When you give a slut a cookie …

January 15, 2014 § 73 Comments

Part of the reason that objectively understanding the math of getting lucky with Game (HT Aquinas Dad) is important is because many Christian men seem to have bought into the idea that pickup artists are woman-savvy high value “alpha” men, as opposed to the low value dirt bags and sexual garbage collectors they tend most often to be when viewed in an objective light.

Game (understood as the pickup artist’s toolkit specifically) is actually pretty lousy in terms of effectiveness, right on par with placebo.  Doing something (and learning from the experience, and being persistent, and building confidence) is far better than doing nothing; but once you extract taking action at all, persistence, confidence, and learning through experience from the equation, the part of Game that is left over (that is, Game itself) – at least according to the “best of the best” PUA themselves – doesn’t do much for your percentages.  That’s why PUA have to “make it up in volume“: the advice is always to approach, next, approach, next, approach, next, and invest as little as possible in any one woman. This is integral to Game, and as an explanatory matter it clearly accounts for most of the “success” seen with Game.

Nevertheless, many Christian men appear to have bought into the idea that a cad who beds many women (who has picked many four leaf clovers) is a high-value “alpha male”.  This is because, as Lawrence Auster once observed,

Roissyism, as everyone knows, consists of techniques to manipulate the emotions of liberal women. What is less appreciated is that Roissyism also consists of techniques to manipulate the minds of conservative men.

This lionization of the cad as a “high value alpha male” is encouragement and consolation to the sluts who sleep with him. The fact that the man she jumped into bed with is seen as high value by other men is part of the reward. Sure, she may have degraded herself in the eyes of men whose burning judgment she cannot stand and which leads her on to public expression of outrage. But at the same time she receives affirmation from the fact that according to many of today’s commenters she bagged King Solomon (content warning) not Leisure Suit Larry.

There weren’t many cultural advantages to growing up in the 1970’s, I have to say.  But one that I rather wryly appreciate now is that at least we knew a low value dirt bag loser when we saw one, and the fact that he’d slept with enough women (of one sort or another) to contract gonorrhea didn’t change the evaluation.

§ 73 Responses to When you give a slut a cookie …

  • Dalrock says:

    Which concepts/techniques of Game are you asserting are wrong? The neg? The fitness test? Peacocking? The concepts of attraction vs comfort (which I explained in Romance 101)? The premise that women find men who are leading them more sexually attractive? Women’s general attraction to dark triad traits?

  • Zippy says:

    I defined Game in the OP: “…once you extract taking action at all, persistence, confidence, and learning through experience from the equation, the part of Game that is left over (that is, Game itself) …”

    Game includes all the helpful things that Christians just can’t learn about women without pedestalizing PUAs.

    Presumably PUAs cannot be credited with the ideas of taking action, being persistent, showing confidence, and learning through experience. (Or with the idea of leading women and not putting up with crap from them, for that matter).

    I’m not the one asserting that the quantitative success rates of Game are low. That comes right from PUAs themselves (see the previous two posts).

  • Elspeth says:

    Like.

  • deti says:

    The only people telling men to take action, be persistent, have confidence, and learn through experience are those in the manosphere and surrounding environs.

    It would seem the ability to identify and deflect fitness tests is useful.

    The neg (light playful teasing) is useful.

  • anonymous_ng says:

    Game: treating random women you’ve never met before, like you’ve been sleeping with them for months.

  • johnmcg says:

    The only people telling men to take action, be persistent, have confidence, and learn through experience are those in the manosphere and surrounding environs.

    I guess this is a form of:

    1. Something must be done about this!
    2. is something.
    3. We must do !

    And I guess this is why I have the sense that some aspects of the manosphere have a lot in common structurally with feminism.

    Feminism has a host of negative consequences that have been well documented both here and elsewhere. But it was a response to a systems that was at least perceived as unjust, and because of that, many are blind to its failures. So the choice is either keep the current regime or back to women being treated as chattel.

    I see some of that same attitude here. Is Game just or moral? Doesn’t matter! If you don’t want to be a whipped beta orbiter, it’s the only game in town!

    Now, those who are critical of Game do have a responsibility to build and point to something better, and I admit that my own efforts in this regard have been quite lacking. But part of that will be teasing the wheat from the chaff.

  • deti says:

    where are men supposed to learn to “take action, be persistent, have confidence, and learn from experience” when

    1. Their fathers are penalized if they try to teach their sons (that is, if their fathers are even allowed to interact with their sons)

    2. Their fathers have been thrown out of the house

    3. Their fathers are themselves beaten down feminized men

    4. They attend schools which penalize traditional masculinity

    5. They work jobs which penalize traditional masculinity

    6. There are no churches with men who understand or know traditional masculinity

    7. No men are able or willing to mentor them in traditional masculinity

    8. They are married to women who penalize and complain about traditional masculinity and threaten divorce at the drop of a hat

  • deti says:

    “Now, those who are critical of Game do have a responsibility to build and point to something better,and I admit that my own efforts in this regard have been quite lacking. But part of that will be teasing the wheat from the chaff.”

    No one is expecting you to do anything to fix this, johnmcg. It’s good, however, to at least see the admission that folks like you, well meaning though you may be, either cannot or will not do anything about it.

    Folks like you keep telling us there’s “something better”, but never seem to be able to tell us what it is, how to learn it, or where it can be learned without threatening one’s life or livelihood.

  • Zippy says:

    Keep the arguments coming explaining why we should reward sluts by pedestalizing PUA.

  • deti says:

    If you want to change this, you shame sluts and dissuade sluthood.

    We will always have PUAs, whether anyone pedestalizes them or not. They don’t care what you or I think about them. PUAs gonna PU, no matter what you or I think, say or do.

    So… Where else can we learn to “take action, be persistent, have confidence, and learn from experience”? I’ve been waiting a couple of years for “something better”.

  • Zippy says:

    deti:
    They don’t care what you or I think about them. PUAs gonna PU, no matter what you or I think, say or do.

    This response demonstrates that you completely missed the point of the post. Sailed right over your head. Put down your talking points before you hurt yourself.

  • deti says:

    “This response demonstrates that you completely missed the point of the post.”

    *Shrugs*

    You can’t change this by shame sluts through telling them the guys they find so attractive are in fact losers and thereby removing their “bragging rights”; because that’s not what their tingles are telling them.

    “she receives affirmation from the fact that according to many of today’s commenters she bagged King Solomon (content warning) not Leisure Suit Larry.”

    Your solution is to have niceguys shame players? Good luck with that.

  • Dalrock says:

    I take it from your response that your true point isn’t about the concepts/techniques of Game, but regarding PUAs themselves.

    This lionization of the cad as a “high value alpha male” is encouragement and consolation to the sluts who sleep with him. The fact that the man she jumped into bed with is seen as high value by other men is part of the reward.

    This frames the problem as one where sluts are fornicating with the wrong sort of men, but this isn’t the problem at all. Getting sluts to fornicate with good guy betas instead of cads isn’t the solution. Cads have a built in advantage in the fornication game. They will always be better at it, and sluts will always prefer to fornicate with cads over fornicating with betas. However, betas have the natural advantage in the marriage game. If you want to give good men the advantage over cads, switch the competition from one of fornication to marriage.

  • Funny, it worked in the past well enough. Shame is effective on men, too. Witness how Game fans respond to being told their idol is brass, not gold.

  • Zippy says:

    deti:
    Your comments are filled with the incomprehension and asininity I’ve come to expect from you, and responding to them point by point is an active waste of time. Go away.

  • Zippy says:

    Dalrock:
    This frames the problem as one where sluts are fornicating with the wrong sort of men, …

    No it doesn’t. I’m adamantly opposed to fornication always, so if that is where your interpretation leads you there is something wrong with your interpretation.

  • johnmcg says:

    Might I suggest that perhaps the first step in learning to “take action, be persistent, have confidence, and learn from experience” may be to do it oneself and not be dependent on others telling you how?

    I don’t see where zippy is trying to encourage sluts to fornicate with betas instead. I think he is saying that by lionizing PUA’s, we are feeding the rationalization hamster. Yes, I may have slept around, but at least I did it with a man held in high esteem by other men, not a pathetic bottom-feeder.

    I’m not sure how powerful this effect is on women’s behavior.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    This frames the problem as one where sluts are fornicating with the wrong sort of men, but this isn’t the problem at all. Getting sluts to fornicate with good guy betas instead of cads isn’t the solution.

    Bingo.

    However, betas have the natural advantage in the marriage game.

    I don’t know if I agree. “should have the natural advantage” might be more true.

    Regardless, that’s beside the point. You are the only one I know saying what I just quoted, and you do not self-identify as a Game writer. In fact you often demure from the title.

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:
    You guys are ludicrous. Nowhere have I suggested that sluts should fornicate with betas or whatever. That interpretation of my words is manifestly ridiculous.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    Nowhere have I suggested that sluts should fornicate with betas or whatever.

    Touché. I made a hasty assumption based upon the tenor set by the phrase “get lucky”.

  • sunshinemary says:

    This lionization of the cad as a “high value alpha male” is encouragement and consolation to the sluts who sleep with him. The fact that the man she jumped into bed with is seen as high value by other men is part of the reward.

    Dalrock has written about slut-shaming being more efficacious than cad-shaming. That is true because because cads probably won’t stop tom-catting around even if you shame them.

    However, the way in which cad-shaming would be effective is in reducing the cad’s value in the slut’s eyes. For this to be effective, the shaming would need to NOT portray the cad as a bad-boy rebel because sluts dig the bad-boys. Rather, effective cad-shaming would need to make the cad out to be like some kind of foul pervert only a step or two above a pedophile. Women are very sensitive to status issues; sluts will sleep with a cad who is esteemed by other men, but if he has a pervy garbage-collector reputation, women will NOT want to be seen with him.

    But our entire culture exalts cads, so it’s not like Christian men could have much influence on this.

  • Zippy says:

    Sunshine:
    The first step is acknowledging that, objectively, cads are in fact garbage-collecting trashy pervs only a step or two above a pedophile. Forget about marketing: let’s just tell the objective truth about the product.

  • Chris says:

    So, Zippy, can we bring back that good sport of physically removing any such cads from polite company, thrashing them when needed?

    (I am only half in jest: the priests and magistrates modified these reactions so people were not always tarred and feathered or run out of town on a rail.) But knowing that was the consequences of tomcatting did modify behaviour.

  • […] The first step is acknowledging that, objectively, cads are in fact garbage-collecting trashy pervs only a step or two above a pedophile. Forget about marketing: let’s just tell the objective truth about the product. […]

  • Dalrock says:

    @Cane
    I don’t know if I agree. “should have the natural advantage” might be more true.

    I think I get where you are coming from. Overall though a marriage based system is to the advantage to betas, and a fornication based system is to the advantage of cads. Either way, the fundamental problem isn’t that women are attracted to cads, but that they are in the fornication market at all. Laughing at women who set out to be banged by Tom Brady and ended up getting banged by Mystery instead misses the whole point. The problem isn’t that she needs to learn to hook up smart.

  • Zippy says:

    Dalrock:
    Your Gilligan post remains a classic that cuts through thick layers of BS, and I don’t know how you can even stomach reading stuff like Hooking Up Smart. Building a better slut is certainly not the way to go.

    But I think you may have thrown out some baby with the bathwater, and it has to do with the fact that women don’t generally come by their self-esteem directly the way men do. They come by their self-esteem through their men. So perpetuating the myth that the men sluts are sleeping with are high-value, as opposed to the bottom-feeding perverts that they really are, is rewarding the sluts.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Zippy
    But I think you may have thrown out some baby with the bathwater, and it has to do with the fact that women don’t generally come by their self-esteem directly the way men do. They come by their self-esteem through their men. So perpetuating the myth that the men sluts are sleeping with are high-value, as opposed to the bottom-feeding perverts that they really are, is rewarding the sluts.

    But the fundamental problem isn’t which men they are choosing sexually, it is how they are acting sexually. If a woman marries Tom Brady she isn’t being a slut, and I’m not going to tell her that her husband is a bottom feeding pervert. I do however warn women (to the extent that they will listen) that marrying a promiscuous man is generally very unwise. But to the extent that women don’t listen and marry such men, they aren’t being sluts and I’m not going to laugh at them or single them out. Nor do I feel the need to mount a campaign to change women’s tastes in husbands, so long as the women honor their vows.

  • Zippy says:

    Dalrock:
    I guess I’m not buying the idea that “which men” and “what behaviors” are separable. There is a reason Pamela Anderson “married” Tommy Lee.

  • Silly Interloper says:

    Cads are not all the same. Shaming individually will have varied results, and shaming in general will have some results. Especially those who are most prone to transition can be affected by the presence or absence of shaming, and by the perceived range of acceptance or rejection of cads. So it can affect the growth or shrinkage of the cad population. Yes, today cads have a great advantage in numbers, but shaming works.

    Sure, any given cad, especially with his dog friends behind him, will laugh at being shamed. But that’s because he is an undomesticated dog, and he’s too immersed in his own stink to imagine he is actually a human being.

  • Zippy says:

    Silly:
    One thing Dalrock has correctly pointed out though is that getting one cad to drop out just leaves more sluts for the remaining cads. Once sexual morality has gone out the window one man can juggle multiple women. The ratio isn’t infinitely expandable but as a practical matter when one cad drops out the remaining cads cheer.

    What Dalrock has left out of his analysis is the effect that high-fiving the cads (perhaps while wearing a latex glove) has on women’s perceptions of “hooking up” in general.

    Plus, setting aside the microeconomic analysis, it happens to be true that cads are generally bottom-feeding perverts.

  • sunshinemary says:

    When men lionize cads, it creates more sluts because, as Zippy very correctly noted, women come by their self-esteem through their men. Truly, women get a big status bump in the female herd by being married to (or even just sleeping with) a man who is esteemed by other men. And having more sluts then creates more cads (or cad-wannabes) because other men see the cads getting all the women. It’s a vicious circle.

    cads are generally bottom-feeding perverts.

    Straight faggots, maybe?

  • Dalrock says:

    @Zippy
    I guess I’m not buying the idea that “which men” and “what behaviors” are separable. There is a reason Pamela Anderson “married” Tommy Lee.

    I agree that the two questions aren’t entirely separate, and this was a point I made upthread. Tommy Lee however is exactly the kind of example which I think Cane had in mind with his objection to this. Tommy Lee in his prime was extremely attractive to large groups of women, from sluts to good Christian women. The solution isn’t to make women not attracted to rock stars, or to make them not attracted to men who have learned to mimic rock stars. The problem isn’t that women want to bang men would be willing to bang them. The problem is in our sexual culture, a culture where the average woman is in the “sexual marketplace” for a decade before marriage, and where marriage is as often as not just one stepping stone on the path of serial monogamy. Call the men these women are having sex with during that decade before marriage and the years after divorce whatever you want; it doesn’t matter.

  • Zippy says:

    I probably shouldn’t have used a celebrity example precisely because doing so buys into Cane’s apex-fallacy-centered frame shift. We might even say, referencing for example Tom Brady, that Not All Cads Are Like That.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Zippy
    I probably shouldn’t have used a celebrity example precisely because doing so buys into Cane’s apex-fallacy-centered frame shift. We might even say, referencing for example Tom Brady, that Not All Cads Are Like That.

    So is the concern that women are fornicating with fakers instead of the real deal? If not, why the focus on Game and deemphasis on “naturals”?

    What Dalrock has left out of his analysis is the effect that high-fiving the cads (perhaps while wearing a latex glove) has on women’s perceptions of “hooking up” in general.

    I’m not impressed by notch count, nor am I impressed by women who manage to become one of the notches. I wrote a few satirical pieces on this early on, but I just don’t see it as a productive avenue. I’m a beta man telling women to avoid alphas; it didn’t work any better when I started blogging than when I was in college. The much more important disadvantage to the beta man is the 24/7 onslaught on husbands and fathers; everyone from feminists to Matt Walsh and Mark Driscoll has made this priority number one. Stop tearing down good men, or at least take a day off for fathers day, and we will make a huge difference.

  • Zippy says:

    Dalrock:
    If not, why the focus on Game and deemphasis on “naturals”?

    Because I am addressing what men are teaching each other in the manosphere, and was specifically addressing a fallacy that sprung up in my own comboxes.

    Mind you, men should understand that the groupies who sleep with rock stars are low-value skanks, quite independent of what women think of the rock stars. But that is a distinct issue.

    I’m not impressed by notch count, nor am I impressed by women who manage to become one of the notches.

    I didn’t link to you as an example of someone making math errors about Game or high-fiving perverts though. I linked to a post on your blog where you show how important men’s – all men’s – judgements are to women — and that includes men’s judgement of the value of other men. Heck, if one low-ranking policemen can cause a continental-scale uproar by questioning the practical wisdom of slutty behavior in dangerous contexts it certainly follows that what we think of cads in general has some import, if only to the women in our own lives. I’m not an alpha but I don’t cop to beta either, and I’ve seen the effect that my low opinion of other men (who deserve the low opinion) can have on women, especially young women.

    Plus, again, there is the minor matter of what is objectively true. Men of good will should not be thinking of cads as high-value “alpha” because they generally are not. They are for the most part bottom-feeding perverts, or men who spent large parts of their lives as bottom-feeding perverts and, instead of fully repenting of their long journey through the sexual cesspool, are holding out shingles pretending to have some special gnostic expertise about women.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    I probably shouldn’t have used a celebrity example precisely because doing so buys into Cane’s apex-fallacy-centered frame shift.

    Because women aren’t affected by what is celebrated, right?

    Apex-fallacy-centered frame shift…why, I oughta…

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:
    Because women aren’t affected by what is celebrated, right?

    No, you aren’t wrong about that at all. You are profoundly right about it. But it is a change of subject from what I was talking about.

  • […] are endless for one man; especially compared to a former sexless existence that is a problem in a fornication market. More importantly: Each sexual partner represents many sexual episodes; so an improvement (in Game […]

  • The obsession with trying to tease/salvage “good” out of “Game” is just buying into the sex-centered frame of the World and what the Prince of Lies values.

    It’s all of a piece with “Christian” tantra and the like.

    The sex-centeredness is the problem, the admiration of lowlifes is a side effect.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Zippy
    I didn’t link to you as an example of someone making math errors about Game or high-fiving perverts though. I linked to a post on your blog where you show how important men’s – all men’s – judgements are to women — and that includes men’s judgement of the value of other men. Heck, if one low-ranking policemen can cause a continental-scale uproar by questioning the practical wisdom of slutty behavior in dangerous contexts it certainly follows that what we think of cads in general has some import, if only to the women in our own lives.

    Ok. I better understand your argument then. One of the problems with convincing women that cads/players are low value in an attempt to discourage her having sex with him is the woman’s ability to identify the cad/player prior to having sex with him. My wife encounters this when talking to young women; their definition of “player” is the beta guy who gives them the creeps by telling them how beautiful they are. I see this same pattern on Yahoo Answers. I strongly suspect this is related to the scientific research finding that ovulating women fool themselves into thinking cads would make great dads. Telling women cads are sexual losers plays right into their blind spot, because they already want to peg the sexual losers as the cads, freeing them to pursue “true love” with that really smooth and not at all caddish guy who makes her tingle.

  • Dalrock says:

    @The Unreal Woman
    The sex-centeredness is the problem, the admiration of lowlifes is a side effect.

    Of course sex matters to Christians. Unless you are saying marriage shouldn’t matter to Christians either.

  • Anne says:

    Sunshine Mary said:
    But our entire culture exalts cads, so it’s not like Christian men could have much influence on this.

    To a lesser degree this is true of sluts also. While they may not be exalted to the degree cads are, they certainly have enough more power than chaste women that chaste women are the ones more likely to be shamed (at least in the larger culture).

    Dalrock said:
    Ok. I better understand your argument then. One of the problems with convincing women that cads/players are low value in an attempt to discourage her having sex with him is the woman’s ability to identify the cad/player prior to having sex with him. My wife encounters this when talking to young women; their definition of “player” is the beta guy who gives them the creeps by telling them how beautiful they are.

    I think the solution is that you should shame specific cads that you personally know. This way, you are labeling specifically the objectively creepy guy who gives her tingles, so that she will not want to associate with him, rather than a generic profile that she can misassign to a nice guy. For example, it does little good to shame Mystery in general, since he depends on the girls he meets not knowing that he is a blogger named Mystery who teaches pickup techniques. However, if you know what he looks like, and see him walk into your church, I hope that you would share your knowledge in some appropriate fashion. I know that as a chaste woman, I would appreciate knowing that a particular guy at my church is not the righteous man he puts himself out to be. I suppose if you went further and objectively gave honor and a good reputation to those specific guys who actually are nice guys it might cause them to be seen as higher value?

    This is a test, please ignore this line.

    Line 2 of test.

    [I Put your quotes of other commenters in italics — Z]

  • Zippy says:

    Anne:
    I think the solution is that you should shame specific cads that you personally know.

    And also the ones you encounter on-line, and, more importantly, the moral midgets who treat them as some sort of guru. The latter might actually benefit from some shame.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Deti,
    “The only people telling men to take action, be persistent, have confidence, and learn through experience are those in the manosphere and surrounding environs”
    Ummm, no. I have discussed this with you in other threads on other blogs. This is simply not true. Indeed, I have given you lists of organizations, etc. that I have *personal experience* with, as well as others that are publicly known. The only real response I recall getting from you was ‘that one you don’t know well isn’t that good’.
    And you keep it up!
    ‘all men are feminized’
    ‘no fathers are masculine’
    “There are no churches with men who understand or know traditional masculinity” [a direct quote that is ludicrous on its face]
    If you are attempting to defend game you are doing it wrong

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    [[comment to Zippy]] I saw the admonition in italics after posting. Sorry about that

  • My impression of the Christian manosphere is that sex is all that matters, with marital chastity left by the wayside in favor of advocating more, freakier, crazier. Sex is important in married life, but for Christians, it shouldn’t come at the expense of all the other things that are supposed to be part of a Godly marriage. There seems to be too much freak-on and not enough faith-focus, which of course leaves people open to the idea that cads are glamorous in their pursuit of well, what they pursue.

    As a neo-Puritan, I am quite familiar with the exhortation to enjoy one another within holy wedlock. But there’s healthy desire and there’s focusing on satisfaction of sexual needs to the exclusion of the rest of the marriage. That’s a marriage that will fall apart if either party can’t get it up/on and that’s not what Christians should support at all.

  • Indeed, Aquinas Dad, there are plenty of non-Game sources of masculinity, even Godly masculinity out there if one is interested in something other than idol worship.

  • Mike T says:

    AD/TUW,

    And most of those sources teach heresies like “mutual submission” wherein Ephesians 5 really means the husband must also submit to his wife or something else that has the trappings of patriarchal Christianity without the substance.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @AD

    This is simply not true. Indeed, I have given you lists of organizations, etc. that I have *personal experience* with, as well as others that are publicly known.

    Would you share that list with me? You can do so on my blog, if you or Zippy would prefer.

    @TUW

    My impression of the Christian manosphere is that sex is all that matters, with marital chastity left by the wayside in favor of advocating more, freakier, crazier.

    I see this, too, but I see it much more from the women orbiting the Christian Men’s Sphere than from the men.

  • Mike T says:

    Zippy,

    While it is true that sluts are generally low value women by virtue of their inability to be more than human sex toys, it’s also quite true that women can be low value in other ways. These range from looks, to personality, to beliefs. A chaste woman can be as low value as a whore if she is very prudish, unfeminine, unattractive, etc.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Anne
    I think the solution is that you should shame specific cads that you personally know. This way, you are labeling specifically the objectively creepy guy who gives her tingles, so that she will not want to associate with him, rather than a generic profile that she can misassign to a nice guy. For example, it does little good to shame Mystery in general, since he depends on the girls he meets not knowing that he is a blogger named Mystery who teaches pickup techniques. However, if you know what he looks like, and see him walk into your church, I hope that you would share your knowledge in some appropriate fashion. I know that as a chaste woman, I would appreciate knowing that a particular guy at my church is not the righteous man he puts himself out to be.

    That kind of fair warning is both helpful and kind. Also, I would include in the warning how foolish the women who do fall for his act will look/feel afterwards, since they can’t claim pure motives.

    I suppose if you went further and objectively gave honor and a good reputation to those specific guys who actually are nice guys it might cause them to be seen as higher value?

    I agree. It would especially help if we showed husbands and fathers in a position of social esteem, as valued leaders in society. The bad boy may generate tingles, but the good man is a respected leader. Unfortunately right now the Christian focus is on finding any and every excuse to tear down husbands and fathers (compare the typical mothers day sermon with the one on fathers day). This really helps the cads because the cad retains his “bad boy” appeal, while the rest of the culture (with Christians showing the most enthusiasm) knocks the legs out from under the boring men who are trying to get it right. I mentioned Walsh and Driscoll above in this regard, but for another blatant example see the movie courageous. I don’t know any Christians outside of the sphere who don’t see that as an example of a movie praising good men, but if you look at it closely it is drenched with contempt for good husbands and fathers. We have moved so far away from showing good men respect we don’t even notice the absence of it.

  • Okay, this whole conversation has me thinking of this:

    http://xkcd.com/796/

    Randall is a bit of a white knight, but he knocks it out of the park sometimes.

  • […] discussion of game and Christianity has been occurring in the Orthosphere, led by GBFM, Donal, Zippy, and Cane. I don’t disagree with many of the conclusions of the anti-gamers. There is […]

  • MarcusD says:

    The first step is acknowledging that, objectively, cads are in fact garbage-collecting trashy pervs only a step or two above a pedophile. Forget about marketing: let’s just tell the objective truth about the product.

    So, is the argument:

    1) Cads are “bad boys” and thus intrinsically attractive to women*, or

    2) Cads are held in high esteem, which makes them attractive (and only incidentally “bad boys”)

    *Plenty of Christian women complain about being attracted to “bad boys” and wish they could be attracted to betas. So, do we make betas more attractive by holding them in higher esteem, or are we stuck with the current situation because of (1) (brought about the Sexual Revolution, in my estimation)

    Also, worth reading:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513811001000
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-013-0301-1
    http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/14740/1/burriss_13_ep_gazeandmasc.pdf

    Seems likely, taken together, as men with more feminine faces have more sexual partners than men with more masculine faces.

    scientific research finding that ovulating women fool themselves into thinking cads would make great dads

    They aren’t fooling themselves, and that’s the issue.

    While they may not be exalted to the degree cads are, they certainly have enough more power than chaste women that chaste women are the ones more likely to be shamed (at least in the larger culture).

    This is definitely true. To [help] counteract this, send those women over to wtm.org

    I would appreciate knowing that a particular guy at my church is not the righteous man he puts himself out to be.

    But will women as a whole pay attention to that advice? There are a number of threads on CAF where some woman is trying to justify marrying a guy who was cheating on her throughout the engagement, and/or had large numbers of previous partners, and/or had active cases of STDs, etc.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    MikeT, Cane;
    This is an edited paraphrase of an earlier list I posted on groups that teach dominant men/husbands, submissive women/wives
    ‘…the Fraternitas Sacerdotis Sancta Petri; Regnum Christi; Rorate Caeli; the Legionaries of Christ; the Militia Immaculata; the Knights of Lepanto; the Knights of St. Maurice… and [groups I have not personally worked with] the SSPX, Promise Keepers, and UPC Pentecostal churches’.
    Niche communities? Sure, but it is where I live and move, isn’t it?
    Mike T; I agree on the entire ‘mutual submission’ thing; shockingly heretical, really.

  • Zippy says:

    MarcusD:
    Women are natural followers. They find themselves viscerally in love with bad boys because men are in love with bad boys.

  • Mike T says:

    They find themselves viscerally in love with bad boys because men are in love with bad boys.

    Assuming your cause and effect is true? Why is that? Because bad boys are typically much better at getting the attention of prettier women than most ordinary men. So men adopt the behaviors that get women to sleep with them. Then women respond accordingly. It’s a feedback cycle.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    It’s a feedback cycle.

    Sure. But it is a feedback cycle initiated and sustained by men, and the modern day man-crush on bad boys. My latest post explains why.

  • craig says:

    Cad is as cad does. There’s no genetic component to it as far as I can tell; it is entirely defined by behavior.

    So I’m not convinced that, in the feedback cycle, men’s lionizing the cads among them logically precedes women’s preference for the cads. If it is “initiated and sustained by men” as Zippy claims above, then cad behavior must consist of some non-sexual component which is intrinsically appealing to men and which garners male respect by itself.

    If this is not true, if the only appeal to other men of cad behavior is due to sexual components, then this is simply the counter-claim to Zippy’s argument. The counter-claim (Marcus D’s argument #1 above) is that women’s preference for cads is innate, and that cad behavior is lionized by men because of its success in attracting women. Success has a thousand fathers while failure is an orphan, and all that. Otherwise Zippy’s argument sounds like a deflection of culpability for women’s sluttish behavior from women to men.

    (I’ll tackle the subsequent argument re: liberalism in that post.)

  • Zippy says:

    craig:
    … then cad behavior must consist of some non-sexual component which is intrinsically appealing to men and which garners male respect by itself.

    It appeals to male liberals because it is a form of rebellion.

    Otherwise Zippy’s argument sounds like a deflection of culpability for women’s sluttish behavior from women to men.

    How so? People are not culpable for what they unwillingly find attractive; but they are most certainly responsible for their actions no matter what they find attractive.

  • […] slut-excusing slaves of what Rollo calls the feminine imperative; others are straight faggots who lionize sexually degenerate men; to them I would say If you are going to be the bottom bitch, at least admit what your top is […]

  • […] has been an ongoing debate on Christianity and game. It sparked again recently at GBFM, Donal’s, Zippy’s, and […]

  • Ceer says:

    According to the best pua, game, like any art, takes loads of practice to be able to accomplish with competence.

    It would be like showing a sword fighter a set of moves, then expecting him to repeat them while fighting someone. Competence comes with long practice, sometimes years. This doesn’t invalidate the art itself.

    The realistic claims of the best pua is one aspect that makes them good. Also, there are learned behaviors that make a man attractive to women in general, not just to sluts. Use those behaviors on a slut, and you can get laid, sure…or use them on a chaste woman and you can find a wife. I see nothing in this post that disproves that.

  • […]  I’ve explained why modern men tend to think bad boys are cool, and I’ve proposed that women love bad boys because men love bad boys.  This hypothesis either has or does not have merit as an objective explanation, and I laid it out […]

  • […] The mathematical argument of game is beside the point. Related: Shaming cads. […]

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “guy who gives her tingles, so that she will not want to associate with him”
    I can do surgery with a chainsaw.

  • jf12 says:

    @MarcusD a little late, but I dispute your assertion that “men with more feminine faces have more sexual partners than men with more masculine faces.” It is well known that men with more masculine faces have more short term relationships, and far more affairs.

  • […] righteousness.  There must be some mistake, since everyone knows players are easy to spot and obviously unattractive to women.  But there is no mistake.  So long as a woman is playing the uncommitted sex game, she is going […]

  • Adam says:

    In the holy bible, the VII Comandment sais:

    “Thou shall not commit adultery”

    Now, provided almost all women over there rode the “CC”, wear cross necklaces, are divorced, single moms and so on.. i wonder why men should engage or (worse) being married with such sluts.

    Im not married and i won’t marry any woman nowadays, for God’s sake, and for my mental/financial stability,

    im atheist, however i wonder why you, as Christian men, still believe in marriage? you don’t want to go to heaven? you don’t want to serve your God anymore?

  • Sluts Prevent Rape says:

    Since sexually satiated men won’t be tempted to rape your wife/daughter, sluts and whores perform a service to society by giving (unmarried) men sex. They should not be shamed, as long as they realize that they are unsuitable for marriage with normal men.

  • JustSomeGuy says:

    I sincerely hope that that was a failed attempt at sarcasm and that you’re not actually that stupid.

  • Sluts Prevent Rape says:

    I’m completely serious. In Rhode Island, rape decreased by 30% after prostitution was legalized in that state.

  • […] …and when all you see is garbage, you are probably a garbage collector. […]

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 When you give a slut a cookie … at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: