Christian Economist Dr. Robert P. Murphy explains in An Essay for Single Christian Men* that although what most call red pill** observations are on the whole accurate, knowledge of the truth is highly dangerous. While Dr. Murphy and I no doubt agree that learning from pickup artists carries the risk that a man will lose his fear of God and follow the pickup artist into sexual immorality, Murphy’s primary concern is that Christian men will damn themselves by losing their fear (or if you prefer reverence) of women:
The reason lonely young men end up delving into the ranks of the pickup artists–either from “professionals” or just in their own peer groups by hanging out with guys who are “good with girls”–is that they have eyes. They can see quite clearly that sending flowers to a crush does absolutely nothing while other guys are known as notorious cheaters and have girls randomly showing up at their apartments.
But since I’m directing this essay at you, a Christian, I can tell you frankly that these techniques and advice are literally FROM THE DEVIL. Yes, it is true that if you can actually train yourself to look at women (except your mom and sisters, of course) as less than human, so that you are no longer afraid of their opinion of you, then your long career of striking out will be over. You will go from being terrified of beautiful women to knowing how to spot the ones that are incredibly insecure, who spend hours getting ready because they think they need to in order to deserve attention from men. You will laugh at your old self, who somehow was intimidated by a half-naked 115 pound creature in heels. What was your problem?!
It is the pedestal, not sexual morality, that Murphy most fears will be lost if Christian men learn the truth about women’s sexual nature.
Murphy is far from alone in his pronounced reverence for women. Worshiping women is extremely common in modern Christianity, so much so that it isn’t seen as odd or noteworthy. Moreover, the modern Christian “improvement” on biblical marriage is the introduction of the wakeup call to make husbands fear their wives.
Fearing women, however, is not something that the Bible teaches. Christians are to fear God, and wives are to fear their husbands. As every Christian feminist’s favorite verse in Ephesians 5 explains, Christians in general are to submit to one another in fear (also translated as reverence) of God:
21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
A bit later, in Ephesians 5:33, Paul explains that a wife is to fear (also translated as reverence) her husband (ISV):
33 But each individual man among you must love his wife as he loves himself; and may the wife fear her husband.
Interestingly in some translations fear is used in verse 21 while reverence is used in verse 33***, as is the case with the King James version:
21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
…33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
Other times we see it the other way around as is the case with the International Standard Version:
21 and you will submit to one another out of reverence for the Messiah.
…33 But each individual man among you must love his wife as he loves himself; and may the wife fear her husband.
This is not to say that Christian wives are to worship their husbands as Christian men today so often worship women, but clearly there is a healthy reverence wives are instructed to have for their husbands in line with headship and submission. Yet again, we see that modern Christians have come up with a crossdressing theology by inverting the proper relationship between husband and wife****.
*H/T The Question.
**I prefer a different movie metaphor.
***The reason we see alternate translations (fear vs reverence) for both verses is that while the original Greek words for fear/reverence are not identical between the two verses, both words can be translated either way. The word used in Eph 5:21 is phobos (Strongs 5401). The word in Eph 5:33 is phobeó (Strongs 5399).
****Since the fear Dr. Murphy is afraid Christian men will lose is romantic/sexual in nature, and he isn’t proposing that the fear should be lost after marriage, this is very much about marriage.
Why are men of religious conviction trying to harm men and at the same time, twist the word of God? Because they are tainted with evil.
Is there a better answer?
@Deep Thought
I think in this case he simply can’t imagine not pedestalizing women. In his mind not pedestalizing women would mean hating women.
I can see Christians fearing that if they stop worshiping women they will follow the sexual immorality. I learned game and I’ve used it on women and it works. I do not sleep with him though. But it does help to create a connection with women.
I found an interesting article on female worship. It seems that Eastern European men don’t worship women like Western men do. Here’s a link to the article.
http://mavericktraveler.com/women-secretly-want-desire/
Pingback: Is fear of women the beginning of wisdom? – Manosphere.org
Too many Christians engage in binary thinking with regards to this topic.
What was the chief crime of men amongst feminists back in the 1990s? Objectification of women?
This line of thinking objectifies women.
This line of thinking objectifies women.
Every ‘feminist’ idea (and every general SJW idea) conflicts with what they said just a few years ago.
Everything some ‘feminist’ says conflicts with something else the creature says.
For example, the newest idiocy from SJWs is ‘cultural appropriation’, where they harass people for eating tacos on Cinco de Mayo, or harass people for doing yoga. The same lefto-morons used to be gung ho about ‘multiculturalism’ before, and how there would be a wide range of great restaurants to choose from.
They can’t make up their minds, because they have no minds.
Worshiping women is extremely common in modern Christianity, so much so that it isn’t seen as odd or noteworthy.
Also known as a goddess cult.
He gets it backwards. Going down the path didn’t cause me to lose sympathy for half of humanity. It’s 20 years of flakey, fickle and unreliable behavior of women that paved the way in the first place. The PUAs are merely the symptom.
I like Bob and am sorry for his ignorance. He even admits in the comments that he is divorced. I hope that a rational economist like himself is just a few Dalrock blogs away from seeing the light.
I wish people like Murphy would stop beating around the bush and publicly renounce Jesus in favor of female worship.
What in the world are you guys talking about? I was showing how the pickup artists use partial truths in order to ruin the lonely men who heed their advice. Right, you *shouldn’t* be afraid of women, but the PUA get you to that spot by teaching you women are not humans in the same way other men are.
You’ll notice that Dalrock didn’t actually quote me saying anything about pedestals or worshipping women, because it’s not in my essay. He invented that.
Here are some quotations from my essay:
“Part of what’s going on here is that you’re looking at only one portion of reality. You are noticing that guys who are complete a-holes have no trouble at all with women. But you are mistaken if you then generalize that to, “Women just like guys who treat them like crap.” No, it would be more accurate to say, “Women are attracted to guys who are confident leaders,” and unfortunately, guys who are complete a-holes are also confident leaders.
..
“No, the point is that you’ll see there are all kinds of different women, and they have a million-and-one anxieties just like you. Everybody is screwed up. Women, even really attractive ones, are not as powerful as you think”.
…
“Suck it up. The world is broken and full of sick, hurting people who are utterly lost. Your job is to comfort them and reassure them with the Good News. Some will mock and revile you, and that may include women who think very little of your machismo. So what? Whose opinion do you relish? Theirs, or the Creator of the heavens and earth?”
So you guys think in the above, I was teaching guys that they should put women on a pedestal to worship?
This is particularly ironic because about 10 days ago on Facebook I was applauding Kirk Cameron for saying women should follow the Biblical directive to submit to their husbands.
You guys are having a hard enough time standing up to radical feminists, you don’t need to pick a fight with people who are on your side, too.
Josh wrote:
I wish people like Murphy would stop beating around the bush and publicly renounce Jesus in favor of female worship.
Josh, did you actually read my essay? I am in shock that someone who read my essay could have written the above reaction.
Christians get the “us vs the world” aspect of the Faith, but the greatest trick of the modern era is to convince Christians never to inspect the “us” to make sure it’s actually not the world. Lo & behold, there isn’t any difference now.
That traps in the even the really intelligent, as to verify and inspect one’s assumptions is a dangerous task for Vanity.
Bob Murphy,
The PUA is actually more moral than the Tradcon who deceives young men into marriages that leave them ruined and without their own children.
The PUA, rather, is upfront about what he is doing. The PUA is ethically superior to modern Churchianity. Modern Christians have led us down a dark, strange path to an ugly place, and still urge us along.
Welcome Bob.
You aren’t teaching other men to put women on a pedestal, you are warning men not to take them off the pedestal. You claim that losing their fear of women requires them to see women “as less than human.”
You also suggest that women who engage in the hookup culture are really good girls, forced by circumstance to have sex with a string of bad boys:
What you don’t understand is that women who dress slutty and go to bars do so because they desire the attention it brings them, and because they want the excitement of being seduced by the bad boys they hope to find there. They aren’t saying to themselves “I’m not good enough to go to the bar not dressed as a slut.” They are saying “Look how hot I am! Bow down bitches!” When women sin sexually, you attribute it to a lack of self esteem, because you have put them on a pedestal, the very pedestal your entire article is devoted to convincing other men to keep in place.
Bob Murphy said :
but the PUA get you to that spot by teaching you women are not humans in the same way other men are.
On the contrary, PUAs teach men that women ARE humans after all, rather than supernatural goddesses.
You seem to have trouble accepting that women enjoy casual sex, and that having 10 sexual partners as a single woman was her choice, not some ‘trick’ that men played on her. Perhaps you might want to ponder why serial killers get thousands of love letters from women.
Murphy’s primary concern is that Christian men will damn themselves by losing their fear (or if you prefer reverence) of women
The real fear is threatpoint. Most Christian men won’t admit this to themselves; they’ve buried it so deep within themselves that most aren’t even consciously aware of it as their primary motivator.
No, the whole “revere women because they’re precious goddesses” thing is just smokescreen. What they really mean to say is “you’d better revere women if you know what’s good for you and do whatever they tell you to do, because the conniving, bat shit-crazy bitches will ruin you if you don’t.”
They know that Christian women have faith that’s only frost-on-the-windshield deep, that once they decide for whatever reason to blow up a relationship, they’ll invoke every weapon of Satan available to do it. Non-Christian women? Even more reckless and dangerous. Only a fool would go there who refused to appease her every whim. In other words, they realize that if they want any female companionship in this world whatsoever, they either succumb to threatpoint or spend a lifetime as incel or immersed in porn.
Putting it another way (from their prospective), God might command invincible angel armies, but these aren’t of much help when a man stands accused of rape (false, marital, or whatever type) or molestation of his own kids, or is having his bank account, house, and property confiscated by family court.
TL;DR version: For all their talk about faith in Jesus, these Christian men fear women and their worldly government enablers more than they fear Jesus. They just can’t bring themselves to admit it.
Actually, I understand Bob Murphy’s shock.
If, on a 1-10 scale, 1 is complete goddess-worship and 10 is complete realism about women, Mr. Murphy has moved to 2. However, if the entire scale one thinks is possible is only 1-2, then he thinks he has covered a great distance, and sees the entire 3-10 range as a blur of extreme misogyny.
Bob Murphy said :
Suppose you are a young woman who is incredibly attractive
While this is a hypothetical example, is bears an uncanny similarity to the ‘beautiful, beautiful, beautiful’ sucking up that the pastor in the earlier article was cartoonishly extolling. There seems to be an unsurprising trend among Tradcons to rate any woman who is a 5 or 6 in looks as a 10 (although in their impoverished world, this may be the case). This is a necessary part of their psychology in seeing men as the problem for not ‘manning up’.
@feeriker says: “No, the whole “revere women because they’re precious goddesses” thing is just smokescreen. What they really mean to say is “you’d better revere women if you know what’s good for you and do whatever they tell you to do, because the conniving, bat shit-crazy bitches will ruin you if you don’t.” ” – Absolutely correct !
“They know that Christian women have faith that’s only frost-on-the-windshield deep, that once they decide for whatever reason to blow up a relationship, they’ll invoke every weapon of Satan available to do it.” — Unfortunately very true indeed. witnessing the “christian” ladies I knew divorce and then screw around like mad seems to backup your point.
“Non-Christian women? Even more reckless and dangerous. ” – now this Im not so sure about. As D or others has pointed out, with the inertia in the system I actually think the church going ladies are more dangerous and far more likely to throw you to the wolves – ala “neg-me”, the ones on the outside are more aware of reality, if thats even possible.
Damning.
@Bob Murphy
Kudos to you for showing up. Try to hear what the other men are saying.
Actually his concern is misplaced, Red Pill awareness disillusions Christian men of women’s “closer to God than men” status hammered into their heads by “christian” men like Dr. Murphy and makes them all too human.
Dal, we really need to write the book man; before some shill like this coopts, sanitizes and bastardizes the Red Pill to fit into bullshit like this.
There seems to be an unsurprising trend among Tradcons to rate any woman who is a 5 or 6 in looks as a 10 (although in their impoverished world, this may be the case). This is a necessary part of their psychology in seeing men as the problem for not ‘manning up’.
Again, this is a perfect example of behavior representing fear of threatpoint and is based on a complete lack of genuine faith.
Secondarily, it’s a direct reflection of their own desperately thirsty betatude.
The reason we see alternate translations (fear vs reverence) for both verses is that while the original Greek words for fear/reverence are not identical between the two verses, both words can be translated either way. The word used in Eph 5:21 is phobos (Strongs 5401). The word in Eph 5:33 is phobeó
No, actually, from a philological point of view, this doesn’t explain why the translations in the two lines differ. It is true that the two Greek words are different, but only in that the first is a noun and the second a verb. But the verb is derived from the noun, so they have the same underlying meaning: the noun phobos means ‘fear’ and the derived verb phobeo literally means (in the middle voice) ‘to feel fear towards (someone)’ or (more succinctly) ‘to fear (someone)’. So, there is really no reason in English to use two quite different translations. The most straightforward one is ‘fear’ (first as noun, then as verb). One might use both ‘reverence’ and ‘revere’, though the two are not really a pair in English (even if the former is the abstraction of the latter in Latin).
So, what exactly does phobos mean? The literal meaning (attested in Homer) is both the literal ‘running away’ of a dispirited/defeated enemy and the emotion that causes this reaction; hence, it’s ‘terror’ or ‘panic’. In a somewhat ‘watered down’ sense it means the sense of apprehension that could lead to flight without actually causing it. In this sense, it can be translated as ‘fear’ or ‘dread’. It is a strong word. The Latin-derived word ‘reverence’ has a similar underlying sense, but it clearly has in English a sense of ‘awe’ in the face of a superior entity rather than ‘fear’.To ‘revere’ on the other hand really isn’t much more than ‘look up to’ (and it’s interesting that some translations of Eph. 5:33 use ‘respect’, which really is not what the Greek means).
The use of ‘reverence’ in Eph. 5:21 may be motivated by the desire to use a specifically ‘religious’-oriented translation in connection with God. The use of ‘revere’ for Eph. 5:33, however, is presumably caused by a willful desire not to have Paul say what he pretty clearly is saying. Here’s an overt refusal to let Paul be Paul because of a desire to promote “the equality of men and women in Christian marriage and ministry”. (The comparison with 1 Peter is specious, and for wives in antiquity being afraid of their husbands, see Augustine’s anecdote in Confessions 9.9.19 about how his mother dealt with her bad-tempered husband and the advice she gave other wives who got beaten by their husbands during domestic quarrels.)
FWIW, the translation of the Ephesians passages in the Latin Vulgate gives timor and timere respectively for the noun and verb. The paired Latin words are straightforward words meaning ‘fear’. Jerome and his predecessors seemingly had no doubt about what the Greek meant!
Lol, women are not to be feared or revered, they don’t deserve it in the slightest. Why is Bob so afraid of Christian men finding out the truth about women? They are not special snowflakes, they don’t deserve special treatment, they don’t deserve protection, they are simply fallen creatures and most deserve ample scorn for their continued mistreatment of Christian men.
Good to see you Bob Murphy. That fact that you are here gives hope for you and your church. You don’t have to hate women to understand who they are. When Christian men are red pill the strength of those men will make them desirable and attractive men.
You have been given a blessing. no one really expects some come to Jesus moment right now. So just know you have the good fortune to be in a place to end this madness destroying the Christian faith. Red pill knowledge of female nature kills romance which was fake pedestalizing any way. When a woman truly submits the romance will be real and powerful for that woman and not for all in general. That will bring marriage to it’s proper place where it belongs.
The red pill will also open your eyes to the law and its effect on relationships and hopefully will give you the strength to openly discuss these things. Good luck man
This is dumb as shit. Christian women either stand by their virtue or don’t. Why is that so hard to understand? If they are succumbing to bad boys and hook ups, they are not Christian women, end of story. They can repent but marriage would be wasted on them after that point.
Furthermore, a pretty women in today’s world knows she is pretty. Fakebook and all the other forms of social media will bombard her with admiration of her good looks. These women have fooled you, they’ve pulled the proverbial wool right over your eyes. You need to remove it and see them for what they are, fallen creatures that have pushed too far and need to be told ‘no’.
Wake up Bob, the Matrix has you:
https://therationalmale.com/2016/05/06/good-girls-bad-girls/
@Bob Murphy, Thank you for taking your time to engage in a discussion with a seemingly hostile audience, I praise you for that. Discussion is the beginning of understanding, and I hope you see that our ends are the same, loving committed biblical marriages, even if our means differ.
You seem to accept the premise that the PUA tactics work, just that they are not moral. I would be interested to know your opinion on Christian men like ourselves, who don the fox costume in order to attract a woman into a loving committed relationship. If women have shown us what they find attractive with their actions, shouldn’t we make ourselves attractive to them? Or should we cede all these women to the bars and the PUA who prey there?
What PUA have learned is that women make the rules of dating and men play the game. If you want to change the nature of the hook up culture, that responsibility entirely lies at the feet of women, and holding men responsible does nothing. Instead of teaching men not to be the confident a-holes that women clearly want, teach women that confident a-holes will not lead them down a path of spiritual satisfaction. Once the women change the rules, the men will play along.
I just finished reading the entire article (Murphy’s) at that link you posted and good Lord, is it ever a comedy goldmine. He practically admits that church teaching on love and romance is total bunk and that all of the advice the PUA crowd gives you is going to work — before he diverts to promising punishment by fire if you actually put it into practice. Can someone please tell me this isn’t a joke? Because by the end, I was half expecting to find out that Dana Carvey’s Church Lady had posted this thing as a giant fake-out.
Although the finish was actually one of the best parts of the piece:
. . . Aawwww, don’t you just love it when the writer gives you a happy ending?
God bless the PUAs Bob Murphy! It seems if I understand your words correctly, the players have the cure for female obesity in this country:
‘And so you would go for years with nothing but hookups with guys who were complete a-holes, and this would just make you more insecure and make you DIET even more, becoming even more unapproachable by normal people.’
I guess Christian men only deserve fat haus-fraus and butterballs on tree stumps. At least the Sunday potluck will be tasty.
Bob ..
[i]A man is given a choice in life .. to love women (blue pill) .. or understand them (red pill).[/I]
We are giving / offering men a choice .. you’re in fear that they might choose differently than your desire(s). Don’t hate.
PS .. Glad you made an appearance.
@ Bob Murphy.
This has been said before, and will be said again, and again, and again…..
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2004/07/pook-6-lesson-three-judge-by-actions.html
edited:
==================================
“What is that monster?” cried the young man.
“Why,” said the Pook, “it is All Women, Mother Nature herself! This nasty sphinx devours all hearts and lives of those who cannot answer her riddle. That man, in the picture, he figured out the riddle to Woman. Thus, he became known as Don Juan.”
“And the answer to the riddle?”
“Is that there is no riddle. Woman is a sphinx with no secret. It is only our minds that we assign her secrets, mysteries, pedestals, and goddess-like status.”
===================================
With due respect if you are of goodwill, I hope this hurts your eyes. Please don’t close them.
Bob, I have written a bit about why game works (using the Beast nature). I also have come to a position where I see PUA/Game as anthetical to faith. However, seeing that is wrong is different than seeing that it works and WHY.
You appear to still not understand the sin nature of women, and based on what I’ve read that you have wrote it appears that you don’t want to understand it or acknowledge its existence. If you want to help men and women you are going to have to understand what is motivating women to make the choices they make. Suggesting that women have no agency and thus no sin is not an answer.
You are recognizing the problem, dig deeper and recognize it source and then you might see a solution.
Good that you showed up.
Also, some girls like to be choked.
OT: Any pointers for the stat of how many divorces are filed by each sex? I can’t figure out what to search for to find that.
[D: Page 3 of this study gives an thorough overview of this.]
Allow me to make some scattered observations:
There are very few dedicated P.U.A.s. The few there are (such as our friend Krauser) acknowledge a very low success rate – namely 2.7% and Krauser avoids the hard-to-pick-up, namely the home-grown and ’empowered’ and limits himself to Day Game. It’s far harder at night.
It is women who throw themselves at men they find attractive (and then bemoan that they have been cast aside as inevitably they must).
If a man and woman are placed together in close confines then sooner or later they will sleep together.
What attracts women to men often seems, in my experience, to contradict Manosphere theory. To that extent I agree with the theory of Rookh Kshatriya (Anglobitch) whose theory posits that the Anglosphere is a puritanical wasteland of repressed heterosexual desire (often manifesting itself in Homosexual guise) where everyone including the media pretend that everyone’s ‘at it’ – they aren’t.
Nothing (despite Rape fantasies of Feminists) happens without female willingness.
A woman will decide and usually within seconds whether she is attracted to you or not and thus if you look like Austin Powers one must perforce resort to delusions of desirability.
I guess that should upset just about everyone.
Putting aside conscience and morality, the modern (relevant) church would be a veritable untapped gold mine for a christian culture savvy PUA. Churchianity’s already got the perfect social architecture installed for pick up. Christian women aching for sexy Alpha dominance in a sea of preconditioned christian Beta “good guys”, high intrasexual competition anxiety for both sexes, instant reconciliation and sin forgiveness for women, hell, you can even talk a woman into an abortion without her having any accountability for killing her child. What’s not for a PUA to like? Feminine-primary churchianity has been waiting for christian-savvy players for years now.
Maybe Roosh should change venues – his Poosy Paradise is already waiting for him in the modern church. And all he needs with these intentionally naive christian women is to know a few kitchy christianese buzz terms and act as if he’s “seeking” answers while he runs Game on them.
@Bob Murphy, Thank you for taking your time to engage in a discussion with a seemingly hostile audience, I praise you for that. Discussion is the beginning of understanding, and I hope you see that our ends are the same, loving committed biblical marriages, even if our means differ.
Agreed. Far better than the normal harpy MO, which is to screech a couple of inane posts here and scuttle back to jezebel.com or wherever.
Its funny how these churchian ‘pastors’ have their own version of the apex fallacy….any guy who doesn’t worship the Goddess is automatically a moustache-twirling PUA…. when that accurately describes probably 3% of the population (at most).
I couldn’t help but notice that the good Dr. Murphy also took a moment to — of course! — condemn the evils of porn:
One small question: Why is it that whenever some preacher wants to talk about porn it always seems to automatically segue into a talk about violence against women? Like a lot of young men I’ve viewed my share, and while I don’t know what variety Dr. Murphy prefers, I don’t recall seeing a whole lot of women getting choked, or punched or bludgeoned in the stuff that I saw. I’ve also known a lot of men who watch it, and I don’t remember even one of them ever admitting that watching a woman take a beating was what got him off. In fact, when I really think about it, there’s only one work of pornography I even know of that’s largely based around a man being violent to a woman during sex. It’s called Fifty Shades of Grey, and whatever else you want to say about it, most of the folks that enjoyed it weren’t exactly dudes.
Bob thinks its a virtue to flip women into a victim class. Which is the other error pastors run into. Lets face its its either one of the other, or both together which is even more f***ked up.
Bob said: “This is particularly ironic because about 10 days ago on Facebook I was applauding Kirk Cameron for saying women should follow the Biblical directive to submit to their husbands.”
Kirk Cameron! All these comments, and nobody latched onto that? I, for one, LOLed. I usually don’t bother commenting here because you guys have it pretty well covered. You’re slippin’. 😉
@BillyS, you can’t rely on the court lodged official stats, as a big thing that happens is that the male has to pay for ‘her’ divorce as part of her “settlement”, he is then lodged as the official petitioner of this. which takes the stats from 70%- around 90%.
Even when she initiates separation and divorce, the man still can’t get away from paying for almost everything.
In my experience in my family and friends, female initiated breakup is prob around 90%. you meet the odd guy who has had enough of her and files, but its rare.
Well, here are one more random guy on the interwebz’ B.S. opinion Bob’s stuff.
– His writing style turned me off from the beginning. He might be a very successful and respected economist, but his condescending “I’m here to tell you poor unenlightened losers the truth.” attitude pissed me off to no end. It took me a dozen tries to get past the attitude of superiority to see if there was anything valuable in it.
– The credentials section reads more like a paean to being a beta-orbiter.
– PUA techniques and advice are from the DEVIL!!!!
– Porn is BAD!!!
– The worst that could happen to Brittany and Pamela is all men’s fault. They wouldn’t have RBF and be whores if it wasn’t for men. It’s all men’s fault.
– Paul was wrong. If you burn with passion, it means you’re not manning up enough on chasing down those sinners.
Pingback: Is fear of women the beginning of wisdom? | Reaction Times
@Darwinian Arminian
This is also about pedestalization. Note that the fear (again) is not sexual immorality in general, but a fear of men losing the pedestal (objectifying women). It also involves the pedestal in denying why it “even occurred to somebody to put in the script?” As you point out, choking porn or (Lydia’s favorite) rape porn is primarily consumed by women, although given women’s preference in porn it is in the ostensibly non sinful written instead of visual format. Your local bookstore, and even likely your local library, is chock full of choking and rape porn, but you will have to go to the “romance” section to find it.
” You are only approached by pickup artists or the rare guy who is a decent human being while also being incredibly confident with women.”
I thought that we had already established that guys who are decent human beings cannot be incredibly confident with women given that they are categorically in fear and reverence of them.
I’ve never considered the biblical definition of fear being the same as reverence, but I can make that comparison now.
In fact, it’s not a benign reverence, but the kind of reverence one has for a Trident D-3 rocket when standing next to its launch tube. It keeps you safe, is terribly powerful, and you don’t want to experience it’s wrath so you better toe the line.
Placing women on the pedestal with similar reverence is in fact replacing God. It’s the violation of the First Commandment.
@Rollo, why would roosh dumpster dive to that extent ?
It’s incredible to think churchian women are literally the lowest rung on the totem pole, below the tatted, pierced, blue haired freaks. Can you actually see one of these atheist feminists calling for her man to be hung from the rafters because he abused her from an Iranian jail ?
They have descended to the depths. My atheist GF was around x1000 more respectful and “loving” than my abusive “christian” x-wife and all of her friends.
In short, I could never go back to a relationship with a christian women, even as a last resort. They have become that without merit.
@Per Desteen
It depends. Is it the fear/reverence referenced in Eph 5:21 all Christians are to have towards God? Or is it the fear/reverence referenced in Eph 5:33 Christian wives are to have for their husbands? If the former, then yes. If the latter, then it is instead crossdressing.
One added irony is the pervasive warnings to wives not to make idols of their husbands. This is almost always a biblical sounding cover for feminism, a claim that women are putting their husbands in the place of God (Eph 5-21) when in fact the aim is to reject the teaching of Eph 5:33. But I’m getting ahead of myself, as I have a follow on post in the works on that.
“Your local bookstore, and even likely your local library, is chock full of choking and rape porn, but you will have to go to the “romance” section to find it.”
Could you add female chastisement to that ? Or is that part of the parcel ?
Civilization depends on two things:
(a) That men be taught, and believe, things about women that are objectively untrue.
(b) That women be taught from a young age not to break this illusion by revealing their true nature.
Jim Donald used his natural PUA skills to score a wife at age 17, and still has her in thrall decades later, but girls were raised differently back then. E.g. Jim never had to compete with a smart phone constantly buzzing with attention from other guys.
@ Rollo Tomassi
“Putting aside conscience and morality, the modern (relevant) church would be a veritable untapped gold mine for a christian culture savvy PUA.”
A PUA might be able to tap those mines but I highly doubt those mines were previously untapped. Chances are the vein is running dry and they’re at church looking to get a beta to stake his claim on the mine before the gold’s run out completely.
Dr. Murphy admits he’s divorced, states so in the comments section attached to the linked piece at his blog.
That’s sad, but with all due respect to Dr. Murphy, he’s not the best person to be advising men on how to do this dating/relationships thing.
@Minsweeper. Churchian women are generally “pump and dump” grounds. A place where an aspiring PUA can develop his skills in preparation for more feminine women.
Consider “Mom’s Night Out”. When you have Churchian made propaganda promoting Harley McBadboy as the source of every solution to Churchian women’s problems and the scratch to all of their panty soaked tingles then why not. The ” Church” is doing most of the work for you. Just add tattoos, leather jacket, and motorcycle.
After some practice you can go after the hard targets not being pimped out by their “pastors”.
I’m beginning to understand the sources of Dr. Murphy’s views….
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=economist+robert+p.+murphy&view=detailv2&&id=1A4F198710AA63379958A7860C6B489B6A8C14C1&selectedIndex=2&ccid=XFxM0UNS&simid=608046574159531115&thid=OIP.M5c5c4cd1435275810bc1491f3f70f069o1&ajaxhist=0
@TheQuestion, plenty of pre-ephipany mines still left wide open.
What alpha widow is going to pass on a man who can pass a shit test? They don’t have long time preferences, remember?
@The Question
Do you know any normal men?
@Dalrock
The second commandment applies to women in this case, rather than the first.
Consider than men and women approach God differently, and that their sin has different character. The first and second commandments ostensibly are about the same thing; misplaced worship, but their character is different. One deals in an abstract, the concept of God(s), the other is a concrete; an attempt to physically manifest God. This summarizes the difference between men and women, and the nature of their sins.
Objectification schmucktification..Women are happy to be objectified whenever and wherever and in any manner it profits them. Those ladies screaming about the objectification of women are the ones that are SO ugly (how ugly are they?) that no man sees them as an object–of beauty, of sexual being, mother of children. Most of feminism is about ugly women protesting men’s sexual attention toward beautiful women. When the heck are we going to tell the ugly women to go AWAY? Ugly women aren’t objects of anything, except they ARE objectionable and are the meat and potatoes of feminism. They need to be cast off for Gawd’ sake for all the trouble they’ve caused. How did ugly women get into power?
@GiL, that gave me a good laugh, I can just imagine the newly christian\unsaved McBadguy turning up with full ensemble. Really not sure its a fertile hunting ground nor worth their time.
Have you seen what most women are like in church these days ? They have mastered the minimal makeup\minimal gym work (as its not gratifying to the Lord) routine, unattractive dumpies was the general view.
With a level of feminism thats even more extreme than the gen pop. Whats to like here ??
If you get caught hitting some up be prepared to be denounced in front of 200+ people – while you are in the audience !!
Not my cup of tea. There are some very attractive and sane women in the church, they are either young or married.
@thedeti
I’m waiting for Dr. Murphy to reply to the commenters here, “Oh yeah, well the jerk store called…”
@ God is Laughing
I’m basing this purely off of personal observation but once a girl enters the epiphany phase I notice there is a lot of internal conflict between their arousal for alphas and their attraction to betas. Once they’re on the hunt for a beta provider hooking up with alphas can jeopardize their good girl image.
There are other variables involved that make it hard to figure, but what you’re saying is possible. I just notice when girls enter that “I need to serious” phase they will turn down alphas but only painfully and resentfully. If the beta she dates wonders why she blows up at him for no reason it’s probably because “doesn’t get it” as opposed to another guy who does but she feels “trapped.” Her perceived need to be with him reminds her of her decreasing beauty and looks.
Again, just observations and possible reasons why.
If we’re talking about a church full of college coeds that is all but waiting for a PUA and probably does but he’s excellent at keeping a low profile.
DamnCrackers:
I calls ’em like I sees ’em. If that makes me a jerk, I can live with that. And I can speak to Dr. Murphy’s views, because I used to be him — I used to hold his views, I used to believe as he does.
@Minsweeper, if you couldn’t tell I was trolling the Churchian white knights….
@ Per Desteen
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from [a]any tree of the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! 5 For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain [e]in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”
Pedestal = making woman like God in your life. God warns husbands and wives not to do this when He curses the woman.
Hence, why I don’t respect women.
https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/why-i-dont-respect-women/
Me to Deti. Had a whole bunch of girls in the youth group I led and not a single clue as to what was going on. Nothing made any sense until I finally was shown that they are sinners and that they WANTED to sin.
The propaganda is so deep I couldn’t let myself see it. One of them is sitting in prison now for blowing her “Macdaddy” up with a 12 guage. I wish I had had a clue.
Bob, I want to feel sorry for you but you advise young men to die alone because God wants them to and to “suck it up” because Paul (which showed 0 interest in romance) did it so my sympathy pump is running on empty. And you complain that Dalrock misrepresented you but he did, in fact, quote you saying that not being afraid of women is “of the devil”, so while you don’t tell young men to pedestalize women in the sense that you don’t use that exact word, you are telling them to pedestalize women (and reduce their own social worth) by being afraid of them. This is, as Dalrock points out, the inverse of what God calls for. It is you who are unwittingly doing the devil’s work. No man should be afraid of women, no matter what anti-Christian feminist wisdom tells them.
@GiL, close call eh ? You dont visit for erm “visits” ?
Another possible motive I see in Dr. Murphy is an increasingly horrifying revelation that women are not the gatekeepers that he had been taught they were. When confronted with the possibility that men are becoming aware that bad boys get the treats he cannot hope that men will stand up and resist. How are men (who are observably sinful) expected to maintain purity when the sinless snowflakes cannot even manage.
His wheels are coming off.
Welcome to the club Dr. Murphy. In all sincerity and love, welcome.
Happily married Minesweeper. I won’t entertain dating zombies.
I’m waiting for Dr. Murphy to reply to the commenters here, “Oh yeah, well the jerk store called…”
Not to pile on the good Dr. Murphy, but IME most TradCons “respond” to unpalatable red pill truths to which they have no rebuttal by launching either an ad hominem attack or a barrage of indignant shaming, then gathering up their toys and going home in a snit. I remember getting into it with Alan Roebuck a few years back over at Traditional Right when he tried to make the case that men need to just suck it up and marry harpies/sluts/otherwise risky or unmarriageable women because “the survival of western civilization” depended on beta chumps marrying, muling, and making babies. When I continued to press him for an explanation as to why western civilization in its current state was worth saving, or why he thought western women wanted it to be saved, he got … well, quiet indignant. Ultimately, when I asked him point blank if he could refute my position, he admitted that he couldn’t snd promptly shut down the conversation.
Alas, I suspect that we can expect a similar response to this thread.
GIL:
Yes. All my young life I was told if a girl had sex before she was married, there was something wrong with her. She had to be “broken” in some way. Girls just don’t want to do THAT SORT OF THING unless they’re married, right? Girls just don’t DO that unless something’s wrong somewhere, right? Because girls are attracted to niceness and sweetness and goodness and kindness and senses of humor and flowers and asking permission and deference. Right?
WIsh I could have seen the truth as a younger man.
@GiL, good for you, that makes at least 3 in here. It is interesting though that happily married men are here. I wouldnt know how to connect that life with this knowledge.
@ Dalrock
“Do you know any normal men?”
That post was great – your analogies always have me howling.
I also almost spat out my coffee when I read “Look at how hot I am! Bow down bitches!” Was there ever a more appropriate slogan created for the modern millennial carousal rider?
[D: Thank you.]
@ God is Laughing
Contrary to what some of the commenters here say, Bob Murphy’s got a good heart and means well. My hope is that he will go through the posts in Dalrock’s archives and give this matter more thought. I count myself lucky to have discovered this stuff in my twenties.
@ The Question
First, AFBB is not mutually exclusive. However, with a feminized society which demonizes masculinity you enter a state where there is very rarely a AF+BB. You only get AF or BB. The AFs buck the feminizing influences of society and are hence ‘bad boys’ while the BB are the ones who submit to feminizing influences and think the way to get a woman and family is a stable job.
It is probable that most women don’t think about decreasing beauty and looks, especially with society parroting the ‘all women are beautiful’ mantra. Generally, the unease is from the decreased attention. Some women will make the connection while others will not. The other half of the unease is the biological clock.
Time pressure + decreased attention effectively pigeon holes a woman into making a quick unwanted trade off. She can’t get anymore attention from men she is attracted to anymore, and the only ones giving her attention are ones she is not attracted to.
To make a stock analogy, this is effectively selling a stock when the market downturns instead of selling when the price of the stock is high.
From the linked article:
“However, I have noticed certain patterns in the dating arena over the years, and I think some of my observations may enlighten.”
Your observations line up with ours. The correlation between women behaving indecently and men behaving indecently is established. But what’s the causation? Is it indecent men forcing women to start behaving badly or is it feral women rewarding male bad conduct?
If the former then pointing women at nice Christian guys would solve the problem. But that’s been done for decades now and quite apart from being a solution, the problem has never been worse. We here believe in the latter, that women must learn to control their natural desires and content themselves with less-attractive partners than their youthful beauty can draw.
We also have Biblical warnings about the corrosive moral influence women had upon men such as Adam, Job, Samson, David and Solomon.
“But since I’m directing this essay at you, a Christian, I can tell you frankly that these techniques and advice are literally FROM THE DEVIL.”
Nothing comes from the Devil. He is a liar not a creator. All evil is only twisted good. If women are attracted to this or that then it’s because God designed them that way. Similarly, porn is also from God. He wired men for visual stimulation. The only bad part is getting it outside marriage. Women are likewise wired for dominance & drama but should only accept that from her husband.
But the Church no longer supports husbands dominating wives, in fact, it encourages wives to dominate him. And so PUAs (and aggressive, charismatic pastors) are the only place they can get their fix of being treated like women.
@ Deep Strength
“Time pressure + decreased attention effectively pigeon holes a woman into making a quick unwanted trade off. She can’t get anymore attention from men she is attracted to anymore, and the only ones giving her attention are ones she is not attracted to.”
This was the point I was trying to make. A PUA trying to operate in a church with this kind of situation as the norm will have a harder time with the women than if he were in a church full of younger college coeds who don’t feel that sense of urgency to settle down and actually want to avoid commitment. That urgency to find a beta male provider will be there when the woman is older (28-30) even those her desire for the badboy hasn’t gone away. In other words, at this type of church a woman is more likely to forgo alpha fux in an effort to secure beta bux than girls in the midst of their party years.
[D: In this situation the far more effective (but still not moral) strategy would be to play con the conwoman, as Marcos does.]
“That urgency to find a beta male provider will be there when the woman is older (28-30) even those her desire for the badboy hasn’t gone away. In other words, at this type of church a woman is more likely to forgo alpha fux in an effort to secure beta bux than girls in the midst of their party years.”
I think you’ve just put your finger on one of the sources of Churchian ignorance about how attraction works and where these 28-30 YO women are, and why they advise men to “be nice be kind pedestalize”. It’s because these are the women who are the most vocal about finding men. It’s because these are the women who are having the most trouble finding men. It’s because the church leadership hears them, and says “aha! This is what women really want – nice men, kind men, men who care for women, men who treat women right, men who are good. Women are coming in my office saying they’ve been looking for years for just these kinds of men. Well, it just so happens we have lots of those men right here in this church.”
@Per Desdeen
My point was something different though. The claim is that women are creating idols of their husbands in an age of near universal rejection of submission. The reality is they are using this as squid ink to frame rebellion as holiness.
Thanks Dalrock. Not as high as I thought, but at least it is some documentation.
feeriker,
Civilization does depend on stable families, but it will take some mighty bumpy spots to get to that point from where we are now.
I have no idea what I would do were I a single man in my early 20s with the knowledge I have now. Following God’s ways requires marriages or full time dedication to His service, but the road for the former is filled with many mines.
@ The Question
Not from what I’ve seen. If you’ve read a lot of PUA field reports these women are the MOST likely to go out with men they think are attractive if she can.
However, said women end up pushing for commitment faster (with or without sex), which, predictably drives men away faster. Only really thirsty men will commit really quickly to a woman like that, which often times once they start getting early to mid 30s such women will just lock such a man down. Then, like deti said, they complain how there’s no men who are nice, kind, etc. when they’re still mostly dating attractive men who don’t want to commit.
Now obviously this depends a bit on what the woman looks like. If she’s 29 going on 30 but looks like she’s 35 then yes I agree that to the be case. But if she’s 29 going on 30 and looks like she’s 22-25 still then she still has much more time before she realizes more.
Generally,
Before wall = AF is main indicator
During the wall = try to compromise both AF and BB.
Post wall = gives up on AF, try to lock down BB
@ Dalrock
Yup.
False humility. Distorting good as bad (and/or bad as good). The Isaiah 5:20 Classic. Preeminent examples include:
~ Men attracted to youth and beauty = shallow
~ Women can be ‘too submissive’
~ Women’s drive for perfection is their ‘greatest sin’
Churchianity has quite a few if you really think about it.
@ Deep Strength
“However, said women end up pushing for commitment faster (with or without sex), which, predictably drives men away faster. ”
This is why a PUA would be more successful in a church full of college coeds. There’s cover for why he won’t commit and she won’t demand it – the days of girls going to college to get their MRS degrees are over. He’s under no pressure and few eyebrows get raised. To try and restrict his behavior around the girls is to restrict their behavior as well. His desire for non-commitment matches theirs.
But when she’s in her late 20s and demands commitment then questions get raised for why he won’t. Her strategy now conflicts with his. She’ll probably withhold sex if he doesn’t comply. But when the girl’s 23 and she gets pumped and dumped everyone collective shrugs in an act of cognitive dissonance says “Well, she’s young and got plenty of time left. No need to rush into things. He just wasn’t Mr. Right. She’s still finding herself.”
Finally got round to reading bits of the article.
Friggin hilarious.
Is this like, a (previous teenage-20’s incel) Omega trying to tell Beta’s not to be Alpha’s ?
Bob, you should really do what you are good at, and its not this.
@ Dalrock
“In this situation the far more effective (but still not moral) strategy would be to play con the conwoman, as Marcos does.”
My guess is that this will be the next part of the “man up” movement, creating witchunts for pickup artists “infiltrating the church.” Any distinctly masculine men will be looked upon with suspicion and be told tone it down.
It brings to mind that one commentor who tried to start a RP Bible study outside of church and got kicked out for it.
Women cannot control their desires. Men that KNOW the TRUTH about female nature will. Men with a Christian foundation with red pill mind will be the ones to do it. This blue pill Christianity only makes FI compliant churchians. Pastors and preachers are going to have to have faith in the scriptures to have any chance at all. Instead they play it safe and are pleasing to women. It is sin beyond sin to raise a flock of ignorant young men in church and call them good Christian men.
Game is not for getting pussy. Game and red pill in general is for clarity. Imagine Dalrock with out red pill truth combined with scripture.
@Bob Murphy
You and Tom Woods are the top of your game when it comes to Austrian Economics, I’m a huge fan of your writings and wisdom on those topics. When it comes to Christian women however you are all wet. I strongly suggest that you read through Dalrock’s old posts, threads and commenters. There is wisdom here.
I was frivorced and have the M dollar bill to prove it.
Think of what’s happening here as the social equivalent of when you figured out that traditional econ was a shell game. Glad you stumbled upon this place; much truth here my friend!
“Or consider Pamela Anderson. In her prime she was arguably one of the most desirable women on the planet…. She literally could have chosen from among billions of men who would have adored her. And yet, she ended up marrying a guy who went to jail for 6 months for beating her up. Do you think that outcome was good for Ms. Anderson’s self-esteem?”
From his own article. He is so astonishingly blind.
WWJD ? Take plank out of own eye 1st Bob.
Have not read the comments yet, but Dalrock, you may want to read Donal Graeme’s take on Eph 5:21 (wherein he persuades that 5:21 does not belong with 5:22-33, but rather with the verses immediately preceding):
https://donalgraeme.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/where-does-ephesians-521-belong/
[D: I agree that the topic shifts.]
@ The Question
I see what you’re getting at. In reality, it doesn’t really work that way from what I have seen.
I think it’s because most of the young low-20s attractive women have been told they shouldn’t accept anything less than Mr. Perfect. Also, it’s pretty taboo to jump to another girl if things don’t work out with others so quick.
What is more likely to be the case is if a PUA jumps between 3-5+ different Churches. If something doesn’t work out at once place he just hops over to another place to let things cool down so to speak.
@ Coloradomtnman
“Think of what’s happening here as the social equivalent of when you figured out that traditional econ was a shell game.”
The libertarian red pill equivalent is realizing the modern state has no legitimacy.
@ Deep Strength
“What is more likely to be the case is if a PUA jumps between 3-5+ different Churches. If something doesn’t work out at once place he just hops over to another place to let things cool down so to speak.”
This is probably what happens. I can’t imagine a PUA getting more than 1-2 girls at a single church before word gets around and the white knights come charging in.
This guy is off the wall mad. From the comments:
David
So what works is from the Devil and none of the girls who slept with a–hole after a–hole is held to account? No thanks. God does not intend for us to fail. This is a misinterpretation of scripture.
Bob Murphy
David, you’re saying the Bible does NOT teach that if you sell your soul to the devil, you can achieve short-term worldly success?
Am i missing something here ? Is he equating (while being completely disconnected to the above poster) PUA skills = selling your soul ?
You know what this makes me think of?
{You ascended on high,
leading a host of captives in your train
and receiving gifts among men,
*even among the rebellious*, that the Lord God may dwell there.}
Psalm 68:18
I think it’s biblical to say that God gives gifts even to those who are rebellious for the sake of his purposes and common grace.
To me, PUAs could be a part of that. Yes, they are rebellious against God, but I still think that God gave them a gift of understanding women that can and will be used in restoring the relationship between men and women. I know that in a strange way, the work PUAs have done to understand women has been a gift to me in expanding my own self awareness.
“Erasmus redivivus at
May 16, 2016 at 10:53 am”
Thanks for the useful exegesis, friend.
Hope to see more of your work here.
Dal,
“You will go from being terrified of beautiful women to knowing how to spot the ones that are incredibly insecure, who spend hours getting ready because they think they need to in order to deserve attention from men.”
This is the common fallacy that game is only effective with weak women.
Do you think Murphy actually believes this, or is he being disingenuous (including, perhaps, with himself)? Seems like this is where his argument heads off the rails.
Bob Murphy explains why women doll up to go to night spots.
While we’re thinking of things from the female perspective, try this train of thought: Suppose you are a young woman who is incredibly attractive but you’re also really insecure. When you go out to the bar or dancing, you get all dolled up because you think you have to. But this just makes you even that much more intimidating and unapproachable.
The girls of Klymaxx have a somewhat different point of view … wrapped up in 80’s synth-funk goodness.
Divorced Bob…Fail.
Bob,
Acknowledging our fallen nature, male and female, is not denying our humanity or seeing one another as “less than human,” it is seeing ourselves as we are, standing in the need of the grace of God. Not less than human, but an (not the only, we are also created in God’s image) essential feature of humanity itself.
“Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A Being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic’s pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas’ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much;
Chaos of Thought and Passion, all confus’d;
Still by himself, abus’d or disabus’d;
Created half to rise and half to fall;
Great Lord of all things, yet a prey to all,
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl’d;
The glory, jest and riddle of the world.”
Pope, Essay on Man
Question
Contrary to what some of the commenters here say, Bob Murphy’s got a good heart and means well
Perhaps if he could admit he has something to learn, and also choose his words more carefully in the future, he might earn a better reception.
feeriker said :
Again, this is a perfect example of behavior representing fear of threatpoint and is based on a complete lack of genuine faith.
I found this to be both humorous and true…
The tendency of a pedestalizer to rate 5s and 6s as 10s does indeed indicate a complete lack of genuine faith. Kudos to feeriker for connecting the dots here and flagging this psychological reality.
Women would rather be objectified than idealized.
Since Bob Murphy is still reading (even if not commenting), I would encourage him to consider why :
1) 50 Shades of Grey is one of the best-selling books ever, despite being one of the most literarily weak books ever written.
2) Why a serial killer gets thousands of love letters from women; women who know nothing about him other than that he murdered people.
The thing is, Bob Murphy’s admissions about Game means he secretly knows thus, but he is in the ‘denial’ stage of this (as many of us may have been a decade ago).
@ Anonymous Reader
“Perhaps if he could admit he has something to learn, and also choose his words more carefully in the future, he might earn a better reception.”
I’m not arguing against any critiques made of the article he wrote. I think Dalrock argued his case against it very well. I just remember saying a lot of similar stuff in the past without realizing what I was really saying and when I realized it I stopped. It was not as difficult as it might have been because I wasn’t forced to admit I had had bad intent prior. Because of that I don’t want to put him in a position where he feels he has to defend the actual argument made in the article in order to defend the intent behind writing it.
@ Anon
“The thing is, Bob Murphy’s admissions about Game means he secretly knows thus, but he is in the ‘denial’ stage of this (as many of us may have been a decade ago).”
One big confusion among Christians is conflating game with PUA lifestyle. Just like an alpha can be virtuous or a badboy, a man can use game to marry and stay married to one woman or he can use it to have lots of one night stands with sluts and maintain a soft harem. The problem is the FI controls the narrative in the church and so game no matter how it’s used is a threat regardless and must be designated as verboten. Thus the only people advocating game are pickup artists; trying to behave in ways that make you more appealing to women, refusing to give up Frame for the sake of a woman’s priorities, is seen as only for cads. Meanwhile, young Christian men are taught to rely on their godly, virtuous qualities to attract a Christian girl. This is how you get the implicit belief that women are innately drawn toward godly men and that her feelings are directly connected to the will of the Holy Spirit.
One big confusion among Christians is conflating game with PUA lifestyle.
It reminds me of certain firearms debates. Nice UMC people who don’t own any firearms see MC people with a concealed carry permit as nuts – why, just carrying that gun around means he could shoot any one for any reason! Blood in the streets! Gunfire after every traffic accident!
Ignorance? Projection? I don’t know. But it’s very similar, this conflation of the tool with misuse of the tool.
The churchgoing men I know who have learned to shoot are not planning to rob banks; two of them are married with small children that they will die to defend if need be. Churchgoing men who learn martial arts are not planning to beat up people at random on the street; same as with the shooting skills. The same goes for Game; it’s applied psychology that works, not voodoo that drags a man into dive bars where the skanks lurk…
Ignorance is not strength.
Bob Murphy, thank you for showing up.
Christian Red Pill is not about getting lots of honey, It is like “Reading Rommel’s Book”. Or a shepherd leaning about wolves. To succeed in anything one needs to know the facts of what is happening.
Too many young Christian men waste years of their lives that could have been spent as Christian fathers waiting for the church princesses to out grow bad boy drummer/ biker/ badass/ jailbirds.
Churches are built on stable Christain families not whims of young women.
@ Anonymous Reader
“The churchgoing men I know who have learned to shoot are not planning to rob banks; two of them are married with small children that they will die to defend if need be. Churchgoing men who learn martial arts are not planning to beat up people at random on the street; same as with the shooting skills. The same goes for Game…”
That was nicely put!
Huh. Murphy’s page will not let me comment, saying “IT LOOKS AS THOUGH YOU’VE ALREADY SAID THAT!” … with not a post of mine on the page.
Darwinian Arminian says:
One small question: Why is it that whenever some preacher wants to talk about porn it always seems to automatically segue into a talk about violence against women? Like a lot of young men I’ve viewed my share, and while I don’t know what variety Dr. Murphy prefers, I don’t recall seeing a whole lot of women getting choked, or punched or bludgeoned in the stuff that I saw. I’ve also known a lot of men who watch it, and I don’t remember even one of them ever admitting that watching a woman take a beating was what got him off. In fact, when I really think about it, there’s only one work of pornography I even know of that’s largely based around a man being violent to a woman during sex. It’s called Fifty Shades of Grey, and whatever else you want to say about it, most of the folks that enjoyed it weren’t exactly dudes.
I have seen it in “mainstream” porn (sue me), but somewhat rarely.
The 50 Shades comment is funny. I read all three books (e-borrowed from library) and they are awful trash. But the most disturbing part is that in the first book, he beats her because he wants to hurt her, not because she likes being beaten.
Intellectual curiosity recently spurred me to read “Her Secret Garden”, about female fantasies. They’re far, far worse than 50, and I only read the first few chapters.
A friend of mine said “everyone I know that likes 50 Shades seems really unhappy with their sex lives.”
I totally agree with that assessment. And I also would guess women that are searching for sexual fulfillment are looking for it in degradation, rather than love.
Bob Murphy, kudos to you for showing up and taking flak. Consider it an embodiment of Proverbs 27:17 (and the old-school translations, with the word ”man” in it, not ”person” or ”friend” or other such modern equalist manure).
The truth is, the PUA is closer to the truth than the modern church. Women are not goddesses on a pedestal, as modern Christianity makes them out to be. If you do make them out as such, you will be doing the young men in your congregation a disservice. They will misjudge women, and their bad choices will filter down to misery in marriage. You will also be doing the women in your congregation a disservice, as they should be doing what the Bible says they should: keeping chaste, marrying early, and respecting their husbands.
That brings us to the forever-demonized man’s sex drive. Has it occurred to you that God made man as such? God makes good things, and a man’s sex drive is good: when it is directed through his wife and family, it produces civilizations. If you want to read more on this, read anthropologist Daniel Amneus’ essays “The Garbage Generation” and “The Case for Father Custody”. When a man’s sex drive is not directed through his wife and family, the result is matriarchal feminist hell.
Undoubtedly you will protest that this objectifies women. My answer to that is that it certainly does, and I am unapologetic. Men should see sex in women. They should see the natural expression of their own sexuality fulfilled with a woman – their wife. When that woman has had multiple partners before her husband and now rejects him in marriage, because he isn’t as sexy as her previous AFs, what does that do to him?
Women objectify men all of the time: they put out for the bad boy in their teens to get social status. They marry for status and money. The most hideous incarnation of objectification is abortion. Women will “Get rid of that soulless bunch of cells!” day in, day out.”My body, my choice” – remember?
The Red Pill has a bitter taste, but you’ll be the better for it.
Am i missing something here ? Is he equating (while being completely disconnected to the above poster) PUA skills = selling your soul ?
Yes, it’s the common argument that if guys learn these things, they will be too tempted to misuse them for immoral ends. In other words, the means are too effective, and very few men will be able to resist the temptation to use them for immoral ends. It is more of a fear than an argument, and as Anonymous Reader points out, it’s akin to the anti-gun arguments.
Yes, it’s the common argument that if guys learn these things, they will be too tempted to misuse them for immoral ends.
Even worse, the pedestalizers worry that if one man uses Game, then the lifetime of pedestalizing they have done will be exposed as a waste.
That is what Mr. Murphy is doing. He knows Game works, but is worried that if other men use it, the market will leave him behind.
This is in addition to the belief that women having too much power is good (the threatpoint), but men with the same is somehow bad. Sort of how like citizens are not allowed to leave North Korea. Tradcon Christians want men to be in a horrid North Korea of woman-worship.
@ Anon
“Tradcon Christians want men to be in a horrid North Korea of woman-worship.”
I remember when a college friend of mine was reading a PUA book (The Game?) and we got into a quasi argument about it. It’s not that Christian BP men want other men to worship women; that’s the end result but it’s not what they’re thinking or mean. I think most Christian BP men say these things but mean something else; they don’t realize what they’re actually saying.
They believe (as I did) that Game only works on slutty women and not Christian (and all) women. In other words, if you’re learning game they believe it’s so you can sleep with sluts rather than seek out a Christian wife. So when they see Christian men learning game they interpret that as them trying to seduce young women just to hook up with them rather than act godly and virtuous and let that attract the right girl. These same BP men are also unaware of how promiscuous “Christian” women are. Rollo Tomassi described it well in his post about good girls – when they say they’re looking for a “man with a good heart” BP Christian men take them at their word and don’t see what goes on when “nobody’s looking.”
As I’m oft to say, I don’t like saying these things but the truth is the truth regardless of how unpleasant it is and to avoid it for the sake of not sounding cynical just hides reality from young men who are then harmed by it.
The Question,
“regardless of how unpleasant it is”
And the truth isn’t necessarily even that unpleasant, compared to the fear that drives the ignorance. It is my experience that women seek dominance, and many only go for bad boys if they’re the only one offering it, which the fear (lack of faith) that pervades current Churchian teaching itself ends up engendering (scaring the not-so-bad boys away from dominance, and not coincidentally headship). If not scaring, at least not preparing.
Pingback: What Will She Think Of Me? -Masculine Monday- #9 | Donal Graeme
unwobblingpivot,
The topic definitely shifts there in Ephesians. If you take it as a whole it clearly covers several different kinds of relationships:
– In the church
– In marriage
– In the family (parent – child)
– At work / in a slavery situation
Almost everyone fails to properly group the first two, even though they don’t blend the others.
desiderian,
I have heard many women admit that all women (in their words) are weak in the ways PUAs exploit. It kind of goes against the female preacher’s claim Dalrock covered a while back that Paul was only speaking of a subset of “weak women” in the Scripture she “unpacked” for her crowd.
TheQuestion,
They believe (as I did) that Game only works on slutty women and not Christian (and all) women. In other words, if you’re learning game they believe it’s so you can sleep with sluts rather than seek out a Christian wife.
A more devout woman (which many church sluts are not) might not actually have sex with a PUA in 7 hours, but their arousal is all the same. Plus, even if the devout woman does not actually let the PUA go past, say, second base, the betas in church are ruined all the same, as the devout woman can no longer feel attraction for them after the PUA got her all aroused (five minutes of alpha).
It is my experience that women seek dominance, and many only go for bad boys if they’re the only one offering it,
I’m watching this play out in the so-far-so-good marriage of a friend of mine. He works in health care in Emergency world so he has some command presence. I suspect his wife has a couple of Bad Boys in her past. Doesn’t matter. I’ve watched him around her, and he is more of a horse-whisperer than a bronco buster, but it’s clear he’s dominent enough for her. The fact that she has three children under the age of 5 definitely keeps her SAHM self busy. Their social and family circle has no divorcees in the immediate zone, so she isn’t getting any “whispers”, either.
No question that women seek dominence. The churches, being beta factories, are not serving women’s needs or men’s needs. But they do give jobs to preachers, so I guess that’s good enough?
Many many many many many women love to be choked during sex. What a clueless dolt. My tolerence for simpering wimps is at near zero after the contniual and unavoidable preaching of these soft spoken pandering phony preachers shaming men for being men.
@ Unwobblingpivot
A quick and dirty summary as to why Eph 5:21 is not a mutual submission command between husband and wife.
Subject: Ephesians 5:21 “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”(KJV)
Error: The Modern Western Church teaches Ephesians 5:21 is a statement by the Apostle Paul implying Husbands and Wives are to submit to each other.
Answer:
There are 2 problems with this interpretation.
1. The word “Huppotaso” does not allow for mutual submission. “Huppotaso” is a Greek military term meaning “to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader”. The term is hierarchical in nature.
2. The context and structure of Ephesians 5:21 does not allow for Mutual Submission.
2a. Verse 21 is the end of the previous paragraph, not the beginning of a new one.
2b. There are 3 Contrasts in the beginning of this paragraph: 1st Contrast (Eph 5:15-16), 2nd Contrast (Eph 5:17) and the 3rd Contrast (Eph 5:18)
2c. There are 3 Commands following the Contrasts: 1st Command (Eph 5:19), 2nd Command (Eph 5:20) and 3rd Command (Eph 5:21)
2d. There are 3 Contexts of Submission to Authority: Wives submit to Husbands and Husbands loves their wives sacrificially* (Eph 5:22-33), Children submit to parents and Parents don’t provoke your children to wrath* (Eph 6:1-4) and Servants submit to Masters and Masters be good to your servants*
Eph 5:21 is not a stand alone imperative as the feminists would have us believe, but is instead fleshed out clearly in Eph 5:22 – Eph 6:4.
*These are instructions addressed only to those in authority to temper their rule over those not in authority with wisdom, not to share authority with those in submission as rebellious women and idolatrous men would have us believe.
Jerkoff defends himself by stating he applauds Kirk Cameron. This really must be a huge practical joke.
Correction:
The section of “Servants submit to Masters” had (Eph 6:5-9) omitted and Eph 5:21 is fleshed out all the way through Eph 6:9.
>>>You’ll notice that Dalrock didn’t actually quote me saying anything about pedestals or worshipping women, because it’s not in my essay. He invented that.
Great Respect for making an appearance Brother Bob. I hope you will stay around and read and learn. From one doctor to another let me tell you I have more graduate degrees than common sense and Dalrock led me to the promised land while letting me retain and greatly deepen my faith. This entire Red Pill thing is the real deal and as a pastor I understand your shock but it is also very correct, if hard to accept.
Dalrock is much like the locker room of Married Red Pill- where we use this game thing to improve our marriages- and when guys get together we can be pretty rough, so let me just say the truth that your essay dripped with the pedastalization of women. It stunk with it and then hung in the air like a full diaper. Fear of women is the goal and losing your fear of women is bad? Give me a break. Men should not “fear” women. Men are supposed to rule over women. You have inverted scripture and I am demanding in the name of Jesus Christ that you stop it immediately. Knowledge of the nature of women does not mean a guy is suddenly going to bang hundreds of women. Yet it is that knowledge you want to deny men, which I find to be outrageous. Following your script- denying men the truth about women- leads to a low sex, low effort, terrible marriage.
FYI, the pedestal is a common manosphere trope. Dalrock knows his audience and you need to unplug and take the Red Pill brother. You don’t need to be a PUA or act on the knowledge but you do need to get the knowledge if you are going to rightfully occupy your position of respect. There is a reason for the MGTOW movement, and The Red Pill.
Women and men are different. Women have a dual mating strategy which they have hidden from us. Women are not sinless but are in fact terribly flawed. The Teacher himself tells us that he found a few righteous men but not a single woman. Women were cursed by God Himself for disobedience and Adam committed the very sin that you advocate- he hearkened to the voice of the woman. Men want sex and will do anything to get it so women are able to use sex to control marriages and effectively neuter husbands in today’s society. Wive’s are in open rebellion while pastors preach the practical worship of women- FEAR them- while they chop men off at the knees. Women divorce husbands and return to church with the new boyfriend while the husband is ostracized from the church. These stories are all over this blog and all over the manosphere.
This is not hostility, and I dearly hope you will continue to post on Dalrock. Take your lumps like a man, defend your position if you can and learn. Please take the Red Pill and then just take a peek around you with those red tinted glasses and decide for yourself whether you should be lamenting the potential loss of the FEAR of women.
By the way Brother Bob. Welcome…to the real world. Don’t make any life changing decisions while you are still in the anger stage:
https://www.reddit.com/r/marriedredpill/comments/2xi8sc/moving_past_the_mrp_anger_phase/
I have a good feeling about this man and will pray for him. I don’t think he is a Cypher: https://therationalmale.com/2013/05/29/artificial-joy/
Dalrock
What you don’t understand is that women who dress slutty and go to bars do so because they desire the attention it brings them
Meanwhile in Iran:
Iran cracks down on Instagram modelling, 8 arrested
In Murphy’s defense he does make a few valid points.
He worries that red pill knowledge can cause men to lose their sympathy for half of humanity. Just visit some of the more toxic manosphere blogs and you will see evidence of that. But burying your head in the sand is not the answer. The truth will set you free. It is then up to you to come to terms with it without dwelling in hate.
He makes a good observation about how women may unwittingly train themselves to respond to tingles by only becoming aroused by PUA artists promising imminent sexual escalation, never learning how to respond to decent men trying to have a normal conversation. You can say that is her own fault and she is freely making the choices that will lead her to develop her 1000 c*ck stare, and you would basically be right. But where is she learning anything otherwise? Not from society, not from church, not from her parents, not from her friends. It is all You Go Grrl, 24/7. Everything in the culture is designed to enable her sluttery lifestyle. Do we have no responsibility to try to help women find their way?
And do not forget that he includes one important piece of advice in his Essay for Single Christian Men: Game works.
He seems to be on the road to red pill enlightenment just as many of us are.
Does Bob have a dog in this fight?
I remember my blue pill days when I might have tried to excuse a female dog I knew with something like this… “And so you {she} would go for years with nothing but hookups with guys who were complete a-holes, and this would just make you {her} more insecure and make you {her} diet even more, becoming even more unapproachable by normal people.” Right?
If she were my daughter, sister, girlfriend or God forbid even my wife I can see how it would be a whole lot easier to tell these pretty lies, even believe them than it would be to tell the truth.
*The truth* Women have lusts! Women have sexual desires! Women have pride of life! Women, like men, are born evil. Christian women and men will struggle against temptation to sin until we die.
Bob, if you’re dating a Christian woman thats slept around before you met her, get out now. Even if she did it before she became a Christian, even if she’s repentant, get out now. If you’ve married such a woman God help you but don’t encourage other single men to make such a foolish choice. Repentant or not, promiscuous women are never suitable for marriage.
@ Morgan
“If women have shown us what they find attractive with their actions, shouldn’t we make ourselves attractive to them?”
The Question has your answer:
“They believe (as I did) that Game only works on slutty women and not Christian (and all) women.”
The women are still up on the pedestal, so broken women are broken and somewhere out there are non-broken women if you’re just patient enough God may send you one. Or he might send you a woman who was innocently victimized a couple of times.
– – –
@ Tom C — yeah, he has a good point in there, if it weren’t being ruined by the blind pedestalization.
I found Mr. Murphy’s stance very puzzling initially. How can one believe that game works AND simultaneously fret that men will stop pedestalizing women if they learn it?
Most likely he has an incomplete or caricatured understanding of game. It is impossible to understand how and why game works and still believe that women should be pedestalized. Extreme cognitive dissonance would kick-in before then and force him on to one side of the fence or the other.
I suppose that should be *Dr. Murphy*.
An obvious clue of his misunderstanding is his portrayal of PUAs as the bad, bad wolves, and women as the innocent, harmless sheep. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, women drive the pick-up culture, not PUAs.
As a supposed “economist”, this should be simple for him to understand. The pick-up culture will end if (and only if) women choose to abandon it. Basic biological realities dictate this to be true.
“Huh. Murphy’s page will not let me comment, saying “IT LOOKS AS THOUGH YOU’VE ALREADY SAID THAT!” … with not a post of mine on the page.”
Yup: his feminized butthurt page will not allow masculine comments! I tried myself and got the same thing.
thedeti: All my young life I was told if a girl had sex before she was married, there was something wrong with her. She had to be “broken” in some way. Girls just don’t want to do THAT SORT OF THING unless they’re married, right? … Because girls are attracted to niceness and sweetness and goodness and kindness and senses of humor and flowers and asking permission and deference.
Yes. And in my youth I believed that women were not interested in sex for its own sake. That only a small minority of “bad girls” desired loveless sex. Most woman desired love, not lust. First they fell in love with a man — a pure, non-physical, heart-based, spiritual love — and only afterwards, when they felt true love, did they lust for that man.
I believed that women followed their hearts, whereas men, being more depraved, followed their penises. A woman lusts for the man she loves, whereas a man loves the woman he lusts after.
And women love men who are kind, sensitive, caring, a good listener, etc.
Any woman who lusted without love was a “bad girl.” I wanted to marry a “good girl,” and I sought to win a “good girl” by being kind, sensitive, caring, a good listener, etc. Naturally, it didn’t work out.
It is pretty obvious that Game (whatever that may be) does not work at least if your aim (and without suffering rejection) is to sleep with vast numbers of women. If it did, then why is it that no one these past two or three thousand years managed to realise its power before the arrival of the Manosphere? How would it be that even Krauser, whose hobby it is, can only manage, out of every thousand approaches that he makes, to sleep with just twenty-seven women? Game is thus wishful thinking – a St Elmo’s Fire that keeps people going when, inflamed by jealousy, they see women throwing themselves at the likes of Alpha MacGorgeous, Fuckbuddy Rockdrummer and Harley MacBadbo: the first of these has it all, the second by reason of his skill is admired by men and in the eye of women and the third is indifferent to law enforcement agencies. MacGorgoeous was born that way, Rockdrummer put in the effort to perform music (I’m looking at you Rollo) and the third lacks nuance. Are you (apart from Rollo) any of these? No, of course not.
Even so; both Dr Murphy and those deluded women at U.C.L. have swallowed whole the notion that men have this otherwise unknown to science power over women and that women have no will-power of their own as if Game is a form of Hypnosis. Again one sees the correlation between Feminist and Trad Cons (which is what I take Dr Murphy to be).
It is always possible that Americans are (as they are to foreigners) just too nice to women. If so, I have no remedy for this national characteristic.
@Opus:
I got a deep chuckle out of “MacBadbo(y)”. All I can think of is a Scottish Man with a Kilt on a Harley. And I don’t want to disturb the neighborhood with my laughing.
@Dr. Murphy:
Welcome to the first real steps of Wisdom. It’s a painful process, as the anger come from the regret of past failures. (And the realization that, if judged as Men, Women are all pathological liars. They aren’t, but understanding the nuance takes some time.)
Though the real problem is you lack “another way” due to where the Church has fallen astray. Which is what this little neck of the Internet is about producing: the proper way.
This is not quite the way red pill knowledge of the nature of women works (game). It still sees women as innocent. All women are basically sluts with out self control. The meme’s of liberation, empowerment the whole you go girl thing taps into it, it is normal. The differences between women are varying degrees of the same. What checks this sluttery is the desire to be seen and known as a good person. That is it, I wouldn’t put more on it. Pedestalizing women and protecting women in the society as it is now encourages bad behavior. The apex fallacy thing is in play on the view of men with game. Opus touched on it with his comment above. The only men actually banging all of the sluts are the “naturals” cads. These are basically defective men. The vast majority of men are beta males that with out knowing are men that marry and love their woman.
Think about the idea of red pill. It was these men that have discovered the truth and discussed it and quantified it for other men. All done in a sea of blue pill lies. Dr Murphy’s fear is unfounded simply because a man that is attending his church is such a man. A natural isn’t even there. (faith)
In the end when this madness is killed society and civil conduct will look blue pill. The difference will be the red pill biblical foundation. All will know all women are sluts if left to her own desires with out consequences. But red pill is all of female nature and will be a part of civil order and law. Well behaved women in sea of red pill truth will be pedestalized for her good behavior and she will be called wife.
There is two basic types of women – Proverbs 5 and proverbs 31. Seeing as how proverbs 31 types are as rare as precious gems, one can presume that the vast majority of women, given that they have no good influences over them (older women, fear of God, common decency, etc) are not going to fare well. Stories of Pastors and their harems show that society is corrupt. All one can do is live and learn, Red Pill is the only knowledge that may get us past this blight of society.
===
Rollo Tomassi
says:
May 16, 2016 at 12:15 pm
FFY, ;^)
Unfortunately Bob Murphy’s understanding of women isn’t as good as his understanding of economics.
If it did, then why is it that no one these past two or three thousand years managed to realise its power before the arrival of the Manosphere?
Historically it wasn’t needed/ would not have been effective, because the mating of humans was very strongly controlled and not exclusively (and for much of it, not at all conditioned by) determined by female lust. The notion that women should be free to choose their bedmates based on lust is very new, and it creates new opportunities and new challenges for men as compared with the “managed mating” model that humanity followed until a few seconds ago, in historical terms. The free sex market is a quite new thing (not that it developed in the last few years, but it did develop in the last century) — in its fully blown model, it is brand new, and creates the need for men to adapt so that they can be the objects of female lust. Essentially this is what game is about, quite apart from all of its “techniques” — it’s about flipping the script to become the desired one, the object of female desire/lust, which in a free sex market is the trigger for women to want to mate with you.
How would it be that even Krauser, whose hobby it is, can only manage, out of every thousand approaches that he makes, to sleep with just twenty-seven women?
I have no idea. However what I do know is that game has improved the sex lives of countless married men who have deployed it in their marriages to one degree or other. And it’s also improved the prospects of countless other men in terms of attracting women. If it improves prospects, it’s helpful. I think anyone who thinks that game means every single woman in the world wants to mate with you is quite deluded. The question is: does it improve things. And the question that follows that is: does it improve things compared to other approaches, and that is something that can only be answered by individual men.
Adam’s sin was listening to his wife over what God told him. His curse is having to work out every thing he does. He must toil for the earth to bare fruit. Red pill is the only way for man to have any peace. No free ride to romance, it is all work. You must see her as she is that is part of your toil. You love her because God instructed you to. Pedestalizing her to something lovable is not working very well. (fucked your church up) Gotta do the work.
Pingback: She doesn’t need a man. | Dalrock
@Bob Murphy
“You will go from being terrified of beautiful women to knowing how to spot the ones that are incredibly insecure, who spend hours getting ready because they think they need to in order to deserve attention from men.”
“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.” – Plato
Tom C @ May 16, 2016 at 11:47 pm:
“He worries that red pill knowledge can cause men to lose their sympathy for half of humanity.”
It does but the ability to recognize a slut does not create the slut.
“Everything in the culture is designed to enable her sluttery lifestyle. Do we have no responsibility to try to help women find their way?”
Most of us Christian men have no ability, therefore no responsibility. Power in modern America is very centralized and those in power like to blame those who are not. Same as it ever was but in the past, our civil and religious leaders at least allowed us men enough power to have intact families.
Pingback: Why I don’t respect women Part 2 | Christianity and the manosphere
Bob, you’re projecting. You admit to have used pornography. You were the inhabitant of a humongous friendzone. You are now divorced. You have a problem with women. A Catholic would really need to go to confession at this point, not lecture others.
You also have a wrong definition of “human”, which is “somebody like yourself”.
There are more voices in support under your OP, but they are all from “humans” (by your definition), i.e. blue pill woman worshippers. But you won’t see it, we may be all wasting internet bandwidth here… It’s hard to discuss even facts with you – like the fact, that reading “woman literature” won’t “broaden your horizons”, and women like to make up romantic comedy scripts about how they were “pursued” by their “suitors”, and finally caved in.
This is of course a nice story, but the fact is, that her subconscious brain (I would directy write “reptilian brain”, but you might think I’m seeing women as “subhuman”, despite “reptilian brain” being an anatomic term) made the decision instantly.
And you can influence this outcome, but only by self-improvement; which has nothing to do with her. You wouldn’t get an answer to “what can I change so that you wanted to be with me” with a lie detector. But not because the women are so “complex”, or it’s beyond “human” (i.e. people like you) reason. NAHALT – not all humans are like you. This question just defeats the purpose in and of itself.
It’s akin to ask a gamma: “what if you’re wrong?”.
@Novaseeker
Things indeed may be as you say, though I suspect that even were the personification of Game to stand up and slap me in the face I would fail to recognise it – and then there would be for me the problem of comfirmation bias.
I was merely referring to Game in its guise as Pick-Up procedure. Krauser ‘s figures for 2014 were that he made one thousand approaches. He enjoys doing it, but he limits his approaches to what one might regard as low-hanging fruit – namely au-pairs – and in his early thirties he is surely at the optimum age for doing so. Even so he fails to get a phone number two thirds of the time. Of the three hundred plus from whom he did obtain a number, he slept with just one in ten. I envy his skill but still think that it is so low statistically that – to coin a phrase – a three legged donkey might do as well. His figures seem to be identical to a very handsome guy based in New York who has now traded in his shagging-trousers for matrimony, and that further supports my idea that a 2.7% strike rate is hardly more than luck – for surely film star looks should produce a better result.
But what of the past? You say that game was not needed. Perhaps not in the country but what about the town. The Roman elite seemed to have been fairly promiscuous and then in the eighteenth-century the young Casanova demonstrated his seductive powers – which must have been considerable – long before The Pill and Penicillin. Beaumarchais’s Marriage of Figaro and Barber of Seville indicate that seduction is not a twentieth century invention. It is not just the French, however, for what about Richardson’s Pamela.
I’d be interested to learn of some double-blind test that might be set up to test the theory. Deti’s three characters (McGorgeous RockDrummer and Badboy) are surely unaware of Game. I am there reminded of the lyrics to Dire Straits famous MTV song where referring to the guitarist (that is to say RockDrummer) the explanation is ‘that ain’t working; that’s the way you do it, Money for nothing and chicks for free’. No Game required. McGorgeous is of course the single George Clooney and Badboy any generic biker.
I recall reading of a study which asserted that in personal communication 55% is body language, 38% tone of voice and 7% the actual words spoken.
Problem for women that “don’t need a man” is, no man “NEEDS” any particular woman. There are lots of women to choose from and if this one won’t do, that one will. You don’t have to marry them and young, they won’t marry anyway. The entire game for the women that don’t need a man is to be able to find one when they look around and decide that, at least for awhile, they DO need a man and then their hunt is on for a drone (beta) to carry the day, a couple of kids and a mortgage until the cash and prizes payout of E,P,L.
That age-frame of 27-35ish is exactly what men and beta drones alike need to stay the hell away from, as regards marriage. Why would you reward these sluts? These are the sluts that rode the carousel, have been with many dozens of men and are incapable of paring off for life and are merely looking for cash and prizes. I’m not sure how to get the word out in sufficient numbers, but until women get the word for a generation or two that waiting beyond 22 is unsatisfactory and you are considered used goods after that and treated as such, nothing will change. Top 10% of women, looks-wise at age 30 will always find a shlubb. But below that, men shouldn’t marry them. I’m a very average guy and I haven’t, nor would I. I never understood the interest of men that know the history of such women and married them when these sluts were thirty-plus and surely had over a hundred men in their history.
Do the math on a woman of 30ish, she’s on birth control for 15 years or so, high school, college, work life, single life, bars, booze, drugs, the rest of it. Toxic wombs, who knows how many bouts of STD resolved or unresolved. To top it off, everywhere you go out with her, the men in the crowd, everywhere, some man that dicked her. How does a fella look in the mirror and reconcile all that? You need a woman, but not any particular woman, for a very particular and singular thing, but never for marriage if she’s over 22, 24 TOPS. Enjoy the decline.
I have this morning (afternoon here) just re-read Novaseeker at 6.41 above. How can I doubt the wisdom of what he says, yet – and much as any man might want to believe in the efficiacy of Game – I have yet to see it in action and thus, like Thomas, I doubt. For myself I would guess that I overgame and am just as likely to get some woman’s back up as to demonstrate and with success my desirability.
I believe that it was the Victorians who created the concept of The Boyfriend, which in its latest manifestation is, of course, Hook-Up culture (short-time love) and so that must be when men first needed to Game women. Is there a thin dividing-line between asserting ones own worth and pretending to be what one is not? Were I to be in the company of some man who was attempting to mislead some woman as to his status he would be on my hit-list to bring down a peg or two. Women who are easily seduced go down instantly in a man’s opinion.
I just think it must be very different in (present-day) America. The other day I was talking to a young female about a mutual male acquaintance (of impeccably liberal credentials – he is also a bona-fide kitchen bitch) and I observed that he was always attempting to challenge me. She replied that he does the same to her and then observed, rightly in my opinion, that he had a chip on his shoulder. I responded (in true white-knight style?) that he should not treat her (or any woman) that way – one does not fight women – physically or mentally – and to do so merely demeans oneself as a man.
@Opus, if Game wasn’t effective no one would bother to concern themselves with it. Your experience with Game is limited to Krauser and likely Mystery Method which is now well over 15 years old. Game has evolved and it’s not just about PUA – which itself has not only evolved beyond rote memorization of scripts, but has delved into the psychological aspects of attraction and arousal.
Go look up the videos from RSD. Look at the infield work of guys like Tyler Durden (Owen), Todd or Julien. You’ll see Game in action.
@Just A Regular Guy
Your take on the “Ephesians 5:21 Is The Context” argument leaves out one very important point, in that it overlooks Genesis 3:16, where God said to Eve: “he shall rule over you.” Fleshing that out a bit, go read Numbers 30, the Law of Vows. If you’re in a philosophical mood, you might ask why, to which I would respond: Consider Eve.
Does anyone believe that Eve was anything less than the ideal woman? I’m dead serious when I say that. This was the dawn of creation, there was no sin in the world. God created Eve, from Adam, and all women are descended from Eve, so does anyone believe that women are getting better? Is there any woman alive who could do a better job of being a wife than Eve?
Just look at women today… quod erat demonstrandum
God gave them one rule. Just one, single, simple rule. And the ideal woman, with no job, no stress, no children to chase, seriously- what did Eve have on her plate other than obedience to that one single rule? “Do not eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” And what did Paul say about it? He said Eve was totally deceived.
So, what do you do with women, when *at their best* and I mean *at the top of their game* in a world in which there is no sin… they can’t even obey one simple rule?
You appoint a guardian for them, because they aren’t competent.
But God, being God, did it in a certain way. He gave Eve a desire to be ruled and He said “Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.” This is where hypergamy came from.
This is why feminism is fighting so hard against the authority of men. They are rebelling against God, who judged them as incompetent and said “he shall rule over you.” Wimenz don’t like that.
@AT, good point.
If the most perfect woman ever to have lived, could only rebel against the 1 and only rule she had. Consider all following her to follow her lead and rebel against every rule – which is exactly what they do.
As I discovered in marriage, the only way to get to do anything was to ask her not too. And this is what every man tells me as well when asked.
Opus @ 8:58 am:
“Were I to be in the company of some man who was attempting to mislead some woman as to his status he would be on my hit-list to bring down a peg or two.”
Why? Status is not quantifiable like mass or color. You might as well put gas stations on your to-hit list for selling snacks at higher costs than the supermarket. A man has no correct status any more than a bag of Doritos has a correct price.
And frankly, men shouldn’t be honest about our status until women start being honest about theirs. We’ll stop posturing when they stop wearing makeup.
Fear is the entirely wrong thing. Most men don’t fear women, they see them as some kind of psychopath or sociopath, or simply ignorant or uneducated, or worse, dumb.
I should fear/respect the opinion of someone who is smart, wise, and righteous. Even women, but the modern example is Saint (Mother) Theresa of Calcutta. Virgin nuns are not usually held up as examples of ultimate womanhood, married to and totally submissive to Christ with poverty, chastity, and OBEDIENCE.
There is “CarFax” where I can get the history of a car I want to buy to see how many and bad were the accidents, or if it was immersed in water, or otherwise salvaged.
There was and is no “WifeFax” (startup idea!) where I can determine far more important things about a potential woman. Generally all I can see is the body-work, but that can be faked. Does the vixen need fixin’?
Beyond, is simple statistics, if you see wrecks every day, you tend to assume any used or even dated merchandise has been in one. It is worse when there are what used to be “Sadie Hawkins Day” dances or parties are turned into recycling divorcees (even/especially in Catholic churches).
At bars there are many high men but few hymens.
Even if they are trying to argue mutual respect as the basis, there must be something respectable. Self-control, modesty, etc. is such. Merely having the parts isn’t.
@Gunner Q
Because men claiming (in my presence) to be what they are not is an attempt (by implying higher status than myself) to de facto put me down for their own sexual benefit.
@ Rollo
My knowledge of Game comes entirely form what I have read on blogs like this one (and your excellent blog) and as Krauser’s entire blog is about Game (until he went Nationalist) and because we live in the same town and I thus understand exactly the geography and demography of where he is operating and because he gives his own stats I find what he says of reliable interest. With that Geordie accent of his – by-the-way – he would however surely have zero-success were his targets to be the homegrown. Au-Pairs cannot hear that to Home Counties ears he sounds ‘thick’ and probably drinks too much. I know nothing of Mystery and have never read Neil Strauss. It may be therefore that I am just ignorant, but I have noticed – as in this thread – that Game believers are rather triggered by game doubters and tend to regard Game doubters as guilty of Heresy; and its not as if I have never picked up women in the street and then taken them to bed. I have done so throughout my life and on numerous occasions but not in any intentional or systematic way. Am I perhaps then a Game natural? I doubt it.
At the risk of flogging a dead stallion I wanted to again pick up on @ Novaeseeker – who twice uses the rather vague or amorphous word ‘copious’ in relation to the numbers of men successfully using Game and whose view is that until recent decades Game was not needed. This as I concede largely may be true in America – save in the big cities – for America was and perhaps still is a predominantly rural society with low density of population. That is not really true for England. In that regard I was – by chance – just watching a filmed version of William Wycherley’s The Country Wife from 1675 (you can and should spell the title as you deem appropriate – if you get my drift, and as Wycherley surely intended) and which is set in London. Our hero Horner pretends that he is a Eunuch so as to facilitate access to women. Is that nothing less than an attempt to pretend – in today’s language – that he is a Male Feminist. He thus is taking the opposite tack to the then fashion of being a Gallant or Rake. Restoration Comedy is full of men trying it on in various forms such that the terms Gallant and Rake (and Beau) were coined to describe their activity namely the attempted seduction of women and by implying irresistible desirability; in our terms Gaming women. Just turning up, either then – or now – was not going to be sufficient. Whether they had tangible and verifiable success is however the question to which I am keen on an answer. These things go in and out of fashion. I mentioned Pamela (1741) – Sir Walter Scott early in the Nineteenth century sent a copy of a book (surely Pamela) to his Aunt, who replied that although it had been the fashion of her youth the book was now unreadable (by reason of its perceived immorality).
ADDENDUM
From The Country Wife Act I Sc1
Horner: “Ask all the young fellows of the town if they do not lose more time, like Huntsmen in starting the game than in running it down, one knows not where to find ’em, who will or will not”.
In other words Horner thinks that he has latched on to a system whereby he can tell whether women are going to be interested in him, without the bother of firstly finding and then ascertaining whether the women might be interested. Note also the use of the word Game (which can be either a Noun or a Verb).
@Rollo & Opus
Such an argument can be used any-which-way. For example: “If Social Justice wasn’t effective no one would bother to concern themselves with it.”
2nd Addendum
I cannot resist the following exchanges a few pages later between Horner’s friend Dorilant who does not appear to be in on the pretence. What Dorilant describes is surely nothing other than our old friend the Beta male (or in VoxDay’s system, the Omega male).
Dorilant: Nay, I dare swear, they won’t admit you to play at cards with them, go to plays with ’em or do the little duties which other shadows of men are wont to do for them.
Horner: What do you call shadows of men?
Dorilant: Half men.
Horner: What boys?
Dorilant : Ay, your old boys,old beau garcons [the footnote in my copy defines beaux garcons as harmless or sexless escorts] who, like superannuated stallions, are suffered to run, feed, and whinny with the mares as long as they live, though they can do nothing else.
Jim Christian
That age-frame of 27-35ish is exactly what men and beta drones alike need to stay the hell away from, as regards marriage…You need a woman, but not any particular woman, for a very particular and singular thing, but never for marriage if she’s over 22, 24 TOPS. Enjoy the decline.
Well, it’s not exactly like it’s always within the man’s control, though, is it, particularly the older he gets?
Pingback: On Christian Female Bloggers II: The Gold Standard of Reverent | Things that We have Heard and Known
I should have commented and said this age ago, but ALL of you are off the rails if you actually think Pickup Artists are legitimate women catchers. They’re phony scam artists. This shouldn’t even be a discussion, let alone something to worry Christian fathers or mothers should their son watch them do their so-called artistry. Manhood Academy has had this video on YouTube for ages.
Too many men were raised without a dad. Too many men were raised by women. Too many men were raised to be “sweet and nice” to women. Too many men in the church were taught by weak, spineless men. Too many Christian men were taught to send flowers, compliment, be polite, gentle, caring…………and all the other formalities
And they then were told by the same people who taught them this, taught them how to behave this way that now they are weak, not real men, not manly, not masculine, not assertive, not confident, not leaders, not good enough to be “the man God intended him to be” (I really dislike this current buzz phrase by Christian women btw)
So they looked to some aspects of PUA, and now they are being attacked again to be the things and use some of the aspects that could help them be ‘real men’ evidently.
This is what we call insanity. Want to know why “real men” are abandoning church? It’s because they won’t sit were they are not needed, while being blamed, belittled, shamed for everything. It’s a place where women are now blameless (“the bad-boy-no-good-guy *tricked* her into having sex / getting her into drugs.” for example)
Solid Christian men ARE leaving, and it will at this rate take a generation before ‘leadership’ (pastors) realize this….hopefully Christ returns before that happens 😉
hopefully Christ returns before that happens😉
Amen.
When He does return, He’s going to open up an institutional-sized can of WhupAss[TM] on the American “church,” probably even making that a priority over punishing non-believers. He takes a VERY dim view of heresy and perversion of His message.
May I sum it up as; the church Demands that the young men play by the old fashioned pre pill and pre welfare presexual revolution pre feminisum rules of Courtship because”that is the way the world should be”. Conversely they tell the young women “anything goes” what ever you want, what ever you do, what ever you feel, is blame free. Anyone surprise at the terrible results.
It’s not when you realize it’s actually the apostasy known as feminism.
Pingback: Her soul essence is your master, and sets the terms for oneness. | Dalrock
Pingback: Men find their own solutions to the gender wars
Pingback: Modern dating: is the only winning move is not to play?
Pingback: Vashti’s daughters. | Dalrock
Pingback: How should a Christian husband go about instilling fear in his wife?* | Dalrock
Pingback: Warhorn interview: Define red pill, Game, and MGTOW. | Dalrock
90% of people take verse 21 out of context. I did too for thr longest time. It’s an NIV issue. They mistakenly put 21 with 22 onwards but if you read it as verse 21 being thr kast statement from 20 and before it nakes nore sense. It was thr last version Spain about brethen and submitting to one another. Keep in mind original scripture wasn’t grouped together so neatly. I believe thr kjv actually does have 22 as the start of thr new subject or section
Sounds like you answered your own “question” then. Obviously no – and far from it if not the polar opposite. Almost comical. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom is the quote. You need to know women and what they want – respect and to be heard but pedalization or being treated as a goddesss or fear is not something that is identified with as what a r./t./a.m. should be nor is what women want. It’s not about pickup artists or manipulation – but knowing a man’s role in a relationship and what women want. Thank God it was a question to which a quick no is the accurate answer. As to the “dr” who is an economist who posted – maybe he meant reverence/respect but that is different from pedalization which doesn’t lead to a healthy, lasting relationship between a man and woman. There is no such thing as fear (Will Smith) – if anything, women are certainly not to be feared.
Not only for long term…..but any kind of relationship. Besides God saying…….fear no one but him. It is kind of common sense. No one fears women, if anything women want a man who can protect her and her offspring. It sounds like you answered your own question (thank God is was a question and not a statement, and far from the truth)………is you need to understand wo. and be a t./r./a.m………there may be things I not list here that I will still extend and communicate outwards. But I take nothing from this article or some person who wrote something possibly taken out of context through……….experience is the best teacher, not only have I never encountered anyone who believes or has mentioned this as it doesn’t exist………you need to know the difference between respect and fear……..as they are very different……….and fear is not healthy in any relationship – short or long. I think there have been women afraid of their spouses but not the other way around. It sounds like you don’t think so either…….and a r.g.c. with any wo. will t.y.t.i.s.w.t.a.a.t.o.l.f.i.a.s.p.l.1.n.s.o.a.a.a.a.a.i.n.m.h.o.p.d…………please as a blogger or whatever be responsible and don’t spread misinformation or post inaccurate, false, untrue posts such as this even though you disagreed as everyone does. No one is afraid of women. And to be completely honest, there is no such thing as fear. R./t./a.m. have no fear as there is no such thing. No trying to sound preachy just making the correction. I tried googling the person who you may have misinterpreted and they did not come up. Which means this could be a possible troll post or they don’t have a large following or clientele because quite frankly they are wrong or trolling themselves. It is common sense – respect is a pillar of any relationship – business, romantic, short, long………..no one respects someone who fears them nor is there anything such as fear and certainly no one fears women. Be r./t./a.m. and truth seek, experience, e.i……l.a.b.a.w.t.w.a.w.i.a.e.a.m.m.m. and h.a.m.i.s.t.b.a.s.b. and w.l.i.a.i.g. Making the correction. Nothing is taken away from you or this person who doesn’t exist who you m.i. as this is false, inaccurate, untrue, and irresponsible.
Lastly, in addition to being completely false, inaccurate, untrue, and irresponsible this could be potential blasphemy (up to God to decide)……..as the quote from the Bible is fear of God is beginning of wisdom and to fear no man/or women/or anything but him…….many times throughout the Bible and scripture. Be r./t./a.m. and truth seek, experience, e.i……l.a.b.a.w.t.w.a.w.i.a.e.a.m.m.m. and h.a.m.i.s.t.b.a.s.b. and w.l.i.a.i.g. Making the correction. Nothing is taken away from you or this person who doesn’t exist who you m.i. as this is false, inaccurate, untrue, and irresponsible.
Pingback: Pity the wife who doesn’t yearn to please her husband. | Dalrock