Chances are you’ve heard of a concept called “Game”, and if you are like most people you suspect this concept poses a dire threat to our most cherished values. These suspicions are correct; Game is fundamentally incompatible with our values and is eroding the very foundation of our society. Even the proponents of Game would agree that this is true!
Chivalry and the virtuous man.
Feminists may object to the concept of chivalry, but it is closely related to how we measure the virtue of a man. Moreover, without chivalry feminism would be ineffectual, as feminism is the belief that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems*.
But while chivalry is closely related to how we measure the virtue of a man, a man’s chivalry (in itself) is not what we use to determine a man’s virtue. In our society a man proves his virtue by his ability to seduce women. I don’t mean this merely in the sense of locker room boasting or the values of a small group of “pickup artists”. I mean this in a much more fundamental sense.
As a society we are obsessed with generating sexual attraction in women. We see this ability as the most pure test of goodness in a man. A woman’s feelings of sexual attraction are a mystical force, godlike for non-Christians, and God’s message for Christians. We can’t see how incredibly crass this is because we call it romantic love, but romantic love is far more intertwined with sexual desire than we are willing to admit**. To truly seduce a woman is to make her fall in love with you.
Generating the tingle (attraction) is an obsession with our society, and you can see it in our popular films. The Fifth Element is over the top in this regard on the secular side, as is Fireproof on the Christian side.
We believe that good things should happen to men who can generate the tingle. This is why we reserve our daughters’ most sexually attractive years as a reward for such men. Our greatest fear in doing this is that our daughters might become confused and bestow their gift of sex on the wrong (unsexy) men. Luckily there’s an app for that.
This is also why we need no fault divorce and child support. Yes it is important that we encourage men to settle down and become fathers, and yes it is important that children have the immense benefit of growing up with their fathers. These are good things, but when these objectives interfere with our core values, it is our core values that must prevail. What court in the land could overrule the woman’s holy vagina? If she no longer tingles for the father of her children, he deserves to be ejected from his children’s lives and have a more sexy man take his place. Think of the vitriol we heap on such men who dare to complain when this happens to them. They are the lowest of the low in our society, except perhaps for those most detestable men of all, the omegas who can’t attract a woman at all.
All of our sexual morality is directly anchored to the tingle. The #metoo movement doesn’t object to women trading sex to get ahead, it objects to the fact that in doing so such women are enticed into having sex with unsexy men!
What about virtue in women?
While the ability to generate sexual attraction is how we measure virtue in a man, we measure virtue in a woman by her ability to be strong and independent. Bad women are doormats with low self esteem who commit the cardinal sin of being untrue to themselves. Good women are strong and independent, and most of all, true to themselves. All of our moral messaging to young girls is designed to spur them to fight against the temptation to conform to someone else’s idea of what is good. In the UK the Girl Guide vow has changed over time from obeying God to be true to myself and develop my beliefs. And every girl in the west can sing along with the moral message from Disney’s Frozen. Elsa’s moment of triumph comes when she learns she must stop trying to be a good girl and instead be true to herself:
Be the good girl you always have to be
Conceal, don’t feel,
don’t let them know
Well now they know…
And the fears that once controlled me
Can’t get to me at all
It’s time to see what I can do
To test the limits and break through
No right, no wrong, no rules for me,
I’m free!
This is because we strongly believe that women deep down have a mystical gift for understanding what is truly good, which is why a woman falling in love with a man is the purest sign of his virtue.
Chivalry keeps our concepts of male and female virtue in harmony.
As I already noted, chivalry is what converts feminist demands into concrete action. But chivalry is also the way we reconcile the concepts of male and female virtue. Our unstated assumption is that being chivalrous is sexy. This is why Game is such a corrosive concept in our society. Game teaches that chivalry is an attraction killer, and that women are instead attracted to a host of traits that are neutral at best.
The problem we have is that young men now are able to see for themselves that Game works. This is true even though most men are not able to master Game in practice. The men who fail at seduction are able to observe the men who succeed, and it is painfully obvious that chivalry really is an attraction killer. All of this is made worse by the fact that not only are young men highly motivated to have sex, but our society is ordered around the sacred belief that being able to seduce women is the mark of virtue in a man. Even if a man rejects Game on the grounds that premarital sex is immoral, he still has to grapple with the fact that sexiness is the mark of male virtue in our society– and this includes the view of nearly all Christians. As Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. (President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) explains:
Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.
The threat that Game poses is not that large groups of men will learn how to put it into effective practice (although many have and will). The threat comes from its assault on young men’s belief that chivalry is sexy and therefore chivalry is virtuous. Even worse, a young man doesn’t even have to ever hear the word “Game” or directly study its theories to be at risk of concluding that chivalry isn’t sexy. This is a message that is slowly making its way through the culture.
Game is so corrosive to our moral order because the normal methods to return to course only make the corrosion worse. Lectures on the importance of chivalry will be met with ridicule, since chivalry is unsexy. Lecturing men to be unsexy for the sake of virtue will likewise fail because our very definition of male virtue is sexiness.
It gets worse from here, because as Game dissolves the moral case for chivalry it is dissolving the foundation for sustaining feminism (in practice). This in turn jeopardizes the virtue of women by making it harder for women to be true to themselves. Without chivalry converting feminist theory into practice, millions of women will find it harder and harder to stop trying to be good girls and adopt a “No right, no wrong, no rules for me” attitude.
Game is destroying our most cherished values, our very concept of virtue! As a Christian all I can say is this destruction can’t happen quickly enough.
*I hereby dub this Dalrock’s Law of Feminism.
**Our very concept of romantic love connoting virtue itself comes from the same 11th century poetry that brought us the idea of chivalry.
Pingback: The Lone Wanderers’ solutions to dating and marriage
Your dialog with Larry Kummer has certainly paid off. I was just reading comments over there and returned to find this post.
[D: Yes, it certainly did.]
Until recently, catering to women’s Female Imperative whims has had no cost for social leaders / elites. But now men in their 20’s at the margin are essentially dropping out of the marriage market socially (MGTOW, PUA) and/or economically. Elites will in time have a choice of presiding over a decline (complete with collapsing bridges as at FIU) or saying “NO!” to women’s demands for more fried ice. A replacement of the elites probably will be required for the latter to happen.
In the mean time, men should learn to take enjoyment in ridiculing White Knights such as Mohler.
This is a brilliant example of early stage social reform — solutions are developed on the street for individuals to use, then people begin to understanding on a conceptual level what is happening.
Next comes the development of solutions using these insights. Bigger and more powerful solutions, requiring group actions. These insights provide the shared views, values, and goals required for men to stand together against the current “rules” of society.
Then things get interesting.
Pingback: Why Game is a threat to our values. | @the_arv
HERE HERE!!!!!!
I AM A MAN WITH GAME, I CAN AND WILL TELL A WOMAN NO, I AM DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
Try it brothers, tell a woman NO and mean it. Watch the “world” crumble before your eyes.
Reminds me of the quote by Archibald Cunningham in the fictional film ‘Rob Roy’ where the actor says, “Love is a dung hill, Betty, and I am but a cock that climbs upon it to crow.”
It is disconcerting to think how long these cultural movements take to grow and die. How long so far? 900 years or so; almost a millennium. Spooky.
“Game is destroying our most cherished values, our very concept of virtue! As a Christian all I can say is this destruction can’t happen quickly enough.”
What’s your take on Dante’s view of Beatrice?
lzoozolzolzol
As I recall gbfm Beatrice was secretly taped being bernankified with butthexting fiat dollars. For the record, I’m against such things.
lzozzzlzloolz
somebody at vox commenttators got it rigtz:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/01/all-your-rhetoric-are-belong-to-us.html#c1633593688129232712
@paworldandtimes
‘Unstoppable rhetoric: GBFM valorizing the Western canon and the sanctity of virgin marriage thru “lollzzlling” and “lotsas cockas.”‘
Oh yeah. GBFM, one of the great poets of our age, explicating his usually-cryptic posts, and butthexting the banksters:
“Why do I mention butthext in the context of fiat currencies and counterfeiters? It is because Dante and Milton associated all these things, as did many others. In Dante’s Inferno the butthexters are placed on the same level of hell as the counterfeiters, as both engage in unnatural acts that produce no true wealth, but only debauch and degrade.
The counterfeiters funded the women’s movement and encourage butthexters to desoul and debauch your future wife, robbing her of value and you of an intact family. While such atrocities are occurring in mass, the funny thing is that the myopic Christians here are saying, “GBFM said butthext! I’m offended!” at the very same moment that their future wife is being butthexted… And so I lozozzlzlzlzozo that I may not weep.”
HT heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/feminism-for-bros-defcon-vomit-bag/
American
‘Rob Roy’
That film has been on my “must see” list for years. It was overshadowed by “Braveheart”. A man of some cultural discernment I used to know commented at the time that “Rob Roy” was far superior.
I wonder what “Rob Roy” will look like with The Glasses on?
@Larry
This post explains better what I meant when I said that the old way of romance is never to return.
The future is now. Groups are already coalescing. Some people (not you) think that because efforts like the Tea Party, Occupy Wallstreet, Nationalists, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, etc. seem to blow in and out again on the same wind that such is an indication that all movements are doomed to break upon the walls of the elite strongholds for the foreseeable future.
I instead believe we are iterating rapidly.
@gbfm
As do I.
I have never denied that there is a method to your madness. But this madness is best taken in small doses.
I don’t know about Dante, but Milton unfortunately caught the no fault divorce bug due to his infatuation with romantic love. Not all books by men are great. Better to stick with the Book when seeking moral wisdom.
Dion came out with a song in 1961 called The Wanderer. Still sounds good today and the style doesn’t sound dated. Dion who is now a Christian said the character in the song is a sad person. The song is definitely about a player.
This post will also scare off those game-denialist nuts.
They hate feminism, but they hate Game too.
While the ability to generate sexual attraction is how we measure virtue in a man,
Under such a value system, a serial killer has the highest virtue.
“Christian Books Unlimited here, we would like to sign you up for a 5 book deal with Church speaking tours.”
Excellent post.
Yes! I agree Dalrock!
Milton’s and Dante’s view of women only works when women are raised by the Patriarchy and ACT as the Patriarchy suggests.
Chivalry only works in the context of a strong Patriarchy which sets forth and defines the roles of virtuous women.
The tragic Paradox of our age, which you invaluably lament and battle more than anyone, is that too many “Christian leaders,” have abdicated their responsibility to make sure that their little “ladies” act like “ladies,” while yet demanding all their men to man up and “marry the bernanifiedz slutzs lzozozlzlzlo.”
This Paradox allows the conservative “Christian” to conserve immorality and liberalism and sleep well at night.
It is a tragic boomer trait that has oft been leveraged by certain forces to enlist the short-sighted preachers who value the collection plate more than the Cross.
lzlzozozozoz
Be serious Dalrock, Trump once said he grabbed women by the you know what.
That does not conform with our Christian, conservative, Western values. And if you doubt that, that’s what my wife, a single mother when I married her, told me to think.*
*Satire, lzolol**
** I can not lozlolol as well as the Great One, GBFM
Is Dalrock attacking the greatest narrative poem in the English language? Milton was in favour of Divorce because his wife of a few days ran back to her parents – no possibility of an annulment. That is a little like buying a brand new motor car and then discovering it has been nicked* and then you see that you have failed to insure it but must still make the monthly repayments and worse still are forbidden by law from acquiring another car – ever, or at least until the first one is written off.
I am as it happens still very much in two minds about Game, what it is and its efficacy. Women always seem to throw themselves at the most sexually desirable men; men who find it hard to do any wrong. I cannot say that my neg-ing and the like has ever had much effect. Others who are far nicer have better luck but I can’t change my arrogantly aloof and aristocratic looks or ways and neither can they change.
Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven has always rather appealed to me – like Brexit.
*stolen
Speaking of Game, let’s not forget that the original Game — and by far the most commonly used — wives’ Game. Party-of-her-life, marriage, children. Then when the oldest is 3 – 5 years old (and needing less care) comes divorce, money (community property + child support), and independence.
To see how this works, see Donald Trump Jr. and Vanessa. Met in 2003. Married in 2005. Children 10, 9, 6, 5, and 3. Now “they” have filed for divorce, which their joint statement says is “was not acrimonious.”
She has hired a noted criminal defense attorney to represent her. After all, the divorce of the farmer from the Thanksgiving turkey is not acrimonious to the farmer. No hard feelings! It’s just business.
https://pagesix.com/2018/03/16/vanessa-trump-hires-criminal-defense-attorney-for-donald-jr-divorce/
Dalrock is simply pointing out that Milton may have misconstrued woman’s true nature, as the authors of the Bible had already done all the heavy lifting.
Nietzsche noted a similar thing in saying “God is dead.” Nietzsche noted that all too many academics thought that morality simply derived from logic and reason, and that God and religion weren’t necessary. Nietzsche noted that the academics had this luxury as they had been raised in moral context created by thousands of years of the Church, and he saw that without that Church, and with “logic and reason” alone, all would soon decline.
Nietzsche was right, of course, and he had so much game that he grew a moustache so as to scare women away and level the playing field for the beta academics of his day:
Dalrock has wisely noted, more than any of the “Pastors” (and George Will) just how amazingly well Conservatism and Christianity hath been hijacked and transmogrified so as to advance the very opposite of their original soul and intent.
It is as if none of the “Pastors” can see beyond the pennies in their collection plates, nor hear that more exalted, time-honored call to adventure, which is oft the far more difficult journey, as attested to by Jesus’s life and death.
It is the blessing and the burden of the deeper soul to see the higher reality beyond Plato’s cave. Small-souled men and women typically only see the shadows dancing on the walls, and there are powerful forces today who use those shadows to advance the decline even while claiming to lead the way to heaven.
lzozozoozolzozlzol
@Opus
No. I enjoyed studying Paradise Lost in college. I was referring to Tetrachordon. In that piece Milton argued that married sex had to be purified by romantic love. This is the great moral switch, where love, and not marriage, purified sex.
@ys
Ha. The most sickening part was when conservatives weren’t upset that Trump was trying to cuckold married men, but that he didn’t respect their wives in the morning.
Feminists won’t call it “chivalry” though their ideology demands constant male service and sacrifice for the interest of women. Actual historical chivalry at least had some expectation that women had certain reciprocal duties in exchange for chivalric service. Of course, feminists and traditionalists both declare that’s out of the question today.
I’ve tried calling the modern concept we have now “restitutional chivalry,” the idea that all male persons must be ready and willing to perform any and all service and sacrifice for women as the bare minimum atonement for their crime/sin of being the privileged patriarchal rapist class of oppressors.
To see how this works, see Donald Trump Jr. and Vanessa. Met in 2003. Married in 2005. Children 10, 9, 6, 5, and 3.
This is stunning. I still give this a 75% chance of it being a PR stunt to distract the obsessed leftists, and they will ‘reconcile’.
Donald Jr. certainly has a pre-nup (of the type that will actually hold), and she gives up a lot divorcing now. Plus, five small children. I doubt this is for real.
I see: I haven’t read Tetrachordon. I always like to think of Paradise Lost as the main text and Genesis 1 as the precis.
Are there two GBFMs?
We believe that good things should happen to men who can generate the tingle. This is why we reserve our daughters’ most sexually attractive years as a reward for such men.
This adds additional color regarding Jim Gay-ratty’s actions. Jim Gay-ratty married a single mother older than him. Hence, he has done a lot of heavy lifting to claim that women evolve their attraction towards ‘men’ like him over time, and that the carousel is a sacred path towards this. He made an entire video in order to re-arrange the SMP to place him at the top (rather than the bottom, where he actually resides).
Best post I have seen in a long time. I never believed this shit about men having to “game” their wife in a marriage as the solution. There is no marriage stability if women have all this power. Men would be stupid to buy into such an idea.
GBFM has not kept up with the times. We are two Fed chairs removed from Bernanke now.
Rather, the Fed is reversing the QE, which will surely be a disaster. QE actually has to be permanent.
I always thought in the old days that chivarly was a code of conduct amongst men and that it wasn’t about how well you treat a woman. We can see how the FI hijacked that one too.
Because by being married they are the head of the marriage…the leader. The wife is the helpmate. There’s no game involved…that’s their God given right as a husband.
Poptarts,
I never believed this shit about men having to “game” their wife in a marriage as the solution.
The consensus is that Game in marriage is best used when a man is already legally bound in a marriage, and thus has to improve the situation he is already trapped in.
But if a man discovers Game before marriage, then the consensus is that few men should enter the Marriage 2.0 contract at all. Too much is given up, while the standard risks still apply. Only if exceptional overriding circumstances exist, should such a man undertake a Marriage 2.0.
Here’s an interesting translation of Homer’s Odyssey from the 1800s, as the ghost of Agamemnon shares the story of how he returned from war to find his wive had taken on a new suitorlzozozlzo who made her tigleozlozooz:
“I lay dying upon the earth with the sword in my body, and raised my hands to kill the slut of a murderess, but she slipped away from me; she would not even close my lips nor my eyes when I was dying, for there is nothing in this world so cruel and so shameless as a woman when she has fallen into such guilt as hers was. Fancy murdering her own husband! I thought I was going to
be welcomed home by my children and my servants, but her abominable crime has brought disgrace on herself and all women who shall come after- even on the good ones.”
I have always found it hilarious that the “Christian PAstors” so often support abortion and divorce, while teaching that Homer was a Heathen.
Thomas Jefferson: “They all fall off, one by one, until we are left with Virgil and Homer, and perhaps Homer alone. Just ask da GBFM. lzoozzoozozoz”
Durasim
Feminists won’t call it “chivalry” though their ideology demands constant male service and sacrifice for the interest of women.
Feminists have redefined words (such as Larry’s fave, “Gender”) for years. But we watch what they do, and ignore what they say. Right?
I’ve tried calling the modern concept we have now “restitutional chivalry,” the idea that all male persons must be ready and willing to perform any and all service and sacrifice for women as the bare minimum atonement for their crime/sin of being the privileged patriarchal rapist class of oppressors.
Too many words, I’m afraid. Just call the modern concept what it is, “Misandry”. Or get a little fancier and call it “Matriarchal Misandry”.
Agamemnon gives wise advice to all men–trust but verify: “”‘Be sure, therefore,’ continued Agamemnon, ‘and not be too friendly even with your own wife. Do not tell her all that you know perfectly well yourself. Tell her a part only, and keep your own counsel about the rest. Not that your wife, Ulysses, is likely to murder you, for Penelope is a very admirable woman, and has an excellent nature. We left her a young bride with an infant at her breast when we set out for Troy. This child no doubt is now grown up happily to man’s estate, and he and his father will have a joyful meeting and embrace one another as it is right they should do, whereas my wicked wife did not even allow me the happiness of looking upon my son, but killed me ere I could do so.”
Athena gives wise advice to Odysseus’s son Telemachus: “I hope nothing valuable may have
been taken from the house in spite of you, but you know what women are- they always want to do the best they can for the man who marries them who makes dem tingzlzozozol, and never give another thought to the children of their first husband, nor to their father either when he is dead and done with.”
“Fraility–thy name is women lzozlzlzl. “–Hamlet.
Poptart
Best post I have seen in a long time. I never believed this shit about men having to “game” their wife in a marriage as the solution. There is no marriage stability if women have all this power. Men would be stupid to buy into such an idea.
Another MGTOW heard from.
It supports the holy vagina’s wants…so they’ll toss out what God said in a heartbeat.
MErcury teaches Odysseus game, and helps him pass Circe’s sh#% test:
“”‘And I will tell you of all the wicked witchcraft that Circe will try to practise upon you. She will mix a mess for you to drink, and she will drug the meal with which she makes it, but she will not be able to charm you, for the virtue of the herb that I shall give you will prevent her spells from working. I will tell you all about it. When Circe strikes you with her wand, draw your sword and spring upon her as though you were goings to kill her. She will then be frightened and will desire you to go to bed with her; on this you must not point blank refuse her, for you want her to set your companions free, and to take good care also of yourself, but you make her swear solemnly by all the blessed that she will plot no further mischief against you, or else when she has got you naked she will unman you and make you fit for nothing.” –Homer’s Odyssey
lzolozollzololzzozlzlomgzlzozooz
What Dalrock is basically saying is something like this: sometimes you have to amputate to prevent the disease from spreading.
Excellent. This is a fantastic summation of the the current issues surrounding game, feminism, and churchianity.
Dalrock, I appreciate your articulation of all this.
As a Christian all I can say is this destruction can’t happen quickly enough.
Seconded. Let’s get this thing done. I don’t know how to make it hurry up.
Larry Kummer — “This is a brilliant example of early stage social reform.”
Which essentially repeats the proposition of the OP.
It’s pretty entertaining, the Game Group coming to the conclusion that — well howdy! will ya look at that?! — Game constitutes ‘early social reform’. Game is the answer, game is the Grail, just ask Mystery.
Circular and hermetically sealed. Shows that hamsters come in both genders. Sexes. Whatever.
Earl,
Because by being married they are the head of the marriage…the leader. The wife is the helpmate. There’s no game involved…that’s their God given right as a husband.
Then when the US Court System is in extreme disagreement with God, and jails men who practice God’s will (leading to great harm to children), what is your assessment of that court system?
If the court system can jail men with impunity, and God does not intervene, what are we to do? Has God forsaken the husband?
Anon — “This post will also scare off those game-denialist nuts.”
Ain’t skeered. Damn sure not of you or your little cult.
Very telling that those unwilling to join the Game Group are therefore identified as ‘nuts’. Either a man is on the side of Game, or he is shunned. It sounds like a great way to foster Christian brotherhood. Really.
Well enjoy your clubhouse, boys.
ray,
Well enjoy your clubhouse, boys.
Most people would describe it as a bathhouse, but have fun.
Note how you can’t describe why Game doesn’t work, and what, instead, does work. Nor can you explain why the staunchest Game denialists are also the least successful with women.
i.e. the Game denialists are the ones in the bathhouse.
@Ray
Anon speaks for himself. Game isn’t a litmus test for being welcome here, or even the larger men’s sphere.
To add a bit more, this post isn’t fundamentally about Game but about our values. If you agree with me about the problem with our values we are on the same team.
To see how this works, see Donald Trump Jr. and Vanessa. Met in 2003. Married in 2005. Children 10, 9, 6, 5, and 3.
This demonstrates as noted the “monkey branch” syndrome when the youngest child is 3, as well as the fact that Game / headship / leadership is not necessarily inheritable. It also demonstrates, contra some claims, that the upper class is not immune to The Whispers or other things that lead to frivorce.
Lots of people will assume facts not in evidence to ride their own pet hobby horse, careful thinkers will stick to the facts.
Ray
Either a man is on the side of Game, or he is shunned.
You’ve been dragging that butthurt, self-pitying, passive-aggressive, snarky attitude around the androsphere for a while now. What has it done for you? Aside from being banned at a couple of sites?
Christianity is entirely compatibilezlzo with GAME:
Have a good weekendszlzlzzlzolzzlzoozzl!!
Game is shorthand for the “chicks like a-holes” talkthat my older brother gave me when I was like 11.
And this post is not wrong about the effect it is happening as it sweeps through the culture.
Good stuff.
Pingback: Why Game is a threat to our values. | Reaction Times
As one who’s never been married, I’d guess that Game’s effectiveness within marriage depends on the wife’s self-esteem, which is partially based on how accurately she perceives reality (i.e., how delusional she is).
If she believes (rightly or wrongly) that she can’t do any better if divorced, a little Game will go a long way in keeping her in check.
But if she’s drunk on Lifetime and Hallmark movies, romance novels, female bloggers and psychobabblers, all gushing about strong, independent women being liberated by divorce and going on to find True Love with an Amazing Hunky Millionaire Rock Star … then such a wife might be so delusional, so full of unrealistic self-esteem, that no Game will keep her in check.
My only critique to this excellent post, Dalrock, is that Game didn’t destroy chivalry. Feminists and their White Knight enablers (ironically) did, by dismantling women’s side of the equation. Game is simply men saying that there isn’t anything there for them to pedestalise, and MGTOW is men walking away from the mess that is the relationships between the sexes.
The truly ominous cloud on the horizon is jaded young men, seeing Game is effective and having no incentives to marry, begin understanding that the Dark Triad is what gets them sex, which, as you mentioned, is the social status marker.
And GBFM is right about “butthext” being a de-souling and devaluing practice. It was used in occult circles for precisely that reason.It is heavily promoted by those who live as the enemies or the Cross of Christ.
Dalrock’s insights about Chivalry are brilliant: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/12/14/courtly-love-the-origins-of-cuckchivalry/
Chivalry only works, I would imagine, if fathers and men are 100% responsible for the actions and choices of their wives and daughters.
As Chivalry is based on Honor, and as Honor is a Western male currency and construct, Chivalry was a rare luxury of the West which exalted civilization.
But without the rich, traditional Patriarchy–without its foundational scaffolding and skeleton once exalted by the Church and the Great Books for Men–Chivalry becomes a fake, soulless, flimsy religion, which leads the way on down to hell.
And so you get what we have here: Eat, Pray, Butthetxolzozozoloozolzozoo
“He beat me. I thought that meant he loved me.” It happens so often it is a cliche.
This is built into quite a few women. (AWALT?)
Islam has actually gone so far as to make rules about it.
Here in the “West” it is hardly ever openly acknowledged. But we do have the occasional fad. “Fifty Shades…”
Only if exceptional overriding ability exist, should such a man undertake a Marriage 2.0.
As pointed out it is best to understand the game before playing.
Anon says:
March 16, 2018 at 3:51 pm
QE has been outsourced to the Chinese. That insures the value of the dollar for a while longer.
Dalrock: “If you agree with me about the problem with our values we are on the same team.”
I didn’t realize that until you pointed it out.
A helpful exercise (which I will humbly submit and not in any way to offend) is to pray, regularly, and to reflect on how our prayers are structured and worded.
Prayer is a very good method of determining our mental state.
I’ve long said it’s unjust…especially the divorce/family courts.
Now I don’t know if this is the result of the country getting farther away from God…but seeing how God is a just judge that could be a reason.
“Game is destroying our most cherished values, our very concept of virtue! As a Christian all I can say is this destruction can’t happen quickly enough.”
Game is irrelevant.
Gynocentrism is destroying chivalry. Feminism in its hatred/envy of men is destroying chivalry. More power to them. Hasten the degeneracy, hasten the correction.
I have an intense desire to flood the thread with memes, haha. Great post.
On a more technical level, Dalrock has crossed what I’ll dub the “Hezekiah Line”.
“And he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, according to all that David his father had done. He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan).” 2 Kings 18:3-4 ESV
There have been many reformers within the Church, but far too many of them can never get beyond seeing the first order problem. As Kings & Chronicles lays out, there were faithful kings but only a few would do what was actually necessary. The “high places” are the things left unsaid or unaddressed. You can rage at the problems of the day, but it takes getting to the point you see what drives those problems before anything can be done about it.
Of course, there’s also the “Josiah Line”.
“And Josiah removed all the shrines also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which kings of Israel had made, provoking the LORD to anger. He did to them according to all that he had done at Bethel. And he sacrificed all the priests of the high places who were there, on the altars, and burned human bones on them. Then he returned to Jerusalem.” 2 Kings 23:19-20 ESV
Rather than “watch the world burn”, from a theological perspective, a faithful Christian is actually attempting to hasten the destruction of the World. I don’t expect most to get to Josiah any time soon, but it is what it is.
This is a long time question and is dealt with many places in the Scriptures. Judgment is often delayed, but it eventually comes. Judgment will come after our deaths at the very least.
====
I have noticed, in my limited post divorce interaction with older single women, that even those claiming to want a strong Biblical man have very skewed ideas of their own value, whatever their current value really is.
It sucks because I really do want a virtuous wife, but I would like a unicorn pet as well and I am more likely to have than, even with HOA restrictions against keeping a unicorn in my yard!
Looking Glass,
And the people still returned to the their foolish religious practices as soon as Josiah died. It shows that solutions are much harder than they may seem, even with godly leaders.
“Game is destroying our most cherished values, our very concept of virtue! As a Christian all I can say is this destruction can’t happen quickly enough.”
Proverbs 22:3 A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.
Proverbs 27:12 A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself; but the simple pass on, and are punished.
Solomon obviously thought the above proverb bore repeating. It teaches that the prudent response would be to hide oneself from the coming destruction if one wasn’t simple and foresaw it coming. Instead, are we walking with everybody else on the broad road leading to destruction, and arguing that we’re on the wrong path, heading the wrong way, and proceeding too quickly?
That would be a feature and not a bug from my perspective. Think of it as reverse OP logic: the value of a man is usually inversely proportionate to his ability to attract the wrong people to his particular cause.
Clearly society’s definition of virtue has been corrupted. What was once good is now called evil, and what was once evil is now called good. We have to redefine virtue for ourselves first, and then live like we believe it, and then let others know we expect them to follow us.
To let a woman’s emotions be the arbiter of virtue is ridiculous and ignorant. Shame on any false teacher who pushes that crap on anybody. To let your peers be the arbiters of virtue is foolish also. So, even though I recommend trying to influence other people’s perception of virtue above, I think only a fool looks to other people to define their reality. Ultimately the judgement of our virtue that matters most will be done by God, and it would be wise to follow his definitions.
What some call the “afterlife”, is actually life, and life eternal.
This thing we call life, is actually more of a brief test, a prescreening, a sorting, a selection process for the real true and eternal life. If you think “your portion” is all in this life, you’ll be disappointed, because trying to have anything lasting in a temporary world is ultimately vain whether you realize it or not. Life sucks, and then you die. However if you see life for what it really is; a test of your virtues, and allegiance to God and His Son, then you’ll expect the testing to be arduous and that the testing itself may not be very rewarding, but that the rewards come after when the test is judged, if we’ve followed the rules, and especially if we’ve done well.
Below I’ve edited Ecclesiastes (Solomon’s earthly perspective) down to a nutshell:
Vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour under the sun? Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and all I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun. I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. All are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver. As he came forth of his mother’s womb naked, he shall go as he came, and shall take nothing of his labour, which he may carry away in his hand. For who knoweth what is good for man in this life, all the days of his vain life which he spendeth as a shadow? for who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun? I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares. A man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry. Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of thy life of vanity, for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour under the sun. Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with all thy might; for there is no work, nor device, in the grave, whither thou goest. The battle is not to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding; but time and chance happeneth to them all. One sinner destroyeth much good. Money answereth all things. But know thou, that for all things God will bring thee into judgment. Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth. Man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, and every secret thing, whether it be good or evil.
So the definition of true virtue is to fear God, and keep his commandments. The foremost commandment being to love God with our whole being, and next to love our “neighbor” as our self. Fearing God results in fleeing from evil. God punishes those who get sullied with evil, so flee from it, don’t stick around to watch it. Hide yourself from it, and the judgement that falls on those associated with it. While there is a time to fight for goodness, there is never a good time to dabble around in the evil. If you’re not fighting it, you’re tolerating it, or even beginning to accept it as inevitable. Start today. Revolt against this corrupted world! Live out true virtue bold and beautiful, by fearing God and keeping his commandments. Love those crazy neighbors of yours and share the red pill with them. The truth can set them free.
I don’t comment often, but read here regularly, and I like Dalrock’s writing and the vast majority of what he writes is good Christian stuff.
On this occasion, he’s missed the mark though.
I don’t think he grasps that original ‘chivalry’ (in the days when it actually existed) had nothing whatsoever to do with women. It was entirely about inter-patriarch relationships, women simply did not feature. At all.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/chivalry
I don’t recall any mentions of the word at all in the bible either? A general rule of thumb: if something originated in France, satan was behind it.
The French Revolution and the Endarkenment sought to overturn Christian values and its evil spread to England. Suddenly, women were thought to be worthy of courting and winning, rather than marriage being a biblical arrangement (between the father and the husband).
The disgusting stories of ‘chivalry’ in the tales of the court of King Arthur involve a whore/adulteress and her lover cuckolding a King, and yet Lancelot is considered chivalrous, and Guinevere just a gal needing to be herself.
The very idea of chivalry, as understood by Dalrock in this post, is evil, as it inverts the natural order of men and women, it destroys the foundations of patriarchy. And of course, that’s why satan introduced it. One could easily make the case that Adam was incredibly chivalrous in failing his wife’s shit test in Garden of Eden. The alpha male there was the serpent, using game to flatter the woman.
In these times, game can be applied, and needs to be, by Christian males. And it can be applied to win a wife without breaking a single of God’s commands, and likewise it can be applied within marriage. Otherwise, we may see a lot of Christian divorces.
Men without game are doomed in this day and age, women will walk all over them.
Chivalry = white knighting to solipsistic women.
The devil sits, watches, and laughs.
Ignore the criticism. I just realised its all tongue-in-cheek, the whole post.
I missed the last line. Apologies.
My theory is this: Americans are just toooooooooooo nice (which is why to counteract their tendency to niceness they need Game). This niceness if I may say so is amplified by Christianity because Christianism teaches that every one ought to be nice and America is the most Christian nation on the planet and so it is also the country with the nicest people although there are a few bad-ass. England does not take religion very seriously – at least as with most things in England it is considered bad-form to try too hard and being a Christian does require some effort. Game also requires effort – but in England even the most unprepossessing men have girlfriends; these are people who cannot even spell Game correctly. They have no Game but at the same time they do not place women on a pedestal because the men not being practicing Christians are not especially nice and neither are the women they proposition. Game is an American curiosity – a bit like its version of Football or Baseball or Basketball – no one else plays these games and no one else participates in Game.
Niceness is more Churchianity. Niceness is weak…niceness is not standing up for the truh…niceness is putting the vagina on the pedestal instead of God/Jesus.
@BillyS
”And the people still returned to the their foolish religious practices as soon as Josiah died. It shows that solutions are much harder than they may seem, even with godly leaders.”
It took the destruction of their nation and exile before Idolatry was extinguished until the time of Jesus.
@earl
Nice is Evil.
Idolatry has never been extinguished. Jesus came to find Israel more ensnared in idolatry and sin than the poor souls of Sodom and Gomorrah. At least the ancients worshipped real things, things of actual value. Stone, rain, wind, sea, beasts, war… All these had and have physical consequences for man, he lives or dies by their existence. The modern man worships ideas. He worships the feelings of other men. His god is the nebulous concept of social approval, or some governing system, or some ideological goal. The fiery-eyed priest placing babes in the molton arms of Moloch was preferable to the monotheistic Pharisee, who in turn was preferable to the mealy-mouthed atheist.
@billyS
“I have noticed, in my
limited post divorceinteraction witholder singlewomen, that even those claiming to want a strong Biblical man have very skewed ideas of their own value, whatever their current value really is.”Fixed it for ya. They also have very skewed ideas of what a strong Biblical man means.
England does not take religion very seriously – at least as with most things in England it is considered bad-form to try too hard and being a Christian does require some effort.
From Yes, Prime Minister:
Problem is, only men are expected to uphold themselves in virtue, even within the church. Simply mentioning a prospective wife should be a virgin is considered blasphemy. If a man of God is not safe, neither in the world nor his church, then he is left to his own devices: Bible in 1 hand, game in the other, and some kind of balance/harmony/wisdom in-between.
Hmm. I’d say that if one was planning on writing a long article on why game is a threat, one might want to start by defining what they mean by game.
For example, if you define game as “taking personal action that make you more attractive to women you might be interested in by determining what will attract those women and playing to those aspects”, then your argument fails. If you define game as “ways to trick as many women as possible into having sex with you” then your argument works.
I would suggest that there are proponents of both out there, but that doesn’t make either side right or the sole owners of the concept.
As far as chivalry goes, I pretty much agree that chivalry died when the patriarchy died and was replaced by radical feminism. Why should I go out of my way to be “chivalrous” towards women who believe that they are superior to me purely due to sex, that I am a net negative to society, and have utter contempt for what I can provide to any traditional family arrangement, up to and including frivolous divorce and destruction of my life? At that point they are just people who deserve no more or less consideration than any other random stranger who happens to pass through my sphere.
I don’t deny “game” but to me anyway……it comes off actually as doing excatly what women want.
Be funny. Be this. Be that. Do this. Do that. Make me laugh. Make me smile. Make me feel good.
And all the “game” advocates actually do excatly what they want
Then they have the audacity to call people who don’t have “game” so to speak, as people who are “chumps”
Its masculinity, frat-boy-bathroom humor, pumped up with sport watching, being “tough” (which usually meanbs insulting other people) and they behave like this to attract women.
Being who you are…..without a cloak or masking of “what” makes a man on a cultural level is actually more daring……..
Just saw a picture of Burt Reynolds the other day. A sad, shrunken old man. All his game, success with ladies, his ‘tude in the end still didn’t stop him from aging. Still didn’t prevent him from getting old. He has bragging rights? So what. What does it all mean at that point? Really.
It means nothing.
So when I hear this beat to death thing about “game” let’s remember women hold the chips, they still decide, and most men play this game and do excatly what women want while claiming I am chump and “nice” and a “loser”
Fortunately I left jr high in the spring of 1984
Look in the mirror. Also, when playing a “game” there are rules…and if women change the rules, don’t play by them, and constantly modify them………..the man who are left playing are the desperate ones. The thirsty ones. It’s not me. That will never be me.
I’m at least smart enough to know that when a game is stacked (Hey……Vegas was not built on winners :-)) I leave. That’s making a stand. Me being “nice” has nothing to do with it. I have been told by the wise and foolish that “life” is a game.
Some game. If you just *happen* to be on the side where there are some hot shots, or you were just deemed looks on a cultural standard or by that roll of the dice you landed on the winning side, oh yeah…it’s a “game” and it’s “fun”
If you are on the other team. Good luck! And all these hot shots still get mad when you won’t “play” against the stacked rules, deck, and game. Who is really the immature one here????
Remember high school? Ughhh I do. Remember in gym class when you would divide into teams for basketball. Remember how all the varsity basketball players wouyld just *somehow* all end up on the same side. They would brag and boats and be just general boors about how they “domintated” in gym class the rest of the day? Yeah. Most guys who claim and play game remind me of this. A big circle jerk of saying how cool and awesome they are.
Great. with game you get to have sex. You also get STD’s. Unwanted / unplanned children, alimony, child support, drama, drama, drama and just confusion with rules that constantly change by the week now and you still get old in the end.
Game on! Play this game, stay on that broad road and ignore the narrow gate.
Problem is, only men are expected to uphold themselves in virtue, even within the church. Simply mentioning a prospective wife should be a virgin is considered blasphemy.
This actually enforces Dalrock’s point that this corrupt generation has redefined the meaning of virtue and embraced a paradigm so wicked that even the righteous are deemed evil for daring oppose it.
Great video today on today’s Churchianity!
lzozozlzozlzo 🙂
I went to the new pastor meeting at our church’s men’s group this morning. Hour long talk. 4 questions were asked of the new pastor: about immersion vs sprinkling, how do you handle disappointment in light of the Larry Nassar story, where does the church counseljng ministry stand, what are we going to do to increase diversity.
Social club being run like a business. You bet that leadership or female rebelliousness was never brought up. When I did with an elder privately, he was defensive and said we are doing fine.
So to Dalrock and others, I have this message from the American church- “Just shut the hell up, everything is fine, who are you to criticize. Please keep coming, we need and value your presence. Now, let’s talk about how we can make a bigger impact but do so in a way that is non-offensive to women and liberals.”
I can’t tell if elders purposefully want to be a part of a saltless and darkened body, or if they really believe that they can be impactful and PC at the same-time. My guess is that they only see their own emotional earnestness and are blind to their PC ways and lack of starch.
Their earnestness of concern for blacks and stressed out women feels so sincere to themselves that they can’t fathom how they won’t be impactful. I say blacks, instead of minorities because we have many Asians in our church, so I assume they mean blacks when they renounce themselves for the lack of diversity. Also, a book about Birmingham AL by Piper was mentioned, so that is why in my context, I think a desire for diversity that is so prevalent in my church is just a cowardly way of saying, we want more blacks. It’s of the same heart that fears a strong husband and loves chivalry.
The feminist movement
was created to transfer a woman’s loyalty
from her husband, children, and traditional church
to the state, corporation, and CEO
When they conquered the West
They took the women in butthetxings sessions
and taped it secretly
They tore down all the statues and art
Deconstructed the Great Books for Menzlozoz
Taught the women to abort for sport
They created feminism
To fill the university department
With a dumbed-down harem
Where they would rule supreme
Via sexual harrassment of your future wife
Who they debuached and defiled
And programmed to divorce you
So as to transfer your worth and wealth
to the falled lawyers of da statesz
They left the church and univeristy standing
So that beta cucks and white knight tradcons
Woulde defend the desouled insitutions
Which now opposed the very precepts
They had been created to exalt
Science became anything the Eskimo said it was
Religion became anything the Eskimo said it was
Art became anything the Eskimo said it was
Philosophy became anything the Eskimo said it was
And the silly beta cucks defended that desouled
Science Religion, Art, Philosophy, University, and Church
unto their embarrassing virtue-signaling deaths.
With their epitaph
“While our fathers the Vikings and Pilgrims and SCots
fought for Freedom
We traded it all away
For a paltry, butthext-fed-inflated 401K
zlzlzozozlzol
Swanny
My guess is that they only see their own emotional earnestness and are blind to their PC ways and lack of starch.
“Emotional earnestness” is a really good term. Part of the feminization of society and thus the churches has included an elevation of emotion over reason.
“Emotion first, reason later (or not at all)” is pretty obvious when you look at just about anything around us. But too much emotion makes a man look downright girly. So emotion should be…earnest.
That is a keeper!
It was, until the feminine imperative noticed how useful men’s sense of honorific duty was to its purposes and inserted the rules of “courtly love” into chivalric code.
https://therationalmale.com/2013/01/02/the-feminine-imperative-circa-1300/
Infowarrior,
Although that raised another kind of idolatry, one that made them fail to recognize their own Messiah for the most part. Men are not good at the core, unfortunately.
Skyler has part of the point. Men will substitute anything in front of God. That is how they work. It takes constant effort to work against that and many, even in churches, fail to do this.
Hose_B,
That would be true, but I have not had any interaction with women other than my wife in that manner for over 3 decades.
The attitude is few by the “I married so much better than me” attitude that comes out of so many pulpits, often from men who have no idea how much they are undermining Christianity in the process.
Jason,
That verse would definitely apply here. Though compare the hot women he had at the time and how they look to get another picture.
I don’t think I have met a single woman who falls into this category in my life. Very sad. Yet men pursued them, to the detriment of all.
@Swanny River
It is as if you were re-telling my own experience to me.
Swanny River,
Most don’t even see it. That would not be as bad in and of itself, but most leaders today also do not really want to learn anymore, like most of the populace. They think they know it all already and can only learn new things from a very limited set of inputs, if that.
These leads them to not be correctable.
I think I know all I do now, but I am always open to being corrected, especially by the Scriptures. That doesn’t happen often, but it does happen. I am also done with platitudes and seek real truth, since the platitudes have just helped kill my life.
AR,
Very good point. I like a wide range of preaching, but I HATE whiny preachers. Say your point without whining. Even crying over sin or people going to hell doesn’t require the whine that is so common in some.
Everyone you know has some sort of Game. Everyone has some concept as to how best to arrive at intimacy with a person of the opposite (sometimes same) sex. Go ask any random 9 year old boy what’s the best way to get a girlfriend and I guarantee you his acculturation has been such that he has a fairly detailed idea of how to go about.
How effective that Game is is always up for debate, but everyone you know thinks they have an idea of how best to go from a state of singleness to a state of intimacy with another person. For most men this process is influenced by a larger feminine-primary socialization and thus their Game, as such, is informed by their Blue Pill conditioning from school, the media, popular culture and yes, the feminine-assimilated church culture they grew up in.
Other men may’ve taken it upon themselves to disabuse themselves of their Blue Pill conditioning and learned a formalized methodology of Game based on Red Pill theoreticals to improve their chances at arriving at intimacy with a woman of their choosing. In either case, Game is really a subset of behaviors that are intended to make this happen.
So now the question is, which methodology makes the most sense and is the closest to being reliable and predictable?
The Contradiction Of Pursuing Casual Sex While Advocating For Traditional Values
http://www.rooshv.com/the-contradiction-of-pursuing-casual-sex-while-advocating-for-traditional-values
@ Swanny
You were alone there. It’s a strange feeling that many of us can relate to.
https://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2018/03/06/you-are-probably-alone-at-church/
Swanny River @ 12:44 pm:
“I can’t tell if elders purposefully want to be a part of a saltless and darkened body, or if they really believe that they can be impactful and PC at the same-time. My guess is that they only see their own emotional earnestness and are blind to their PC ways and lack of starch.”
Three words: Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.
1. A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.
4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.
http://infogalactic.com/info/Moralistic_therapeutic_deism
As unpleasant as it is, God’s promise that true believers would suffer makes the persecution and ostracism we face something, well, promising.
He points out how churches use entertainment to draw in women which drove out men…yet he also points out the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox sank into irrelevancy because they didn’t use entertainment.
That’s why atheists aren’t the best when it comes to matters of the faith. You don’t go to Mass to be entertained.
If the priest is doing it right…the whole focus on the Mass should be on Christ. The Word, the Homily, the Mass, etc. If the focus is on wimminz, social justice, or telling men how bad they are because they don’t produce good feelings in their wives…something’s wrong there.
@jason
I hear ya. It is difficult to discuss abstracts like “game” because without individual context we revert to the dominant and most polarizing examples.
I agree that game can become merely a theatrical characterization that appeals to womens base and fickle wants, but that is also just one dimension. What you point to is the “dancing monkey”.
The monkey is as far as many men take it because it does get results in the superficual way. But even then, as D points out, our culture values sexual attraction. Period.
So we can hate the culture, as i do. Even shun it and isolate from it as much as we can, but it is near inpissible to fully remove yourself from it. Which is really the main issue with MGTOW; you are effectively in the market whether you acknoedge it or not.
They way i have gotton over the sticking point you address is by focusing more on the self-improvement aspects of game. Focusing on the truth about men and women and our unique drives, desires, and ways of processing and communication.
Sure, the most profound application is thru the sexual attraction gateway, but these truths operate across the spectrum of human interactions. We are social. Game is a social toolbox.
We can choose to better position ourselves (via game and many other efforts) according to how ‘the world’ actually works (like it or not) or we can accept our fate based on what this world actually values.
So i sum up game like this. It is about truth, action, oreintation, and desired results.
These are all still possible as a function of my inner values and beliefs. It requires more of me to not just become the dancing monkey and i often have to question if my values and wants are the framing of my actions, but this is par for the course. In this sick culture im going to have this either way, but with game i am the one making more of the choices.
The power of game is not in teaching you to dance how they want but teaching you how they want, so you can choose how to dance. Or even if you want to dance. Ie saying no.
On more thing. I tend to view the SMP how i view any other marketplace and hold game to a similar standard.
Im an introvert. Our culutre hates introverts. Its no accident that so do employers, clients, customers; the business culture reflects the broader culture.
Hate may be strong so lets say: “strongly demonstrate preference for extroverted traits that signal the ‘natural’ orientation toward sales”.
So i can hate that. Mostly because that is ‘not who i am’. But i still must function within that market.
Game can help me understand how the extrovert works, why it appeals to others, what aspects within E can be learned and applied without compromising ‘who i am’ or what i value.
So I can approximate, orient mysf accordingly, gain skills and comfort in utilizing those things that reflect what is actually more valued (and thus valuable to me) in contexts and situations that i choose.
I will never “be” and extrovert but i can become a salesman. Not like other natural salesmen or like the dancing monkey salesmen, but my own best version of myself that acknowledges the truth about how our system works, what is valued, etc.
We tend to get stuck thinking about what we arent or that there is only one model that works. For me it is all about how i view myself, how i iternalize my self-image and how it “fits” with the external world.
Its a battle of intrinsic and extrinsic.its a spiritual battle. Its not easy. Its a work in progress. But what good thing isn’t?
I dont mean to presume or lecture you. Or “sell you” on game. Just letting you know that i feel a lot of what you are feeling. And until i find a better way, game is what i have found to be the only source of near-truths in a desert of lies – that continue headlong into the unknown future. Cheers. G.
I’d agree it’s another way of trying to do something women want. Instead of being ‘virtuous white knight’ (chivalry)…you are ‘entertaining court jester’.
It’s actually quite freeing if you don’t put that much stock into trying to do something women want…and focus more on things like what the Lord expects of you to live a honorable life. It goes along with being more authentic and striving for self-improvement which are things about the game theory I tend to agree with.
Pingback: Female Attraction Can’t Be Tricked | ‘Reality’ Doug
Once again :
To claim that a man with Game is a ‘pussy beggar’ is analogous to claiming that a man who has a skill that can earn $2000/hr is a ‘money beggar’.
Now, there is an argument against the PUA life (which is merely a subset of Game) that can be made, but the Game denialists don’t understand the subject to begin with, so are unable to articulate this argument.
There is also an argument that once you do in fact have sex with 20+ women (as I have), you become more and more unimpressed (unless she is at least a 9) and then voluntarily just drift into MGTOW. But that only happens when you are on ‘the other side’, so to speak. Incel MGTOW is not really MGTOW, nor is low-experience MGTOW really MGTOW.
Facts speak for themselves.
Game is all about getting women to get horizontal with you, date you, make you *think* are in charge when in fact all it congeals into is:
*Im a better man than you because I had sex with a lot of women that are 9’s and 10’s (and THAT is always a hoot. Every guy pal I have had over the decades has told me about the “perfect 10” he nailed. The amazing hot girl he lost his virginity to. The awesomely hot chick who gave hima BJ last week behind the urine soaked dumpster in the alley at the nightclub. Classy. Any woman that does that is about a 1 on my scale. One being the lowest that is)
I was jealous at one point in my life of guys who had this “game” but all it is a bunch of lies and doing anything to get a woman to “like” you or “think” you are an alpha. As if.
As the decades have rolled by and now I am almost 50….and no, I have never been a magnet for the ladies in or out of my Christian walk. I have never been endeared. I don’t have women just so excited over me that they accidently burned the roast beef they were making me for dinner.
I also have seen the results of game. Like drug addiction. It’s not pretty. Guys who were knee deep in sex and attention now ask me “how did you achieve being so content?” and “You do stuff Jason” or “I’m living in my car because the x took everything….”
But in 1993, 1991, 1989, or 2005……………………I was stupid and aloof. I just needed to “learn game” and women were gonna be all over me. Women are really fun, women just want to be pursued. Women just want this. Just want that.
Game complies rules upon rules upon rules upon hypotheticals that only work IF…….IF she is into you to begine with. Finds you attractive enough, or if she is drunk enough.
Game is not a game but another snake oil sold to many men to make them think when they are something.
As for MGTOW…..I consider myself one but all the (cough) experts out there probably don’t. I relate more to the white-workling class but I know for a fact that they don’t relate to me.
To close with the wisdom of jazz fusion duo, Steely Dan “this brother is free, and i’ll be what I want to be”
and that will make most men furious……………..
I wouldn’t say unimpressed, but rather unimpressive. The men I’ve seen who engage in that behavior are universally feminine in their speech and their core thinking. Displaying little virtue and less value. Other than for the inherent dignity they willingly discard, worthy of no respect or (in a perfect world) attention.
The argument against Game as commonly understood is simple: it’s super gay.
Gaza @ 2:30 pm:
“So we can hate the culture, as i do. Even shun it and isolate from it as much as we can, but it is near impossible to fully remove yourself from it. Which is really the main issue with MGTOW; you are effectively in the market whether you acknowledge it or not.”
Yep. If there was a society on Earth that valued us, I’d drop “MGTOW” and pick up “emigrant”.
SkylurWurden,
The argument against Game as commonly understood is simple: it’s super gay.
How is having sex with lots of women gay? If anything, the opposite is true.
This is even before we put aside the fact that one does not have to dress like certain PUAs to practice Game.
What you are doing is still pedestalizing women, for you would rather bash the men who succeed with women (in the process of which, they expose how unworthy of respect women are), than see what they are exposing about women.
At any rate, you obviously didn’t understand Dalrock’s primary article above either.
Anonymous Reader — “You’ve been dragging that butthurt, self-pitying, passive-aggressive, snarky attitude around the androsphere for a while now. What has it done for you? Aside from being banned at a couple of sites?”
We will be meeting not too far down the road and, at that time, you can insult me to my face. There will be an audience then, also.
Notice how gamers always……….and I mean always have to make it into a numbers game. How many have been bedded. How many have they dated. The looks scale.
Taking a very private matter like sex and then making it public is gay. Gay men do this. They make their sexuality their identity. Like people who practice game do as well. That is why its “gay” Anon
If men were to be judged by how many women they bed, how often, the rules, rules, rules, rules, changing rules, and exceptions is a waste of time.
Jason,
Taking a very private matter like sex and then making it public is gay. Gay men do this. They make their sexuality their identity. Like people who practice game do as well. That is why its “gay” Anon
Example #454,599 of someone who cannot distinguish between ‘PUA’ and Game.
Jason, aren’t you someone who has had little to no romantic contact with women? I am not attacking, just inquiring.
“Nor can you explain why the staunchest Game denialists are also the least successful with women.”
I deny Game and I have no trouble attracting women. I’m old, in poor health, with little money, don’t talk much and don’t seek ’em out. The best of my looks left with the Nineties.
Still, no trouble a-tall, they come up to me. Young and fine women, too.
But I must lying. Right, boys? :O)
Hypergamy certainly exists. “Game” is one way of weaponizing hypergamy. There are others.
And………..since it’s only a game, and it’s “easy” and “just follow these simple rules” well………….
who wins? when is it over? what are the metrics of scoring, and who deems the rules *as such* and why? Why do women seem to make the rules for this game that men are supposed to follow and play IF they are to be successful with them? What about subjective things such as looks? What of a man that was born short, or just physically ugly? Can these men play and score, and win? There are winners and losers in real world, “grown up games” like real life. this game with women is not for our benefit, but hers, and hers alone………….yeah, maybe a guy will get a three second orgasm with a drunk club girl………..and then get hauled in a #metoo claim in a few years that WILL be believed. Let’s crack open the “game” rulebook and look at that. STD’s? Pregnancy….wait….what’s that? She didn’t play fair???????
Anon. Okay. What is the “difference” because you (cough) laid out about how many women you have been with…..have defended “game” but its not PUA
Get real.
Never had a girlfriend. Never had a date. Never had a wife. Don’t have children. Never kissed a woman. Now…..before you smear and shame me for not being a real man, that I live in a basement, have no social skills, bad personal habits..the usual snarky-smearing…let me say this:
I have lived overseas. I lived for eight months in India in the 1998. I lived as an American exchange-student in what was called West Germany in 1986-1987. I was one of the few Americans of my age and generation that witnessed President Reagan address M Gorachev “Mr. Gorbachev, tear. down. this. wall.” in West Berlin. I have worked in nightclubs, bars……….I can dance, I have a ton of hobbies. Women just find me ugly. Hard, painful truths came later in my life. Thankfully I found Christ.
I speak and can read foreign languahge fliuently. I have an advanced degree. Been away to college. Worked all over the place. Did a ton of drugs. Seen a lot of things that many of you have never seen.
I don’t know why I am single, was depressed over it for many years……and men like you, PUA types, game, supposedly alpha-males made me feel terrible and even worse for my failures.
Game exists. But not for a man’s benefit.
I get passionate about this because I see the detrimental HARM game does to many, many men. Usually men who did not win in the genetic lottery in the looks department. Men who got on board a little later in life. Men who were not exceptional, but just average. Game works only and ONLY if you won in the looks, class, social status aspects of this culture. It will probably show results…..for most men. MOST men it creates more confusion, mental and emotional harm and its metrics of success cannot be measured in any form. There is always someone better. Someone who has more, bedded more, got more numbers, did more, had a longer orgasm, had more dates……
it never ends. your success is based on what women feel and think about you.
It comes off as “real manhood” but its the real “back door man” and never rewards in the end. Tons of men with good game (according to them) are divorced, have lost everyuthing to the courts, have kids that hate them, and uncurable STD’s!
But he’s a winner because he got women naked………..all nines and perfect tens!
Jason makes the excellent point that there is no way to measure the efficacy of Game.
Jason said :
Never had a girlfriend. Never had a date. Never had a wife. Don’t have children. Never kissed a woman.
Well then, Game could rectify this problem to some degree.
Game works only and ONLY if you won in the looks, class, social status aspects of this culture.
If you think this, then you don’t understand what Game even is. You effectively believe that nothing about a man’s results with women is learnable.
Ladies need no gaming. Loose women need to be corralled. Chivalry and honor is wasted on whores. Its pearls before swine. These women have left morals behind. Without societal constraints they abuse men and use their allure to bend men to their will. This is heresy. That nonsense of women turning their husbands away, and making him sleep on the couch.
Do not show chivalry and manners to such harridans. Bend them to your will. MAKE THEM SUBMIT. It is God’s Will. Left to their own devices they strike your heel, and undermine you. They bend you to their desires and wish to use this foul Anti-Male Court System to abuse you and steal from you. These witches cast spells upon you, disguise themselves in costumes, lie to you and PLAY GAMES CONSTANTLY.
What ray wrote :
I deny Game and I have no trouble attracting women. I’m old, in poor health, with little money, don’t talk much and don’t seek ’em out. The best of my looks left with the Nineties.
Directly contradicts what Jason wrote :
ONLY if you won in the looks, class, social status aspects of this culture.
Hey, maybe ray can teach Jason how to get a girl to kiss him. Problem solved!
‘Dalrock has crossed what I’ll dub the “Hezekiah Line”.’
There are at least three armies: the Christian men, the feminist women, and the pussy beggar metrosexuals.
I believe Dalrock is saying that he is a Christian man, but he encourages the pussy beggar metrosexuals to ruin the feminist women because that will destabilize society. I don’t believe Dalrock is currently willing to admit that pussy beggars are enemies of Christianity.
All fine and well, but after society crosses the event horizon, Dalrock will have to cross the Josiah line. At that point, the Christians are going to have stop procrastinating and admit that the pussy beggars are the enemies of Christian society.
Jason, no offense because I know you are a good man with a good heart. But all the poor me BS is tiring. Just as every object has attributes, every person has attributes. As a good man with a good heart Jason you have good attributes and I have no doubt that you have developed them. The ones you think you lack (both real and/or imagined), can be developed further than they are now. Life is a journey. Good people with good hearts can develop over the entire course of their life.
Sure, male/female relations are very destabilized right now in the West. It is what it is. Those of us who are Christian MGTOW change what we can and accept, for now, what we cannot change. We have a far better eternal future. I fornicated with women in my teens and early twenties before I started following Christ and that kind of sex doesn’t make you a better person in my experience, but a worse one. I was fortunate not to contract any diseases or get tangled up in a divorce by marrying one of the sluts but I still regret doing it and wished I hadn’t.
I’ve been celibate since following Christ and do not regret it. I’ve adjusted my expectations to that of being a single person that doesn’t engage in sexual immorality with other people and my life is better than it was before for that. You didn’t miss anything good bro by not fornicating. You’re better off than if you had. You’re on the right side of God’s design for sex and increasingly: few are.
Now I have to go lift. Work out and eat right. You’ll feel a lot better afterwards. I always do :).
I’m ambivalent about “game” (since its own proponents can’t agree with each other on what the word means, which therefore renders the word meaningless), so I have no dog in that particular fight.
We all have a dog in the more important fight, which Dalrock pointed out. Our culture has redefined male virtue to mean “that which gives women the tingles”, which is a serious problem, because if giving women the tingles is what makes a man virtuous, then Charles Manson was one virtuous dude, along with Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez, and a bunch of other serial killers that are/were inundated with love letters from female admirers.
Conversely (and contrary to Jim Geraghty), the average Joe who supports a family by the sweat of his brow, but who no longer gives his wife (or other women) the tingles is a contemptible creature to be despised and ridiculed.
That’s the kind of moral inversion that destroys civilizations. That’s what we should be discussing, not the efficacy of “game” (whatever that means).
Anon.
I want a woman who wants to follow Christ. In the end, it doesn’t matter how much Game one has. All men. Important or not. Good looking or not. Skilled or lowly must submit equally to the Cross. I’ll throw my lot with men like this over a chest thumping of “Me bed women!!!! Me important!!! Me better than you!!!”
If this Christain woman doesn’t show up………not going to lose one ounce of sleep. More on this in a minute. When I was actively trying Game, and reading the books. Watching the videos. Listening to what women want…..listening to chumps like you…….and before you tell me that people who Game NEVER listen to what women want, you’re a straight up liar. I tended bar in a very hip and swanky nightclub for almost two years saw all these dancing clowns doing anything to get a woman’s attention………..but I’m a “chump” lol…..as if…….
Yeah…..likes….anyway…….I lost sleep while trying to be better with women. My looks. My status. My past. Everything *had* to be changed according to Game….which really meant according to what “women wanted” in me so they would be “attracted” to me…..and only nines and tens! lol!
Game says “you’re a man, you do what you want” and then tells you to behave exactly like what she wants, sees and hears. A real man does not do this. A real man stands on a firm foundation. Not simpery. Not whims. Not a shifting streams and finding what works.
Took me a long time to figure out “who” I was and what was worth fighting and living for. If only I had this mindset at 18 instead of getting real around the age of 40! Sadly, my mother never fully got to see this change. My dad has. He’s been floored about who I have become. I finally have an actual relationship with him that isn’t phony. It’s a genuine respect he shows me as a man. A feeling I only got when Christ fully understood me.
Women. Fair creatures. Look, our friend Scott vetted and found a really solid one in his wife. I won’t say he was *lucky* but I will say he didn’t use Game to figure her out. He led. She followed. Now marriages have issues and troubles….theirs is no exception. But she has submitted to his Christian headship in the home. A lot of minor drama disappears when a woman does this.
Game IS drama. It’s always a kooky kids Milton Bradley game from the 1970’s, Gaudy, quick paced. Always changing………”Bonkers” comes to mind……Game is fitting to play with women who still behave like teenage girls……..and that is most of them. The ones who “get through” or realize how unfeminine they were make changes and know the difference.
Having Game will not make one married. It will not make you a hit with the ladies. It will make you a liar, crass, surfical and empty in the end. Drugs (cocaine in particular) has the same effect…not healthwise but psychologically I am sure………………Game is dangerous for young men. It keeps them immature and tethered to what an immature woman wants and expects on a whim.
American. No offense taken…..and I live in and with reality now. I fully understand the consequences of sin. Some of the choices I made as a younger man will sting with me til I breathe my last. Yes, I am forgiven. I have repented. I will never make choices like that again. The consequnces of some of those chocies will stay with me. Heck, it’s taken me almost 13 years to get to a standard of living I had back in 1996.
No pity party concerning my looks. Its a truth. Something physically or socially turns women off before I even open my mouth. Always has. I deal with it. Hurts at times but there are others things to do now besides read books, watch podcasts and study this Game or “clues” to unlocking the “secrets” of attraction. It looks and is silly on a man pushing fifty in my situation.
My interests and duty to God, church and community is what sets me apart…….and I frankly don’t care what “women” think about me for the most part. I have to get along with female coworkers (which I do) and sisters in Christ. I am polite and that’s it. Thinking about women and how they worked caused more pain, sapped potentials and energy into things I should have been doing more of twenty years ago: hiking, camping come first to mind.
I appreciate your post and it caused zero offense.
Anon: There is also an argument that once you do in fact have sex with 20+ women (as I have), you become more and more unimpressed (unless she is at least a 9) and then voluntarily just drift into MGTOW. But that only happens when you are on ‘the other side’, so to speak. Incel MGTOW is not really MGTOW, nor is low-experience MGTOW really MGTOW.
Nonsense. Many paths lead to MGTOW. It doesn’t have to be a choice. It can be a happy choice. A reluctant choice. Or no choice at all.
I never wanted to be MGTOW. Nor did I want to be a PUA. I wanted a lifelong marriage to the Right One. I was a Blue Pill Romantic, seeking a women worthy of pedestalization. I couldn’t find her, so I settled for MGTOW.
Some men are born MGTOW. Some men achieve MGTOW. And some men have MGTOW thrust upon them.
Jason, an ugly face is no detriment to getting women. There are some ugly, but powerful (i.e., high status) men who have lots of women. Gangsters, celebrities, CEOs.
Mick Jagger is one ugly dude, and women fall all over him.
But he has MONEY. He’s famous. Come on! Mick Jaggar! Ooooo yeah!!!!
Gaiko:
That is precisely what I think, and I don’t think Dalrock is confused about it.
I shared this post on FB with the following comment:
This is basically an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” argument done in a satirical style. Its pretty good.
Whereas enemy=cartoonishly pedastlizing women and treating them as if their gut feelings are the ultimate divining rod for what “true love” is.
and game=a way to teach men to stop doing it.
The faster we stop doing that, the sooner we could replace the entire system and our concept of romantic love with something more in line with Gods purpose for marriage.
You’d think that, until you start thinking about what core flaw is in the heart of the gay man. Ultimately it is two things: the perversion of his natural sexuality and the perversion of his natural desire for male approval. Both of these can clearly be seen (to a lesser degree) in the heart of the promiscuous heterosexual. His natural desire for sexual intercourse (a transcendent and holy act) is perverted and placed out of it’s natural place on the priority list. Sexual gratification becomes an end in and of itself, divorced entirely from either of its two rightly ordered ends: the primary being procreative and the secondary being unitive between husband and wife. All sexual perversion is on the same continuum. It begins with birth control and ends with sodomy, or perhaps bestiality.
As for male approval, this is clear to see for anyone who cares to look. There are very few men who won’t instinctively inflate their own sexual prowess so as to impress and gain approval from other men. The gay man takes this natural desire for fraternal approval to an extreme, where it is so perverted that he no longer desires their approval, but actually begins to desire them, not only in a sexual way but in a transformative way. Many gay men talk about their desire to actually BE another man. To gain access to his body not only sexually, but to literally inhabit him. The male slut is again, a lighter form of perversion of this same tendency. To put it crudely: his desire is not yet to fuck the other man, but to fuck like the other man. To fuck the same women as the other man. Not to inhabit the other man’a body entirely, but only to inhabit the other man’s sexual body. To gain access to the dick as it enters the vagina. Super fucking gay.
And that is what I mean by feminine. Though perhaps effeminate is a better word. Your instant thought when challenged is to immediately look for the most superficial connection. As if clothing or appearance or even external action is the important attribute when determining masculinity. The Game Fag with a peacock haircut and clown clothes is just a more honest version of the Game Day who wears a tailored suit and gets $35 haircuts and works out to look good in a bathing suit. The Peacock has less shame, so he doesn’t bother to hide his reality. The non-Peacock Gamer is ashamed of his reality so he tries to hide the reality and pretend he isn’t doing what he is.
I’ll be honest, I don’t take sides in the gay little gender war. Most women these days are sluts and unpleasant. Most men these days are effeminate and too pleasant. I recognize someone like Dalrock who specializes in one problem, but I don’t let the specialization become a generality. I don’t expect Dalrock to constantly be finding counter examples of all the ways men are just as bad when his focus is on feminism specifically, but I also don’t let the evils of feminism blind me to the reality of every other problem in the world, nor am I interested in the mental gymnastics required to lay the blame for the sins of men at the feet of women. A woman who is a slut is just as filthy as the man who is a slut. The man who fucks loses as much of his own dignity as the woman who is fucked. What you have allegedly ‘exposed’ about women is something all rightly ordered men have always known: that sin is an empty void and engaging in sin destroys the person’s ability to live righteously. Of course the modern woman is a whore. She is constantly engaged in self-gratification and sinful excess. Of course the modern man is a fag, he engages in the same sins. Why should I congratulate you for seeing the fag and the whore and deciding to join in on the orgy? Don’t kid yourself, you arem’t some outside observer who is in the Game but not a Player. You’re just another carbon-copy loser who is 100% invested in the degeneracy.
Oh, I understood it. I even agree with most of it. I just think Game is super gay.
As a medaevalist and a fan of Arthuriana, I’m glad to see I’m not the only one to ID today’s feminism as thedirect descendant of the adulterous “Religion of Courtly Love” that so loudly jockeys for top billing with the Christian virtues of the Grail Quest in all the old romances. One of the biggest flaws in many otherwise-solid versions of the story is the attempt to reconcile them or, worse, pretend there is no conflict.
But now the logical conclusion of THAT sort of “chivalry” has every woman wanting to be Guenevere and demanding every man be both her Lancelot and her (cuckolded) Arthur. At the same time.
@Jason
Game for a man is like knowledge of marketing for a business owner. It’s easy to think of marketing as inherently bad, just manipulating people into giving you their money.
However, some businesses make products that would benefit people. In order to benefit, people have to believe that they would receive a benefit, so they would have to feel positively toward the product. Thus, if the marketing is connecting a good product with people who would benefit from it, it is to that extent doing a good thing. Marketing is not good or bad, it’s neutral, it depends on what you’re marketing, and how. Knowing the effective techniques allows you to do a variety of things.
What I learned when I learned Game was that it wasn’t necessary to lie about who or what I am. You certainly can do that, but by no means is it required.
Imagine a company with a really good and useful product, but its packaging scares people away, the portions sold are not what people like, and its slogans and communications toward customers are unconvincing or come across in a negative way. If the company learns good marketing, it can create appealing packaging and portions or models, and craft a positive slogan that creates interest. Sure, they changed the product a little, but they didn’t have to compromise what it was. They were simply adjusting it to make it appealing to its actual customers.
My goal was to marry and have children. I wasn’t able to do that because I was very unattractive to women. Game enabled me to improve my attractiveness to the point where I was able to achieve my goals. I realized that I had a decent product, but I presented it very poorly, so by changing the presentation I was able to create interest in it.
It seems like you’re compromising yourself, but you’re not, really. I can express who am I far more effectively now. Does a dirty and beat-up sign for a restaurant being replaced with a new, clean, more attractive sign change the restaurant in any way? Or does it simply present the same thing better? Should they have kept the old ratty sign to be true to themselves?
It’s easy to dismiss game as tricks to amuse sluts, but it’s really just a framework for understanding what people, particularly women, enjoy and appreciate about men. This allows you to accentuate those things about you which people would respond positively to, and eliminate behaviors and ways of communicating that people find unpleasant, at least those you’re willing to part with.
For example, I had very poor hygiene; Game taught me that good hygiene is very important to women, and needs to be tended to for social success (yes, I needed to be told). This was good advice in general and also was helpful for achieving my goals.
The marketing department doesn’t have to run the business. It can be used to present the good qualities you have to other people in a way that they enjoy and respond to without needing to lie or manipulate people. That’s really what attraction is.
Believe me, I know it’s easier to stay in “woe is me” mode, I came from there, but you can leave. Staying there is up to you.
The objective measure of Game’s effectiveness for me was that I couldn’t get any dates with any attractive women before, and I married an attractive, good Christian woman after. It seems pretty effective to me.
Eidolan
I appreciate your response that actually took a little time and thought.
I didn’t learn how to clip my fingernails by Game, or have a honed style by Game. I learned how to brush and floss my teeth at an early age. I did that. I was taught by my parents how to do that. I worked at GAP in HS and college, I always had the nicest / coolest clothes…style was never an issue….I didn’t need a Game marketed to me to teach me basic cleanliness. Besides, Game teaches that women don’t care about that. They can’t help who they fall for. Attraction isn’t a choice for them.
They all just want a really “nice” guy (sarcasm). Looks don’t matter! You just have to say the right thing at the right time, and you will be dating and bedding nines and tens!
Game markets to men as if they have the breakdown of complex female sexual psychology into a few short snippits and soundbites. They say its foolproof.
I am not in a “woe is me” mode. I am in a truth mode. Truth can be painful at times, but this is what makes us stronger to face realities. The truth about Game is that for every success there are 20, 50, 100, 500 absymal failures.
In 2000 I saw David DeAngelo speak at a conference in San Francisco. It was called “Double Your Dating” He got rich off this speaking tour. Most men who went to see him speak were made worse off after by trying to follow advice that was foolproof. I certainly was. He even today calls himself a “motivational speaker” and not a teacher of Game, or “Dating Coach for Men”
That is how Game was marketed. Foolproof. Never fails. Dating Pefect Tens. It’s not you, your looks, your status…….women cannot help who they fall for!
Marketing is powerful, and part f the reason why I don’t watch televison anymore is for the fact the commercials make me feel inferior. Not that I am missing much anyway……..
If I am presenting myself as a product to women and I have done the things I need to do. Bathe. polish my shoes. Have a sense of style (I do). Have varried interests, am well rounded, educated and can discuss a variety of topics…..areas I HAVE worked on because I know I LACK in the physical ppearance department (and always have) and women still don’t want to “look”: or “get to know”?
Well, that is on them at this point. Game tells us that none of it matters anyway…but the dark secret is…it matters. A lot. Telling men the truth would kill this cottage industry. It would ruin and expose the fraud of female nature, and a lot of men would be a mite angry.
I’m glad it worked for you…….but you had something to offer besides and aside from Game. Great, you had to be told about hygiene. Most men cannot change their height. Their skin color. Their IQ. Their natural born skills, or other talents that women may find naturally amusing in a man.
Again. I appreciate your reply
Jason,
That is how Game was marketed. Foolproof. Never fails. Dating Pefect Tens.
Completely false. None of the major Game bloggers (Heartiste, Roosh, Blackdragon, Krauser) claims that. If you can’t even get a 3 now, you won’t just rocket to getting 10s. Game, on average, does two things :
i) Greatly increases the number of prospects a man has (however many he chooses to act on or not).
ii) Increases the attractiveness (maybe by 2 to 3 points).
Individual results vary. But your false strawman is really just a pain-avoidance mechanism on your part. You need to believe that success is completely out of your reach, because it is easy to resign to a fate of hopelessness. I am surprised how pervasive this defeatism is.
Plus, you keep using the word ‘marketed’. Game can be learned for little or no cost. No seminars are needed. At the most, a few inexpensive books are all you have to buy. You also need a wingman or someone in co-training. That is it.
Pingback: Love and the signals of virtue. | Dark Brightness
Anon, nice post. I agree and think Jason’s never had a competent “game” coach/mentor out and about putting Jason first to get him to the goal, over time if necessary. “Buddies” look out for “moi,” as a rule, and are not that.
But like others, including myself, have pointed out: it’s not necessary. Myself, as a genuine Christian, I’m not going to engage in sexual immorality with other people. So that leaves monogamous marriage and simply not thirsty enough to take the really bad deal being offered in our society with it’s enormous threats and liabilities and few benefits. Some feel different.
American,
But like others, including myself, have pointed out: it’s not necessary. Myself, as a genuine Christian, I’m not going to engage in sexual immorality with other people. So that leaves monogamous marriage and simply not thirsty enough to take the really bad deal being offered in our society with it’s enormous threats and liabilities and few benefits. Some feel different.
That is a completely valid view, if it is genuine. At least you recognize that being libertine is un-Christian (unlike the pastorbators that Dalrock describes in the original post). You aren’t saying it does not work, you are just saying that the modern SMP itself is almost entirely immoral. I have arrived at a similar place despite advocating Game and even a phase of PUA for most men : a thinking man will eventually become so unimpressed with women that the bottom 95% of them (looks-wise or whatever other criteria one thinks determines attractiveness) just don’t seem worth it even if you can bed her on the second date.
The ultra defeatist/denialist/pain-avoidance mechanism of Jason and others is entirely different. They will tie themselves into pretzels to claim that whatever it takes to succeed with women, it can’t possibly be a learnable skill.
It is genuine. I am able to be content and at peace without having sex with other people, despite the powerful sex drive us males are biologically endowed with. One need not let the little head control one’s life, especially as the big head can do a much better job of that.
However, I have an interest in the subject matter of this forum both to round out my understanding but also because I care about its relation to Western Civilization and its inhabitants (especially the indigent Europids which is my biological in-group).
Pingback: An expert: respect is a key battleground in the gender wars
American says:
March 18, 2018 at 12:44 am
“But like others, including myself, have pointed out: it’s not necessary. Myself, as a genuine Christian, I’m not going to engage in sexual immorality with other people. So that leaves monogamous marriage and simply not thirsty enough to take the really bad deal being offered in our society with it’s enormous threats and liabilities and few benefits. Some feel different.”
It’s more than “feeling” different, American, at least for me.
Monogamous marriage, as described (commanded) in the Bible?
Arguably not available in the U.S., outside of groups to which you can’t realistically belong (Old Order Amish) or which joining would endanger your salvation (conservative Muslims, Orthodox Jews), unless someone invents a time machine and you manage to obtain a ticket to relocate you 50 – 110+ years back. As Maggie Gallagher said, “Count no one [now] married until they are dead”. As in, you don’t get to know if someone alive today, supposedly married, actually WAS married, until such time as they (or their spouse) dies while the marriage is still underway (in spirit AND in letter, IMO).
We’re thus back to the the “go into the corner right NOW” when you’re in a circular room. No fault for failure to comply could apply to a person in that situation. So it is with a Christian man who does not have the “gift” of celibacy. That is by far the majority of Christians, as God designed us. He did NOT design the poisonous simulacrum, that counterfeit, that displaced His plan for that keystone of our lives. To even attempt it now in America, knowing it would be a lie before the vows were even finished being spoken, short of expatting or going Amish (and I make my living technologically, so Amish is out for me), is arguably doing something He wouldn’t even want.
My advice stands: an American man should never impregnate an American woman via sex (contractually via gestational surrogacy only possible exception, never marry an American woman, never be married in America (e..g., bring a foreign wife here for so much as an hour), never cohabitate with any woman in America (outside of close blood relatives). And, if a man (laudably IMO) believes he is called to fatherhood, to go the paid egg donor + fertility clinic + gestational surrogate route, never letting ANY woman with whom he has a romantic relationship share a residence with him/adopt his children/marry him (even in a religious, e.g., statefree marriage).
For sex, he will do what he must. Staying with relationships that are consensual, nonexploitative, and nonoverlapping, with competent adults of the same race and opposite sex, taking no virginities, and making no promises of importance, would seem to make them as moral as possible. Others will likely have ideas to add to that; protocols for ensuring AFA possible not transmitting any STDs would likely be one.
How sad that we are in this sort of time. Denying we are in it only makes life worse for us, while availing us nothing.
Terrific comment up above from Skyler. Listening to the armchair lotharios I often suspect that the endless tales of slaying poon are designed merely to impress and thus intimidate other men. One male in particular of my acquaintance who waxes lyrical as to his success with women is supposed by my other acquaintances to be a closeted homosexual – though there is no doubt that women are much attracted to him – good looking (and once uber-fit) – the type that might play a movie villain. We keep our distance.
“Hello Slut” I used to say each time I met the wife of one of my acquaintances who I knew rather fancied me (the wife, I mean). I was not interested of course – had I been interested would my put-down have been game? It was certainly a neg indeed other than suggesting she was old or ugly about as insulting as I could have been but as she was so keen anyway such a neg would have been if not counter productive just unnecessary. Tone of voice and posture is also of course most important and not just the actual words used. One cannot go far wrong if one goes for cocky and with vaguely amused superiority.
“He’s good looking and intelligent but always drunk” said one cougar to a friend of mine – about me – having been unable to make any headway with me. I am not interested in just ratcheting up the numbers and as far as I was concerned she was too old and too ugly – and I was not drunk (I’m never that far gone) but women will always rationalise their failure to gain attention.
One of the problems with Game is that it is fine over at The Chateau figuring out at ones leisure the correct response to some fitness test but in real life one has only a micro-second to adequately respond to the test whilst maintaining both posture and tone of voice. Preparing them in advance does not always achieve the desired result either. My “Some people think I should admire your for your intelligence ” – pause – ” but I have to tell you that I am not that shallow” which I had knowing how demanding the young lady was, prepared in advance certainly, reduced the said woman I addressed (and really fancied) to momentary silence but it did not lead to my intended coitus – a miss being as good as a mile in the matters of the heart. In that case being six foot rather than rather six feet two was I think the deal breaker. Chance there for Jason.
Just remember, King Arthur was a cuckhold. And the land suffered for it.
As an example of the failure of our current values. Women like this get away with murder:
The male counterpart would have been charged but not this woman.
“Our current values”, well, these may be societies’ dominant values, but these are not the values as Christianity puts forward. Therefore I’m more concerned about propagating true Christian values, than to put much energy into societies’ so-called values.
Game is Not a Four Letter Word For Christians
http://masculinebydesign.blogspot.com/2013/08/game-is-not-four-letter-word-for.html
Anon said:
The ultra defeatist/denialist/pain-avoidance mechanism of Jason and others is entirely different. They will tie themselves into pretzels to claim that whatever it takes to succeed with women, it can’t possibly be a learnable skill.
What a crock. You are born with it, or you are going to be singing commercial jingles……constantly being told you didn’t read IOI’s at the right moments and you didn’t open the set when she pointed her left foot towards you……….and didn’t smile wrly when she tossed her hair with her left hand….
I watched Game in action at a nightclub from behind the bar.
1 out of 100 may work…but they had the looks to back it up.
Most looked really, really………..REALLY stupid, silly, and just desperate…….I realized from that vantage point from behind the bar that “I” looked like that too when I was reading books, watching DVD’s, getting “sarged” and having a “wingman”
Best way to meet a woman? Be introduced. Be easy on the eyes. Have a few interests.
Game teaches you to have an ego the size ofg God.
You men who had success don’t understand……most men fail at Game. Most men gain nothing from Game. Most don’t have the looks, the statuis, or the other social factors to help buck it up or muscle it up.
It’s like telling my older brother who has Downs Syndrome (he will never have more mental capacity than a first grader…..no matter how HARD he tries) that he can’t read on 4th or 5th grade level because “he just inst trying hard enough”
Look, happy that you guys got something from it. I got more depressed. More angry. More sad. More hutrt. More isolated, and more angry at women in the end.
For men in my situation (which is a HUGE swath) this is excatly what it did. It works when you have other factors to offer (looks). Most men are not so lucky there
Is Game the new Mesmerism (or for that matter Gravity of which I am skeptic)?
Opus. I have no idea what “it” is. From my take. It’s mish mash of misplaced ideas built on some “good intentions” cloaking it with masculinity, lad behavior…………..beer n fart jokes….while claiming “maturity” and being a “real man”
A real man doesn’t meaure how many women like him, how many women he has bedded, or how big is his penis, or how funny he is or who he gave the “tingles” to, while labeling fellow men as beta, omegas, orbiters, AFC, loser, Alpha, and the other alphabet soup of negs that are always used on men to “razz” them while making themselves feel better about lying about how great they are with women.
A real man doesn’t need to talk about what an amazing guy he is with women. Men who are good at game or just “naturals” don’t have to brag, or sell it, or tell people about it. Their actions show it.
A real man who genuinely wants to help another man in these areas doesn’t “neg” him or talk to him like he’s a two year old.
A real man who isn’t good with women understands that he perhaps could take some “good advice” that was around waaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy before game. Much of this is common sense. At this rate, Game is going to reinvent ways to tie your shoes to make you look more “confident” in front of a woman.
A real man really doesn’t care what women think about him. Game claims they teach this and live this. In fact, Game shows and demonstrates that they actually cater to what modern women want exactly in a man: foul language, being faux dangerous, immaturity (so she will have zero guilt when dumping him or no guilt for sleeping with him……..”he’s so immature”), a man-tboy. Game will make men clown up, misbehave just for mild attention from a woman. A real man doesn’t care how hot or not a woman is. He does his own thing. If he wants to talk to one. He does. If not. He doesn’t. If she ignores him, laughs at him, or thinks he’s beneath her. He really doesn’t care. He doesn’t insult her. He doesn’t neg her. He doesn’t waste his time.
A real man has a variety of skills. Game teaches men that ONLY attention from women matter
A real man knows how to protect family and friends and stand upon truth. Jesus didn’t use Game, nor did he punch people in the mouth for not believing Him. He faced the wicked. He told the truth. He wasn’t afraid…….had no army……had no political power. Wasn’t in a postion of this world of any authority. He was an average looking dude.
Ganme caters exactly what women want. Fun. Sex. No guilt. No responsibility. Game gives them this and wrecks havoc on most….if not all men
It’s like telling my older brother who has Downs Syndrome (he will never have more mental capacity than a first grader…..no matter how HARD he tries) that he can’t read on 4th or 5th grade level because “he just isn’t trying hard enough”
Ironically, that’s how I view the advice of anti-gamers. “Just be yourself; just try harder.”
Common sense is not common at all. Everyone has DIFFERENT natural abilities–including social abilities.
Social skills can be taught, just as any other skill, but that doesn’t mean everyone will learn them perfectly. I can teach 100 people a musical instrument. Some will be naturals, some will become competent by practicing, and some (probably most) will never be good enough to play in public. But, I guarantee everyone will be a better musician than if he had never taken lessons at all.
Otto. Game teachers you to be something you are not. Which contradicts the core principles of Christianity
Game does to some extent reinvent the wheel. The examples from my own life which I mentioned earlier today happened I now reflect before I had ever heard the word Game used as a title for seduction technique.
Well Opus. I could agree with that. When I read Neil Strauss “The Game” in 2004 or thereabouts he was talking about stuff that I learned when I was a teenager. Brush your teeth. Clip your fingernails…………I learned how to high gloss polish my doc martens, and weejuns from my Welsh grandfather. I learned how to tie a tie sixties-style from my father when I was in jr high. How to properly stitch a button on a button down oxford from my mother.
I look people in the eye when I talk to them. I smile. Game claims they invented these “revolutionary techniques” and yet…….the contradiction……….because they also claim your appearance doesn’t matter. How you look, or how you dress. Your height. None of it matters beause attraction isnt a choice for women. They just cannot help who they fall for. Just be in the right place often enough. They just look at a mans attitude and personality. You failed? Obviously it was something you did wrong because the methods are foolproof. Game is just as destructive as the Sunday clueless evangelical pastor who sermons in thunderous tones from the pulpit “Ask women out. They don’t bite!”
This post is Dalrock’s expanded analysis of his dialog with me about the gender wars.
Here is my post about this discussion, giving his comments plus my expanded reply: Respect is a key battleground in the gender wars.
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/03/18/dalrock-respect-key-battleground-in-gender-wars/
Tomorrow I will post more of Dalrock’s comments about the gender wars. He explores their very heart, things too seldom mentioned by feminists or the manosphere.
This was something I learned long ago and perhaps Jason was beating around the bush about it.
Game works quite well if the woman is interested in you to begin with.
No amount of game will work if the woman decides she’s not interested in you.
Earl……Neil Strauss even said years after he renounced Game……..”you have to have something to begin with”
…………and on that, I can agree with him. We live in a very, very shallow time. Game still assumes like ‘conservative’ protestant Christianity that women are somehow blameless. They just cannot help who they are (thus makes them immune to criticism). Men have to “change” to make themselves attractive to women………..yet, women who are very overweight, have a rotten personality inside and out are still “entitled” and led to believe that they deserve a top-level guy. Game teaches its numbers, and to get women naked….so plenty of thirsty men are gonna hit on this woman as well. It caters to exactly what women want:
Make me laugh. Entertain me. You are an accessory. You are MY arm candy. You pleasure me. You do what I want / need / expect
The man gets nSA sex, and he then can brag to his fellow Gamers that he “nailed” a perfect ten and the method works perfectly. The woman got affirmed that her being fat, rotten and just easy is perfectly okay and acceptable.
Blameless or devoid of free will. I can tell pretty quickly if she has some spark of interest or if she’s dead eyed. The only ‘game’ I have is the lifestyle I live and eye contact.
Women make choices all the time too. They often think they should only get good or positive consequences from them though. If it was bad then it must be a man’s fault.
This is a fun post cramming in lots of manosphere thoughts – some true and some less so but parodies of truth. I like it for the way it brings together lots of concepts and this is a post I might send friends wondering about these things as a rough introduction.
My question – does game work? I am not convinced that it does beyond the utility of confidence. The problem is that our evidence for game working is very poor quality. For example find someone who sleeps with lots of women and attributes their success to game and say it must be game. We can even have lots of people who claim they had no skills with women then learned game and started sleeping with women and then – hey proof. But that’s not proof. That’s what we might call hypothesis generating but not proof.
There are a few problems for having better proof. People who fail with game don’t run successful blogs so they are under reported. In scientific literature this is also seen – positive results get more attention and publications but both negative and positive findings are useful.
Another big problem is the threshold for girls having sex during the ages of 17-33 in the US is so low that it’s hard to determine if skills are involved. If you go to the free throw line a lot by chasing sex eventually you will score in today’s world.
The real question for game is – per female approach does game have a higher proportion of resulting in a sexual encounter than other techniques. There is no way to do randomized studies of this but I see lots of reasons for skepticism given the very weak evidence we have for game.
Beyond this game is more evidence of the thing our host is mocking – making a measure of virtue out of your ability to have sex with women. The manospehere largely embraces this measure. For reproduction this is useful, for civilization this is largely a distracting waste of the successful mans time. Society is probably better off with arranged weddings at age 20 than so many men wasting time on something as prosaic as chasing tail. The measure of a man isn’t can he make tingles – the fact society accepts this is evidence of a satanic culture. Mans measure in the world is what he builds in his home with children or in career. And spiritually it’s how he measures up to Gods requirements.
Finally it can never be said enough but be true to yourself is the dumbest most destructive advice we give. Philosophers and prophets have taught people to reject it for generations.
I will no longer comment unless a man, or a “Gamer” has a specific question of me. I’ll close with that “I” tell younger men to put energies into what they are good at, or interested in instead of letting the infamous “they” tell them what they are supposed to be doing………..ie creating attraction / glorification of the sex act over anything and everything else having women “like” me………….leaping through countless rings and hoops that are ever changing and colliding into complex rings and situations……
Fortunately I got wise before it was too late……
I can ask God, beg God for “why” I was made to look like what I was. Why I wasn’t given this trait, or that trait. Why my brother has Downs Syndrome. Why my mother who taken from this world at the tender age of 61. Why was I left out of being married, being a father………dating, sex……
Like the confusing aspects of Game, asking God these things is endless, and gets one stuck while time………….precious time………….marches on.
I encourage younger men who want to date to date. But to put all your hope in a transparent set of “rules” or “methods” in order to get a date, or a woman to like you is foolish. I challenge men with their hobbies and interests to demand mastery of them (sport, research, an interest). I also encourage learning for learning sake.
“This post will also scare off those game-denialist nuts.”
Why?
In the 1990s I bought a VHS tape, advertised on TV, about “How to Succeed With Women!”
The selling point what that this tape had interviews with women! Women reveal their secret thoughts on what they seek in a man!
The core message was: Don’t be a jerk, or cocky, or arrogant, or a liar. Just be yourself. Women love genuine, honest, authentic men. Men who are friendly, self-confident, comfortable in their skin, and not putting on some macho BS act. Most of all, women love a Nice Guy.
I can’t say the tape was helpful.
the reason why I don’t watch televison anymore is for the fact the commercials make me feel inferior. Not that I am missing much anyway……..
You’re not missing anything at all. I haven’t had television in my house now for two and a half years, and on those few occasions where I’m in a location where there’s a television set, I find myself after about five minutes wanting to scream “TURN THIS DAMNED THING OFF BEFORE I SMASH IT!” It really is that insufferable nowadays, no matter what channel(s) you watch.
As a point of brevity and hope. Some of us are trying really hard to offer the alternative as a remnant.
https://ljubomirfarms.wordpress.com/2018/03/18/seamus-the-nigerian-dwarf/
As for women rejecting “good” men, I think there is a great deal of subconscious projection going on on the women’s part. Most of them know, on some visceral level, that they are repulsive and utterly unworthy of such men. Therefore they invent reasons to reject them as unworthy, much as some here have stated that “Game deniers” are subconsciously rejecting the notion that they can improve their lot in life.*
(*Just for the record, I’m neutral/ambivalent about Game and it’s efficacy. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t, depending on the individual.)
test
Jason,
Your ‘Real men don’t……’ screed is straight out of a Tradcon manual.
Even worse, you are effectively claiming that nothing about a man’s attractiveness to women is a learnable skill.
Anyway, Blackdragon debunks all the standard excuses here.
This thread is enough to give a Christian a headache. The end result is whatever God has laid forth, The narrow gate is single file and slow travelling – Most people on this planet will not find it and are only concerned with what they want. The great upsetting will be in finding that it was never about what you wanted but about what God demanded. Ezekiel said that it is the job of Christians to warn that others are doomed if they follow the wrong path. Not to correct but just to warn. Consider yourselves to be warned. God will not be mocked.
http://www.blackdragonblog.com/2017/04/24/stop-with-the-excuses/
Kevin,
The real question for game is – per female approach does game have a higher proportion of resulting in a sexual encounter than other techniques.
Actually, there are. Krauser has posted a lot of stats.
In a particular calendar year, he posted that :
He did 1000 approaches.
This led to 60 first dates.
This led to 27 of them having sex with him (some of them multiple times).
That makes sense. Krauser is not rich or good-looking. He did videotape instances of sex with legitimately hot women (he obviously had to take them down after a while).
Remember that the Game-denialists are openly saying that nothing about a man’s attractiveness is in his control, much less a learnable skill. That is madness.
Jason has some deeper issue. He says he was a bartender (just about the best position a man can be in to get laid), and yet says he never kissed a girl. I didn’t think this was possible unless the man has some major defect.
Yeah Anon…I am ugly. That’s the physical defect and a fact why Game doesn’t work unless you are deemed “good looking” by a societal standard. I got the job not of my looks, but of my skill in keeping patrons well-watered, mixing skills (I was very good…..actually really good) and always accurate tabs when they were closed. I also didn’t waste patrons time in a nightclub. Get them their drink, quickly, professionally, classy and properly.
Jason,
Unless you are truly bottom 20%, being ‘ugly’ doesn’t negate the extreme advantages of being a bartender, even without Game.
Jason has some deeper issue.
That “issue,” for Jason and many other men, just might be that they’re comfortable enough with who they are and are well aware enough of the nature of women that they”ve decided that changing any aspect of who they are to suit a woman’s desire not only isn’t worth the time and effort, but is too great a personal cost. That’s perfectly understandable given the way the world is today, but it still doesn’t diminish the natural attraction that they as men feel toward women and the desires that such attraction creates. Thus the conflict and the unavoidable pain.
“I will no longer comment unless a man, or a “Gamer” has a specific question of me. ”
Nobody asked you a question. The fact that you broke your own word within a conversation of men – you’re showing us who you are. And we believe you.
Anon alludes to my fellow countryman Krauser: he has and interesting story. He married a Japanese, went to live in the land of the rising sun and was dumped by said Japanese wife. He was in a bad way but recreated himself and as you see scores with a chick about once every fortnight. Is this not proof that Game works? I say, no it is not. What it is certainly proof of is that if you make enough approaches and are thus prepared to spend enough time doing so then as with any cold-calling salesman you will occasionally be successful. In doing so you will learn what works and what does not and thus you will improve your chances of success. Example: I was fourteen and had struck up conversation with a woman in the street who was pushing her bicycle – was that Game? – anyway, I felt that we were getting on well and so I suggested that we go off and have sexual intercourse (though the words I used had only about four letters). She then went into shocked outrage (fake I am sure) and moved away form me. The lesson I learned was that I had come on far too strong too soon. These days I ask why I, a child, was being groomed by this older woman. #metoo
I no more want to be a salesman than I want to spend my leisure time making approaches to strangers so my annual N does not reach the total of twenty-seven. For Homosexually inclined men and promiscuous women twenty-seven is the sort of N one might achieve in a month and with little effort.
What always amazes me about Krauser is that the women are not put off by that Geordie accent of his. A Geordie accent where I am usually means someone is looking for a fist-fight such is their reputation. Krauser targets women who are new to the country so perhaps they cannot here it. Such women are often amenable to native men showing interest. I venture to suggest that if instead he were to approach the femi-bitches who work in London’s financial district he would not have the same success rate as he does with au-pairs.
I worked as a bartender, in grad school (1993-1995). It was my job while I starved for prestiege of a graduate degree. The degree was a waste. I admit this now. The job was grueling. I worked nights in a bar full of drunk college and grad student peers who were cheap and all were going off to consumate victories in the bedroom after closing. I left work exhauseted, home to study. sleep and repete the same thing again the next night. No woman ever gave me her number. Chatted me up. Gave me IOI’s, flirted, talked. The women I did talk to were “nice” to me but they always wanted a tab, a drink, for me to talk to some other guy for them…..when I said “no” of course I was “selfish” and terrible. If I said “yes” I was a chump for giving them what they wanted………and I didn’t pass their “sh*t test”
All the women I did ask out at this fine establishment over the two years there:
*you’re a really sweet guy
*Ummmm………I just don’t feel a spark
*Someday a really great gal is gonna come into your life
*Have you ever thought about dating a woman who is, you know disabled or something
*We’re gonna be such great friends
*Its not you at all…..it’s well, me
*I just got out of an abusive relationship he beat me / cheated on me / locked me in a closet…….
*You are okay, you just are trying too hard / not trying hard enough / you give up too easily / take time for you / it happens when you least expect it / keep trying / just be yourself
*Ummmmm, you’re supposed to be tending a bar. Not creeping me out. I know the owner!
*You have a great personality. All guys should be like you
Notta one could just come out and say it. I probably would have been hurt. Maybe crushed. But tablespoon of honesty probably would have done me good at this point.
Second stint from 2004-2005 at a high end night club in San Francisco
Most bartenders have abysmal dating lives. Saw it first hand. Mosty of us rarely dated…or it was an older guy (late 30’s into 40’s) and he was Union at this point and was married. Som,e hooked up.
You forget most bartenders that get prime hours (like I did) are working when most of the City is OFF for the weekend. Nightclubs are brutal to work in
The women I did talk to gave me more of the same, usually meaner because they were no longer college women. Ladies night was the worst to work at. Even the club owner Harry Denton had to set up a rotating schedule for this night because NO bartender wanted to work it.
If you saw the movie “The Elephant Man”, you might enjoy seeing how things might have gone if the Elephant Man had gotten Game. It is amusing.
You can cut and paste the address below into your browser:
Dalrock —
“@Ray
Either a man is on the side of Game, or he is shunned.
Anon speaks for himself. Game isn’t a litmus test for being welcome here, or even the larger men’s sphere.”
Agreement with the Game Cult isn’t a litmus test here, true, and to your credit. In many areas of the ‘manosphere’ it certainly is a requirement, and you will be mocked, insulted, and hounded by Game Boys should you express disagreement. The reaction of Anonymous Coward to my criticism of Game is very typical: an immediate outburst of rage, no different from that expressed by Feminists, Moonies, Scientologists, or Communists if you’re not on-board with their beliefs, and the religions around which their lives are structured.
As I expressed years ago when Game was first discussed (and promoted) on this site, practice of PUA and Game is antithetic to Christianity. Both encourage promiscuity in the unmarried male, and the married male needs no Game (or Game books, workshops, lectures, DVDs, etc.) because God already placed him in authority over his wife. Game is a supplication to the FI, not a response to it, and certainly not its conqueror. Game is playing by women’s rules. Strong men don’t need to practice psychological techniques on their women; they behave as men and the female ADAPTS TO THAT. Not the reverse, which is Married Game.
As stated long ago, my primary objection isn’t to Game, but to its practitioners, who are — with rare exceptions — a bunch of weak, insecure punks, raised in a feminist nation and culture, and looking to blame others for their own faults. Boys and young men have been so lost for decades, that they’re primed to grab on to any glib system promising them ‘success with females’. And there have been plenty of self-serving predators over the last couple decades, waiting to Show Them The Way.
Mystery, Heartiste, Roosh the Doosh, Supreme Dark Lord Teddie . . . these people are jokes, and the bigger joke is that some pretend they are Christians. Cynical demagogues lure young men in with the promise of Endless Sex Via Game, and proceed to teach them about putting the names of (((Jews))) in parentheses, and the rest of their jive politics and hatreds, which usually includes hating ‘all blacks’ too. (Teddie’s words.)
I’ve seen Christian men, influenced by the Game Boys, turn away from obedience to Scripture, and towards the hate of Israel and the (((Jews))), for no other reason than to maintain popularity with the Cool Group. Most Gamers are destroyers of brotherhood, especially of Christian brotherhood, and serve no god apart from their own egos, wallets, and page-hits.
Over the years you have done many good works on behalf of God and nation, especially your stalwart defense of fatherhood, son-ship, masculinity, and Biblical marriage, and for these things I am very grateful. During the decades these things were being systematically destroyed in America, and you were one of very few voices opposing The Flood. You’ve also taken on many false pastors, which aids the Church is its coming restoration.
But your association with Game, and with its personality-cult leadership, likewise has led some young men into the jaws of those who are no friends of Christ. And this is one reason I warned you against such associations, years ago. When certain Christian men reach a particular point of development, I’ve sent them to your site for instruction — it’s a crash-course in the cultural realities of the ‘churches’, gender-relations, and modern marriage, and they have profited and grown as Christian men, from hard truths learned here. There really was nowhere else to send them, and so again, I am grateful for your diligent efforts on their behalf. And God knows it.
As for whether we’re on the same side, that’s up to you. I’m on the side of the King and his coming Kingdom. The techniques of Game can’t be separated from the personality-cult of Game, and association with its priests takes individuals further from, not closer to, Jeshua. A man can’t be in the cult of Game and in the cult of Christ. Where you come down is your choice, and your responsibility.
One comment during Lent before I go back to comment fasting.
The era of “Game” in isolation is kind of finished. The template now incorporates aspects of Game into a larger self-improvement project that emphasizes other aspects of life, and not just focusing on women the way the PUAs did. The kind of approach you see advocated by Rollo on his blog, or to some extent on The Red Pill subreddit, typifies the more holistic approach which addresses various aspects of a man’s life (appearance, career, mindset/frame, as well as some Game techniques).
Generally the main manosphere popularizers of Game (Roissy, Roosh, Rollo, etc) have never said that any guy, regardless of what else he has going on about him, can regularly get 9s and 10s by using Game techniques. Game can get you a couple of points up, and is more effective when used together with the other aspects of the red pill self-improvement project, generally. So if you’re starting from a low point (like a male equivalent of a 2), you may get up to a 4 with decent Game — and you likely won’t be happy with the results because you’re still a 4 and 4s don’t attract attractive women *generally*. Again, if other self-improvement efforts are underway, they can also enhance your attractiveness so that you just become a more attractive person overall, and then Game is a bit more helpful. And, almost all of the popularizers of Game have also said that it takes a lot of approaches — a LOT of them — before you reach a comfort level with approaching attractive female strangers, overcome outcome anxiety, learn what works for your persona best, and so on — at least several hundred approaches in most cases.
Every individual guy has to assess what he is interested in doing, and what he isn’t interested in doing, in order to reach any goals he may have with respect to relationships with women in this current context. Different guys will come up with different answers, and, because we’re guys, we of course will slice each other up relentlessly and ruthlessly over choices other guys make that we disagree with — because that’s what guys do.
Novaseeker
March 18, 2018 at 5:36 pm
Paul Joseph Watson calls the broader movement you describe above as ”Neomasculinity”.
He basically says that a man should go ahead with his plans and not worry about what society (collectivized women) thinks, and defining himself on his terms, away from the influence of women. If that is turning yourself into a body builder, that’s okay (lay off the IGF-R. It makes you look pregnant). If it’s taking to the Hills and making yourself a self-sustaining ranch, that’s good too. Whatever it is, just do it without being hen-pecked and badgered, because if you give in to hen-pecking and badgering, you’ll just get more of the same.
For those of us who have taken the Red Pill after we’ve been married, it means we pursue our plans on our terms. We use what Rollo calls our Game and Frame to define for ourselves what our outcomes in life are, what is best for ourselves and our children.If our wives are coming along for the ride, then that’s good. If not, there’s the road.
The catch is that you’ve got to be willing to risk it all.
I remember reading the book ‘The System’ by Thomas Hodge where he did the same thing about interviewing women as to what they liked in a guy. His unique questions though were…’What was it about the guy you chose to stay with? and ‘what was it about the guys you didn’t choose to stay with?’
That was the question that blew up the ‘they want a nice guy’ bit…into ‘they wanted a leader’.
I am amazed that Game has been present as a word in these 174 comments (now 175) and no hair splitting debates have broken out about what Game is and what it is not. Someone made the blunt and accurate observation that Game folks cannot agree on what it is or what it is not. That redefining tendency always failed to compel.
Setting aside the argument , ray is unequivocally correct about the unusual vehemence with which Game is defended. Its always seemed an odd hill for one’s chosen spot to die, so to speak. I wont be surprised if my innocuous comment also causes a 2×4-o-nails-shoved-in-the-out-door reaction as well and I will never ever ever truly get that.
Rollo’s analogy, that of adding a new form of fighting to the toolkit deployed by a society of fighters, surprised me. I will allow that I read it fast and may have missed his intent. It was a decent analogy for describing why its good to change up an approach to something, but it didn’t jump out as argument for Game so to sp. It surprised me because Rollo generally writes with clear intention and this time I missed it.
Agreed.
Otto. Game teachers you to be something you are not. Which contradicts the core principles of Christianity
Toastmasters taught me to be something I was not. Does Toastmasters contradict Christianity?
Both Toastmasters and Game teach presentation skills.
Do you have to swallow the whole Game hog; do you have to emulate every concept? No, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t useful concepts to be found there.
Why present a false dilemma, where you have to either totally accept Game or totally reject it. There is a middle ground.
What are the useful concepts? That women like a guy who brushes his teeth? You don’t need to enroll in Game to learn that. That Game excuses all bad female behavior? We have many decades of feminism that has fully shown that. Game tells us that women like a man who is ‘confident’ which is a general concept that has a very broad brush stroke of meaning……all depenant on what she “feels” at the moment of what ‘confidence’ is or isn’t. Varies from woman to woman. Game says women like a ‘leader’? Guess what…..not everyone is going to be a leader. Most of the time, you as a man are going to be takin’ and fulfilling orders at work, in your church, in your own personal life, and let me add most leaders who claim to be one are the ones who have the most free time on their hands. We have too many ‘amazing leaders’ today and very few people actually “doing”. Game views a man who is a leader by the one who is gettin’ nookie.
The Game concept that men are just dullards and have to learn “how” to be attractive to women? That is just as insane as the dating dynamic inside the church today. Women just have to show up, and they are assumed to be “amazing, mighty women, ready to be a wife” and men need “accountability and need to man up”. That attraction isn’t a choice for women????? But it is for men?
There are very few useful concepts from Game. It may explain some aspects of female nature. It may give a man some insight to why he is a failure or success with women.
Women decide. Women choose. Women make the rules of the Game. Men don’t. The men who defend game balls deep spend more of their time shaming men like myself….like the old shriveled men in church with terse lips and shaking heads “men just don’t want to step up and improve themselves today”
It’s not a cop-out to dislike and disapprove of Game. It’s not outright jealously of the men who supposedly have Game. Plenty of men have had Game and never heard of it. Frank Sinatra is probably a prime example. Frank never listed numbers and how many and how tight and how many and from what country. A gentleman doesn’t have to explain.
The frustration from men like myself…..and we are the majority. It aint the other way around by a long shot………concerning Game is that it is something that can never be meaured. You fail? You opened the set wrong. Day Game v Nught Game. Speed Game. LTR Game…..PUA which is now a subset of Game? More and more variables to make you always inferior with no clear concept of winning. When does it end???? When you marry? No, no! We have married game now! When you get a “nine” or “ten” pregnant?
Way too many variables and a family of belief systems theorhetically held together. Now we have men like one above who are bored with “95%” percent of them because he has been with over or around 20 of them………wow. That is going to sell Game real good.
I post more frequently on this topic and I get annoyed and passionate because of the TRUTH that Game for 80% of men is a “sisyphus” study in futility
Game = Confidence + Indifference + Quietness + Entrepreneurism
Women lust after confident, busy men, who treat women with nothing but indifference. Be quiet, be busy, have lots of friends and activities. Women lust after that simply because Hypergamy commands that they be a PART of that.
No Jason. No they don’t. Everything I have described about “game”, all of it the man controls. Women control none of it. You decide how indifferent you want to treat women. You decide how confident you want to be. You can be quiet. You can be busy. You can fill your time.
When I was single and much younger, I would go (as a singleton) to dance clubs. I would dress up, put on a suit and tie, and get there. I would be there. And I would be very visible and very-very quiet. I would just walk right up to the dance floor with a bottle of water, stand right there and wait. I would not even speak to anyone, not a waiter, not a waitress, never any women, none of them. I would just put on a very expressionless, confident face. Inside of 30 minutes, I would have at least 3 or 4 women approach me to try and dance with me. I would dance with each one REGARDLESS of how physically repulsive they were and I would make sure every single woman at the night club could see me. Then at the end of the song I would tell the ugly fat ones “I need to go to the bathroom” and vanish. About 2 songs later, right back to my spot next to the dance floor and I patiently wait. Eventually, I find a hot one and (if I am lucky) she goes home with me.
Game.
Everyone agrees the best game is: Have money and be ready to part with it.
“Romance” today is nothing but prostitution with a silk wrapping.
“Religion” has become nothing more than a single serving of ‘feels good.’
I believe Christ said something about whitewashed shit houses still smelling of shit.
Or something like that.
You were above average in looks. An ugly guy could do the same thing. Wear the same suit. Do the exact same thing as you, and women would be dancing around you and outright telling you “umm…if you are not going to dance, get off the floor”
Game over
Tombs freebird. Whitewashed tombs 🙂
Re freebird’s last comment, he is largely supported by this classic set of observations. Put “Briffault’s Law” into Google, and click on the search result that references Reddit. It’s reminiscent of Ladder Theory (URL for a website of the same name), only more specific.
I find it unfortunate that the men who don’t understand game *at all* also utterly fail to understand dalrock’s very meaningful and important post. The point our esteemed host has been making is that women’s tingles are considered where morality stems from and game awareness clearly demonstrates that women’s tingles stem from power, aggression, and the ways to signal said. Not from morality.
It’s been my unfortunate experience that the unattractive men don’t come to the realization that women are ultimately attracted to power but rather go from worshipping women and their tingles to bitterness. Examples abound in this comment chain. They aren’t bitter because they have reached an understanding that women’s tingles are not the arbitrator of morality, however, but rather bitter because they feel judged, one could say morally judged, due to their lack of creating female tingles. So they just become incredibly defensive and claim repeatedly that the things that create the holy tingle are “beyond their control” while also slandering men who have created the holy tingle.
If only they could understand our esteemed hosts entire point they would know that the tingle isn’t holy and that women’s ‘hearts’ are not actually the arbitrator of goodness. Alas. You can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink.
I referenced Briffault’s Law, a search engine, and another forum in my previous post, without any web addresses, and it STILL went into moderation. Why?
@Empath
If this proves to you that Game isn’t real, then I wager that I could prove to you that the following don’t exist:
Defensive Handgun Calibers
Martial Arts
Operating systems
Pickup trucks
Feel free to test this theory on your own: Go to a gun forum and ask what calibers are defensive handgun calibers. For bonus points, ask if revolvers are defensive handguns. After you are banned as a troll on the gun forum, go to a martial arts forum and ask what fighting styles are “real”. After you are banned as a troll on the martial arts forum, go to a computer forum and ask which operating systems are real. After you are banned as a troll on the computer forum, go to a truck forum and ask which brand of trucks are real.
Now the question is, why did you just get repeatedly banned as a troll for asking these questions? The answer is because these questions are internet flame bait. There is always an idiot on the internet ready to argue that the only real form of martial arts involves years of practice painting fences and waxing cars. Moreover, there will be serious people who disagree as to whether “real” martial arts involve weapons. In between there will be fans of one form or another who didn’t understand your question, and thought you meant what form they prefer, or what works best under the circumstances they most typically encounter. If the forums didn’t ban you as a troll for asking trollish questions, your questions would generate the same kind of absurd food fight that happens here when I don’t forbid people from asking the same kinds of questions about Game.
“Women decide. Women choose. Women make the rules of the Game. Men don’t.”
^ This type of thinking won’t get you to first base Jason. In my BC days, I was even so bold to tell them I was taking them out and give them a day and time and then show up. I’d do crazy things like spin a bottle at a party and then walk over and kiss the girl. Action creates reaction, especially in sluts. It gets their juices flowing. I just don’t want the sluts anymore.
I like having a clean conscience, living a healthy and holy life, working on myself to be a better person, working on important work projects without divided competing responsibilities. I get that through being a genuine Christian and living a MGTOW lifestyle.
Snowden. I am well read but illiterate…….educated in some things that I have knowlegde and solid skills about but I am really not a smart person. I can “do” things that require some intelligence to handle, but I am far from genius level that most of the posters on this fine forum are.
I am a little confused about your above reply.
I don’t recall slandering any men who have created this “mythical Holy tingle”
Men who do this or have the ability to do so are pretty much born with this. I can’t really get mad at that. What I get upset at is if I am told that “I too can create this tingle if I just follow their example” anfd if I try to explain why it has not worked….I’m now “bitter” and the circular discussion of “well, that’s why you are single”
Whale excrement.
By the trime a man is 35 or so and if he has never had a date or any intrest from women, he should pack it in. Call it day. Hit the shower and just find other things that can give his life some sort of meaning with the time he has left……that is the true, pure, honest regret I DO have. Wasted time trying, bettering, improving, striving, reaching……….all for getting attention, a date, a kiss, endearment from a woman or women?????????
A lot of time, tears, depression and falling into a very nasty drug and alcohol problem (which is not the fault of women. That was mine. I made choices. I own that). which to this day I am still repairing from career wise and economica wise.
The price I paid from being raised middle to upper middle class was the stability of formative years. Parents who did indeed love me. A fear free life pretty much as a boy in the 1970’s, and a teenager in the 1980’s…..but the price I will pay for this (no choice in this either) that because of having this…….there will be no one to fight for my causes. My loneliness. My dreams. My wishes. The burden will soley fall upon me, and countless men and women who had similar upbringings.
The world, the church, Game, and people in general don’t care if you are not attractive, they are just glad it isn’t them. You mentioned power in your above reply.
Power over what? Most men are pretty much powerless in this world, even the top 20% of men. What do you mean by power? In work? In a church position? The floor supervisor at the local McDonalds? Explain if you could please.
You need a wider circle of friends Jason. Some of us are strongly opposed to that lifestyle, yet see much value in many aspects of game.
It is rather dumb to not make life pleasant for those you want to be around. Some hoops are certainly not worth it, but some are worth pursuing. No one wants to be around someone that doesn’t make them feel good at all.
American. Nonsense. A woman at a club said “F*ck you!” once to me at a nightclub back in 1996 or thereabout. I smirked and replied “When and where? I’m here right now. My apartment is a five minute drive away. I have a clean bathroom.”
She got the bouncer and Jason was thrown out of this nightclub (Catalyst in Santa Cruz if you must know).
It depends on who (looks) is creating the reaction and taking the action when it comes to these matters
Anon,
Exactly.
ray,
My aren’t you into AMOGing it. You despise something that comes easy to you. And then you threaten others (AR) with physical harm. I am not impressed. You might beat the crap out of me, but just try it if we ever meet in person and you may get a worse response than you expect. I was quite a wimp in high school, but one boy who pushed me too much learned that was not a bright idea. You are more likely to eventually come across that if you ever really do back up your tough talk with the action you threaten.
Jason,
Quit acting stupid. I haven’t had many girlfriends (really just the one I married, and who later divorced me). I still see value in learning what the triggers are in women, just as I would learn the triggers in any area I chose to work. It is stupid to intentionally be ignorant.
You need to stop equating game and the PUA lifestyle. You can’t seem to get over that one large hurdle.
So God has to dance to your tune and drop her in your mailbox? You have no obligation to make yourself a better candidate for such a relationship?
I suppose this is an extreme example of men bucking against past trends to make themselves strong marriage partners. Jason just wants a woman to accept him exactly as he is, with absolutely no adjustments. You will likely get your wish Jason.
And I thought I was a pain.
I have found that there are some useful concepts to game:
1. what a Sh1t Test is and how to pass it or get passed it without failing.
2. That pedestalizing, or complimenting women too much initially will usually reduce their attraction to you.
3. That while I as a man want to find an available woman. Women want to fight other women for the same man. (Preselection)
4. Women don’t really want what they think or say they want, or even what is good for them. (I kind of knew that already though)
5. “A woman may want financial and family security, but she does not want passion security.” (Quote from 16 commandments of poon)
6. Project narcissistic self aggrandizement. You can still think humbly on the inside and treat others with the respect you’d like to be shown. (I knew that one too)
6. Maintain mastery if at all possible. Submitting to her is usually a bad idea.
7. Most women like to be teased. A little bit of Negging is usually expected and enjoyed by women. If they can’t take even a little teasing, they may be hard to live with.
I apparently was born quite Red Pill aware, because I can remember from my earliest childhood being re-educated into Blue Pill by parents, society, school, church, government, and the media. For me being Alpha was my nature, and I spent a lifetime getting it trained out of me, only to find, that nobody likes the housebroken Beta version of myself, and before they all liked or at least envied the Alpha me, but wanted to tame me. Now that I’ve been tamed and humbled everybody wants to kick me for not being the man I once was. LOL It is so sad I just have to laugh. It may be too late to revert my life and recover the “years the locust have eaten”, but I can try to make sure I teach my sons to ignore the sensitivity training and do what works instead.
Eidolon,
Marketing is not inherently wrong in any application, even the church uses maligned here. It is how those efforts are aimed and guided that can be the problem. The same new sign can be bad if it adds overt sexuality, for example, but it is not inherently bad.
Opposing getting men to use good hygiene and lose weight is not very bright, but that is a key marketing part of game.
Carrying on the analogy farther: Many cannot agree about exactly what “marketing” covers. While textbooks claim the answer, many books challenge commonly accepted wisdom in that area. We don’t discard the term just because all aren’t in lockstep on what it means. We also don’t discard it because some misuse it for evil purposes.
God has never danced to my tune. You want a serious discussion on this:
Okay. What is the difference between PUA and Game. Explain. Because from most of the defenders of Game, I see a lot of talk about bedding women…but in the same breath, oh…its not PUA. That’s totally different.
Explain Game and how it is played. Because in ANY game. There are rules. This etheral Game that all cite, discuss and talk about only seems to be about how men are supposed to behave to attract and “unlock” women…..and all actions by the man are for getting the woman to “like” him / drop the panties / date him.
You call me ignorant. You say I make no adjustments. I made a HUGE adjustment for Christ. He took a broken addict who flushed a career and integrity down a toilet with a bunch of angry looking turns floating around in the bowl and made me claen. I know EXACTLY what I want in a Christian woman. When a man demands or expects an expectation in a woman….he’s being unreasonable, when Game calls for a man to change to get a woman…this is now called logical.
Again, anyone who claims that Game does not exist or is ineffective is claiming that nothing about a man’s success with women is a learnable skill. This includes the most basic Game principles such as ‘don’t be needy’, and ‘don’t buy dinner for her before sex’, or simply how to start a conversation with an attractive woman you see during the daytime.
To claim that none of this knowledge is valuable in the goal of having more/better sex with women is an astonishing level of denial, on par with TradCon cluelessness about female nature.
Anon…..men like you are on par with Tradcon cluenessness….maybe not about female nature but about men.
Jason,
Game is morally neutral, but Scripture is not: “Be Shrewd as serpents, simple as doves.” It’s simply being shrewd about how woman view men: they want men who dominate and lead from their own frame. You can use it to bed them (“PUA game”) or be simple like the dove and use it to lead them to Christ. The most powerful frame ever devised for men is to center his life on Christ.
Note how Christ “gamed” the woman at the well: he wasn’t nice to her, he told her to give him water, and then told her in no uncertain terms exactly how broken she was. Very, very dominant. EXACTLY the opposite of what all these Churchian Pastors and Priests are doing as Dalrock eloquently tells us every week.
Anyway, once He had her attention by being dominant and in charge, he excited her imagination with a vision of water that gave not only life for the day, but eternal life forever. This was utterly brilliant, as we would expect from His infinite intelligence. Women are children, so He made his “pitch” in the most colorful and fantastic terms possible. It worked. It converted her and she proceeded to tell her whole village and likely convert a lot of them.
Jsaon,
There you go AMOGing it again.
So you had it all down. Congrats. Many men do not. I would tend to argue most men do not. I just don’t care enough to do all those things to perfection. My parents taught me some, but not enough to override my internal lack of concern about a great many things.
You attack something that came naturally to you. Think a bit more and you might understand better.
You sound like someone ranting against doing stretches before running exercise. You already know how to do that, why do we need to remind others to do so? It is an obvious thing to do already.
Once again showing you are talking about a completely different thing, yet you cannot back down and admit that.
I am naturally lazy and would rather spend time commenting here or playing a video game than doing productive work. I guess I should go with who I am rather than seeking to improve. That is your message….
Earl,
Hogwash. Are you devoid of freewill if the grocery store arranges things so you will be more likely to buy the more profitable items, even when seeking out a core staple? How is that valid, but meeting female triggers wrong?
Jason,
Quit the whining. Or at least stay off a sight like this if you want to do that. I could give you a load of my own troubles if you want to play tit for tat. How about learning what you can and shutting up otherwise? Or skip participation completely if you can’t handle the conversation. This is not the Lady’s Tea Club after all.
RPL,
I have seen a number of dating profiles where women say they want a man who is confident, but not arrogant. They fail to realize that those are really the same, the attraction to the man ultimately determines which they think it is.
Disagree. Christ told the turth to everyone. Not just women.
Dalrock,
That gave me a chuckle. I have seen the 1st and 3rd play out many times. I guess those aren’t real. Give up ever trying to find a good handgun since so many disagree on which is the best!
What is AMOGing??? I’m not smart like the rest of you. I made a comparison. It’s whining. I try to use examples from my life I now shoiuld “skip” the participation.
Notta one of you is in my situation here. I am trying to understand. I am trying grap this. All I get is Game is this. Game is that. Game exists. If you don’t know Game or acknowlege it, you are useless. If you try Game and it did not work. You did it wrong.
Jason,
Of course not. He doesn’t dance to anyone’s tune. But you expect that based on your posts here. You refuse any mention of the need for you to do something. You either know it already (hygiene) or you don’t need it. Thus you expect God to drop the woman in your lap if she is to be there.
Just be honest and admit you do not want a woman, rather than claiming that improving yourself is and will always be fruitless.
Who said that?
I know what I want as well, and I am less likely to get it than you probably are. Finding a truly virtuous woman after 50 is quite unlikely. Any who would be so are almost certainly married. Some have married and divorced scummy men and thus ruined their ability to truly serve a godly one.
You think you are alone? You know not of what you speak.
Jason,
Where did you ask any sincere questions in all this discussion? That is a sign of trying to understand.
Proclaiming you already know hygiene and how to do all you might need is AMOGing, in another form. You have it all down pat, so anything telling others to get better or how to do it is a waste. That is pride and arrogance, something quite at odds with the Scriptures.
That is something you would likely benefit from meditating on.
I despise PUAs as much as you do, yet I see a firm place for game principles in Christian men. Perhaps I am wrong, but perhaps you should consider it more before you discard the entire lake because someone peed in a corner.
Too many replies in a short window. Going away for now.
@Anon
Your example supports my comment – thats an anecdote not useful empirical data. My larger point I was not explicit enough about – game as discussed is non-falsifiable using any tools we have available so people are free to pointlessly argue and I fall down on the side of not thinking “game” is much and its advocates seem unaware that it has little useful data to support it. If game is as simple as the ideas Sharkly points out then knowing those things probably is useful.
Thanks Skyler for you thoughtful comment and Opus for the follow-up. Nova I eagerly await your full return – your comments are always very high level and your comment today is no different. If game is as simple as a set of attitudes and confidence than this will not be magic it will just add some to attractiveness. Just like the research showing even money (was it an increase of 10x?) adds only 2 points to attractiveness.
The fact that Game is so necessary both outside and inside of marriage 2.0, is a sign we’ve lost so much of the patriarchal society God prescribed. If it took over 60 years for society to lose it, I don’t see it coming back tomorrow, or next week. Not only is game now unfortunately a more necessary tool to have, but when even it doesn’t work, you’re really screwed. And the Churchians are no help.
Proverbs 27:15-16 A quarrelsome wife is like the dripping of a leaky roof in a rainstorm; restraining her is like restraining the wind or grasping oil with the hand.
I guess we need to “get used to disappointment”. I’m hoping my “Snowflake” kids will suffer and fight to set all of this right again. And throw down the temple of Feminism and reinstall Patriarchy on the same temple mount. LOL OK, maybe it is just a far fetched fantasy that they’ll want to return to ways they’ve never known, and be willing to fight to get there, instead of just amusing themselves and virtue signaling. Time to pray for mercy and Divine intervention.
You should take a lesson Billy. Have a great night
Drug addiction has destroyed many lives. Alcohol, if abused or the person has the inability to metabolize it properly leading to the potentially life ending problem of alcoholism (https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/AA72/AA72.htm), has too. You’re smart to live a sober life Jason. I do myself. No recreational drugs or alcohol in any amount, ever.
Jason said :
Anon…..men like you are on par with Tradcon cluenessness….maybe not about female nature but about men.
A vastly off-base accusation is always projection on the part of the accuser. Doubly so since I already pointed out your ‘No real man..’ screed as being TradCon boilerplate.
Again, none of your logic stands up. (Straight) men want to have sex with women. You do too, despite what you claim.
Jason, is that your photo? You don’t look ugly. You look normal. I’ve seen plenty of men with your looks who are dating or married to attractive women. Not to supermodels, but not to trolls either.
You look better than Mick Jagger, who is one ugly dude. He’s actually famous for his ugly face. And is often used as proof that women don’t care much about a man’s attractiveness. Not if that man exudes power, dominance, and high status. Women prefer Bad Boys over Pretty Boys.
From the way you’ve harped about being ugly, I thought your face might cause one to shudder. But nothing of the sort.
I’m sure Game helps attract women, though it’s no panacea or guarantee of keeping a woman faithful for life.
I discovered Game late in life, hence a “latecomer.” I’m sure it would have helped in my 20s. But in my 50s, I don’t care enough about women to master Game.
I wanted to marry young and have a lifelong marriage. I can’t have that at my age. The boat has sailed. And I’m not interested in bedding a string of psychologically damaged, fortyish single moms. So I don’t bother with Game. I’d rather be MGTOW and focus on other pursuits.
Female police lieutenant is fired for drunk driving — backwards: https://nypost.com/2018/03/18/police-officer-busted-for-reverse-drunken-driving/
A police lieutenant was canned early Sunday after crossing over the blurry blue line — when her fellow officers discovered their drunken colleague driving backwards, honking, through the streets of Florida.
Now ex-cop Christi Ruhtz, 41, was discovered with bloodshot, glassy eyes and reeking of booze in Pinellas, Florida around 2:00 a.m., reported the Tampa Bay Times.
Someone called 911 to report her bizarre driving, and she failed numerous sobriety tests, the site said. A breathalyzer showed her blood alcohol level at 0.14, well above the legal limit of 0.08.
Rhutz, who’d been with the Pinellas County Sherriff’s Office since 1998, was immediately fired, according to the report.
She was charged with a DUI, and released without bail.
“Feel free to test this theory on your own: Go to a gun forum and ask what calibers are defensive handgun calibers. For bonus points, ask if revolvers are defensive handguns. After you are banned as a troll on the gun forum, ”
I will put this to the test. I wager I won’t get banned for it. Should I bother to post the results here, or should I keep them to my own blogs?
Christianity requires patriarchy, patriarchy requires masculinity, masculinity requires (especially today) men be alphas: dominant leaders who fight, conquer, seduce, build, explore, love and hate.
Being an alpha doesn’t have to mean you sleep around: it means your shrewd about the world, your place in it, and especially shrewd about not letting feminism tell you how to relate to and be exploited by heathen Goddesses (including the worst of these heathen Goddesses, the Churchian ones). Patriarchs lead and direct their families and women: women serve them, the opposite of chivalry.
People like @RationalMale, da GBFM, Dalrock and his many commenters, the manosphere will tell you how. You will find more answers among the ruins of the Christian Church buried under the modern Chuchian rubble of chivalry, feminism and cowardice.
We don’t get patriarchy back until we kill chivalry, and if game is the necessary sword, so be it.
All:
You win. Game is everything. Tell me what to do. You’re all experts in this. You all have had sex, have been married or have dated extensively. You all have pretty much shut me down with every comment. Shamed me and belitteled me. You win!!!!!!!!! So, now comes your work. Build me up. Help me. Teach me. Show me.
You spent a ton of time telling me about it, and how looks don’t matter. How I should not buy dinner for a woman before sex. Let’s go!
*I am 6’4″ with blue eyes. 150 lbs. slender, when ever I say hi to women I am given the “smelling onions look” the female coworkers I have and have had work well with me and are polite.
Where do I start. I belong to three clubs. Two civic organizations. A church. I volunteer. I vote. I have two patents from my IBM years that are supplementing my income right now. I am an audiophile and can repair stereo equipment. I have a love of architecture, style and design from the post war era til about 1974. I led a Boy Scout Troop for six years in an inner city, and have hiked some of the more majestic areas of Californias Sierras with this Troop. I am an avid camper, hiker and backpacker. I dance to Motown and soul music once a month at an all nighter here in Fresno. I don’t have a car, but I ride a Vespa scooter.
Ready. What’s my first step. No replies ever on dating sites. Asked several women out from my church and have been politely declined. Ask women to dance at the Motown all nighter, they are tired, have a boyfriend or are “just getting ready to leave”
Ready. What’s my first step. Let’s go.
Jason, I’m not doing that. I think you’re a good man with a good heart who I would have no problem introducing to my pretty Dutch cousins. You’re wrong that men’s behavior has zero influence on women’s response but that’s your view and you are entitled to it. Peace.
wait….wait! You all proved me wrong. I’m asking for help and now “I am not doing that”
and the usual ender “peace”
Reminds me of too many Christians I know who say “having problems? Oh, I’ll pray for you! Good day!”
Jason, I’m sorry if my comment came across as belittling, that’s not how I meant it. Frankly my life would have been a lot better without women in it. What you do is amazing: since most women are children, you’re contributions are at least 10x what I’ve seen from most single women. If men insist on having women in their lives, it’s important to have game to manage them, otherwise the culture, church and law allow them to destroy themselves and everything around them, including you. Since you are fortunate not to have a women in your life, game is not really a necessity for you.
To some of you who have been commenting above:
While I’m new here, and don’t set the rules, I’d like to offer some advice:
I know this site is not a women’s tea party or whatever, but I detect that some of you debating over “Game”, may be able to take some off topic advice on more general “people skills” to heart. I hope some of you are here to try to influence other people for good. (Dale Carnegie wrote a book on how to do that) While others may be here to vent their feelings and frustrations, and still others may actively take out their aggressions on others through their keyboard. (keyboard warriors… LOL)
I’m truly not the guy to be giving lessons on people skills, but here goes.
You’ll be much more likely to win people over to your side of an argument if you don’t:
1. Resort to name calling
2. Question people’s intelligence, sanity, cluelessness, comprehension, or try to publicly diagnose their dysfunction.
3. Characterize someone’s post or opinion as whining, crying, butt-hurt, Etc.
4. Try not to give offense or take offense too easily.
5. Tell others to leave the forum (like you own it)
6. Make arguments into personal attacks even when responding to a personal anecdote. We’re debating ideas not trying to one-up, or insult each other. Keep it theoretical when responding to somebody’s anecdote. You weren’t there, so you’ll never convince them that way anyhow. Their anecdote may even be fabricated for all you know.
My people have a saying; Argue long enough with a fool, and soon there are two!
Just state your point and your opinion, give your arguments and leave it for the other party to decide whether or not you’ve swayed their thinking.
My father used to say:
A man convinced against his will,
is of the same opinion still.
So, the more personal you make the argument become, the less likely you are to sway anybody, and you start looking petty, like you really do belong at the catty ladies’ tea party discussing people and not discussing ideas with the menfolk.
Also part of being Alpha, and game, and people skills, is not letting little jabs trigger you into blowing up. That is a sign of weakness. Also, sometimes it seems to validate a criticism. If somebody calls you stupid, and you really think you have to respond to make sure you’ve told people that you’re not really stupid. You’ve kind of dignified their accusation by giving it a response. In a way, it is kind of like a sh1t test. Best to ignore it entirely, or otherwise just laugh it off. Don’t be that guy who starts defending their IQ. Methinks the lady doth protest too much!
Jason,
I admire your conviction and the life you live now. If however you want to learn about game, check out Dalrock’s links and you can read all about it on the Man-O-sphere. Take the good and throw back the bad. Not all of it will work for you. Not all of it was even meant for you. You can change a lot of things without compromising your morals. I’m in the process of learning game myself. I’ve learned a lot of the theory, but making it habitual will take a lot of time and practice. In the end though it would be better to never find a mate, than to attract a bad one with the help of Game. So don’t worry either way. In spite of all the harsh words people have said, I think they all want what is best for you, There are just different ideas of what that is, and some are just a little hurt themselves and have difficulty not hurting others as they lash out at the world, and ultimately at God your creator, the one who told us all to love our neighbor as our selves, and even to love our enemies and pray for them.
Jason, you’re tall, slender, and not bad looking. No, you are not ugly.
You emit bad vibes. I don’t know what good or bad vibes feel like. But women do. From the way you talk, it seems women sense something about you they don’t like. But I doubt that it’s your looks.
I too emit bad vibes. I’ve dated, but not extensively. And I had to struggle to get the dates I got.
In my 20s, I had many attractive female friends. They enjoyed my company. I was funny. (I know this objectively, because in the 1990s, I won some awards for my TV comedy writing.) But I was mostly stuck orbiting in friend zones. Many attractive women liked me. But not as romantic material.
When I went on dates, it was usually a one time affair. She’d agree to a date. Then, upon closer examination, saw sensed my bad vibes. Was I too Beta? Too wimpy? Too respectful? Probably.
In retrospect, I see that I was guilty of the hoverhand (a word I only learned a few weeks ago). I was also guilty of overdoing it. Buying flowers on every first date. Planning restaurants and after dinner events (theater tickets, not just movies).
On very rare occasions, I’d “get lucky.” Usually with an aggressive bimbo, who’d make the first move sexually (because I never dared make the first move). I’d see her for a while, because she was available. I’d hope to improve her. Educate and guide her. But I’d always learn that she was seeing other men too. So I’d ghost her. I wanted a beautiful, devoted wife. But at best I was sharing bimbos with other men.
I was never able to emit the vibes needed to attract, a classy, intelligent, devoted woman. I think Game might have helped.
It’s obvious that you too, Jason, emit bad vibes. It’s not your looks. Certainly not your height. (I’m only 5’10”).
BillyS,
“I have seen a number of dating profiles where women say they want a man who is confident, but not arrogant. They fail to realize that those are really the same, the attraction to the man ultimately determines which they think it is.”
That is gold! May I have your permission to steal that and use it?
Pingback: An expert’s insight: Game is toxic to feminism
Game is like Capitalism. It can potentially work for most if they try, but not everyone can be a billionaire. Similarly not everyone can be an alpha and not everyone will cross the finish line at the same time.
Lol! The comments to this post still prove beyond all reason that many are still so hooked on that vagina that they make it their sole life purpose. Stop! Life is short, women are meaningless, stop putting effort into that, leave them alone. Focus on yourself and your life with Jesus.
Game is a word used by men to justify a need to contort themselves into a pretzel to please women. Do this! Do that! That’s all it is. You cannot keep that fake persona going for your whole life and at the end of the day, a woman will either like you or she won’t. However, game will get you in the door but will also be your demise once she realises you’re nothing but a dope and a con. Used to get one night stands, sure I can believe that. Used to get a wife….. sounds like a marriage built on sand.
Be yourself, there I said it… be who you are, don’t apologise for it, don’t second guess, don’t contort your core being to please others, don’t belittle yourself but instead build yourself up and stop caring what others think; you have to live your life and they must live their own.
Being your own person will build far more confidence and inner strength than using game could ever hope to achieve.
Married men will have to use game now that their wives have ultimate control over them and they know this, deep down they know, that they do it all because she’s the one in control and they dance to her tune and not their own.
Another post from my dialog with Dalrock,
It has some insights, seldom seen, essential for anyone interested in the gender wars. It opens with his brilliant insight that Game is toxic to chivalry and hence to feminism. I’ve never seen this said before Dalrock.
We sail in strange seas, without a map, without goals. Disaster is likely for America unless we do better.
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/03/19/dalrock-vital-insights-to-understand-gender-wars/
” I belong to three clubs. Two civic organizations. A church. I volunteer. I vote. I have two patents from my IBM years that are supplementing my income right now. I am an audiophile and can repair stereo equipment.”
You are probably a pretty organized guy. You probably are aware that you have only 168 hours per week. However many hours you are spending on fun social activities, you need to spend more- every week. Start hanging out with any women who are at least as old as college girls. Make sure that they are older than 18 or whatever the legal number is in your jurisdiction. Meet a lot of people, both male and female, but take note of the women. I don’t take notes on individual women, but I do take note of various social clubs and when they have parties.
From my limited experience, I guess you probably have a better chance meeting a woman at a fun event (such as a social club) than you do at church. (If you have patents, you might be noticeably older than the average nightclub visitor. Thus dancing might not be a good venue for you.) I notice that women are often relaxed and approachable when they are shopping, so you can take note of the strolling ladies who are spending money on silly things. From my limited experience, it’s all about meeting a large number of people and then spending a little more time with the people who are slightly compatible. PUAs claim that I am a “natural” because I have had success with women even though I never tried to use “Game.” I think PUAs are silly. I think people just have a natural tendency to meet people. I spend my hours, week after week, and a lot of those hours are spent in social circumstances.
I’m sure that you can get a woman. The only problem is that the happiness of romance is a short-term, fleeting happiness, and humans need long-term spiritual happiness more than they need short-term happiness.
Pingback: You can, on Infinity Chan: empathologism is right and dalrock is excessively censorious | vulture of critique
I have always found that the one place you cannot fail to pick up women is at weddings – was there not even a movie about this. No matter how hopeless your Game this is low-hanging fruit, either because the women are envious of the bride or as I suspect, because they are put into a romantic disposition by reason of the event itself. Unless you are very confident do not attempt to seduce the bride either before or after the ceremony.
@gaikokumaniakku says:
Please do.
Sharkly,
By all means.
RPL,
I thought I had a long term marriage, but I face the same situation you do, just with the damage of a long term marriage in the middle. Too many woman in my target age range are quite scarred and I don’t expect to find even a single one that is virtuous. I am almost guaranteed to not have a 30+ year marriage now, thanks to my exwife going her own way.
I agree with feministhater (although I don’t think women are meaningless) in that I just follow Jesus (imperfectly to be sure), and what women do is on them. Putting women on a pedestal is idolatry, and conforming your life around attracting and / or pleasing them is not wise.
What I’ve gathered over the years of reading the various opinions about this topic informs me that for a man to obey the teachings in the Bible he will already be applying concepts that I see attributed to game. The focus for the Christian man should be Christ, not game and certainly not women.
JDG, perhaps I should write that the ‘pursuit’ of women is meaningless. I agree that stating outright that they are meaningless in and of themselves is a step too far.
The legit pushback against game is that it is placing on individual men the burden that society used to hold.
All ancient societies around the globe figured out that the best way to deal with adulteresses and sociopathic individuals was exile and the death penalty. And we thought we could advance past it.
Game can work like a lifeboat in the storm and its better then trying to swim but a lifeboat isn’t a sailing ship. It can work while you hope for calm water (a unicorn woman) but long term the odds are stacked against it with each generation having more delayed marriages, more divorce, less happy marriages.
‘Otto. Game teachers you to be something you are not. Which contradicts the core principles of Christianity’
Christianity teaches us to be something we are not too. The bible is full of exhortations to be better.
God commanded us to go forth and multiply. It’s risky to ignore His commands, or use excuses.
I just set up a dating profile on a Christian dating website. It states I’m after a wife, a virgin, who will cover her head and not speak in church. I’m in England, 50 years old, born again 2 years ago. If a suitable Godly woman exists in this nation still, I’m sure God will send her my way, if not, I’ll try overseas. I’ve learned about game, it’s useful in all human interactions, not just with women. It’s also essential for me when they are married I believe.
@JDG
Your approach of the problem assumes that I am wrong about:
1) Christians (like the rest of the culture) seeing men’s sexiness as the test of their virtue.
2) Christians (like the rest of the culture) believing that chivalry is sexy.
3) Christians (like the rest of the culture) believing that chivalry is therefore good (the logical outcome of 1&2).
You may disagree with these points, and I would be very interested in your explanation if so. But I suspect you don’t really disagree with points 1, 2, & 3 but merely are proceeding as if 1&2 didn’t exist. For if they are true, then we very much need to deal with the question of what is sexy, and whether it indicates that a man is good.
Game on! Play this game, stay on that broad road and ignore the narrow gate.
So, if Jason (the Secret King) has it all figured out, why are you spending post after succeeding post crying about it?
What GAME has taught me in these last 2 years and 2 months. (Remember Gents’ I was shell shocked “blue piller” when I showed up here.)
1. I put my wife on a pedestal (I had a false Idol before Christ)
2. I put her feelz before reality (I wasn’t serving God with all my heart, I was serving her whims)
3. I didn’t watch what she did, but what she said, I married a woman with lots of RED FLAGS (Proverbs has lots on things a fool says vs does)
4. AWALT, she just said to me last week, “Why don’t you have an affair so I can divorce you!” – (Remember Job, and what his woman said to him when the devil brought him low?)
5. I wasn’t taking care of myself, too busy taking care of others – How can a man show Christ if he’s a glutton who can’t even take care of simple responsibilities like keeping his house in order.
I actually now “notice” that women notice me, and how much of a “weaker vessel” they actually are. But I DON’T CARE (Though I will admit, it’s a bit of a ego stroke, still doesn’t feel as good as pulling 375lbs for reps on a deadlift)
Do I have Game, eah, what I have is a Bible and the wisdom now to actually follow it, if the world calls it Game now, whatever. – I’m a going to live my life to Christ, not my wife’s (or any woman’s) heart/tingles.
Jer 17:9
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?
Thanks to all you Brother’s out there in ether, I can now tell my wife “NO” and mean it.
Pingback: Getting Away with Divorce | Things that We have Heard and Known
I’m pretty sure Jason is a closeted homosexual.
I could be jealous and grasping with greed
I could pretend that I want something I don’t need
These are the things that go through my head
But then, I could be an angel disguised as a man
I could be the sun that shines in the midnight land
If you would only stand in my corner
Give that advantage to me
Don’t you feel something?
You know what I’m thinking but
I can’t set it free
We must
Play this game, take the prize
But not before you realize
That win or lose, it’s all the same
Then maybe we can play this game
Play This Game, Utopia (Todd Rundgren)
Game is a little bit like the Loch Ness Monster. Every one talks of Nessie but when asked to provide evidence of Nessie’s existence and way of life no evidence is forthcoming, but what we do get is a lot of anger and insult as well as one very grainy photograph. The same is true of Game and with a grainy photo of some woman alleged to be a solid ten with whom the Game proponent allegedly scored.
Jesus never said blessed are the Game-makers although if Game exists I have to say he would have been rather good at it – he did have some good lines. Which reminds me, a new movie opened here last Friday entitled Mary Magdelene. I learned of it whilst reading my copy of The War Cry which purports to be a Christian newspaper and where the eponymous heroine is described as the first feminist which is obviously meant to be a good thing. Expect exhortation to Jesus to man-up and marry that slut and with steamy but ruined sex-scenes. Something like The Thorn Birds I would guess. Spoiler alert: it is not a happy ending (for MM) and at the end of the movie she surely becomes the first suffragette seeking votes for women in first century Palestine as well as an end to the wage-gap. Or have I go the wrong Mary?
Happy St. Joseph’s Day
Today, at Mass the Priest admonished the women present to obey their husbands, just as Mary was obedient to Joseph.
Very refreshing to hear.
Dalrock – must say I am confused by this post to say the least. Are you actually saying you don’t believe in TRP/Game concepts and really believe no fault divorce and alimony are good things?
I did not realize it was April 1st yet…must be I missed something on the switch to Daylight Savings time.
I think it’s quite clear that it’s a parody of the culture, especially the church, and how it views game through the feminist lens..
People like Heartiste have a fantasy that the full realization of hypergamy means top ranking alpha cads will enjoy all the poon, while Beta incels turn to sexbots. That’s not going to happen, instead, the {pound}metoo campaign will eventually target alpha pump-and-dumpers as rapists because they got alpha-widowed. And actually it’s not “widowed” it literally dumped. That sting is not going away. Riding the carousel and landing a provider Beta when the wall approaches won’t be good enough. The wahmen want alpha tingles AND the provisioning and status a successful alpha has. An entitled SIW believes she *deserves* that alpha to wife her shit up. If both tingles and provisioning aren’t satisfied to their liking, their fury will target higher and higher tiers. This all depends of course on there being sufficient quantity of hopeful white knights in waiting, waiting for scraps of poon for helping Mi’Lady, and autistic nerds who keep the infrastructure afloat, satiated by online anime porn.
No, it all ends in the deaths of tens or hundreds of millions of men. Alphas won’t be protected or spared either.
Mary should be the model for women…she followed the will of God and her husband.
Joseph is one of the top examples for men…he followed the will of God as well.
Game is a little bit like the Loch Ness Monster. Every one talks of Nessie but when asked to provide evidence of Nessie’s existence and way of life no evidence is forthcoming,
Hmmm, someone needs to tell Athol Kay to shut down his quite successful operation, then.
@DR Smith
I’m saying that the fears are correct. Game really is a threat to our values and our sense of virtue. Our values are:
1) A man’s virtue is measured by his ability to generate sexual attraction.
2) A woman’s virtue is measured by her ability to “be true to herself”, or as every girl in the west can sing along “No right, no wrong, no rules for me”.
We also assume that chivalry is sexy, and therefore virtuous (per assumption 1 above). Assuming chivalry is virtuous is essential, because chivalry is what converts feminist complaints in to action. Without chivalry women wouldn’t be free to adopt a “No right, no wrong, no rules for me” attitude.
These things aren’t Christian, they are the ideas that evicted Christian thinking from our minds. Our whole concept of virtue is wicked and anti Christian. The sooner we reject this wickedness the better.
I’ve been following this comment thread with great interest, even the several fights that are going on in various corners. Just a brief history of my fling with game, as a single Christian man, getting nowhere toward marriage, I stumbled upon the alt.seduction forums and have followed the rise and fall of PUA over the years. (Return of Kings did an article on it, which traces the history of PUA exactly as I remember it to be.)
I have no empirical way to prove that it worked for me, or does now as a married man. Here I mean some of the techniques like cocky and funny, and treating her like your kid sister when she’s trying to tell you what to do. For sure, I find the techniques in game necessary, and this is what I reach for in many situations. Over the years, PUA, or the bloggers writing about it, began to take on other aspects, like learning to be self-employed and trying alpha behaviors in all areas of your life. And, for me, it involved going from learning what an “average frustrated chump” was, and then this term was replaced by the wider concept of what blue pill conditioning is, and how that conditioning has been all-pervasive and from all angles and from all persons in my life growing up. For me, this is where reading about game began to benefit me much more, when people started writing and talking about this stuff.
I’m not really sure if what I’m reading now is about game, per se, because I don’t read Krauser, and I only occasionally read some of the other PUA writers, like Roosh, if the topic is interesting. I am more interested in anything that calls out blue pill conditioning and churchianity and women’s behavior, so I can learn and survive, in the sense of knowledge is power. All of these topics directly affect me.
I know I’ve been a bit random and wandering in my comment here, I’m trying to respond to a lot of what I read above in the comments, but speaking about it in terms of my own life and experience.
I agree in theory, disagree in practice.
Game has helped many men awake to the brainwashing that feminism, single mothers, female teachers and college marxists have been using to indoctrinate men.
I used the teachings of game in my long term relationship before I got married. They work. Heartiste for example has rules including: “Don’t play by her rules” or “Say you’re sorry only when absolutely necessary” or “Maintain your state control”. https://heartiste.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/
Some of these rules are only good for tearing down relationships such as “Always keep two in the kitty”, but others are basic rules for keeping a woman happy in a LTR. I know. I’ve used them.
So let’s not be so quick to tear game down – like most tools in the toolbox, it has specific applications that it is good for.
Burner Prime says:
Admittedly I haven’t really read Heartiste for quite some time. However, my impression from reading him fairly regularly in 2009 and 2010 was that he felt that we are in a golden age for PUAs, but that (as you argue) this golden age required a specific balance of chaos and order, and he worried that we were moving to the side of too much chaos. I’ve always read Heartiste as a parasite concerned for the health of his host.
Dalrock,
Your approach of the problem assumes that I am wrong about:
1) Christians (like the rest of the culture) seeing men’s sexiness as the test of their virtue.
2) Christians (like the rest of the culture) believing that chivalry is sexy.
3) Christians (like the rest of the culture) believing that chivalry is therefore good (the logical outcome of 1&2).
You may disagree with these points, and I would be very interested in your explanation if so. But I suspect you don’t really disagree with points 1, 2, & 3 but merely are proceeding as if 1&2 didn’t exist. For if they are true, then we very much need to deal with the question of what is sexy, and whether it indicates that a man is good.
When I wrote what I wrote I wasn’t thinking about whether or not you were wrong or right. I guess I’m too dense to see how what you wrote and what I wrote are at odds. I do agree, however, that we very much need to deal with the question of what is sexy.
What exactly is sexiness and why exactly should a Christian value it at all?
I believe that what the enlightened people of modernity refer to as sexiness is nothing but the pursuit of carnal desires aligned with the notion that those carnal desires are somehow trust worthy and valuable.
Sexy is when the girl at school, work, or at the grocery store wear’s a low cut shirt to show off her cleavage, and tight jeans with high heels to accentuate her butt.
Sexy (to some people I guess) is when the female talking heads at Fox News wear tight dresses and have to cross their legs so the world won’t see their panties.
Sexy is when Magnum PI takes off his shirt (at least according to an old girl friend back in the day).
Sexy is when Salma Hayek dances on top of a table in a dingy bar in Mexico.
When exactly IS sexy a good thing?
What ever the answer is, if it IS a good thing, I’ll bet its something I would not refer to as sexy. To me sexy sounds more like vanity, something more akin to Jezebel than Christianity.
In summary:
1) Sad but true as the Wilson’s and Moler’s have shown us; however my argument is that following the teachings in the Bible negates this. No one anywhere can present Bible passages that support the erroneous teachings about women, men, and chivalry that are popular in churches today.
2) Same as point 1.
3) A false conclusion on the part of many Christians made from erroneous teachings not supported in scripture.
Please feel free to explain to me why my view is incorrect and why any Bible believing Christian should count sexiness as anything other than a distraction at best and sinful at worst.
The maintaining frame, self-improvement, and learning more about the true nature of women part of ‘game’ is good. I wouldn’t even really call that game…it should be more common sense or the retort to the feminist brainwashing most of us got.
The PUA and manipulation to get women in bed is the bad. Especially now that woman’s consent can be retracted retroactively because she feels different and the definition of rape has been so watered down.
The worst part of feminism is that is has subsequently attacked the good parts of sexuality in both masculinity and femininty….and replaced it with basically immorality and calls that ‘equality’.
Weaken men and have women take more control over men…and we wonder why most people are unhappy. It’s not what we were created to do.
Maybe Christianity (rather Churchianity) “jumped the shark” when meekness implied weakness. The original meaning of meek never had the connotation as weakness. But, the original Greek meant more like humility or tempering ones natural strength.
One wasn’t meek because they were a simpering white knight. Instead, it meant the mercy of a knight who could behead one with a single stroke of his sword. Remember, Jesus mentioned he could unleash 12 legions of angels. Why didn’t he?
Please feel free to explain to me why my view is incorrect and why any Bible believing Christian should count sexiness as anything other than a distraction at best and sinful at worst.
I have a hard time reading Song of Solomon and not thinking that physical attraction (ie, sexiness, perhaps) is a vital part of the equation.
@JDG
The problem we have is that the values I’m talking about are so universal they aren’t even acknowledged. Everyone just “knows”. Have you ever heard a Christian object to the message in Fireproof, that the way we finally knew Caleb was a good man was his wife’s feelings of romantic love/sexual attraction moved from the doctor she was pursuing an affair with back to Caleb? Just in case some viewers might have otherwise missed this moral, the movie included a (feelgood!) scene early on where Caleb vows to fight the doctor for his wife’s heart. We are obsessed with sexual attraction, and it has perverted our very sense of Christianity. Saying sexual attraction isn’t important makes no sense with this in mind. We have to deal with the unspoken beliefs. We have to talk about it.
There are plenty of people who are not sexy and never could be sexy no matter what they do. The Song of Solomon is about a King and his lover, pure infatuation between two very good looking people. It’s not a life manual.
@ JDG
“When exactly IS sexy a good thing?”
When a husband and wife have the hots for each other.
Maybe the Muslims have it right. Romance is from the devil. That’s why they burn Valentine’s Day cards and flog people who celebrate it.
https://www.islamweb.net/en/article/142698/why-do-we-muslims-not-celebrate-valentines-day
JDG,
The Bible says very little on specific things covered by game. How many times a day is the Scriptural command to brush your teeth? Which deodorant to use?
What about not blabbing your own situation too much? Not pedestalizing women? (That is present, but very indirectly.) Not to share “too much” with your wife? It is not all directly covered in the Scriptures.
Ah, so you believe sexiness is next to Godliness?
‘Why the movie “Fireproof” offers unbiblical and BAD marriage advice’
https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2016/04/17/why-the-movie-fireproof-offers-unbiblical-and-bad-marriage-advice/
‘Most Christian reviewers of the movie as well as the people who produced the movie itself want your primary focus to be on Caleb’s wrong behavior and not Catherine’s. There is only one small scene in the movie where a Christian nurse confronts Catherine’s sinful emotional affair with a doctor at the hospital. Catherine’s behavior is seen simply as a wife’s natural reaction to a mean and self-centered husband and we are supposed to believe Caleb’s behavior came out of thin air.’
“Ready. What’s my first step. Let’s go.”
Ditch the narcissism. Your job is to spark attraction, to perform. To seal the deal, you need to learn how to proceed without scaring the cat.
Your personality is deficient, so you will need to deemphasize that and work on developing something easier. Muscles.
Step one: Muscle. (Protein. Lift. Get big. Really big. See a cool endocrinologist, if needed. Buy a fitted vee-neck and jeans. Cool boots, haircut.)
Step two: Shut up. (You are a supporting actor in her movie. She gets the scenes. You are the writer, producer, and director; she is the star. She follows your direction, but the attention and adulation are hers. She needs to feel horny, excited, a little nervous, and desired. The more you talk, the drier she’ll get, until you lose.)
Step three: Rave. Utz utz utz… Bitch I don’t need introduction / Follow my simple instruction… “Hey. Nice [sharpie eyebrows]. Dance with me.” Utz utz utz… (If you are big, and she is feeling you, she will get close. Whoops, she just brushed your [massive pecs]. Let her touch you. Touch her back. Happy, confident, sexual vibes.)
Step four: Rollercoaster. “You smoke?” Take her outside. “You ever do a wheelie on a Vespa? C’mon…” Zoom around, be stupid, fun.
Step five: Bounce. “I have to let my [pet alpaca] out. His name is [Vladimir Smoochin]. My place is over there, the next block. You wanna meet him?”
Step six: Close. Sit close together on your murphy bed with your [vintage wine coolers] in hand. Say: “[Vladimir Smoochin] and I just got back from [basejumping] at [Area 51]. I GoPro’ed and uploaded it to [Worldstar]. Check this out, I bet you’ve never seen a [llama] [tazed] by [military police] before…” Live, laugh, love, touch her, kiss her. Nature takes over her onetrackmind.
There you go. Iterate steps three through six with minor adjustments until you make the beast with two backs. Success! You sustained a demonstration of sexual fitness and interest from introductions through to copulation. Like most human endeavour, it is pretty formulaic. You needed to meet the prerequisites, you showed up, then you didn’t fuck up.
You didn’t lose “the game.”
He lost. He will make refinements. He will try again.
But this isn’t for you. If you wanted it, you’d be doing it already. When junkie wants to get off, nothing gets in his way. You say you want to get off, but something is getting your way. You don’t want to fornicate badly enough.
Instead, you want to complain to random assholes on the internet about not fornicating.
You should stick to your strengths: sobriety and humbly glorifying God. That’s cool, even if you are unsatisfied. (You will never be satisfied until the end.)
@ feministhater says:
“Ah, so you believe sexiness is next to Godliness?”
No.
It’s a perfect valid question Oscar but evade again. Cathy Strawmans are the next ‘catch all’ arguments for those that cannot do the work themselves. Poor form.
Sexiness is not good, it just is. Attraction isn’t good, it just is. None of these things will bring you closer to God. Not one. If you want to self-improve, go for it, cannot fault anyone for doing such. Just be sure to realize who you do it for.
Today, at Mass the Priest admonished the women present to obey their husbands, just as Mary was obedient to Joseph.
I’ve seen a few priests like that turn up once in a while. They don’t seem to be afraid. A friend of mine was attending pre-marriage counseling with his priest when his future wife confessed that a major concern of hers was not having as much access and contact with her existing circle of (outspoken feminist) girlfriends. The priest flat out told her that her main concern would now be her husband and that those women would have to take a back seat and like it. They have three great, thriving kids now. My friend runs a happy ship. They really have a lot of fun. But there is only one captain.
@ feministhater says:
March 19, 2018 at 1:23 pm
“Sexiness is not good, it just is. Attraction isn’t good, it just is. None of these things will bring you closer to God.”
Which is why I’ve never said they would.
Marquess…
Great. Thank you. Will do exactly what you say. You can’t soul step in boots though (dancing) will have to stick to the shoes.
As for being a junkie. I was one. You made a broad staement, but since I was one…..and I don’t know jack, have a personality disorder, am nacissistic, won’t shut-up….my experience here means nothing since you all know Game and are masters…….I’ll take your word for it about being a junkie. My experience as one was obviously incorrect.
Personality is decifient. Yeah it is. Thank you for reminding me. Complain to random “assholes” on the Internet. Gotcha. Will never complain again. I will just nod and agree with what anyone says on here. Thank you for putting me right.
Muscles. I suppose that would take some time. Since everyone on here is an expert on Game, and has huge muslces and works out daily, I would appreciate suggestions on how to do this. I am not joining a gym. I know a guy with a hunting cabin up the lower Sierras. I base there when I go camping and hiking. Would spiitting wood suffice? A few days a week?
When I find a woman I want, if I don’t speak. Can’t ask her to dance…….she is supposed to be just turned on because I ooze Game? Give some more info here if you could.
I don’t drink…..so the vintage wine coolers are out. Never drank that stuff anyway even when I was a drunk. What would be something to offer her instead? I drink Pepsi. I have bottled water in the house. I drink tea. I have a jump seat on my Vespa…but I don’t usually carry an extra helmet (California has a helmet law). I would not have enough room for various sized helmets because all humans have a variable sized craninum…….would it be considered “f*cking up” if I got her on the Scooter and the helmet I brought didn’t fit? We would have Uber or walk to my place then…….would that be in bad form?
Small talk. If I have a personality disorder, the more I talk, the more she “dries up” what do I say? What do I ask? How do I express myself? You guys have all the answers here. Tell me exactly what to do so when I do, you cannot say “oh, you didn’t follow excatly what I said”
I am being serious here.
Dalrock…..really man? I said “failed to compel”. I made no existential claims nor will I about game. I couldn’t care less if game exists or does not exist or if it is blended with peanut butter it becomes the next best thing. I need no introduction to the form of argumentation you’ve deployed. Therefore that I am invited to a provability challenge is completely out of whack. Peace….
AWALT, she just said to me last week, “Why don’t you have an affair so I can divorce you!”
Beware. When a wife starts saying things like this, it means:
–she is already having an affair.
–she’s having an emotional affair.
–She’s got a man picked out to have an affair with.
Either way, she desperately wants you to kill the puppy so she doesn’t have to. So she can say you are the bad guy who torpedoed your marriage. When a woman is saying things like this, openly fantasizing about divorce, here’s what you do:
“Wife, the next time you mention divorce to me, you had better present to me a divorce petition. If you don’t, I will. I will hire a lawyer and have a petition and papers drawn up. Put up or shut up. You want a divorce? Go do it. If you don’t, I will.”
White Guy, I remember your posts. Your marriage is too stressed to survive, IMO. She’s already divorced you in her mind and heart. She’s probably already cheating, or wants to so badly she can taste it. Go see a lawyer now. Go bury the puppy, because frankly it’s dead already.
Dalrock,
The problem we have is that the values I’m talking about are so universal they aren’t even acknowledged. Everyone just “knows”.
Well, not everyone. However I get your point. It may as well be everyone. Yet at the church I attend these erroneous values have been spoken against from the pulpit for several years now*, so I’m not alone on this island I’m defending.
Have you ever heard a Christian object to the message in Fireproof, that the way we finally knew Caleb was a good man was his wife’s feelings of romantic love/sexual attraction moved from the doctor she was pursuing an affair with back to Caleb?
Yes (that movie is appalling), but I can count those men on one hand (including one pastor). I myself have pointed out the wife’s adulteress maneuverings in multiple public and church settings with mixed reactions.
We are obsessed with sexual attraction, and it has perverted our very sense of Christianity.
Yes we are and it has, but some of us are striving against this in ways that we can. We actually hold women’s feet to the fire along with the men. Sorry ladies, no accountability free rides here. Yes many have left the church because of it, but the families that remained are stronger for it.
So during my conversations when there is even a hint of applying value to sexiness (let alone using it to measure a man’s worth), I point out what Christ has told us to value.
I should also point out that you have given me much of the ammo that I have used over the years. Your gift for articulation is praiseworthy, and you catch details that I often miss.
* We have recently changed pastors so I will have to let you know how things go from here.
@jason
If you truly believe that only maxing out your looks matter, then why don’t you walk the talk and put yourself there? Zyzz was a guy who believed as you did and went the full 100 yards, blasting steroids, getting surgery, tats and did everything in his power available to look good.
(delete link if it’s not allowed on the blog) https://i1.ytimg.com/vi/bUA-lkHwiw8/0.jpg
Now granted, Zyzz died a young hedonistic death, but you don’t have to go quite that far. He did also get laid a lot, which as Dalrock says, makes him a ””modern”” folk hero. We have surgeons who can turn women into men (skin deep), and the body building community has the biggest cheat guides in the world. Again, if you truly believe the world is about looks and appearance, do it. Save up money for it. Don’t just get trapped in self pity; do it or do not and don’t look back with any regret.
@ray
You are advocating weakness in men and calling it strength. Blessed are the meek, which I have heard is also translated as those who could brandish their weapons but choose to keep them sheathed. A man being faithful to his wife is only meaningful if he could realistically sleep around with 100 women, so a man with game who stays virtuous is a big deal while a cuck who purposefully keeps himself ignorant about game as well as hygene and body health staying single is not only meaningless, it’s pathetic.
Teach men to game, teach men to fight, teach them to be dangerous. Don’t defang them like a luxury cat and then call the cat well behaved when it doesn’t scratch the furniture. It never had a choice. You are like that cat owner, defanging men with blue-pilled beliefs so they never stood a chance and calling them virtuous for their ignoble defeats.
Okay Emery. I will look into that and consider it. Than you for your good advice
scar says:
March 19, 2018 at 12:54 pm
@ JDG
“When exactly IS sexy a good thing?”
When a husband and wife have the hots for each other.
Well at least the context for sex is where it belongs, so I’ll concede you the point.
BillyS says:
March 19, 2018 at 12:59 pm
JDG,
The focus for the Christian man should be Christ, not game and certainly not women.
The Bible says very little on specific things covered by game. How many times a day is the Scriptural command to brush your teeth? Which deodorant to use?
What about not blabbing your own situation too much? Not pedestalizing women? (That is present, but very indirectly.) Not to share “too much” with your wife? It is not all directly covered in the Scriptures..
Billy I’m not sure how what you wrote pertains to what I wrote other than we both said the words Bible, game and women.
Sorry about the do over:
Oscar says:
March 19, 2018 at 12:54 pm
@ JDG
“When exactly IS sexy a good thing?”
When a husband and wife have the hots for each other.
Well at least the context for sex is where it belongs, so I’ll concede you the point.
BillyS says:
March 19, 2018 at 12:59 pm
JDG,
The focus for the Christian man should be Christ, not game and certainly not women.
The Bible says very little on specific things covered by game. How many times a day is the Scriptural command to brush your teeth? Which deodorant to use?
What about not blabbing your own situation too much? Not pedestalizing women? (That is present, but very indirectly.) Not to share “too much” with your wife? It is not all directly covered in the Scriptures..
Billy I’m not sure how what you wrote pertains to what I wrote other than we both wrote the words Bible, game and women.
Okay, somethings seems to be wrong. I remember putting the appropriate tags.
Oh wait, I copied and pasted to correct and forgot that the tags didn’t copy. Oh well. Apologies again.
Deti,
I think your right, (though with her being 70lbs overweight and 48 yrs old it might be hard to branch swing)
As I was driving to work this morning I thought I can’t live like this for another 20yrs, something has got to change.
She’s looking to jump ship I think. She’s gained access to the document safe (to make an inventory) – She’s always had the combo, just couldn’t figure out how to get in, so of course I showed her how to open it (ha! who’s the fool now!). What really took the cake was last week, 20 minutes post sex she asks for the combo to the gun safe! NOW WAY JOSE! Even in my weakened state I asked why, got a question for an answer. (Thank you Lord for the story of Samson). Didn’t give her the combo, but showed her inside, which she quickly made an inventory, of course…
Gonna change the combo on the document safe here as soon as I can.
I’m really convinced that she’s somewhere on the BPD scale. We are going to MC, she is in Therapy as well, it’s helping a little, but DAMN!
A couple of times she’s come across as delusional, and has done some pretty ‘crazy’ stuff in the last 2 years.
Just bought the book Splitting and have been documenting all the insanity (as best as I can recall) over the last 2 years. Trying to play it really cool for now.
@ Dalrock
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html
This seems right up your alley.
White Guy, start hiding money overseas. I’m not an expert on this. But it seems wise for any man to have an overseas escape route planned. Money, passport, foreign citizenship ready.
I recently learned that if one’s parents were born in an EU country, it’s fairly easy to get an EU passport, even if you were born in the U.S. At least that’s the rule in some EU countries. Jews, of course, can always get an Israeli passport. And some poorer Third World countries essentially sell passports if you’re wealthy enough.
@ JDG
“Well at least the context for sex is where it belongs, so I’ll concede you the point.”
Exactly. Marriage sanctifies sex.
The smart guys I know used instruments such as prenups, trusts, and corporations to minimize what the frivorcing female can legally access (both in the marriage and also in the subsequent divorce). But these things need to be set up ahead of time, depending on the instrument, even a couple of years before a marriage. Trying to hide assets leading up to divorce can get you in a whole host of legal trouble.
Community property states require a 50-50 split of all “marital assets,” which includes any and all assets acquired by either spouse during the marriage. Money and assets you had before the marriage aren’t included in a community property split unless you “comingled” or mixed them with marital assets.
Which is why these guys had it all set up correctly in advance a couple years before they put the marriage gun to their head and pulled the trigger and then did not comingle.
Hence the question. Clarification is important. I don’t know what you think, I can only but ask. However, you said that sexy is good when it’s between two married people. My question was really about how far you were willing to take that. Cleanliness is next to Godliness, in other words, really, really good to be clean, both spiritually and physically. It adds to your chances of going to heaven.
Sexy isn’t the same. Sexy is purely of the physical realm. A mere tingle that dissipates into nothingness, it does not cleanse you, it does not provide anything good for your soul. It’s positive factors are an enhancement to your earthly life, like wealth or status. No doubt about that. Are wealth or status good? Of course, for your life they are amazing, a boon, they make you feel great, on top of the world. However, for your soul? No, they are merely part and parcel of earthly life.
Sure but it doesn’t sanctify ‘sexy’. Sexy can happen inside and outside of marriage, it is superfluous as a determining factor as to what is good and what is bad.
Stop obsessing about sexy.
Chivalry was generally intended to be reciprocal. Most women don’t even know what chivalry is, anymore. Thus, it is not really applicable (at least, for the time being). The same notion extends to marriage: it is also supposed to be reciprocal, but is not treated as such (in general). The reality remains (and this has been noted in writing back to at least 3000 BC), that one cannot (and should not) comply with all demands of a wife.
Those with the “gift of celibacy” really do have a gift, especially in today’s world.
@Red Pill Latecomer
All of this exists on a distribution. Men and women exist on distributions. The applicability of Game depends on a large number of factors. Some women require little Game at all, some require large amounts. Some techniques will only work on some women. Some men naturally care little about what women think of them or their actions – I know a few who have never heard of Game and yet apply the basic principles without realizing it. Other men need to be coached through it (again, and again, and again…).
That’s why [Muslims] burn Valentine’s Day cards and flog people who celebrate it.
One need not be a fundamentalist Muslim to despise what Vagintine’s Day has mutated into, or to see it for the selfish temporal evil that it is.
Sure but it doesn’t sanctify ‘sexy’. Sexy can happen inside and outside of marriage, it is superfluous as a determining factor as to what is good and what is bad.
feministhater that’s a good point as well.
@Looking Glass
Or rather, nice is not good.
MarcusD says:
March 19, 2018 at 5:28 pm
“Chivalry was generally intended to be reciprocal. Most women don’t even know what chivalry is, anymore. Thus, it is not really applicable (at least, for the time being). The same notion extends to marriage: it is also supposed to be reciprocal, but is not treated as such (in general). The reality remains (and this has been noted in writing back to at least 3000 BC), that one cannot (and should not) comply with all demands of a wife.”
Agreed on all counts. From the second section of Roger Devlin’s article “Home Economics”:
“As a counterpiece to the sexual-extortion model, one might easily limn an analogously one-sided, exclusively economic model of marriage, somewhat as follows: a stepmotherly Nature forces men who wish to procreate to purchase a highly fuel-inefficient incubator. Sometimes it turns out to be infertile, but even then it cannot be traded in or returned. One can never even be completely sure the children it produces are his.
That ungallant interpretation of marriage is not an invention of my own misogynistic pen. Something very like it can be found in a host of ancient and medieval writers. The following is taken from the Hippolytus of Euripides:
Women! This coin which men find counterfeit! Why, Lord Zeus, did you put them in the light of the sun? If you were so determined to breed the race of man, the source of it should not have been women: so might we have lived in houses free of the taint of women’s presence. But now, to bring this plague into our homes we drain our fortunes. The father who begets her must add a dowry gift to pack her off to another’s house and be rid of the load. And he that takes the cursed creature enriches his heart’s jewel with dear adornment, beauty heaped on vileness. With lovely clothes the poor wretch tricks her out, spending the wealth that underprops his house….
The passage continues, but you get the idea.”
Oh, and Valentine’s Day? That’s the holiday most men wish would be moved to February 29th. (The day Halley’s Comet returns, which is every 75 years, would be even better IMO.)
I’ve always ignored it.
Interestingly, that’s actually also a step in the wrong direction.
Jason says:
March 19, 2018 at 2:54 pm
Marquess…
Great. Thank you. Will do exactly what you say.
Jason: Don’t ever take advice from a woman on how to get women.They lie.
First she called you narcissist. I don’t think that’s true.
Two people have recommended steroids. NO It’s destroys your natural ability to make testosterone,something you need to live.
Do you have any idea what steroids do to your blood? It’s NOT GOOD.
If you want to live past 50 don’t do steroids.
She told you to shut up? Hells no, she should.
I would say eat a lot and lift moderate weight a lot of times.Do NOT lift heavy,this will cause damage.
Get some flash,dress smartly,learn to spin a tale of bullshit.
The problem today is women are running the game,they get approached every day multiple times.
They have become contentious and unpleasable. They know THEY have the Power,all they have to do to totally dominate your ass is to pick up the phone and say three little words;
“I feel unsafe.”
Then your ass goes away.
That’s where the Power is.
The fact is: The Game is not winnable.The only way to win is not play.
Find what makes you happy other then women and run with that.
Why lose your health and fortune on a FOOLS ERRAND?
Really I grow weary of the posters that say game will cure everything and the common cold.
What it does it set about a strong delusion in man’s mind that he is actually in control of the situation when he is not.
Like nailing down a throttle pedal on a car and saying; “Hey enjoy the ride!”
I know, I know,these guys mean well trying to save The future,but women have decided men are not to be a part of that future.
The future is female and you are not invited.
In fact you are an obstacle to be removed by any means.
Take the high road and avoid destruction.
The wise man saw danger and avoided it,the fool rushed in and perished.
(sorta biblical)
White washed tombs,yes that was it,tombs of delusional ideas. DEAD IDEAS that kill souls.
That’s what Christ was talking about.
Jason,
I do think you need to change things up a bit. For your own happiness. Don’t worry about women unless you want to. Just to be happy.
As someone else mentioned, maybe there’s something in your interactions with others that is sending bad signals. Doesn’t make you a bad person. Some people radiate lack of confidence, anger, and it can all be a mistake, just mistaken bad signals that they send out when that’s not who they really are. I was married to a liar, but boy did she know how to market herself. No one could tell. You don’t have to be like her, but if you were trying to get a new job, sent out 100 resumes, and weren’t getting a nibble, it’s likely time to re-write the resume so it presents a better picture of the real you.
Maybe, to keep things positive, think of any warm moments of any type you’ve had with people, moments where you’ve felt most at ease as an adult. Change things up and find something to build on.
As far as the Game stuff goes, you or anyone would be lucky if more than 2% applies to your situation. I have never tried picking up women in bars because I’m never at ease there. I am easily embarrassed/ashamed so I hardly ever approach anyway. I really need to focus on making myself comfortable and putting myself in the best possible situations. Not enough time in life to go down all of these other paths that I have failed at already. If you wish, you can consider something similar for yourself.
Yoiu know freebird….
I was wrong. Got myslef all worked up yesterday……..and I was wrong and have always been wrong. Always wrong in everything in my life. Gor the wrong degree. Should have been an architect. Got the wrong genes. Got the wrong personality. Had a wrong upbringing……..my parents were married and had a GOOD marriage…horribly wrong today.
Everyone on here yesterday: Game will change everything. You must learn game. Game is this. Game is that. Game helps. Game is not PUA, but it can be or is some sort of subset of it. Game fixes. Game can change this or that. Get a wingman. You are stupid. Quit whining. Game will make you get women.
Most of these men are practicing Christians. All these men got sex, were or are married. Have had a solid dating life or a variety of experiences with women. Here I am at fifty. A FREAKING LOSER on all levels. Life passed me by with women. But Game doesn’t care, all you have to do is learn Game and it will fix it. You will get dates, women, sex. Many posters here have bragged about howe many women they have bedded because of it. They were forgiven. They are Christian now. No bolts of lightening struck them down.
I’m tired of being talked down to,. I wish I was smarter. Some of the high flautuin stuff that is discussed here in this forum is WAY over my head. I wish it wasn’t.
What am I supposed to do? Sit here and feel like jr high all over again while the popular kids (you guys) talk about women. Game. sex. dating….and I’m given the pat on the back “oh there there, you have to learn Game…but you have such a great heart”
That’s just like telling a fat girl she has a “great personality”
You all talk it like its the end all be all here. You all know. You’re all “that”
Then put up, of STFU and help me. Teach me.
@ feministhater
“I don’t know what you think, I can only but ask.”
Step 1 to understanding what another person thinks: stop acting like Cathy Newman. For example.
“Sexy can happen inside and outside of marriage, it is superfluous as a determining factor as to what is good and what is bad.”
I never stated that sexy is a determining factor as to what is good and what is bad. Whenever you’re done playing with your straw men, let me know.
By the way…
“Cleanliness is next to Godliness, in other words, really, really good to be clean, both spiritually and physically. It adds to your chances of going to heaven.”
That’s not how salvation works.
@ Jason
As I stated much earlier, I’m ambivalent about “game” (whatever that means), so I can’t help you there. However – and this is a sincere question – what do you want from life from this point forward?
I want sex. Not from a prostitute. I can be forgiven, everyone Christian seems to be who has had premarital sex.
Jason,
Yes, you can be forgiven, but you know that the only godly way to obtain sex is through marriage. To help you obtain it from any other source would, therefore, also be a sin. Sorry, brother. I can’t help you there. You’ll have to talk to the gamers.
Then help me get a wife. Date. I love how when “i” want something, out come the Holier Than Thou aspects…..but when you all did it…..god forgave you, and it was “you know, okay….a sin…but I was forgiven”
Put up or shut up here men. Replies of: Men must learn Game. I’m now asking. I admitted I was wrong. Totally wrong…….and its “i can’t help you” or “that is a sin” or you have to ask someone else.
You all wore me down hard yesterday. In prayer last night it was the first time I wept in awhile. This whole “post” discussing Game so to speak……..all of you defending it or talking down to me. I will listen. I want to listen. I’ll even skype chat with one of you men if you would like…but don’t wring you hands, or “worry” about the future because “men refuse Game” and then I ask for help and you won’t tell me. What a bunch of jerks you are.
Jason, I don’t know Game. I never practiced it. I never was very successful with women. More so than you, but less so than many other men.
I don’t care anymore. I’ve gone MGTOW. I’m not happy, but I’m content.
What I do know is, you’re not ugly. You’re also tall and lean, which women like. So don’t obsess over your looks. No problems there.
You emit the wrong vibes. I don’t even know what that means. But some men’s very presence can make women tingle, and some men’s can’t. I assume Game can help improve a man’s vibes, but as a MGTOW, I don’t care any more.
Hopefully, someone can help you learn Game, if you still want a wife. But even if you learned Game, what’s available? How many modern American women over 40 are worth marrying? Most are a liability rather than an asset.
………………………………………..yeah…men with “solutions to feminism and all the problems facing our culture” but will refuse to walk deeper with a man who is clueless.
Been real. Before I get banned or ignored here from now on (don’t know which would be worse actually) I will take leave.
Some nice folks on here……you know who you are. Thanks for some insights, but like the modern evangelical church you all bemoan……you refuse to walk deeper with a man. Lost of solutions…but the walk? It’s someone else’s job to do.
Dalrock, you do a great service to men. Have not always agreed with you but thanks for putting up witrh me in this corner of the Internet. As for the rest of you………I really don’t know what to say. I can assure you that I’ll be in prayer long, long after you all are asleep like I am most every night.
In Truth
Jason -KTF
@ Jason,
“Then help me get a wife. Date. I love how when ‘i’ want something, out come the Holier Than Thou aspects… ”
Dude, falsely accusing others of self righteousness is no way to ask for help, and abstaining from sin is not being “Holier Than Thou”. It’s just doing what you’re supposed to do.
So, if you’re sincere, and you can abstain from throwing around false accusations, we can give this another shot. What qualities are you looking for in a wife?
Jason,
It’s easy to see you’re frustrated. I think I get that. My immediate suggestion besides the praying you’re already doing is to give yourself a little break from commenting here. Time doesn’t heal all wounds, but it can allow you the opportunity to reset mentally and emotionally.
I recognize your desire for marriage and sex. As a frivorced man, I am not sure that there could possibly be enough sex in a marriage to offset the pain of divorce. In light of that possibility (likelihood?), marriage may not be as great as you may imagine. I am certain that, although I would still like sex, there is no way that I would marry again. It may be easier since I’m almost 60, but I am not willing to take the risk.
However, if you want to pursue marriage, perhaps there are other avenues you could follow. For example, there may be other websites that would provide you better advice and more support in your quest. I expect you know enough about red pill to recognize the lies that you will likely hear from some sources. If you’re not familiar with it, you might check out DeepStrength. Many of his posts are related to the topic of finding a godly wife (and he has recently married so it may be good advice).
Oh, and Valentine’s Day? That’s the holiday most men wish would be moved to February 29th.
February 30th would be even better.
February 30th would be even better.
*golf clap*
Gents, I would point Jason towards Rollo’s The Rational Male as a starting point. Important to know the praxeology before one starts trying to weaponize the information.
Even Neo had to go through a training period. 😉
Jason,
“As for being a junkie. I was one. You made a broad staement, but since I was one…..and I don’t know jack, have a personality disorder, am nacissistic, won’t shut-up….
Personality is decifient. Yeah it is. Thank you for reminding me. Complain to random “assholes” on the Internet. Gotcha. Will never complain again. I will just nod and agree with what anyone says on here. Thank you for putting me right.”
Jason, I mean this in the best of all possible ways, and I realize above I said it is impolite to diagnose other people’s disorders publically on the internet, but, it appears that you are willing to admit that your personality is a deficiency. I’m not a Psychotherapist, nor do I play one on the internet, but, I really think you will benefit more form seeing one in private and dealing with any disorder in your personality before attempting to get into any long term relationship. A little caring therapeutic help will go a long way towards healing the hurt, and mending what may be sabotaging your attempts at opposite sex relationships. I really mean that in a helpful way, and hope you will consider it.
Jason, is it ok if I send you an email at the address you use for posting? I don’t claim to be an expert at teaching (or practicing) game, but I’ll share what I can. However, I don’t think Game is the solution you are looking for. If I recall correctly, you live in Northern California and you are dedicated to serving the Lord in the Salvation Army. I have been moved and humbled reading about your efforts to reach out to men and women in need, and you have my deep respect. But if you aren’t feeling the gift of singleness, your desire for a wife is righteous.
You have some great things in your favor when it comes to attracting a wife: You are tall (this is huge). You are in great shape. You can dance. You have some darkness in your past, but have overcome it. A bit of game could help you accent all of these things.
Based on my understanding of the area you live, women are going to be looking for a man who earns quite a bit of money. With that in mind, my suggestion would be to consider what job path would allow you to support a family, and where you want to seek a wife. Most places in the US would be easier to earn enough be considered husband material than where you currently are, but I think you would still need to make a fairly good living. This could be a challenge, and more importantly might take longer than I think you would prefer. Another option would be to consider relocating to a country where the material expectations of a husband are lower and find a way to earn a living locally. It would be even better if that location had more traditional marriage laws to limit your exposure to divorce theft. Ex patting has its own challenges, but as a single man with relatively few ties holding you down it might be something you find attractive. I think there are some men here who have some direct knowledge of other countries, so maybe they can offer some pointers. At the very least, it is something you might want to consider.
Your brother in Christ,
Dalrock
Dalrock, Game is not the enemy.
Game is not responsible for “eroding the very foundation of our society.” Feminism and cucked Christianity are responsible for that. Game is merely an adaptive reaction to Feminist primacy.
Returning to traditional marriage and values would starve Game.
But, given that returning to traditional values is unlikely on our current path, Game along with Feminism will help bring everything down to ashes. From the ashes traditional Christianity and values will emerge.
Yes, I believe that things must burn down in order to improve.
Dear Moses:
I read this article as parody of the sort of sermon the feminist Christian priest gives, apparently every single Sunday. I can’t speak for Dalrock, but I think, at heart, he might not disagree with you as much as it seems.
Best,
Boxer
MarcusD says:
March 19, 2018 at 6:59 pm
The truly ominous cloud on the horizon is jaded young men, seeing Game is effective and having no incentives to marry, begin understanding that the Dark Triad is what gets them sex, which, as you mentioned, is the social status marker.
Interestingly, that’s actually also a step in the wrong direction.
-That’s the point, MarcusD. With an inverted (perverted) set of values, men will adjust to whatever situation will allow them to get sex.
Men have been designed with a sex drive, so it is God-given and good. It is designed to be used in marriage, at our physical peaks, to ensure the growth of the best possible offspring and also ensures that there is still sufficient strength in adulthood so that children grow to independence. Logically, then, men should build character, skills and reputations to be providers and this should be duly rewarded with sexual access by women. Such was the Old Compact.
Not so now. Marriage is now placed last on a long list of priorities, not by men, but by women. They want to marry – at 5 minutes to Fertility Twilight, wasting their strongest and most fertile years on casual encounters and bad boy sex – all of which, apparently, they regret but wouldn’t change (How is that even possible?).
The men that women invariably choose to grant prime sexual access to are Dark Triad types, which leads me to the point I wanted to make: If sexual access is granted to men with Dark Triad traits, men will cultivate more Dark Triad traits to get sex.
Thus, the cultivation of reputable traits on which civilization is founded – honesty, morality, ethics, reliability, hard work, skill, – what Dalrock calls ” Provider Status” signals – will drop exponentially. This is how sophisticated civilizations disappear in history virtually overnight.
@Spike, interesting post. But what actual evidence can you provide that “this is how sophisticated civilizations disappear in history virtually overnight?” I’ve spent a little time studying civilization decline and replacement and can actually provide older scholarly studies and a couple of newer ones supporting your assertion. What scholarly evidence do you have?
Note: I’m interpreting “virtually overnight” in the metaphorical sense within the context of human history, not in a literal way.
I think beauty is a thing to be appreciated, a gift from God, and often a result of something being or looking pure and unspoiled. Like a beautiful young woman unspoiled by old age or being tattooed up like a trucker. Beauty also contributes to something being considered sexy, or sexually appealing.
Proverbs 31:30 Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
Again I say that God’s definition of “Virtue” is to; fear God and keep His commandments.
And a woman is to be praised for her virtue, far more than for her fleeting beauty.
In the above verse you could also say that Charm could be a synonym for Game.
I myself have wondered why Song of Solomon is in the Bible. I reckon beauty, poetry, infatuation, and romance, all have their place. Keeping our body “the temples of the Holy Spirit” in good repair is a hard achieved work of righteousness, and has its own rewards in this life.
1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
My Father used to remind me that it said it profiteth little, not nothing, so there was some profit there as mentioned by our Creator. I’m glad I’ve gotten back into really good shape for my age, and I recommend it to everyone. I’d like to think I’m sexy for my age, and that is a good thing, even if I think the tingle is no sign of virtue at all. Solomon says our lives are all vanity anyhow, so why not indulge in a little vanity, with a little profit, if there is no sin involved?
And as far as Game is concerned:
1Peter 3:7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.
My definition of Game is: Relating to your chosen woman in a way that recognizes her weaknesses, and guides her through that understanding.
Weaker vessel + understanding = Game It is commanded according to my definition. LOL
Great post Dalrock! 1 Thessalonians 5:11.
Should I put up the Cathy Strawman now myself or will you do it for me? Since that’s how the game is played.
I didn’t say you stated this… at all. I said exactly what you did say, that sexy is good between two married people who have the hots for each other. I merely expounded upon it, showing that the ‘sexy’ had nothing to do with why it is ‘good’. You seem to have an issue with this and keep posting the same bull time and time again…
I wanted to hear more of your explanation so I asked a loaded question which I knew you would disagree with. Instead you retreat into a meme…
Invoking a damn meme to cover your arse is poor form.
This is a bullshit statement. No one is acting like Cathy Newman. I cannot ‘understand’ what you think, I’m not a mind reader. I can only ask you questions. That’s all.
Even Peterson would answer questions with some useful advice or explanations as to what he did mean, you seem incapable..
Simple question.
Does washing your wife in the Word increase, decrease or do nothing for your wife’s chances at salvation?
One more bit of advice to Jason here…
I will start by telling you that I’m 56, with all that entails WRT of sex drive compared to age 17 (less but hardly zero) and awareness of my current spot in the cycle of life (e.g. by far most of the way through it). Further, I’m on my second marriage (a bad one, with the first one childless), with two 5-YO twin children. The conflicts I have with my wife over the kids are a considerably bigger deal than her being a financial leech, showing me almost zero respect (when I work on oil rigs supporting a family of four at middle-class level), and her deadbedding me. That is, if she one day decided she had to go spend the next 10+ years at some shrine in Nepal, leaving the children behind, my life would much improve.
My advice to you is one that you can solve most of your life’s disappointment and insufficient meaning with just money (the latter of which I understand you have, within reason). Anyone who reads any men’s issues websites for any length of time comes to know to his bones that Western women’s criteria for whom they reward with lustful sex is seriously haywire, rewarding in many to most cases damaged (mentally or morally) men, so you have to not take it overly personally any more.
So, what do I suggest? That you become a father without worrying any more about making any American women feel sexually attracted to you. No, I am not advising you to go knock up some skank. aside from morality and your Salvation, how the kids would be raised would be paramount. As a middle-class clean-living honest producer guy, you’d end up with 80% of the responsibility, and 0-20% (unless she conveniently croaked or abandoned the kids) of the authority over them, so screw that.
No, what you do is what I did, only one step farther. (Search online for a man named Toban Morrison to see an example, but stay in your own race, unlike him.) I had my girls via stranger women I paid to be egg donors and a gestational surrogate. (My wife is not their genetic mother; neither did she gestate them, nor pay for it all.) Post-birth, you employ a governess or nanny as needed. As long as you avoid legal or housing entanglements with women thereafter, you have essentially a zero chance of having your children be stolen from you by a faithless ex-broad. How well off children are as a product of their rearing is almost entirely a function of what kind of father situation they have, far more so than WRT their mothers, so have no fear that you’d be immorally depriving them in some avoidable fundamental way. You’ll need around a hundred grand, not all of which has to be in hand beforehand. (For God’s sakes, do this outside CA, NY, N IL, or S FL, or you’ll pay >50% more for no better result.)
Extremely brief other advice for you on how to do best by your children:
1) homeschooling is ideal, but at least keep anyone with a degree from a College of Education from teaching them.
2) Obtain donor breast milk for their first year, followed by the Paleo Diet (with NO soy products, candy, white flour, or soft drinks).
3) Get rid of every television set in your house pre-birth of the first one, and not replace any of them til the youngest kid can drive.
4) Books, books, and more books for your kids, mainly ones written pre-1965. Hold them and read to them every second you can.
5) Where you can, have your kids around nonbastard/non-divorce product children.
6) Ideally, move to a locale that is a boring whitopia, preferably outside any state that voted Democrat in either of the last two Presidential elections. (N Idaho/NW MT are my favorites.)
7) Follow the advice of Aaron Clarey in his book “Worthless” on how you guide your children educationally/vocationally. (Hint: if a post-high school path does not involve one or more of Calculus, using hand tools in nonclimate-controlled environments, or hands-on medical, it’s probably best skipped.)
8) When in doubt on something, the Bible has most questions answered. (Leviticus and Deuteronomy are particularly excellent, along with Ephesians, Corinthians, Proverbs, Titus, and Timothy.)
Good luck to you in your quest to find meaning in your time on Earth.
Dalrock, I think Jason lives in Fresno (Central, not Northern, California). Compared to the women in San Francisco or Los Angeles, Fresno women’s material expectations are probably somewhat more manageable.
Ex-patting
I would presume that Jason already has or could easily acquire dual nationality. If, as I assume it to be, his accent is American he should know that in England (or Wales) with an American accent he will sound like a film-star. This must be a terrific advantage should he seek to relocate to his Mother’s native land – not that I am recommending it.
Opus, you may be correct WRT Jason’s doing better with women in the U.K. with his U.S. accent. While I spent most of a month there at age 50 and noticed little help, I was 1) on the pudgy and poorly-dressed side, and 2) made little effort to “get out there” socially.
That said, the U.K. is even worse than most of the U.S. in its current conditions and future prospects. It is expensive as Hades, heavily taxed, reputedly a worse nanny state than any here (monthly tax just to be allowed to own a TV set you don’t even watch, gas prices 4x ours, and forget the concept of free speech if you’re not a libtard). Further, it’s quickly being absorbed into Dar-Al-Islam, with no guns legally available to noncriminals/non-JBTs to defend oneself, with a frivorce court system easily as bad as ours. (Look up what happened to U.K. men ex-Beatle singer Paul McCartney and Monty Python actor John Cleese as examples.)
So, if he has had a vasectomy, has some disposable income, and wants some amarital sex with chicks with melodious accents, he might do well to visit the U.K. before it becomes a Muslim Zimbabwe. Otherwise, to heck with that place.
@Jason: you’ve been very personal on this forum and trying to get advice to get you ahead.
In this day and age, trying to follow the Lord in the area of sexuality is tough, but that was probably also true in ancient times and different cultures. As a Christian you only have two options: A. get married and have sex (IF (!!) your wife is a good Christian) B. don’t have sex. Of these two options Paul’s advice is that it is BETTER not to marry. I can only say, trust in Jesus and focus on discerning His will. He might or might not give you a wife, but focusing on Him and following Him might lead into completely different directions and fulfilment. Remember, as a disciple of Christ you’re loved by Him, no matter how the world thinks about you.
Paul, by omission you seem to believe that my advice on how Jason could become a father without committing fornication or exposing his children to a likely-perfidious U.S. mother and/or frivorce was not Christian. Any particular reason why? My recommendation included neither amarital sex nor divorce, so is hardly repulsive for Christian men on moral grounds.
For men in marriage, I’ve learned from Dalrock and others, what remained hidden for me in the bible, due to my own weaknesses and western culture’s dominant feminism. I’m grateful for that, and learned a lot. But to me, the most important truths are to be found in the bible; all talk about game, chivalry, feminism etc. are only of secondary importance, and some of it is hopelessly confused.
I can only give this advice: be a follower of Christ foremost. If you’re a married man, try to regain any lost ground, but never fail to be obedient to God. The end-goal is NOT to have a perfect marriage, the end-goal is to reach heaven and be rewarded.
For now, I’ve come to the following simple conclusions, which will account for most situations in dealing with your wife. You can check your NT, and comments by Church fathers of the first couple of centuries.
1. You can only have sex with the one woman you’re married to, and your wife only with you.
2. You must not divorce. If you’re divorced, stay single until your wife has died, or you’re reconciled with her. Similarly, your wife should neither separate nor divorce you.
3. You are the head of your wife as Christ is the head of the Church, just like a head functions to a body. You lead, she follows. You sacrificially love and nurture her, she obeys and respects you. You treat her as the weaker vessel. She is silent in the Church and asks you for clarifications.
4. You give your wife sex-on-demand, and she gives you sex-on-demand. Anything else quickly amounts to sin.
5. Sin in your wife needs to be addressed as sin (unfortunately, you might get out of luck to get support from the church you’re currently associated with), but general Christian principles apply.
@Luke
I smiled: I am much obliged to you for your explanation of the terrible state of things in Great Britain; all you say is true (and worse). I know this because I live there and pay its taxes.
At the moment it is very cold and snowy and a McMuffin and Coffee just cost me £3.28 in McDs which at today’s exchange rate is $4.60. Outrageous.
Overall advice: be prepared to suffer, and expect to suffer. Your marriage may be horrendous. It may not change. You cannot ultimately prevent being a victim of another person’s sins, including the sins of your wife. But you should not tolerate sin.
1 Pet 4
16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. 17 For it is time for judgment to begin with God’s household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 And,
“If it is hard for the righteous to be saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”
19 So then, those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good.
I’ve always wanted to visit England. But I keep hearing about the acid attacks, and terrorist attacks, and wonder if it’s worth it. Perhaps London is bad, but not other parts? I hear Leeds, and Yorkshire in general, is fairly nice. And I’ve always wanted to visit Loch Ness in Scotland, even if the monster is all fake.
I’ve always wondered: Why was Europe so easy to guilt trip about racism? Why is it so full of self-hating whites? Whites who are so guilt-ridden?
The U.S., with its history of slavery, I can understand feeling guilty.
Germany, with its Nazi past, I can understand feeling guilty.
But what have Britain and France and Sweden to apologize for? Why are they so eager to prove they’re not racist, to the point of adopting totalitarian speech codes and suicidal immigration policies?
@Luke: Paul, by omission you seem to believe
Ah, the infamous “argument from silence” fallacy. Luke, I was not responding to you, I did not even read your comment. I comment as I please, so don’t assume I will be responding to comments, even if these refer to me.
I should add: Jason is an unrepentant Christian and further despite all appearances to the contrary England is a country that does not welcome such people indeed chucks them out: only the other week a female Canadien was detained, interrogated and deported, that is to say refused entry and in the interrogation this slip of a girl was asked whether she was a Christian extremist. I would guess The Salvation Army (clearly a para-military organisation) might fit into that category of undesirables. Should Jason convert to Islam he will sail through customs even were he returning from Syria and the trick is like Peter to deny thrice that you have even heard of the man: tolerance is our middle name (unless you are Christian).
RPL: Why are they so eager to prove they’re not racist, to the point of adopting totalitarian speech codes and suicidal immigration policies?
They think 1984 is an instruction manual.
But on a serious note; ever since Churches were not following Christ, being ‘salt’ to the world, corruption sets in. In this case it is latent communism/liberalism/feminism, but actually anything that went against Christian values seems to have united. There is no free pass to sin, a society has to bear the consequences.
As for Sweden; starting in the 60s that has been one giant socialist/feminist experiment. We are now seeing the outcomes of that experiment.
@RPL
It is indeed something of a mystery. Yesterday, I was at my Bank with whom for various reasons I was less than happy and somewhat tongue in cheek I suggested to the young-ish lady who had the misfortune of dealing with me (look Opus you are not in court now they sometimes say to me) that the Bank were Institutionally racist (they don’t seem to like Russians – anymore than does our dearly beloved Prime Minister-ess). Her response made it clear that for her the accusation (and not against her personally) was far worse than had I suggested that the Bank might have been responsible for the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK (whoever these three initialed people might have been). My friend goes out of his way to assure (as if he is protesting too much) that he is nothing other than racially blind. There is then nothing more amusing and easier than to point out his consistent hypocricy.
There’s a reason why Paul says to not deny each other unless it’s mutual for a time of prayer otherwise Satan will start chipping away at the marriage.
The more I read the stories about divorce…a common underlying theme I’m seeing…the wife starts denying the marital act before the divorce happens.
Either because.
1) She’s unhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaapy and justifies her emotions as her husband’s fault so he gets no sex (which is unjustifiable reason)
2) She’s having an affair with another man and she’s either already on her way out or feels guilty having sex with her husband (sexual immorality)
Paul, you said that Jason had only two options. I listed a third just above your post Your failure to post agreement or its lack, with my proposal would lead most readers to a certain conclusion about you and what you think, whether or not you wished them to do so. I pointed this out so that you could say what you thought, and not have people presume what you thought. It was in part a courtesy.
Red Pill Latecomer says:
March 20, 2018 at 5:54 am
“I’ve always wondered: Why was Europe so easy to guilt trip about racism? Why is it so full of self-hating whites? Whites who are so guilt-ridden?
The U.S., with its history of slavery, I can understand feeling guilty.
Germany, with its Nazi past, I can understand feeling guilty.
But what have Britain and France and Sweden to apologize for? Why are they so eager to prove they’re not racist, to the point of adopting totalitarian speech codes and suicidal immigration policies?”
1) Britain and France had large colonial empires that had slavery (not always in name) for most of their history. Those were gained, and kept, by less than nice measures, about which the Brits and (to perhaps a lesser degree) the Frogs feel guilty.
2) The rule of Germany from 1933 – 1945 is neither far away geographically nor in time historically. The history of the latter has made discussing Human Biodiversity in general, and above all differences in race/culture in terms of IQ, achievement, criminality, etc. (leading to the desirability of eugenics for humans) almost impossible there, increasingly on the order of discussing a post-Communist Russia while in the USSR in the 1930s. IMO it’s akin to how women getting the (unearned) vote made maintaining patriarchial civilization (being redundant here, I know) discouraged in most places in the West.
3) I suspect loss of genuine Christian faith in most Westerners is up there as well.
Allow an Englishman to speak up for the place. All the bad things are true, but a lot of good things are true too. Londonistan is awful in parts but beautiful and dripping with history in others, and our countryside can be absolutely stunning. Freedom of speech is imperilled, but we still have a very robust Press which makes its Continental equivalents look like the State’s in-house journals.
The cost of living is high, but you can moderate it a bit by living in the midlands or the north and avoiding the area around London ((the cost of a family home varies by several multiples depending on your location). If you stick to rural areas and small towns you can live in blissful ignorance of the Muslim hordes, and you’ll find a good number of solid people with sensible views.
You can own shotguns and hunting rifles (though you do have to jump through some hoops to get the permits) so you don’t have to be completely defenceless, and there’s a strong tradition of shooting and other country sports. Try looking up an event called the Game Fair.
Red Pill Latecomer, the best reason I can think of for our ethnomasochism is the “Hitler’s Revenge” theory. It isn’t just the Germans who feel the need to cleanse themselves of collective guilt, it’s white Europeans generally. We’ve tried so hard to distance ourselves from ideas of racial and national identity that we’re in danger of losing control of our continent.
We Brits get it worse than some because we were so dominant for so long and are therefore deeply implicated in the whole colonialism business. I think things are gradually improving, but our mainstream parties can only take baby steps towards recognising the problem. We’re in a better position than France, where I suspect major civil unrest will break out before too long, but our backs are certainly against the wall.
@Luke: luckily a lot of people are aware of the “argument by silence” fallacy. Furthermore, I’m not interested in readers’ opinions, I’m interested in pursuing the truth. I’m very happy to enter any discussion if I think it will contribute to that goal and it has the right priority.
‘You can check your NT, and comments by Church fathers of the first couple of centuries.
1. You can only have sex with the one woman you’re married to, and your wife only with you.’
If you check the Old Testament too, you’ll note that there’s no requirement to limit the number of wives to just one. Many of the patriarchs were blessed with several wives and many children.
Short version: the organizing principle of our society is the gratification of female pride and lust.
Satan must be laughing his ass off.
Luke, as courtesy; I think to advice people to become fathers without getting married and using artificial means to conceive is advising people to sin. I’m against that. It’s also cruel to children to not be able to live with their (biological) mothers. Child abuse cruel. History has shown that all children want to know their biological parents.
@glosoli: that’s why it’s called the OLD Testament/Covenant. “But from the beginning it was not so”.
If you need further proof for monogamy, check 1 Co 7
2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.
or Eph 5
31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.
or Luk 16
18a “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery
It says a man’s own wife, a woman’s own husband. If you are married to more than one wife/husband, the other party does not have you as their own anymore, they have to share you.
It says a man and his wife is as Christ and the church. Not churches. The church, singular.
It says the two will become one flesh. Not three. Not four. Two.
It says it is adultery if you marry another women (EVEN AFTER YOU DIVORCED YOUR WIFE, but that’s a different point). If it’s adultery, it’s sin. If it’s sin, it’s not allowed.
If you need further proof, check what the church fathers said during the first few ages. I’m not that interested to enter a full-blown discourse on polygamy as it is obviously not endorsed throughout church history.
Women still face cruel barriers to directing science fiction films: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/mar/16/female-directors-science-fiction-sci-fi-patty-jenkins-ava-duvernay
But sci-fi is still fiercely defended masculine territory. The word “science” doesn’t help, judging by men’s rights movement support for James Damore, the Google engineer fired for claiming the gender imbalance in the science and technology sectors was due to biological differences. Or for the Sad Puppies movement agitating for a return to pre-diversity science fiction. Or never-ending Gamergate nonsense, or whingeing about Star Wars being sullied by women or people of colour.
Sci-fi is a cultural Custer’s Last Stand for bigotry. Sometimes it’s just easier to cave in and call it speculative fiction.
Yet it is clear that blockbusters such as Passengers and Jurassic World could have benefited from more female input, if only to point out that women don’t usually fall in love with creepy stalkers or go on safari in stiletto heels.
It’s not that we need more kick-ass sci-fi heroines so much as a wider perspective on technological and ethical issues in the imagined future.
Luke, it’s my understanding that Britain abolished slavery in Africa.
Britain also abolished the Hindu practice of burning live widows on their husband’s funeral pyres.
I suppose it’s racist to point out that Africa had slavery until the white man abolished it.
Slavery never get a good press, does it. It is my understanding that Great Britain unilaterally abolished the trade in slaves where-ever it might be found and at its own expence enforced that ban often with the loss of its own lives (those slavers in their dows have been known to fight back). I cannot help but observe that the ending of slavery was pretty contemporaneous with the rise in employment which is often in my view slavery-light and at far less cost to the employer.
Widows (such as my own Mother) would rather have joined their deceased Husband in the beyond than stay behind but I will leave it to Anon to explain why the ban on Suti was Cultural Imperialism by the most evil people who ever lived.
@Paul
”luckily a lot of people are aware of the “argument by silence” fallacy. ”
God is never silent on sexual sin given its importance. Likewise the New Testament provides ample proof of the abolition of the permission to be polygynous as you have shown.
Just as food was declared clean the NT as well.
If things are being done right there is no need for mention(Just as Jesus didn’t need to mention homosexuality in his ministry directly). But when people are unwittingly sinning then the purpose of the Law is to inform us of sin(Romans 3:20)
On the other hand to declare something that may be good or neutral as evil is just as evil. e.g. Feminist declaring all sex is rape
@feministhater
The song of Solomon is included(by God I think) to rebuke the gnostic notion that physical attractiveness and the eroticism thereof is wrong or evil in the context of marriage.
@JDG
God made the desires we have now(although twisted by sin). Sexiness isn’t a bad thing within the bounds of wedlock.
Jezebel took advantage of the good thing she has been given for evil.
Beauty may be often associated with Babylon and Decadence. But that doesn’t discount the goodness of beauty itself. God himself is the perfection of beauty(Psalm 50:2) after all.
All evil are corruptions of the good.
@ feministhater says:
“I didn’t say you stated this… at all. I said exactly what you did say, that sexy is good between two married people who have the hots for each other. I merely expounded upon it, showing that the ‘sexy’ had nothing to do with why it is ‘good’.”
Expounded upon what? I never said that “sexy” had anything to do with why anything is “good”, which is why your statement is yet another straw man.
“This is a bullshit statement.”
That’s projection.
“No one is acting like Cathy Newman.”
Wanna bet?
“I cannot ‘understand’ what you think, I’m not a mind reader.”
You could try setting your straw men aside and actually read what I write for a change. In other words, stop acting like Cathy Newman.
“I can only ask you questions.”
Try asking a sincere one, for a change.
“Even Peterson would answer questions with some useful advice or explanations as to what he did mean”
For the sake of his audience, not Newman’s. I don’t have an audience. Whenever you’re done playing with your straw men, let me know, and we can have a sincere conversation.
“Does washing your wife in the Word increase, decrease or do nothing for your wife’s chances at salvation?”
That depends. If she’s already a believer, then she’s already saved. I can’t “increase her chances at salvation”, nor do I need to.
You might want to learn how that works.
OKR,
I am close to where you are and I am definitely struggling with the, “switch to single mode” part of things. I don’t see the unicorn holding area, so finding a woman that would even be worth the risk at this age looks impossible, game or not.
Dalrock,
Is this a new Jason or the existing one? The posting manner seems so different from the other Jason. The other one went out dancing regularly. That requires some female interaction (or so I imagine – I haven’t done that ever and doubt I will in the future).
I assumed it was someone else, though perhaps the frustration just came to a head. I can’t stand my life at times now, I can imagine how hard it is to be alone like he is. Though getting out of Northern California might be the best help.
@Dalrock:
I posted about guns, and I didn’t get banned. I guess I should have tried harder to imply that someone’s favorite gun wasn’t a real gun. The moral of that story is that there are a lot of forums where it is very difficult to get banned, and Infinity Chan is one of them.
https://vultureofcritique.wordpress.com/2018/03/19/empathologism-is-right/
When I think about it, however, the experiment doesn’t address the point that you were trying to make. You’re trying to set boundaries on discussions and definitions for your blog – and that is absolutely necessary. In order to have meaningful freedom of speech in a given forum, the mods of that forum must cull the truly inappropriate speech that will never advance the forum’s objectives.
In order to talk about Game, someone has to set the meta-rules of the debate – and on Dalrock’s forum, Dalrock has to set the boundaries. For my part, I could TRY to set up an alternate forum and attract users to a different set of rules for discussion of Game, but I am too busy reposting news items about police misconduct.
Here we go again with the polygamy argument, divorce, and the meaning of fornication/adultery again. It makes me long for the days when Artisanal Toad used to comment here.
gaiko,
You probably just aren’t a good troll.
Actually, you do have an audience. That would be all of us here. Also, Peterson answered questions directly to Cathy Newman and those would have been for her audience as well as his own. Although, I never made this point, I merely made the point that Peterson answered questions. You argue with constant deflections.
You still have not provided any reason to believe that ‘sexy’ is good at all, ever, even between a married couple who have the hots for each other.
Even after your first attempt at a deflection, I asked you to clarify your point. Here you could have at least explained your reasoning but you fell back to your same tired cliche of a meme. Not every question asked of you is a strawman, even a loaded question. Your explanations can be helpful to those listening, even if the question is worded poorly.
A good point. Explain how ‘sexy’ is a good thing when a husband and wife have the hots for each other?
Well, that’s missing the goal posts by miles. Your point falls away if she isn’t saved and then you can increase her chances at salvation by washing her in the Word. I believe that’s why a husband is commanded to do this. However, even a saved person can still sin, they can still jeopardise their salvation, keeping them pure and helping them in this will increase their chances of remaining in God’s grace. Isn’t that something a husband needs to do?
Do you notice how much someone has to call you out to get you to respond in a normal and frank manner? Don’t post memes, it’s loser talk, comment normally.
Upon your statement.
It’s not that ‘sexy’ makes anything good. That wasn’t the initial question. The initial question by JDG was when sexy was a good thing. You replied with when it was between a married couple who have the hots for each other.
You still have not provided a reasoning of why ‘sexy’ itself becomes a good thing between a married couple who have the hots for each other. That would be why marriage is a good thing because it keeps them from sinning. Sexy doesn’t do any of that, it’s just a lucky bonus, one that is fleeting. Sure, the sex will probably be fantastic for the first few years but it doesn’t make it a ‘good thing’. Any ‘good’ that comes from ‘sexy’ is purely carnal in nature, even between a husband and wife who have the hots for each other.
That was the original point of JDG’s comment. Any ideals over sexiness are carnal at best, they are not spiritual.
@White Guy
About 17 years ago I went through some of what you are going through. Uncanny similarities. My wife was 38 and had no extra weight. She was quite able to find another limb to swing from so to speak.
The odd behaviors and maybe weird allegations she has made or will make are going to be an amalgam of conspiracies that she is fed by her whispering friends. Believe it or not if she does have a man that she communicates with it will be easy to know which things she says comes from him and which come from the gaggle of gigglers she hangs around. The gigglers will hear the terms “document safe” and “gun safe” create a plethora of bizarre crap for her throw at you. She may even be feeding weird information to an attorney already. You will encounter questions about secret monies and networks of n’er do wells that exist to help you in your nefarious doings.
FWIW, you may need to get a few $10 sound activated digital recorders that hold 24 hours of recordings each and place some around the house as well as carry on with you all the time. Check the laws on it but most states say its fine to record as long as one party (you) knows it.
I had to spend over $20,000.00 for a forensic accountant. I had to have my hair and urine tested tested for drugs, and on and on.
Throughout the whole thing she told me that when I communicated “no one” could understand what I was saying because it seemed incoherent. Meanwhile I earned a living as an energy speculator and had to speak with laser accuracy, zero ambiguity because I conducted all transactions by telephone.
I share all of that because I sensed something in your post about the safes and wanted to tell you what you maybe already knew……but just in case. I know its tough to stay on strategy while managing anger and hurt and all the other junk.
@ feministhater says:
“Not every question asked of you is a strawman, even a loaded question.”
I never stated that “every question asked of [me] is a strawman [sic.]”. I stated that YOUR questions were straw men. But thanks for providing yet ANOTHER straw man.
“Your explanations can be helpful to those listening, even if the question is worded poorly.”
Poor wording isn’t your problem. Your straw men are your problem. Whenever you’re done playing with your straw men, let me know, and we can have a sincere conversation.
@gaikokumaniakku
Yet along the way you managed to prove me wrong on a detail while confirming my larger point. Yes, 8 Chan didn’t ban you or lock the thread. Correct me if I’m wrong, but as I understand it 8 Chan is a forum that celebrates trolling and will not ban anything unless it is against the law. That you sought out a forum known for being friendly to trolling indicates that you knew what I was saying was true. An ordinary gun forum would have locked the thread very quickly.
But beyond your own actions proving that you knew my fundamental point was right, you can also look at the discussion that transpired (http://archive.fo/r1qb1). The answers ranged from 22Lr and up:
To only a handful of calibers (emphasis mine):
To a declaration that the .45 ACP is the only real defensive handgun caliber:
But you missed my point entirely:
Nor are you right in your post title: “empathologism is right and dalrock is excessively censorious”
My point was that the definition of Game always turns into a virtual food fight not because there is no such thing as Game, but that this is the nature of the internet. These food fights happen regarding Game because unlike nearly everywhere else, I permit the discussion. This has little to do with a specific subject, and everything to the nature of people’s opinions, especially on the internet.
Pingback: Rebuild respect for men to end the gender wars
While there are many things to like about AT, he was never a good fit here. His version of Christianity is so different from the one which is practiced by most of you guys that he just ended up talking (and talking, and talking) past everyone.
He has his own blog on wordpress. He doesn’t post very often, but when he does, the articles are verbose and usually interesting.
No Oscar, I believe we are done. I laid out my disagreements above, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked you an honest question. One you have now declined to answer in fairness instead preferring to answer with deflections.
@ feministhater says:
“I laid out my disagreements above… ”
Disagreements with arguments I never made, thus straw men.
“… I gave you the benefit of the doubt… ”
You misrepresented my arguments. Thus, straw men.
“… and asked you an honest question.”
You asked disingenuous questions loaded with misrepresentations of my arguments. Thus, straw men.
I’m still willing to have a sincere conversation, if you’re willing to set your straw men aside. But if you’re more comfortable playing with your straw men, then by all means, have at them.
Oscar, answer the above question or don’t bother. Really quite simple.
I just finished up reading the books of Moses.
Very happy with all of God’s commands and statutes and laws.
Such a shame we choose to ignore them all these days (even Christians do).
Instead we place more emphasis on ‘early church traditions’, knowing that Roma captured the church and subverted it very early on.
But I saw no mention of anything about polygamy being banned. Didn’t get a mention actually.
A few verses on marriage by Paul, none of which exclude polygamy at all, don’t hold water with me, as I don’t like to add or subtract from God’s commands.
And I reckon He’d have made it clear in the bible if He was averse to polygamy, given that there are so many examples of it amongst the Patriarchs. But nothing.
Dalrock, it is my opinion that the hair splitting when defining Game is not done so much due to the nature of certain topics online. I agree that has something to do with it. The list of other topics that you listed reveals the other why(s) beyond the online tendency.
People will debate those things in a group, mixed or men only. Game, guns, cars, boats, babes, and so on. Its AMOGing with some approval seeking thrown in. It assumes there are (and sadly there are) men and women who give a rats ass about what some other guy says game is, or what is the best hand gun/car/boat/workout routine. The argumentation about game and gun caliber and the rest is a proxy for dick size. Its an overt demonstration of ass-hole-y-ness. Or its an insecurity. Either way the men engaging in it do it in any forum that gives them the opportunity in person or online.
Go lift heavy and buy a tight V neck , …..
Get this handgun in this caliber because…..
Drive this vehicle with these specs for these reasons….
None of my criticisms say anything about the existence of the subject item. They suggest that people who carry a ruler, a roll of masking tape, and a marker around with them are not there to mask off a room for a paint job.
If there is, in the background, an argument as to the existence of game, and this tedious type of BS is being discussed, for those who wish to prove game or prove the efficacy of their own game, this debate in the background harms them. Because I’m sure you’d agree…..those goofy arguments on what something is, or what the best form of something is……those arguments are not compelling. People not on one side or the other who may be sincerely interested will go away.
glosoli,
Adding a bunch more women to the mix will make it all better! That will whip those women in line, especially when more can band together in the marriage against the man! That will solve all the problems.
And completely removing the chance of many men to marry will certainly help others. Those alpha males will find out how hard it is when all the women flock to the beta providers and stay with them, because polygamy….
/sarc
@glosoli: you see what you want to see. That’s different from trying to truly understand. I’ll leave it at that, as I do not think you will be convinced by arguments.
@Paul,
Yeah, you’re gas-lighting there. I humbly suggest you stick to God’s laws, and do not add to them, nor subtract from them (God’s own command that is, not my idea).
Jason:
I don’t know if you are still reading this thread. I would like to offer my thoughts.
So far you’ve gotten a lot of good advice on where to start, both long and short range. Structural strengths: You’re tall. You’re in great shape. You know how to dance. You have overcome some personal demons. You have a job. You have your own place to live and a way to get around. That’s a good framework to build upon.
Structural weaknesses: You’re inexperienced with women, sexually and otherwise. You’re still healing from a lot of pain at your lack of success with women to this point. You don’t earn a lot of money presently.
Please hear me on this. Men’s failures with women usually fall into one of three categories: (1) can’t gin up any interest at all; done before he’s out of the gate; (2) can get women interested but can’t keep them interested beyond 3 or 4 dates/encounters; and (3) relationships blow up after several months. Based on history and description, you’re a category (1). Whenever you get to the nitty gritty with a cat (1) guy, you almost always find out one or more of the following:
–he is doing, saying or projecting something that is really turning women (and people) off from him. He’s putting out vibes that actively repel people. It’s usually not his physical appearance, unless his hygiene is extremely poor, he’s morbidly obese, or he has a glaring physical deformity/defect. Women are exceedingly good at sussing out “bad vibes” or something that just seems “off” about a man, even slightly off. They’ll say to themselves “I dunno. Something’s just… not right about him. Something’s just a wee bit weird. I can’t tell what it is. But it’s just not all quite right.” They are experts at sniffing out male weaknesses like that.
–women like him and are interested in him but he is completely oblivious to the indicators of interest they throw out. I mean doesn’t have the first clue at all what message she’s trying to send. And when he doesn’t pick up on them, the women conclude he’s either gay, or not interested, or a jerk who’s playing them. Women will move on very, very quickly from a guy who’s not picking up on IOIs.
–he doesn’t put himself out there to meet people. He’s an extreme INTJ, or has some mild Asperger’s, or just a lot of social anxiety for one reason or another. Women are really good at detecting this too. They’re like domesticated dogs – if you’re afraid of them, they know it instantly.
I just don’t know, I can’t tell, but I really suspect it’s the first one and possibly some of the third. You should check all of these out and get some help on all of them. But from online interactions I get a sense you don’t have a good handle on how you come across to others, on how others perceive you. I think you know how you perceive yourself, and how you WANT others to perceive you. But I think there’s a disconnect between what you want to project and what you are actually projecting. I suspect you’re doing or saying or projecting something that’s driving people away.
I also think that the lack of success with women, and your lifestyle as a Christian in a post Christian society that is actively hostile to Christians, has produced some social anxiety.
Given your physical appearance, blaming your failures on your physical appearance just doesn’t make sense. I’ve seen guys with worse looks and far, far worse backstories than you have at least some success. Your looks are good enough. They don’t have to be perfect by any means, especially not in middle age. I don’t think that’s what’s causing the problems here.
Second thing I would suggest is how to vet and screen women, and what you can expect. I’m not from the Fresno area, so I cannot speak to particulars there. But in general: the women in your potential dating pool will be between 35 and 55 years old. If you want to find a woman who has never been married or is widowed, the pickings will be slim – very slim. Nearly all the single, actively looking women in this dating pool are divorced. Many of them have children still living with them. You will be able to find physically attractive women in this age range and many will be physically attractive enough for consideration.
But it will be very hard to find women with a minimum of baggage and “issues”, or who have done the work to shed the baggage and overcome the issues. You’re not likely to find women in any shape to become new mothers. If your goal is to have children, and you find a woman willing to start a family with you, strongly consider adoption. A 40 year old woman is going to have a hell of a difficult time getting pregnant particularly if she has had no children before or she last had a child 10 or more years ago.
As far as vetting and screening women, you can’t go wrong with Dalrock’s articles from quite a while ago on how to interview prospective wives. Vet and screen hard for red flags, and do not go further with any woman with 2 or more red flags. Make clear you are looking for marriage. That will eliminate a lot of women right there.
Good luck to you. If you want an email message, you can email me at detination42 -at gmail -dot- com
‘And completely removing the chance of many men to marry will certainly help others. Those alpha males will find out how hard it is when all the women flock to the beta providers and stay with them, because polygamy….’
Women tend to marry young, men marry older, in a natural set-up of course, as opposed to the fake system we have today.
Young women tend to have more daughters, so there are actually more women to go round.
Men have sexual desires well into their old age and remain fertile too, whereas women become infertile in their 50s or 60s. Women also desire less sex after the menopause.
Hence, it’s obvious why God is fine with polygamy.
He did tell us to go forth and multiply after all, He wouldn’t want to see decades of male fertility wasted if the first wife was no longer able to satisfy her husband. God loves those who reproduce within marriage.
I’d be happy with a couple of wives, two would be enough. I’d be looking for solid guys, well-established, for my daughters. They wouldn’t need to be supermen or leaders. I’d certainly want to get my daughters married very young, as that’s best for them, then they too can have children. It’s a virtuous circle, as one would expect given it’s a set-up initiated by God himself.
Everyone benefits.
@ feministhater
Are you willing so set your straw men aside now? Because if you’re not, then you’re not going to understand anything I write anyway.
@ glosoli
“I just finished up reading the books of Moses.
Very happy with all of God’s commands and statutes and laws.”
If that’s true, then you completely missed the point of God’s commands and statutes and laws.
@Oscar,
Right.
glosoli,
I would bet your daughters will have much more input into that, especially today, than you will. Reality is likely to hit you quite hard in a few years.
I would be very happy with one faithful wife, but I didn’t get that. Having 2 or more of what I did get would have been an even worse hell, as much as you seek to glamorize it.
Go full on Mormon if that is your goal though. Boxer has already commented on how well that usually works.
Past societies got away with polygamy because so many men died in wars and such. The inner city battles are quite different, though I suppose they bring some of the impact. We know how well one man and many woman works there as well!
I do hope you don’t fail in even one tiny aspect of The Law though, or you are doomed. The Law was meant to show that we could never meet it, not to be something to strive for. You need to get into Christianity a bit more and realize you can’t make it on your own. Read Hebrews quite a bit.
Even so, polygamy is tolerated, not glorified as a good target. You are ignorant if you completely ignored my last reply and still favor it.
Oscar @ 2:13 pm:
“I just finished up reading the books of Moses. Very happy with all of God’s commands and statutes and laws.”
“If that’s true, then you completely missed the point of God’s commands and statutes and laws.”
Seconded. But because words don’t work on Judaizers:
That’s incredible.
I certainly agree that the difficulty of defining Game is a problem for discussing it. It would be helpful to have a set of standard definitions. I realize that my definition is probably not a conventional one (it is mostly attitudinal) and is, of course, shaped by Christian morality.
@feministhater
See, that is part of it. Men used to care only about what other men [and God] thought of them. This is one of the consequences of the large changes in society over the last 50-60 years. Everything (behavioural) has to be broken down into steps; it has to be explained rather than simply observed and copied. Most men who are good with Game (as a set of largely overlapping definitions) don’t actually need it – they only needed to be told to stop being something they aren’t (e.g. overly romantic, etc). Christians need only add on the notion of being good (as opposed to “nice”) to complete the picture.
This is part of the fear of man and is something we are told to avoid.
We should try to do well of course, but focusing too much on what other men think of us is just as bad as focusing on what women think of us, or any other non-God group.
I am not convinced most men really thought much about what God thought about them, even in “the good old days.”
@glosoli: you’re the one subtracting from God’s Law. Don’t stop reading at Moses, continue with the apostles and their helpers. Jesus clearly says that anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. This shows polygyny is not allowed. And Paul in Romans tells a woman is bound to her husband as long as she lives, else she will be called an adulteress. This shows polyandry was not allowed. As for polygamy in the OT, there is no command prescribing it, at best commands regulating it, and instances of polygamous marriages showing it was tolerated. Just as other practices were allowed or required, but not anymore. Enough said.
@Paul,
You were doing so well until this comment: ‘Just as other practices were allowed or required, but not anymore.’
Nothing in the new testament changed the way God views polygamy. Maybe Puritans like to think differently, butthat’s in their own imaginations.
Likewise, nothing in the New testament did away with the Law (as if God would suddenly plunge us into anarchy). No, rather the Law was placed in our hearts (again), where it was deemed by Christ to be much more important.
Everything that happens in the next (I don’t know) 10-100 years is because Christians very quickly forgot about the Law, Leviticus 26 if you’re not sure about this.
@ Billy S,
I’m talking about a post-collapse world. Which is only 10 years away, so my daughters (if I am so blessed) will be reaching marriable age when there are no state benefits, nor pensions, and civil wars will be raging. So, they’ll certainly take a man I recommend. And as for me being doomed, have you not heard that Jesus died to save me, and other sinners? That’s how important a matter breaking the law was to Jehovah, He sent his son to die for that reason. Awesome eh?
@Gunner,
You’re a modern-day Pharisee. Like them, you ignore the law. Try accepting Jesus’ own words:
‘Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do’.
Sure, there’s that other verse where Jesus said ‘But when I am killed and resurrected, then you can do whatever you please, because my Father in heaven is all for antinomianism and hey, you’re saved now, so go party’
I bet you go to a church where the women have their heads uncovered and speak freely in church. Oh, ye hypocrites, woe unto you.
glosoli @ 5:46 pm:
“I bet you go to a church where the women have their heads uncovered and speak freely in church.”
You lose the bet. I don’t go to a meatball church at all:
http://gunnerq.com/2017/11/13/i-went-to-church-and-nothing-has-changed/
Next time you want a fight, maybe check out the blog of the guy you want to climb into the ring with to ensure he’s not in a heavier weight class, yeah?
http://gunnerq.com/2018/03/20/bring-it-glosoli/
‘Next time you want a fight, maybe check out the blog of the guy you want to climb into the ring with to ensure he’s not in a heavier weight class, yeah?’
You sound like a very proud man and an excellent Christian. I love you brother.
glosoli: I’m talking about a post-collapse world. Which is only 10 years away … when there are no state benefits, nor pensions, and civil wars will be raging.
* 1950s … people predict nuclear annihilation just around the corner.
* 1960s … hippies predict Revolution just around the corner. Helter Skelter.
* 1970s … experts predict a coming Ice Age and/or financial collapse (I remember the bestseller, The Crash of ’79) just around the corner.
* 1980s … the survivalist movement predicts race wars and societal collapse just around the corner. Road Warrior fuels trend of post-apocalypse sci-fi.
* 1990s … experts predict Y2k societal collapse just around the corner.
* 2000s … etc.
Yet our current system has proven far more resilient that people predicted.
We will see. My professional expertise is financial. There’s a jubilee year due in 2032 (men don’t observe the law, but God still does it every 50 years). This one’s going to wipe out the real value of tens of trillions of debt.
Plus, it’s plain that God is doing to us what He did to the Isrealites for turning away from His commands. It’s been in motion for c.50 years, the importation of strangers to rule over us in our lands. The British Royal family is but one example, the Muslims, the Mexicans, the Somalians, you name it, God placed them there to punish us. Don’t listen to this if you’re of faint heart:
[audio src="http://earnestlycontendingforthefaith.com/King%20James%20Bible%20Audio/Deuteronomy%2028.mp3" /]
Deti, suggesting adoption as an answer to a man frustrated in his Plan A to gain fatherhood is no answer, heck, worse than no answer, but IMO a wrong one.
1) Due to the grotesque burgeoning of the welfare state to encourage unmarried mothers keeping their bastards and the ubiquity of abortion for those that don’t wish to keep them, there are very, very few healthy white infants available for nonrelative adoption in the U.S. anymore, compared with pre-1973. If you want an 8-YO octatroon that’s LD with anger issues and a history of bullying, stealing, and setting fires, well, they have those. No thanks.
2) Unmarried heterosexual men are way down there for preference in the adoption pecking order.
3) While I readily admit the social good that is adoption of children genetically unrelated to the adoptive parents, I don’t see the attraction. To me, that is being a voluntary victim of what in birds is called brood parasitism, something done by cowbirds, magpies, and cuckoos. Those birds will invade another species’ bird’s nest when the parents are away gathering food, lay their own eggs in that nest (often killing or kicking the eggs there out) to be raised by the original nest owner bird couple. (IMO, letting unskilled/stupid/criminal/unhealthyThird Worlders enter our country, instantly becoming eternal parasites, is analogous.) It’s like voluntarily letting your wife be cuckolded. WTF? Again, no thank you.
@BillyS
Yes, focusing too much is indeed a bad idea. But, when there is/was some consideration of reputation, the arbiters are/were men. The standards for behavior are God’s.
Paul says:
March 20, 2018 at 7:11 am
“Luke, as courtesy; I think to advice people to become fathers without getting married and using artificial means to conceive is advising people to sin. I’m against that. It’s also cruel to children to not be able to live with their (biological) mothers. Child abuse cruel. History has shown that all children want to know their biological parents.”
Paul, when someone says that medically-assisted reproduction is the sin of adultery, my response is the same for when someone (typically a feminist/Churchian woman who hates normal male sexuality or a mangina) shouts that porn usage is adultery. That is, please identify the sexual partner with whom the accused has physically laid hands upon and shared flesh with them. The Bible may say things against Onanism, but AFAIK it isn’t against doctors. A kiss or shirt-off hug shares way more cells than does transplanting 1-3 fertilized ova, so the commandment against blood transfusions hardly applies.
Glosoli,
That crystal ball you using top practice this divination is also against the OT commands you claim to adore.
I wasn’t aware the world wiped out all its debts in 1982 either. We had some bumpy times, but I never heard of debts getting clear. So much for your 50 year cycle.
On Adoption: Walk very carefully there. The system will work against you even with that. And having young kids at a very old age remains odd for a reason, ignoring the adoption-related challenges that frequently arise. The idea of a “forever family” is about as much of a myth as that of a “faithful godly wife” today.
Luke: Unmarried heterosexual men are way down there for preference in the adoption pecking order.
It might be advisable for a hetero man wishing to adopt to claim to be homo. Maybe bring in a hetero friend and claim to be in a relationship.
Then, after the adoption, if it the issue ever comes up with a social worker, claim that you eventually realized that you weren’t gay.
Really twisted, that hetero men must pretend to be homo in order to adopt. Who could have foreseen this even a generation ago?
Red Pill Latecomer, the success of that strategy would depend, I suspect, in part on the state. In CA, OR, WA, MD, NJ, MA, CT, Chicago, absolutely.
Example of brood parasitism in birds — a robin (probably a hen) feeding a cuckoo chick:
https://tinyurl.com/y7rg5lfs
This is what I felt like with helping with and supporting my first wife’s damaged children, and expect more than a few men besides me would feel like providing for any nonbiological minor child. Why else the dependable uproar whenever some man, post-frivorce, finds out that he’s been paying child support for a sprat that’s not even his genetically?
Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2018/03/18) - Social Matter
@Billy S,
I have no crystal ball, just the wisdom I pray for daily, and thousands of hours of research.
Yeah, you clearly have no idea what happened through the 70s leading up to the cyclical jubilee peak in 82. Nor have you researched back every 50 years into the 1700s either. WHy don’t you go look for a chart of the price of a US 30-year treasury bond in 1970, and see how the price looked in 1982? It might surprise you, and relieve you of your ignorance.
I forgive you your snarky tone.
@Dalrock:
I don’t have time to track down all of your logical fallacies, but here’s a start.
“An ordinary gun forum would have locked the thread very quickly.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
“proving that you knew my fundamental point was right”
You can get proven wrong on an explicit claim, and you can claim that you had a better proof that you didn’t write down. That doesn’t matter: the argument that you did write down was incorrect.
“…correct me if I’m wrong…”
You are not willing to be corrected. You are what a logic teacher would call “deaf to reason,” and I’m not going to teach you logic because you’re already doing your damnedest to avoid learning logic. You can grandstand and showboat by claiming that you want to reason, but in fact you are doing your best to avoid reasoning. You have great talent for such avoidance.
glosoli,
He says in a snarky tone.
Your crystal ball is just different. I am sure you will find some way to justify that you were right in retrospect, even if the current male-female relations system remains intact.
gaiko,
Why are your panties in a bunch?
@Luke: “when someone says that medically-assisted reproduction is the sin of adultery”
I did not mention adultery. And doctors are not a special class of people immune to sin. And commands against blood-transfusion are not in the bible.
But getting children with someone you’re not married to is wrong. Such children were called bastards. Willingly producing bastards as a way to avoid God-given marriage is rebellion against God. It is sin. To advice others to do so is even worse.
@glosoli : “Likewise, nothing in the New testament did away with the Law”
Nothing? Really?
Heb 8
For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for **another.**
But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a ***new covenant*** with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.
***It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt***, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made ****the first one obsolete****; and ***what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear***.
Heb 9
Now the ***first covenant*** had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary.
They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings–external regulations applying until the time of the new order.
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a ***new covenant***, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance–now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins **committed under the first covenant**
If you REALLY think the first covenant still holds, why did you stop bringing sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem?
@ glosoli says:
“Nothing in the new testament changed the way God views polygamy.”
True.
“Try accepting Jesus’ own words:”
Let’s do that.
Matt 19:4 And He [Jesus] answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a [singular] man [male, singular] shall leave his [male, singular] father [male, singular] and mother [female, singular] and be joined to his [male, singular] wife [female, singular], and the two [1 + 1 = 2] shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two [1 + 1 = 2], but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
One man, one woman, for life. Which scripture written by Moses did Jesus quote?
Give it up Oscar. You are trying to change his fixation on the idea that many women and one man will ever work well. He has plans for his daughters you see….
Paul says:
March 21, 2018 at 8:18 am
@Luke: “when someone says that medically-assisted reproduction is the sin of adultery”
“I did not mention adultery. And doctors are not a special class of people immune to sin. And commands against blood-transfusion are not in the bible.
But getting children with someone you’re not married to is wrong. Such children were called bastards. Willingly producing bastards as a way to avoid God-given marriage is rebellion against God. It is sin. To advice others to do so is even worse.”
Whew boy. Where to start.
It’s SEX outside of marriage that’s prohibited Biblically, as I understand it. Pregnancy outside it was simply evidence that said sex had occurred. The whole Mary-and-Joseph drama was over how Joseph (extremely understandably) had concluded that the woman whom he had declared eternal loyalty to, that he had NOT had sex with, who had come up pregnant, had had sex with another man, when she had not done that (it requiring a personal visit from an angel of the Lord to convincingly so inform him). As I have pointed out online before about this new technology (most commonly intentionally using a married woman as a gestational surrogate), no penis nor semen enters the GS. Only a BABY (an early embryo) does. If another man’s and woman’s infant nursing from her breasts isn’t adultery (which I believe occurs without criticism in the Bible), then neither is her gestating another man’s and woman’s infant.
Oh, and the advising avoiding marriage? Marriage that’s such in more than name, Christian marriage, marriage that’s more than the legal equivalent of, when drunk, willingly signing a parchment in blood prooffered by a sketchy stranger that’s got Latin writing on it? On men’s issues sites we call that Marriage 1.0. Without being Amish from birth, ex-patting to a more traditionally Christian (but inevitablynonwhite) nation, to find a wife there. Uh, no. Deuteronomy, Ezra, Leviticus, all clearly forbid that.
So, we live in a historical period where marriage has clearly been stolen from us, about as available as specific knowledge of Jesus the particular man would be 10,000 miles away and 5 centuries before His coming. I certainly don’t favor that; I simply am aware of that. The dead must be replaced; so, what do we do between now and when marriage once again exists in the West? What I recommend is the best option of which I know, until women repent of feminism and once again embrace Christ.
Luke, BillyS:
I know white infants available for adoption are rare. Nevertheless that’s the route I would advise for Jason, but only if he marries. I would not recommend he adopt:
–if he is unmarried.
–if the child is older than 1 year old.
–if the child is not of his same race.
–if the child’s bio parents have a history of mental illness.
And, yes, Jason is getting up there and so having children might not be the best route for him. He might be better off finding a wife and remaining childfree by choice, so long as he can find a 40- or so year old woman who also wants to remain childfree and isn’t entertaining ridiculous fantasies of having a biological child.
Billy,
You may be right, but I’m curious about how proponents of polygamy deal with Christ’s words in which He quotes Moses.
No semen?
Then how is the egg fertilized?
That takes place in a lab, outside a human body. In Vitro (“in glass”), not In Vivo (“in life”).
Deti,
Adopting an infant of the same race would certainly reduce the risks, but spending years raising someone else’s kids (not what I thought I was doing) has led me to believe that nature has a whole lot more input than many realize. My kids came from the system as a sibling group and I definitely would warn against that.
My voice is more in the context of my experience in this case, though I have read enough stories while researching to find that even infant adoption can face the same problems.
I am not sure you can get even an infant without this being someplace in the background. I would expect them to not have a child available that did not have some influence of that.
Oscar,
Your question is a good one, as the pattern for marriage is 1 man and 1 woman for life, but I have found that those thinking polygamy is a great solution ignore a great many facts in their zeal for it. The AT discussions a while back probably solidified that. I think I am also becoming more rhetorical (some might say snarky) as I realize few really want to be persuaded with facts (the dialectic) or even to listen to them.
I definitely don’t think he is really listening, though he does project his snark on others a lot.
Earl,
It is fertilized before being inserted.
Though saying this is inherently moral is like arguing about angels and the head of a pin in many ways.
Depriving a child on purpose of one of their 2 parents is evil, period. It may happen, but intentionally pursuing it is not right, whichever parent is doing that.
No advanced culture in the world practices polygamy. That has been true for 1000 years.
Polygamy was abolished in every advanced culture for one simple reason–it destabilizes the society.
If the average married man has two wives, then 50% of men will end up as unmarried. A recipe for an unstable society.
In ancient societies (like Rome, where 40% of the population was held as slaves) polygamy worked, because literally half the male population was in slavery.
The fact that every advanced culture in the world–regardless of religion-ended polygamy should be enough of a tell to indicate there are good reasons to keep it prohibited.
BillyS says:
March 21, 2018 at 10:31 am
“Depriving a child on purpose of one of their 2 parents is evil, period. It may happen, but intentionally pursuing it is not right, whichever parent is doing that.”
Agreed. That, however, was done by the feminists and their useful idiots in the .gov. I’m merely pointing it out, and noting how to make (post-lactation) the children have the more necessary parent in their life, of the two possible. You might as well accuse a triage nurse in a military hospital in a war zone of murder by violence, as accuse me of wanting children to grow up without both parents in a Christian marriage.
@ Otto
“In ancient societies (like Rome, where 40% of the population was held as slaves) polygamy worked, because literally half the male population was in slavery.”
Monogamy was the norm in Rome and Greece, but not throughout the rest of the empire.
Another way Romans dealt with unmarried young men by enlisting them in the Army. Roman Soldiers weren’t allowed to marry, and enlistment lasted 20 years. Their retirement pension was usually a plot of land. After spending 20 years in Gaul, for example, a Roman Soldier (now in his late 30s, or early 40s) might decide he really doesn’t fit in back home, so he might take his retirement pension in Gaul, buy a few slaves to work his land, marry a local girl and settle down to the life of a land owner, which was a big deal back then.
That’s one way that Rome “Romanized” Europe.
Your point is valid, though. One reason Muslim cultures are so aggressively expansionist is that high status older men have maximum 4 wives and an unlimited number of concubines. They need to do something with all those lower status young men who have no hope of ever marrying and having a family (and thus, earn “wasta” [honor]). May as well send them out to conquer land and/or steal wives, or at least sex slaves.
Dalrock;
First, thanks for answering my question. I respect your opinion and the thought that went into your answer to my question.
My thought is not aligned entirely with yours; my belief is that some where along the way virtue was taken over and devalued by the creation of chivalry , which begat the pollution known as feminism (i. .e. men should bow down to woman and do whatever they want whenever because they should because they are men and woman deserve the respect of men, yada, yada yada). Yes, a lot of because’s; that is how woman think.
True story – just an hour ago, having a discussion about baptism and first communion for RCC for my daughter. The church we wanted to officially join (because it is easier to get approved for the ceremonies) I have reservations about, because I have heard they are a bit new agey and a run a bit to the leftist side of things on social issues. As we were talking, out from my wife’s mouth comes this: “things can’t always be black and white, there are some grey areas” followed up by “well, you should want to do this because…” I stopped her with this comment: “The entire reason the West is in decline (and she agrees with that thought) is because too many people over too long a period started accepting ‘grey’ areas and the slippery slope on going away from traditional Western values started degenerating”. Still not sure of going with that church – and I told her I am not going to compromise my principles just to have a couple church ceremonies performed.
Just goes to my point that chivalry has been bastardized to benefit only woman, in order to train men over generations to perform acts/deeds for woman because they were woman, not because it was the right thing to do. That is the difference between virtue and chivalry – the first is doing the right thing, the later is doing something someone (a woman) wants just because. Game was created to get around and solve that problem, it does not add to the problem, per say.
@Paul,
I referred to the Law, I don’t recall mentioning the Old and the New Covenant.
In the scripture you quote I assume you read about the law:
‘I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.’
Much the same as Jehovah to the Israelites in Moses’s time. As one would expect with God, His ways are eternal. Ten thousand generations….long time.
I can give you many other pieces of scripture from Jesus that confirm He was all about ensuring we obeyed His Father’s commands. Or if you’re genuinely seeking the truth, just run through the NT and look only for things that Jesus said, you will find dozens of examples.
Jesus didn’t die to herald the arrival of anarchy, He died to save us, and to put the Holy Spirit in us to help us to become more holy, and give us a better shot at avoiding sinning and breaking the laws and commands. Sadly, the church has totally ignored that key message, hence we’re starting to feel the wrath of Jehovah.
@Billy,
Please stop gas-lighting and be like a Christian man when you write rather than a snarky teenage girl.
I have carefully considered the polygyny issue, and the following piece was plenty enough to show me that it’s fine with God. Have a read, it covers your weak point on the singular somehow excluding the plural, which of course it doesn’t:
I note it was Oscar who made the ‘singular rules out plural’ point, not Billy.
I would assume you agree though.
Jaywalking and smoking dope are also not specifically prohibited in the text of the bible. That doesn’t mean they’re good ideas.
Incidentally, I don’t know who you’re citing, but I’d rate tertvllian as a more authoritative source. He didn’t agree that polygamy was “fine with God.” I’ll let him argue his points directly…
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0404.htm
Best,
Boxer
When it comes to polygyny as not being a good idea…let me present this retort.
Solomon was the wisest man on Earth…no man was his equal.
What was the reason he fell away from God…he followed the gods of his 700 wives. 1 Kings 11:4
Most men often can’t handle one wife when it comes to being divided between God and her. Rather than try to present why polygyny is a good idea…how about what Paul said….it is better for men to not get married for the reason that your chances of that division were less. 1 Cor 7:8
That’s the way I read that story also. There are a number of similar narratives, for example…
Solomon’s dad, King David, had his best pal killed so that he could swoop in and bang his best friend’s wife.
Samson, the hero, banged prostitutes.
Judah banged his daughter-in-law.
Lot banged his own daughter.
These are all stories in the bible. In context, they’re clearly cautionary tales, and aren’t meant to be some sort of endorsement of the behavior by the divine monarch.
‘Jaywalking and smoking dope are also not specifically prohibited in the text of the bible. That doesn’t mean they’re good ideas.’
So what do you want to do? Argue about what each man thinks is a good idea, or about what the bible says. If it’s the former, please count me out. Fool.
Do not add or subtract from God’s law, it’s not complicated, He says it enough times.
Yet you all want to do precisely that don’t you, because, well, you think you know better.
On this subject, I have nothing more to say.
It’s interesting that Boxer is an unrepentant and proud fornicator (see his blog), yet believes he has some authority to interpret scripture.
satan appears in many guises, if this were a church, you would be cast out for your sins. Why does anyone give him any attention? Why do so many of you frequent his blog? Do you enjoy reading tales of sin? How sad a state of affairs is the modern world.
I shall ignore you from now on, and pray that you will soon repent from your sin.
Pointing out Boxer’s sin doesn’t refute the claims.
Was it a good idea for David or Solomon or Samson or Judah or Lot to do what they did? Do you think it is a good idea when it was pointed out in Scripture how the wives of Solomon took his heart away from God?
So says the snarky teenage girl (or someone acting like one).
Believe what you want. God only made Eve for Adam, not several. That is the core pattern. Everything else is accommodating humanity. Abuse your daughters if you want, or encourage their abuse, but stop claiming a Scriptural mandate for that.
And also wise up to realize widespread polygamy will only help the hawt men, not the ones who really need help and faithfulness now.
You feel free to stick with the hypocritical sinner Boxer, I’ll stick with God and His laws.
Billy, you have now trebled down on gas-lighting me. When will you stop I wonder?
No matter:
‘But what’s even more problematic to the anti-polygamy position is that God’s Law is written with the possibility of polygamy in mind. It doesn’t ban it. It regulates it.
Exodus 21
10 If he take him another wife; her [a prior wife] food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
From cover to cover in the Old Testament, so much room is left for the possibility of polygyny, as opposed to polyandry, the “you get stoned to death” sin, it’s astounding. God’s Law even adjudicates minor details of polygyny, like how to handle inheritance when you have two wives (x).
Even more telling is God’s lack of explicit condemnation of key Patriarchs who did it. Who introduced us to the Biblical narrative, through the seed of Israel?
Abraham, justified by faith, had multiple wives. (Genesis 16:1)
Jacob, patriarch and head of Israel, had multiple wives. (Genesis 29:23 + 29:28 + 30:4 + 30:9)
Moses, the Lawgiver himself, had multiple wives (Exodus 2:21 + Numbers 12:1). Scripture doesn’t seem to make this polygamy a particularly big deal; it just reveals this by saying after his first marriage “he had married an Ethiopian” and goes on to describe the controversy related to her origin and Moses’s authority over Israel. Nevertheless, God resolutely defended Moses in this matter, making no mention of that marriage being sinful in any way. (Numbers 12)
Righteous Caleb, who was one of the only Israelites to have the courage to venture into the Promised Land, had two concubines (1 Chronicles 2:46 + 1 Chronicles 2:48).
David, a very flawed man after God’s own heart, had many wives. (Example: 2 Samuel 5:13)
According to Wikipedia, over 40 important Biblical figures had more than one wife. (x)
Remember, sexual sin (fornication) uniformly results in the death penalty in the Bible (1 Corinthians 6:9). And marriage involves two people becoming one flesh. Either a man can be one flesh with multiple women, or it’s a fatal exception error. If polygyny were a fatal exception error, Moses should have commanded himself to be stoned. If two people become one flesh in a polygamous marriage with no defilement, however, it becomes defiance of God to pry them apart.
The last bulleted case is of particular note. God says He delivered the deceased Solomon’s wives to David’s bosom. Check out the verbiage:
2 Samuel 12
7 And Nathan [the prophet] said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
Moreover, if you were a man in Israel who dwelled with your brother, who died childless, you were to wed his wife (x). There were no exceptions for if you were already married.
God never makes someone pick one sin over another.’
You may decide you would prefer something else, but it’s not up to you. It’s up to God.
@glosoli : I referred to the Law, I don’t recall mentioning the Old and the New Covenant.
No, that was me to clarify your position. You wrote : “I just finished up reading the books of Moses.
Very happy with all of God’s commands and statutes and laws. Such a shame we choose to ignore them all these days”. By this you imply you think you should obey the Law of Moses. You wrote : “I humbly suggest you stick to God’s laws, and do not add to them, nor subtract from them” which you used to discard my reference to laws in the NT given by Paul and Christ. You wrote : “Likewise, nothing in the New testament did away with the Law”. All these statements show that with the Law you refer to the Old Covenant. You use that to find a ground to support polygamy.
I have shown that the Old Covenant is not binding on us, that we are bound by the New Covenant, which is some ways MORE strict, including its view on monogamy.
As long as you have not understood that, my questions stands: if you think you are still bound by the Law (=Old Covenant), why did you stop sacrificing in the temple in Jerusalem?
@Luke
Societies’ view on marriage means nothing. You should be worried about how God views marriage and stick to that. It is clear that children are the result of sex between a married man and woman. That science has made it possible to fertilize sperm and egg outside the body, and use even another womb to grow a child, does not negate that each child has a biological father and mother. It is clear from God’s word that the biological father and mother should be married. Others have also noted that it is cruel to knowingly withhold a biological parent to a child. If that is not enough to convince you that this is wrong, nothing will.
No Paul.
The New Covenant is centred around the law. I will simply suggest you go and read everything Jesus said on the subject and it will be very clear to you that you have been misled by churches and others. You will find many many examples of Jesus telling us to obey His Father’s commands. It is so clear, I find it bewildering that any God-fearing person could be in doubt.
I am busy, but I’ll give you just one to mull over:
‘If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 19Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. 20At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 21He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. 22Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? 23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.’
Obviosuly animals and other sacrifices were no longer needed once Jesus was sacrificed for our sins, we all know that. But few know the truth about the law. I urge any who read this to go and do their own research, and pray on the matter. I’ve been blessed with clarity from the moment I started to read the bible. Praise be to God for that.
Paul,
‘You use that to find a ground to support polygamy.’
I’ve not connected the two at all, anywhere in this thread. I’ve simply observed that God has no issues with men having many wives.
I’ll assume you made a genuine mistake with that comment.
Unrepentant is fair. Proud is not. Post a link to any expression of pride on my part, or admit you’re a liar.
I have an unrepentant fidelity to the text, inasmuch as I see it as a roadmap back to a high culture and an advanced civilization. Your proposed lifestyle (polygamy) is at least as sinful as mine, according to the text.
I actually go to vigil mass nearly every saturday evening. It appeals to me. No one has “cast me out” yet.
My blog is a place for men to congregate and practice free speech. Men from all backgrounds have appeared there, for a multiplicity of reasons (including to insult and make fun of me.) That’s exactly as I designed it. A couple of respectful women occasionally post too. I also feature guest articles from thoughtful people, including believers who condemn my behavior. I have no problem with this.
Ultimately, men need to share ideas in an attempt to strategize the coming renaissance. Feminism is already collapsing. People like us will replace it.
The best curse I could possibly lay on you is a wish that you get what you claim to want: i.e. multiple women you’re responsible for. I won’t curse you this way, because I’ve seen the end result of that. (Some of my kin practice “the order,” ya know.) It’s a horrible way to live, and if you do this you will regret it, sorely, for the rest of your life. Your children will pay the price as well.
Regards,
Boxer
That doesn’t answer the question.
‘Was it a good idea for David or Solomon or Samson or Judah or Lot to do what they did? Do you think it is a good idea when it was pointed out in Scripture how the wives of Solomon took his heart away from God?’
I already did. Here it is again:
‘So what do you want to do? Argue about what each man thinks is a good idea, or about what the bible says. If it’s the former, please count me out. Fool.’
Of note, everyone is steering a wide birth around this comment:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/why-game-is-a-threat-to-our-values/#comment-262902
Straining at gnats…
Paul says:
March 21, 2018 at 4:02 pm
@Luke
“Others have also noted that it is cruel to knowingly withhold a biological parent to a child. If that is not enough to convince you that this is wrong, nothing will.”
As I have repeatedly pointed out, the current situation in America, where a child can expect to have only one parent while growing up, and the vast majority of the time, the less fit as a parent of his two, is not a situation of my, or most American men’s choosing. Blame the feminists and their useful idiot sycophants in government (and the mass media/Hollywood, arguably) for that. Again, this is triage, doing the best under way less than ideal circumstances. Men called to fatherhood rather than St. Paul’s path would be ignoring Genesis 1:28. You might as well castigate a widow (who was a loyal, loving wife) with small children as a man who does what I suggest.
Probably because you’re not making an argument in it. You’re insulting Billy before copypasta of old Hebrew legalisms. You are aware of St. Paul’s work, no?
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. (1 Corinthians 7:2)
There is no “interpretation” possible here. The author is clearly using terms that denote monogamous relationships.
Hope this helps,
Boxer
And I pointed out the Scripture passage where it seems like 700 wives is a bad idea. Please point out where Boxer’s fornication refutes the Scripture passage he just provided too.
Boxer says:
March 21, 2018 at 5:32 pm
:…” St. Paul’s work, no?
“Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:2)
There is no “interpretation” possible here. The author is clearly using terms that denote monogamous relationships.
Hope this helps,
Boxer”
Boxer, in a civilization where mating follows a Pareto distribution, not unlike in effect the polygamy of the Muslim world, where does a non-Alpha man go to pick up one of those, permanently?
Dating now: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpcWaqsVIAAbVSF.jpg
earl, if you really want to take earl as your guide in this matter, I can only conclude you are highly gullible, and have been duped by satan. Be careful with that approach.
I don’t care one jot if you think many wives is a bad idea, nor do I care if it is in practice a bad idea, I simply make the point that God has no issue with it, and have quoted scripture, and provided a link which covers both New and Old Testament comments.
And you all ignore the Old, and rely on misinterpreting Paul to suit you own view.
From the link I shared, which I can tell most of you haven’t even bothered to read:
‘Then we have Paul’s advice to Christians who might benefit from celibacy, but should marry to avoid burning in lust.
1 Corinthians 7
7 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.[a]7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
Did you catch that?
1 Corinthians 7
2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
That is, indeed, monogamy. But it’s monogamy to meet a specific need.
“TO AVOID FORNICATION, let every man have his own wife.”
Having one wife is the difference between burning with lust and having a mate. Having two wives or three wives isn’t, and if you think it is, you have an addiction you need to deal with.’
‘As for some weird inter-Testimental revelation of plural marriage being invalid… what, did a bell sound? Did scores of polygamous husbands stop being one flesh with their spouses? Who had to divorce who? And where is it written? (Etc.) We see no such thing in the Bible.’
I pray some people reading about these issues will have had their eyes opened by what I have posted, even as most of you have ignored the word of God, so entrenched are your self-absorbed views.
That’s it for me, for now.
glosoli,
“Of note, everyone is steering a wide birth around this comment: ….”
Yawn. The reasons are probably not fear of your beliefs, but because many here have heard it all before. Although Artisanal Toad was a better writer than you, he was eventually banned here. Perhaps you would find Still Going to be a good starting point to learn about him and his beliefs. Perhaps you would like to go join him figuratively or even lliterally.
American says:
March 19, 2018 at 11:52 pm
@Spike, interesting post. But what actual evidence can you provide that “this is how sophisticated civilizations disappear in history virtually overnight?” I’ve spent a little time studying civilization decline and replacement and can actually provide older scholarly studies and a couple of newer ones supporting your assertion. What scholarly evidence do you have?
American: My apologies for a late reply. I’ll give you my evidence as I found it.
-The writings of anthropologist Daniel Amneus, now deceased. Amneus writes on how humans lived in herds for most of their existence. Herds consisted of an Alpha Male, who chased other males away for the purposes of sexual dominance. The females were arranged in the herd as a mating hierarchy. The beta males, living on the peripheries of the herd, eventually developed agriculture, and from agriculture, the bartering and economic systems we are now familiar with. In order to maintain their economic abilities beyond their abilities to perform labor, betas had to entice females to mate with them. This they successfully did. In order to maintain a male’s interest in their children – now valuable because they are the parent’s welfare system – strict laws on female sexual regulation evolved. This we call marriage.
Thus, economics, not religion*, was the prime driver of marriage. To tamper with marriage is to tamper with the economic system.
Amneus gives the example of ancient Egypt. The ancient Egyptians didn’t marry. Couples simply moved in together. When they had the Israelites, who did marry, in their midst, they began being out-competed.
Amneus notes that any hunter-gatherer matriarchy has always been swept aside by newcomers with marriage /patriarchy, because it is a far better economic system.
-Other sources: Black Pigeon Speaks and Vertigo Politix on You Tube have a good series on this. Ancient Sparta was renown for their warriors and their dominance of the ancient Greek sphere. The Spartans honored death in battle for men and death in childbirth for women as the ultimate sacrifice for the State. Sparta was at it’s height when the birth rate was high. Being where it was located on a trading route, it also made a lot of money. Spartan rulers were very careful about the nature of money, in this case, gold and silver. They exchanged it outside the city for iron currency and that currency was used inside the city.
Two things led to the decline of Sparta. One was that the iron currency system eventually broke down. It did so because, due to the military requirements of Sparta, women increasingly took over the economy. The birthrate fell, leading to a weakened military and women dispensed with the iron currency system, leading to an inefficient economy. This is a good example of how sex and the economy of a civilization are linked.
These are tow examples I can think of immediately. I don’t have my references with me, but will write them up in this blog (if that’s okay, Dalrock!) when I get them.
*Marriage became linked with the worship of the One God fairly recently in our history, perhaps 6000 years ago. The ancients who worshiped the one God in pre-Biblical times understood that the universe was an ordered place and thus that God sought to order the lives of His followers. The God of the Bible, then, is also the God of civilization.
Dear Luke:
There was a time when I asked that same question. Some time ago, I wrote:
Much more at:
https://v5k2c2.com/2018/02/04/wimminz-and-women-a-comparison/
@glosoli: The way you’ve talked about the Law has made it clear you were talking about the Old Covenant. I already explicitly mentioned the laws of Paul and Christ, so don’t pretend I suggest that we should not obey any command. I also explicitly mentioned that some of these New Covenant commands are MORE strict than Old Covenant commands. You are creating a smokescreen here.
You are aware that breaking one command of the Old Covenant means breaking the whole Law. But you’ve admitted that we don’t need to obey the Old Covenant and sacrifice animals for our sins. Therefore you’ve admitted that you’ve broken the Old Covenant (if you ever was even bound by it).
So what should be more binding on us? The commands God gives us in the New Covenant or the Old Covenant? Those of the New Covenant of course. And what do these commands say? I’ve written in my previous posts about these, and you’ve chosen to ignore that.
With regard to polygamy, you keep referring to the patriarchs and the Old Covenant to defend it, and ignore what I and other have written from the viewpoint of the New Covenant. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot argue against the New Covenant using the Old Covenant.
The New Covenant is clear about polygamy; it is not allowed. You have said nothing to disprove it.
@Luke: Men called to fatherhood rather than St. Paul’s path would be ignoring Genesis 1:28.
Two things; I think the apostles and the early Church would disagree with you that you think St. Paul is commanding things contrary to God’s commands. And as a matter of fact, St. Paul has made it clear there is no obligation in any sense that people should put children into this world.
1 Co 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; [Paul was unmarried]
38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.
It is BETTER not to marry, and hence it is BETTER to not have children. Paul shows that any command that Gen 1:28 might imply to make sure you have children is effectively cancelled. [And I think that command has long ago been fulfilled already, there are now 7.6 billion people on this earth; it is a collective command, not an individual command, else any infertile person would be breaking such a command.]
Yeah, I pointed out that Scripture before in this thread.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/why-game-is-a-threat-to-our-values/#comment-262874
I do find it funny that repeatedly the first refute to questioning is ‘you are duped by Satan’. glosoli must be one of those who would of picked up the stone and thrown it.
Just a thought I had.
I assume we all agree that Jehovah is consistent and true and righteous and just in His laws and the set-up here on earth.
If you believe that polygamy was OK with God in Old Testament times (surely obvious from scripture), but suddenly it wasn’t in New Testament times, how do you square that with God’s consistency?
How did He suddenly create sinners from the many Jews that had multiple wives? And why would He do that?
I’m interested in how you guys actually explain the above to yourselves. Thanks.
“Today, at Mass the Priest admonished the women present to obey their husbands, just as Mary was obedient to Joseph.”
“The priest flat out told her that her main concern would now be her husband and that those women would have to take a back seat and like it.”
Rev. Nononsense and Father Whobish-Thisis for Cardinals, 2020. Make the Rock of Peter… maybe, somewhat, fractionally less bad again. Also encouraging were Scott’s earlier comments about the traditional and correct nuptial advice offered by his Orthodox priest. Too bad this seems to be exceptional, not the rule, as it should be.
“Don’t ever take advice from a woman on how to get women. They lie.”
True. Although, I think it is more: “They don’t know, but would say whatever it takes to maintain the pecking order, no matter the truth or verisimilitude, if they did.” It has a different, more all-encompassing, exigent character than a man’s deception; they lie to survive, supplicate to thrive. (Doesn’t excuse it. Still sinful.)
Likewise, female human sexuality is furtive by nature. Covert from the ovaries on up. (But only in the state of nature. Today’s YOLO, Crumble/Cinder/Seeking Arraignment dial-a-dick and da club is an abberation thanks, entirely, to the advanced technology and material prosperity granted to us by the monumental toil of millions of past patriarchal cis-het beta deplorables. Posterity is cold comfort for them, I guess. (I wonder if there’s Carhartt in heaven? Platinum-tungsten-plated slide rules, at least? Poor guys…))
I am not a woman. Thankfully. Although, next time I pray, I shall protest not getting the bonus low-morbidity decade. #deathgap #rooked #idemandtospeaktoyourmanager
Godspeed to Jason in his service. I admire willful sobriety, too.
I don’t think supervised hormone therapy is bad, if you need it. (There are reproductive and chronic disease consequences. Talk to your– cool, usually male specialist– doctor.) The benchmark for “needing it” as a man is too high, considering the state of environmental endocrine disruption and how hormonal birth control and exotic hormone treatments are given away like candy to babies. Literally.
Maintain and tune up what God gave you, at the risk of running a little hot? Bad. Retrograde.
Scramble and desecrate the same, ensuring profound dysfunction and an early grave? Good! “Progressive.”
It’s deeply, deeply fucked up. By design.
Pingback: Modern dating: is the only winning move is not to play?
A large number of comments have vanished.
Just as everyone seemed to be agreeing that polygamy was allowed, but not ideal.
Where did these comments go? And why are they not here any more?
Dalrock?
Wrong thread, sorry.
@glosoli: If you believe that polygamy was OK with God in Old Testament times (surely obvious from scripture), but suddenly it wasn’t in New Testament times, how do you square that with God’s consistency?
Very good question, but difficult to answer. Difficult in the sense it requires more than a couple of paragraphs. I can however ask you similar questions, which are equally difficult to answer, and lead to the same answer. If you believe divorce was OK in the OT, but suddenly it wasn’t in the NT, how do you square that? If you believe circumcision was required in the OT, but suddenly it was forbidden in the NT, how do you square that? If you believe animal sacrifice for sin was OK in the OT, but suddenly it wasn’t in the NT, how do you square that?
The answer of course lies in the relationship between the old covenant and the new covenant. I have discussed this already elsewhere.
@Paul,
I think there are some matters that pertain to God and holiness, and other matters that pertain to man and how man lives.
So, issues like animal sacrifice and circumcision are not really complicated at all, not really, when you read a bit. Hence, you rarely, if ever, see debates about them. Nor about divorce, although I’ve seen some. Adultery or sexual sin, do you divorce her/forgive her/stone her to death?
I’m also looking into Sabbath observation, which is a can of worms for those of us looking to obey the law and reconcile old/new covenants.
But genuinely, I just don’t have any of the above problems with polygamy, it’s the most open and shut of them all as far as I can see. Jews remained in polygamous marriages for centuries, despite Rome’s decrees.
As I’ve already mentioned, if the *cathedral* encourage divorce, and working on Sabbaths, but outlaws polygamy, it’s a good bet that the other side is showing you the contrarian view, the lie, rather than the truth. It’s just a shame folk can’t see that and that they allow modern poisoned intersex relationships to turn them against women and polygamy. Although personally, I doubt I would want more than one wife (I said two previously as a mild provocation).
@glosoli: I think there are some matters that pertain to God and holiness, and other matters that pertain to man and how man lives.
That’s the best you can do?
You wrote: ” It’s risky to ignore His commands, or use excuses.” and “And you all ignore the Old, and rely on misinterpreting Paul to suit you own view. ” and “even as most of you have ignored the word of God, so entrenched are your self-absorbed views.” and “Do not add or subtract from God’s law, it’s not complicated, He says it enough times.Yet you all want to do precisely that don’t you, because, well, you think you know better.”
You condemn people for having self-absorbed views, for ignoring the Old Covenant, for misinterpreting Paul to suit their own views, to ignore God’s commands, to use excuses to not follow God’s commands, to add and subtract from God’s law, and to not want to follow God because they think they know better.
Yet YOU cannot answer why you are on the one hand not bringing animal sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem, yet by ignoring a SINGLE command of the Old Covenant, you have broken the WHOLE covenant.
It’s time to start looking in the mirror. Then start reading and pray to Jesus to guide you through St. Paul’s writings by His Holy Spirit; read the letter to the Galatians, to the Hebrews, and Romans. Read Acts and see what the apostles thought about the relationship between the Old Covenant and the Gentiles.
‘Yet YOU cannot answer why you are on the one hand not bringing animal sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem’.
Literally everyone knows why we don’t need to sacrifice animals to atone for sins, yet you made it out to be a complicated issue. If you want to play games, find another playmate, I’m not interested in games.
@glosoli
You conveniently ignore the rest of my posts. You conveniently misquote me by only selecting the first half of a sentence I wrote. You are avoiding any of my questions.Yet you claim you know best and others are willfully ignorant. You are the one playing games, and a very dishonest one.
Pingback: My New Appreciation for Dalrock | Secular Patriarchy
>That’s the best you can do?
You wrote: ” It’s risky to ignore His commands, or use excuses.” and “And you all ignore the Old, and rely on misinterpreting Paul to suit you own view. ” and “even as most of you have ignored the word of God, so entrenched are your self-absorbed views.” and “Do not add or subtract from God’s law, it’s not complicated, He says it enough times.Yet you all want to do precisely that don’t you, because, well, you think you know better.”
You condemn people for having self-absorbed views, for ignoring the Old Covenant, for misinterpreting Paul to suit their own views, to ignore God’s commands, to use excuses to not follow God’s commands, to add and subtract from God’s law, and to not want to follow God because they think they know better.
Yet YOU cannot answer why you are on the one hand not bringing animal sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem, yet by ignoring a SINGLE command of the Old Covenant, you have broken the WHOLE covenant.’
Of course I can answer that question, any Sunday School child can answer that question. Why even bother to ask it?
Your type of Christian always focuses on Paul (who Peter wrote is very hard to understand). You ignore the fact that he was writing to many different audiences, each with different needs, so he was always giving views that would help each group. Do our circumstances today match those specific groups, such as the Hebrews, or the Galatians? Did Paul ever say the old laws were abolished? God forbid. Do modern Christians really know the very basics of their faith? No, they don’t. It’s best summed up by Jesus:
’15If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 19Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. 20At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 21He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. 22Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? 23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.’
Modern Christians do not keep the commands, the laws, the statutes, hardly any of God’s commands are adhered to any more. Yet you focus on animal sacrifices! Grow up man.
Feel free to have the final word, but perhaps spend your time this weekend searching the new testament for every word that Jesus spoke during His time on earth. Notice how often He stressed that it was all about obeying His father’s commands. Nothing else mattered.
Or continue with your antinomianism, and dread the day you stand in front of the Lord:
’21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity*.’
*iniquity = lawlessness
@glosoli
Your issue is that you don’t read and think about my arguments. Discussion with you is useless because you refuse to respond to arguments, only to repeat yourself, contradicting yourself, while blaming others for not obeying the Lord.
I will not respond to you any longer, it is useless until you change this attitude. I will only point out your errors for others to see.
“Of course I can answer that question” -> you still evade that question and have not yet answered.
” (who Peter wrote is very hard to understand).” ->
1 Pet 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
2 Pet 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ: To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: 2 Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.
“Your type of Christian always focuses on Paul. [..] You ignore the fact that he was writing to many different audiences, each with different needs … Do our circumstances today match those specific groups, such as the Hebrews, or the Galatians?” -> Apparently you think the Old Covenant is still applicable, but what the apostle Paul teaches in Hebrews and Galatians we should ignore. Interestingly the apostles thought otherwise
Acts 15
1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.
22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. 23 With them they sent the following letter:
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings. 24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell”
2 Pet 3:14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Peter calls ALL Paul’s letters “Scriptures”.
2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Thus, Paul’s letters are God-breathed and USEFUL for teaching .. for the servant of God.
Including “Galatians” and “Hebrews”.
“Did Paul ever say the old laws were abolished? God forbid.” -> Gal 3:10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”
You cannot rely on the law for justification. Not just the Galatians; nobody (“all who rely”).
Heb 8:13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
Heb 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
A NEW covenant for those who are called.
“Modern Christians do not keep the commands, the laws, the statutes, hardly any of God’s commands are adhered to any more. Yet you focus on animal sacrifices!” -> You claim we should follow all God’s Old Covenant laws. Animal sacrifices are part of God’s commands in the Old Covenant. As is male circumcision. You condemn others for what you fail to do yourself. Still you cannot formulate a coherent view on the relationship between the Old and New Covenant. And if I show you such a view, you refuse to even take note.
“Your type of Christian always focuses on Paul … Do modern Christians really know the very basics of their faith? No, they don’t.” -> more judgments from you, whereas you do not even know what type of Christian I am.
“perhaps spend your time this weekend searching the new testament for every word that Jesus spoke during His time on earth.” -> I’ve been studying the words of my Lord for quite some time, so I’m quite familiar with them, but still learning. I will remember and celebrate the sacrificial death and resurrection of my Lord, who has died as a one-time sacrifice for my sins and has made me a new creation.
Here’s the magazine of Roosh the Doosh with an article titled, ‘The Rise of Game Denialism’. LOL. Game Denialism! If you don’t go along with the personality-cult of RooshDoosh and Supreme Dark Lord Teddie, well, you’re a DENIALIST. Oh! Oh! The butthurtedness of it all! Lolzzlooollzzzlol that, kek punklings. The article equates Game Denialism with belief in Flat Earth Theory. Waaaaaah. Waaaaaaah! We want our nonsense to be True, and anybody who doesn’t suck along with us is a Denialist. :O)
How sad is that? But nupe, it isn’t a personality cult consisting of The Pathetic along with those Secret Returned Kings who prey on The Pathetic. The ones who are constantly telling us how intelligent they are, how many women they’ve ‘banged’, etc. Game is the desperately needed answer to the ills of Western society! Because my buddies say so.
http://www.returnofkings.com/164869/the-rise-of-game-denialism-is-hurting-a-lot-of-men?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ReturnOfKings+%28Return+Of+Kings%29
Speaking of Denialism, it certainly is illustrated clearly by ‘Christians’ on this site and elsewhere who go along with cowards that place the name of (((Jews))) in parentheses. Here is the Biblical command to Christians concerning Jews, and defining who is a Jew:
“For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” (Romans I: 28-29)
You GameBoys, Anonymous Coward and the rest of the Group, you are convicted by your own words and actions. Which you will answer for shortly, including your personal slanders. Moral of the Story: Don’t be like them. Yep that means you too, YodaBoy. Flee from the merchants of darkness, who claim Christianity but deny the power and authority of Scripture. Flee from those who preen themselves while hating the LORD’s servants.
‘You cannot rely on the law for justification. Not just the Galatians; nobody (“all who rely”).’
Paul, I’ve never once suggested that anyone is.I agree with St Paul entirely.
So, who are you arguing with?
Justified by faith & grace.
Sanctified by the Holy Spirit & The Law.
It’s clear from our engagement here that you have reading comprehension issues. Possibly quite a low IQ? I have already answered your question on animal sacrifices, but you missed it somehow.
You are arguing against shadows. It’s all very sad.
If you don’t keep God’s law, who’s law do you keep? Mans? Another entity?
Read Jesus’ own words, all of them, and let me know what you think.
@ray,
Nice comment. But who is YodaBoy?
@glosoli
“Your type of Christian always focuses on Paul … Do our circumstances today match those specific groups, such as the Hebrews, or the Galatians?” versus “I agree with St Paul entirely.”
You’re sad.
(the wrong handle was used there somehow, please delete the duplicate comment, apologies)
There were so many ways you could have responded to me highlighting your shadow-boxing match.
I am sad, that you chose that response.
Men today (even Christian brothers), simply unable to say ‘sorry, I made a mistake there’.
Jaywalking and smoking dope are also not specifically prohibited in the text of the bible. That doesn’t mean they’re good ideas.”
“All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.”
1 Cor 10:23
Billy S —
“ray,
My aren’t you into AMOGing it. You despise something that comes easy to you. And then you threaten others (AR) with physical harm. I am not impressed. You might beat the crap out of me, but just try it if we ever meet in person and you may get a worse response than you expect. I was quite a wimp in high school, but one boy who pushed me too much learned that was not a bright idea. You are more likely to eventually come across that if you ever really do back up your tough talk with the action you threaten.”
You are a liar, BillyS. That’s what results from making assumptions about persons you don’t know, in order to defend your cult and the fellow-travelers in your cult.
I despise Game for the reasons stated above. Exactly contrary to your false accusation, NOTHING about females ‘came easy to me’. Essentially I was ignored/rejected by females until around age thirty, when a combination of military experience, athletics, college, and work gradually caused females to begin reacting to me with desire and attraction. No Game. No Mystery. No Heartiste. Just lots of self-development that didn’t involve Relationship Experts. During the decades that women weren’t into me, I just tried to improve myself gradually, and make the best of whatever the present situation was. My friends had lots of girlfriends, hey, it is what it is.
So, young man, you were wrong in your assumption and attack concerning these things coming easy to me. I am waiting for your retraction.
You close by very much wanting to threaten me physically, but since you’re not up to masculine directness, you kinda waffle around about your hopes that my ‘tough talk’ will result in many beatdowns. Once again, you have zero information about me and my life experiences. You were in too much of a rush to defend your cult, please Dalrock’s GameBoys, and put an ass whooping on me, to find out about the details of my life.
Your fervor in defending your Game Cult proves the points I was attempting to make. Thanks! :O)
glosoli —
“@ray,
Nice comment. But who is YodaBoy?”
The Yoda guy doesn’t post here any more? Mebbe he’s gone now.
Well anyway, it was a former commenter named, I think, Yoda. You know, with the scrambled Yoda syntax? Another Teddie Boy.
ray claims to be a ‘natural’ who can bed women despite being old, unattractive, and lacking in wealth. ray also claims that the same skills indeed arise naturally in every man, so that there should be no formal body of knowledge for the purpose of teaching these skills.
If we take his claims at face value, why can’t ray teach SeventiesJason how to get laid? Seventiesjason says that he has never even kissed a girl, despite having may attributes that place him above the average man.
ray should teach Seventiesjason his methods rather than just screech incoherently. If he is not forthcoming, Seventiesjason should petition ray to teach him. Pupil and student are right here.
Pingback: Blinded by chivalry. | Dalrock
Pingback: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight | Dalrock
Pingback: Peterson can’t handle the truth. | Dalrock
Pingback: Chivalry and the kickass conservative gal. | Dalrock
Pingback: Why do Women Incite Others to Emote? | Σ Frame
Pingback: Dalrock’s Law of Feminism | Dalrock
Pingback: An unshakable faith in men’s benevolence. An inexhaustible supply of good will from men. | Dalrock
Pingback: How chivalry (and mamma’s boys) brought us women’s suffrage and feminism. | Dalrock
Pingback: What is the blue pill? | Dalrock
Pingback: Feminism is the parasitic rider chivalry longs for. | Dalrock
Pingback: No true Lancelot. | Dalrock
Pingback: An Appreciation and Critique of WALL.E - Review
Pingback: Charlize Theron has us trapped. | Dalrock
Pingback: Reconciling old and new conservative views. | Dalrock
Pingback: Pity the wife who doesn’t yearn to please her husband. | Dalrock
First time commenter. I’ve been reading here for about 18 months; Reading TRM for about a year longer.
I married young and attended ultra conservative churches for a long time. I converted in college, my wife was raised in it.
I used to think I was imagining things when I would get the flu, and it seemed to me that my wife would compete with me for who was the person most ill. Then I had a surgery that required 5 weeks recuperation at home. Instead of taking care of me, she scheduled an elective surgery for herself! 3.5 of those 5 weeks I spent attending to her, even though I could not even sleep in a bed.
I felt bad for feeling slightly put-upon.
Then, a few years later, I discovered TRM. When I read Rollo’s description of how his wife treated him when his leg was in a cast, it hit me like a ton of lead: I hadn’t imagined it!
What is marriage?
It has two components:
1. Vows within a cultural context
2. A property contract within a legal context
I’ve watched friends and relatives go through the meat grinder that is our family court system for decades, as has any remotely perceptive man. Maybe a dozen years ago, I found a now-defunct website called ‘Men’s News Daily.’ It covered some of the unjust practices of our “justice” system. However, other than deciding to never attend church on Father’s Day, I didn’t really get a glimpse into the cultural context until recently.
Dalrock’s discourses on chivalry have been instrumental in removing the fog from my worldview of western intersexual culture.
The court system enforces the property contract context of marriage, but there is no enforcement mechanism for the vows. But there used to be:
“Good women are strong and independent, and most of all, true to themselves. All of our moral messaging to young girls is designed to spur them to fight against the temptation to conform to someone else’s idea of what is good.”
Our civil society, our notionally christian culture, our families and communities would shame women who disregarded their vows. Think of ‘The Scarlet Letter.’ To the extent that this mechanism worked, it was all men had, once no-fault divorce arrived. But, as Dalrock shows, we now we are using 1960s counterculture to train women to actively resist the peer pressure and shaming that might someday be used on them to hold them accountable culturally for breaking their wedding vows.
Suffice it to say, this is the cancellation of marriage, and therefore civilization. Once a man understands hypergamy, VAWA, Duluth, & family law, understanding how “true to herself” means “unaccountable to wedding vows,” it is the final nail in marriage’s coffin.
.
“This is because we strongly believe that women deep down have a mystical gift for understanding what is truly good”
I believed this for an embarrassingly long time. I still struggle with the well-worn thought patterns still in my mind. I have made important life decisions under the spell of this unfortunate lore, and probably caused harm to self and others, both relationally and spiritually.
And this ignorance is the only thing creating space in the western culture of 2019 for marriage proposals. Dispel this ignorance, and it will bankrupt the bridal industry, and then the family court industrial complex.
I personally believe that this destruction of western civilization was intentional enemy action, not merely societal decay.
.
“Even worse, a young man doesn’t even have to ever hear the word “Game” or directly study its theories to be at risk of concluding that chivalry isn’t sexy. This is a message that is slowly making its way through the culture.”
Faster, please!
.
“It gets worse from here, because as Game dissolves the moral case for chivalry it is dissolving the foundation for sustaining feminism (in practice)”
Dalrock, I struggle to get on board with this statement. I think the reason for my struggle is that there are at least 4 definitions of feminism, all of which contain truth, and your assertion is true for only one of them: yours.
1. Rush Limbaugh: “feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.”
2. Dalrock: “feminism is the belief that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems*.”
3. Rollo: “The Fempowerment narrative has conditioned generations of women since the Sexual Revolution to presume an inherent correctness in whatever it is that satisfies the Feminine Imperative. If something benefits womankind it must therefor be the correct solution for a woman personally and society on whole.”
4. Anti-feminist praxis: “the feminist project is to increase female power with no stated limit”
5. Anti-feminist praxis: “Feminism is a memetic disease.”
Implicit in your quote above is that feminism cannot survive if women cease receiving the benevolence of men via chivalry; that feminism requires a voluntary participation on the part of men. This was true in the early waves, but my experiences in corporate America, and the excellent dissertations on the true nature of feminism on anti feminist praxis, show me that our society has passed the point where men must voluntarily enable feminist goals. We are already an oppressed underclass in several meaningful ways.
“I want you to touch me all over my body”… said the tingling “near the wall” 30-something deeply committed Christian virgin I once loved. I didn’t. She wasn’t ready for the ring so I moved on and ultimately married another who was. Young men, marry virgin who tingles for you.
Pingback: See an America where chivalry is dead - Fabius Maximus website
Pingback: Friday hawt chicks & links – The Dalrock edition. – Adam Piggott