Matthew 12:30 and making a virtue of sexual amorality

April 7, 2014 § 15 Comments

I would suggest that “self-consciously amoral tools for increasing the sexual attractiveness of a woman for whatever her purposes happen to be” is a pretty good conceptualization of slutty behavior.

Amoral indeed.  As if Christians should be out there promoting and celebrating sexual amorality.

§ 15 Responses to Matthew 12:30 and making a virtue of sexual amorality

  • Mike T says:

    Then your imagination is severely warped because the vernacular definition of slut is a woman defined by sexually loose behavior or giving the appearance thereof, not a woman who merely wants to make herself sexually desirable.

  • Zippy says:

    It is soooooo difficult to tell the difference between chaste behavior and slutty behavior. The alternative to bikinis is burkas.

  • aquinasdad says:

    I am not sure where to drop this for you, Zippy. Please delete this if it is troublesome.
    Dalrock, Deti, etc. are furious that women might *deceive men* to increase their MMV!

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/rolling-back-the-odometer/

    I just posted to ask how that is different from using “game” to artifically inflate a man’s SMV/MMV.
    Here we see it again: people who embrace “game” ADVOCATE that men deceive women for sex, ‘social dominance’, etc.
    But if a woman deceives a man! Oh, the HUMANITY!

  • Zippy says:

    Faking virginity and downplaying N seem like straightforward girl game.

  • johnmcg says:

    I think the rage from the manosphere derives from the cultural assumption that women are in general blameless in their relationships with men, that every action they take is ordered toward strengthening the relationship, and that if men want better relationships, they should emulate women.

    And here, we have an example of women being deceitful, and we’re shocked.

    Part of what Dalrock and Deti are doing is popping this bubble. But it’s probably worth wondering whether this is still necessary for their readers, or if they’e just fueling rage.

  • aquinasdad says:

    John,
    If they are all “red pilled” and “grasp reality, unlike naturals, tradcons, and all others Who Shall Be Ignored” why would they feel anger and why would they need to point it out? Isn’t the essence of “red pill thinking” understanding that men and women are different, that the world is unfair, and accepting those things?
    As Zippy pointed out (and as the commentors tacitly acknowledge) this is rage over “game” being used on men

  • johnmcg says:

    ad,

    Well, it’s the same reason people listen to talk radio, read blogs from people they already agree with, watch ideologically slanted cable news networks, etc.

    And I guess there is occasional use for “firing up the troops” and reminding them “why we fight.”

    But, I think there may be diminishing returns.

  • Mike T says:

    Because social dominance is inherently based on perception, whereas virginity and n-count are in fact real things based upon choices a woman has made that cannot be wished away or explained away as cultural phenomenon. Therefore as long as a man does not lie or practice deception, he has not sinned against her. Whereas a woman who lies to her husband about the number of men she’s had has in fact committed a real sin (several actually).

    But then we are to believe that manipulation is just a synonym for deception. So I guess every mother who coaxes her child into good behavior by offering them a reward to behave is listening to the father of lies.

  • Mike T says:

    Even if you think game is a lie straight out of the pit of hell, you have to acknowledge that it does teach men many things about projecting a perception of social dominance that does not have anything to do with deception. Body language, assertiveness, erring on the side of confidence and such are not violations of any divine or natural law. Unless of course perhaps you believe that those who aren’t “naturals” should continue to use overtly weak, submissive postures, be meek and deferential toward everyone and constantly engage in self-doubt and self-deprecation because the Lord didn’t bless them with the strong body language, confidence and assertiveness of “naturals.”

    Nope those nerdy, socially inept men should just know their place and not even try to fake until they make it. Indeed, we’re all Calvinists now.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    Nope those nerdy, socially inept men should just know their place and not even try to fake until they make it. Indeed, we’re all Calvinists now.

    Game isn’t the opposite of social ineptitude, though, any more than sluttiness is the opposite of social ineptitude.

    The thing that Game nominalists keep putting tremendous effort into is avoiding the specific difference between social competence in general and Game in specific, despite the fact that their own actions — where they link, who they cite, the language they use, their whole way of thinking about things, what they get all defensive about, dismissiveness e.g. that critics are “getting the vapors”, etc — their own actions continually call out that specific difference. If Game really were just social competence completely dissociated from male inchastity then Christians who support Game would not themselves continuously and deliberately associate it with PUA/etc by adopting the labels of PUA, linking to PUA, etc.

    But they do. Watch what people say and do in general, in addition to their positively expressed positions, and you can see that Game is not merely social competence, and in fact the specific difference between social competence in general and Game in specific is male inchastity.

  • aquinasdad says:

    As I keep asking Nick B Steves – why would a moral man look to the immoral methods of immoral men for advice?
    Let me repeat, again! my objections to “game”
    -Those things unique to “game” are demonstrably false
    -Those things not unique to “game” are done better by other systems/groups are are older, more proven, more effective, and freely available.
    You want to learn positive body language? Ziglar has been teaching that formally for 40 years with proven results in everything from personal life to sales. Verbal confidence? Carnegie has been teaching that for 70+ years with great, proven, success. Confidence in groups? Every serious town has a Toastmasters that has practical steps *and exercises and real-life events* to teach you that; they have been doing it for decades and they have proven it works.
    You know what I find most instructive? Like Zippy, I note that proponents of “game” just dismiss these long-extant, proven resources. Why?
    Because they aren’t “game”; i.e., they aren’t from PUAs.
    Seriously – Deti is *the* example of this. When told that you can sign up for (literally) years of classes and seminars and exercises on everything from body language to dress to conversation to public speaking what is his reply?
    Either ‘oh, ‘just get it” or ‘You are stuck in 1951′. Or, when up against the wall, ‘they don’t teach masculinity’.
    Back to the point at hand: “game” is EXPLICITLY about deceit. Don’t forget, I’ve read the books and the blogs of the PUAs. Lie about your past; lie about your employment; lie about your level of interest; refuse to answer direct questions; refuse to reassure; lie about your level of experience; etc.
    How much you wanna’ bet a lot of those Tunisian women aren’t “actively lying” but simply not saying they have a high N? I bet most of them aren’t saying “I am a virigin” but rather “evading a shit test” but not really answering the question.

  • Zippy says:

    AD:

    You know what I find most instructive? Like Zippy, I note that proponents of “game” just dismiss these long-extant, proven resources. Why?
    Because they aren’t “game”; i.e., they aren’t from PUAs.

    Right. You have to watch what people do and say in general, not just read their formal positions. The specific things that those other sources don’t teach is unchaste techniques.

  • aquinasdad says:

    Zippy,
    Said much more economically than I. Yes, what is the term I keep seeing used? ‘Those methods ignore the reality of modern SMV/MMV’ or something like that? Which means, of course, ‘Sure, Ziglar and Carnegie work great but they aren’t focused on getting you *laid*’.

  • […] things that nobody else teaches, so that men who want to learn these things specifically have nowhere else to go other than pickup artists.  That means that what Game teaches must have a specific difference from what it has been […]

  • sunshinemary says:

    Even if you think game is a lie straight out of the pit of hell, you have to acknowledge that it does teach men many things about projecting a perception of social dominance that does not have anything to do with deception.

    I don’t know. It seems like it teaches these things for the purpose of deception, and that the purpose of that deception is unchastity. Just go look at CH’s post from today and play a little fill in the blank game.

    “Cold reads like Keychain Game fall into this category, as does any _____ which implicitly recognizes a girl’s natural solipsism and entrancement with her own uniqueness.”

    What is that missing word?

    Straight from the horse’s mouth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Matthew 12:30 and making a virtue of sexual amorality at Zippy Catholic.

meta

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 174 other followers