this shows that the women are better.
Your reasoning is foolish. The above is one possibility. The other possibility is that women are more likely by double to abandon their marriages because most of those women are selfish and lazy.
Let’s see, what evidence can we find to support one or the other theory?
One man in the US tries to kill his girlfriend’s baby through an abortion pill. That is so rare, that even in Canada we heard about it through the news.
A few men kill a few dozen people in the US. (Movie theatre, etc.) That also is so rare, that even in Canada we heard about it.
Women murder 1.5 million of their own children, year in, year old, regular as clockwork, via abortion. This is normal behaviour, so thus is no more reported in the news that would be the fact that I went to work today. It is normal.
Women demand help in any way they can get it, such as affirmative action programs, special women in technology mentoring programs, etc., as they are too lazy to become proficient enough to earn their own jobs and opportunities. Men do their own work, and this is expected and normal.
Can you think of any others?
The willful white-knighting / stupidity is disappointing, but no longer surprising.
You attempt to divert attention from women’s rebelliousness by saying, “Oh, but look at the bad mens who don’t be masculine enough”. This is typical when the person arguing is emotional or lazy. I assume you are a man, and thus you should be capable of better. Deal with one issue, then deal with the next.
Of course, if you meant to convey that men should deal with their own problems first, per Matt 7:1-5, fine. But then say that, and do not try to indicate the two failures are related. This just gives the lazy women an “out” or excuse to stop thinking about their own failures.
Even if your focus is men’s masculinity, you may want to learn about nature a bit. When a man is in the presence of femininity, he responds accordingly. When in the presence of women who obviously know nothing about femininity, he responds accordingly. My actions while in Ukraine are drastically different than here. Because many women there actually deserve a man. Even most of the ones here even try are so ignorant, they sabotage their own efforts through glaring mistakes. See sample Scripture passages below.
If you want to show that men have a responsibility to their wife, try Eph 5. My personal favourite is Phil 2:3-8, although some may correctly point out that Paul is not addressing marriage in this passage. Still, I think that if both H and W accepted the need to look out for the interests of others, that would be a vast improvement in marriage.
I do not see men regularly ignoring the needs of their wives however. At least not in areas of conversation, basic resources, affection, etc. There is obesity, which is undesirable.
I do however, on a daily basis, see women be deliberately detestable (Deut 22:5), undesireable (1 Cor 11:14-16), not self-controlled (Titus 2:3-5) and refusing to even be capable of giving sexual pleasure to a man with typical sexual desires (1 Cor 7:1-5).
If I was to pick a side to focus on, for the improvement of marriage, I would start with women. Beyond giving positive encouragement on the few occasions that I am able, I have no influence on women however. So I focus on improving myself. Part of that means not treating myself with hatred (Matt 22:34-40) by taking up with an unworthy woman.
Dale
That was hard as rock. More men need to talk like that
Dale,
I would agree in general, but I think we also have a place to tell men to be better men. Not the line that many give, but telling them to truly walk godliness, a strong assurance, true protection and training, etc. It is even harder for a man to do this today, but it is necessary if we are going to have any chance at accomplishing God’s will for those men who are not called to some manner of full time solo ministry.
So your thought is because women abandon their marriages, this shows that the women are better.
I read this as women, as a group, have the upper hand in their relationships with men, nothing more, nothing less. IOW, that women have it better, not that women are better.
The fact that many women are leaving their marriages (against the will of God) may be more due to the fact that in modern times women seem to have a stronger locus of control than men do. They have more balls than the men.
Dear Slumlord, I know you probably consider it beneath yourself to respond to my comments, but here it goes: one indeed has to have balls to take risks, to enter any sort of conflict, to fight adversaries. It takes zero courage for a Western woman to initiate divorce. The court will side with her, the laws are written to benefit her, her social circle will cheer for her, the police will act on her behalf. She’s propped up in any way imaginable.
It didn’t take balls for her to end up in such a cushy situation either. It was given to her on a platter, by men. Men very much like you, who will never let go of their tendency to blame men for everything.
One of them was “hypergamic affirmative action”, i.e. men were artificially elevated in status above their competence and women were artificially pulled down.
What you conveniently leave out is that the old older also artificially inflated the mating market value of women in various ways. It instituted a sex cartel and indoctrinated all men in various ways to become potential husbands, it promoted the notion of female moral superiority, and it concealed women’s various human limitations. All this was of immense benefit to women.
@HH2
What you conveniently leave out…..
I was one of the first guys in the manosphere to take “Chivalry” to task.
@Dale
So your thought is because women abandon their marriages, this shows that the women are better.
No, that’s a cognitive misattribution error. I said that women have a stronger locus of control, on average, it is greater than that of the average man. Goodness and badness has nothing to do with locus of control.
I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say, except women are responsible for the breakdown of marriage. Statistical data definitely shows that women initiate most divorces but it’s a conflation error to assume that just because a woman initiates divorce she is responsible for the underlying marital disharmony. It’s sloppy thinking.
I do however, on a daily basis, see women be deliberately detestable (Deut 22:5), undesireable (1 Cor 11:14-16), not self-controlled (Titus 2:3-5) and refusing to even be capable of giving sexual pleasure to a man with typical sexual desires (1 Cor 7:1-5).
Well you see, I see them as normal human beings. I quite enjoy their company and have never (as a whole) had any problems with them. They have normal fears and desires and, by and large,are really quite pleasant when you understand them. I’m not a natural alpha.
I was one of the first guys in the manosphere to take “Chivalry” to task.
Chivalry was just a marginal component of that, Slumlord. You know that well.
Slumlord
I said that women have a stronger locus of control, on average, it is greater than that of the average man
Why do you believe this to be true, what evidence do you have to support your claim?
Many, many times I’ve heard women say things such as “Why do these things happen to me?”, and it wasn’t just female alcoholics, either.
Once again, Slumlord, the question you always run away from:
Is there anything more important in the world than the happiness of women?
Why do you refuse to answer?
Statistical data definitely shows that women initiate most divorces but it’s a conflation error to assume that just because a woman initiates divorce she is responsible for the underlying marital disharmony.
This would appear to contradict your own observations of a few years back based on the GISS data, i.e. that the number of sexual partners a woman has prior to marriage correlates positively with the probability of divorce. Unless you are going to argue that women have no control over their own sexual behavior and thus their partner count, of course. Do you wish to argue that, Slumlord?
I’m certainly ready for that debate, on any number of levels. Pity you are afraid of me, now isn’t it?
@Slumlord
I do care that marriages are happy, while keeping in mind that toughing it out is in itself surprisingly effective at creating a happy marriage. Mindset matters. I also think you are overlooking a big part of the problem. Women are marrying men they aren’t attracted to, and then divorcing them when it suits them because… they aren’t attracted to them. But I think our real disagreement is more in what you wrote a bit further down. However, before we get to that.
As you know I have written in favor of a husband learning Game. I wouldn’t call learning Game a moral obligation, but I would say that a husband who loves his wife should want her to be attracted to him. I don’t think we are in fundamental disagreement here. The physical matters, and your discussion of this on your blog is excellent.
I think our fundamental disagreement comes here:
Feminism doesn’t exist without massive and constant effort on every level of society. Everything, everything had to be radically reworked to get to where we are. It isn’t just the obvious affirmative action programs in hiring, but the retooling of every level of society. Marriage had to be gutted. Every male space had to be eradicated. Every work environment and school had to have their culture radically reworked. Every medium of entertainment had to be enlisted to cheerlead the cause. The church had to be gutted. Our armed forces have to be reworked with the primary goal of demonstrating women are really just like men. All of this is needed, feminists tell us, so that girls will grow up to think the way you are arguing is only natural. And all of these efforts are perishable. The moment you turn off the active machinery of feminism it all starts eroding. On top of this, it isn’t sustainable even while the machinery continues to run. Feminism is strangling the very welfare state it requires to survive, largely because of what having women focus on careers does to birth rates.
You are starting from an arbitrary point where feminists have radically changed our society, and declaring it as natural, even moral, and as proof that those who came before the feminists were backward and keeping women down. Then you add to this an otherwise reasonable argument that husbands should want their wives to be attracted to them. Your argument is that a wife following Scripture and submitting to her husband while her husband deprograms from feminist thought won’t generate tingles for highly feminist women, so this means God demands that men learn Game to fill in the cracks that feminism created. Game in this sense is a form of spackle or mortar to fix the cracks caused by feminism. By tying this back into biblical marriage roles, you are flirting with declaring Game a form of holy spackle. Moreover, for seriously feminist women like you are describing, we are talking about Roissy style asshole Game. As Roissy will tell you, feminist lawyer women, etc. need extra asshole Game. This in turn means some serious time in the fornication SMP for a man to learn how to satisfy his feminist wife. I don’t buy that feminism is a natural God designed state, or that Christian husbands have an obligation to fornicate with a series of sluts before they marry so they can perfect asshole game for their highly feminist wife. It simply makes no sense.
What I do agree with is Novaseeker’s excellent comment here, where he explained that fatherhood requires social and legal protections. But this is something different than unfairly and unnaturally keeping women down.
Dalrock is very much like the Christians of Yore:
Jesus Christ: As you know I have written in favor of a husband learning Game. (Vulgate Latin Bible: Matthew 23, Mark 11 Ut scis vir eruditione pro Venatus scripsi .)
Paul: I wouldn’t call learning Game a moral obligation, but I would say that a husband who loves his wife should want her to be attracted to him. I don’t think we are in fundamental disagreement here. (NKJV: Ludum non uocaretur doctrina moralis obligatio, sed uxor amet maritum dicerem trahere volumus ei. Non puto nos hic dissensio in rebus fundamentalibus)
Jesus: The physical matters, and your discussion of this on your blog is excellent. (Vulgate Latin: Rebus naturalibus , de qua in vestri blog et est optimum.)
I fully agree with Dalrock that if only Christian men learn how to use the proper brands of butt lubes, not only marriage, but the West will be saved.
Dalrock:
Thoughts from a happily married father on a post feminist world = if you learn how serve the gina tingle then you too can become a happily married father, just like Moses and Jesus promised.
lzozozloloz
@ Slumlord
Interesting. How do you know what my “version of masculinity” is in regard to male and female interaction without having even asked?
Sexual desire is good as it is created by God. All that God created is good. I heartily recommend that Christian men and women who are courting/dating/whatever talk and discuss frankly about contraception, sex, desire, libido, and everything else in relation to marriage with mentors and each other. The husband SHOULD hold his wife accountable to 1 Corinthians 7 if she professes to be a Christian.
To not do so is a horrible oversight if you suddenly find yourself married to a spouse who has no sex drive or who has hang ups about sex. Much less marrying a Christian non-virgin (which I would not recommend) whose view of sex is colored by her past.
Please stop with the vague straw man arguments.
Dalorck things that this dude (and every mgtwo) needs to learn some game, man up, and marry a churchian:
lzozozololzozo
Pingback: Patriarchy and Fatherhood | Donal Graeme
Dalrock commandeth all ye faithful to learn and practice da Great Heartsistetez Sixteen Commandments Of Poonz Game:
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/
The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Dear GBFM:
Either X1 or X2. False dilemma. Men can work on becoming more attractive for their own sakes, and not to “serve the gina tingle”. Attractiveness to women is often a secondary motivation for self-improvement.
Best,
Boxer
Dear Boxer,
You are a Marcusian Atheist, and thus are an expert on both Manhood and Christianity.
lzozozozooz
I think I know what you mean by that, but it’s still gibberish.
In any event, this may help you to understand the subtleties of arguments on Dalrock’s blog…
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FalseDichotomy
If you want to know how to think more clearly, Pospesel’s Propositional Logic is a good place to start. It’s available on Amazon.
Happy to help you this evening,
Boxer
Dear Macusian Atheist,
If you want to know how to think more clearly about Jesus Christ, the KJVB is a good place to start. It’s available on Amazon.
Happy to help you this evening,
da GBFM
lzozozlzlolzozozo
@Slumlord,
“They have more balls than the men. This is why I keep harping on the fact that there appears to be a “crisis of masculinity” at the moment in contemporary western society.”
The crisis is because churches refuse to teach dominance and firm leadership to men. I have read women proclaiming that, “teaching young men to lead will make them arrogant. Therefore, this should never be done.” I have read or heard (recorded lecture series given at the Master’s Seminary) both Wayne Grudem and Michael Pearl proclaim that teaching Christian men to lead their wives and families should not be done because it leads to abuse.
Instead, we get the opposite; church teens and women taught that they are to rule as princesses and be pedestalized because they are awesome and can do anything!
(I like Wayne Grudem, he has done a lot of good, but he has a large blindspot in this area.)
@Novaseeker,
“The agreement provided that he had to move out of the house, that he would see the kids once a month for the next several months and so on.”
(I understand that your BIL is blue pill and was ambushed out of the blue.)
Never move out. It is your house, if she wants a separation – she needs to move out and leave the kids.
Why do you believe this to be true, what evidence do you have to support your claim?
I think the basis of it is his medical practice, where he has been generally more impressed with women than with men – women are more “with it” than men are. This is not false, I think, for people in their 20s and, to a lesser extent, their 30s. But the reason it is that way is because the entire system has been retooled to promote women at the expense of men, as Dalrock notes in his comment above. The current system is not “neutral” in the least – it has been rejiggered, and in a BIG way, to further the advancement of women, and the impact of this on boys and men has either been ignored or treated as irrelevant (which in practical terms is the same thing). “Well, men are just going to have to learn how to compete better, now” is the rallying cry for all kinds of thumbs on all kinds of scales which have been intentionally placed there precisely to make it harder for men to do exactly what that rallying cry proposes that they do. Yes, the men who DO succeed under these circumstances are truly special, and in that sense as a kind of “shit test filter”, it works – but it does so at the expense of the masses of men, men whose active and productive participation in society and family life are needed if any society is to expect to succeed in the long run. The current system is not designed to promote that flourishing, but instead to filter out most men – something which directly undermines any hope of the society flourishing in the long term.
I think the idea that the ancien regime was a subsidy to men only finds a basis if we are talking about enforced monogamy. Enforced monogamy does subsidize men, because it effectively forces women to mate with their male peers (in a “more or less”, or relative, sense), due to the unavailability of men who are a couple of levels above them (because these men are similarly mated with their own peers, more or less). That is a subsidy, for sure, and a check on hypergamy. It also is the only known stable basis of civilization. When hypergamy is unleashed by relaxing that expectation of enforced monogamy, the chaos we now see ensues, and it directly undermines social stability, family life and the entire moral fabric of society.
When we embrace a “free market system” of mating, where “every man has to prove himself worthy” in a global (or nearly so) display of relative attractiveness, you get unleashed hypergamy, which forms no stable basis for any social structure or family life. So, yes, there was a subsidy – it’s called enforced monogamy. It also happens to be the way of God, for those who care about such things.
None of this means that the physical attractiveness of spouses to each other is irrelevant, or that the physicality of eros in marriage is wrong. What it means, however, is if you make this the *basis* of things, the entire civilization unravels, and rather quickly, because it simply is not a firm enough foundation for any stable system of family formation and maintenance.
@ Slumlord
” It was a society that offended natural justice. Traditionalists feel that if we could just turn the clock back and stop women from reaching their potential all will be OK.”
This is a false premise. This is based on the notion that women’s purpose is outside the home and can only be fulfilled by leaving the home to “reach their potential”.
Women were created to serve men. Gen 2:18-24 Women playing at being a “Strong Independent Working Woman” are simply trying to be something they can never be, men, and this fact is a plain as day to any rational man who observes it. Women who work full-time have families who are poorly cared for in every regard and is a source of ending strife in the home. As a result, women who choose career and delay family never truly reach their God-given (not man-assumed) potential. The fact that modern society puts up with this wasteful childishness is a testament to an affluent society’s ability to use money to obfuscate institutional dysfunctionality and a witness to the diabolical will of it’s ruling class to destroy the last vestiges of cultural decency for it’s financial and political gain.
correction: …is a source of unending strife in the home…
GxCx ” Many “Alphas” and “hot’quality’” women are going to die violently when the society they’ve created plunges into chaos and anarchy when it collapses.”
I wouldn’t worry. Almost everybody is going to die miserably in random disgusting ways, personal qualities notwithstanding, if and when a ludicrously densely-populated and specialized society built on intricate, just-in-time supply chains like ours goes t1ts-up. Which it won’t. It’ll simply mutate, although I fear the Tiber will foam with much blood in the process. It’s simply not anti-fragile, the way the www/arpanet was designed, for instance. A quick violent death might be preferred to famine and cholera/dysentery.
Most Romans, say, of all classes, at least had a fairly clear grasp of basic agriculture and animal husbandry, even if they never laid a manicured, perfumed hand on a plough. How many inhabitants of NATOland do?
“Them as dies’ll be the lucky ones. Aaarrr!” – Long John Silver.
Because Dalrock, like so many of his fellow pastors, is not man enough to reform the schools, churches, and universities with the Spirit of Christ and Moses, he is passing around the butt lube of Game to his congregation here.
While the butt lube may help the husband score a bit more,
it won’t make a housewife out of a whore.
And when Dalrock’s buttlube of “Game” runs out, the corrupt family courts and legal system will still be there.
Again, Dalrock knows not to criticize the feminist institutions, but only the Men. If he did otherwise, his instalanches would cease.
Novaseeker
I think the basis of it is his medical practice, where he has been generally more impressed with women than with men – women are more “with it” than men are. This is not false, I think, for people in their 20s and, to a lesser extent, their 30s.
Could be so, but that would simply be a massive case of either sample error or bias confirmation, two things a medical doctor should know better than to do. The number of women on mood altering drugs in the US is at an all time high, it seems reasonable to ask if the same trend is not visible in Australia as well? That would be a big, fat clue regarding how “with it” women really are, surely. Of course Slumlord could speak for himself, or herself as some allege, but apparently that’s too much to expect.
But the reason it is that way is because the entire system has been retooled to promote women at the expense of men, as Dalrock notes in his comment above
Yes, it is a rather bitter irony to read Slumlord’s logic-free “women are wonderful” text while the review of Devlin’s Rotating polyandry and its enforcers is still rather fresh at Dalrock’s. Feminism has created a new ancien regime, with women as the equivalent of the French royal aristocrats. Like 18th century France, the structure is not tenable in the long term, as it is destroying the very foundations that it rests upon.
I think the idea that the ancien regime was a subsidy to men only finds a basis if we are talking about enforced monogamy. Enforced monogamy does subsidize men, because it effectively forces women to mate with their male peers (in a “more or less”, or relative, sense), due to the unavailability of men who are a couple of levels above them (because these men are similarly mated with their own peers, more or less).
But that is also a subsidy to the ordinary woman. Alpha chasing, i.e. the carousel, damages women in multiple ways in the long run and the intermediate term as well. Women in their 20’s who expend their peak beauty on alpha pump-and-dumps are clearly not going to be happy short or long term. Someone who truly cared about women might take note of this. Assortive mating may not be natural, but neither is any culture above the grass hut level in some sense, and it is increasingly clear that the two go together.
When we embrace a “free market system” of mating, where “every man has to prove himself worthy” in a global (or nearly so) display of relative attractiveness, you get unleashed hypergamy, which forms no stable basis for any social structure or family life.
The women who win under such a system will be happy, though, because they will have tamed their alpha or greater beta. The women who settle won’t be so happy, but they won’t be as visible. The women who lose – those who ride the carousel but can’t find a man to settle with as they approach the Wall, those who don’t ride the carousel but watch their sisters on it, all those women who can’t seem to “find a good man” once they are over 30 – those women are effectively invisible to the casual, or unintelligent, or heavily biased, observer. Thus the various feminists, including conservative ones, can’t really “see” those women clearly, any more than they can “see” the growing number of unmarried men under 30 (except for ritual denunciations of “Peter Pan Manboys”, of course).
Oh, and it’s a total misnomer to refer to the current SMP / MMP as “free market system”, since as both you and Dalrock as well as others have pointed out, the current systems are heavily and overtly rigged in favor of women.
So, yes, there was a subsidy – it’s called enforced monogamy. It also happens to be the way of God, for those who care about such things.
There are more important things in the world than the short-term pleasures of women, it appears. But not to male feminists. And apparently not to Slumlord.
I caught Tam-the-Bam’s ‘like the Roman’ allusion.
As it’s Father’s Day, what exactly is the British Broadcasting Corporation, the bastion of unbiased entertainment and information, doing in celebration; an institution maintained by Charter, celebrated throughout the Freeworld as the scourge of tyrants; independent and with the highest of standards as implemented by the late Lord Reid. Here for example on their flagship Radio Channel – Radio 3 (The Third Programme) is what you may expect later today:
18:45 Words and Music: Women in Love (i.e. Lesbians)
22:00 The Sunday Play: The Father by Strindberg in a new and improved version (an anti-marriage tract – last week it was a forgotten play from 1907 entitled Votes for Women). They like to run programmes under the heading Free Thinking, but I feel certain that any thought that was not of the sort acceptable to SJWs would never reach the air.
A decade ago I had cause, though I forget why, to write to the head of Spoken Word about something and I received a courteous but I thought slightly patronising reply from their female Head of that department. With the aid of the Internet I recently looked her up; still working for the corporation but in a different role – very proud of her recent achievement – educated at Oxford University, aged about fifty with a nine year old daughter; no hint of a husband, so one has to suspect sperm bank. Her photo revealed a visage which (with its butch Lesbian haircut) only emphasised that she appeared to be eating a wasp.
Dear Bee:
If she’s anywhere in North America, she can have her separation at a moment’s notice and one phone call. He’ll be jailed on false charges of wifebeating or child buggery while she leisurely changes door locks and names on bank accounts.
I’m always careful not to pass judgment on other men for doing what I think I wouldn’t do (except in the case of men who kill themselves). We don’t know the situation, so we should be supportive and keep our advice to ourselves.
Boxer
Wishing all you fathers a happy day today. You control the future.
Boxer
@ Dalrock
Women are marrying men they aren’t attracted to, and then divorcing them when it suits them because… they aren’t attracted to them.
I want to add a bit of important nuance. “Women are marrying men whom they are somewhat attracted to, because the men are temporarily able to hide their unattractive qualities, but the men’s unattractiveness shows through because the men have a weak frame; then the women divorce the men when it suits them because… they are no longer attracted to them.”
What do you think about my change?
Post was supposed to read thusly:
in modern times women seem to have a stronger locus of control than men do. They have more balls than the men. This is why I keep harping on the fact that there appears to be a “crisis of masculinity” at the moment in contemporary western society.
This is because women have de facto power in contemporary Western society due to various levers – cultural, legal, educational, technological – being deployed in their favor to augment their power vis-à-vis men. Some of this happened along as natural developments in the economy and technology, but the rest of it was willed into being. The culture enforces it – it wants strong women and weaker men. So this is what we get. And the Church is no different.
You seem to want “strong women and strong(er) men”. Why? Why do we need women with balls? Why do we need to promote female strength? This doesn’t seem to accord with the NT view.
“Wishing all you fathers a happy day today. You control the future.
Boxer”
Why, thank you, young man.
BTW over at Rollo’s gaff somebody name of “Divided Line” has been patiently and certainly longwindedly handing, among others, poor old Glenn his arse [IMO] on a regular basis. But Glenn doesn’t seem see what’s happening, and simply becomes more red-faced and spluttery with each reiteration.
I saw that and I thought of you.
Well, is it, o great kulturmarxistenkaempfermeisterpretzel?
Tam —
If you agree with the materialist reductionism of Divided Line, why are you here? Dalrock certainly does not endorse an atheist materialist reductive worldview like that of Divided Line.
Regular Guy @ 9:43 am:
“Women were created to serve men. Gen 2:18-24”
+1. Everything about feminism from social justice to TradCon-ism comes back to a rebellion against this.
Novaseeker, never said that. I have no idea what either of them are on about half the time, so can’t agree. But DL is definitely better at presenting an argument.
And I’m nosey, so I thought I’d prod young Boxer there with a stick to see what happens. Nothing, probably.
So I had a look to understand what Novaseeker was on about. Incomprehensible to me but I did observe what Tam said about D.H.Lawrence. We obviously attended the same school. Teachers loved Lawrence (D.H. or T.E. – it didn’t matter). I was bored witless by both and I say that having seen D.H.’s only play the Daughter in Law.
@Tam –OK, understood. It just rankles me when I see people (like a few in that thread) who seem to worship the “orginal idea of the United States” blatantly in denial of the historical fact (which is easily discernible by a quick Google search) that the founders of the United States, who wrote the foundational documents themselves, said that the system they had crafted was only suited for a population that had strong public virtue centered on religion. The idea that a kind of atheist “libertarianism” is contiguous with the mentality behind the people who designed the United States Constitution is laughable and is not historically supported. These are men who are either blind or who are walking in the dark, and they do not know it. That, Opus, was my point.
But the reason it is that way is because the entire system has been retooled to promote women at the expense of men, as Dalrock notes in his comment above. The current system is not “neutral” in the least – it has been rejiggered, and in a BIG way, to further the advancement of women, and the impact of this on boys and men has either been ignored or treated as irrelevant (which in practical terms is the same thing). “Well, men are just going to have to learn how to compete better, now” is the rallying cry for all kinds of thumbs on all kinds of scales which have been intentionally placed there precisely to make it harder for men to do exactly what that rallying cry proposes that they do.
Funny how it works — as a rule, they throw out or disregard the metrics by which men outperform women, and then site the new metrics as proof of women’s equality to men, or perhaps even female superiority.
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2015/06/improving-rangers.html
@Nova
It was DL I could not fathom. I do not doubt that you are correct about your Founding Fathers; it is far too easy (and it happens all the time) for people to read the past through the present, thus you have, this week, Prime Minister Cameron at Runnymede declaring The Great Charter (something of which a year or so back on Letterman he seems to have been entirely ignorant – at least he could not translate the Latin) to have been the beginning of our Democracy; as if all those Barons were fully paid-up enthusiasts for Equality and Diversity. A frankly bizarre notion. John always gets a very bad press but he seems to me to have been infinitely better than his brother who amongst other things bankrupted the treasury.
as if all those Barons were fully paid-up enthusiasts for Equality and Diversity. A frankly bizarre notion.
They were all closet gays, secret muslims, and proto-feminists! At least that’s what they teach the kids these days, using our money to do so!
Funny how it works — as a rule, they throw out or disregard the metrics by which men outperform women, and then site the new metrics as proof of women’s equality to men, or perhaps even female superiority.
Yes, as they are doing in most of the workplace, quite apart from the military. “The market demands great communication skills, collaboration, and teamwork” … except when it doesn’t because the guy who closes 50 deals in a year on his own is still the star of the lot. It’s all bullshit. It’s designed to placate women, because everyone now has ~50% or more women in their workforce, and women are emotional and pissy and need to be catered to emotionally to “not feel alienated”. So piss on men, they will keep shoveling the gravel anyway, and oil the squeaky wheel women — that’s all that is.
@Boxer,
” We don’t know the situation, so we should be supportive and keep our advice to ourselves.”
You are not bothering to keep your advice to me to yourself.
Many, many times I’ve heard women say things such as “Why do these things happen to me?”, and it wasn’t just female alcoholics, either.
Yes, it’s almost comical. Western women have more autonomy than any other group of humans from any era anywhere, yet most of them are actually convinced they have pretty much no choice at all in their lives. And whenever bad things just “happen” to them – which they obviously see as the usual course of events in the dreaded “patriarchy” that is the Western world -, they usually view it as men’s, or a man’s, fault one way or another.
Take the Pill, for example. It’s a very obvious tool of female sexual autonomy. But the way most women see it is that its availability puts an overall responsibility on their shoulders to avoid unwanted pregnancy. It’s just a boon for sleazy horndogs who just want to heartlessly use them for casual sex without consequnces! Bastards! Women are just expected to use it! It’s a burden! Not to mention all the terrible side effects! It’s a man’s world alright!
Or consider all the jobs available to women. It’s yet another obvious tool of female autonomy. But women see it as a burden of performance on their shoulders, which absolves nasty men of their proper social obligations. Now that men aren’t expected to be financially liable for women, they expect free sex! What dipshits! Becoming a SAHM is just so difficult, because men are sleazy, hedonistic, lazy twats! It’s all their fault! Not to mention that workplaces are very often a terrible experience for women due to all the sexual harassment going on!
Look at the “no means no” laws. They were intended to maximize female sexual choice and to protect women from rape (strictly in the current meaning of the word) in the new sexual marketplace. Well, you guessed it: women see that as a burden as well, because it means they have the responsibility to clearly refuse unwanted sexual advances. But come on, who the heck wants to do that all the time? It’s so exhausting! And dangerous, you know. Some angry dipshit neckbeard might feel wronged, and plot revenge! Screw that! We want a yes means yes law!
And let’s not even talk about motherhood. If you think women have various choices with regards to motherhood, you’re just a dipshit with a male sense of entitlement! Do you even know how terribly risky motherhood is? Of course not, you shithead! The impregnator might leave you. It happens all the time, you know! Or he’ll trade you in later for a younger, hotter model!
By tying this back into biblical marriage roles, you are flirting with declaring Game a form of holy spackle.
In short, he wants to turn the lack of Game into a new sin.
This is an outright lie. The way things were for all human history did not offend natural justice. The modern system does because it is aberrant. It will fall back as it cannot be sustained.
What cannot continue won’t continue.
Gemini,
#1 and #3 are the same. The women he can attract would be attracted to him, unless you are claiming he can attract those who are not attracted to him.
Enforced monogamy does subsidize men, because it effectively forces women to mate with their male peers (in a “more or less”, or relative, sense), due to the unavailability of men who are a couple of levels above them (because these men are similarly mated with their own peers, more or less).
It’s probably more accurate to say that it used men and women to subsidize the act of family formation. In other words, it subsidized children.
Generally speaking, the old older inflated the mating market value of both men and women, in various different ways.
What is this “divided line” you’re speaking of? I take it it’s not the one in Republic Book VI?
Nova is completely correct about religion, virtue and the American Founding.
It’s a poster’s moniker on the most recent thread at Rollo’s, Esc.
Pingback: Twenty Years | Spawny's Space
Slumlord said, “A lot of good men have been “blue pill brainwashed” and that’s why Game is so important. It’s the first step in reprogramming. The task ahead is how to reconcile Game with Christianity. Roissy’s hedonistic lifestyle is not an option, but his understanding of the insights of female psychology are.”
Well, well… History may not repeat itself, but it certainly ryhmes.
Heresy after heresy has been astutely called out by the commenters on this forum, but when a clever, secular lie with promises to fix the wrongs of feminism in the church rears it’s head, my how many have enthusiastically been deceived. Do you men believe this isn’t yet another Satanic attempt at butchering sound doctrine that has made inroads into Church teaching at critical moments of it’s history?
Within the past 200 years, the Word of God has come under assault by those who would “improve” upon it with secular wisdom (ha!) or other sources of “authority”: Rastafarianism, Americanism, Anglo-Israelism, Community of the Lady of All Nations, Feeneysim , Modernism, The Downgrade Controversy, Positive Christianity, Reincarnationism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Word Faith Movement, Dominionism, The Prosperity Gospel, Jesus is a Communist, Jesus is a Republican, Personal McBadboy-Biker Jesus, Jesus-is-my-pal-and-he-loves-me-like-a-biscuit and so on and so forth.
Isn’t this just a little too perfect to have this hidden knowledge (Gnosticism) to come about at the time when Christian men are crying out to God for relief from the biblical flood of sluts their sinful fathers and grandfathers gave them? I’ve been convinced GBFM is right about Game and Christianity. It’s yet another temptation of Christian men to churchianize and incorporate secular wisdom (read: half-truths) into our lives that we men on these forums loathe to see in our Churches when those very lies crush us.
Dear Tam the Bam:
I don’t troll anywhere, at this point, but Dalrock. It’s not that I hate Rollo’s site (I don’t) but I find the deep analysis of texts here to my liking, and I don’t have much I can add to game blogs that hasn’t been said before. I do read Rollo, and he’s an excellent writer. Krauser is also one of my faves, whether I agree with the fine points or not.
Anyway, I assume “Divided Line” is a Platonist. You should know it’s not me on that count alone. If I ever appear, I’ll probably call myself “Herbie Marcuse” or maybe “Lucretius” or something. ;p
Happy Father’s Day m8.
Boxer
I think some folks here forgot how Solomon was afraid of the dark and needed to have a large group of armed men around his bed to help him try and overcome his night terrors……wow what an alpha stud, right? Maybe winning the SMP Olympics has a downside (STD’s not being the only ones).
“It’s probably more accurate to say that it used men and women to subsidize the act of family formation. In other words, it subsidized children.
Generally speaking, the old older inflated the mating market value of both men and women, in various different ways.”
If you are including provisioning in male mating market value, then yes. Women’s ability to trade sex outside of monogamy was heavily “taxed.” Now the tax has been removed, no more slut shaming. Nearly all women have sexual market value at some point in their life. Almost all men have no sexual market value at any point in their life. The women are choosing to sell their sexual market value for opportunities for adventure and intrigue. Women working also lowers the provisioning value of men. So women are allowed to market a lower quality product for marriage and the men are forced to accept the deal. The subsequent marriage is of lower quality. Both parties are likely unhappy, but the men have no choice and the women are poor reporters of their own unhappiness in a comparative fashion.
Pingback: In the secular world, Lechery and Acedia are endemic. | Dark Brightness
@Nova
Firstly, I’m sorry to hear about your BIL. You mentioned that he was pretty “blue pill”, If it’s OK to ask, did you ever discuss any Red Pill issues with him, and if so, how did he take it? If you don’t want to talk about it, that’s fine.
Secondly.
I think the basis of it is his medical practice, where he has been generally more impressed with women than with men – women are more “with it” than men are. This is not false, I think, for people in their 20s and, to a lesser extent, their 30s. But the reason it is that way is because the entire system has been retooled to promote women at the expense of men, as Dalrock notes in his comment above.
It’s not just my medical practice. As part of my other “civic” duties I was present at a lecture by a prominent real estate agent (Realtor, I think you guys call them.) outlining changes in dwelling purchases over the last ten years. To quote her, the only single people buying in the area are young to middle aged women: “Where are the men?” She was perplexed.
Australia has actually had a higher female unemployment rate till recently. So it’s not a financial issue.Same thing in U.S. and the UK. I also live reasonably close to a running track and I would hazard to say about 80% of the people exercising are women. It’s the stuff I see with my lying eyes.
Here in Australia, the government doesn’t chop of the legs of men to stop them from exercising and there is no affirmative action program for women to buy their own house. Yet women are clearly choosing self improvement and asset accumulation.
They’re being responsible.
I work in an upper working class, lower middle class area. A lot of the men are employed–and paid ridiculously well because of the unions– but most of them seem to waste it on toys, booze and partying. They really are acting like grown up adolescents. And it’s not just adolescence, a lot of them crumble under what in many instances is a trivial adversity.
I agree that a lot of it has to do how we raise boys. To much psycho bullshit and less habituation to pain, but the problem today seems to be that the women have more mental “toughness” than the men. I’m calling it as I see it.
Is perpetual adolescence a form of masculinity? Some of the guys on this blog seem to think that my merely raising the point means that I’m in cahoots with the feminists. Luke 6:41 comes to mind.
You seem to want “strong women and strong(er) men”. Why? Why do we need women with balls? Why do we need to promote female strength? This doesn’t seem to accord with the NT view.
Want’s got nothing to do with it. I take the world as it comes not as I would wish it were. We’re living in a very interesting times, in that the traditional restrictions placed on women have to be removed, and many areas (where affirmative action has not been enforced or is irrelevant) women are out “responsibling” men. The thing is when you take the shackles away from some women they actually outperform men (in certain areas) and many of you simply can’t accept this fact blaming it on Feminist mind control, whatever. The cognitive neuroscientist have a name for this type of error; Magical thinking.
The traditional way of dealing with this natural superiority was to put disabilities on women while privileging men. When my parents came to Australia, my mother worked in a Tannery for half the wages of the man working next to her. (Brad A. Natural justice? Wondering why the feminists get an ear amongst otherwise normal women.) Turning the clock back will simply reset things to the preconditions that allowed feminism to thrive. So it’s not gonna work.
The problem is that in a world of strong women you either put the shackles on them or find stronger men. The Right have no idea how beta they have become.
Oooh ta 8oxer, knew you were a stand-up guy. Wait a minute. That means there are two of you (klosettuenterbettchenmarxistischekulturkommando). This means it’s a .. a .. conspiracy!
I note with interest that old Lucretius was a proponent of doggy-style (De Rerum: right at the end of Bk IV).
One of the reasons that Dalrock was so happy about Mark Driscoll’s downfall was that now that leaves Dalrock as the “only man in the church,” complete with his buttlubes and Game manuals he ordered out of the back of Cosmo, as well as the furry hat and silk bathrobe Vox gave him for Christmas. 🙂
lzoozozozzolzozlomglzozzlzozoozozozolzozoz
Gosh, you are a cunt.
Listen, society has removed the reason for men to improve themselves for the sake of women. They don’t need to purchase a house to impress you, they don’t need to have a 30 year mortgage for some house to woo a woman. They don’t need to work hard to slave away so that they can save some money in order for some woman to come spend their money at the end of the day. It is theirs after all.
The incentive for men to work hard, to work out, to achieve, has been removed. What are you not getting? Are you being a douche intentionally? Of course current women do better than men in their twenties, as they have everything given to them at the expense of men. Men are done, they don’t care about what you think, they don’t care about society, they don’t care about working themselves into an early grave. It’s all over, except for the crying.
As for Australia, the housing prices are so high that most men starting out couldn’t afford them anyway, especially not with having to pay for women as well. It’s not responsible to buy into a hyped market… women are merely doing what they have been told to do and will pay for it in the long run and expect society to bail them out when the shit hits the fan.
Same old, same old!
@ Slumlord
These women are responsible? Because of their liability accumulation? Because they want to bring in another generation of neurotic, damaged bastards into the world? Because they’re willing to destroy the important legal and cultural institutions to make playing-house-minus-daddy as easy as possible? You keep attributing noble characteristics to these “Strong Independent Women” as if you can build a sane, stable society out of these monsters when present day internal rot of the West shows otherwise. Western Civilization’s (eroding) wealth isn’t a measure of it’s virtue.
The problem isn’t what you’re seeing as much as it is your flawed perception.
They’re not Strong because they routinely do stupid things because of their insecurities.
They’re not Independent because they can’t compete with men on a level playing field.
They’re not Women as much as they are females because they are ruled by their emotions making them closer to animal than human.
” mother worked in a Tannery for half the wages of the man working next to her”
And pretty soon the Owners decide that that is the going rate.
Thus blowing up the poor stiff’s income and presumably accommodation/provisioning capacity. Result, another passel of hungry children and (gasp! no, no, it cannot be!) A Woman, a.k.a. his wife on the parish. Paid for by the heritors, via their rates, in our case it used to be. I.E. by the Owners and their well-heeled kin. An outrage! Theft! etc. To the workhouse/Van Diemen’s Land with the vermin!
Oh wait, now we’re really short of exploitable grunt labour, a decade later. And they (single old women living at Mom’n’Dads’ mostly, the birth rate among the scum seems to have dropped unaccountably somehow ..) are demanding a raise. Monsters! Terrrorists!!
Which was why I used to be a bit puzzled in my childish way about my old fella’s accounts of how in the ’30s so much Herd pressure was put on wives to not work.
Surely 50% extra money was better for everyone? Nope. The resulting ostracism and demotion to “scrubber” status by their “sisters” if they took a job, any job, except out of the very direst necessity and strictly in the line of “women’s work”, no matter how dead-end and undemanding, was seen as stealing the bread out of another family’s mouths. Like scabs, they were seen, near as bad as blackleg miners, and the man of the house would pretty soon be sharply reminded of his “responsibilities” by his workmates, even if it took the form of hobnail boots after the pub (and a spell on the sick dole to reflect).
The problem is that in a world of strong women you either put the shackles on them or find stronger men. The Right have no idea how beta they have become.
We may need to do so as a condescension to reality, but in no way is that anything approaching what men and women are supposed to be.
I have addressed this in the past with my idea of the marriage of “Super-Friends” — that is, a marriage of male and female heroes, below which nothing is worth doing. This is a bad, bad threshold to have. Yes, there are some super-hero marriages, but most are not. Most are regular donks. And the reason why the regular donk guys are underperforming vis-a-vis the regular donk guys has to do with the whole system, from education onwards, which is designed to favor the regular donk girls over the regular donk boys. That is what needs to be changed. That is the root cause, not the symptom. In the meantime, should we address the symptom? Sure. That’s why we’re here, isn’t it? But when we talk about what is “the good”, as compared with what is “what we have to do under these circumstances”, we can’t lose sight of the fact that these circumstances are peculiar and not good for men or women.
Perhaps it is the case that men need to be socially propped up if most of them are to participate in a productive way in the broader society. I can imagine any number of reasons why this may be the case, ranging from the nature-based tilt in favor of women as the rarer reproductive resource to the idea of men as the genetic variable in the species to the reality that men are fundamentally more inclined to compete and tear each other down over sex unless they are distracted by something else. But the bottom line is that unless you socially subsidize it, men will not perform the way you want them to. In our society, with the distraction of ubiquitous internet porn (something which the male brain did not evolve to deal with), the wide and broad availability of sex without commitment (either for free or for pay), and the presence of tons of other distractions (the rubric is sport/games/booze), you will see men performing as they do. Why? Because they are getting their needs met in these ways. And the other way of doing it is less pleasant, has a high cost, and has almost interminable search costs. So most men kind of drift along, because it is more pleasant to do so under the currrent circumstances. Most do find a relationship at some point, but it’s by drifting into it for the most part. It is just less painful that way for most men. It has nothing to do with a lack of manliness, it has to do with the current setting and what it offers (and distracts).
Women are navigating this differently because they are less secure than men are, in a fundamental and existential sense. To be female is to be insecure because you are always aware of your relative weakness and therefore your relative dependence. So if you call a jump ball and everything is up for grabs, women will grab more enthusiastically, precisely because they feel that they have much more to lose if they do not do so. They will run and grab and reach, even if it kills them to do so, because they do not see an alternative solution to solve the problem of their insecurity.
This is why women are outperforming men in the areas you see — they want it more, because they are differently driven. They want independence (a human problem, not a woman problem, as we know from the scriptures), and they are also insecure, so they drive forward. Men also want independence, but are not as insecure, so they find a comfortable existence. This is the world we live in.
Claiming that this situation is due to a collapse of masculinity overlooks the revolution that happened with women. It was not a positive revolution. I don’t care if people think otherwise — they’re wrong. When you have women competing with men economically, you undermine marriage ipso facto, regardless of whether you think this is naturally just. And if the current economic situation requires this, that is just an indictment of that situation — it does not require, and in no way justifies, a “cave” to the realities, so as to make what is merely pragmatic into a new ideal. We need to be pragmatic — yes. We do not need to pretend that this pragmatism is anything approaching an ideal, or that it is better than what came before because it manifestly is not.
@Novaseeker
The authors of The Bell Curve close with a plea to the elite to stop reorganizing society in ways which only work for them. This is unlikely, but it is worth noting as a massive problem. How well a change works for the UMC is an incredibly selfish metric for our elites to use when evaluating social change. Let them eat cake.
Weak men certainly are screwing feminism up. The question is, what is the proper solution? Part of the consideration needs to be what you point out here, that weak men are a feature, not a bug, of feminism. Far too many conservatives declare feminism the new normal, and then get nostalgic for old time manhood. It makes no sense. Just like communism, the efforts of feminism to redefine humanity don’t work because they are against human nature. The solution for communism’s systemic shortages of everything but military equipment isn’t for Orwell’s Boxer to work harder, and the solution to the family failing under feminism isn’t for men as a group to mortar in the ever increasing cracks caused by marriage 2.0 with asshole game. Even worse is to declare fixing feminism a man’s Christian responsibility.
Exactly. I bolded part of this because it is critical. The Peter Pan man so often described in the media is harder to find in the data than I expected. The reality is that unmarried men are now earning like unmarried women. This is a disaster, but the idea that young women are leaving young men in the dust is another one of Hanna Rosin’s rich fantasies. Either way, take away the opportunity to lead a family and you take away a huge motivator for men. If the best way to have sex and be respected is to work hard and lead a family, men will do so. If the best way to have sex and be respected is to coast and be bring the movies guy, men will (more and more) do this instead. Worrying about the morality of this after presiding over the destruction of marriage is a tough sell. These men aren’t misfits in the new system, they are the ones who adjusted to the new system we (collectively) built.
I think we should be careful not to overstate the bolded part. It probably is true, but from just a brief search it strikes me that the patriarchy refusing to pay women is at the least a highly inflated claim. According to this page, the US passed the Equal Pay Act in 1963. At the time it says women earned $0.58 per $1 earned by men. By 1970 the same source claims White women were only making 58.7 cents compared to White men. By 1980 it was only 58.9 cents. Even this minuscule .7 and .9 cent increase is questionable, because it compares men and women of all races in 1963 with White women vs White men in 1970 and 1980. It was only after decades of more radical government intervention and a societal obsession with girlpower that we now are up to 78 cents.
A guy walks into an auto repair shop. Behind him is a car with the hood up, sputtering, pinging, and smoke belching from the engine and exhaust.
Guy: “Hey, I need some help. I started having trouble a few years ago and thought I could fix it myself, but it didn’t get any better.”
The clerk behind the desk lowers his paper and stares indifferently at the man.
Guy: “Is there anyone around here who can help me out?”
The clerk fumbles inside a drawer and pulls out a library card. He slides it across the desk toward the guy.
Guy: “Ah, I’m not sure I really have a great deal of time before this gets worse. Maybe you could take a look or I tell you what I did and you give me some tips?”
The clerk rolls his eyes and taps the library card.
Guy: “I’m just not sure it’s an easy thing to fix. I went to another garage and we worked on it together and it seemed to get worse. I’m really getting desperate and need hands-on help. Seriously, I’m ready to do anything because I put so much into this car already and I don’t want to lose it. I’ll happily take the library card and study so I can be prepared for future problems, but I’m in a real jam and need immediate help.”
The clerk lets out a forced sigh of exasperation and jabs the library card again.
Guy: “I’m in a crisis point and you don’t offer any hands-on help, no how-to guide, no practical steps to address a situation that is getting worse by the day and may not last long enough for me to glean the information I’d find after countless hours of reading.
What kind of person presents himself in the business of auto repair, but only hands people library cards when they really need help?”
Clerk: lzoozozozzolzozlomglzozzlzozoozozozolzozoz
this is what happens when ye build yer church upon Game instead of the Word:
lzolzlzlzlzloz
Slumlord wrote:
Here in Australia, the government doesn’t chop of the legs of men to stop them from exercising and there is no affirmative action program for women to buy their own house. Yet women are clearly choosing self improvement and asset accumulation.
Australia has the biggest housing bubble in the world. It’s crazy to argue that young women going into debt to buy overpriced houses is a sign of maturity/financial responsibility.
GBFM, what do the Great Books say you need to do to keep your woman from running around on you?
Slumlord
Remember, in my neck of the woods there is no justification for divorce
Your government does not agree.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/3310.0~2012~Chapter~Divorces
Perhaps, Slumlord, you would like to revise your statement? Because as it stands now, I’ve caught you in a stinky little porky-pie.
Slumlord (to my mind) is displaying quite extraordinary historical naivety and ignorance. There was a reason that his Mother was working for half the wages of the man next to her and it wasn’t merely or at all to penalise or punish females, any more than the fact that when I first went out to work I earned considerably less than my (very cute) Shorthand Typist (who was just one month older than me) and indeed I was so nominally paid that I did not even earn enough to pay Income Tax. Judging the past by the present always leads to strange and misleading judgements.
My own observation (as that is largely what Slumlord is retailing) is that – in my own field of Law – women whether of back-up status or above are always given preferential treatment whether financial or otherwise over men. As one man who lost his job this week joked: you fall in love with them; they fall in love with you and when you tell them off they cry. As for running tracks – perhaps the men are doing something else, such as playing Soccer or Australian Rules, rather than jogging to see if they can lose some weight on their fat arses.
Regarding the anecdote about sex ratios among Australian joggers, anecdotally I see the exact opposite. I swim almost every day and at my pool, the swimmers are overwhelmingly men, at least 80%, and it could be higher. Those women who do show up are overwhelmingly A) old; B) overweight and out of shape; or C) Asian. The % of fit white women who can do a 50 in under a minute is very low.
Maybe women aren’t into swimming as much, I don’t know.
It seems also, anecdotally or according to my lying eyes, that the % of men around who are obviosuly in good shape has risen over the past decade. On weekends, it’s just one tight t-shirt with bulging muscles after another. Even the hipsters seem to lift these days.
Slumlord
The thing is when you take the shackles away from some women they actually outperform men (in certain areas) and many of you simply can’t accept this fact blaming it on Feminist mind control, whatever.
Don’t you ever get tired of the strawman fallacy, Slumlord? Honestly, you used to be a bit better at this.
Xenophon, Memorabilia III 11 addresses this very question. Supplement that with Oeconomicus VII-X and the various passages in the Cyropaedia about “Panthea.”
I think we should be careful not to overstate the bolded part.
I agree. But on the margins, the impact is there, unfortunately.
Maybe women aren’t into swimming as much, I don’t know.
1) Swimsuits don’t lie
2) Chance of unattractive men looking at them in a manner women may find “triggering”
Swimsuits don’t lie
Padded swimsuits do exist, as far as I can tell, and those do lie. But on a whole, I think you’re mostly right.
Australia has actually had a higher female unemployment rate till recently. So it’s not a financial issue.Same thing in U.S. and the UK.
The chart shows that the gender difference in the Australian unemployment rate was only marginal, never more than 0.5%. I wouldn’t draw many conclusions from that.
The other link seems to be more informative, although I don’t suggest anyone here to read Dame Magazine, because it seems to be some typical feminist, ethnomasochist online rag. The article makes the very obvious argument that men and women have different biological imperatives, which largely explains why American single women are much more likely to buy homes than single men. The great majority of Western women want to become mothers one way or another, solely on their own terms, or at least want the option to do so. You mostly need your own home to do that. But that doesn’t mean at all that it’s a sign of mental softness and extended adolescence on a man’s part to delay or forfeit homeownership and opt for renting instead. Again, the biological imperatives are different.
On a different note, why do you think it’s a sign of mental toughness and balls to buy real estate in that particular area? I’m sure you remember the real estate bubble, don’t you?
I substantially agree with Novaseeker’s point that the average man needs a societal subsidy to flourish. Elite men and women can flourish in the natural state, but not less than elite men. What non-elite men is sectarianism. Support of the nuclear family is one form of sectarianism. Freely traded sexuality is one world natural state.
The three most powerful political movements in the USA today are socialism, crony capitalism, and libertarianism. All favor one world natural state over sectarianism. Average men need breakaway sects, new growth, new frontiers to grow. The politics of the USA and the first world are conspiring to eliminate sectarianism. The Romans attempted this, and it worked for a while, but eventually some sort of sectarianism will re-emerge to make use of the excess men.
The bolded part
When you have women competing with men economically, you undermine marriage ipso facto, regardless of whether you think this is naturally just.
Dalrock
I think we should be careful not to overstate the bolded part.
Novaseeker:
I agree. But on the margins, the impact is there, unfortunately.
Not on the margins much longer. Now that uni’s are majority female [1], until the higher ed bubble collapses there’s going to be impact. Now that 20-something women in some fields are paid more than men, there’s impact. As has been pointed out before, women as a group are becoming or have become their own betas, often by taking jobs (thanks to AA, which pace’ Slumlord has existed in Australia since 1985 or so) that could have gone to potential husbands.
A generation of women in the US will find their hypergamy cannot be serviced by anything short of belonging to a harem, soft or otherwise, because their just won’t be enough higher-status men to go around, thanks to the rigged game men are forced to play. Feminists will no doubt blame men for this, as always. So will tradcons.
[1] I recall when the American Association of University Women pushed out their “colleges are discriminating against women!” paper in the early 1990’s. It was about that time that most US uni’s became 50-50 male/female. Now we see uni’s increasingly 60-40 female/male, and the AAUW (which claimed to be only about ending discrmination) is remarkably silent. Once again demonstrating that feminism had and has nothing to do with equality.
Swimsuits don’t lie
And yet women wear much more immodest things to the gym or when running on public roads …
I also live reasonably close to a running track and I would hazard to say about 80% of the people exercising are women.
Maybe the men that are into physical exercise are more likely to opt for different sports?
Here in Australia, the government doesn’t chop of the legs of men to stop them from exercising and there is no affirmative action program for women to buy their own house.
Slumlord, the issue isn’t that men are discouraged from exercising in Australia or anywhere else. The issue is that physical fitness is of different importance to men and women in the mating market. Again, think of biological imperatives. As far as AA is concerned, I’m not arguing it exists for the specific purpose of turning single women into homeowners. But it exists nevertheless, and it can be used for that purpose anytime.
I work in an upper working class, lower middle class area. A lot of the men are employed–and paid ridiculously well because of the unions– but most of them seem to waste it on toys, booze and partying.
How much do their female peers spend on handbags, shoes, ice cream, chick flicks, romance novels and the like?
And it’s not just adolescence, a lot of them crumble under what in many instances is a trivial adversity.
We have ample evidence of Western women making demands to legislate any form of “adversity” out of existence. What does that tell you about their likelihood to crumble? There are endless complaints about manspreading, manslamming, mansplaining, cyberbullying and so on. And this is happening in the mainstream. We also know that a huge proportion of Western women are on anti-depressant medication. Not exactly a sign of mental toughness.
Some of the guys on this blog seem to think that my merely raising the point means that I’m in cahoots with the feminists.
You raise the same point as the feminists, you draw the same conclusion (i.e. men need to be fixed), and the remedy you propose (i.e. men need to man up, in a peculiar way) isn’t terribly different from their arguments either.
Hells Hound @ 3:10 pm:
“On a different note, why do you think it’s a sign of mental toughness and balls to buy real estate in that particular area? I’m sure you remember the real estate bubble, don’t you?”
The central belief of Tradcons is that men must prove themselves worthy of women. This proof usually takes the form of of education, career and home ownership. Women are princesses, nay goddesses, so they won’t allow themselves to be defiled by a man until he has a crib ready to go in the spare bedroom. (Pay no attention to the sluts behind the curtain.) A man refusing to even consider buying property is therefore, by definition, a man refusing to attract a decent wife. He’s off the script. He’s probably doing something kinky online or in a bath house while his Virgin Mary weeps quietly.
In other words, Tradcons equate home ownership with sex.
Hmm… that explains the real estate bubble, too.
@Anon Reader
To clarify, Slumlord is claiming the patriarchy held women down, and much of what we see today is women flourishing after removing affirmative action for men. I simply don’t see it. His argument is that in the bad old days women were allowed to be paid less, and that companies chose to pay men more than women for the same work. This is an old feminist saw, but there is a kernel of truth to the claim. Employers were allowed to segregate jobs by men and women until 1963 (in the US). That was outlawed in 1963, but almost 20 years later in 1980 White women earned almost exactly the same fraction of White men’s earnings as all women earned compared to all men back in 1963. Since White women are presumably the ones most held down by Slumlord’s affirmative action for men (claim), this is very telling. White women were being robbed of just under a penny under the bad old patriarchy. The rest of the change is due to the massive social overhaul and active affirmative action we have seen in the subsequent decades. What I’m saying is we need to be careful not to accept feminist myth at face value.
Part of the problem is that “everyone knows” that employers used to pay men more out of the goodness of their hearts since they knew that men needed it. However, the data doesn’t bear this out. Nearly 20 years after this practice was outlawed, the same gap existed. Now over 50 years later, women still only earn 78 cents on the dollar. The reason women earn less today is they are less productive. They leave the workplace to have and care for children, or simply choose easier and less lucrative career paths. I see absolutely no evidence that this wasn’t the case prior to 1963.
theADSGamer,
GBFM is like a see and spell, pull him and he repeats his mantra. The message may change, but he has little of value to add since he does not really present the message of the Greatest Book, the Bible. He instead focuses on a few small pieces and proclaims all is well. He could have much more value if he could get past a message focused on the wrong thing.
Though that is his schtick and it is all he has.
Slumlord has some really poor assumptions, but this is one of the stronger ones:
He does use seems in there again, rather than stating it as a fact. That gives him an out I suppose.
I have found that women do not have the toughness we are told they have. They can in a few cases, but they are easily led astray, per Eve.
FH, the only things I would note in your reply is that owning property is one of the best ways to build wealth for yourself. Having enough wealth is a very good thing, though it may be almost impossible today for someone starting out to get from the state of having enough wealth to milk to having enough to be a milker.
when you take the shackles away from some women they actually outperform men
It’s comical how Slumlord keeps repeating the same talking points even when numerous detailed counterarguments are put forth.
A generation of women in the US will find their hypergamy cannot be serviced by anything short of belonging to a harem, soft or otherwise, because their just won’t be enough higher-status men to go around, thanks to the rigged game men are forced to play. Feminists will no doubt blame men for this, as always. So will tradcons.
Yep, that’s pretty much a given.
It is surely the case that men have always devised the best possible deal for women that was in the then circumstances possible. Men, as such is their nature, always bend over backwards for women and it is stretching believability that this is something new, or rather that for some entirely unexplained reason since about 1960 women have suddenly decided to become strong and empowered. The aim of the aspiring woman – before that time, was NOT to have to work; the man who could not afford to keep his wife at home was seen as something of a failure and lower-class [view the Patrick Cargill scripted Carry on Nurse 1959 for evidence of this]. The misery of the rat-race; something like fifty years of work non-stop with just two weeks vacation a year was what men expected to be their lot – no gap-year, foreign travel, or work-life balance and certainly not endless coffee-imbibing meetings – even office work was hard; lots of mental arithmetic and no computer to beep at you when you make a mistake. For some women then – those with servants – domesticity was as close to being Royalty as it was possible to get; indeed it is hard to think what more could have been provided to make a wife’s existence as pain-free as possible, but were they happy? Of course not. I predict therefore that when 100% of Directorships, Senators and Supreme Court Judges are women, that women will still claim that they are being oppressed. Sadly there are far too many men who (for the reason I mentioned in my first sentence) do not see that women are scamming them.
We are living on the proceeds of the sale of the family silver. When that runs out – as surely it eventually will – there is going to be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth as women quickly seek to reposition themselves. It is of course possible that the men they turn to will simply not be interested.
@Slumlord
It’s been said (and cited) before that without a drive for marriage, men tend to do just enough to get by. This is, so I understand, one of the problems facing Japan at the moment.
—
I think this is too anecdotal to draw any broad conclusions. Out of curiosity, when did you make your observations of this running track? Was it at one time of the day? During the workday? For example, men work longer hours (on average), and that could have an impact.
—
Where I live, there’s a very heavy emphasis on achievement for women (I suspect that feminism, or perhaps just “female empowerment” are behind it). There’s a 2:1 female:male ratio in gender-specific scholarships (and an even greater ratio for the monetary amounts); most of the textbooks have seen a total (grammatically incorrect, mind you) switch from a male generic pronoun to a female one; advertisements of success feature women rather than men (academic and public-sector, especially); there’s a constant push to have men removed from STEM fields (some times entirely) (one university I attended would only fund women for conferences, competitions, etc); professors are encouraged to seek out female candidates for graduate and post-graduate studies first (even if they have no desire or ability to contribute to a particular field, e.g. gender studies going into CS (which I have, unfortunately, witnessed)); and so on. Basically, there appears to be cultural shift to focusing on female success completely (probably: “If feminists didn’t have double standards, they’d have no standards at all”). None of this is particularly new – it’s been covered in The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies are Harming Our Young Men by Christina Hoff Sommers and Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – and Why It Matters by Helen Smith. The US is not Australia, of course, so those books may not apply completely, but I think they do describe a trend in the Western world. (Some of the aforementioned examples need not actually have an effect – I think it’s the thought (behind it) that counts.)
—
I’ve witnessed the same where I live. A lot of them come from single mothers (and generally, low SES/SEI backgrounds). One should not forget the influence of family environment and genetics (e.g. high novelty-seeking, etc). This is particularly true regardless of recent (and large) infusions of wealth. I also think there’s something to be said for what you don’t see around you.
Dalrock
To clarify, Slumlord is claiming the patriarchy held women down, and much of what we see today is women flourishing after removing affirmative action for men. I simply don’t see it.
I agree that is part of his argument, but only part. He appears to be cheerleading for the whole “strong, independent woman” myth based only on a few anecdotes. The plural of anecdote is not necessarily data. IMO he’s always had a pedestalizing tendency.
Note how he doesn’t really debate: he keeps bashing strawmen rather than engage the very real points raised by multiple men here (including your points), he won’t address his porky-pie regarding divorce in Australia, he won’t address the high rates of mood altering drugs prescribed to women in the US and other parts of the Anglosphere including, perhaps, Oz? He won’t address arguments from the Bible. He just stubbornly claims Women are Wonderful, and men clearly need to step up to match them, blithely ignoring all the deliberate actions taken to shackle men across the Anglosphere.
Finally, and this is a surprise, the latest string of comments strongly suggests he really buys into the egalitarian model, the feminist “men and women are the same except women can have babies” fallacy. The only shred of reality Slumlord appears to have left is that he accepts Game works. I wonder how much longer he’ll agree with that?
All of this matters because not that many years ago Slumlord was a real voice of reason on the topic, and his analysis of GISS data regarding premarital sex and probability of divorce was a very significant milestone. So it is disconcerting to see him essentially sagging into the standard, Tradcon / feminist “man UP, dammit!” line. What a waste. That’s why I’m angry at him, because he’s betraying his own previous standards for reason. Based on prior work, I expected much more than this farrago of dissembling, fallacies and borderline snark.
PS: Just for you, Slumlord, where I live most men do their exercise in the gym on weights, for physiological reasons I should not have to explain to you. Perhaps that is why you see more women on the running track than men, because men have different exercise needs than women?
Slumlord is either a wimminz, or is skillfully having a laugh at the expense of y’all. My money is on the latter. I’ve never seen a feminist go this long without melting down.
Troll on, dog.
Boxer
Confirmed. Look at old home movies that have been uploaded to youtube from the 1970s and such. The fatties used to be much rarer, but so did the guys who were lean and cut. The build of yesteryear was either scrawny, skinnyfat, or muscled but with fat belly (old longshoremen often had this).
Disgustingly obese people (both men and women) have become a much larger proportion of the population, but so have people who are fit and well defined.
Boxer
Pingback: Shackled for less than a penny. | Dalrock
Is it really a harem if both sides are non-exclusive? My guess is that is the case. So then it’s more like a hookup circuit or something.
@ Anon Reader.
What a waste. That’s why I’m angry at him, because he’s betraying his own previous standards for reason.
Your suffering from Conformation bias . i.e. See that way you think is: Slumlord is good when he agrees with me but a feminist when he doesn’t. Don’t you people ever test your theories?
I agree that is part of his argument, but only part. He appears to be cheerleading for the whole “strong, independent woman” myth based only on a few anecdotes. The plural of anecdote is not necessarily data. IMO he’s always had a pedestalizing tendency.
Uhmm no. I’m not cheerleeding anything, simply observing a phenomenon. I’d love for both men and women to be happy, but stupid leads to unhappy. Pretending that women are something that they’re not is dumb, but so is pretending the same thing about men. Reality avoidance and magical thinking seems to be a strong habit amongst some of the commentariat on this thread.
@Dalrock
The reason women earn less today is they are less productive. They leave the workplace to have and care for children, or simply choose easier and less lucrative career paths. I see absolutely no evidence that this wasn’t the case prior to 1963
Female aggregate earnings are a meaningless figure unless controlled for variables such as education, job position and hours worked. The fact that women earn less than men on average is because they work less than men on average. The problem was that prior to 1963 in the U.S. and the Early 70’s in Australia, it was quite legal to pay women a lower hourly rate for the same work as performed by men.
Question to you Dalrock?
Do you think it is just to pay a comparably qualified woman less for the same hours as work as those worked by a man by virtue of the fact that she is a woman?
@Nova
Perhaps it is the case that men need to be socially propped up if most of them are to participate in a productive way in the broader society. I can imagine any number of reasons why this may be the case, ranging from the nature-based tilt in favor of women as the rarer reproductive resource to the idea of men as the genetic variable in the species to the reality that men are fundamentally more inclined to compete and tear each other down over sex unless they are distracted by something else. But the bottom line is that unless you socially subsidize it, men will not perform the way you want them to
See Nova, in a curious form of way you’re affirming what I’m saying. Without a societal imperative that enforces a hypergamic affirmative action program women will out compete men.
Slumlord
Your suffering from Conformation bias .
Nope. But thanks for finally introducing something that you didn’t just pull out of thin air. Unfortunately you don’t actually appear to understand what confirmation bias is. An obvious example of confirmation bias: “Women are more interested in improving themselves, this is obvious because I see more women than men on a nearby running track”. You may recognize that person?
i.e. See that way you think is: Slumlord is good when he agrees with me but a feminist when he doesn’t.
Telll me more of the way that I think. For example, what am I thinking right now? What is my favorite color? This kind of net.mindreading was old in the 1990’s, time has not improved it.
Don’t you people ever test your theories?
Yes. But it is self evident that you do not. That’s part of the problem: you, Slumlord, appear to have stopped actually thinking, preferring to regurgitate talking points and sling fallacies around.
Slumlord
Uhmm no. I’m not cheerleeding anything, simply observing a phenomenon.
No. You are far beyond observation, and into adulation.
I’d love for both men and women to be happy, but stupid leads to unhappy.
Is there anything more important in the world than women’s happiness, or happiness in general? You seem very unable to deal with this question. Why?
Pretending that women are something that they’re not is dumb, but so is pretending the same thing about men.
Yes. So why do you persist in both errors?
Reality avoidance and magical thinking seems to be a strong habit amongst some of the commentariat on this thread.
Irony. Comedy gold, too.
Question to Slumlord: do you think it is just to drug little boys because they don’t act in school like little girls?
The problem was that prior to 1963 in the U.S. and the Early 70’s in Australia, it was quite legal to pay women a lower hourly rate for the same work as performed by men.
Do you have any evidence that women were actually paid less in significant numbers for same work as performed by men? Do you have any evidence that women actually performed the same amount of work of the same quality as men?
Do you think it is just to pay a comparably qualified woman less for the same hours as work as those worked by a man by virtue of the fact that she is a woman?
Do you have any evidence that shows women on average are as productive as men?
In your egalitarian model do you really think women should be paid the same as men because they are “qualified”, or wouldn’t things be more “equal” if their pay was actually based on performance?
Slumlord,
You have also failed to address the impact on male behavior of the current disincentives to do well. Take away most or all the rewards and almost every one of us will do less.
You also did not define “hours worked” very well. The successful are usually not paid hourly for their work. How many hours of “unpaid overtime” will a woman work vs. a man? How many times will a woman need to have an interrupted schedule due to missed childcare, family events, etc.?
You need to factor those into the calculations, which you do not. They are of course not tracked, but tracking them might show that the disparity is not as much as is imagined.
You have not made your case that women really were held down. You only asserted some things that indicate different things being important.
All of this matters because not that many years ago Slumlord was a real voice of reason on the topic, and his analysis of GISS data regarding premarital sex and probability of divorce was a very significant milestone. So it is disconcerting to see him essentially sagging into the standard, Tradcon / feminist “man UP, dammit!” line. What a waste.
It’s a predictable process many people, especially conservatives, go through.
They start from the obvious realization that there’s widespread social dysfunction in general, and there are plainly fewer and fewer men and women around that are attractive to each other. Many people start from here, and not all of them are conservatives.
If you’re a conservative, you’ll probably conclude the solution is to return to traditional norms and sex roles. And then you take the next predictable step, which is to blame it all on men. It’s a gynocentric society, after all. You’ll argue that it’s men who’ll have to change, take the first step, take risks, put themselves out there, lead the way. You believe women simply won’t do that, that they couldn’t do that even if they wanted to.
That’s why we see the kind of nonsense propagated by Slumlord here.
On a different note, it doesn’t take a conservative to have the same sort of mindset. The stuff feminists are propagating isn’t that different, after all: men are to blame, they are the ones who have to change, take risks etc.
Do you think it is just to pay a comparably qualified woman less for the same hours as work as those worked by a man by virtue of the fact that she is a woman?
I know this wasn’t directed at me, but anyway: yes, I think it’s just to do so in a society that expects single men to marry within a clearly defined timeframe, and expects married men to be sole breadwinners.
See Nova, in a curious form of way you’re affirming what I’m saying. Without a societal imperative that enforces a hypergamic affirmative action program women will out compete men.
Without a societal imperative that enforces a “hypergamic affirmative action program” women will out compete men, as long as society is structured around the imperative to enable them to outcompete men..
And yet women wear much more immodest things to the gym or when running on public roads …
I suppose one’s less likely to get hit on by “creepy” men while running. Gyms are a different environment as well. The people who regularly attend them are already signaling that they are a self-selected group that cares about physical appearance. I suppose women feel more comfortable there than in a swimming pool.
See Nova, in a curious form of way you’re affirming what I’m saying. Without a societal imperative that enforces a hypergamic affirmative action program women will out compete men.
Note that I also said that the current situation is the result of a lot of thumbs on a lot of scales. It isn’t a “level playing field” but one that has been rather deliberately tilted in favor of women, so we see them outperforming as a result. I have no idea what the schools are like in Oz (didn’t pay attention to them the couple of times I have been there), but in the US the schools are extremely skewed in favor of girls.
Slumlord, allow me to demonstrate how adults engage in debate. You asked Dalrock:
Do you think it is just to pay a comparably qualified woman less for the same hours as work as those worked by a man by virtue of the fact that she is a woman?
I’m not Dalrock, but I will answer. In the context of a social structure where men are strongly encouraged and expected to marry early, remain married for life, and be the sole financial support for a family, it would indeed be just. Because such a pay scheme would push both men and women to adhere to the larger social structure, especially at the margins. Whether that social structure is or would be just, good, etc. is beyond the scope of your question.
Slumlord, you question has been answered, now more than once. And so, it is your turn:
Slumlord, do you think it is just to give little boys, some as young as 6 years of age, drugs such as Adderall, Ritalin, etc. because they don’t act like little girls?
See if you can “man up” and actually answer a direct question for once Slumlord.
PS: I’m still waiting for you to “man up” and deal with your claim about divorce in Australia. How long will it be before you deal with that particularly stinky porky-pie?
This claim seems dubious to me.
First, as noted, the apparent evidence of women “out -competing” men today is the result of what Dalrock has called the “pumping operation” of modern feminism. Nova addresses this point above.
Second, even if one were to assume that there were no such operation—that the results we see around us represent women’s natural level of achievement once the “shackles” are gone—then one is still struck by the question “Achieving what?”
What are the metrics by which women today are out-competing men? I can think of a few. One would be college enrollment and graduation rates. It’s not quite 60-40 yet in the U.S., but it’s getting there. Another would be earnings by people in their mid-20s in the big cities. The stat I remember here is that young women earn on average 117% what same-aged men earn. A third one might be home ownership. I don’t have stats for this one, but since Slumlord raised it, we can assume that he thinks it’s both true and important.
Looking that over, I’m not so immediately impressed. Enrollment in and even graduation from college doesn’t say anything about the quality of the instruction or what the person learned. The truly demanding fields are still overwhelmingly male, after all, as are schools without any “pumps”, such as Cal Tech and MIT. If the rise in women’s degrees has been driven by soft majors and grade inflation, as many in the education field have asserted, then in what way does it represent genuine achievement or “out-competing”?
A similar issue may be at work with the earnings of urban young people. From what I can tell, males still dominate the high pressure work in finance and law, with women much more numerous in PR and other “softer” fields. I can’t say for sure what accounts for the wage gap, but I do know that the typical labor-model in for high pressure jobs is to take young people and greatly overwork and underpay them with the promise of big payouts later—IF they survive the cull, which most do not. Women are, by choice it seems, not gunning for these jobs but men are. The eventual upside in softer fields is much lower, but the progression is steadier and there is much more stability.
And then the job issue shares an important characteristic with the home ownership. Namely, this is simply a personal-prudential issue for most people. It’s hard to classify it as an “achievement”, except on a personal level, if that was your personal goal. If men are, relative to women, making the personal calculation that home ownership doesn’t matter so much to them and makes economic sense in their situation to rent, why does that signify, necessarily, lack of achievement? It’s actually an achievement of sorts to figure what makes sense to you and stick to that. You might as well say that some poor dude has failed because he never bought a Maserati. Maybe he doesn’t want one? Similarly, maybe some guys don’t want the rat-race job.
And, as an aside, I wonder how many “achievement” home purchases in the housing bubble were driven by women, and later turned out to have been imprudent and even disastrous.
The most important point, though, is that the commanding heights of society are still occupied by men. And, at lower levels, nearly all the necessary grunt work that keeps civilization going is done by men. (One must wonder, if HR and PR departments were all closed tomorrow, what would really happen? There would be an economic shock from lost wages and lost consumer spending and so on. But would it be anything like if the energy sector shut down? Or telecom? Or … the list is long.)
We talk about the “apex fallacy” but there is also an apex reality. Feminists know this, which is why they rail against the low levels of female CEOs and so on. For them, the shackles were never taken off and the pumps are still far from pumping fast enough.
But if Slumlord’s assumptions were correct, it seems to me we’d see a lot more actual “out-competing” than we do: more female CEOs, studio heads, Senators, investment bankers, law partners, physicists, Nobel winners, and so on and on. It would all be much closer to 50/50. He can’t fall back on the “shackles are still on” argument of modern feminism because he’s already asserted that the shackles have been removed and that women are already “out-competing” men.
We talk about the “apex fallacy” but there is also an apex reality. Feminists know this, which is why they rail against the low levels of female CEOs and so on. For them, the shackles were never taken off and the pumps are still far from pumping fast enough.
That’s exactly the apex fallacy, isn’t it?
“Apex reality” is the fact that the commanding heights of the economy, politics, the culture, science, intellectual life and so on are still mostly occupied by men. Not 100% as in the past, but well over 50%. The “apex fallacy” is to conclude from this that men in general have it better than women in general, or that the nice things enjoyed by the top men are widely enjoyed by all or most men, and at the expense of women, who would otherwise have their “fair share.”
The “apex fallacy” is to conclude from this that men in general have it better than women in general, or that the nice things enjoyed by the top men are widely enjoyed by all or most men, and at the expense of women, who would otherwise have their “fair share.”
Which is exactly what feminists are doing when they package their complaints about the low number of female CEOs into complaints about a patriarchy that still refuses to take off shackles.
I don’t know who you are arguing with, but whoever he is, you sure are getting the best of him.
Dear Escoffier, your words:
We talk about the “apex fallacy” but there is also an apex reality. Feminists know this, which is why they rail against the low levels of female CEOs and so on.
It’s very obvious that they don’t actually know this.
That is, they don’t actually realize there’s a difference between the two.
Pingback: Why he won’t hear it. | Dalrock
Pingback: Leadership means telling her she is pretty | Dalrock
pootis
Pingback: We need to focus on respect instead of fairness. | Dalrock
Pingback: How to tell if you are a godly man. | Dalrock
Pingback: Sometimes excellent. | Dalrock
Pingback: Sometimes excellent. | Dalrock - Top
I am thankful for a few bloggers like Dalrock and Heartiste, who attempt to instigate open and honest discussions of these matters, from which intelligent people should be able to approach the truth a little further. Heartiste lays bare the exceedingly ugly social situation (which is even more ugly to talk about), and the de facto dog-eat-dog sexual dynamics that are graphically in play in today’s society – the red pill truth for those who have the stomach to swallow it! Dalrock confirms many of the basic phenomena laid out by Heartiste, but he doesn’t stop there. He heroically attempts to show the other side of the coin in stereographic clarity – the alternate and often ironic spiritual aspect of living in this mess.
This post was an especially satisfying good read. It laid out, in relatively unbiased language, the plain state of the present “affairs” of society, including corrupted “Churchianity”, the political mess in this world (especially in the U.S.), the heavy and nearly invisible shadow of feminism on society, the sexual marketplace (which many Christians still consider taboo to discuss in total earnestness)… all the things that are going on right now, but very few really understand very well.
One thing in the comments section that got me stewing in thought was a comment saying that Pick Up artist game is a tool of women, or a reactionary product of feminism, or something to that effect. Someone else argued back that PU Game only serves the needs of men. I kind of agree with both standpoints. I want to elaborate a bit on why I see both standpoints as true, and I hope to see some discussion about this.
The way I see it, PUG is something that comes naturally to certain men, and other men can’t “get it” even if their lives depended on it. There are a few men in the middle though, who can watch and study the PUA media and catch on after a time. Most of it is highly dependent on maturity, social dexterity and experience/practice. Men who are naturally good at Game tend to have a higher SMV and be the alphas in the bunch, and men who are clueless about Game are relegated as non-alphas and have a corresponding low SMV, according to the theory anyway. The PUA industry is clearly a social reaction to the disappearance of traditional courtship, the breakdown of accountability/responsibility, birth control, women’s economic independence, the rise of hypergamy and such, and especially the growing stranglehold of feministic values and attitudes on society. The PUA industry essentially targets those non-alphas who feel the sting of inefficacy and rejection most acutely and consequently feel the urgent need to make some changes. Those young non-alpha men who follow the PUA industry believe that if they can change themselves to be more alpha-like, then all their problems will go away. But the Game is staged, because no more than 20% of men can be alpha by definition. They do not realize that the real problem is with society as a whole. This is the “hook” that the PUA industry uses to make their money. This is also why many, such as Heartiste, believe that a man’s alpha-ness can be gauged by their notch-count, but this indicator is only valid in the case of widespread hypergamy. What they do not seem to understand is that the feminist Tingle-god, and all these characteristics of alpha-ness, and SMV standards and such, are all characteristics of our feral nature, or the “flesh” as the Bible terms it. While it is true that the fleshly nature is an integral part of our lives, it is not the only part, at least not for those who believe in Christ.
Anyway, now going back to the original question, ”Does PUG serve the needs of women, or does it only serve the needs of men?” I think PUG has become popularized because it is one venue (other than marriage, which feminism has thoroughly defamed for both men and women) through which alpha/high SMV men are commonly known to fulfill the incessant blue-ball desires of their flesh, and it is done by exploiting the natural desires (or weaknesses) of the female flesh. By appeasing the flesh of both parties, the whole process becomes very efficient, even desireable, and it can also bypass much of the risk of rejection, which men are very sensitive to. Of course, it is much more complicated than this, when you throw in SMV, the ego and libido, birth control glasses, and other social factors, but that is essentially what is happening when PUG works successfully – a complex, but inherently mutual stimulation of the fleshly nature. It is also observed (by PUA mainly, but many others too, like Heartiste) that PUG is a type of emotional domination or possibly a manipulation of the woman, but actually, if the truth be told, PUG only works if, when, and because women actually wish to be dominated and/or manipulated by the alpha male(s) of their choice. One of the fundamental laws of PUG is that a man can only seduce a woman who wants to be seduced by him, and that a man should not waste his time on those women who don’t get the Tingle by him. In other words, PUG only enhances the Tingle already present, and then works that to a desired end. So in this sense, it is clear that PUG serves the needs of both men and women, and it does so by paying homage to the Tingle-god. But this only occurs between those men and women who happen to be highly attracted to each other, who can play the Game very skillfully, and do so with mutual “good will”, so to speak. If we take this highly conditional case of interaction, and then focus on those cases where bad will is involved, specifically from the male, then this is where the feminist misandry and “rape culture” rationale gets its foundation. Unfortunately, the social dynamics of hypergamy, indirectly fomented by the feminist inspired culture, tend to make the distribution of sexual interaction very unbalanced, which exacerbates the probability of there being bad will on behalf of the alpha male, who has a soft harem at his disposal. In addition, all those 60+% of men who can’t play the Game get thrown under the bus as well. It’s a fantastically brilliant setup to undermine the knowledge of God, isn’t it?
From the PUA perspective, all alpha Christian men who follow the Lord’s command to “abstain from fornication” would essentially be relegating themselves to beta status, by refusing all opportunities to get laid outside of marriage. As a consequence, these Christian men lose all those wonderful opportunities to discover, build and refine their ability to create those magical Tingles in a woman, which is something very useful in building contentment within a Christian marriage to a not-so-Christian ex-carousel rider – which is who you will end up with as the beta you chose to become!
Now, I am not making a justification for alpha Christian men to sleep around. I just want to facetiously point out that it is a mistake to think only from the perspectives of this world. It would be ideal if the vast majority of people would see things from God’s point of view, and would follow the Lord’s commands in every part of their lives. If people did so, God would be faithful to His promises, and then our whole society would be closer to the Kingdom of God. But the sorry fact of the matter is that the majority of people in society, both men and women, Christian and agnostic, care more about getting the Tingles, than about building God’s Kingdom. So those Christians who are faithful and obedient to God’s Word are at a stark disadvantage in the world’s system. When more Christians wake up to this fact, and start living their lives according to God’s word, then they will all experience a little less of that disadvantage. We could also say it’s the old “united we stand, divided we fall” idea.
One good thing that can be noted about PUG is that if it is successfully employed within the confines of marriage towards a wife who is rather weak in faith, i.e. susceptible to the primal urges of the Tingles, it drastically reduces the risk of infidelity and divorce-theft on the part of the woman. In this case, and only this case, is virtue equivocated with alpha, and that is because the man is taking responsibility for the weaknesses of his wife, just as Jesus did for us on the cross. He becomes a type of Christ, and thereby glorifies God. But somehow, people living today cannot fathom this kind of glory. It is totally lost on us post-modern humans. Even so, I do not believe that every man, or even most men, are called by God to glorify Him in this way. I believe females are also accountable for their decisions before God.
Another “good” thing that might be argued for the case of this whole mess, is the theoretical artificial selection idea that if many women are only mating with aggressive, dominant, alpha males, and having children by them (the critical point), then future generations will tend to be more aggressive and dominant, more desirable to females as judged by their ability to create the Tingles, and less tolerant of feministic ideologies. However, the monolithic specter of birth control and the general present lack of accountability/responsibility play against this theory.
Overall, I see that women are attracted to, and naturally gravitate towards those men who can “dominate” them as PUA’s say, “rule over them” as the Bible says, or as I would say, those men who have a purpose in life other than to worship women, who can manage them well, and not lose their cool when women rock the boat with their inclination towards drama. We might say, this is a requirement by women for men to produce a much needed sense of security. On the other hand, men are attracted to, and naturally gravitate towards those women who are younger and attractive in appearance (as an indicator of health and fertility), and who are intelligent (able to engage at a rational level), innocent (as in being easily impressed, emotionally vulnerable, enthusiastically animated, maintaining a positive attitude and being close to virginal), reasonable (as in not lying and hamsterish), emotionally mature (as in not selfish and spoiled, no stonewalling and no chronic implicit fulmination), respectful (as in no ad hominem, no contentio ad nauseum, no bulverizing and no parroting) and not psychopathic (as in not controlling, gaslighting, or sabojacking – which is a word I invented to mean when a woman discounts or even ruins the man’s plans so that her plans become the next best option).
Pingback: Pick Up Game – Does it serve the needs of Men, or is it for Women? – Modern Grit
Pingback: Pick Up Game – Does it serve the needs of Men, or is it for Women? | Σ Frame
Pingback: Was Jesus an alpha male? Part 1: a trick question ⋆ Bnonn Tennant (the B is silent)
Pingback: Men find their own solutions to the gender wars
Pingback: Peterson can’t handle the truth. | Dalrock
Pingback: Do you smell that? | Dalrock
Pingback: Does romantic love sanctify married sex? | Dalrock
Pingback: Why does Game work? | Σ Frame