Many pixels have once again been spilled and generated in discussing the great “Whither Game?” question. We’ve been through this with the MHRA wing. The Christomanosphere is also questioning Game, its foundations and its efficacy.
I don’t know whether a split in the Christomanosphere, reactosphere and PUAsphere is coming or not. Those questions don’t concern me as much as what can be done now to help men coming up and into one of the worst sexual and marriage marketplaces in recorded history. Indeed, this entire society is outright hostile to men’s interests.
We don’t need more arguments about what men shouldn’t do. We don’t need more exhortations to men to “stop! Wait! Don’t! Don’t do that! Don’t go there!” Men must have available to them tools and instructions they can use now, so they can know what to do going forward.
Herewith, my suggestions and observations.
Whether we like it or not, Game is here to stay. Dalrock pointed out in his excellent “A Secret Even the KGB Couldn’t Have Kept” that the knowledge that comprises Game is not going anywhere. The most attractive women are available only outside marriage, and only to the men who can do and be what Game teaches a man. Most men are being told to “wait wait wait” until all the women around them have finished doing and seeing everything (and everyone) they want to do and see. Men like you are spending a decade observing this very sexual marketplace in which you’re watching even the women in your peer assortative mating group – HB 4s through 7s — having sex with more attractive men than you; then settling for their peers (you) after they’ve finished.
Add to this that Game concepts are seeping into general consciousness. Women have always, always been in the know. Gentlemen, your brothers all around you are wising up as well. Whether we like it or not, Game will affect the thinking, conduct and sexual decisions of future generations – your sons and daughters. We as men must get out in front of this so as to teach men the truth of what they’re seeing.
Men are waking up to the fact that at least when it comes to attraction and intersexual dynamics, their entire lives and foundations are built on lies their parents, teachers, pastors, and everyone else told them. The lies feminism propped up can no longer be papered over or explained away, and are being exposed for the frauds they are. The pretty lies around us are dying quick and painful deaths.
Remember the lies they told you?
Be nice! be yourself!
Just wait and the girls will fall all over themselves to marry you!
We love betas! Build me a better beta!
Be friends first, and she’ll see what a great guy you are!
Don’t pursue her; wait for her to come to you!
Just take a shower and stand at the bar, and the girls will come to you!
You don’t have to do anything except go to church, and the girls will love you for the Godly man you are!
Those lies are crumbling, one by one, as even Christian women frivorce their husbands for unhappiness. Even the Christian men around us see the snake oil that Christian marriage advisors are selling. Even the Christian men around us see it, as they are kicked out of their homes and moved into shabby apartments. Even the Christian men see it as they see their wages garnished for alimony and child support.
Game isn’t going away anytime soon.
If you have something better, share it. If you have something to add, do so. There are those making the rounds in the Christomanosphere telling us that the truths of intersexual relationships have been around since time immemorial; and therefore, Game isn’t necessary. They’re in the Bible, in the Four Cardinal Virtues; in Greek philosophy, in Carnegie and Aquinas and Hollenbecq and Schopenhauer.
Fair enough.
My question is this: Who’s teaching those things? Who’s directing boys to these things? If you aren’t, why not?
When traditional conservatives are confronted with this, they wash their hands of it a la Pontius Pilate, saying it’s not the Church’s job to teach boys about manhood, masculinity, or female nature. No, that’s a task properly allotted to parents. (Never mind that the Church hasn’t taught, encouraged or even demonstrated anything like true masculinity for at least 50 years.)
Fair enough.
We are now two generations into a complete and wholesale failure of parents teaching their sons about masculinity and daughters about femininity. We have half of fathers getting kicked out of their homes because their wives aren’t happy. Women can’t teach sons anything about masculinity; and they are doing a terrible job of teaching femininity to their daughters.
The schools can’t keep children even from killing each other, much less teach the three R’s. Public education is also hopelessly politically correct, a mere tool of feminism and liberalism. Boys will not learn masculinity and intergender relationships at school. Scouting and other programs have had their legs cut out from under them by court decisions and other liberal identity and victim groups foisting their politics onto them, demanding all sorts of concessions and inclusions.
Where does that leave us? The Church won’t do it. Mothers are preventing fathers from doing it (assuming fathers even know how to do it). Schools are openly hostile to it. Organizations are being hogtied from doing it (again, assuming they know how).
But then we’re told that there are some men out there writing and speaking about true, Greek philosopher style, Four Cardinal Virtues-type masculinity. I’m good with that. I can only say that Game and what’s coming to be called the Dark Enlightenment would never, ever have gained the traction they have if those men and women were as influential and knowledgeable as they claim. Where were you traditionalists now talking about St. Thomas Aquinas, Schopenhauer and Carnegie when feminists and their allies stormed the Bastille of our society?
Why aren’t our schools teaching Courage, Justice, Temperance and Prudence? (Answer – because those are MORAL concepts and we can’t have people teaching morality because that’s an establishment of religion.)
Why aren’t our churches, the ones we’re told have all the answers, teaching men about these things? (Answer: because that would make women feel bad.) Why instead do religious organizations teach inanities like “10 ways to make sure your wife is happy” and “15 date night ideas for your wife”? (Because that makes women feel good.) Why do religious organizations instead tell us that we must love our wives as Christ loved the Church; but wives must submit to husbands only if they feel like it? (Again: because to do otherwise would make women feel bad.)
If you have the truth, where have you been? While you were fiddling and fretting about guys “using” Game, the feminists sacked and burned Rome. We could use your help in containing the damage.
Most importantly, the Christomanosphere might have critical moral insights to help men apply Game and its concepts to their marriages and their lives. The Christomanosphere might be able to help reintroduce men to the Four Cardinal Virtues and moral rectitude. But for heaven’s sake, don’t just stand there complaining and nitpicking and tearing down. HELP US FIX IT. Like DeepStrength at his blog. Like Chad at Depths to Wilderness. Like Free Northerner at his blog. Those men don’t have to shut up because they’re putting up. In a big, big way.
But if all you’re going to do is complain, then let those who have some solutions try theirs. We’ve tried it the traditional conservative way of “Be Nice, Be Yourself”. We’ve tried it the “15 date night ideas” way. We’ve tried the “women are inherently more moral and more spiritual” way. And we’ve tried it the neo-feminist way of “build a better beta”. It’s a disaster.
If you have something to say, say it. If you have something useful to teach, then teach it. If you have something, put it out there and we’ll evaluate its utility and efficacy in light of what we know now.
The Manosphere/Dark Enlightenment are the only people ANYWHERE teaching men ANYTHING useful about human nature and intersexual relationships. That’s simply a fact of life right now. And I don’t care if you call it “Christian Game” or sanitized Game or Godly masculinity. It doesn’t matter what you call it. As long as it isn’t “Be Nice” or “Build a Better Beta” or “Just figure it out for yourself”, or “You Go Grrrrrl”, teach it.
Stop the PUA- and player-bashing.
Like it or not, Game concepts work when it comes to understanding and managing intersexual relationships. Pickup artistry isn’t for everyone. In fact, most men cannot do it. Stop with the hysterical, irrational hand-wringing about roving bands of little Roissys and Rooshes, roaming the countryside and deflowering every virgin in sight. That’s never, ever going to happen because (1) most men aren’t interested in dark triad Game and even if they were, all but a tiny sliver of men are completely unable to pull it off; and (2) only a very small proportion of men become proficient enough at Game to become PUAs.
And stop with the “PUAs and players are perverted dirtbags” denunciations. It’s counterproductive because it ignores what PUAs have added to current understanding of intersexual relationships. Besides, PUAs and players don’t care one whit what anyone thinks of them.
The suggestion that players are attractive to women because men “look up to them” is patently absurd. Women are attracted to players because players exhibit traits that women find attractive, and they do it better than most other men. If a man can learn some of those traits and incorporate them into himself so as to increase his attractiveness, might that help his LTR or marriage? Might that help him simply walk away from a bad relationship? Might that help him refuse to put up with crap from his wife, longtime companion, girlfriend or date?
Much is made of the PUA who boasted of 1000 approaches and 27 lays, as being “only” 2.7% return on investment. The last time I checked, 2.7 percent is more than zero percent. And 27 is more than zero. And I know 1000 is more than zero. Small success is better than enormous failure. Enormous failure with tools is better than trying with no tools. And enormous failure is also better than never trying in the first place because you’re afraid, or have no idea what to do or how to do it. Game addresses all of that, and more. As does Godly masculinity which Chad and Deep Strength now espouse and instruct.
Men don’t need any further instruction about what NOT to do. They need help on what they CAN do and SHOULD do. They need encouragement on what TO do. They don’t need hysterical injunctions to avoid this or that. They don’t need ridiculous Chicken Little “The Sky is Falling!” false prognostications which only paralyze them into inaction.
Stop the endless obfuscation and dithering over terms. While the tradcons demand that Game proponents define Game, men are out there trying and failing with “Be Nice! Be Yourself!” While they bash PUAs, an unhappy wife kicks her hapless ex husband from his home, destroying her family and children in the process. While they complain and nitpick and scream “DON’T!”, another man writhes in agony because he’s just been turned down for the 35th time and he doesn’t know why.
“Just Get It” isn’t going to cut it.
The tradcons also tell us that when it comes to intersexual relationships and male and female nature, men must “just get it” and “just figure it out for themselves”. In today’s society, this is little more than an exhortation to fly blind. It’s a bit like giving a man the raw materials with which to build a house, but with no tools, no training, and no blueprints. “Everything you need is right there in the raw materials. You don’t need any tools. You don’t need to be taught or mentored or trained. You don’t need any help or encouragement. It’s all right there. Just figure it out for yourself.”
Of course, that won’t help anyone, and it’s a weak testament to the job we’ve been doing as a society. We can, we must, do better.
Further reading:
Dalrock, “A Secret the KGB couldn’t have kept.”
Rollo Tomassi, “Build A Better Beta”
Thoughtcrime! Thoughtpolice, stat!
It’s impressive, when you think about it, how spectactularly badly feminism’s suppression of ALL forms of masculinity has failed. Dads’ nicenesses were dissed and dissed and dissed until now they are too nice, and all the while cads’ badnesses were greased by the very act of declaring them too bad, the feminists’ bloodily greasing the juggernaut of “No means yes!” by slutwalking. Etc. And etc.
Thanks for the mention.
I’m really tired of the debate too.
Deti,
That. Was. Epic.
I wish you could hear my applause.
“The Manosphere/Dark Enlightenment are the only people ANYWHERE teaching men ANYTHING useful about human nature and intersexual relationships.” Yes, indeed. Thank you.
I just want to point out something here before I get on my proverbial soapbox.
Today’s men owe more than a bit of gratitude to the PUAs and players in our midst.
PUAs and players (not the least of which is the Devil’s Virtuoso himself) are the people who collated, categorized and exposited on the nature of the current SMP, the MMP, and female nature. Were these things known generally? Sure, to a few people. But they had been buried under 60 or so years of feminism. People either didn’t know of them at all; or knew of them and didn’t talk of them for whatever reason. PUAs and players rediscovered them and applied them to the current society.
They then harnessed the power of the Internet to write, and write, and write some more, about them. Some did so at great cost.
There are those who call this a “love affair” with PUAs. You can call it that if you wish. But then, if you had something better than the PUAs, you sure were quiet about it, weren’t you?
If you had something better than PUAs, you sure haven’t taught it, have you?
If you had something better than PUAs, you sure haven’t helped others learn and apply what you know, have you?
Deti, this just not my reality. Yet if this is true for a majority of men in this age, then what you talk about is very sad.
My advice is to get involved in clubs with like minded people, the women there will see you. Join a mixed sport. The woman there will see you. Get involved with a group like toastmasters. You’ll learn the art of conversation. Have at least one annual buddy weekend away, and do something masculine, like fishing, hunting, dirt biking, and keep it going even after you are married. Do a martial art, it will build confidence.
Just try to do social things with like minded women and men.
Oh, and don’t worry about farting around women, this is the best qualifier known to man!
Anti-game Christians are selling out their fellow men because they fear game as a threat to their own personal status. Cane, Zippy, SSM (or is it the other redpilljesusgirl?), all of ‘em.
They don’t fear game will hurt you. They fear, deeply and with good reason, that it will help you. And then what will you need Cane Caldo for?
Nothing.
Accusations of heresy and inquisitions are the last defense of a corrupted church.
The PUAs are as the Turks and Muslims preserving the intellectual heritage of the west during the dark ages and the Manosphere the heretics that spread that rediscovered knowledge to the masses. All that awaits us is arrival of some new version Martin Luther.
Forgot to add, the Sterling Institute has been helping men to become more masculine for years. I have 2 buddies that went in the 80’s and it helped them profoundly.
DeNihilist:
I can tell you that this most certainly IS the reality for millions of men, even if this isn’t YOUR reality. And yes, it is sad. That’s why this blog is here – to do something about it, and to tell men it doesn’t have to be that way.
Most men are like this because they weren’t raised to do the things you espouse. And if they were raised to do those things, it was within a feminine-centric culture that literally sucked their masculinity from their pores. By mothers, by feminist fathers, by teachers, by pastors.
So, “just get it” and “just figure it out for yourself” aren’t going to help most of these men. Not at all. They need more than that. They need to learn it in a systematic way in an environment completely and totally stacked against them, and which tells them at every turn that doing so is sexist, politically incorrect and hateful. That’s something the Game-deniers and naysayers don’t seem to understand.
The Sterling Institute?
Show of hands:
How many men here, churched or no, have EVER heard of the Sterling Institute?
MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE:
A few ground rules for this rodeo.
1. NO ARGUMENTS OVER ‘WHAT IS GAME”. NO DEMANDS THAT ANYONE DEFINE GAME. This thread is not about defining or redefining Game, nor any of the terms used in attempts to define Game. You want to debate that; go somewhere else. I’m going to request that such comments be deleted and/or not responded to.
2. WE ARE NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT “GAME OR NOTHING”, OR OTHER FALLACIES. I am aware of certain people who claim they teach traditional masculinity at seminars and churches and they write about it. That’s fine, but you’re very, very few and far between. It is simply beyond debate that most men aren’t learning masculinity or the basics of intersexual relationships from parents, pastors, teachers or others who are, and should be, entrusted with teaching it.
3. NO DENIGRATING PUAs OR PLAYERS, BY NAME OR AS A CLASS. Take your “PUAs are immoral dirtbags” claims somewhere else. That’s not what this thread is about. If you want to talk about whether a claim made by PUAs is true or not; or whether or not your experience of a particular aspect of female nature as claimed by PUAs or players bears up under scrutiny; that’s fine. If you want to claim Roissy or Roosh or other players are incorrect about some observation, OK. But this is not about whether PUAs or players engage in sexual immorality.
Is it not obvious that “the great game debate” among men is mainly about those men who don’t have much game, and can’t or won’t get any, trying to dissuade men who might be motivated and able–lest the situation for game-deficient men get even worse? Why else would naysaying men–who have no alternative, useful “tools and instructions” to offer–devote such energy to haranguing other men not to learn about what supposedly doesn’t work?
We don’t have to wonder which side represents male altruism, nor why the resistance will continue.
Feminism gets some of the blame for “just be yourself/benice”, but not all. The whole concept of the SNAG (senistive new age guy) was shoved down our cultural throats all through the 70s through the 90s. What was so disheartening was the disconnect between this b.s. and the reality in the SMP we were seeing. EVERYONE bought into it, lefties, righties, trad cons, fems. The only ones not abandoning their standard attraction methods were gay men!
(BTW, if you want to stymie the P.C. notion that “gender is a social construct of TEH PATRIARCAMALY”, look at how gays hook up, and look at how they parent. One takes on the “male” discipline role, the other takes on the “female” nuture role! It’s nature! It’s Science! There are even studies! So if gays do it it MUST be OK for us heteros, right? Right? Bueller? Bueller?)
Another big cultural failure is the CULTURE OF FEAR which prevents parents from letting their kids take chances, or have adventures, or even play outside. It’s LOTS of parents who’ve cut Scouting (Boys and Girls) off at the knees, where all you do is “talk” anout a “journey” on the “road of life” and do anti-bully posters. Instead of learn to shoot, to whittle, to carve, to use an axe and power tools, to pitch a tent, make a fire, cook a meal, find your way out of the woods with a compass!
No no no someone might FALL DOWN and GET HURT and need THERAPY and DRUGS and oh yeah DRUGS. (Actually I’ll be happy to take those off your hands)
Yes it’s good to be more social and join clubs and learn skills – Good Looking Loser is big on this, you can’t peacock until you have something to peacock about. Fair enough. But you can’t just STAND there and wait for the gurls to just LOOK at your PERFECTIONALISM and see your AWESOMENESSES. You will still need the TOOLS to do the APPROACHES, and you need the TOOLS to keep what you’ve got once you’ve got it. Only GAME does that. Because it’s nature. It’s not fair – was it some 40% of men genetically over history never reproduced? – but it’s nature all the same.
Sterling Institute? WTF is that?
A good outline of where Game came from and where it’s going now:
http://therationalmale.com/2013/04/19/the-evolution-of-game/
Anyone who believes that Game is limited to a PUA running techniques on bar skanks is selling you an ideology. Most men of this persuasion have a very incomplete understanding of the evolution of Game, but their disingenuousness stems from the discomfort of seeing Game actually work. They don’t want it to work, women shouldn’t respond positively to it, but they do, and even the good church girls giggle and titter for it. It’s a cold bucket of reality being splashed in his face that contradicts what he’d always been taught about women.
those who beat their swords into plowshares will be ruled by those that do not.
Harlan, LTi:
I disagree that anti-Game advocates agitate against Game in complete bad faith. They believe Game is immoral in its foundations and provenance. Thus, they believe Game is “fruit of the poisonous tree” and the “good” portions of Game can’t be extracted and separated from the “bad” parts. Their concern is for the eternal and that Game may lead men into sin.
Anti Game advocates admit they have no answers or solutions for men who struggle with masculinity and intersexual relationships. They believe men have to “just don’t be liberal” and “just figure it out for themselves”. If they can, great. If they cannot; well, suck it up, buttercup. You’ll just have to accept that you will live in grinding involuntary celibacy and you won’t marry; you won’t even be able to have any kind of gratifying relationship with one woman.
I think these folks want to overturn the current SMP/MMP. I’d like to as well; I just don’t think it’s going to happen; so I think that what must be done instead is to tell men what tools are available to them so they can adapt to, adjust to, and live within the current society.
My response is more one of pragmatism. I want to know what works, and help men learn about what works. I want to help men learn about the SMP/MMP they’re in now, and give them the tools they need now; not for some bygone SMP that exists only in tiny religious enclaves. I want to help men understand themselves, women, and their society the way they really are; not the way others tell them it is or they want it to be. I want to help men serve their own interests instead of that of a woman who wants a provider/meal ticket/retirement plan/ boyfriend/ date/ husband. I want to help men live the lives they can live now. For most men that’s finding one woman to marry for life. I want to help them do that if that’s what they want. Some men want to GTOW. I want to help them do that. Some men aren’t going to be able to find women. I want to help give them the tools they need to live productive lives in that milieu.
“Why aren’t our schools teaching Courage, Justice, Temperance and Prudence? (Answer – because those are MORAL concepts and we can’t have people teaching morality because that’s an establishment of religion.”
It’s really worse than this, I’m afraid. It’s not even that they (the intellectuals and culturati) think that virtue is inherently religious, though doubtless some do think that. The deeper problem is they think these concepts are simply false. They have no rational, naturally grounded reality at all. They are at best “willed” or “posited” concepts to help grease the wheels of society because people could not live communally/politically without such constraints. The begged question behind this—why live communally or politically? Why is that desirable or good?—is never raised, much less answered. And they wouldn’t have an answer anyway because to them all concepts of “the good” also cannot be rationally or naturally grounded. “Good” is just code and cover for “I prefer” or “useful myth.” But even then the word “useful” conceals, even as it implicitly points back to, the idea of the good …
So, deti, you are right to bring up the Greeks because only the Greeks and their successors can save us from modernity and nihilism. The best analysis of the rottenness of our time will avail but little without a return to the only genuine foundation, which the rationality of the beneficence of nature, the primacy of the good, and the inherently dignity of the human soul.
– Nick Krauser
And since Deti brought it up, I have been doing something about it since October 1, 2013, I received this email last Saturday:
yep. what rollo said. sorry fellas, but bio-mechanics…..you know the rest.
Also and in addition:
For all the noise about THE MENZ using EVIL GAME to plow through the PURE IN HEART WIMMINZ, don’t forget that old best-seller from the 90’s, “The Rules”, now updated a bit. The book women were supposed to keep secret. Not show their men. Or their friends. Or their parents. Or their therapist(!) But oh shit there it was on the dollar beat-up table so I bought it and still have it.
Meaning: let’s not be hearing any more noise about Game being a “SET OF EVIL TRICKS” that deceive innocents about your value when you’re supposed to JUST BE YOUR (sad lonely) SELF, when TEH GURLS have TEH RULES.
I think it was Furious Ferret who commented at my blog:
“The Christo-manosphere doesn’t want the Red Pill, they want a time machine.”
deti @18: “I disagree that anti-Game advocates agitate against Game in complete bad faith. They believe Game is immoral in its foundations and provenance.”
I’m not sure I disagree about this in terms of “complete bad faith.” Self-deception is real. Given how extensively it has been explained from a variety of perspectives (by you, Rollo, Dalrock, Obsidian, etc.) that lowercase “game” is not inherently immoral, the insistence on targeting uppercase “Game” and PUAs seems willfully obtuse, at best.
“Anti Game advocates admit they have no answers or solutions for men who struggle with masculinity and intersexual relationships.”
Then they should either develop some feasible approach or get out of the way, and let the likes of you get on with your mission.
According to the Wikipedia page for the Sterling Institute:
“the corporate Web site now refers to the seminars as “The Women’s Weekend” and “The Men’s Weekend.” The price in 1991 was US$400.[5] As of 2007, the price for the weekend was US$795.[6]
“Participants have been taught that “… men are natural jerks and should learn to accept and embrace their jerkiness,” [8] men are “slaves to their egos,” and thus women are “100 percent responsible for the success of their relationships,” [2] that a woman should “Never marry a man you don’t trust,” and “If giving a man what he wants when he wants it requires you to be someone you’re not, or prevents you from accepting yourself, then he’s not the right man for you.””
According to the Sterling Institute’s web page:
“The Sterling Women’s Weekend is a powerful, life-transforming experience that addresses in a unique way the central issues of a woman’s life. These include knowing who she is and what is important to her, knowing her worth, finding and embracing her passion and purpose, and learning how to have the relationships she wants — with a life partner, husband, boyfriend, family, children, parents, friends — and, most importantly, with herself. It offers women everything they need to have the successful relationships they want.”
“The Sterling Men’s Weekend focuses on the changing gender roles of the time and the resulting confusion that men experience. The Men’s Weekend brings men back in touch with their abandoned legacy of honor, purpose, and commitment. Graduates gain new self-acceptance, increase their confidence and enthusiasm, and enjoy much greater satisfaction and success both at home and in their careers.”
So, men have to go to a weekend course and pay hundreds of dollars to learn some – SOME – of what they can learn on the internet for free, for what the PUAs and players GIVE AWAY. Men learn of an “abandoned” legacy (query who abandoned that legacy?) of honor, purpose (whose purposes) and commitment (to whom? To what?)
#8 “Sin boldly!”
@ Escoffier
It could be because I’m such a strong pragmatist, but I think that greasing the wheels of society to be able to live communally/politically is a damn good justification for morality.
As for the question of why one should live communally or politically, the answer is simple: because the alternative sucks.
Re: Stirling wiki. Hmm. Being made to listen to bad words while standing naked in the woods celebrating my masculine powers with other naked men seems like they should pay me, not the other way around.
Great post deti.
For me, the bottom line is this:
If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
Our society is literally burning down all around us.
For heaven’s sake, grab a bucket of water and douse some of the flames.
If you’re not going to help do that, then get out of the way and let those who are willing to help do so.
“good justification” according to what? Your preferences? Well, so what? A lot of people have other preferences.
“the alternative sucks”–according to what standard?
See where this goes?
I was at my university to pick up papers. I was standing behind a counter when another woman appeared in front of me.
“Are you the woman that’s gonna give me my packet ?” I asked.
“No” she said.
“Please …” I said in a playful and silly tone.
“The only way you’re gonna get your packet, is if you go down on your knees, and ask me sweetly …” she replied.
“Nah, I’m just gonna write a long angry letter to your mother” I replied.
She giggled, and was putty in my hands from then on.
There are three groups that dislike Game and do not want men to learn it:
1. Natural alphas, because Game devalues their own skills.
2. Pedestalizing White Knights, because Game teaches truths about women they cannot bear.
3. Women, because they yearn for a Real Man who Just Gets It, not a fake who learned some tricks.
Yeah, I know, Not All [whatever] Are Like That. Yet when one surveys the various thundering denouncers of Game, they tend to fall into one of the three categories above.
That leaves — most men.
PS: To DeNihilist, it is ironic that you basically attempt to retread “Just Be Yourself” while at the same time touting Toastmasters. Because Toastmasters is to public speaking as Game is to relating to women…
So logically you should be denouncing Toastmasters … “It’s not natural, it’s not needed, Just Be Yourself and you too can speak in public effectively”.
Deti —
Great post.
But isn’t this really directed at primarily two guys? Cane Caldo and Zippycatholic?
I see lots of other Christians in the broader manosphere (some of whom you mentioned, like DS and Donal, and then there’s Dalrock and even Slumlord, who gets called a tradcon when though he’s one of the biggest critics of traditionalism in this part of the internet) who are not taking their position, but are, to one degree or other, working with game concepts, adapting them creatively to a Christian life, paring away the sinful dross from them and so on. As you rightly say, that’s all good.
As for these two individuals, and their groupies, I’d say we can safely ignore them.
Zippy admits he has no real answers (other than the uselessly 30k foot solution of “repent of your liberalism and then just figure it out, like you figure everything else out”), and thinks this isn’t the realm of the church to teach. Fine. That means he’s also pretty irrelevant to the discussion.
Cane, by contrast, is an anti-intellectual buffoon whom no-one with a working rational brain should pay any mind at all. Charlatans like him will always have their groupies and hangers-on, and it’s sad that his own charisma and style have attracted some people who could otherwise have been more rational about these things, but that’s generally how that kind of charlatan works in any case. Cane will have his cult of groupies, but it will remain small, and of no great relevance in the end – it’s best, again, to ignore him.
Yes, there are some other agents provacateurs, like AquinasDad — but really, are you worried about him? He’s kind of an interloper who came to these parts to research like one would animals in a zoo — he will be gone soon enough, and back to doing whatever generally ineffectual nonsense he has been doing, so he claims, for so many years.
So, from where I am sitting, while your critiques of these few problematic guys are on target, the broader picture is that much of the Christomanosphere is indeed engaging with these things in a creative, forward-looking way while remaining true to Christianity (of course, not in the eyes of the likes of Zippy and Cane, but, as I said above, who cares?).
deti
I disagree that anti-Game advocates agitate against Game in complete bad faith. They believe Game is immoral in its foundations and provenance. Thus, they believe Game is “fruit of the poisonous tree” and the “good” portions of Game can’t be extracted and separated from the “bad” parts. Their concern is for the eternal and that Game may lead men into sin.
Yeah, I’ve read that bilge. Abstractly it is identical to the feminist arguments in favor of gun confiscation I heard years ago. It went like this:
Feminist “Guns bad! Guns kill! Guns evilbad! No one should have one”
AR: “Well, you and your lesbian lover aren’t very big or strong, if some bad man broke into your house, you’d be dead meat no matter how many karate / kung fu / akido lessions you’ve taken. Only a gun would keep him off of you”.
Feminist: “No! I’d dial 911 while my partner Maced him!”
AR: “Call for a pizza at the same time, see which one gets their first. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away…”.
Feminist: “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House, that means that the tools of patriarchy can’t be used to defeat men”.
AR: “Ok, bye bye”.
Got that? I’ve personally had feminists argue that because guns are invented by men (“phallocentric!”) they are inherently evil and therefore no woman can ever really use one to defend herself. This is the same approach as the game deniers – it is making a machine (in the case of feminists) or a collection of techniques (in the case of game) into some sort of autonomous intelligence, a golem, a totem.
I’ll close with a simple observation: there is a known technique for cutting a man’s chest open. Is it inherently evil, or not? Bear in mind that the technique is pretty much the same whether used by an assassin or a heart surgeon…
Good post Deti, and thanks for the link.
I agree with most of what you say, and what I don’t I’ve already said too many times that I’m not going to say it again.
And, as far as people whining and moaning…
I’m right there with you. If they’re not part of the solution, they’re part of the problem. Men who can’t act are cowards, and cowardice got us into this mess. I might disagree with people at times, but I would rather have a disagreement with a man than have disgust at a sad sack of flesh sitting on his ass, doing nothing.
The Great Foreplay debate. Remember when the Magisterium reversed itself and decided anything goes provided the couple is married and it ends up in her where she could might possibly get pregnant?
Allow me to say something optimistic about the ongoing “Alpha: Nature or Nurture?” discussion. But first a brief side trip: when MMA was first becoming a quasi-professional sport, the issues tended to be about answering the question of “what’s the best martial art for actual fighting?” There were a lot of style vs. style, your-master-vs.my-master debates.
Let’s call that MMA 1.0.
I first got involved in this activity in the late 90s, when I was in my mid-20s. At the time, there was widespread agreement that there were about 5 or 6 martial arts that tended to win A LOT of fights. However, these were organized into two rough camps of skill complexes and combat athletes were thus categorized as either “Strikers”, who usually wanted to keep the fight standing and who were basically training for in extremis survival on the ground, and “Grapplers”, who usually wanted to take the fight to the ground—either for submissions or for ground control/decision wins or for Ground & Pound blunt impact trauma—and who were basically training to survive the stand-up.
Let’s call this MMA 2.0.
We are now at Gen 3. Young guys coming into MMA training today are becoming good at *everything*. They are complete fighters. The transitions between striking, clinch, takedowns, ground game, etc. are virtually seamless. Of course, a lot of stuff was worked out for them by the older guys, and so the pipeline of skill development contains a lot less pure trial-and-error guesswork and a lot more systematic, efficient training.
Now as these guys approach adulthood, they are keenly aware of the “crisis of masculinity” that has developed in the wakes of various social trends. From my perspective as a part-time college teacher, the emerging “New Masculine Consensus” that is filling the vacuum left by the Great Beta Implosion/Disillusionment has a few common traits:
1. The Modern Caveman Movement. This is a combination of a Paleo/ketogenic diet with a variety of lifestyle design ideas, biohacks, etc.
2. PUA/Game. College guys are frequently coming to sexual maturity in a hook-up culture, and even before that were exposed to countless hours of internet porn.
3. MMA. Sort of optional. If they aren’t doing this, they are either doing an extreme sport that involves mountains or waves or jumping across urban landscapes, or a hardcore, psychologically-supportive workout programming routine like CrossFit.
4. The rebirth of interest in what was conventionally termed a Classical Education, but with principal emphasis on what Oxbridge terms “PPE”—Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (with the goal being consistency of political and economic social organization based on well-articulated and defensible philosophical foundations).
When this guy ages and/or comes into some money, these activities will typically be enriched with a variety of other, more expensive ones—interests which may well involve travel, toys, and enhanced man-cave habitats.
So we have Tucker Max giving lectures on the value of his MMA training at Paleo conferences. We have Neal Strauss becoming a survivalist and undertaking defensive firearms training. We have Tim Ferriss doing full-blown lifestyle design incorporating all four skillsets. We have the 21 Convention for young men (if you look at various video lectures from 21Con on Youtube, you will find a hell of a lot on the convergence of Paleo, high-intensity strength & conditioning, and PUA/Game. I HIGHLY recommend the stuff by Doug McGuff). We also have various podcasts which explore these and other topics in depth (London Real, Joe Rogan, Dave Asprey, etc.).
…But my feeling is that the PUA/MRA/MGTOW/etc. stuff is a bit like MMA 1.0. We probably need more thought to go into positive, forward-looking blueprints for study and self-development—thing that cut across, perhaps even unify, the various input disciplines.
“The rebirth of interest in what was conventionally termed a Classical Education”
I would be quite encouraged if I saw any real signs of this but I don’t. And I am “close to the ground” as it were, still very involved my grad school, various foundations and academic associates, still write and attend conferences, etc. We few, we happy few, we are a band of brothers, but we are still very few.
Escoffier says:
“I would be quite encouraged if I saw any real signs of this but I don’t. ”
I don’t think you will see this in the traditional academic setting in any significant way. Not yet. Rather it’ll be a grassroots thing like when every business guru wannabee was reading Sun Tzu in early 90’s.
Anon Reader, 33:
I’m not convinced that the problem with naturals is that they think men learning intersexual relationship skills or confidence will devalue the naturals.
To me, the problem with naturals is that any advice they give comes off as “Just Get It”. Even if they don’t intend it, lesser gifted men than they will misread their instruction as “Just be yourself” and “can’t you just be more like me”.
Like Aquinas Dad telling his sons: “Just go up to a girl and ask her to dance. It works.”
Well, um, it might, but only from the following:
1. A foundation of inner confidence based on the boy’s skills, his abilities, his developing proficiency in something;
2. Being told and taught to handle rejection; that rejection is a fact of life; that most girls will reject him; and that the fact of rejection does NOT mean something’s wrong with him nor is an evaluation of his personal worth or value, but it IS an evaluation of her attraction for him at that time and in those circumstances;
3. Learning the basics about female attraction: that it’s based on a cocktail of factors including confidence, dominance, status, looks, athleticism, and (perceived) resources; how the woman feels overall and on that particular day and being able to read and understand it; that women are governed less by fact and logic and more by circumstance and emotion;
4. Body language (both his and hers). Reading indicators of interest. Reading indicators of disinterest. Eye contact. How to approach someone without coming off as creepy or a weirdo or an arrogant SOB or a jerk.
5. Keeping in shape; good nutrition; good habits.
So…. You take a boy who has had some instruction in all of that and THEN tell him to “just go up to a girl and ask her to dance”, he’ll probably be OK.
But… you take a boy who lives with his divorced mom, who sees his workaholic dad every other weekend and where father and son barely know each other; who lives on Pepsi and Cheetos, and who just got done playing Xbox for 5 hours and tell HIM to “just go up to a girl and ask her to dance”, it’s another story.
Bastiat Blogger,
I think could also add the various hacker communities to your model. The tech, DYI, nerds building their own 3d printers and such. I met small group of these people and while game never came up for discussion everything else you mentioned did.
It’s almost as if there’s an unspoken preparing for a some great change.
#33 Don’t forget the “I’ve got mine” group. It isn’t the Natural Alpha guy trying to protect his turf, it’s the Que Sera Sera guy who literally cannot see the forest of betas for the tree of his own satisfaction. The guy on the lifeboat who is hunkered down below the gunwales, refusing to throw the extra lifesaver floats out to the churning masses, because, well, you know, he’s got his, and besides, it’s morally indefensible; they might hurt each other, or something, and besides some of them were clearly destined to drown and they’re the bad ones for refusing to drwon already.
#42 it has come to my attention that overnight all the bad boy villians and bad boy heroes in movies etc have suddenly, just in the past year or two, become, in addition to ninja-trained special-forces armored-cavalry naval-gunship experts, also hacker tech DIY supergeniuses. Before, that role was offloaded to the sidekick, so Alpha MacDaddy could dual wield his weapons. I’m not sure this is a good thing, in fact I think it’s likely part of the halo effect wherein the goodlooking guy is supposed to be able to do everything better than betas, so eliminate the betas when the betas are better.
Mr. McFarlane
I don’t intend to join this conversation because I don’t think it is quite appropriate for a woman to do so. However, I would like to correct this statement of yours since it mentions me by name and entirely mischaracterizes my position.
As I have repeatedly stated, I have adopted a fairly neutral stance on game because I don’t think women need to be part of that particular conversation. Many times I have said that Christian men will decide amongst themselves whether it is moral or immoral. I have not claimed to be pro- or anti- game, nor even to fully understand what is meant by the word game.
Anti-game Christians are selling out their fellow men because they fear game as a threat to their own personal status. Cane, Zippy, SSM (or is it the other redpilljesusgirl?), all of ‘em.
I’ve got no dog in this fight, but I’m not sure that is it. I think some sincerely believe that Game *as they understand it* is incompatible with Christianity *as they understand it*.
My thought is Christian marriage as described in the Bible is incompatible with modern equalist marriage. The roles, duties of husband and wife appear to be spelled out quite literally to me unless one wants to absolutely torture the words and add all sorts of ifs and buts and caveats. Seems to me Game would be useful to the extent it helps Christian husbands to reclaim their role as described in the Bible. My sense is opponents of Game ignore that and focus wholly on the aspects that play into increasing promiscuity. Classic throw out the baby with the bathwater thinking
@ jf12
Hugo Schwyzer comes to mind. Publicly eviscerating men while privately banging his hot young students.
@ ssm
Yup, your position on game has been clear all along.
Who is this other red pill jesus girl?
I would call Mary pro-game but anti-PUA, which unlike some, I do not think is inconsistent.
pro-game but anti-PUA, which unlike some, I do not think is inconsistent.
Yes. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why some people cannot distinguish between knowledge and ability and what you do with it. One could be an expert marksman, and then either go to the shooting range and shoot cans from a mile away or go to the top of a skyscraper rooftop and take out multiple pedestrians. The latter is not an indictment of developing expert shooting skills.
Or use the shooting skills to kill a deer and bring home supper…or use game (ideally, eventually incorporated into who he is or bringing out his more attractive self that was hidden by fear or cultural lies) to feed her hunger for an attractive man.
Yes. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why some people cannot distinguish between knowledge and ability and what you do with it.
The argument (not that I agree with it, but I think I understand it) is that some things are, by their nature, inherently evil, and not capable of being done neutrally. One of their main claims is that “seduction” is inherently evil, because the word “seduce” means to steer someone away from something else that they should be doing. They say that this means that it is either (a) illicit (outside of marriage) or (b) inapposite (in marriage, where sex isn’t supposed to be taking someone away from something else they should be doing, but is precisely the duty they should be doing). The idea is that if you do this in marriage, you are reframing the relationship as one that requires seduction, and therefore taking it away from what you’re supposed to be doing in a marriage — turning your marriage into a PUA scene, when it should be holy and sanctifying and sacramental. The idea is that making eros a priority (or even acknowledging it, in the eyes of some of the critics) in a marriage is injecting non-Christian ideas into the marriage that will tend to turn you from God, make you more worldly and fleshly, and take you both away from the heart of a Christian marriage.
The other sub-argument is that some of the game tools are so prone to be used in an evil way that it takes an inordinate amount of effort to peel away from them the inherently evil bent they have — effort that could be better spent on becoming a better Christian man.
Not saying I agree with these arguments, but these are the ones made.
deti: point taken. Although it is ironic to see Aquinas Dad take that stance, since his alleged c.v. includes enough time in the Army that he must have been through multiple command schools. Nobody, but nobody, in the Army is “trained” to command via “Just go issue some orders”, not officers, not noncoms.
Nobody seems to have a problem with Real Men learning how to dance from dance instructors, funny thing. That is, even Real Men don’t “just get” the tango, for example, they have someone show them how to do it, and they they lead their woman in the dance.
So – Toastmasters ok, dancing lessons ok, Game bad. Yah, makes lotsa sense to me…
SSM
As I have repeatedly stated, I have adopted a fairly neutral stance on game because I don’t think women need to be part of that particular conversation. Many times I have said that Christian men will decide amongst themselves whether it is moral or immoral. I have not claimed to be pro- or anti- game, nor even to fully understand what is meant by the word game.
Nah, you just want your Christian tribe to go kill all the PUA’s at some future date, that’s all. Seems to me if you want death squads to do your bidding, you should at least give them some sort of a description of the target.
While there is certainly a dichotomy between PUA and Game, I think the PUAs are still doing good deeds. The SMP is designed to filter out unattractive betas and only allow “authentic” natural alphas through for short term sex/relationships. The PUAs are using their skills to subvert this system.
Novaseeker
The idea is that making eros a priority (or even acknowledging it, in the eyes of some of the critics) in a marriage is injecting non-Christian ideas into the marriage that will tend to turn you from God, make you more worldly and fleshly, and take you both away from the heart of a Christian marriage.
That reminds me of the old joke:
Q: Why is it that Baptist married couples never attempt intercourse standing up?
A: For fear someone might see them, and accuse them of dancing.
Nova,
Some things are by their very nature inherently evil but game isn’t one of them.
Like I said, I don’t agree, but just stating what their arguments are. It isn’t that they don’t like that it works.
I’m not convinced that the problem with naturals is that they think men learning intersexual relationship skills or confidence will devalue the naturals.
I’ve had the luck/good fortune to be acquaintances/friends with more than a few naturals. I can tell you unequivocally that not a single one of them had any sort of concern about being “devalued” by other men getting better with women. It sort of contradicts what is at their core. Naturals believe that pussy is in abundance everywhere. They don’t think like hoarders.
To me, the problem with naturals is that any advice they give comes off as “Just Get It”. Even if they don’t intend it, lesser gifted men than they will misread their instruction as “Just be yourself” and “can’t you just be more like me”.
I had two that were very interested in helping me get better with women given where I was at at that point in my life. It is hard for them to state specifics because I don’t think they ever really deconstructed and systematized their successes. It is just who they have always been. They are not aware of their body language, and mannerisms, and what they say and how they say it. They just say “just go up and talk to her”. That said, I worked with one and we did hang out socially from time to time so he was able to start offering some specifics based NOT on what he was doing, but on what I was doing and then correcting it.
Feminism gets some of the blame for “just be yourself/benice”, but not all. The whole concept of the SNAG (senistive new age guy) was shoved down our cultural throats all through the 70s through the 90s.
Good spot for this one….don’t watch right after eating, you might puke it up.
I delight in the idea that the ChristoSphere will need to choose between steering this knowledge or being crushed by its wheels.
There will be no stopping it.
It is like slapping the wimpy kid until he finally sacks up and fights back. More King David. Less Boundless effeminacy. Yes, Bound-lisp girly-men, I’m calling you out for the sickening manginas you are.
The vacuum of masculinity will be filled, and the Church needs men who understand this.
Teach your young men masculinity, or the PUAs will.
Morpheus,
Re: your conversation with naturals.
Applies to so many things that people just do not seem comprehend. I remember when I was tutoring, they said they preferred students who originally struggled with the work, and overcame their incompetence, rather than kids students who just got it.
Students who just get it, cannot really explain “it” to whatever poor sap comes in struggling with Calculus. The experience just is not the same.
Here’s a fun story on my part. Until recently, I did not know how to tear perforated paper. I know, ridiculous. Whenever I tried to rip a page out it just ended up ripped in half.
How can you be stupid? Hahahaha, nerds!
I really didn’t figure out to tear the paper until I thought it as a system of countervailing forces and realized that I was pulling vastly harder and on an angle, and I mean a severe angle.
Duh.
Problem solved.
But my god did I look like a fucking moron for a while.
If you don’t “get it,” you really need to break down the factors of success. There’s a line from The Diamond Age I really like, when Princess Nell encounters a perfectly humming village: It’s a lot easier to figure out what’s wrong with a broken system and fix it, than decomposing an entirely successful ecosystem and figuring out why it works so well.
Morpheus
I had two that were very interested in helping me get better with women given where I was at at that point in my life. It is hard for them to state specifics because I don’t think they ever really deconstructed and systematized their successes. It is just who they have always been. They are not aware of their body language, and mannerisms, and what they say and how they say it.
Hmm. Ok, this reminds me of a relation who has perfect pitch. He’s the sort of fellow who will stand waiting for an elevator and comment offhand at the bell chime, “Oh, E flat”. Not bragging, just fact. However, he accepts that not everyone has his ability…
“When the water reaches the upper deck, follow the rats.” – H. L. Mencken (paraphrasing Al Goodman)
I post that not in all seriousness.
Gentlemen, A word of thanks. This has been the awakening of my 20’s. That being said, I’m down with the Christomanosphere.
@ #60
To quote the top-rated comment on that video, “ugh!!!!!”
Yeah I’ve addressed this issue extensively:
http://redpillpushers.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/game-of-thrones/
http://redpillpushers.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/the-pink-pill-rarely-taken/
http://redpillpushers.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/all-women-are-red-pill-women/
This post was so popular on Reddit it got me 9.000 hits in one day:
http://redpillpushers.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/quell-her-inner-war/
*9,000
@#60 – LOL!! Wow, talk about overkill!
To be able to empathize and be fair = good! Self-flagellating = pathetic!
Know the difference! lol.
Maybe it wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t for the general cheesy vibe of the video. The dialogue itself isn’t thaaaat bad but the presentation is so cringe-worthy that you’re not even listening lol.
Deti, you ask is there others. I indicate a place where 2 of my friends went and said yeah, this helped them a lot. The complaint then comes about the money and this and that. Why ask if you don’t really want to know? your mind is made up, game is the only resource. Then stop asking and start selling.
@redpillsetsmefree
Good articles.
Let’s cut the crap.
PUAs routinely mock and attack MRAs in nasty ways. Roosh and his ilk is a good example. Roissy’s minions are the same. Their “arguments” are the same as those of feminists: you’re just bitter because you can’t get laid and you have a small dick. I might also add that Neil Strauss and Mystery are openly feminists, spouting feminist nonsense about “gender equality” and ” strong independent women”. And they are obviously not the only PUAs with this attitude.
Do you remember this quote from the movie Goodfellas?:
“For us to live any other way was nuts. Uh, to us, those goody-good people who worked shitty jobs for bum paychecks and took the subway to work every day, and worried about their bills, were dead. I mean they were suckers. They had no balls. If we wanted something we just took it.”
This is exactly the attitude these PUAs have: they despise everyone who doesn’t live exactly like them. This is the mentality of common criminals and mobsters.
Their main criticism – if you can call it that – against MRAs, namely that they aren’t doing anything politically serious, is, of course, baseless, because they’d be the first to crap all over MRAs if those actually did anything that PUAs would finally admit to be impressive.
These people are no friends of the common man.
The so-called “Christian Manosphere” is basically nothing but a similarly nasty group of misandrist, delusional tradcons. Slumlord, Simon Grey, you name it, they are all the same, and their attitude is widespread in the West. You can always count on them to blame everything on men, to crap all over them all the time, never to shut up about “masculine virtues” and “responsibilities”, to excuse anything women do. All this in the name of their phantom deity, of course.
Again, let’s cut through the crap. If you’re a common man, these are your enemies; have nothing to do with them. In fact, they are worse than the feminists, because at least feminists openly declare themselves to be your enemies, whereas those nasty idiots I mentioned profess to be your helpful friends.
The only people you can count on ar the MHRAs. The reason you can count on them is the same reason tradcons despise them: they want to finish the job feminists started, by spreading the ideology of real equality, i.e. the abandonment of constructed masculine obligations, which will finally push this unsalvageable, rotten civilization to its grave. This is the only way to make everyone realize the final and inevitable results of leftist ideology.
#34
Meh. Slumlord is a Catholic. He disagrees with some tenets that were incorporated into Catholic dogma in the Middle Ages, but for all intents and purposes, he’s a tradcon. Come on, let’s cut through the crap: he thinks male sexual unattractiveness should be treated as a sin and that “masculinity” should be obligatory and self-sacrificial. He’s an agent of the Feminine Imperative. If you’re a man who responds to incentives and doesn’t do anything in his power to prepare himself for Marriage 2.0, he sees you as a faggot sinner. That’s what he really thinks, but he’s too much of a wuss to say it out loud. I asked him two simple questions recently, but he refused to give a clear and honest answer, because it’s reveal what he truly is:
socialpathology.blogspot.hu/2014/01/fops.html?showComment=1390530219952#c4213637377706386236
socialpathology.blogspot.hu/2014/01/carnal-lite.html?showComment=1391159750471#c7816392719093556702
#76
Slight corrections:
*doesn’t do everything in his power*
*it’d reveal*
#30
No. The people who want you to “grab a bucket of water and douse some of the flames” are the tradcons and softcore feminists like Kay Hymowitz. Women have been having their fill of easy sex for decades while shitting all over betas – the Atlases holding up this world -, doing everything they could to bring our civilization down, and now that they have effectively turned into feral barbarians, common men are called upon to man up and clean up this mess – because, you know, it’s all their fault anyway. Common men have been treated as useless for decades; now charlatans want to turn them back into cannon fodder, just like in the good old days.
So don’t grab that bucket, because it’s too late anyway. The fire will keep raging until there’s nothing left, and that is good. It has to run its course. Civilizations are never regenerated or reborn; they either adapt or get destroyed. Our current mess of a civilization cannot adapt, so it’s fate is clear.
Dear Woman (mk II – teh funneh)
Dear Woman (mk III – teh fukyu mangina mofos an’ fembotz)
@HH2
“The only people you can count on ar the MHRAs. The reason you can count on them is the same reason tradcons despise them: they want to finish the job feminists started, by spreading the ideology of real equality, i.e. the abandonment of constructed masculine obligations, which will finally push this unsalvageable, rotten civilization to its grave. This is the only way to make everyone realize the final and inevitable results of leftist ideology.”
I’m with you brother, or at least when I’m not GMOW. It’s a matter of how optimistic I am on a day by day basis.
I am absolutely behind giving women the true equality that they claim to want, but never get round to taking the responsibility that is required to equally partake in equal society. (no AA, no quotas – just equal opportunity and merit based decisions).
For the more hardcore amongst us (HH2 you’re definitely in)
Paul Elam stirs the pot provocatively…but how much truth is in there? Be honest now.
Princess Miserable and the Great American Bitch Machine
This comment perfectly illustrates the true extent of tradcon delusions:
zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/send-in-the-clown/#comment-17579
“the men will rank each other as ruthlessly and rigidly as women now rank them, and that there will still be a significant sub-section of men that end up absolutely, crazy-desperate”
Yep. After all, we know men are just as hypergamous. If they get to rule the sexual marketplace, 80% of all men will effectively be left without any opportunities for extramarital sex, and a sizable minority of men will be incels, and a small minority of top men will get all the casual sex they want. This is exactly how the bad old patriarchy functioned, didn’t it?
Last one (promise), I would point out that my block of comments is a by-product of a timezone thing (I’m living around six hours into your future)
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fuck-you-tammy-bruce/
from the comments
So…we’re in a gender war, we have been for fifty (one hundred and fifty?) years. The men are only just starting to wake up and start resisting the bullshit and lies. And some manginas believe that men should not be armed with clear insight into what the hell is going on and Game?
Game is a toolkit of techniques (amoral, not immoral) that allow men to navigate the poisoned society where being male is denigrated and female entitlement is ramped up to eleven.
And if you go that way (not a great idea imho) might even save your marriage, what’s not to like about that from a societal point of view? It sucks from a male point of view though, as twu wuv is not possible from a man once the blue pill veil is pulled back. Which is where women need to ovary up and address their own blue pill issues and shortcomings in the adulthood stakes. (NAWALT)
Definitely like this one
http://redpillpushers.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/never-listen-to-women/
@ADBG
That’s a great link
Spawny Get says:
“So…we’re in a gender war, we have been for fifty (one hundred and fifty?) years. The men are only just starting to wake up and start resisting the bullshit and lies. And some manginas believe that men should not be armed with clear insight into what the hell is going on and Game?
Game is a toolkit of techniques (amoral, not immoral) that allow men to navigate the poisoned society where being male is denigrated and female entitlement is ramped up to eleven.”
Interesting, sorta like how in WW1 the Germans of all people were quick claim the use of shotguns in trench warfare were cruel and inhumane. This from the people that invented poison gas and flamethrowers.
Now as to gender war…hmm… might have to rethink my grand theory of history, after all it’s 2014, it’s time once again.
@ Anon Reader, 53:
“Nobody seems to have a problem with Real Men learning how to dance from dance instructors, funny thing. That is, even Real Men don’t “just get” the tango, for example, they have someone show them how to do it, and they they lead their woman in the dance.
“So – Toastmasters ok, dancing lessons ok, Game bad. Yah, makes lotsa sense to me…”
Yeah. The argument I’m seeing is (not saying I agree with it; just that this is the argument): Game’s origins are inherently evil because it originated for the express purpose of illicit, immoral, extramarital sex. Because of those illicit origins, Game is evil and can’t be redeemed to be made “good”.
The other argument is as Nova pointed out at Zippy’s: Many women use makeup, push-up bras and high heels to enhance their attractiveness to men. Women can find all sorts of mainstream advice and information on how to do this, and it’s everywhere: in churches, magazines, popular culture, and even women’s ministries. Some of that info is of dubious “morality” (i.e. Cosmopolitan magazine). The response is that some tiny, inconsequential pockets of Christianity object to women using appearance-enhancing anything. Basically NACWALT.
The rejoinder is, well, perhaps, but the fact of the matter is that the vast, vast majority of even Christian women are completely indistinguishable from secular women in every way: dress, appearance, makeup, hairstyle, speech, conduct, and the culture they consume. Christian women watch Dance Moms and Real Housewives, wear makeup, dress like sluts, have premarital sex, cheat on husbands, and frivorce husbands All. The. Time. But no one bats an eye at that.
By contrast, information that helps men enhance their attractiveness to women had its genesis in the seduction community, is not mainstream, and is difficult to find (but getting more mainstream all the time). Well, men shouldn’t use it, so the argument goes, because the seduction community is “evil” and therefore anything that originates from it is evil.
Not saying I agree with it but that’s the argument that’s made.
I’m not terribly worried about Christian men doing things specifically geared to enhancing their attractiveness to women at large. Christian men know what is moral and what isn’t.
The fact is, most Christian women look more like Jenny Erikson than like former First Lady Laura Bush.
#87 “I’m not terribly worried about Christian men doing things specifically geared to enhancing their attractiveness to women at large.”
Me neither. Who would be worried? Answer: Fathers of daughters who do not want Christian men to have an abundance mentality.
Remember, deti, don’t forget about pole dancing for Jesus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tplfas9OIFI
@ DeNihilist:
I saw you posted this at Zippy’s.
“ Just a quick note. Went to Deti’s post. He asks for alternatives to game. I offer some. Turns out that the other good thing about game is that you don’t have to really put effort or money into it to get it. Who woulda known?
“Zippy, you have him pegged. You offer solutions that are not game, he finds deficiencies and cry’s no, again only game has the answer.
“My last comment was, “then stop asking and start selling”
“What a tool.”
Since Zippy has muzzled my commentary there, I’ll put my response here, and leave it at that.
No, you didn’t offer any alternatives to Game other than the Sterling Institute, which I checked out and which doesn’t seem to offer much of anything, (in exchange for the low, low price of $795 for a weekend). You also offered things that fathers usually encourage sons to do. You also told men to join clubs and activities. Those are all very well and good, but they might not actually help a man with his weaknesses. They just tell men to keep doing the same things they’ve always done, and hope that THIS TIME it will work. Joining a club or going to Toastmasters or doing activities also don’t educate men about the vagaries of the modern sexual and marriage marketplaces. They do nothing to educate men about what even modern “Christian” women today are like.
If you had told men to do things to actually educate themselves about the world they actually live in, about male and female nature, about how men and women REALLY are (instead of the fantasies most churches inculcate their men about how they want women to be or believe they are), then you might be getting somewhere.
So no, you really didn’t offer any alternatives other than the already failed “Be nice, be yourself” and “Just Get It” and “Just figure it out for yourself”.
Denihilist:
You suggested that Zippy and others like him offer “alternatives” to Game. No, they don’t, and no, Zippy doesn’t either.
Zippy openly admits that he has no answers to the problems men face in today’s society. He admits that he has no solutions, doesn’t care about finding any, and doesn’t care to help anyone find any. The only remedy he offers is that of a strong patriarchy and fathers teaching sons, but says that if a boy doesn’t have these things growing up, well, that’s too bad, but there’s nothing anyone can do about that.
Now, Zippy and his followers are free to not care all they wish; but it’s not helpful to stand on the street corner shouting PROBLEM PROBLEM PROBLEM.
As we’re talking about real world experience…It’s good to be bad – my reality (enjoy)
http://www.youtube.com/user/jaguaruk
lolz @ those ridiculous links.
OK, so you guys hate women because you’re not getting what you want from them. That much is obvious. How has this “red pill taking” improved your own life? Anyone here any happier for it? Someone commented that they are no longer capable of falling in love. And that has helped you… how? I’m not here to judge. But it just doesn’t sound like you guys are very happy. I mean, I’ve seen women telling war stories about truly horrific ex-husbands on Jezebel who were more good-humoured about it. And they didn’t seem to have this grudge against ALL men the way the way that you now view ALL women.
People will do what they will. I just don’t see how game or “red pill” or anything else is going to add anything more to your life save for maybe making it easier to have short-term flings or one nighters with women who you despise for having them with you. Maybe if it does anything for you it’s allow you to feel more at peace with being alone.
“By understanding these three internal forces, you ought to be able to see where much of human behavior comes from. Women that keep trying to prove that they are “strong” and “independent” are actively trying to reject their third desire, and acquire resources on their own. To literally not be defined by a man, as they’ve been told that that part of femininity is weak and needs to be categorically rejected. And when they do, they wake up in midlife in Spinsterville having never been married, childless, and often suicidally lonely.”
The problem with this claim is that it’s just not true. As always, women who never married have the best oucomes; “Kposowa found that among the women, there were no significant differences in rates of suicide among those who, at the outset of the study, were currently married vs. divorced vs. widowed vs. always-single. In fact, the always-single women were actually slightly (though not significantly) less likely to commit suicide than the married women.”
However, “Among the men, those who had always been single and those who were widowed did not differ from the currently-married in their rates of suicide. The divorced men were about twice as likely as the married men to commit suicide over the course of the decade.”
As I’ve stated before, marriage is a crapshoot and if you end up in a failed or terrible marriage, you are actually worse off than if you had never bothered. This is true for both sexes, though it’s slightly truer for men.
#94
Of course they are good-humoured about it. They are surrounded by an entire edifice of cultural and legal norms specifically designed to support and validate their personal choices. It’s de facto prohibited today to even criticize their choices. We’re at a point where family courts ban divorced men from writing about their experiences online or in any newspaper. Our entire society is designed to make sure women’s asses are kissed nonstop.
The rest of your comment is plain nonsense. With all due respect, which isn’t much, you don’t understand what makes men angry or happy. You don’t understand male contempt either. And you never will, because you’re just another woman.
Since the Bible teaches the fallen nature of men (and women, even more so you might say), I am wondering what the religious objection to game really is. That is, it’s quite clear what the religious objection to promiscuity is. I would go further and say there is a rational moral objection to promiscuity independent of, but compatible with, religious thought.
However, the supposed religious idea that game is bad because it tricks or exploits women or turns them from their higher duties really does not compute in the end. First, and most obvious, huge numbers of women are not embracing these duties at all, as we all well know. But more fundamentally, the key insights of game, it seems to me, revolve precisely around said “fallen nature” and the characteristic ways that female nature is fallen. It is way, or can be used as a way, of dealing with that fallen nature and steering it toward virtue.
I used to get into this a lot elsewhere and our former hostess did not like it one bit. But the truth rather plainly seems to be that men and women are both fallen in ways common to both sexes, and then also each fallen in ways specifically characteristic of each sex, that is, in ways that the other sex largely does not share. The world understands reasonably well the characteristic vices or “low nature” of men. It denies and is hostile to any notion that there are vices characteristic of women’s “low nature.”
I can understand why feminists and moderns have a problem accepting the latter truth. But religious persons should not.
Game is partly a secular theoretical understanding of that truth. And, yes, I am of the opinion that it was all there in various books almost from the beginning. However, I agree with deti that it needed to be exhumed and repackaged for a modern audience. Anyway, as such, that theoretical understanding is hardly different from the Biblical account of fallen womanhood.
Game is also partly a combination of “praxis” and “phronesis,” that is a, practical wisdom geared toward effective action. Now, to be sure, Aristotle would say there can be no true prudence without morality, that no immoral act can be prudent. Prudence (phronesis) is inseparable from morality, but praxis is not. There can be amoral skills, but there cannot be legitimate or just amoral or immoral application of skills.
So, if game helps men deal with the fallen nature of women, and indeed guide women toward virtue, then game would have be considered legitimate from both a Biblical and a philosophic framework.
I don’t think I fully appreciated what Dalrock meant by “rebuilding the mound” until reading Jen for the last couple of days.
Jen says:
“How has this ‘red pill taking’ improved your own life? Anyone here any happier for it? Someone commented that they are no longer capable of falling in love. And that has helped you… how? ”
I don’t know if happy is right word to describe it. More like relieved, or unburdened. Since the realization that the one thing I really wanted in life never really existed I am free from wondering why I was defective, I wasn’t. I am no longer worried I won’t find find something that can’t be found. I can stop looking. I am free of the delusion. Most importantly I am empowered to ignore everyone and everything else. I get to decide how my life operates.I get to be the final judge of my actions, thoughts, goals, and desires. I have no obligation to live my life in pursuit of someone else’s desires for me. I no longer have to chase a rainbow encrusted unicorn fantasy.
Now I will admit that there is no small amount of disappointment about the the time energy and effort wasted pursuing fantastic dreams. However, I don’t have to feel like a failure for choosing to quit chasing those dreams. The only downside is to all of this is dealing with the disappointment, and the anger at the lies, and lying liars, that taught me to believe in things that aren’t true.
True love, and falling in it are like being afraid of the bogey man. Neither exist. So I am liberated from fear of never finding true love, because I won’t. I will likewise never have to fear the bogeyman because he doesn’t exist either. Instead I have other options that actually do exist. Without the fantasy I can weigh those options in manner that more realistically applies to my life. Without the fantasy as the defining benchmark of relationships I can choose those which do exist without the nagging fear I have settled for a lesser choice. And the greatest Redpill truth of all is that I get to define my own happiness within a relationship, a happiness based on my needs and wants and not on the quality and quantity of my unrewarded sacrifices.
@ Jen, 94:
Put down your shotgun.
No, no one here hates all women. We hate what feminism has done to men, women, children, families, and our society. We aim to teach and instruct, so as to stem feminism’s tide, contain its damage, and repair it where that can be done.
Of the contributors here, two are married, at least one is in an LTR. If we hated women, we wouldn’t have selected one to devote our lives to, nor bust our asses to keep those relationships going.
What you see as hatred, I see as healthy anger. Anger motivates. It spurs one to self-improvement. It is a useful safety valve.
What are you doing to help with the situation? AFAIAC, if you’re not helping, you’re part of the problem.
“True love, and falling in it are like being afraid of the bogey man”
Not true. “Probity” in action.
#98 “So, if game helps men deal with the fallen nature of women, and [if these men confine themselves to guiding] women toward virtue, then game would have be considered legitimate from both a Biblical and a philosophic framework.” Yes, great points. I highlight the fact that I think anti-gamists fear that the more men that are capable of promiscuity, the more promiscuity there will be.
“Not true. ‘Probity’ in action.”
Explain, I am unclear on your point.
Esco, 99:
“ I don’t think I fully appreciated what Dalrock meant by “rebuilding the mound” until reading Jen for the last couple of days.”
Indeed.
In Jen’s Grrrrlpower world, pointing out the true nature of women is “hatred” and “holding grudges”.
Understanding and explicating on the shitty treatment women have foisted on men is “unhealthy anger”.
Trying to help other men avoid the same pitfalls is “counterproductive”.
“”I don’t know if happy is right word to describe it. More like relieved, or unburdened. Since the realization that the one thing I really wanted in life never really existed I am free from wondering why I was defective, I wasn’t. I am no longer worried I won’t find find something that can’t be found. I can stop looking. I am free of the delusion. Most importantly I am empowered to ignore everyone and everything else. I get to decide how my life operates.I get to be the final judge of my actions, thoughts, goals, and desires. I have no obligation to live my life in pursuit of someone else’s desires for me. I no longer have to chase a rainbow encrusted unicorn fantasy.”
I can really respect this and even identify with it to some extent. Thank you for answering, Badpainter.
#94 ” Someone commented that they are no longer capable of falling in love. And that has helped you… how?” I wasn’t just me. There’s several of us have said the exact same thing. I had been in love, serially infatuated, for no joke all 50 of my post-puberty years, until last year. It took me deciding to be meaner and badder to get me to fall out of love, and you’re right I hated having to do it. I mourned the loss of the feeling for many months, much like a man coming out of anesthesia mourns the loss of the anesthetic. And because I remember how good it felt it is oh so tempting to try to feel it again. But I know it is a lie, a trick of nature designed to make me subservient to women.
It is not true that “true love” is a myth. True love is rarer today than in the past, perhaps, the obstacles to finding and maintaining it are greater, certainly. The culture at once exalts it as the highest good (at least interpersonally) and then does everything it can to undermine it (in all the ways we’ve hashed over endlessly).
But it remains a permanent human possibility, achievable at any time and place, even as the odds go down and the barriers go up.
“Probity” is the intellectual tendency (I would call it a vice) to believe the worst all the time, in all things, because it is the worst. It is the refuge of men who fear above all being deceived by “pretty lies.” So, in order not to be deceived, they deny the good in totality. But nature is not entirely harsh and nihilism is false. “Probity” in the end means accepting the enemy’s premises. It is a corrupting doctrine.
Escoffier,
Gotcha.
What I meant by that is that “true love” as defined and sold by FI driven culture does not exist. It was the lie I was sold and I bought into it. There is a true form of love that does exist, but I have no clear idea what that looks like.
“Indeed.
In Jen’s Grrrrlpower world, pointing out the true nature of women is “hatred” and “holding grudges”.
Understanding and explicating on the shitty treatment women have foisted on men is “unhealthy anger”.
Trying to help other men avoid the same pitfalls is “counterproductive””
So according to you, deti, the “true nature of women” is: “The fact that she will trade up in a heartbeat, and cannot stand to live on this planet in peace if she knows that another woman has more than her is not news to her…it’s just news to you. That she has not one drop of apologetic blood in her body for her natural hypergamic and solipsistic ways is not news to her…it’s just news to you.”
and
“Because if you don’t have resources she can plunder, she won’t even speak to you.”
and
“She doesn’t know what she wants.
I really shouldn’t have to go over the “I just want a nice guy that treats me well” trope and how she will run screaming from a nice guy that treats her well, to be sure to give her virginity and many babies to Charles Manson.”
And if a woman takes any issue with being generalized that way or even questions how such stupid statements are improving your life, she’s “a part of the problem.”
Alrighty then.
Except that I’m NOT a part of the problem. I am an egalitarian, through and through. Unfairness bothers me, to be honest. I don’t like polyamory in part because I see it as the aquiescence and supplication of one partner to another in a way that is exploitative and unfair. This fact alone has earned me the wrath of some self-identified feminists on The Gloss and The Frisky.
There are aspects of current laws that I see as being unfair to men. If I had my way, child support wouldn’t be mandatory. Ultimately, it IS a woman’s body and she DOES have the right to choose, but if the man wants the fetus terminated or the baby given up for adoption (should the woman choose to carry it full-term) and the woman insists on keeping it herself, the man should have the right to opt out of child support or involvement, effectively acting as a sperm donor. I recently have heard about a proposal granting a man a 2-week window in which to decide one way or the other from the date of the positive pregnancy test whether to be an identified (and thus fiscally responsible) father or a sperm donor, and to me, this makes sense. I am pro-choice, and that means the man should have a choice, too.
I know that I’m an unpopular figure among conservative men (like those here) who don’t want women to have any agency over their own lives/be able to work/go to school, etc. On this, we will never agree and obviously our interests in that sense are fundamentally opposed and I am happy that so far, you are losing. But for those who genuinely embrace equal opportunities and want women to be able to pursue their own destinies just as long as they (men) can also do so free from stigmatization and being told to “man up,” I hear you, I agree with you, and I am with you.
That is all.
You know you’ve arrived when …
I skipped church last night because this is the last build week for the robotic team and it’s getting hectic. The crowd was down, and we were test driving and troubleshooting a problematic wiring or controller issue, in the unheated bay where our practice field is. I had on a big warm coat, reversible with hunter orange lining and vest. My too-thin teacher lady friend said she was cold, so I lent her my coat and she was going all “Mmm!” from inside it and you could almost smell the jealousy of a couple teenage girls, standing huddled with their arms folded and whining pretending to freeze. She graciously gave them the too-large coat, keeping the vest for herself, and one reversed it and was showing it off (she looked like she was modeling in orange) and the other tried to snatch it off and they chased each other around. Parting my garments and practically casting lots for them. They decided to both wear it at the same time, to some slight amusement.
Jen says:
“I know that I’m an unpopular figure among conservative men (like those here) who don’t want women to have any agency over their own lives/be able to work/go to school, etc. ”
Ummm…no. I think we all want women to have agency and responsibility for their lives. BUT that means women have to accept the negative consequences of their actions, and cannot claim victim status for any result that impacts them in a negative way.
For example if you should chose to be rifleman in USMC you should be held to identical standards as a man would would be. If you are not physically capable of meeting those standards you don’t the job. Apply to all things like firefighters, pay-gap issues etc. If you want to live and work in a man’s world you can, but you are not allowed to change the evaluative standards to ensure equal outcomes from differing inputs.
Jen, would your current life be possible without the Canadian welfare state? And where do you think the money to fund it comes from?
Dear Jen, Most Beloved quasi-fembot,
I tried to show that men have a valid point of view too, and that things are far from equal. I note that you remain blind to any validity of the male perspective, which is nothing to worry about at all – it is perfectly normal in this society.
So, I beg you, just FOAD, ignore all my comments as I will yours.
hugs and kisses
Beloved Uncle Spawny
xx
Badpainter, I don’t disagree with you there. I agree with you; equal opportunities should be extended with the understanding that you’re not going to have equal outcomes. This means that there will be fewer women in the military and in lucrative trade work (responsible to a large extent for the gender pay gap) and engineering because women are simply less capable in those arenas. Similarly, there may be fewer men in nursing, social work, and even enrolled in universities because sit-still-and-read academia and care work are simply better-suited to women, on average. I think you think I have more contempt for your viewpoint than I actually do.
No, my issue is with those men (perhaps it is more central to the Christians of the site) who think a woman’s role is in the kitchen and in the home, regardless of whether women or any particular woman is going to be contented or best-suited to motherhood, domesticity, etc. Again, I feel that all individuals regardless of gender should have equal opportunities, but that doesn’t necessarily guarantee equal outcomes. This is a more personal issue for me than you realize as my boyfriend pursued a female-dominated field in college and as his first choice of career and encountered much discrimination because he was a male. This was deeply unsettling for me. Some men are simply better in “female” roles than some women, and vice-versa.
Escoffier, I work in the private sector, and I put myself through college part-time while working full-time. I pay the highest tax bracket as a single person with no dependents to claim as a write-off. Any other questions?
Why do religious organizations instead tell us that we must love our wives as Christ loved the Church wives must submit to husbands only if they feel like it?
NOT okay. The Bible is pretty clear on that one.
Thus, if you ever meet someone in ministry who tells you differently kindly point them to the Bible.
“22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife” […] “and the wife must respect her husband.” (Excerpt from: Ephesians 5:22 -33)
In fact, wives are worse off should a marriage fail. They are expected to remain unmarried. Remarriage is only acceptable if her husband died. Otherwise she will be deemed as an adulterer.
On another note, do you want to hear about ministers that do not shame men, that actually treat men with respect?
Let’s start with one: Chip Brim: former successful Baseball coach. (http://www.champions4christ.org)
Esco and badpainter, re “True Love”
Both of you are correct; but you’ll get farther talking about “love” than “True Love”.
“True Love” is a Disney Princess construct. It’s also a male belief (which Rollo has addressed at great length and more skillfully than I) that a woman should love him the way he expects her to love him. More specifically, a man wants and expects a woman to love him in the same way he loves her; when she isn’t capable of that. (NOTE: I am not, repeat NOT, saying that a woman is not capable of loving a man. I AM saying, however, that the character and quality of her love for him is NOT the same as the character and quality of his love for her.)
Love does exist. A man can love a woman. A woman can love a man. It’s just that the way men give and experience love is quite different from the way women give and experience love. It’s also that most choose not to love; or choose to walk away from love.
I believe – no, I KNOW — that love exists, because I’ve seen it and experienced it firsthand. I’m just not sure I believe in marriage any more, and certainly not the way it’s currently constituted and sold to men.
http://therationalmale.com/category/love/
Read the posts entitled “Men in Love” and “Women in Love”.
Somebody teach our fair correspondent arithmetic, please. She doesn’t know the difference between ratios and numbers. I would, but I’ve decided to wait until she issues one post without an ad hominem or strawman or appeal to authority logic failure.
Jen, taking direct transfer payments does not exhaust the ways in which the modern state helps women at the expense of men.
Anyway, I was mostly responding to your ridiculous strawman that men “don’t want women to have any agency over their own lives.”
Which is 180 degrees back-asswards. What men (or aware men) would like to see is precisely a world in which women are completely responsible for their own lives, where their agency is their prime asset to get them through life. That is not the world we live in today. You may be one of the minority–like all the other implausible things you have claimed, we can’t possibly know–but even if we stipulate that, it remains true that you are completely delusional about the true cost of “women’s independence” who pays the bulk of that cost.
Bottom line: modern women are not independent in any meaningful sense. They are wholly dependent on vast societal and governmental machinery that props up the illusion of their “independence” by transferring them resources, broadly understood, generated by others (i.e., men).
You could claim that the latter is “fair.” We would all disagree of course, but at least it would be an argument. Denial is just a waste of everyone’s time, except to the extent that it exposes your ignorance and ideological axe to grind.
Jen
OK, so you guys hate women because you’re not getting what you want from them.
Your feminist shaming language and this particularly stupid strawman argument tell me that you are too ignorant to converse with and too stupid to learn. Therefore the only thing to do is mock you as the feminist troll that you are.
BuenaVista, if you have an issue with something I’ve stated, could you please specify what it is so we can discuss? If there is an issue with “the numbers” (though which numbers I’m not sure) could you please elaborate on that? Sorry, I don’t speak “butthurt sarcasm.”
Jen: “I work in the private sector, and I put myself through college part-time while working full-time. I pay the highest tax bracket as a single person with no dependents to claim as a write-off. Any other questions?”
Yes, out of curiosity what do you do in the private sector?
Also, since you brought it up…what “female-dominated field” did your boyfriend pursue?
“Jen
OK, so you guys hate women because you’re not getting what you want from them.
Your feminist shaming language and this particularly stupid strawman argument tell me that you are too ignorant to converse with and too stupid to learn. Therefore the only thing to do is mock you as the feminist troll that you are.”
Anonymous Reader, feminists are not the only ones who conclude this. hoellenhund2 also stated that many purveyors have Game and successful-with-women men like Schwyzer have all concluded the same thing; if you were getting what you want from women (whether that be “submission” or just plain old pussy), you wouldn’t be or sound as bitter as you are and do. Dismiss it as “feminist trolling” at your own peril. Most people male or female would deduce the same thing, sorry. Just facts.
@ Jen:
“I know that I’m an unpopular figure among conservative men (like those here) who don’t want women to have any agency over their own lives/be able to work/go to school, etc.”
No. this is wrong.
Women have full and complete agency over their own lives. Or at least they should. I have no problem with any woman who wants to work. Then don’t complain that the men you want don’t find you attractive and won’t marry you. Then don’t complain about how hard your job is. And don’t complain that you have no time for anything else.
I have no problem with sex pozzies doing whatever and whoever they want. I just don’t want to see the slutwalks. I don’t want to hear them complain that they’re judged for their behavior or appearances. Don’t complain about their inability to find men willing to marry their used up carcasses. Slut it up all you want; but don’t complain when the men you want won’t wife it up later. Own it and live with it and deal with it.
So, if game helps men deal with the fallen nature of women, and indeed guide women toward virtue, then game would have be considered legitimate from both a Biblical and a philosophic framework.
The objections, extremely generally stated, are (1) the tools are so slanted toward immoral acts that it is extremely dangerous to try to use them in a moral way (you’re likely to sin if you try) (Zippy) and (2) using the tools to cultivate eros in a marriage is pagan and not Christian, and is therefore not leading anyone to virtue, but leading both you and your wife into the hands of Greek demons, and way from Christ (Cane).
I agree with your critiques, but right off the bat Cane, who is hostile to any philosophical approach to morality (and apparently other things as well, but let’s leave it at morality for this discussion) will of course be unmoved by them. Zippy’s objection is, on the surface, a bit more attackable (he is not subject to the same unfortunate hostility when it comes to philosophy), but still relatively unmovable, I think.
The rest are mostly hangers-on of one of these (not personally, but in terms of ideas and orientation).
Careful readers will note that fembot troll Jen has shifted from “hate” to “bitter”, in another example of moving the goalposts.
Jen, you are too ignorant to converse with and too stupid to learn. You are fit only to mock as the feminist troll that you are.
Your purpose here is not to learn, but to obfuscate, to cloud issues rather than clarify, to draw attention away from issues and to yourself.
Get over it. Reality is not all about you.
Readers, note well that in any discussion touching on Game, there will always arrive a woman who attempts to focus all attention on herself in order to stop men from talking about women.
I stopped trying to figure out in real-time if I’m “in love”, have found “true love”, or if love is extinct. I’ve certainly been “in love” and I have experienced “true love” (swooning euphoria that last for years) once or twice.
What my backtesting has shown me, in any event, is that being “in love” reflects an equitable relationship with a woman, yielding over time great admiration, respect, loyalty and lots of the hurly-burly. “True love” betastisized me big-time, as I believe it does most guys. In retrospect, as do all, I found my reciprocal labors as a triumphant beta provisioning provider domesticated drafthorse neither improved nor even saved the experience of Disneyesque “True Love.” A truism, here, I know. “True love” (Disney/RomCom version) creates marionette men, if they stay on script. Pretty soon Cinderella will get bored with pulling the strings and find a new toy, if she can.
Therefore, when I’m dating someone and things are deep in the infatuation zone, and she asks me about “love”, I just say,
“I don’t think I really know what love is. I know what respect and kindness and loyalty and fairness and good sex are.”
If that scares her away or generates snippy-snark such as (my favorites) “you don’t know how to love” or “you’re so selfish” or “are you seeing someone else?” — well, then my new filter worked pretty darn well. It’s amazing how myopic these women are, for many of them are, in fact, “in love”, as they understand the term. They just find it weird that a guy would like to see kindness, loyalty, fairness etc. from *them*, rather than trading off the sum of his life in order to satisfy her need to LOCK HIM DOWN NOW.
Which returns me to the comments on the nature of love *in this culture.* I truly wonder how our culture of entitlement, “sharing”, instant gratification in all things, FB selfie superheroes, and celebrity worship could possibly instruct on “love.” Those who swim in the culture will be poisoned by it; their swimming in a superfund site, known as the Love Canal.
Nova, it is worth pointing out that both Cane and ZIppy have never had the courage to accept my anti-Game challenge. That is, neither have to the best of my knowledge ever chosen to deliberately eschew all known Game techniques in their married lives.
For a short example of my point:
If Game is fake / evil, then surely any Real Man would avoid known Game techniques. Standing up straight, and speaking with a clear, deep voice are two well known techniques not only from Game, but from Toastmasters as well. Therefore, I have challenged those men to adopt a slumped over posture in their home, with the shoulders rolled forward, head tipped down, and no eye contact with their wives. Their voices should be soft, as high pitched as possible, and murmuring. Surely if Game is fake, adopting such physical and vocal postures will have no effect upon their wives affections at all.
Neither man has ever, so far as I know, taken up that challenge. Therefore at some level both Zippy Catholic and Cane Caldo know that Game works, because both of them Game their wives, and refuse to stop doing so – likely because they know what the results will be.
Hypocrites.
Nova, since the Greek demons do not exist, I think we can safely discard that objection.
The Great Game Debate, Still. Deepstrength seems to take the most nuanced approach of the antigamers, in that he admits game definitely works and that there are definitely some edible nuggets in the garbage can of game.
http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/the-game-alternative/
And yet he proposes NO actual alternative than the fallacious No True Man: “Just Be Good [enough] and lotsa wimmiz will be naturally attracted to you. You’ll have to beat them off with your Bible, or somthin.”
A man can love a woman.
Indeed, we are instructed to love our wives (because God knew we’d need the encouragement, once we realized what women were like). But the concept of love has been hideously deformed and corrupted, both by the culture at large and most of the counter-cultures, including most churches. As jf12 remarked, the love we’re taught is a fairy tale. It’s a beautiful lie that brings misery.
But while that love is a lie, there is a better understanding of love we are called to pursue. And it’s a pain in the ass to do so.
@ JEN
You are quite an accomplished troll. Look how many responses you pulled in.
Answer this troll, if you are a “Christian” then according to the bible women MUST submit to their husband, or other mail authority.
If you are not, then on what basis do you form your egalitarian mind set? Why does any one deserve equal anything, and who can give them this? In this world view without moral framework (On what would you base morals?) the only true equality is death.
Hail True Equality.
#124 “if you were getting what you want from women (whether that be “submission” or just plain old pussy), you wouldn’t be or sound as bitter as you are and do.”
Shorter version: Just Man Up!
Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right?
@Liz I work in commercial and residential sales. My boyfriend got a 3-year diploma (most programs are two-year) in massage therapy, only to find some employers were looking only for female RMTs and wouldn’t even give him a chance. So we mutually decided that aince sexism exists unfortunately and there is nothing we can do about that, we may as well make it work in his favour. I helped him get an interview for a male-dominated pofession and he’s been doing that now for a few months.
My boyfriend is extremely egalitarian; he reads xojane on occasion and expected me to pay at least for some of my own way on our first date, which of course I was happy to do. He is also a much better cook than I am.
Nova, since the Greek demons do not exist, I think we can safely discard that objection.
Yes, as I said above, he is an anti-intellectual buffoon, but he is charlatan with a following, unfortunately. He won’t be convinced either way.
BuenaVista @128
Brilliant. That neatly encapsulates the direction of my thinking on the topic. And your test questions, well I’m going to steal those. Thanks.
Deti@118
I’ve read that article by Rollo several times, and many of the other discussions on the issue. I am sure there something I am not quite grasping. Now that I have abandoned the Disney version of love I am faced with considering if the real thing is worth the effort. Mostly because I don’t see there being any point where I am allowed to be comfortable. I just see never ending toil for something that is at best fragile, high maintenance, and high cost. At my age, and given the market conditions I have doubts that such an investment pays off in the long term. I keep asking myself: what exactly do I get out of it?
jf12, you can come down off your shrill shrieking now. I never said that. I don’t agree with calls for men to “man up.” Just because a man does not subscribe to conventional notions of manhood (get married, have 2.5 kids, get desk job) does not make him less of a man. Your issue is not with me. Oh wait, nevermind, I have a vagina and a job, of course it is.
#96
Yep. It’s “slightly truer for men”. Nice to see that concession.
#138 You accuse us of not being Man Enough to quietly accept our fates.
#135: Thanks for the response, Jen.
I should have remembered that your boyfriend was a massage therapist. I was thinking of my career field(s) because they are usually the more female dominated professions (teaching and nursing).
jf12, just because I take issue with the notion that the nature if women – and just women – is evil doesn’t mean that I don’t think people have a right to their opinion. What you are asking for is the ability to express yourself free from judgment or disagreement (which is no different than what self-proclaimed “sluts” are asking for).
I don’t, however, think highly enough of you to expect you to see the hypocrisy and unreasonableness in those proclamations or that expectation that you have.
“I don’t think I really know what love is. I know what respect and kindness and loyalty and fairness and good sex are.”
Good stuff. I also know what disrespect and cruelty and disloyalty and unfairness and sexual deprivation are, too.
#124
“hoellenhund2 also stated that many purveyors have Game and successful-with-women men like Schwyzer have all concluded the same thing; if you were getting what you want from women (whether that be “submission” or just plain old pussy), you wouldn’t be or sound as bitter as you are and do.”
I never said that specifically about Schwyzer. But otherwise, yes, that “argument” exists. The reason it exists is because misandry and criminality exist.
“Therefore at some level both Zippy Catholic and Cane Caldo know that Game works, because both of them Game their wives, and refuse to stop doing so – likely because they know what the results will be.”
Both of them will also tell you that whatever is “good” about Game is not really Game; but is simply masculinity which was lost to the ages but they’re bringing it back. Stated another way; they’re just masculine men who don’t need Game. What they do is simply unapologetic masculinity, not Game.
I suspect Cane is a natural alpha, based on his prior writings. Zippy has revealed he has worked as a business executive and also has (or has had) a pilot’s license. He is a skilled rhetorician as well. These speak natural alpha. Work as a business executive and being trained in aviation bespeak high levels of education, some intelligence, and a lot of discretionary income (resources). These things aren’t the province of working class or even middle class American men. Even most men earning healthy six figure salaries don’t learn how to fly planes. Everything about these men bespeaks “natural alpha” – men who were properly formed up by their dads or other men; who “just get it” and who “just figured it out”.
@ ‘Anonymous Reader’, your colourful assortment of sentences directed at Jen are pretty insulting. (you are too ignorant to converse)
If you loathe her posts, then kindly disregard them.
Escoffier, I am not an exception by any means; most women who are working are working in the private sector. In order to qualify for a government job in Canada, you have to be bilingual, and as a unilingual Canadian, i have never met that particular specification; many men, hiwever, do, and would get the job before me.
In any case, as long as you view “transfer payments” in a gendered fashion, you can’t claim to be egalitarian. The beneficiaries of my taxes could be men, they could be single mothers, they could be male or female children, they could be people on disability, they could be people temporarily out of work on employment insurance; they’re likely all of those things. And I am certainly not a man making them.
I was out on my own at 20 years old so I had to support myself and a college course costs (or at least did 6 years ago) around $320 so I would go to work until 5 and thn to to class one night a week. It was a painstakingly slow and demanding process and I don’t in any way claim superiority over those who focussed on one thing and went to school full time. Heck, if I had had the opportunity I likely would have done the same thing.
More tradcon nonsense here:
zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/definition-of-a-natural-alpha/
I always surmised these people are pretty much hopeless.
@BV
“Which returns me to the comments on the nature of love *in this culture.* I truly wonder how our culture of entitlement, “sharing”, instant gratification in all things, FB selfie superheroes, and celebrity worship could possibly instruct on “love.” Those who swim in the culture will be poisoned by it; their swimming in a superfund site, known as the Love Canal.”
Yep. Which is why I find the discussion of love (out there) to be too often nothing more than one more bucket to be filled, one more possession, accomplishment to be posted, pinned, twitted (twatted?), and fetishized.
Goes for men too. My best natural alpha friend longs for “love” yet he is so deeply absorbed in his own triumphant ego vis a vis the flood of top shelf pussy pouring down upon him that he can’t seem to see that love is an act of giving.
And he refuses to see that his view of sex as a competitive sport, not so different from his road biking, is working against his ability to bond with women as whole human beings. Everything is bifurcated, compartmentalized to the point where his search for “sexual compatibility” as the sex pozzies phrase it, he has built his own Sisyphusian mount.
So he continues to leave a trail of alpha widows in his wake. Yet the next ones are lined up for a taste before the first ones are wondering what went wrong. And he can’t figure out why he hasn’t found love or how loving a sex toy is not the same as loving a woman.
“Maybe I’m not cut out to be in a relationship”. He says. I don’t doubt that. But he still wants it all. The conquest, validation, praise, status, and hot hot sex. Sometimes men and women aren’t that different.
#142 “What you are asking for is the ability to express yourself free from judgment or disagreement” not in the slightest. I’m asking you to reexamine your motives in calling us bitter loser, and to finally realize you are trapped in a web of fallacies, not least of which is the No True Man fallacy: “No True Man has trouble with women, No True Man complains, etc”
“The beneficiaries of my taxes could be men, they could be single mothers, they could be male or female children, they could be people on disability, they could be people temporarily out of work on employment insurance; they’re likely all of those things.”
So, you think resource transfers in the advanced west are a 50-50 affair? The benefits accrue equally to both sexes?
Therefore, when I’m dating someone and things are deep in the infatuation zone, and she asks me about “love”, I just say,
“I don’t think I really know what love is. I know what respect and kindness and loyalty and fairness and good sex are.”
If that scares her away or generates snippy-snark such as (my favorites) “you don’t know how to love” or “you’re so selfish” or “are you seeing someone else?” — well, then my new filter worked pretty darn well. It’s amazing how myopic these women are, for many of them are, in fact, “in love”, as they understand the term. They just find it weird that a guy would like to see kindness, loyalty, fairness etc. from *them*, rather than trading off the sum of his life in order to satisfy her need to LOCK HIM DOWN NOW.
That is a brilliant filter.
I’m asking you to reexamine your motives in calling us bitter loser, and to finally realize you are trapped in a web of fallacies, not least of which is the No True Man fallacy: “No True Man has trouble with women, No True Man complains, et”
What I find mind boggling and I see this pattern repeated across many women is literally the inability to conceive that a man may be concerned, interested, want to discuss something even if they are not personally impacted by it. Another blogger repeats ad nauseum “why are these supposedly happily married men blogging and complaining about this stuff”. I guess the big picture abstract stuff doesn’t matter once you have achieved your own personal satisfaction?
Escoffier, I doubt it because in the West wealthy people pay more taxes, and wealthy people are more likely to be males. Women are also more likely to opt out of the labour force in favour of childcare so those women don’t contribute any taxes (which, again, I don’t begrudge them for; that’s their choice). What I AM saying is that it shouldn’t matter what the exact percentages are. We are living in a society, and society is not for the benefit of only one gemder, it’s for the benefit of all people. If i found out my taxes were paying for an abortion, I would be okay with that. If I found out my taxes were going towards a baby bonus for a young, struggling married couple, I would be okay with that.
#153
It’s because women aren’t imbued with a sense of justice. It’s unnecessary for childrearing, after all. Devlin has written about this.
Deti, this comment by SSM is attacking your post: http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/the-end-result-of-feminism-and-liberalism-is-the-destruction-of-our-humanity/#comment-52467
And what we are saying is that the notion that the current system “is for the benefit of both genders” is a monumental lie. One it’s obvious you are incapable of seeing and determined not to see.
#156
Such attitudes are to be expected. At the and of the day, SSM is just another tradcon, nothing more. And tradcons don’t change.
#136
“@Liz I work in commercial and residential sales. My boyfriend got a 3-year diploma (most programs are two-year) in massage therapy, only to find some employers were looking only for female RMTs and wouldn’t even give him a chance.”
What a surprise, feminism has hit you directly by restricting the income of your partner…that explains so much. A male meme about women in living colour.
You aren’t a person who sees the problem with feminism in general, you’re a woman directly inconvenienced by the injustices. I don’t care that your boyfriend’s employment is compromised by women wanting female masseuse, that’s fine (I prefer mine by men because they have the muscles to get the job done properly), that’s an adult issue that he should have considered. In the same way that female politicians should stop bitching about the electorate preferring men.
The manosphere (NAsphericalsALT) says that the vast majority of women interested in the manosphere are those directly negatively affected by it. You’re just the same.
Jen says:
“We are living in a society, and society is not for the benefit of only one gemder, it’s for the benefit of all people.”
The problem with this is that basically people are no damn good, and like Harvey Danger says “only cream and bastards rise.”
So the question becomes who decides?
Who decides the benefits?
Who decides the recipients of those benefits?
Who decides who pays what to whom?
In short if TPTB determine that it would be best for society that a certain precentage of people should be placed in bond servitude to another group within that society is that right? After all society demands it, right?
“And what we are saying is that the notion that the current system “is for the benefit of both genders” is a monumental lie. One it’s obvious you are incapable of seeing and determined not to see.”
Escoffier, your problem is that is an inherently subjective evaluation, and that is what you fail to see. There are men who are glad to have the choice being alive today afford them as well.
Here is a recent comment from Morpheus:
“I think things were very restricted and to be a “Real Man” you had to follow a certain course of action. Today, once you realize the Game you are playing and what the new rules are (http://therationalmale.com/2014/01/14/the-second-set-of-books/) you are free to chart the course and live and become BV’s sovereign man. In the good old days, you were destined to be a drafthorse. No doubt, many found fulfillment in that, but if that wasn’t your thing you didn’t have a choice in the matter. Feminism gave women a lot more choice on their life paths because it gave them economic self-sufficiency. Men have a lot more freedom as well. I’m not complaining.”
And of course others (you assume that if a man is more-or-less OK with the way things are right now then he must be alpha so OK, alphas are, too).
That isn’t of course to say that there are not opportunities to tweak things and make them more fair and more equitable for men. I offered an example earlier in this thread (with respect to “automatic child support”) and I think it would be a good thing if it were implemented sooner rather than later.
jf12
I suppose all of that practical advice I’ve posted is “no alternative”, which if you actually read the opening post those who have read it such as deti have called it “an alternative”:
If you don’t think it’s an alternative I don’t care. But don’t spout lies about me.
@ Jen
This is not an overtly religious site, and we do not advocate this. This kind of stuff is advocated by strongly religious sites such as Dalrock, Sunshine Mary, and Alpha Game Plan.
@JEN
“No, my issue is with those men (perhaps it is more central to the Christians of the site) who think a woman’s role is in the kitchen and in the home, regardless of whether women or any particular woman is going to be contented or best-suited to motherhood, domesticity, etc.”
What issue is that? Is that the issue where you demand equality between the sexes and yet have literally zero basis as for why you think that should exist? If you do not have a religious basis for your belief (any religion) than “Do what thou wilt” is the only law, or more precisely “Might makes right”
“What a surprise, feminism has hit you directly by restricting the income of your partner…that explains so much. A male meme about women in living colour.
You aren’t a person who sees the problem with feminism in general, you’re a woman directly inconvenienced by the injustices. I don’t care that your boyfriend’s employment is compromised by women wanting female masseuse, that’s fine (I prefer mine by men because they have the muscles to get the job done properly), that’s an adult issue that he should have considered. In the same way that female politicians should stop bitching about the electorate preferring men.
The manosphere (NAsphericalsALT) says that the vast majority of women interested in the manosphere are those directly negatively affected by it. You’re just the same.”
Spawny Get, I’m sorry but I’m not sure that I understand. I guess I’ll be more clear; you are making zero sense to me. How is it feminism’s fault that my boyfriend was a victim of sexism in the workplace and now works in a male field? I support egalitarianism 100%, that means most of the basic tenets of feminism. I just don’t support non-monogamy, which puts me at odds with most third-wave feminists.
And what we are saying is that the notion that the current system “is for the benefit of both genders” is a monumental lie. One it’s obvious you are incapable of seeing and determined not to see.
Where you stand depends on where you sit. –Nelson Mandela
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
My sense is having had many of these discussions now with women on the Internet that women are just biologically wired to crave security beyond any other consideration. It is why generally speaking they are more supportive of socialism and socialist policies. When you combine that powerful drive for security with solipsism, it is probably damn near impossible for most to step outside as detached observers of “the system” and see unfairness or injustice. ONLY when it impacts them at personally. That’s why that one feminist Mom raised the issue of false rape when it happened to her son.
Well, I guess there are bones of contention with it. I would respect third-wave feminists more if rather than Slutwalks they had walks on Capitol Hill demanding trade embargos with countries known to oppress women (like Saudi Arabia). Women demanding we stop doing business with oil-rich countries on principle? That would get my attention. They (third-wave feminists) are so focused on trivialities that it’s almost embarrassing. It’s one big reason that I prefer to identify as egalitarian; I feel that it’s more accurate. I’m not for female supremacy, I am for fairness.
Morpheus, #153, a very dear friend of mine, someone I dated and might have married, is now a professional friend. After we split she immediately married a provisioner, so I stay away from anything that might indicate interference or other untoward emotions. She (unwittingly, I think) (well, I’m not sure, she gave me the dates of her next two trips to Aspen, where she’ll be solo) and I discuss writing stuff, as she in that business and I’m rejoining it.
However, a few times our conversations have turned to the nature of the modern American divorce, and in truth, both times she brought it up. She has experience of the harridan, child-crushing ex-wife; her husband is divorced from one, and she complains frequently about her monstrous treatment of her ex- and her stepsons. I have made innocuous comments about the rigged game now in place, both for spouses and father-child, how this is how our society is structured — and she has gone nuclear on me. She *immediately* thinks I’m talking about her and her friends and loses her shit completely. I’ve concluded it’s simply something that I will not discuss with her, but that’s also a problem because this stuff is in my work, and she is my editor. I need her to be able to read my stuff and promote it without feeling like she’s running with the sisterhood’s enemy. That’s probably not going to happen. It’s an interesting problem.
So to extend your point: it’s much like what our trolling fair correspondent does here. Compare:
If my editor and I discuss the nature of child custody/parental alienation issues, she immediately says, “I’m not like that, and three of my friends aren’t either. You’re butthurt misogynist a loser with women and probably crippled emotionally. Climb out of your disgusting basement.” Granted, my editor is 10x smarter than our trolling FC, and knows what a logical fallacy is, but this is what happened three weeks ago (a week before she sent me her Aspen itineraries).
This is not conversation, this is someone who can’t distinguish between social conditions and personal prejudices: it’s the apotheosis of “the personal is political.” I practically have to hide from women now that I’ve discovered the red rules, but with most women the *only* thing I can do with this subject matter is say, “I’m not talking about that.” That’s more sensible than saying, “You realizing you’re just telling me to SHUT UP LALALALALA.”
It seems to be less of a problem with the under-40 set. I don’t think they grew up emulating the H. Clinton-style feminist style.
One of the things I believe this thread makes clear is that a woman who attempts to use male sociosexuality index scores as a way to try to identify potential mates is embarking on a dangerous undertaking.
Here is what I mean: let’s pretend that there were two big sexual marketplace exchanges on which mating negotiation took place: the Restricted Sociosexuality Exchange and the Unrestricted Sociosexuality Exchange. At a superficial level of analysis, the Restricted exchange features a higher exchange value for sex—i.e., Restricted male participants on said exchange are apparently willing to “pay more” for sex (in terms of commitment, resources, etc.) than are the male participants on the Unrestricted Exchange.
If the analysis stopped here, then women who were not wired to enjoy low-commitment sex should logically flock to the Restricted Exchange, that happy and romantic place where men seem to place a higher value on sexual activity, and where men will commit more to their relationships in order to get sex. The basic advice would probably be quite cut-and-dried—“find a restricted man because he believes in commitment.” Alas, this thread and others like it indicate that things are far less simple: a “No Arbitrage” rule is in place.
You see, the sex that Restricted men will pay this higher price for is qualitatively different from the sex that the Unrestricted men seek. On the Restricted exchange, the expensively-priced sex comes with *many terms and conditions* attached—frequently rooted in religiosity and attendant concepts of female subordination to the male head-of-household—that are not required of sex on the Unrestricted Exchange. The Restricted guys aren’t idiots who want to pay more for sex just because it makes the sellers happy; they pay more because they expect a premium product.
I think it is also fair to say that the male market participants on the Restricted Exchange tend to be more anti-feminist and—let’s be honest here–even more misogynistic than are the commitment-averse “players” on the Unrestricted Exchange (the players can make peace with Sex-Positive/3rd Wave Feminism, and in fact should reasonably consider Sex-Positive Feminism a great gift to their lifestyle efforts).
So the upshot is that a woman who wishes to simultaneously embrace both feminism and mating may have little choice but to fish among the sharks in the Unrestricted Exchange pond. The men there are happy to accommodate feminism, but of course this is only because aspects of it lower the price of sex and lower the traditional social expectations for males to be monogamous provisioners. A woman who seeks a more sexually restricted male may find that this mean switching over to an exchange regime in which the terms and conditions demanded by the men are frankly incompatible with many feminist platform goals.
Once again it seems that the women who will have the roughest time of it are those who wish to jump back and forth between the two exchanges.
BuenaVista, your comparison might have some credibility if what was being criticized by me were impartial discussions about family law, custody and child support. It wasn’t. What I took issue with and called attention to were statements about how “ALL women are gold digging, disloyal bitches.” In addition to having literally no relevance to the issues that affect men, these statements only serve to demonstrate a hatred of women. Let me know when you make an actual point. I won’t hold my breath.
BTW, SSM commits the same conflation of the personal and abstract. She quotes a PUA individual of dubious humanity to dismiss a larger regime that teaches us things and explains much. This is akin to dismissing me, a pilot, or aviation generally, because last week some bozo spun into a barn because he thought he’d demonstrate an inverted spin — when out of CG. I don’t care if a bozo spun into a barn because he was stupid. He wasn’t stupid because he was a qualified pilot, he was just stupid. Stupid is as stupid does. Evil is as evil does. SSM is offended by evil. This has nothing to do with understanding what women want.
“Escoffier, your problem is that is an inherently subjective evaluation, and that is what you fail to see”
No. You miss the point again.
Wealth transfers from men to women are facts that can be measured and counted. As are quotas, make-work jobs, lowered standards for the same benefits, and so on. These are the principle, tangible ways that society takes resources from men and gives them to women, or favors women. There are also many other intangible ways.
The fact is separable from the question of its goodness or justice. A feminist would say that these transfers are the just payback for years patriarchal oppression. Actually, that’s not entirely true, because a large portion of feminists would–like you–attempt to deny that these transfers are happening at all. However, the honest ones would say that they are just and necessary.
My personal opinion of the justice of this phenomenon is independent of the ontological question: is it happening?
Morph’s comment that you cite is just another OT diversion. One can conclude that today is the best time ever to be a man without denying the phenomenon under discussion. In fact, one could concluded that this is the best time IN SPITE OF or even BECAUSE OF those transfers. Or one could say that the transfers don’t matter either way,
This is all very basic stuff.
#171
What in fact she did was to quote an anonymous blogger who gives advice to men who sired unwanted children. She offered no proof that anyone actually heeded that advice, or that such a phenomenon even exists. Such is tradcon logic.
BV, even more to the point: what necessary connection is there between abortion and game? None that I can see. Yet SSM conflates the two.
It can’t be seriously argued that PUAs and their lifestyle are moral in a Biblical or classical sense. SSM is on solid ground to condemn the lifestyle that Roosh leads for moral reasons. And she is certainly on solid ground to condemn abortion and encouragement or pressure to get abortions. To the extent that a man does these things, he is acting immorally.
But these things don’t flow naturally or inexorably from game. (Nova’s summary of Zippy’s argument suggests that he would say it does, but I am not convinced.)
I think what is really going on here is that SSM objects to deti’s claim that even Christians owe the PUA bloggers a debt because without them game and the wider truth about male-female relations would not have been rediscovered and disseminated in our time. It’s an uncomfortable thing to admit, but deti is surely right about that.
“Spawny Get, I’m sorry but I’m not sure that I understand. I guess I’ll be more clear; you are making zero sense to me. How is it feminism’s fault that my boyfriend was a victim of sexism in the workplace and now works in a male field?”
and for the Nth time; can we ban this […] who is unable to read what people wrote, is disinclined to address their issues and unwilling to engage reality…
I like honest discussion about reality, she is not capable of either. […]
I think what is really going on here is that SSM objects to deti’s claim that even Christians owe the PUA bloggers a debt because without them game and the wider truth about male-female relations would not have been rediscovered and disseminated in our time. It’s an uncomfortable thing to admit, but deti is surely right about that.
It isn’t difficult to find examples of bad people or people who held bad views on a topic who nonetheless made important positive contributions in a particular area.
@ BV #128
Like Morpheus, I cosign this.
Tasmin, I think The Power of Habit might be an interesting read for your natural alpha buddy. Another one might be Making Habits, Breaking Habits (Jeremy Dean), another popular summary of the science of habit. (Baumeister is all over this subject too, from the angles of habit, agency, willpower, and misandry.) According to current neuroscience thinking, while he may think he’s looking for love, he’s practicing a devoted alternative game. At some point (already passed? depends on his willpower.)
To me this is the real darkside of Game in a sex-positive SMP. It may make things too easy, and what we say we want (if it’s not what we actually do) is at some point completely at odds with how our Game-habit has rewired our hippocampus. The theory is that at least 40% of what we do, which we think is consciously chosen, is in fact an neurological imperative of acquired habit. It’s hard for people to stop drinking too, if they’ve been overindulging for two decades.
Similarly, I was a provisioning provider (well, remain one for three children) for a few decades. Under uncertainty or stress I’m likely to blurt nonsense or demonstrate behavior that resembles more who I was than who I have recently learned to “be.” Fortunately I was gently reminded of this recently. We respond to cues: we have routines that have been acquired: the brain requires its previously known rewards.
I was bored with myself yesterday, and also a bit startled to realize I was starting to go into caregiver mode for someone who probably is incapable of what I say I want, which is an emotional and intellectual intimacy (plus atavistic hurly-burly, which in the last year has become, basically, free because of red-pill, so I take that for granted). So I cold-wrote two women in Minneapolis whom I hadn’t contacted previously. One was sorta age-appropriate, one could be my daughter, or at least a niece. Both responded within the hour, in the second hour I had two dates, and one (the age-appropriate one) had already outlined her positions on condoms, sex-only relationships, and her frustrations with dating boy-toys. This is Game’s darkside, if you ask me, unless Don Giovanni is your favorite opera. I had more trouble picking up my juicer at the Walmart last night.
Game’s upside? Well, I have someone to have lunch with and tour the Walker museum, which I will enjoy. She’s my type, she speaks Russian, and she makes movies and is way younger and she’s 5’11. My investment: an email with a few Game-words, some Game positioning, and some Game presumption (“no worries if your busy, I’ll catch you next time.”) A modest upside benefit is that I declined the second date, the one who put her sexual history on the table in her second email, because, well, TMI.
So to me Game provides a rule structure. I’ll admit I’m still a greater beta by habit, and to prove my point, I keep a Game checklist on my phone. I have entirely routinized many things, in many aspects of life, love and sport, but there’s a reason that under stress in a broken airplane the first thing you dig out is the checklist, because under stress we often revert to who we used to be. And that is the challenge a real PUA will have, I suspect, once he decides to go straight and get locked down.
@ Morpheus
And beta males are the ones who create a society that provides that security. Today, women have started taking beta males for granted. That’s where the two-pronged assault of PUA and MGTOW comes in. The PUAs demonstrate the consequences of prioritizing alpha males over beta males, while the MGTOWs show women that not all beta males are going to take it lying down.
In Game terms, PUAs respond to modern female alpha-chasing with “agree and amplify”, while MGTOWs respond with “next!”.
MRAs try to rationally convince women why they should change, which of course is not going to work because of the phenomenon you stated:
BB @169: “The men there [on the Unrestricted Exchange] are happy to accommodate feminism, but of course this is only because aspects of it lower the price of sex and lower the traditional social expectations for males to be monogamous provisioners. A woman who seeks a more sexually restricted male may find that this mean[s] switching over to an exchange regime in which the terms and conditions demanded by the men are frankly incompatible with many feminist platform goals.”
Excellent summary and astute analysis overall.
A relatively minor point of disagreement. Some men on the Unrestricted Exchange understand that “feminism” is not a misandrist monolith and actually support some “feminist” ideas–on principled and not “of course…only” self-interested grounds. In fact, such men may have supported these ideas before having any real sense of the personal ramifications for the SMP. But it is true that having supported these ideas in advance, such men are disinclined to bend to the Female Imperative whenever feminist/post-feminist women conveniently decide that they’d prefer more conventional male practices/compromises.
To this extent, while men on the Unrestricted vs. Restricted Exchanges will usually have different value commitments, they basically are on the same page regarding what counts as a fair exchange given what women are offering. In short, both groups of men are inclined to reject blatantly self-serving and unbalanced–whether pseudo-feminist or pseudo-traditionalist–female expectations.
#174. Yeah, she’s making a classic mistake of the devout: those not in the right congregation are incapable of true and complete knowledge. She associates the PUA with a social sphere, thereby he’s condemned because it’s condemned. I’m happy to condemn the duplicitous lout, I might want to shoot him if my daughter were involved, but that has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.
I happen to believe, but I loathe the social positioning of my sola scriptura congregation out here. I’m practically audited at coffee hour because I don’t fit the local social consensus and won’t justify myself to it. I’ve raised this with the Pastor, whom I admire very much. But he can’t do anything. One thing I believe Dalrock got right is that most churches sell their mission to the women, and survive on the tithing of men.
178 sentence fragment (I was making lunch). (Recommend highly Jamie Oliver’s milk chicken, only add more spices and sear the bird for 15 minutes at 450 first.)
“At some point (already passed? depends on his willpower) he’ll have to utterly suppress current practices to even approach his stated objective.”
Beware trolls, pretending to be anti-feminist White supremacists, out to delegitimize this worthy forum.
I think what is really going on here is that SSM objects to deti’s claim that even Christians owe the PUA bloggers a debt because without them game and the wider truth about male-female relations would not have been rediscovered and disseminated in our time. It’s an uncomfortable thing to admit, but deti is surely right about that.
It’s more that it’s “the fruit of the poisonous tree”. Very much guilt by association, but the idea is that only evil comes from evil. PUAs are evil, therefore everything they say is equally evil, or even if it is admitted that it is not the case, it’s likely to be so overwhelmingly tainted by the rest of the very evil things they do and say, that to take the advice is to run a huge, colossal risk of engaging in evil yourself. It’s tied up with the idea of the seductiveness of evil (as well, in this specific context, the evil nature of seduction) as well as the concept that the ideas come from a fundamentally evil frame.
In other words, it’s admitted that it is theoretically possible to strip some of the methods and tools of their sinful dross, but the concept is that in order to do so, you will so steep yourself in pools of abject evil, that it would take a superhuman Christian to resist the temptation to go to the dark side.
I don’t agree with this, because I don’t see these things as being inherently evil (not all of them) as others do, but also because I don’t think that everything associated with something that may be fundamentally evil is either evil per se, or so tainted as to be tantamount to being such. But that’s where the disagreement lies.
That’s why they generally end up back at either
(1) your father should have taught you this stuff, and if he didn’t, there isn’t much that can be done, and the church certainly isn’t responsible for teaching you this stuff, so either you just get it or you don’t, but you shouldn’t be learning it from these evil people (Zippy)
or
(2) it’s all in the Bible if you would just read it properly, and no there aren’t techniques or systems that work (your desire for them reflects your fundamental nerdiness, which is a big part of your problem), but it’s rather an art, and you can learn most of it from reading the bible and interacting with women who follow the Bible closely themselves — and in any case, if you embrace these “tools” they will warp you towards eros (i.e., the greek demons) and away from Christ, so that must be avoided at all costs (Cane).
Starlight says:
@ ‘Anonymous Reader’, your colourful assortment of sentences directed at Jen are pretty insulting. (you are too ignorant to converse)
My statements are factual.
If you loathe her posts, then kindly disregard them.
Thanks for telling me what to do, Mr. or Ms. Hall Monitor.
Your support of feminist disruption of men’s conversation, and thus your implied contempt for men, is duly noted.
Forgive me if I choose not to obey your edict…
@LTL
Fair enough. Please dispute the legitimacy of any of the statements. Documentation will be provided.
deti (on CC / ZC)
Both of them will also tell you that whatever is “good” about Game is not really Game; but is simply masculinity which was lost to the ages but they’re bringing it back. Stated another way; they’re just masculine men who don’t need Game. What they do is simply unapologetic masculinity, not Game.
Yes, I got that message a while back. Remember there are three main catgories of Game deniers / haters? The first one is “Naturals”. We can agree to disagree why Naturals don’t like Game, or can’t understand why anyone needs to learn Game. But the fact remains, no Natural will ever agree to Betaize himself. They will argue against Game, and claim they never use Game, even as they Game the daylights out of their wives / girlfriends / Significant Others /etc.
And that demonstrates the accuracy and utility of Game all by itself.
jen
I would respect third-wave feminists more if rather than Slutwalks they had walks on Capitol Hill demanding trade embargos with countries known to oppress women (like Saudi Arabia). Women demanding we stop doing business with oil-rich countries on principle? That would get my attention.
And in the end, that’s all that Jen really cares about – herself, herself, and herself. It’s all about “mememememememee”.
Any time men discuss Game, or criticize women in any way, some individual like Jen will bustle in to derail the conversation, to seek to make it “all about me!” rather than any sort of ideas.
Jen, don’t you have a date with your true love, in the nearest mirror?
#162 the practical advice about building a second pyramid, instead of the first pyramid of attracting women? Yes, it is good advice, but it’s not an alternative for attracting women.
Escoffier
It can’t be seriously argued that PUAs and their lifestyle are moral in a Biblical or classical sense. SSM is on solid ground to condemn the lifestyle that Roosh leads for moral reasons.
Please provide the solid Biblical ground for SSM’s clearly stated desire that at some future date the men of her “Christian tribe” should kill all the PUA’s.
Thanks for any light you can shed.
Bastiat Blogger
[very interesting analogy of the SMP / MMP in terms of exchanges]
Once again it seems that the women who will have the roughest time of it are those who wish to jump back and forth between the two exchanges.
That’s easy to explain, they want fried ice. They want the thrill of the Unrestricted Exchange and the security of the Restricted Exchange. They want Alpha Fux and Beta Bux.
They want it all. They’re women…
#184 I would like to be more antigame, if there were an actual alternative. The guys you mention all seem to believe they have the calling to discern that more men should make themselves eunuchs.
@ LTl
Yeah, we’re onto them.
Novaseeker, it’s beginning to look to me that women can only handle so much of the truth about themselves. Recall that Susan Walsh at HUS started off as a parody of Cosmo, and then in response to men’s comments actually began to acquire some limited understanding. Only to ultimately reject most aspects of reality in her scurrying retreat back to GirlWorld.
SSM may be tracing a similar trajectory. I recall how affronted she was by “water cannon boy”‘s effect on one of her daughters over at Rollo’s a while back. It was ironic, given her own personal history, that she was shocked, shocked, shocked to discover one of her daughters was….was…flirting with some ruffian in a waterpark.
All humans need to have some pretty lies, it seems, we can’t look at ourselves unvarnished without getting pretty unhappy. It could be that women simply can only stand so much of the truth about themselves laid out in cold, clear text before they get emotionally worked up.
All that said, I consider SSM’s flatly stated desire for “her tribe” to kill men of some other tribe because she is offended by them to be rather excessive. The fact that she apparently won’t back down from that should be a bit of a warning sign.
Re: the “take no thought for the morrow” crowd, the Que Sera Sera bunch, the “whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, but he that findeth no wife findeth even better” eunuch-makers. You first. And let me see them in a jar.
Re: the “take no thought for the morrow” crowd, the Que Sera Sera bunch, the “whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, but he that findeth no wife findeth even better” eunuch-makers. You first. And let me see them in a jar.
Well, they’re already married.
See, I think eventually this was going to happen. The Christian approach (mainstream or not) has generally always been “if God wants you to have a spouse, he will send you one, so just follow his commandments and see what happens”. That’s not new. It’s been pervasive for a long time. It was just a matter of time until it would assert itself again in this context since so many Christians had been investigating game because this wasn’t working for them.
Here I distinguish between the guys like DS, Donal, Chad and so on who are trying to work up a new approach — admittedly having learned a thing or two from looking at Game — based on ideas of Christian masculinity which is explicitly Christian, on the one hand, and the approach I describe above, on the other. The former is, to me, a good and positive development. The latter is, well, the same message only very thinly repackaged as the church has been spinning at singles for a few decades now.
Has anyone ever wondered why a ‘Christo-manosphere’ should even exist?
I’ve been writing about Game, intergender relations and the social / psychological dynamics that drive all of it for over 12 years now, and in that time I have never had a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or a Hindu, ever tell me about how Game has always been an integral of their core beliefs.
To my knowledge there has never been any attempt to co-opt Game into an Islamo-manosphere, Judeo-manosphere, Hindu-manosphere, etc. It appears that only Christians (or at least the Catholic & Evangelical franchises) are self-absorbed enough to want to lay claim to the convenient (not the ugly) truths that Game represents.
Apparently only Christians have any skin in the Game, why do you suppose this is? If there is such a certainty of faith and, I guess, prior Biblical mandates of Game principles, then why should there be concern enough to want to co-opt Game/Red Pill tenets as articles of a contemporary faith?
It’s not Muslims and Jews who spit vitriol at PUAs, it’s overwhelmingly Christians who tie themselves in knots about what PUAs reveal to society.
Further reflections on What is Love?, my #128, with an analogous movie reference to North Dallas Forty.
One reason I say “I don’t really know what ‘love’ means anymore” is of a piece with the filtering effort. For example, some men and women say “I love you” to *get* something. It may be hard to believe this if infatuated. If woozy with infatuation, a man might be unable to critically receive it, and just figure, Woo-Hoo she wants me forevermore! It’s a hard time for a guy to ask himself,
“Hmmm. Which part of me and why? ‘Is this love?’ as the great philosopher Eddie Van Halen notes. Or will I be singing along with Gram Parsons in three years (‘Love Hurts’), and matching him needle for needle.”
Men, of course (just ask SSM) will say “I love you” in order to get laid, if they’re dumb, desperate, and down.
In both cases, the men and women are arbing the ambiguity and unstated implied contracts of “I love you”. Or they may not be. It’s just not observable.
BB has already noted that a woman will have trouble arbitraging the restricted/nonrestricted SMP; a smart unrestricted man is far better positioned to violently agree with any sex-positive pabulum presented by an attractive female suitor. His agenda doesn’t require him to later flip to beta provider just because she now wants to be as pure as Mary Poppins. A woman on the make might arb “I love you” with the alpha to fuel his commitment impulse, or with a beta bux type to announce it’s time for him to rescue her. Those three words can just mean anything.
Here is *the* great line from North Dallas Forty. A ballplayer (John Matuszak) realizes that he’s being arb’d by his coach:
“Every time I call it a game, you call it a business. And every time I call it a business, you call it a game.”
I can see the Feminism 3.0 sex positive woman reaching her breaking point if she’s being arb’d: “Is this love or is this Game?”
When I hear “I love you” I really want to know: is this love, or are you using the word “love” as currency to get something else you want: commitment, money, that trip to South America the writer we discussed last week expected. (Do you want me to play the game for money or for love?) Because it will be used as currency by many people. Sure, they may feel love or infatuation, but what is her objective function? I’m not smart enough to know. I always know when someone is fair, kind, loyal, etc.
So in general I think it’s safer to solve for kindness, loyalty, fairness and other intimacies. Loyalty is not currency for anything; kindness is its own reward and cannot be faked for long. “I love you” can be a ticket to ride, a ticket to poverty, a ticket to Shangri-La. I just don’t know what it means until I’ve been with someone a long, long time. It also seems to be a far cheaper emotional bon-bon that greats thrown around than respect, kindness, loyalty, etc.
This is a derivation of Rollo’s Two Sets of Books statement.
It’s far out:
Rollo
Has anyone ever wondered why a ‘Christo-manosphere’ should even exist?
Pedestalization is one likely reason.
#197: If your forum was in Arabic, that would probably change things.
Other religions make up a comparatively small percentage of the English speaking population.
I’ve only been in the manosphere since about the time Petreus’ affair hit headline news. That’s about a year and a couple of months ago. My political forums linked to Heartiste’s piece on it. At any rate, Judgybitch started posting there at the same time and I followed the breadcrubs to her site. And then here.
The manosphere reminds me a bit of the maquisards in France during WWII. A motley assortment of communists, socialists, Spanish Republic ex-soldiers who immigrated after the fall of the last bastion of the Spanish Republic in Northern Catalonia, the occasional Jews who had escaped capture, and escapees of the forced labor draft. They colluded and also collided. And many of their long-term objectives were entirely different.
@BV
Thanks, I may check that book out myself. I’ve found repurposing my discipline to be a challenge. I spent years in a state of extreme discipline but on a path that was not for me in many ways. Now I’m heading in a better direction though there is no ‘path’ which was a new kind of challenge: to deploy that discipline without those guideposts and protocols. Strong point about reverting back to that provisioner-beta state. I’ve been (unsuccessfully) trying to get my brother out of that pattern for years. He just can’t/won’t. Which is why he is walking toward the gallows of divorce #2.
@BB
“Once again it seems that the women who will have the roughest time of it are those who wish to jump back and forth between the two exchanges.”
I agree there is some fried ice but I’ve met more than one woman who is unaware of that there is a duality, among other things. They result is more or less the same, but those women are having a really hard time because they fail to see that in one of those SMP tracks, their sexuality will be valued differently. They end up giving in to the only market they see and are even more disappointed because they are still internalizing a value and an exchange that is just not part of that particular SMP track.
I remember one such woman who was “seeing”, not “dating” a man. He wanted to keep it fairly casual, she was plainly looking for a BF/Husband. So she was, of course, sleeping with him whenever they “got together”. But, of course, he was not interested in coming along on this hiking trip with her. Too boyfriendy. So here is a restricted-minded woman, who wants to “Date” to find a Husband, but is giving away the sex because “I guess that’s just how it is these days”.
I’m sure him being physically attractive was nice and all, but two years later she is still single and he’s just a # now. Granted, these women are probably the minority, exceptions even, but they are out there. The others who jump to and fro, well, we’ve talked a lot about their agency, the bio drivers involved (or not), whether or not they “know” what they are doing, etc. but what really matters is that “it” is happening and men are becoming increasingly aware of both the drivers and the outcomes. Especially us men who grew up before the everybody-gets-a-trophy era. We know what the consolation bracket is all about.
And not to blur the lines too much but there are many restricted men who will indeed place a higher value on sexuality but also don’t expect the sex-commitment exchange to mean barefoot in the kitchen either. Women are mistaken if they think that a chaste/selective/relationship man who values the same means that he wants to roll the clock back to 1950.
And finally, I really appreciate how you break things down. Your contributions here are an invaluable resource and always lift the quality of the discussion.
Liz,
I detest in the extreme having to include NAWALT in any of my comments, so I don’t. However, based on the above historical reference (#200), please assume anything I ever say about women doesn’t apply to you specifically.
LTl #180: Very nice—that’s a worthwhile distinction to make. I also believe that, given some ability to compartmentalize and go bi-strategic, a man can easily monitor the bid/ask on both exchanges, and alter his “liquidity preference” according to his local market conditions, incentives, any special value deals, etc.
In fact, perhaps we could speculate that part of the Restricted male’s general antipathy towards feminism lies in the recognition that a woman who seeks to prioritize a feminist empowerment platform as she seeks a mate may well have to gravitate towards the Unrestricted pond. If we were to somehow construct a statistical decomposition of the Unrestricted Exchange, I think we would find that it featured “long tail” distributions in which some men were effectively running rotations, harems, or solar systems (or whatever the term du jour is). They can do this by simply fucking an assortment of women or they can concentrate on one at a time and practice a disciplined and dignified catch-and-release policy (as BV described with his characteristic eloquence).
I am preaching to the choir here, but I think that it is worth pointing out that someone can simultaneously find the growth and liquidity of the Unrestricted Exchange to be personally empowering and entertaining, and also realize that the collapse of the Restricted market could potentially have very unpleasant consequences for civil society overall.
Thus the popular accusation that any guy who cares about troubles in the Restricted SMP must be categorically unable to find casual sex (and thus must be acting out of an easily-dismissed butt-hurt bitterness/jealousy/insecurity) is really an unfortunate one to make. One can easily find the casual-sex culture to be personally delicious and nutritious and yet also see with dispassionate clarity how unchecked growth of said culture would present some profound displacements and incentive problems for a large % of men, as it could lead to a winner-take-all situation of “homo homini lupus est” and the death of many dreams.
#202: Badpainter, I don’t take anything you say here to be directed at me (unless you preface it with my name).
*off topic*
Gentlemen, what do you think of this? Please dominate the comments section.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/02/how-to-save-marriage-in-america/283732/
I agree there is some fried ice but I’ve met more than one woman who is unaware of that there is a duality, among other things. They result is more or less the same, but those women are having a really hard time because they fail to see that in one of those SMP tracks, their sexuality will be valued differently. They end up giving in to the only market they see and are even more disappointed because they are still internalizing a value and an exchange that is just not part of that particular SMP track.
I remember one such woman who was “seeing”, not “dating” a man. He wanted to keep it fairly casual, she was plainly looking for a BF/Husband. So she was, of course, sleeping with him whenever they “got together”. But, of course, he was not interested in coming along on this hiking trip with her. Too boyfriendy. So here is a restricted-minded woman, who wants to “Date” to find a Husband, but is giving away the sex because “I guess that’s just how it is these days”.
I’m sure him being physically attractive was nice and all, but two years later she is still single and he’s just a # now. Granted, these women are probably the minority, exceptions even, but they are out there. The others who jump to and fro, well, we’ve talked a lot about their agency, the bio drivers involved (or not), whether or not they “know” what they are doing, etc. but what really matters is that “it” is happening and men are becoming increasingly aware of both the drivers and the outcomes.
At another venue…ahem…I tried to communicate the existence of the two ladders some/many men have (not the female one of friend versus lover, but the male one of fuckbuddy versus serious marriage candidate). Ultimately, the message fell on deaf ears, and I’ve come to the position:
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2014/02/no-sympathy-for-stupid.html
What is particularly sad is when women are being delivered misinformation from those they mistakenly perceive as absolute authority figures. In the stock market, there is that old expression never mistake luck for genius/skill. Truck drivers in the late 90s day trading Internet stocks learned that lesson. In a different time, a woman probably could still ignore this duality and still get her stable drafthorse beta provider. Winning.
I have no problem with a woman with healthy self-esteem, indeed I think it is a good thing. That said, it is so counterproductive and misleading to tell young women that “developing their confidence” matters substantially more than any attention to their physical appearance. Its unclear to me whether certain advice given to women is rooted in pragmatic self-interest/business reasons, or an ignorance of simply wanting to believe what one believes.
Back to the point that women need to understand this duality, and as BB points out those who attempt to shift back and forth seamlessly will encounter problems. And one of these days I’ll put my axe in the attic, but I think my points are correct nonetheless.
#162 I do not consider myself harshing when I describe your 2nd pyramid, the one supposedly leading to adoration from throngs of cheering women, as being nothing but a fantasy. The top layer (the throngs) are missing in reality, and all you succeed in constructing is a nice shortened pyramid in which to be a Christian. Which is a great thing, in itself, but does NOT lead to adoration from women. To try to present it as such, is wasting time in a cargo cult at best.
Wouldn’t it be great if being a Christian was so guaranteed to attract women. Yeah, wouldn’t it.
Bastiat: “I am preaching to the choir here, but I think that it is worth pointing out that someone can simultaneously find the growth and liquidity of the Unrestricted Exchange to be personally empowering and entertaining, and also realize that the collapse of the Restricted market could potentially have very unpleasant consequences for civil society overall.
Thus the popular accusation that any guy who cares about troubles in the Restricted SMP must be categorically unable to find casual sex (and thus must be acting out of an easily-dismissed butt-hurt bitterness/jealousy/insecurity) is really an unfortunate one to make. One can easily find the casual-sex culture to be personally delicious and nutritious and yet also see with dispassionate clarity how unchecked growth of said culture would present some profound displacements and incentive problems for a large % of men, as it could lead to a winner-take-all situation of “homo homini lupus est” and the death of many dreams.”
This reminds me of a topic on a political debate site long ago. I mentioned John Robb’s ideas (if I remember you know and/or are familiar with him? Too cool!). A kind of interesting exchange followed when a poster said that he felt Mr Robb had an Assange-style element of megalomanic sociopathy. He likened it as reminiscent of an exchange between Bud Fox and Gordon Gekko in the movie “Wall Street”.
Question:”Why do you want to see this system wrecked???”
Answer:”Because it’s wreckable, alright??!!!”
I responded that he’s just acknowledging the coming crisis and looking towards solutions to ameliorate the impact of that crisis. His “enthusiasm” comes from the academic standpoint, not a personal relish for destruction (insert Dr Evil pinky here). In a similar vein, understanding war isn’t war-relish, it’s smart. So is understanding human psychology, game, the power dynamics within relationships, et al. I’ve actually become more self-aware since perusing these sites.
The manosphere reminds me a bit of the maquisards in France during WWII. A motley assortment of communists, socialists, Spanish Republic ex-soldiers who immigrated after the fall of the last bastion of the Spanish Republic in Northern Catalonia, the occasional Jews who had escaped capture, and escapees of the forced labor draft. They colluded and also collided. And many of their long-term objectives were entirely different.
Maquisards? Liz, you’ve given me homework to complete!
I enjoy learning about history. I think you are right to characterize the “manosphere” as sort of “motley assortment”. I think the unifying factor is not what we are FOR (especially in the long-term) but what we are AGAINST. I myself am torn between my desire to maximize individual liberty, choice, and options especially for men who operate under all sorts of blue pill delusions versus what I recognize as the necessity of certain boundaries, roles, rules, etc. Society cannot function with all men as hedonistic libertines. I personally find appealing this concept of the “sovereign man” and kind of defining your own meaning and purpose within the boundaries of some moral/ethical code. Frankly speaking, “the Christosphere” folks are starting to scare me as much if not more than the feminists and those fully on board with the feminine imperative. I think I read something about “hunting down and killing PUAs”. That is flat out crazy talk.
See, I think eventually this was going to happen. The Christian approach (mainstream or not) has generally always been “if God wants you to have a spouse, he will send you one, so just follow his commandments and see what happens”.
Nova,
There are certain segments of Christianity (how much I do not know) that almost seem to accept life on Earth with a sense of resignation. They are not active agents on this planet making their destiny, they are not captains of their own ship. They are just passive being moved on the chessboard by “God’s Plan”. There is a Christian woman on another forum who I think epitomizes this view. I suspect she will never marry and have children despite her stated desire to do so because none of life is about taking action, its all about sitting back waiting for God’s plan to unfold.
Has anyone ever wondered why a ‘Christo-manosphere’ should even exist?
Well, Rollo, I think Dalrock for example writes out of a concern that Christians are not finding mates, getting married and staying married consistently enough to avoid other Christian sins. What attracted them to learning about Game was the failure of the approach of the church to singleness — a failure which is broad and runs through all of the churches. It’s to address a failure of the church.
Muslims and Jews in North America are small communities overall and still heavily marry on an in-group basis, with lots of in-group pressure to do so in most cases (there are exceptions among some of the more liberal Jews). So they don’t feel the same pressures that Christians do, because the churches in North America don’t approach this that way, and instead Christians are doing the mate finding thing the way the rest of the culture does — so they want to find a way to do that both effectively and in a Christian way. The church is pretty much no help here, hence the interest that Christians had in the manosphere ideas.
As I say, it was likely inevitable that many would back away after a certain time for the reasons I mention above — but their interest in the ideas was also very predictable, I think.
Ugh missed a closed tag there — maybe someone can fix.
(Done)
@ jf12
The pyramid is a visualization of the goal. If you think the practical advice I’ve posted “doesn’t work” then provide critique on my articles since you’ve said you “want to be anti-game.” Since you claim to be a Christian I’m sure you know of Matthew 18 — if a brother is in error show him where his error is and correct him.
Otherwise, you’re just another one of the loud mouths that you are complaining about. If you keep ranting here, at Dalrock’s, and other places without any substantive critique you’ve already told me all I need to know.
I’m probably missing some context and background convo, but it seems to me there is potential for some absurd hair-splitting with saying X is Game, but Y is just Masculinity, and A is Game but not Masculinity and B is Masculinity but not Game.
#213 Um, all of them? Which ones are the ones that purport to describe procedures efficacious in attracting lotsa wimminz?
Morpheus says:
“Frankly speaking, ‘the Christosphere’ folks are starting to scare me as much if not more than the feminists and those fully on board with the feminine imperative.”
I gave up on organized religion years ago when I realized that the mission of the Churchians wasn’t to save my soul but to offer Jesus-Friendly social outlets like vacation bible camps and softball teams, along with a soup kitchen and thrift store to meet the charity requirements. As a bonus they stood ready to judge me for every possible sin, and exercise some right to control of my day to day existence. All while turning a blind eye and showing great compassion to every adulterer, derelict, harlot, drunkard, and criminal who walked through the door, especially if they sat up front. I guess I lack the quality of sin necessary to get that sort of tolerance.
I think a part of their problem with game and PUAs is a fear that people, possibly within the flock, are finding solutions to real life personal problems that are simply not addressed by the church,and therefore not wrapped in the necessary candy coating of Jesus. If game is seen as “anti-Christian” and yet enables an otherwise beta Christian male to find a mate that is a threat to the church, as it questions the authority and wisdom of the church regarding the temporal realm. It threatens membership and plate collections. It threatens the social status and power of the first three rows of pews. Game as a secular skill or viewpoint may cause the betas to question the church itself. I don’t think game poses much of threat to a believer’s faith, just the fan club.
*As a foot note, I didn’t leave the church to become a Christian Separatist over theology, but mundane ultimately secular issues like this. My personal faith in God was not compromised, but my faith in men…well I didn’t have much to start with.
@BB 203
+1
@Morpheus
“Its unclear to me whether certain advice given to women is rooted in pragmatic self-interest/business reasons, or an ignorance of simply wanting to believe what one believes.”
All of the above. Every single women’s magazine is pushing casual. Every one. “Cool” guys are down with it. Even the “ask our in house dating expert guy” columns plainly pander to the sex-poz, sex can be just fun, FWB are great because they don’t tie you down with all that emotional stress, you’ve got a career to focus on maybe!
Then some guy who believes in “dating” comes along and he’s not so on board with this. He’s judgy. Next. When it becomes a strategic advantage (necessity) for a restricted man – even a middle-of-the-road guy who is looking for a GF to essentially adopt the same posture, language, and ‘go girl’ libertine stance regarding sexuality that the PUA guys have down to an art, then of course “the message” becomes the “way it is”. And I’m not going to explain this to a woman IRL. I learned the hard way about over-sharing regarding my values in this regard. Its a losers game.
Why must men do this? In order to compete with the PUA/Alpha/Player who is capturing a disproportionate amount of the attention-attraction-desire-sex from women. The challenge for men who bear the approach risk is that even if a woman does not go home and bang the Catch, one savvy PUA/Alpha can cockblock 20 other single guys from 2 or 3 women in the setting. I sling beers once in a while at a friends pub. I see this all the time. And its not venue specific. I see it at the gallery and at the museum socials I attend. I see it with my Alpha buddy when he doesn’t even try and I see it with the 24 y/o boy-band barkeep I tend with who can captivate a pair of 35 y/o post-wall boozehounds all night. He doesn’t even want to bang them, though he does not pass up the cute, non-boozehound ones very often.
Its plate-spinning in real-time; the bar is set high and any man that can’t approach and game at that level and/or bring physical attributes that trump is going to be a walking bar tab at best. And to say most of these women are physically assortive with the men they pine over would be a stretch. I think women greatly underestimate the shadow-effect of the top 10% of men. So: we all must game and spin. And on it goes.
I agree, sympathy for the ignorant burns off quickly. Unfortunately most woman just don’t seem willing/able to separate out certain aspects of the of feminist sameness movement, i.e. being the same at work does not mean men and women view sexuality the same, nor does you elevating/valuing your sexuality above that of your friend(s) mean that you are devaluing those (or any other) women and their “right” to be “like men”. Team Woman is robust.
What I keep coming back to is that women, via their choices and behaviors, however subtle or overt, make the market. Men are effectively valuing, reinforcing the “casual” message because it is too costly/risky to do otherwise. And because there are just too many women who really are in it for the sex. Or at least sex first. “I like to test-drive” is a real line I’ve heard more than once.
Women like the fact that this option is on the table; they don’t like the fact that a lot of men will factor this in later on. The complaints come when the hot no-strings sex guys won’t marry them (Where are all the Good Men) and when the consolation bracket winner pushes back on things like the sudden price of her sex or that he sees her past decisions as negative in any way (Man Up).
Frankly speaking, “the Christosphere” folks are starting to scare me as much if not more than the feminists and those fully on board with the feminine imperative. I think I read something about “hunting down and killing PUAs”. That is flat out crazy talk.
Yes, it is.
it seems to me there is potential for some absurd hair-splitting with saying X is Game, but Y is just Masculinity, and A is Game but not Masculinity and B is Masculinity but not Game.
Probably. I think for the guys that are doing it (which doesn’t include me), it’s driven by a need to find a specifically Christian way to do this with which they are comfortable, from a moral perspective. I think as a practical matter it may lead to some of that hair-splitting, but we will have to see.
@ Morpheus
Generally speaking, you are correct.
Masculinity is masculinity. Women are attracted to masculinity. If you define “game” as masculinity then yes women are attracted to it, and I would say yes Christian men should get “game” because Christian men should be masculine. If you define “game” as all of the subset of techniques, skills, etc to get a woman into bed then there are definitely issues. If you define “game” as conversational charisma then I would say sure Christians should learn that. There’s more definitions of “game” than just those three. Definitions have always plagued the “game debate.”
This is the way I currently see things:
http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/understanding-the-world-and-the-mission/
I’m not really “anti-game” per se although I align myself as such just because it’s easier to take that stance because I believe that Christians should seek after God first (seek first the kingdom of God…) while developing masculinity. If you define “game” as masculinity then sure I would agree that a Christian should be developing game.
This is why pro-game JoJ and I are on the same page, even though we are on the opposite sides of the game debate. If what I write is “repackaged game” I’m OK with that because I know what I write has Scriptural underpinnings. Or if what I write is “Christian masculinity” I am again OK with that because I’m analyzing Scriptures for insights into women’s nature.
jf12 seems to believe that that I think there is some “no true man fallacy” when I say that Christian nice guys are not masculine but effeminate. Nice guys are by definition passive-aggressive, place women on pedastals, validate women, etc. which means they act like women and are effeminate. They are not masculine men. Hence, “truely masculine men are attractive to women.”
I don’t know if you’re a Chrisitan or not so some of this might not make sense.
Nova, I read you, but there is a distinct want for ownership of Game by Churchianity. It’s like anything else they want to make Christian Kosher® – vilify a popular social trend only to adopt it, sanctify a ‘christian’ version of it 1-3 years later, sanitize the delivery to be christian-palatable, slap a Jesus Fish Brand™ logo on it, and sell it to the congregation as some novel idea. It’s the same model for Christian Rock music and even ‘contemporary worship music’.
I’ve attempted to make this point at SSM & Dalrock’s blogs several times, but there’s never any reception of it because it’s a true and unflattering aspect of churchianity. It’s insulting to a churchian mindset that PUA and Game proponent are the ones pointing out the flaws in their reasonings. If the Bible has all the answers to life’s problems it’s particularly galling to have a group of Players pointing out the same failings they think the Bible should have warned them of.
Thus the response is a ‘christian’ effort of sanitizing Game that will only lead them back to serving the Feminine Imperative, or outright rejection of the Red Pill. Just like christian rock; there was a generation that embraced and assimilated the ‘devil’s music’ and plagiarized it into contemporary worship music, and there were those who rejected it and will stick by their hymnals until their generation dies out.
@ Novaseeker
Close, but a bit off.
The reason why I write is that, as Donal has said before, there’s no explicitly Christian blogs to which men can learn how to develop masculinity.
If you take a random Christian man and throw him Heartiste’s blog they’re just going to think you’re a crazy misguided “Christian” PUA (in which case they won’t listen to you and they’ll be stuck in their “nice guy ways), or if they don’t have a good foundation in Christ they may get sucked into a hedonistic lifestyle. Neither are preferable.
As I said to Morpheus whether what I write is termed “repackaged Chrisitan game” or if it’s “Christian masculinity” I don’t really care. You could make a case either way in my opinion because of the different perspectives. But for the target audience which is Christian nice guys or Christian husbands that are struggling you can see why we refer to it as “Christian masculinity” or “godly masculinity.” If it’s just “repackaged game” to you then great because I won’t disagree with that, but understand to whom we are writing and that it is a much needed resource for that audience.
@ Rollo
Your assertions are incorrect for two reasons.
First, those of us that are Christian do not find it insulting that PUAs and players can point that out. In fact, we thank God that He used the things of this world to show us the error in our thinking. I know that Chad feels the same way about this, but I don’t know about any others. In fact, there’s a Bible verse for that — 1 Corinthians 1:27
Secondly, you are correct in that “repackaged game” or “santization of game” CAN lead to serving the “spirit of Jezebel” (aka feminine imperative); however, Christians walking in the Truth do not reject the red pill because the Scriptures are red pill. The Scriptures show the depravity of human nature.
Bastiat Blogger please see this article by Badger:
http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/ladder-theory-for-men/
The “two ladder” theory is pretty much what you seem to be writing with your “two markets” idea.
Morpheus says:
I’m probably missing some context and background convo, but it seems to me there is potential for some absurd hair-splitting with saying X is Game, but Y is just Masculinity, and A is Game but not Masculinity and B is Masculinity but not Game.
Yes, you are missing some tedious “that’s not Game / yes it is” hair splitting argumentation that went on (and on, and on…) in various comment threads around the ‘sphere in the last few years… and to be honest, you aren’t missing a thing.
The question at the applied level is: “Does This Work?”
The question at the ethical, or moral, or religious level is: “Should I Use This, And If So How?”.
Everything else is details.
Nova answers Rollo on the Christomanosphere:
Well, Rollo, I think Dalrock for example writes out of a concern that Christians are not finding mates, getting married and staying married consistently enough to avoid other Christian sins.
Huh. I frankly do not consider Dalrock to be part of the “Christomanosphere”. He’s too numerate, and not nearly emotional enough.
Bastiat @203: That’s all excellent.
“[P]erhaps we could speculate that part of the Restricted male’s general antipathy towards feminism lies in the recognition that a woman who seeks to prioritize a feminist empowerment platform as she seeks a mate may well have to gravitate towards the Unrestricted pond.”
I’d add: Such women–after they’ve done their carouseling, and if they’re still relatively young and attractive enough–often will be able to catch a blue-pill beta in the Restricted pond. Among those betas who later get flayed, a growing number are going red pill–which is when the real antipathy towards “feminism” kicks in.
Deep Strength’s been speaking greatly on the view he and I take of it, even if our own views are off a bit from each others in terms of the subtleties.
For me, the difference between Game and Godly Masculinity comes down to one simple thing – Pride.
Every time I see game written about I see Pride glaring through it to various degrees. A very small amount of ‘pro-game’ Christians (maybe 2-4 or them) don’t have this. Most do. Most Game techniques and practitioners are showing off their Pride or Vanity, or enticing women to show off their own Pride and Vanity.
Lust hasn’t even entered into the equation yet.
After enough time showing off and building such emotions and temptations, you isolate, you escalate, and you go further.
Can such things still lead to a marriage that lasts for life?
Yes.
Is it the healthy way to live?
No.
Is it the only solution to the problem?
I don’t believe so, or I wouldn’t be blogging about what I do believe is the solution.
My solution is a life founded and built upon God and an understanding of the Virtues. The key to Godly Masculinity is not Pride, but a Humility before God that inspires you to act courageously, without fear, and uncaring of human respect.
If you want to see it in action, look at my post on the life of David.
http://depthstowilderness.com/destroying-false-teachings-humility/
He rebukes women. He says they’re not worthy of him. He dances like only God is watching. He conquers men. He beds multiple wives. He sins mightily before the Lord, and repents just as mightily. He is described as the Apple of God’s eye because he yearns so greatly to please God’s heart at the cost of everything else dear to him.
Contrast that with PUA’s and game and you’ll see that yes, some of those actions overlap. They do so slightly, but I’d argue the result is drastically different. That one is pleasing to God and that one is specifically unpleasing and sinful. Can the sinner find forgiveness? Sure, but first they have to acknowledge they’re sinning. What’s more is that sin usually leads others to sin. So as a man, why would I do something as the leader and head of household that would lead my family to sin? When interacting with possible future wives, why would I want to start a relationship with them that has to overcome sin?
To many, this might sound like overkill. I’m sure some people are shaking their heads saying, “You mean you’re going through all this for something you -could- get away with and still reach salvation!?”
Yes, yes I am.
I do so because I feel, very explicitly, that doing otherwise would displease God, even if it would be acceptable to him should I repent and ask forgiveness. For those that need selfish reasons to act as God desires, everything I’ve seen in life and read in studies supports traditional courtships being the most solid start to a marriage. So I act with God guiding me through that process. I do so not just because of my own sake though, but because I do not know how fragile the salvation of my future wife and children would be. The Bible speaks very clearly on how leaders and husbands can lead their followers and wives into sin, and I want to do what I can to make them saints. I want my wife to be a woman of God. I want my sons to be Sons of God. I want my daughters to be Daughters of God. I want them to sing with angels for eternity, and I will make sacrifices and take a longer road to please my God and to reach salvation for myself and my future family.
Does that seem crazy to you?
Possibly. But just like David, I’m ok with being considered crazy if it pleases my God.
#227: “For those that need selfish reasons to act as God desires, everything I’ve seen in life and read in studies supports traditional courtships being the most solid start to a marriage. So I act with God guiding me through that process.”
Well, that’s terrific. I’m pleased God is your dating coach. My God awarded me agency, intelligence, and a few currently degraded senses. God expects me to provide a learned, *earned* example; God expects me to make the world that survives me better than the one I inherited. God has other shit to do besides figure out what I, as a self-congratulatory Christian community organizer should say on my first date. Get a life and do some good. That does not mean that God appointed you arbiter of sin. How have you *earned* your soft-soapbox?
Subversives usually know best, being truly lost, having abandoned hope:
“Knowledge forbidden?
Suspicious, reasonless. Why should their Lord
Envy them that? Can it be a sin to know?
Can it be death?”
This is your ilk:
“Men do what is called a good action, as some piece of courage or charity, much as they would pay a fine in expiation of daily non-appearance on parade. Their works are done as an apology or extenuation of their living in the world. I do not wish to expiate, but to live. My life is not an apology, but a life.”
This is the rest of us:
“These are the voices which we hear in solitude, but they grow faint and inaudible as we enter into the world. Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of everyone of its members.”
I can do apologetics all day long, pal. I’m pleased that you are content and comfortable in your devotion to rote obedience, but one man said:
“If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair.”
Like, *to think*, *to observe*, *to learn* — qualities unique to man, uniquely ordained qualities of all of His creation — are sinful. God already created puppy dogs, so just maybe that’s not our job.
Anyway, I regret the injection of Wednesday night married-celibate men’s retreat to this secular blog’s discussion of how the world works.
Appeal to authority all you wish. But riddle me this: since I am burdened, unlike any other animal, with the obligation to discern good from bad, true from false, present from past, why is enlightenment and Grace only available to those who ignore both?
BV switching tower, Guhnight.
“If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair.”
I completely agree.
You seem to be under an impression that what I do is a way that ‘is known’ or that I am comfortable. I assure you that neither of those are the case.
I merely am someone who was looking for truth. When I was looking for truth, I found God. Now that I’ve found God, I’m looking for his Will and to do what would please him. I believe that I -might- have found it, but I’m honestly unsure. Can men rebuild concepts of virtue and masculinity as makes God happy in a single generation, when it took all of human existence to build it before Feminism destroyed it? We have a rough map of how the men before us found it over thousands of years with the guidance of their fathers every step of the way. Meanwhile we don’t have fathers, we barely have a Church, we don’t have a government that supports us, we don’t have a culture that supports us. Communities that support us are few and far between, and are at war against mainstream culture where they do exist.
You men here rail that the people coming from good families with good fathers and taught to be a Godly man with confidence, a ‘natural’ as so many call them, are the only ways to build men like that. You turn to game as a substitute. I disagree with the first part, having come from a broken family, and aim to find a way to impart those ‘natural’ qualities onto myself in a way that doesn’t revolve around Pride, Vanity, or Lust. I aim to do so without Game, but with God.
It’s daunting, and I full admit I may fail in the attempt. Yet my attempt is only to build Godly Masculinity within myself, within the community I care about and live in, and within my Sons when I have them.
However, the internet is the place where I do that, because it’s where I can share it with that community. I personally need the writing, because it’s how I organize my thoughts. Doing that opens me to the rest of the internet, where men such as yourself and I can exchange thoughts, ideas, and arguments. This has the added bonus for me of iron sharpening iron.
Again, I feel called to make the attempt. If you call that crazy, that’s fine. I honestly don’t care. I simply write here so that I can clarify my actions when they’re being slandered and invite any that would desire to read, write, or join me in such a search for truth as they will.
#221 Re: “there’s no explicitly Christian blogs to which men can learn how to develop [attractiveness to women].” There I fixed it. Just being Christian and masculine doesn’t cut it, sorry.
Remember all those monks that women found so attractive that they just had to reproduce with them? Me neither.
Re: David. In his characteristic first actions of note, he threw off the burden of treating a human like a human, and instead treated him as an animal, the way that he had proved worked in this world, proven to work on animals.
Re: Adam’s sin. Biblically, Adam’s failure was ONLY in listening to his wife and loving her to the death despite her sin. The original romantic hero. Her sin was in listening to something besides her husband.
My problem with what I’m seeing of Deep Strength’s blog is that it reeks of the feminine imperative, with a subtext of “man-up and serve women’s needs for attraction”.
It is essentially “build a better beta”. You could hear the same subtext in George’s interview with HuffPost. Essentially “Women are perfect and they are right to be attracted to players. You need to man up and make yourself attractive to them instead!”
After Vatican II Christians have been in a race to the bottom as to who can become the most ‘contemporary’, they worship at the altar of trendy and Rollo is right, game is just another manifestation of this.
The most contemptuous insult to a modern Christian isn’t heresy, it’s being called ‘old fashioned’.
They hate the fact that after 2000 years of tradition they’ve been trumped by a handful of geeks chasing poon. They’ve been shown up hard and for all their Rabbinical hair splitting they have shown the Emperor truly has no clothes.
At SSM Deti mentioned that women should simply ‘close their legs’, after 20 years of being online, reading literally thousands of pages of Christian commentary I can honestly say that’s the first time I came across that advice, from a ‘game’ proponent no less.
When the ‘devil’ is more moral than the pastor, what does that say about the pastor?
#197
Indian, Arabic, Turkish, Kurdish, Jewish, Persian, Pakistani and black African men currently living in English-speaking countries mostly originate from patriarchal cultures where male and female sexual behavior is generally still highly regulated. Therefore they don’t need Game and couldn’t really implement it even if they wanted to. This is even more true when we speak about the Muslim regions of the non-Western world. It’s no coincidence that Game and the male subculture that surrounds it is pretty much restricted to the West.
#209
It’s because tradcons are getting desperate. They know their sons won’t be able to compete in the SMP unless they are born alphas, and they also know their daughters are sexually attracted to alphas only. Realistically speaking, it’s impossible to separate them from any potential contact with alphas and then marry them off when they turn 16. It cannot be done unless you’re Amish or belong to some similar sect. One can homeschool, of course, and one can even ban one’s daughter from going off to college. But it’s impossible to prevent her from entering situations where she has the opportunity to have sex with an alpha.
The writing is on the wall for them. They know that their daughters will eventually have extramarital sex and have alpha seed ejected into their orifices and unto their bodies. But such thoughts are unbearable for them. They cannot prevent their daughters from becoming sluts, and they cannot convince alphas to change their ways. Therefore they’ll eventually resort to training their beta chump sons to become cannon fodder in a bloody intra-male campaign to eliminate all alpha louts. This, of course, won’t bring the desired results even if it’s implemented, because those men on the top of the hierarchy among surviving betas will simply become the new alpha tugs, bloodied in civil war and thus inducing tingles.
#184
It’s probably more simple than that. She’s stating that men can be held responsible for the sin of abortion. This is, of course, nonsense, as Western men have no reproductive rights whatsoever.
#238
*the new alpha tHugs*
Chad:
“We have a rough map of how the men before us found it over thousands of years with the guidance of their fathers every step of the way.”
Good luck in your search, but if you believe that Christian communities today serve men by asserting a social continuum ‘over thousands of years’. I think you’ll be quite frustrated if your goals include a stable and productive relationship with a woman, but there’s always a chance you’ll get lucky. (This is a particularly good strategy if you believe that luck comprises a strategy.)
By this logic of historical obeisance, Luther remains an ahistorical, deviant heretic who ignored his obligations to the past by the simple fact of his apostasy. However, his apostasy in fact reflected an assessment of the current religious orthodoxy; he found it debased, serving debased interests, and therefore crippled in its primary function. I cannot know, and should not speculate, if you have found a community within which to worship, in which your role as a Godly man as you define the term, requires you to do more than bow to a hierarchy of female preference and pastoral funding. Unless you remove yourself from the world, the utility of denying the present to embrace a defunct order of things, would seem to put you on the side of bishopric indulgences — rather than any heroic assertion of historical purity. This is a long-winded way of saying that the ideal you posit never existed. All of us, in some manner, are caged birds, and caged birds still sing. Luther and his heresy, however, sought more in his faith than a more comfortable imprisonment. He had to walk the streets and entertain the gross contradictions of his actual world to do so.
Asserting that so-called Game is a) monolithic; b) self-explanatory; and c) emblematic of Pride, Lust, and Vanity is fine, but it is only an effective construction when in conversation with other Godly men who choose not to explain the ways of God to man. There’s a lot of lust, pride, and vanity in scripture, and one either engages in the uncomfortable confrontation of this fact, or one seeks opportunities to self-praise oneself for their saccharine, ill-considered rejection. I take the point of view that this is the most prideful of assertions, as though one has uniquely found the magic wardrobe — and that those who dispute your insights are already damned. As we live on earth, and not in Narnia, I think your evangelical impulse will be better served if you take a look around prior to asserting this mythical historical model of masculinity.
Johnnycomelately, I think you caught my Milton citation, and if so, I’m flattered.
The argument is a simple one. It is idealism vs realism. The Christians have an ideal view of human behavior that is capable of overruling ones animal nature with Christian virtue. The realist insists that biology wins and we should therefore respond to intuitive, biological drives. In truth, both are correct. The ideal is the framework for the real. Pragmatism combines idealism and realism because in Pragmatism, truth is what actually works. Since all truth is Gods truth, then Gods truth is what works. If Game works, for the individual and for the common good, then it is Truth.
@ Sir Nemesis
Incorrect. It’s the same parallel that all of the other manosphere blogs use.
Christian men are supposed to be masculine men for God, not other women. That’s no different than a man aiming for self improvement, except directing it towards godly endeavors. Instead of pleasing yourself, you aim to please God. (Which is where one can see the parallels of me “repackaging game”)
If that’s “serving the feminine imperative” then that’s the same as every other man on the manosphere “serving the feminine imperative” by becoming more attractive to women.
@ Sir Nemesis & others
Re: “serving the feminine imperative”
Though if you have an examples of where I do make this error then I would appreciate you pointing them out to me.
I am trying to take care not to let that happen.
When women are not free to open their legs, then game isn’t needed. Such is not our world today.
#243 “Christian men are supposed to be masculine [not for] women” I couldn’t agree more. Christian masculinity DOES NOT WORK in getting women because that’s not what it is for. Guess what kind of masculinity IS for getting women?
Re: David. He discarded the tools his officially God-ordained leader decreed that he should use, and instead reverted to the tools that he found worked on feral beasts.
He flouted religious tradition and even broke dozens of the 613 commandments while dressing in the wrong clothes and in amusing the wenches ridiculously. And he even set up an apostate David’s Tabernacle in which he transgressed all of the great commandments, instituted his own style of worship service, using the wrong tools, etc.
All because other people had broken it. And he had to do something.
jf12
So a man who doesn’t pedastalize a woman (as an idol), doesn’t validate her (her self neediness), etc., a man on a mission (for God) who doesn’t need her but wants her, can tease and flirt with her to bring her closer to God (can break rapport to build attraction), is able to disagree with her and able to set boundaries (break rapport, etc.), brushes off her questioning his masculinity (passes fitness tests), is not attractive to women. Got it. I disagree completely.
I do agree with you that men can ignore a skill set of masculinity specifically in dealing with women (your monks is a good example), but I also don’t believe in developing that skill set you need to be “bad” or that you need to be “selfish” as you’ve mentioned.
It’s not that reductive.
I mean Christians also have jobs, buy houses, invest in the stock market and so on. The key is not avoiding real world realistic advice about these things, but avoid sin when doing them. For some reason when it comes to dating/mating, that becomes strained with many Christians. I think Christians are happy to take investment or real estate advice from non-Christian sinners, but not advice in this area. It’s odd, but it isn’t as reductively simplistic as a refusal in general to accept pragmatic reality — it’s a selective refusal.
That was in response to comment 242, by the way, not to DS’s comments in the interim.
Re: jf12 + “but I also don’t believe in developing that skill set you need to be “bad” or that you need to be “selfish” as you’ve mentioned.”
Not giving into typical churchian mores like “being nice” (which is what women are supposed to be not men) and “helping her out” (aka serving her) is “breaking the rules.”
I have no doubt that JoJ “breaking the rules” for God by standing up for the Truth when his church kicked him out helped with his attractiveness to his fiance. Standing up for the Truth forces you to break rules at times especially when the church has become corrupted as it is, and as society becomes more immoral. It takes a Christian man to stand up against that.
On David breaking commandments, while it is attractive (because the lusts of the flesh are also attractive), is not the way any Christian man should walk. He paid the price for it too with multiple of his sons dying including on that usurped the throne and made him a fugitive for a while.
@ Chad:
“You men here rail that the people coming from good families with good fathers and taught to be a Godly man with confidence, a ‘natural’ as so many call them, are the only ways to build men like that. You turn to game as a substitute.”
Well, being a “natural” is one way to do it. Game in large part teaches masculinity. Whether it’s authentic or not can be questioned. Fact is it’s better than nothing, and it’s better than being taught nothing at all, or being taught the wrong things, which is what so many men everywhere have endured. Hence the dialogue that’s been going on for about a year and a half since Cane Caldo posted “Cypher’s Problem” at Dalrock’s. The question is one I’ve asked here:
If not Game, then what? If there’s something better, then show it, explain it, teach it. Don’t say “don’t use Game, but if you’re not masculine and you don’t “just get it” and you can’t “just figure it out for yourself”, well, too bad so sad, sucks to be you.” Don’t say “It’s all in the Bible and you just have to read it correctly and if you do that; then you’ll be fine, and it’s an art, and you’re all nerds and geeks because you want it explained step by step”.
Boys learn how to be men by being taught, and by learning things that actually work, and that are efficient and efficacious, and by being taught and learning what doesn’t work. No man tells a boy to “just get it” and “just figure it all out for yourself”.
I read Aurini occasionally. Just read a piece he wrote that pertains to this topic. Some posters might have issues with it, but I thought it was a pretty interesting take:
http://www.staresattheworld.com/2014/02/game-versus-the-reactosphere/
It pertains, Liz, but is slightly different.
There’s also an overlap between the Christomanosphere and the Reactosphere, but it’s only an overlap — many of the folks who are being critiqued here by deti (and me) are members of the former and not the latter, while most of the latter is not a member of the former (although there is some limited overlap).
@ Deti
Yup, it’s hard to look at a natural alpha and see because what he does and what he doesn’t do are folded into one action. And he can’t explain that action of why he does this rather than that.
That’s why I categorize things into two piles:
1. Things that are feminine that you should unlearn as a man (be nice, validate her, help/serve her, etc.).
2. Things that you should learn as a masculine man (don’t pedastalize her, have your mission (for God), don’t “improve” yourself for women but for me, etc).
I think the hard part for most Christians is keeping a heart for God as opposed to just trying to be attractive for attractiveness sake because you want attention for women. It’s all in context. I think JoJ, Dalrock, and Keoni recognize that well. I’m not so sure about some of the other Christian bloggers (though I admit I don’t read every Christian manosphere blog).
That’s precisely why I’m attempting to find theological underpinnings for how the Scriptures define masculinity, even though the Scriptures are vague on that, and see how game reveals masculinity either in a positive or negative light and see if there’s anything we can learn from that.
I don’t think I’m doing anything new per se in that masculinity has existed through the ages. The fact that “game” is here in this day and age is convenient to use for the terms and explanations. Whether that makes it “godly masculinity” (because some of game may be a codification of that which has been lost from fathers) or “repackaged game” I could care less at this point.
I just want men to go into learning about masculinity (or game if you prefer) and how to weild it with a heart for God first.
#248 “So a man who [practices game is] attractive to women.” I agree with you. But I dispute that teasing, flirting, breaking rapport, knowingly manipulating her specifically feminine weaknesses, etc. are NOT worldly techniques.
#253 Liz, thanks for the suggestion. “And although the slutting isn’t good for the women, the empowerment of men through Game is” Methinks I will have to read Aurini this morn.
jf12
I’ll step into a pro-game frame for a bit to argue this point.
Specifically manipulating her feminine weakness is a worldly technique.
How is breaking rapport (which includes teasing, flirting, etc.) — which is basically indirect revelation of the truth — a worldly technique?
Sure, if you use coarse language such as “you’re being a bitch” I would agree — the Bible says not to use coarse language. But calling her out on her rudeness is not a “worldly technique” because it is GOOD to call someone out on their rudeness. In fact, as a man, if I disagree with a woman I SHOULD let her know that I disagree with her, especially if she’s going to fall into sin or is being misled. How else is a husband supposed to be her head in marriage? How else is a man supposed to set boundaries so women don’t walk all over him?
I would suggest reading these posts for my explanation of why teasing/flirting/ribbing/disagreement is critical to telling her the truth in love:
http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/the-selfish-and-unselfish-socialization-of-men/
http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/masculinity-is-the-truth/
If you’re looking for “game” in my posts you can surely find it. Standing up to a woman, teasing/flirting/ribbing her when she’s off track, etc. is masculine behavior that every Christian man should learn. If you call that game then sure.
#255 “That’s precisely why I’m attempting to find theological underpinnings for how the Scriptures define masculinity, even though the Scriptures are vague on that, and see how game reveals masculinity either in a positive or negative light and see if there’s anything we can learn from that.” That would be a Very Useful program if you concentrated specifically on being attractive to women. Otherwise you will simply repeat, just like so many, the errors of No True Man. “No True Attractive Man is unattractive” is the opposite of a fallacy.
#258 “If you call that game then sure.” Glad we can agree.
Deti @ 252
You forgot the escape hatch that allows for the extreme reaction to game.
Over past several week at Dalrock’s there has considerable discussion of this issue. Several times it was explained that in the scriptures is a warning? or some such that some men were not going to find wives and some men should not marry. If one takes these passages at face value they would seem to justify leaving the schlubs out in the cold, lonely, and hard up. If God wanted them to marry they would “just get it.”
The bonus is that these men, deemed defective by the devine, since they won’t be provided with wives are also convenient whipping boys to enforce the moral strictures regarding sex. God wants these men to be lonely and depressed and near suicidal. They should rejoice in the benefits of heaven they can claim at death. Since these men are obviously beta drone types they will make excellent monks, clergy, or other various church slaves.
The institution of the church absolutely relies on certain number of men submitting completely to the rule of the institution. Confusing submission to men of God with submission to God is intentional and necessary. It’s all about power and getting men to submit to other men.
@ Deti
“Well, being a “natural” is one way to do it. Game in large part teaches masculinity. Whether it’s authentic or not can be questioned. Fact is it’s better than nothing, and it’s better than being taught nothing at all, or being taught the wrong things, which is what so many men everywhere have endured. ”
For the most part, my comments are not directed at you. I find you and a few others to be wary, yet supportive, of myself, Deep Strength, and the others. Probably because we’re doing something. I know a great deal of where I stand in the world, and all 3 years of blogging I have never hidden what extent I understand Game, God, or my place in the universe.
You’ll also note that I admit that game works, and that it fulfills a ‘git ‘er done’ role of attracting women for men whom weren’t taught how to interact with women. Some few are able to carry that over into other parts of their lives. I know I was, and I actually implemented a great deal of ‘game’ into my interview processes, interactions with friends, family, etc.
You will never hear me dispute that game works. You will never hear me dispute that people can find marriages with it. You will never hear me dispute that I believe that people can still achieve salvation while practicing game.
What you will always hear me dispute is that I believe Game had a tendency to lead people to sin. It does not always do so, but it does seem to do so on a regular basis. Whether that sin overwhelms their lives is largely up to the character of the individual, their strengths, their weaknesses, and their relationship with God. I simply look to find a way that imparts the character and virtues that will enact the results of Game, without the sinful dangers I see within it, and in a way that I think supports a Christian life in all areas of life – from business to family to church. Whats more, is that I don’t think that Game is -the best- way to go about it, simply that it is hyper focused on a particular area; that of social skills.
Game is all about learning how about yourself. How to see yourself as a man. How to show your strengths to the world. How to develop those strengths. If you find God in Game, it is by pure happenstance and the fact that God made the world, and is in everything in it. It is not because you were searching for God, but that God was simply there.
Godly Masculinity, as I’m exploring it and proposing it, is all about God. How to see God, how God sees you as a man, and how God sees the best man you could be. How God wants you to be that man, and puts challenges in your path to do so. Godly masculinity is about tapping into God’s strength, because you have none. About giving thanks to God for the strengths he gives you, rejoicing in them, praising him for them, and sharing them with the world as guided by the Charity, Wisdom, and Justice. It is about searching for God, and finding yourself through happenstance, and sharing the Lord that lives inside you with the world.
That’s the difference between Game and Godly Masculinity. Simply where a man focuses, where a man draws his strengths, and how it informs his life. From what I see, that makes all the difference.
And now, for something completely more of the same. Desperate times, they are a’calling.
Ravens were an abomination for Jews. Strictly off limits, yucky, wash your hands just from thinking about touching them. They are omnivorous, scavengers, opportunistic thieves, carrion-eaters, garbage pickers. And yet Elijah was sustained by ravens bringing him mystery meat happy meals for many days (“a while”), before shacking up with a young widow woman and her young son.
@ Deti
Last night I found this prayer by David at the end of 1 Chronicles which summarizes a great deal of my stance on Game vs Godly Masculinity.
“Blessed are you, O Lord, the God of Israel our father, for ever and ever. Yours, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty; for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours; yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all. Both riches and honor come from you, and you rule over all. In your hand are power and might; and in your hand it is to make and to give strength to all. And now we thank you, our God, and praise your glorious name.”
“But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able thus to offer willingly? For all things come from you, and of your own have we given you. For we are strangers before you, and sojourners, as all our fathers were; our days on the earth are like a shadow, and there is no abiding. O Lord our God, all this abundance that we have provided for building you a house for your holy name comes from your hand is all your own. I know, my God, that you try the heart, and have pleasure in uprightness; in the uprightness of my heart I have freely offered all these things, and now I have seen your people who are present here, offering freely and joyously to you.”
– 1 Chronicles 29:14-17
I wish to my my soul into a house for His holy name, and I offer the uprightness of my heart to Him for whatever use he would put it to. I am a sojourner in this goal, knowing not what my journey will be or what it will bring me to, only that I will offer all the blessings I find to the Lord.
That is the beginning, middle, and end of Godly Masculinity. The rest is simply working out the details.
Novaseeker says: February 13, 2014 at 3:22 pm
“. . . interacting with women who follow the Bible closely themselves. . .”
So SSM means she never could have married a Christian man. She came to her faith after marrying.
Anonymous Reader, thanks for keeping SSM’s bloodlust in our minds.
#261 and #265 I absolutely guarantee that the bloodlust will be against the creepy betas, the lost boys. It. Always. Is. Dalrock had a marvelous series of posts about the concept of women always thinking the nice-guy-who-wants-a-woman is the real bad boy, while the panty-charmer must be the real nice guy because women like him.
@Deep Strength, serious question (I hope you can tell the passion and anguish aren’t manufactured). Looking at JoJ’s triangle geometrization of the situation,
http://josephofjackson.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/getting-rid-of-alpha/
The fact is that to get from Most Christian Guys straight to Good Men requires traveling parallel to the Bad Boy axis in the exact vector of Jerk. Agree? If not, why not?
Gurney Halleck says: February 13, 2014 at 5:20 pm
Don’t care enough about marriage to read it. From The Atlantic, I would expect dreck.
jf12
I don’t think JoJ sees it that way since most guys start out as “nice” and move toward good (on his chart adding in the components of “jerks” which are good such as fearlessness, etc).
However, I see it this way. Nice guys are effeminate and become more masculine (by dropping feminine behaviors such as be nice, validating her, etc.and adding masculine ones by having a mission, teasing/flirting, etc.). They can choose to be “assholes and jerks” or they can choose to be “good men”:
http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/understanding-the-world-and-the-mission/
Re: “they can choose to be “good men”” by moving directly towards the Jerk direction. They HAVE to get badder to get gooder.
jf12 says:
“They HAVE to get badder to get gooder.”
Only in the sense that what they believe to be good they must consciously deny until till they accept and internalize the truth that nice is itself just a different, ineffective version of bad.
“They HAVE to get badder to get gooder.”
I agree with Badpainter.
Nice guys are told to be nice. Women should be nice. The church does a great disservice to men telling them to be nice because that is heresy. Men need not be “nice” because “nice” is not masculine.
If being “nice” is “good,” then yes, men should be “bad” because they shouldn’t be “nice”
Men being “not nice” is good. If “not nice” is calling out a woman on her rudeness, then that is good in an absolute moral sense.
@ JF12 in 270
I think you’re getting too fixated on the image of the triangle, as if men have to stay on a straight line to get anywhere. If you viewed it more as an open field with destinations I think you’d be better served in how to consider the formation of a Godly Man.
Loop de loops make me queasy, though.
jf12,
Use this model:
If it doesn’t work it’s bad
If it does work it works
If it works in concert with your moral code it’s good.
If you’re evil none of the above matter.
We’re told by the Churchians that Christian men should be “nice” because it’s good. But that is false.
We know that Christian men who are “nice” are doing evil because they don’t call out women for their sins or are complicit in it (her rudeness, cater to her feelings, validate her, etc. all of which are sins).
Therefore, Christian men should be “not nice.” When Christian men are “not nice” they are good because they are calling out women on sins.
Christian men that are “not nice” are attractive to women. Christian men that are “not nice” are also doing good because they are standing up for what is good and not being complicit in sin.
This is why you think Christian men need to be “bad” to be attractive to women because churchians say that not being nice is “bad.”
#276 Ok then let’s call it Dread or Danger instead. The singular problem of nice guys is that they are too good at being virtuous “Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent” and not good enough at being perceived as Dangerous enough to excite Dread.
Also, Isaiah 5:20 comes to mind for the Churchians who tell men to be nice:
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
The judgment of God will come upon them for that form of evil.
Re: fear is fear, btw. Not just “like” fear: fear itself.
JF12
Look at Deep Strengths posts and my own on Saul’s errors, grounded in a fear of men instead of a fear of God.
Also, I know that you’re using ‘virtuous’ to describe those things, but they’re not virtuous at all. Christians let the language slip when they started allowing such things to be called virtuous of the virtues.
The virtues are the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity (love). The cardinal virtues are guided by the theological ones. The cardinal virtues are Prudence (wisdom), Justice, Temperance (fortitude), and Chastity. These virtues are built upon two things: Humility towards the Lord and a Holy Fear of the Lord. Men should be acting with awe and respect towards God, with deference to him as our Heavenly Father. Then we treat mortals as mortals, with our actions and characters guided by the virtues.
Mercy is not a virtue
Humility towards men is not a virtue
patience is not a virtue
Calling those things virtues is a disservice to Christianity and the teachings of God. They each have their place, but those places are far below any of what I wrote in the paragraph preceding them.
Some of these are good, some of these are bad.
Those which Christian men should be: virtuous, Trustworthy, friendly, courteous, kind, cheerful, brave, clean
Virtuous — 2 Peter 1 (goodness/virtue)
Trustworthy — let your yes be yes, no be no; don’t lie, etc.
Friendly/courteous — brothers and sisters in Christ
Kind — fruit of the Spirit
Cheerful — (technically joy of the Lord), also fruit of the Spirit
Brave — overcoming fear is good. 1 John 4
Clean — well, hygiene is important IMO.
Those which Christian men should neither NOT be or only in certain circumstances are: loyal, obedient, thrifty, helpful, reverent.
A Christian man should not be loyal or excessively helpful to women, especially if they aren’t his wife. He has no obligation to do those things, and indeed if he has his own mission he shold be prioritizing that over helping women. This article covers some of that:
http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/christian-nice-guys-are-abused/
Men are not called to revere/respect women nor should they. We are only called to revere God.
Neither are men called to be obedient to women, nor should they be ordered around by women.
Thrifty, likewise, a man is a steward of God’s money… what a woman thinks he should be doing doesn’t matter.
You can see how some of these are good things, but a lot of them get twisted by the Churchians to serve women.
Re: The wife should be acting with awe and respect towards her husband, with deference to him as lord. And the way the man gets there is …
Regarding: “Dread or Danger instead”
I won’t call “masculinity” (or the parts of it) that are attractive to women those things because God created man and masculinity, and what He created was very good. This is the same reason why I won’t call masculinity “game.” I would caution Christians about associating terms that imply something that is morally deficient with God’s creation.
When I first “took the red pill” I had bitterness for women because they were like that… but that’s the same as having bitterness to God’s creation which is women. Should I be bitter at God? No. instead I thank Him instead of opening my eyes and allowing me to be able to move toward developing masculinity from there.
Re: The Boye Scouttes Progresse. 2 Pet 1:5-7 lists a number of virtues, words having meanings, and the only question is whether these are diligently stockpiled in a heap or diligently constructed in a progression. Diligence being a fundamental virtue too.
“It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues.”
-Abe Lincoln
Now I’m going to have to stop reading this for the day. Because it is Valentine’s day, and I’ve never felt less horny in my life. Have to go read something unGodly now to bring it back or the husband will be very very disappointed. Maybe I’ll buy a pack of smokes.
Happy V day fellas.
Note the backing away from Dread and Danger because of the perception that they are Bad. That’s exactly what I mean. In fact, I propose changing the terminology from Bad Boys and Nice Guys to Dangerous and Safe, because that’s what they mean in practice. And Danger and Safe co-occur with Stranger and Family, killing four birds with two stones.
@ Deep Strength
Ah I see what’s going on. This is essentially a semantic argument.
Is your advice helpful in allowing men to become more attractive to women? If so, you’re essentially reframing the feminine imperative as a godly imperative. Essentially, “man-up and better serve God; of course, how you should serve God matches up suspiciously well with what serves the feminine imperative”
In contrast, many Game sites (such as RoK), do not frame Game as an imperative. They simply tell men how to become more attractive, without all the “man up” language.
The difference, while subtle, is rather significant. The Game view is conducive of male self-empowerment, and accepting of MGTOW. The “serve God” view is neither.
Jf12:
It’s not dangerous vs. but rather strong vs. weak.
A strong man may be dangerous by virtue of his not being a pushover. A weak man is dangerous because he is unreliable and indecisive.
dangerous vs. safe I meant to say.
@ jf12
See this is my point. Either you’re actually using Christian masculinity, in which case it WILL NOT WORK, or you have repackaged attractive behavior as Christian masculinity, which is serving the feminine imperative with a subtext of “pleasing women is godly”.
The correct frame would be to say, “Here is Game, which allows you to be attractive to women if you so desire. Also, keeping in mind your Godly obligations, here are those aspects of Game which are compatible with Godly behavior and can complement Christian masculinity by making you not just a good Christian, but also successful with women (or rather a woman).
[…] terribly offended Novaseeker’s sensibilities, and he went around to at least three blogs of which I am aware, and made sure the people he respects knew what scurrilous things I had said […]
@ Sir Nemesis
Good insight, but I still disagree because your subtly different analogy also applies to Christian men:
“The Game view is conducive of male self-empowerment, and accepting of MGTOW.”
is equivalent to
“The God view is conducive of male God-empowerment, and accepting that Christian men are not promised a wife from God”
——————
Slightly off topic but I see “man up” language useful from men to men because that’s how we talk to each other in terms of say “Don’t be a pussy… go approach that woman” but when it involves doing something FOR women I agree with you that it becomes very very very very bad. For example, man up language can be warped by other men such as Driscoll saying “man up and marry those sluts.” There’s a difference in saying man up because you’re going to be a better man (able to serve God) vs. man up because of wimmenz.
But you are correct, there is a very very very fine line there. If you saw any instances of that on my site then let me know because I don’t want any of that.
@ Novaseeker
Imagine a blog for how Godly masculinity can guide you in investing in the stock market. ROFL.
Very interesting discussion. Here is my (secular humanist) take: a human being is a collection of smaller living things—cells—which have conveniently task-organized into various functional areas in order to create a lumbering, “Pacific Rim” type robot for purposes of enhanced survivability and reproductive capability in an uncertain, frequently quite hostile world.
Cells communicate with each other via hormones and neurotransmitters. Some cascades are subjectively experienced as happiness via our emotional command system, while other cascades are less pleasant to experience.
For men in particular, the “alpha cascade cocktail” would be higher testosterone combined with lower cortisol and a pleasurable jolt of dopamine released by an emotional pathway commonly referred to as a the “SEEKING circuit”. This feels very satisfying—it is probably the cascade associated with victory itself. In contrast, the anti-alpha cocktail would combine emasculation (lower T) with high levels of chronic stress (higher C) and boredom/tedium.
Whether or not you are religious, your neurophysiology essentially functions this way. You can attribute this system to deliberate design, or you can attribute this to a blind selection/mutation/heritability algorithm operating over time, or to whatever mix of both makes sense to you. In any case, we can all probably accept the present situation even if religious and non-religious men may disagree about how exactly we got here.
Men may pursue the alpha cocktail through four primary delivery vehicles:
1. Conquest of Self (completing an Ironman, writing a novel)
2. Conquest of Nature (mountaineering, flying)
3. Conquest of other Men (scoring the winning touchdown, kicking someone’s ass)
4. Conquest of Women (validation sex)
Note that it is easily possible to be “alpha” in one domain and non-alpha in others, but clearly we all would probably agree that a man who has #1, #2, and/or #3 to his credit probably stands a better chance of also getting #4. There are also plenty of men who are great in one or more non-sexual domains and still make awful mistakes with women, and there are men who manage to be very successful with women while failing at the others..
Validation sex is one type of alpha delivery vehicle. The essence of validation sex is that the sex is front-loaded in the relationship and given freely by the woman without the man having invested or “paid” for the sex yet; she is taking on a lot of risk when she does this, which makes him feel quite good about himself because he must be “worth it”. The opposite would be transactional sex, in which the man must pay up front for a sexual experience that comes later. Because the risk is transferred back to the man, *transactional sex does not normally trigger the alpha cascade* (although it has other benefits, to be sure).
Another point: there is probably a theoretical effective dosage schedule to all of the alpha delivery systems: after awhile, hedonic treadmill effects kick in, tolerance may develop, and more and more extreme dosage levels may be necessary to achieve the same pleasurable psychological state. There are some great recent works on this, most notably in the area of testosterone-amplification win sequences leading to feelings of invincibility and greater and greater risk-taking.
In my opinion, the ability to continually generate validational sex experiences within a monogamous relationship in which a traditional male provider-protector role is taken presents a far more challenging set of tactical problems than does being a player or hook-up stud. So insofar as your personal religious beliefs mandate that you take a provisioning and protection-oriented role within a monogamous relationship structure, you probably need some form of “game”—i.e., a set of interpersonal skills aimed specifically at obtaining validation sex for men—more than almost anyone else does. Your game might need to be even tighter than that of a single man because the natural inclination of a traditional relationship may actually be towards transactional sex experiences (you are fighting the current and thus may have to be a stronger swimmer).
@ Deep Strength
You’re essentially taking the position that everything under the Sun is godly, as long as it isn’t immoral.
Take the investing in the stock market analogy:
“Looking at price to earnings ratio is helps you invest in the stock market. Investing in the stock market is saving for the future. Which is GOOD. Therefore looking at price to earnings ratio is Godly, not a worldly technique!”
It quickly becomes rather absurd.
@ Sir Nemesis
jf12 was mischaracterizing my position as are you.
I agree with your 2nd paragraph, except for the portions involved which I edited for clarity:
The correct frame would be to say, “Here is [Masculinity (as it relates to women)], which allows you to [be a Christian man who is speak truth to women (and be attractive to them as a side effect)] if you so desire. Also, keeping in mind your Godly obligations, here are those aspects of [Masculinity (as it relates to women)] which are compatible with Godly behavior and can complement Christian [Masculinity (that doesn’t relate to women)] by making you not just a good Christian, but also successful with women (or rather a woman).
@ Deep Strength #292
Okay that clarifies things. I see where you’re going. It doesn’t seem very empowering to me, but that’s because I’m not a Christian, and thus have a different moral basis for acting virtuously than serving God.
BB,
Phenonemal comment all around. Thank you for your contributions here.
There are some great recent works on this, most notably in the area of testosterone-amplification win sequences leading to feelings of invincibility and greater and greater risk-taking.
Ha. Yup. This can happen in trading, and can be devastating. I learned that the hard way. You get multiple winners in a row, and you start to think maybe I should put 10% of my trading portfolio on options on an earnings announcement.
@ Sir Nemesis
Your analogy here is false.
Christians are taught that if we see another Christian in error — as in my example where a Christian woman that is rude — then we should correct them in their error. This is directly from the Scriptures.
I would argue that the stock market like science or any other field is amoral, but the actions that humans may take within it are either moral or immoral.
However, there is an argument that there is no such thing as the amoral — God created the heavens and the earth and everything in it and said that all He created was good.
So either way, what you call absurd God calls good. Shrug.
@ Deep Strength
Exactly!!!!!
Why don’t you see that the same applies to Game? Game, like any other science or field, is amoral, but the actions humans may take within it are either moral or immoral.
@ Sir Nemesis
From post #219 to Morpheus:
“I’m not really “anti-game” per se although I align myself as such just because it’s easier to take that stance because I believe that Christians should seek after God first (seek first the kingdom of God…) while developing masculinity. If you define “game” as masculinity then sure I would agree that a Christian should be developing game.”
Fundamentally, I see things this way:
The red pill (or knowledge of game and human nature) is indeed amoral in my opinion much like knowledge of science, the stock market, etc are, but practice of masculinity/game is not amoral because humans are moral agents.
Thus, in practice, masculinity/game is not amoral — there are moral and immoral aspects of it.
Indeed from a top-down view this is like a toolbox, but from the bottom up view you can see that there is only morality and immorality in actions. I think this is the reason why the anti-gamers don’t want to associate with “using game” (though knowing the knowledge behind it is OK depending on the person that is…).
As I stated earlier to Novaseeker:
That is the reason why I associate with anti-game.
In reality, I am neither anti-game or pro-game. I’m pro-God and helping men to walk better in their masculinity. I think knowledge of game can be used wisely in this process, but great care must be taken to avoid falling into temptation. Likewise, it is limited because most of “gamers” do not have experience with LTRs.
@ nemesis
I’m on a phone as my laptop battery died, but I’ll explain my own view.
I dont think you can classify game as a science.
Game focuses on two things; how a man views himself and how others view the man.
Where in that is science? Game is all about human beings, and the fact you call it a science is absurd. You cannot, I repeat, CANNOT, divorce morality from man’s view of himself in relation to his God and the world
You’re confusing how you obtained the information to build your system, by trial and error, as then getting to describe what you find. I can find out a rose is a rose with science and a scientific method, but at no point does that make the rose science or a system.
This kind of thinking displayed here is exactly why game is worrisome. You lose sight of God and reality in such a drastically narrow focus on whether or not you’ll find success, never stopping to wonder what the success will cost. In facr, people repeatedly seem to be denying that there’s a cost at all, as if anything in this world came for free
Also, I would like to add that if a Christian sees things from this position:
“However, there is an argument that there is no such thing as the amoral — God created the heavens and the earth and everything in it and said that all He created was good.”
If there is no such thing as amorality, then everything is either good or bad.
I believe the vehemently anti-gamers such as Cane and Zippy see things this way.
Game obviously arises from the flesh and any association with it is going to be corrupting in influence.
In this instance, “knowledge of it” may not necessarily bad but good because Christians are called to be wise as serpents and that the foolish things of the world can confound the wise (red pill, game vs churchianity).
But I don’t want to mischaracterize anyone’s position so I’ll stop there.
#294 joining the chorus of applause, truly great stuff. “So insofar as your personal religious beliefs mandate that you take a provisioning and protection-oriented role within a monogamous relationship structure, you probably need some form of “game”—i.e., a set of interpersonal skills aimed specifically at obtaining validation sex for men—more than almost anyone else does.” Yes. In the cruelest possible twist of the knife, a primate beta male is defined by having to provide services (bananas, grooming, spider-killing) for females.
#296 I agree. “The correct frame would be to say, “Here is [Masculinity (as it relates to women)], which allows you to [be a Christian man who is speak truth to women (and be attractive to them as a side effect)] if you so desire. Also, keeping in mind your Godly obligations, here are those aspects of [Masculinity (as it relates to women)] which are compatible with Godly behavior and can complement Christian [Masculinity (that doesn’t relate to women)] by making you not just a good Christian, but also successful with women (or rather a woman).” with the caveat that not ALL flirting and teasing etc is merely speaking the truth correctively and winning attraction as a mere side effect. If it seems too insurmountable a divide, for you to agree that a man OUGHT to do some things merely because it would make him more attractive, then we probably cannot agree further than this.
jf12
There’s two forms of flirting/teasing/etc in my view:
1. Offensively (or a man squeezing down in a handshake) — this is where a man inserts the truth into the conversation in the form of teasing or flirting.
2. Defensively (or a woman squeezing your hand and hoping you squeeze back), otherwise known as fitness/shit testing — this is where a man avoids taking a woman seriously. Reframe, agree and amplify, ignore, micharacterizing, joking, etc. and all different ways of passing shit/fitness tests are forms of this.
This is not so much speaking the truth but making up whatever you want because men should know that women cannot criticize masculinity. Women have absolutely no concept of what it means to be a man.
Both are compatible with Scriptures and both as a side effect make a woman more attracted to a man — #1 obviously you speak the truth in flirting/teasing/etc. which can be used effectively to guide her back to God, and #2 women are not to teach men. Only other men are to teach other men. When women teach boys you get nice guys which are so prevalent in this society.
Obviously, both of these can be warped for evil, but both of them can indeed be used in a godly manner.
#2 also includes validation of women’s feelings. Men are not to validate women’s feelings because when you validate a woman who is fishing for compliments that validates a woman’s pride.
Defensively she can be questioning your decisions or you in which case she should not demand but ask politely… this is why you don’t take her seriously.
Also, Defensively she can ask you thing to validate herself which I explained above. Do I look good in this? What do you think of this? etc.
#306-7 ok but. Specifically, attempting to be more attractive directly, NOT as a side effect. I’m not seeing the moral difficulty.
And in terms of upping the Danger, again I’m not seeing the exact difficulty (in theory. In practice is another story).
” Specifically, attempting to be more attractive directly, NOT as a side effect. I’m not seeing the moral difficulty.”
That’s between a Christian man and God in my opinion. If you believe that’s fine and you’re at peace with God with it then sure. I’d say there’s arguments for both sides in this case.
“And in terms of upping the Danger, again I’m not seeing the exact difficulty (in theory. In practice is another story).”
I think this is semantics?
What Bad painter says to me seems correct:
It’s not dangerous vs.safe but rather strong vs. weak.
A strong man may be dangerous by virtue of his not being a pushover. A weak man is dangerous because he is unreliable and indecisive.
If you’re talking about a particular situation then that could be more clear.
I think strong vs weak is a just a diluted version. The attraction is towards the immoral side, as JoJ draws it. Attraction really is about the badness part of the Danger, the Brute part of Strength. Strong Safe is not actually attractive because safe. Danger weak is not actually unattractive because danger.
Danger meaning *specifically* dangerous to the woman. It includes the possibility of physical force, of course, but also encompasses loving and leaving and all the other things she can fear.
The way I see it, “attraction” in general means you are outside her expectations. You can be outside her expectations in an evil way or a good way.
The reason why teasing/flirting works is because you’re unafraid to call her on her BS and interject truth into the situation. She has no power over you because you don’t do the things she expects. You don’t do the things she wants.
Likewise, she expects you to validate her when she gets validated all day on facebook. But when you don’t that creates attraction.
She expects when she criticizes you that you will take it seriously, but you don’t because no man should take criticism seriously from a woman about their decisions (especially when they’re not in a relationship).
When you are outside of her expectations, whether good or bad, youare unpredictable….. you are interesting….. you are exciting….. you are dangerous.
The capacity for violence is only one facet of that. One man defending his family is good, but another man randomly killing another man (see Aaron Hernandez) is just a hooligan even though both are attractive. The knowledge that you won’t put up with her BS and that you’re willing to leave her is another.
In my opinion, the “feeling” of danger from a woman is imposed on masculinity because of this, but it is not necessarily “good” or “evil.” The good or evil is in the actions themselves.
If understand Deep Strength correctly the Strong Danger is that the man will not put up with shit and will walk without hesitation or regard for her feelings of his affection for her. In other words strong means there is danger in violating his boundaries.
Further this particular model of masculinity is indifferent to the desires of the woman, it is a male exclusive space. A woman who demands access to that space is unworthy of such, and whatever she may think she wants/needs because she is not respecting the boundaries. The danger to the woman is the man’s indifference and capability to casually discard her. It is the power of NEXT!
This is the dread subtext you have been hinting at for several weeks. The woman mitigates the dreaded casual next by respecting his boundaries and that respect is just another form, if not the core, of submission.
I’m no biblical scholar but this is spelled out nicely in the Book of Ruth.
#314 “The woman mitigates the dreaded casual next by respecting his boundaries and that respect is just another form, if not the core, of submission.” I think so. The Danger has to be credible.
Eve wanted Adam to be badder.
@ Badpainter
That seems like a good summation. The point is that actions have consequences.
@ jf12
Adam would’ve been “badass” if he just threw the apple right back at her, and he would’ve done the right thing too.
@ Deep Strength,
Enjoy reading your comments a lot; going to check your blog out.
It has turned into an interesting line of discussion.
Regarding female submission…I agree with most points, but would throw in a bit of caution, fwiw. I think it’s important for a man to lead by example there (be the leader, IOW). If he’s the leader in the relationship, the woman will take a supporting/submissive role if there’s sufficient polarity (the masculine/feminine dichotomy).
I wouldn’t mention submission much in the context of a relationship. Demanding submission is a little like demanding respect…once you demand it, you’re on losing ground. I’ve been a submissive wife for over 20 years and never thought of myself on those terms until about a year ago, after personal reflection (with a lot of newly free time on my hands and having formed a sort of manosphere-perusal OCD…it has been interesting reading about why our relationship works so well when I’ve never see it placed in those terms. Before this I would have said, “It has worked for 20 years and 18 moves because we’re nuts about each other! Duh!” I know now the equation is a bit more complicated).
@ Starlight
Thanks.
@ Everyone
Enjoyed the debating. It gave me a lot of clarity for the intent and purpose of my blog, so I thank you all and God for that.
I’ll respectfully bow out now… at least until the next great game debate resurfaces again, haha.
#319 “If he’s the leader in the relationship, the woman will take a supporting/submissive role” Nope, not necessarily. “if there’s sufficient polarity (the masculine/feminine dichotomy)” assuming what you are trying to prove.
Biblical authority comes from the one in charge being LET to serve by submitting one. It’s all dependent on the submission, and nothing else.
The Biblical headship of the man over the woman is based on the temporal order (1 Tim 2:13). Basically, men have tenure. Men are closer to the ground of being, being stronger vessels made of thicker older clay. In a word, men are supposed to have more of the world in them than women, and women need more isolation from the world.
“It’s all dependent on the submission, and nothing else.”
So much for all those books on leadership. It’s all about following, and nothing else.
#323 yes you are correct (Matthew 20:26-27 etc). Leadership is nothing else except PROPER serving. The follower LETS the leader serve. How is it people claim to not know this?
#324: “The follower LETS the leader serve. How is it people claim to not know this?”
Must have something to do with free will, and all that.
#325 Yes! That is why followership is the key.
Leadership and followership are a symbiotic relationship. The leader inspires the followers to follow, and the followers consent to be lead because the leader has the trust and respect of the follower to exercise authority.
The other option is managers and followers where managers are default leaders coercing compliance by virtue of the negative consequences of rigid and orthodox rules and policies that bestow authority to a manager solely by virtue of rank.
[…] deti: The Great Game Debate, Again […]
Liz
The manosphere reminds me a bit of the maquisards in France during WWII.
Or maybe just Rick’s Bar in Casablanca…
#329
“Leadership and followership are a symbiotic relationship. The leader inspires the followers to follow, and the followers consent to be lead because the leader has the trust and respect of the follower to exercise authority.
The other option is managers and followers where managers are default leaders coercing compliance by virtue of the negative consequences of rigid and orthodox rules and policies that bestow authority to a manager solely by virtue of rank.”
I think the same. Lemmings make very poor associates, even worse companions and people are far more complex than that. Morale is to the physical as three is to one, as Napoleon would say. If anything he understated things.
There’s a reason Caesar said, “I am more afraid of an army of 100 sheep led by a lion than an army of 100 lions led by a lamb.”
#327 “the followers consent” when the followers are rational and not driven by ephemeral feeewings. But most women are best described as not rational followers.
Followers consent is actually more crucial when the followers are driven by ephemeral feewings, than not. Leadership style would be an irrelevancy to a robot.
#332 I see I said it too tersely. I’ll try to unpack. Rational followers will consent to leaders who have previously earned the trust and respect of rational followers. But if driven by ephemeral feelings, then they will often not follow those whom they should follow, and may indeed follow those whom they should not follow.
#333
Fair enough. That’s a very good point.
@333
Irrational followers are fairly easy to deal with. You as leader need have defined the goals so your only concern is executing the plan to achieve those goals. Your followers only need understand their role and the goal.
To get irrational followers to follow is all about emotional manipulation. Either the careful application of terror, or excess praise are the best tools. If necessary create small dramas that create doubt and insecurity in the mind of the follower. Be the diplomat that solves these dramas.
Play the followers against one another. Praise individuals to the heavens for following the way you want them to follow and for achieving desired results. Condemn failure in the harshest terms but leave it a mystery as to who exactly failed. Make an ally of the asshole of the group and you get him to do the dirty work. Make an ally of the funny guy and use him to keep the asshole in line.
Co-opt the leader of the loyal opposition. Set him up to fail every so often and be there to correct the mistakes. Apologize to the group for allowing him to act with autonomy.
Be ever willing to trade the stick for a claw hammer. If you need to show anger let there be a credible threat of physical violence. Otherwise don’t show anger, simply show dissappointment, and imply you’ve lost faith in the competence of the follower. Keep carrots of all variety of sizes, hand out small ones regularly and for no purpose other to show benevelence.
When you have success dedicate half the praise to the group and half to those members individually who were key to that success. When there are failures take 50% of the blame personally and publicly , make it sound like your fault was placing to much trust in the group. Give the remaining blame to the entire group and let them sort out who amongst them deserves it individually.
Treat it like a game and play to win. Remember it’s not how you play the game it’s whether you win or lose.
#335 almost a mathematical derivation of game.
jf12,
That’s something I hadn’t considered before. So I’ve been running some form of game most of my life but never intentionally on women for mating purposes. That kinda sucks.
#337 yeah. When I started studying this stuff, having to read some things twice (especially some of Rollo’s), what really dealt a low blow to my nads was the realization that many of the males I’ve surrounded myself in my life were my beta orbiters, sort of like kid brothers.
Deti,
You wrote,
“I’m not convinced that the problem with naturals is that they think…”
Etc.
Very good, cogent comment. I think this was the most clear explication of your push back I have read yet.
You and Anonymous Reader are correct = *of course* everyone needs a foundation to have any sort of success worth measuring! *OF course* we must all learn from instructors. I have never disputed this.
Hell, don’t I keep listing books and groups to learn from? I host dances for kids; I give lectures; *I’m writing a book*!
Obviously my point is not ‘[just be yourself’.
Obviously my issue is NOT ‘people need to learn from outside sources’.
Obviously my problem is not ‘some folks need step-by-step instructions’.
No. My point, my problems have always been – “game” is terrible at teaching the core skills of authentic self-confidence, conversational skills, and mature behavior, and; the core theories underlying “game” [male hierarchy and female action] are obviously false.
That’s it.
Aquinas Dad 339:
You referred back to my comment at 41. There I said that you can’t just take any boy and say “just go ask a girl to dance”. You have to teach him first. He’s got to get a skill, get good at something. He has to learn about female nature and response. He has to learn about rejection, IOIs, IODs, body language, how not to come off as a weirdo or a creep or a jerk, how to walk away from rejection.
Game teaches all this. Self improvement, inner development, mindset, frame. I disagree that Game doesn’t teach this thoroughly or authentically. Perhaps in some men it doesn’t. but in some men it can, and does, and in any event is better than nothing.
Ideally, men should be learning this from their older brothers, dads, uncles, and other men around them. They aren’t, and they don’t, for all the reasons we all know about – feminism. The public school system run by women for women and girls. Churches, thoroughly feminized and with the few real men there saying “not my problem”. Workplaces, ruined by feminism and sexual “harassment” laws. Absent fathers because of death or divorce. Emasculated fathers. Who is teaching these men? Anyone? If they didn’t learn it as boys they MUST learn it as men.
Contrary to what some naysayers claim. Game doesn’t advertise itself as a panacea or a cure all. It doesn’t say that you’ll get any girl you want, or promise that he’ll get to have sex with any girl he wants. It doesn’t say you can save your marriage with it. I do believe, and it does appear, that learning Game and the masculinity it teaches (or at least getting men to recover their lost masculinity) increases the chances of a man being more attractive and increases the chances that a man can save his marriage.
I don’t agree that the “theories” underlying game are obviously false. Some men are more masculine than others. Some women are more feminine than others. I don’t agree that “alpha” is “men who get laid”. I’m about men increasing their options and not being subject to feminine whim and fancy. I’m about men learning masculinity in our time, and what will help them NOW, in the situation they live in NOW, not in some bygone era or in some tiny religious enclave. While the world waits for you to finish your observations and write your book, I’m about helping the man who has no one else helping him, whose mother ripped his father from him. I ‘m about helping the man whose own father either could not or would not help him, because his own father was completely warped and twisted by feminism.
[…] The great game debate again. Related: Christians and game. Related: Defining game. […]
“The most attractive women are available only outside marriage, and only to the men who can do and be what Game teaches a man.”
I call “Bullshit.” I married a 10 new in the box and I’m autistic.
I always operated out of the friend zone with no problems. I’d generate lots of nice guy comfort with women I might be interested in pursuing in the future, then tease them when I was ready to pursue them and they’d reevaluate my SMV and OkeeDokee!
I got pursued and still get pursued a lot. I’m a natural, I guess. Never had to try hard. Wasn’t a jock or musician or rich guy. Just an average guy, but very intelligent. Didn’t have a super body, but was lean. Average height. Average voice. Looks around 8 per my wife.
I’d just 1. generate nice guy comfort (get a girl one-on-one talking about herself), 2 tease her, iterate 1&2, isolate (go outside), hold hands, walk and talk, stop and talk, holding eye contact, go for the kiss, then escalate from there. Same day/night, no dating. I didn’t sexualize the convo. Eye contact did a lot of that, now that I think about it. Eye game, lol.
Once I skipped all escalation (holding hands but no kiss) and flat out asked a 9 (who was a friend and engaged) for sex and she said, “OkeeDokee.”
I think that sexualizing the convo brings ASD online and that generating comfort by getting a girl to talk about herself (invest!) a lot is key and helps defeat ASD. You also need to tease her _appropriately_ (this needs to be learned by trying it) in order to get her interested in you. Teasing requires touching emotionally-sensitive spots and therefore requires sensitivity and finesse. Then move to hand-holding while walking and talking, stop for talking close while holding eye contact, then approach for a kiss. Move to kissing face and neck. When she gives vocal signals (moans, sighs) and her eyes liquefy/lose focus, escalate, Easy. That’s my natural game. Don’t say that naturals aren’t helpful.
#342 fine description of game, especially step by step escalation.
@Morpheus
“It is hard for them to state specifics because I don’t think they ever really deconstructed and systematized their successes.”
You “just get it!” lol I’m in the process of examining my own behavior towards women to see what I do. My PUA activity was mostly in the context of parties; several were friends; several were daygame. All except my Fling were same day/night. Rejections were exceedingly few (LMR was a problem for me, though) and ASD was massive because of the prevalence of slut-shaming decades ago. There were no cellphones. I did go on dates with a few women, but my mindset on dates wasn’t PUA–it was romantic, not aiming primarily for sex; therefore I collected a few phone nos., but they didn’t affect my PUA activity. All my experience occurred decades ago, but I think that the principles of attraction are still the same.
I can’t say that I did all the work. My Fling determined the logistics. My college gf was persistent in catching my gaze in order to get me to kiss her on our first date where we studied together (sitting in facing chairs separated about ten ft.). I kept not recognizing the signal, lol. Apparently, she was Down To Kiss upon meeting me. I just realized that.
Yeah, I didn’t have a gf until I was a senior in college. I was pretty much a zero as relationships go until my college gf. Then I met my future wife shortly after my college gf broke up with me. I’m still learning about relationships.
@Jen
“OK, so you guys hate women because you’re not getting what you want from them.”
Not me, babe. I’ve always been a fan of the feminine.
Of the feminist, not so much. P
And you’re here because you like conversational, emotional, and mental wrestling with men (and I’m sure physical wrestling, too [smirk]) and you are seeking validation. That’s cool–shows you’re a woman. Doubtless you also find the ideas discussed to be interesting and want to hear men answer your observations. Women seek drama–though it seems like you also like discussing stuff that men like, too (your mind seems a tad masculine–women with strong minds have always been interesting…).
“I just don’t see how game or “red pill” or anything else is going to add anything more to your life save for maybe making it easier to have short-term flings or one nighters with women who you despise for having them with you.”
I’m allergic to skanks and ONS. Game can help marriages–I used Dread to put an end to my wife’s sex strike. She’s happier, I’m happier, saved my marriage, kept my vows: Win/Win/Win/Win.
Has there ever been a J4G meetup? There are a lot of interesting commenters here. I’m DTM (Down To Meetup).
There’s a commenter named Mike T at Zippy Catholic’s blog. He left this comment there today that nicely encapsulates the very problem with today’s Church and the formation of its men.
Here’s Mike T (no link). I’ve added a few things for context and clarity:
“There’s also the fact that the type of traditionalists represented by Aquinas Dad and [commenter named The Unreal Woman] simply have no credibility. They may as individuals have balanced and proper masculinity/femininity, but the fact is that traditionalists are often no better than mainstream society. Much of this is due to the unwillingness of traditionalists to tell their sons to adapt their traditionalism to society. Case in point, all of the traditionalists who will acknowledge that chivalry is dead and train their sons to be chivalrous toward women who are decidedly not “chivalric ladies.” So when their sons get used and declare “this is bull#$%^” because it leads them to a lower social rank, to be used and see the PUAs and other scumbags cleaning up it’s only human for such young men to not care if there is a baby in the bath water.
“A few months ago, I posted a link to a [What’s Wrong with the World] thread where Jeff Culbreath (the guy who comments as “blogmaster” here from time to time) all but said that a man, including a married man, should risk his life to not severely harm or kill a crazy, well-armed woman intending to maim or murder him. He should “protect her honor” as though such a person has any honor to protect in the first place. Sadly, while this may be a tad more extreme than most tradcons, it is well within the sphere of their general attitude of training young men.
“The tradcon masculinity program is quite defective in its own right, so let’s not kid ourselves. There is a strong element of “pick your poison” at work here.
“I’m personally under no illusion that PUAs are the only source or even the objectively best source. However, I would say that for young men as a group (a group that is primarily not Christian) they are one of the few groups that doesn’t do a bait and switch. Even the military will teach you to be a situational manly man only to suddenly adopt a stance on gender relations eerily similar to a hard-left campus life program. In mainstream society, it is probably the best that young men have.
“(I’ll also add in passing that if you, as a married man, have a disordered house, rebellious wife, etc. you are not in a legitimate position of teaching authority on how to have a married–as opposed to how not to have one. Even the Bible requires married Christian leaders to have their households in order and their #$%^ together before they’re allowed to have anything to say on such matters)”
(Feeling “the BURN” is generally a good thing, but not extreme pain. I recognize that for some people this
is often a problem. Even though you are holding very heavy weights, it is a very safe form of exercise
because you are holding the weight in the safest
range of motion.
Review my homepage get lean and build muscle
cor, the basic purpose of these coverings is also fulfilled.
The buyers quickly learn that they need to be looking for a home in a less expensive neighborhood or increase their budget price.
It is very important that you do this because you can get in a lot of trouble if you do not.
My webpage conservatory flooring
I can’t fathom why there is a huge amount of professionals and SEO masters who spread misinformation
Had to add you to my reading bookmarks, keep up the good work!
Hello, i think that i noticed you visited my weblog thus i came to return the desire?.I
am trying to to find things to enhance my web site!I guess its ok to use a few of your ideas!!