Game in Hobbiton, or, Bilbo demonstrates the neg

January 29, 2014 § 101 Comments

Sometimes a brass tacks example can be helpful, especially for those who prefer the concrete over high-falutin abstractions.

Backhanded or ambiguous compliments are a “tool” of charmers and rhetoricians which have been around since Hobbits tilled the soil of the Shire. Variations on the theme are as multifarious as the variety of human conversation. By creating some ambiguity and personalizing the interaction, they engage the mind and emotions of the listener.  Whatever you may think of Bilbo’s speech, he clearly had the attention of his audience.

They are also as obvious as the nose on your face: one would have to live in an isolation chamber or a bomb shelter to fail to encounter them from time to time.  So we should attempt to distinguish between the neg, as a tool in the secret gnostosexual toolbox of Game, from conversationally ubiquitous backhanded or ambiguous compliments in general.  In order to do so we shall consult The Prophet (content warning):

You’ll also note that a lot of these unnervingly ambiguous observations focus on a girl’s presumed inability to cut loose and have some fun. They are designed, in other words, to eradicate anti-slut defenses and persuade her to open up… to you, the fearless judger of her feminine worth. Some others focus on her social naivete, or her craving for attention. Sprinkle to taste. Some of these negs fall under the category of cold reads; the difference being that cold reads are usually unambiguous compliments worded to entrap a girl deeper into conversation by getting her to talk about herself.

Seduction is the art of contrived concealment. You want to seduce without revealing the machinery of your mind, or the purpose of your words. You introduce the dangerous idea, and if you are successful, she picks up the idea and joins you in her own seduction.

When it comes the to prescriptive canon labeled “Game”[1] (again, content warning) Christians know right off the bat that some things are off limits.  For example “always keep two in the kitty” (that is, keep a harem of women and “spin plates” so that no one woman ‘controls'[2] you) is clearly contrary to Christian doctrine and morality.  Not to mention stupid and a sign of low self-esteem.

The problem arises with more subtle or ambiguous “tools”.   The “neg” as described by the putative experts on Game is obviously morally evil when it functions to eradicate anti-slut defenses.  It is also morally wrong when it functions as a kind of lie.  Without actually getting into the breakdown, here, what is clear is that open-eyed wise discernment is needed — if there is anything good left over here at all that Tolkien hadn’t already demonstrated decades before Roissy was in diapers.  Separating the gold from the dross in “Game” isn’t just a matter of picking which tools are good and which are evil.  Each tool has to be broken down and re-discerned, re-filtered, re-constructed so that the remainder after discernment is morally acceptable.

This brings me to what I would ultimately like to propose in this post.  Lets call it Rule 36: Any man who has the wisdom and discernment required to extract what is good from “Game”  without being perverted by what is not, does not need to go to perverts for advice.

Deficiencies in fatherhood cannot be filled in by the Church, and they cannot be replaced by the “wisdom” of sexual perverts.  Note the word cannot.  If the Red Pill is supposed to be about accepting reality as it actually is rather than as we would like it to be, then accepting this reality should be a part of it.

—–

[1] That is, the tools – the concrete actions recommended by PUAs under the heading “Game”, as distinguished from description and analysis.

[2] Only a man who is a pathetic slave to sex can be controlled, via sex, by a woman — or a harem of women, for that matter.  Don’t be that guy.

§ 101 Responses to Game in Hobbiton, or, Bilbo demonstrates the neg

  • Cane Caldo says:

    Great post.

    Rule 36 is a good one. That’s what I was getting at with my points 1 and 2 here in my post, “Take A Number”.

  • Michael says:

    I think I found another reason for encouraging chastity when I talk to my sons about sex- it is far less complicated than trying to be a cad.

  • Alte says:

    I’ve never seen anything good in any Game article that I hadn’t already read about someplace more edifying, usually in the scriptures or the classics. I recommend The Rhetoric, if you’re already reading the Bible daily and don’t know where to start. But everytime I give out that advice, everyone just groans.

    I have a quick explanation of examples and enthymemes on the TC blog, which also explains the dynamic behind the infamous “shit tests”, since we’re offering tips and tricks in a family-friendly format today.

  • Elspeth says:

    I was just having a dialog with another person at HL’s blog and she asked me this question regarding the men my husband informally mentors. She asked:

    “What would you call this, emulating of another man’s successful behavior in order to develop a successful marriage relationship?”

    I guess I was supposed to answer, “game” but I don’t subscribe to that so I answered this way:

    “I would call it whatever they called it back when men mentoring younger men was normal and before masculinity was packaged as a way to train men to bed as many women as they can.”

    I’m not sure why Christians can’t uniformly agree that there is another way to get what we need to salvage what is left of marriage in our ranks without subscribing to the tactics of PUA’s.

  • jf12 says:

    All true, and I cannot disagree. Note the word “cannot”. But if I choose to disagree anyway, one aspect would be that men who cannot bring themselves to game women can be said to be doing women a disservice e.g. by not treating women the way that the women want to be treated in reality as it actually is, as revealed by women’s actual behavior e.g. in how they treat the man. Women LIKE the man to have potential moral ambiguities. Women LIKE being uncertain about whether he might have a backup woman. Women LIKE him overtly pretending to lie about negging in order to impress her with his lack of caring whether or not she is impressed. They eat this nonsense up by the bucketful. The fact of the women behaving better also redounds to his benefit, which may be the aspect of his game that you find most distasteful.

  • jf12 says:

    btw thanks for quoting CH so I don’t have to go there. I note that he noted in “You introduce the dangerous idea, and if you are successful, she picks up the idea and joins you in her own seduction” what I more directly call “conspire with her to pick her up”. Women love love love to conspire, more than anything else except shoe shopping. If they can conspire to shoe shop then their fun meter is pegged. What makes it game instead of simply girltalk “Don’t tell Sally that Sue said …” is that she is participating in a game conspiracy.

  • Dalrock says:

    This brings me to what I would ultimately like to propose in this post. Lets call it Rule 36: Any man who has the wisdom and discernment required to extract what is good from “Game” without being perverted by what is not, does not need to go to perverts for advice.

    And yet, here we are. This discussion is a manosphere discussion (even if you don’t consider your blog part of the sphere), icky PUA roots and all. It is noteworthy that the discussion about teaching practical tools for headship isn’t occurring outside the manosphere, because Christians outside the manosphere either don’t have a clue, or are outright hostile to headship. This lack of interest by Christians in biblical marriage is then interpreted as proof of fault of… non Christian PUAs.

    @Elspeth
    I’m not sure why Christians can’t uniformly agree that there is another way to get what we need to salvage what is left of marriage in our ranks without subscribing to the tactics of PUA’s.

    Universal agreement isn’t needed. All that is needed is for those who believe in the idea of teaching these things without a PUA taint to go ahead and do so, or acknowledge that they don’t have anything to offer. We are at least a year and a half into this conversation. Repeatedly telling others to “stop! wait! don’t!” isn’t particularly helpful, especially the longer the focus is on criticizing others and arguing about word definitions over showing how it should be done. There is no barrier to entry for one who wants to show how it should be done. If the non Game based knowledge is there (as is so strenuously and repeatedly claimed), then what other explanation can there be but lack of interest?

  • Zippy says:

    Dalrock:
    This lack of interest by Christians in biblical marriage is then interpreted as proof of fault of… non Christian PUAs.

    Who has suggested that most modern Christians are liberals because of secular PUAs? That certainly isn’t my view.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Zippy
    Who has suggested that most modern Christians are liberals because of secular PUAs? That certainly isn’t my view.

    Fair enough. It would be better stated that the interest is in pointing to the faults of the PUAs with very little interest in recognizing our collective failure as Christians to honor biblical marriage. This ties into the second point I made in the same comment, where we are a year and a half into a conversation about how PUAs are doing it wrong (of course they are) instead of focusing on equipping men with useful advice/tools.

  • Dalrock says:

    Thanks for correcting my tag for me Zippy!

    [No problem.]

  • Zippy says:

    Dalrock:
    All that is needed is for those who believe in the idea of teaching these things without a PUA taint to go ahead and do so, or acknowledge that they don’t have anything to offer.

    Maybe this phrasing can help make the position more clear:

    I don’t have anything to offer that will replace the lack of a strong father and supporting patriarchy.

    Neither does anyone else.

    The things that are on offer are laced with poison.

  • jf12 says:

    Must … post … comment …
    Re: “I don’t have anything to offer that will replace the lack of a strong father”
    The “lack of a strong father” may be the single best pickup strategy ever.
    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/tingle-detecting-bra/#comment-106813

  • Dalrock says:

    @Zippy
    Maybe this phrasing can help make the position more clear:

    I don’t have anything to offer that will replace the lack of a strong father and supporting patriarchy.

    I appreciate the candor, but what you offer to those suffering is no help whatsoever. Telling the fatherless to “have a father” is no different than what is described in James 2:

    15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?

    We have virtually no neighbors who are hungry or unclothed, but we are surrounded by a sea of broken families.

    You mock the idea that men wouldn’t know the very basic things I’ve described in my own postings on Game, but I didn’t know them, or at least didn’t know them well enough to avoid falling for what our culture teaches (and I grew up with what would be considered by modern standards a very strong father). What about the men who grow up with fathers who don’t know any better themselves? Between the fatherless and the children of clueless fathers, we are talking about at least 90% of the population.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Zippy
    Neither does anyone else.

    The things that are on offer are laced with poison.

    This is an extremely broad indictment. I don’t claim to be an expert on Game, but I believe you have seen my primer “Romance 101” as well as my post “She felt unloved”. I would also offer my more recent post If it isn’t fun, you probably aren’t doing it right. It would be fair criticism to point out that I don’t have a vast wealth of detailed advice to offer men, but to claim that it is poison is something else entirely. Is that your argument, that those three posts are (wholly) poison? Or would you acknowledge that there is at least something redeeming between the three posts referenced here?

  • jf12 says:

    The reverse underpants gnome anti-Game plan, starting from the Brady Rulez:
    1. Be wise, be discerning, and don’t be born deficient in wisdom, discernment, fatherhood etc.
    2. ???
    3. Collect panties, of your one wife of course.

  • Elspeth says:

    I have to agree with Dalrock here. I often think of a young man who is catching holy heck in his marriage and calls my husband regularly.

    His parents on married and his father, still alive, fairly young, and vital, is a wonderful man, one of the finest men I have had the pleasure of knowing- ever. His parents have a good marriage as far as we can tell.

    His mother however is the more dominant personality and she pretty much runs the show. She is a devout Christian who desires to do what’s right and that compels her to treat her husband with respect. But he has very little sway over her if she is convinced that what she wants is what God wills for her.

    Their son calls my husband because he knows that his father is simply not equipped to teach him how to stand up to his wife.

    Given the dearth of men with fathers at all let all strong fathers, godly men need to be willing to be their brothers’ keepers when they see them hurting and confused.

    The reality however, is that there is no way outside men can fill in that gap. There is no easy answer,which is why I suspect so many men (including Christian men) latch on to Game.

  • Zippy says:

    Dalrock:
    I appreciate the candor, but what you offer to those suffering is no help whatsoever.

    I’ve always been candid about the fact that I have no broad solutions. I have at least a couple of posts dedicated to clarifying that very point; though I don’t expect you to have carefully read every single one of my posts any more than vice versa is the case, and my focus is not generally on sex and marriage.

    Suffering is a reality in the world, lack is a reality, and frequently there are no good solutions to it. In fact the first thing to be acknowledged when faced with any major problem is the distinct possibility that there is no morally acceptable solution.

    On a couple of blogs/comment threads it has been suggested that the PUA-Christian alliance under the banner of Game is similar to Russian membership in the Allies during WWII. This naive appeal to a cartoon history supposedly blesses the alliance. I don’t agree either with the naive view of history or the blessing.

    Telling the fatherless to “have a father” is no different than what is described in James 2:

    But that isn’t what I am telling them. What I am telling them is that the effects of not having a father can’t be cured through an (literally) unholy alliance with PUAs under the banner of Game.

    Every community carries some truths in it. That’s part of what my last post, which I titled with the Arabic word for “Games”, was about: there is a difference between studying the philosophy of Averroes, on the one hand, and praising al Qaeda for its role in attacking liberalism, on the other.

    I know that you don’t view the manosphere/dark enlightenment/etc as a (developing) community. But I do. That, and my tendency to not offer solutions when I don’t have them, is probably part of what makes our discussions at times frustrating.

    I don’t claim to be an expert on Game, but I believe you have seen my …

    With due respect – and to be clear I choose those words without the slightest bit of snark – I am going to decline the invitation to make this about your posts. FWIW, you have the only manosphere blog that I refer people to IRL.

  • Basically: Just because we don’t have a solution doesn’t mean we can’t know that the solution isn’t game. I don’t know how to do advanced calculus but I do know that the solution to an advanced calculus problem cannot be discovered by taking introductory algebra.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    jf12,
    Let me quote you,
    “Women LIKE the man to have potential moral ambiguities. Women LIKE being uncertain about whether he might have a backup woman. Women LIKE him overtly pretending to lie about negging in order to impress her with his lack of caring whether or not she is impressed. They eat this nonsense up by the bucketful.”
    For certain values of ‘women’, perhaps.
    Is this like the statement I hear that ‘sluts are high value’? A statement that is actually about a very narrow group but is stated universally?

    Also – NO ONE is born wise and no one is born with an innate discernment. These are character traits that are developed over time.
    As far as the ‘I didn’t have a good father’ thread of conversation, it reminds me of other, similar, threads I have heard throughout my life.
    If it was impossible to overcome the lack of a good father we would never know what one was – between early death and misfortune everyone has a bad father somewhere in their ancestry. If that was it, we’d all be hosed.
    Further, it sounds like the core contention runs something like this;
    Pro-game side:
    1- I didn’t have a father who taught me to be virtuous
    2- That is why I am not virtuous
    3 – Therefore I must now emulate the vicious (in the philosophical sense)
    Pro-virtue side:
    1 – Being virtuous is good for its own sake
    2 – There are other methods to develop virtue
    3 – Therefore you should be virtuous
    Pro-game side:
    1 – The vicious tell me that the virtuous are wrong and that the vicious are right
    2 – Being vicious looks easy and being virtuous looks hard
    3 – Therefore I will emulate the vicious

    The last few months as I have been going hither and yon reading on Game I keep having this nagging feeling of ‘I have heard this all before somewhere’. I assumed it was just ‘bad logic advocating vice is everywhere’ but this weekend it hit me. I was going over my notes to give a class on The Nicomachean Ethics when it hit me.
    Plato’s Dialogues!
    And there it is – Gorgias. A Dialogue between Gorgias, the rhetorician that thinks being able to talk people into doing what you want is all you need and Socrates, who takes him to the metaphysical woodshed and slaps him around.

    As is usually the case, this argument was actually settled long before the English language existed.

  • Zippy says:

    Aquinas Dad:

    “Women LIKE the man to have potential moral ambiguities. Women LIKE being uncertain about whether he might have a backup woman. Women LIKE him overtly pretending to lie about negging in order to impress her with his lack of caring whether or not she is impressed. They eat this nonsense up by the bucketful.”

    For certain values of ‘women’, perhaps.

    Cane Caldo frequently makes the point that when it comes to women men ought to engage in husbandry. Assuming a particular woman has these vices, is it really husbandry – is it moral at all – to encourage and cultivate those vices in her as a means to an end?

    Part of the problem with Game is that much of it involves encouraging women’s sinful nature as a means to an end. Men will retort that many women show cleavage to get men to do what they want — but so what? Just because (many) women behave badly in a certain way that doesn’t excuse men behaving badly in a complementary way.

    As is usually the case, this argument was actually settled long before the English language existed.

    Great connection. The current controversy does ‘rhyme’ with Gorgias.

  • Zippy says:

    malcolmthecynic:

    Just because we don’t have a solution doesn’t mean we can’t know that the solution isn’t game.

    Right. More generally for any problem P and proposed solution s, the lack of an alternative proposed solution s2 is not evidence in support of s.

    Even more generally than that, positivism is false, hah.

    Mind you, I’ve never said that there is nothing good in any of the positive behavioral prescriptions (the specific “do’s” of the Red Pill community – those “do’s” are what we call Game). I’ve suggested that Game generally is laced with moral poison, that it is difficult to extract that moral poison and get out only what is good, and that once that process is completed, if it has been done well and the poison is well and truly gone, one is frequently left with placebo or banal truism.

    Game isn’t a toolbox from which we can select amoral tools, where the use of the tool is what determines morality. That is itself a terrible and deceptive analogy — an analogy through which a significant number of men have been ‘gamed’ by PUAs, not without irony. Game is a 17th century pharmacy cart: a shelf of potions many of which are placebo, some of which are pure poison, and all or almost all of which are laced with some (moral) poison. Filtering the poison out of any given potion is a nontrivial undertaking when it is possible at all, and the payoff from doing so – what you are left with after you’ve filtered out the poison – is not necessarily very worthwhile.

    A ‘softer’ version of Rule 36 might be “the more you think you need Game, the less equipped you are to separate what is good in it from what is evil in it.”

    All of this pertains to Game – the positive behavioural precepts of the “red pill”. To the extent that the rest of the “red pill” involves repudiating liberalism generally (which includes liberalism’s ridiculous attitudes about the sexes, its elevation of women to a victim (oppressed superman) class who can do no wrong, its idiotic prejudice that equality or the destruction of hierarchy makes people happy, etc), and embracing indissoluble monogamous Christian marriage specifically, I’m all for it.

  • Zippy says:

    I’ll note though that quite a few red pill commenters actively avoid repudiating liberalism (frequently by labeling their own liberalism something else, and/or by denying that liberals are sincere in their beliefs). Repudiating liberalism – repentance from the canonical error of our time – is far more important than scraping the shower drains of PUAs to try to find wisdom about women.

  • jf12 says:

    “Assuming a particular woman has these vices, is it really husbandry – is it moral at all – to encourage and cultivate those vices in her as a means to an end?”
    This would be a good question, if it were in fact a question instead of a moral judgment pretending to pose as a question. The vices in question include women’s evident inability to respect nice guys and recalcitrance/refusal to being led nicely to water and/or green pastures. Helping women function despite their faults in the way that works for them is not the same thing as encouraging those faults.

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:

    Helping women function despite their faults in the way that works for them is not the same thing as encouraging those faults.

    We are dealing with competing characterizations of a range of possible concrete realities though. To the extent that Game feeds her disordered cravings for a bad boy by acting like a bad boy, that is encouraging disordered desires (and dishonestly at that, unless he actually is a bad boy, in which case he has bigger problems than trying to be attractive).

    A moral hazard of taking women’s preferences as a given and catering to those preferences whatever they happen to be is that sometimes preferences are disordered (whether through nature or nurture). Again I’ll draw the comparison to homosexuality: suggesting that gays want what they want and that’s that is the attitude of a pornographer, not the attitude of a Christian man.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Zippy
    I appreciate your reluctance to criticize my writings. I wasn’t trying to make it personal, but I didn’t want to offer someone else’s writings up for criticism. I’m trying to understand the nature of the objection.

    Part of the problem with Game is that much of it involves encouraging women’s sinful nature as a means to an end.

    Some of what we call Game does, but some of it involves just the opposite. You made a categorical statement above that there is nothing helpful which can be taught to husbands to assist them with headship. I understand (and share) your objection to teaching husbands to encourage sin. However, what about teaching husbands to not put up with it? What about teaching husbands not to cave in to irrational demands by their wives (what in Game parlance would be a “fitness test” or “shit test”)? Do you object to that?

  • jf12 says:

    Re: disordered cravings. Sick people often need medicine that they do not want. The Rule 36’s “wisdom and discernment to extract what is good” is explained in 1 Peter 3:7 as resulting in rightly appraising one’s wife as unhealthy, as broken.

  • jf12 says:

    In a rough but real sense, a sheep in wolf’s clothing is MORE opposite a wolf in sheep’s clothing than … than … anything.

  • However, what about teaching husbands to not put up with it? What about teaching husbands not to cave in to irrational demands by their wives (what in Game parlance would be a “fitness test” or “shit test”)? Do you object to that?

    I heard the insult, “Dude, you’re so whipped,” long before I ever heard of game. You really think that we need GAME, specifically, to teach men not to put up with crap from their wives? Since when was that wisdom ever game?

  • Dalrock says:

    @malcolmthecynic
    I heard the insult, “Dude, you’re so whipped,” long before I ever heard of game. You really think that we need GAME, specifically, to teach men not to put up with crap from their wives? Since when was that wisdom ever game?

    There are two issues here. The first is the question of whether there is anything we can teach husbands to help with headship. Zippy’s response upthread was no, there is nothing:

    Maybe this phrasing can help make the position more clear:

    I don’t have anything to offer that will replace the lack of a strong father and supporting patriarchy.

    Neither does anyone else.

    The things that are on offer are laced with poison.

    I’m trying to probe just how serious he is that there is nothing whatsoever we can teach husbands. So the response that “we don’t need game for that” doesn’t address my question.

    However, as to your question, the Game explanation adds something more than “Dude, you’re so whipped,”. The Game explanation goes beyond a mere taunt, and explains that caving in to irrational demands, or even being overly deferential on rational demands will almost certainly result in a more frustrated wife. But if calling this Game is a deal breaker because someone wore a funny hat, is there an objection to teaching husbands that being deferential to their wives, and especially giving in to irrational demands is a prescription to frustrate their wives? Or must we restrict our advice to taunts of “Dude, you’re so whipped,”?

  • Zippy says:

    Dalrock:
    I’m not sure how to even have a conversation if you interpret the words

    I don’t have anything to offer that will replace the lack of a strong father and supporting patriarchy.

    Neither does anyone else.

    … to mean …

    [T]here is nothing whatsoever we can teach husbands.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Zippy
    I’m not sure how to even have a conversation…

    I don’t know what it is about this topic, but I don’t think I’ll ever understand your position at the more detailed level that I’ve been asking for. I’ll leave it at that and instead look forward to your future posts.

  • Alte says:

    “The Game explanation goes beyond a mere taunt, and explains that caving in to irrational demands, or even being overly deferential on rational demands will almost certainly result in a more frustrated wife.”

    I don’t really see how this is a bit of wisdom specific to wives, as it’s generally good advice for dealing with anyone in a position of subordination. Why in the world would anyone give into anyone making irrational demands? Why in the world would anyone be overly deferential to anyone else? Why in the world is this something that needs to be explained ad nauseam and in the tiniest detail, as if the author were discussing transubstantiation?

    I have nothing against such articles, but I wrote one or two of them and then became completely bored of the subject, as there just really isn’t that much to say beyond, “Dude, don’t act like such a putz.”

    This is my main problem with Game: most of the good advice isn’t anything specific to women, but just common sense or rhetorical art explained using examples specific to women. You could rewrite most of it, exchanging “wife” for “child” or “employee” or “voter” and then package it as the next greatest book on parenting, or management, or politics, or dealing with elderly dependents.

    Women and men are a bit different, but it’s not as if we don’t belong to the same species. The men hanging out on these Game sites seem to quickly degrade mentally to the point where they think that women aren’t even completely human.

  • Alte says:

    “Men will retort that many women show cleavage to get men to do what they want”

    But is this even true?

    Isn’t there a lot of apex fallacy type thinking involved in men’s complaints about women? The fact is, that if a woman’s cleavage isn’t hanging out, men don’t take any notice of it. But if they see a woman with her cleavage hanging out, and men falling all over themselves to come to her aid and kiss her feet, then we ALL get to hear the complaints…

    …while we scrub the floors and peel potatoes in our high-necked shirts.

    Fact is, most of us don’t have our cleavage hanging out — even if we would like to — because we know that nobody wants to know us that well. It’s usually the hot, young chicks thrusting their boobs in everyone’s faces, but they’re the only women whose existence men take any notice of. Funny how men never complain to those women who actually dress like that.

  • Mike T says:

    I don’t know what it is about this topic, but I don’t think I’ll ever understand your position at the more detailed level that I’ve been asking for.

    I’m not sure Zippy has a comprehensive position like what you’re looking for, as he freely admits that he doesn’t have a solution to the problems. That would imply to me that his position is more of a set of critiques of both the status quo and game rather than a competing view to either.

    In my opinion, much of Zippy’s recent posts have been trying to avoid the fact that while most of game’s “insights” are hardly novel, they amount to the revolutionary act of speaking the truth in a world that believes nothing but lies about human nature. The neg (backhanded compliment) may be nothing new, being socially savvy may not be unique to game and being deferential to subordinates may be ancient learning. But the world, including most Christian tradcons, teach otherwise.

    Zippy’s argument that women are attracted to bad boys because men respect them has a ring of truth to it. But why is that? It’s because the men who would be in a position to dominate the bad boys would have very visible masculinity pouring out of them. This is why Vox Day has repeatedly pointed out that being an alpha is morally neutral. John Wayne is generally presented as an alpha and a good guy. In fact many betas and lower are hardly moral, often even as degenerate as any alpha bad boy. It’s merely the lack of sexual capital that prevents them from realizing their desires, and that would hold true 5,000 years ago in ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia as it does today.

    In fact slumlord made a devastating argument against the tradcons recently by pointing out the obvious: most women only acquiesced to the old ways by virtue of society offering them none of the independence they enjoy today. The only choices most men have are stark: become more alpha or fight for a return to the old ways (reducing female autonomy by social restraints and even the force of law).

    The biggest problem I see with just calling people like Roissy sexual trash collectors is that while whores may not be experts in femininity, there is enough in common between many good women and whores by virtue of them being women and sexual beings that a man who scores well with whorish women still has a distinct advantage over many good men when it comes to women. The truth is that if Roissy became a staunch, repentant Catholic tomorrow it’s far more likely that he’d have a drop-dead gorgeous, extremely happy and submissive wife than most “good men” would have.

  • Alte says:

    “become more alpha or fight for a return to the old ways (reducing female autonomy by social restraints and even the force of law)”

    I seriously doubt any man will want to do that, seeing as the Old Ways also reduced male autonomy.

  • Zippy says:

    Dalrock:
    FWIW I have a similar bafflement about your position on Game. I apologize if I’m paraphrasing incorrectly, but I understand your position to be that if our frame is Biblical marriage and traditional sex roles we don’t need Game.

    From this I immediately conclude that, because Biblical marriage should be the frame of all Christians, Christians don’t need Game; and furthermore because Game is an effeminate narcissistic PUA philosophy Christians should shun it as something that corrupts the weak minded. Despite the fact that some individual men may have had their epiphany – their realization that the liberalism that is the air we breathe is just plain wrong – after an encounter with a pervert, this does not justify elevating the banal philosophy of the pervert (Game) to something worth celebrating.

  • Zippy says:

    Alte:
    But is this even true?

    It is true of many women, yes, which is precisely how I stated it.

  • Alte says:

    Yes, you precisely stated it that way, but “many” isn’t a very precise word.

  • Alte says:

    “The truth is that if Roissy became a staunch, repentant Catholic tomorrow it’s far more likely that he’d have a drop-dead gorgeous, extremely happy and submissive wife than most “good men” would have.”

    There’s some truth to this, mostly because he’s funny and good-looking, but he has no income or property worth mentioning and I bet good money that he’d fall all to pieces trying to manage a household well enough that his wife wouldn’t have an embolism.

    A man who’s spent his entire life looking for shortcuts and pleasure isn’t going to be up to the day-to-day drudgery and stress of husbandry.

  • Alte says:

    “But is this even true?”

    Your opinion to my second question would be much more interesting, of course.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    That would imply to me that his position is more of a set of critiques of both the status quo and game rather than a competing view to either.

    Correct.

    In my opinion, much of Zippy’s recent posts have been trying to avoid the fact that while most of game’s “insights” are hardly novel, they amount to the revolutionary act of speaking the truth in a world that believes nothing but lies about human nature.

    Different men have their epiphanies in different circumstances. The fact that some men have had their antiliberal epiphany through an encounter with a pervert seems to have convinced them that this encounter with the pervert specifically is a “red pill” which has opened their eyes to the world as it is. Among other things they are giving the pervert credit where credit is due to God. They are also treating their own specific experience as the exit door of the Matrix, rather than just how they personally happened to get out of the Matrix. This is further confused by the fact that a large-ish population of men exited the Matrix because of their concerns about sex and marriage; so all that they see is sex as the path to enlightenment, a.k.a. the Red Pill.

    In fact slumlord made a devastating argument against the tradcons recently by pointing out the obvious: most women only acquiesced to the old ways by virtue of society offering them none of the independence they enjoy today.

    There isn’t anything devastating about it, and as Alte points out this is just as true of men as of women. What you see around you are the wages of political freedom.

    Quite a few folks seem to be under the impression that patriarchy means that men rule while women drool. But as I’ve pointed out before, men are also more tightly ruled under natural patriarchy.

  • Mike T says:

    Alte,

    Quite true.

    Zippy,

    The problem is that most of what we call “biblical marriage” is not biblical and most people won’t support it. For example, how often is a rebellious wife shunned by other women instead of supported? Men get shunned all the time for looking at even a little pornography, but a wife can throw her entire household into a state of civil war and often get told that if only her husband were a better Christian that wouldn’t happen.

    furthermore because Game is an effeminate narcissistic PUA philosophy Christians should shun it as something that corrupts the weak minded

    Many tradcons themselves would be considered effeminate by the standards of those actually practicing marriage in the Bible. One of the posters attacking slumlord made a cute comment about how he couldn’t imagine libertines making effective soldiers in Charles Martel’s army. Well, setting side the historic fact that wine and women dominated the minds of most career soldiers throughout history, neither would most Christian men today. I can’t even imagine the average Christian American male picking up an axe, sword or AR-15 and going into brutal combat against an Islamic army (as opposed to an Islamic terrorist cell that can overwhelmed by most small town police forces in conventional warfare).

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    if Roissy became a staunch, repentant Catholic tomorrow it’s far more likely that he’d have a drop-dead gorgeous, extremely happy and submissive wife than most “good men” would have.

    She would probably be getting what she deserved, too.

    In fact the idea of Roissy both becoming a staunch, repentant Catholic and marrying a drop dead gorgeous etc is inherently problematic. Among other things a man with his baggage who was truly repentant wouldn’t want to inflict that baggage on a good woman. There is good reason why in the past the place for truly repentant cads like St. Augustine was the celibate life.

  • Zippy says:

    Alte:
    Do you mean this question?

    Isn’t there a lot of apex fallacy type thinking involved in men’s complaints about women?

    There is a lot of stereotyping in the complaints of one group about another in general. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and in any event is unavoidable.

  • Mike T says:

    Quite a few folks seem to be under the impression that patriarchy means that men rule while women drool.

    I’m not one of them. What I am, however, is of the opinion that most tradcons don’t realize that getting there will not be possible with the current crop of men for many reasons. One, they don’t want it. Two, even if they wanted it they aren’t man enough to try to get there. Three, they are unwilling to make the hard calls to get there. A good example of that is that they must be willing to swing the pendulum back hard toward patriarchy on issues like divorce. In general, they’re simply unwilling to do things like make it the law that (barring the husband being a threat to his kids) that if the wife leaves him under no fault divorce she is declared an unfit mother, loses all custody rights and claims to marital assets she didn’t bring into the marriage.

  • Alte says:

    “They are also treating their own specific experience as the exit door of the Matrix, rather than just how they personally happened to get out of the Matrix.”

    What he said. Totally. The Matrix is our whole entire way of life, and the people who have really woken up realize that and don’t obsess over the sexual aspect of it, even if the sexual “door” is the one they happened to go through. (Love the visualization there.)

    We’ve all gone through different doors, but if we turn around and look back, and really examine what is there, we can all see the entirety of the Matrix. If you can’t yet see that, then it means that you’re still standing in the door.

  • Mike T says:

    In fact the idea of Roissy both becoming a staunch, repentant Catholic and marrying a drop dead gorgeous etc is inherently problematic. Among other things a man with his baggage who was truly repentant wouldn’t want to inflict that baggage on a good woman.

    You probably (and hopefully) don’t mean to conflate her appearance and submissiveness with “good woman” as there are plenty of hot women who can be submissive who are morally suspect to outright evil. I would say that it all depends on the woman.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    What I am, however, is of the opinion that most tradcons don’t realize that getting there will not be possible with the current crop of men for many reasons.

    Agreed that it isn’t going to happen, certainly not without massive natural catastrophe or Divine intervention. Furthermore, most people don’t want it.

    I’m not sure who “most tradcons” refers to, but I know I’m not the only Fatalist/Providentialist (which you choose depends on whether this all depresses you or liberates you). JRR Tolkien is quoted as saying something like (from memory) “I am a Catholic. I don’t expect anything from history except one long defeat”.

  • Zippy says:

    Alte:

    We’ve all gone through different doors, but if we turn around and look back, and really examine what is there, we can all see the entirety of the Matrix. If you can’t yet see that, then it means that you’re still standing in the door.

    Well said; and Game/etc isn’t a red pill. It is a way of trying to solve your problems without walking all the way out into the real world.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    You probably (and hopefully) don’t mean to conflate her appearance and submissiveness with “good woman”…

    Yeah fair enough. Let me rephrase my comment:

    The idea of Roissy both becoming a staunch, repentant Catholic and marrying a drop dead gorgeous woman is inherently problematic. Among other things a man with his baggage who was truly repentant wouldn’t want to inflict that baggage on any woman. There is good reason why in the past the place for truly repentant cads like St. Augustine was the celibate life.

  • Alte says:

    One thing I do have to say, is that Game is definitely a door, and some people do seem to exit the Matrix through it and then go on to discover all the rest of it. You see this with some bloggers, who start out blogging about Game and then get political and economic and homeschooling and eventually debating the utility of shampoo. After their Game Wakeup, they just start to question EVERYTHING. The no longer take every habit they have for granted. As long as they don’t get stuck at the Game stage, they do seem to come out of the process in better spiritual shape than they went in.

    I came at it from the opposite end, with the Manosphere being at the end of my road to crunchy Christian independence, but I can see how someone could go the other direction.

  • Alte says:

    “Well said; and Game/etc isn’t a red pill. It is a way of trying to solve your problems without walking all the way out into the real world.”

    It’s not a red pill, but it does seem to be startling to some men. It startles them enough that they start looking for the red pill, at least. At least they start to think, “Hey… maybe things aren’t really the way I think they are…” At least, in other words, they start to think.

  • Zippy says:

    My experience of Game is to see startled eyes staring out at me from the red light district of the Matrix. I’m sure some folks escape through that window, and that’s fine. Perhaps the situation even ‘rhymes’ with Christ hanging out with prostitutes.

    But make the escape already, don’t stand in the window. The problem with treating the red light district of the Matrix as the real world, just because it has a window looking out at the real world, is that it ends up attracting truth-seekers to the red light district. It is a scandal in the theological sense, and Christians should not willingly cooperate in the corruption of souls.

  • sunshinemary says:

    Zippy:

    On a couple of blogs/comment threads it has been suggested that the PUA-Christian alliance under the banner of Game is similar to Russian membership in the Allies during WWII. This naive appeal to a cartoon history supposedly blesses the alliance.

    What gave you the idea that I was blessing such an alliance? I certainly was not.

    Dalrock:

    The first is the question of whether there is anything we can teach husbands to help with headship.

    What do Christian men really need to be taught about headship other than that they have it? The problem isn’t that men don’t have enough game to sidle their way into headship. The problem is that women are unsubmissive. The women are the primary problem here. Doesn’t gaming them sort of cover their sin? Their unsubmissiveness needs to be called what it is: sin. And then they need to repent of it.

    @ Alte
    I like your “doors” analogy. Stepping out of the Matrix is just seeing liberalism for the lie that it is and then repenting of it, as Zippy is always saying we need to do.

  • Elspeth says:

    is that it ends up attracting truth-seekers to the red light district.

    I agree completely, but it seems that you are one of very few who see this danger among Christian men who subscribe to Game.

    It’s as if they somehow think Game is “the narrow way which leads to life” rather what it really is, “the broad way”.

    Unless the journey Alte described is taken, it simply gives greater opportunity to placate the fleshly nature to the neglect and detriment of the spirit. It is an exercise in extreme hubris to think one can immerse their mind in that kind of thing and still be of any real use as a Christian.

  • Alte says:

    “But make the escape already, don’t stand in the window.”

    Yeah, that’s the essential problem. They get to the edge, and then turn around and go back in because what they left behind looks more interesting. But isn’t that a part of the Matrix mythology? That most people would rather stay plugged in? Don’t some turn into pillars of salt because they can’t bear to leave without looking back?

    Isn’t that the danger that power generally holds for people with no scruples? I’m regularly running into the problem that I acquire talents or opportunities or knowledge that I can’t use, and it’s not exactly pleasant to be stymied. It’d be comfortable to do some mental reverse-engineering and think, “Well, if you’ve got it, then God must want you to use it.”

  • johnmcg says:

    Isn’t it possible that it’s a coincidence that Game happened to arrive at the scene of the crime of feminism just as it was occurring, and is now reaping undeserved credit for its skills of detection?

    And now we’ve promoted this lucky detective to chief of police, and he’s not up for the job?

  • Mike T says:

    That’s quite probable, but then tradcons by and large have been showing all of the enthusiasm for closing the case of the typical Italian police officer.

  • Zippy says:

    John:
    I don’t think it is a coincidence. Feminism (and liberalism more generally) attempts to contradict reality. Sociopaths exploit the contradiction just enough to take advantage of the fact that almost everyone (even moreso IRL than online) is in a kind of trance, incapable of seeing reality. In the land of the blind, etc.

    Other men take notice because women flock to the (either natural or constructed/PUA) sociopaths. For many of them this is the first time they notice that something is fundamentally wrong with their basic picture of reality.

    Then they (frequently) make the mistake of doubling down on our society’s love of rebellion, which results in Christian bloggers proclaiming their respect and admiration for perverts.

  • jf12 says:

    Zippy says “From this I immediately conclude that, because Biblical marriage should be the frame of all Christians, Christians don’t need Game” as if any but the tiniest fract of current Christian marriages look anything like Biblical marriage. Game tools SEEM to work to drive Christian wives into the fold of Biblical marriage better than any other tools currently on the market. What is your suggested alternative?

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “Doesn’t gaming them sort of cover their sin?” Doesn’t spanking them reward them for being bad …?

  • Dalrock says:

    @SSM
    What do Christian men really need to be taught about headship other than that they have it? The problem isn’t that men don’t have enough game to sidle their way into headship. The problem is that women are unsubmissive. The women are the primary problem here. Doesn’t gaming them sort of cover their sin? Their unsubmissiveness needs to be called what it is: sin. And then they need to repent of it.

    I don’t disagree on submission, but I don’t see this as totally an either/or question. Women are commanded to submit to their husbands, full stop. If they aren’t doing this, they are in rebellion.

    But this doesn’t mean it isn’t loving for a husband to (without sinning) make it easier for her to submit or to discourage her from rebellion. When you were in rebellion against submission, wouldn’t it have been kindness to you if your pastor had taken your husband aside and explained to him the importance of not rewarding your rebellion, and perhaps offering some practical tips for how to manage this in our threatpoint primed legal environment? Wouldn’t that have been loving in a Christian sense?

    For example, Elspeth recently described a situation over at Hawaiian Libertarian’s blog where a Christian wife (daughter of a pastor) had thrown a cinderblock through the window of her husband’s car because he wasn’t submitting to her satisfaction. Elspeth’s husband wisely counseled this man to not reward the rebellious wife by taking her on an expensive getaway. Unfortunately the man refused this wise counsel, in part I would offer out of fear, and also because of the modern Christian inversion on headship/submission (where husbands are commanded to submit to their wives headship).

    Had the man listened to Elspeth’s husband’s advice, he would have been acting as a loving husband helping his wife confront her sinful rebellion. That this would be loving however doesn’t change the obligation of the wife to submit.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Zippy
    Dalrock:
    FWIW I have a similar bafflement about your position on Game. I apologize if I’m paraphrasing incorrectly, but I understand your position to be that if our frame is Biblical marriage and traditional sex roles we don’t need Game.

    From this I immediately conclude that, because Biblical marriage should be the frame of all Christians, Christians don’t need Game.

    This is pretty close. I made my case in more detail in my post Why Christians need game. For reference, it was in the comments section to this post where I asked Cane if he would be interested in writing a guest post explaining why Christians shouldn’t use Game.

  • sunshinemary says:

    jf12:

    Re: “Doesn’t gaming them sort of cover their sin?” Doesn’t spanking them reward them for being bad …?

    Well, your comment is pretty much irrelevant to the topic at hand, but since you directed it at me (for what reason, I don’t know), I’ll respond by saying that I have never understood the Christian Domestic Discipline thing, either. It seems doubtful to me that actual discipline is going on there, but the practitioners assure me that it is, and since there is no Scriptural prohibition against it that I can see, I just figure if it works for them, then it’s none of my business. But that isn’t really related at all to what we are discussing here.

  • sunshinemary says:

    But this doesn’t mean it isn’t loving for a husband to (without sinning) make it easier for her to submit or to discourage her from rebellion. When you were in rebellion against submission, wouldn’t it have been kindness to you if your pastor had taken your husband aside and explained to him the importance of not rewarding your rebellion, and perhaps offering some practical tips for how to manage this in our threatpoint primed legal environment? Wouldn’t that have been loving in a Christian sense?

    Yes, I can see your point I guess. The sin is still hers, of course, and the easiest fix would be for her to repent of her sin, but I can see how teaching men to deal with rebellion would be helpful. But does game strike you as the right way to do that? Most women like being gamed/seduced because it’s fun. Why reward unsubmissive/disrespectful behavior with something she enjoys? Shouldn’t the husband point out that his wife’s rebellion is in fact sin, rather than manipulating her into obedience with game?

    Something about using game in this way just strikes me as not being quite right. But I admit to not fully understanding what game is, so it might be my misunderstanding.

  • Dalrock says:

    @SSM
    Yes, I can see your point I guess. The sin is still hers, of course, and the easiest fix would be for her to repent of her sin, but I can see how teaching men to deal with rebellion would be helpful. But does game strike you as the right way to do that? Most women like being gamed/seduced because it’s fun. Why reward unsubmissive/disrespectful behavior with something she enjoys? Shouldn’t the husband point out that his wife’s rebellion is in fact sin, rather than manipulating her into obedience with game?

    I’m not suggesting a husband manipulate his wife into obedience. But good leadership skills are something a loving leader should seek out. It isn’t the boss’ job to make sure employees are motivated to work hard, but a good boss will look for ways to help motivate his employees. Part of what husbands are called to do is wash their wives in the water of the word. Effective leadership doesn’t do that, but it can help create a space where this is more likely to be possible. Also, keep in mind that the wife usually isn’t the only member of the family who suffers if the husband isn’t in a position of headship. Their children suffer too. About a year and a half ago commenter Some Guy described the fits his divorce threatening wife would have when he tried to read the Bible to their children, including throwing a book at his head. In a recent comment he described his wife as still being in rebellion but it now being a more manageable slow boil instead of constant eruptions. This isn’t perfection, but his children are now much more likely to grow up with him in the home.

  • Elspeth says:

    Re: The story I recounted that Dalrock referenced.

    That doesn’t qualify as game though, does it? That’s just refusing to reward bad behavior. Game in many ways does just the opposite I’d think, as Sunshine noted.

    When my husband “negs” me, or any of the other little pieces I’ve read here and there that are just part of the way he is, it’s fun. Fun should be a part of any healthy marital relationship.

    It’s the notion that these tactics are sufficient to invoke submission that is problematic. They don’t and they can’t. Even the consistent application of reasonable consequences for bad choices will only take a wife so far down the submission road. Ask me how I know.

    We’re talking Christian marriage here anyway and there is no true submission until the wife resolves to submit as unto the Lord.

    Finally, there are no small number of Christians who would classify my husband’s counsel to that young husband as “repaying evil for evil” or some other twist on Scripture that weak willed people are fond of pulling out to stay on the path of least resistance.

  • peppermint says:

    Here’s a currently popular song in which a White woman sings about wanting a man who has the balls to say what he means and mean what he says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWSepoe0_b4

    White women don’t want mealy-mouthed metrosexuals, they want men who act like men. They’ve been told that they want metrosexuals, but they actually don’t. Who will teach young White women to cook, knit, and care for babies? Actually, they are driven towards marriage by their sense of cuteness. Cooking and knitting came back in a big way ten years ago.

    But who will teach young men anything but metrosexuality? Not the secular schools, nor the religious schools, nor the churches. After all, every respectable organization has to be respectable.

    Not the garbage collectors.

    They can be as disreputable as they want, because they are disreputable and everyone knows it.

    It’s not like human nature is infinitely malleable, you know. White men and women are White men and women and will act within the bounds of how White men and women act.

    Christians don’t need to protect marriage as zealously as you think. Was marriage in ancient Greece any different from marriage according to Christ? It was little different. It was irrevocable, for the purpose of children; but there was concubinage and prostitution and pederasty going on as well. How about the ancient Germans? Still irrevocable for children; this time no concubinage or prostitution or pederasty or cousin marriage or arranged marriage.

    White people have been acting like White people for thousands of years, with a few exceptions, like the Mormons; the entire rest of the White world was disgusted by their polygyny and it was banned as soon as they came under the jurisdiction of the United States.

    Today, White people in the “free world” have the worst attitude towards marriage that they have ever had. You think, therefore, that White people can not be trusted to maintain marriage without Christ; this is the glass half empty view. The glass half full view is that White people will come back to pre-Christian traditions if Christianity doesn’t come back.

    But you know what?

    There’s a reason White people were so willing to accept Christianity, and it’s not because of the force of the Roman Empire, which after all started by persecuting Christians. If Whites go from anti-Christianity back to pre-Christianity, that’s the path towards Christianity.

    All of Creation is oriented towards the Creator, remember?

  • jf12 says:

    Re: Brave. Yes, women love for attractve men to be honest. But only attractive men.

  • Alte says:

    “When my husband “negs” me, or any of the other little pieces I’ve read here and there that are just part of the way he is, it’s fun. Fun should be a part of any healthy marital relationship.”

    Seriously. Maybe it’s because I didn’t grow up over there, but a lot of the criticism about husbands using Game seems puritanical, based upon a sort of melancholy. Like, “Oh noes, a married couple is flirting! We must stop this or they might end up having sex for reasons other than the solemn duty of procreation. Doesn’t that wife have a toilet to scrub somewhere?”

    There’s a sort of passion and excitement in some of our marriages that we enjoy, and that Game enhances. Sex starts in the kitchen, and all that jazz. Why so dour?

  • sunshinemary says:

    O/T
    @ Alte

    Help me out if you can – I seem to remember an essay you wrote many moons ago about how you had boyfriends in the past whose preferences you found yourself starting to adopt. I can’t remember the exact examples – I think it was something like you dated a guy who liked a certain kind of music, and then you started to like it…and several other examples like that. If you can, would you mind sending me the link to that article, or leaving it here or on my blog? I would like to reference it in a post I’m working on. Thanks!

  • Elspeth says:

    There’s a sort of passion and excitement in some of our marriages that we enjoy, and that Game enhances.

    The argument V, is that what you’re describing is not game. That it has always existed in loving marriages just as the neg has have been around since Hobbits tilled the soil of the Shire.

    That giving Roissyites credit for something that enhances Christian marriage is just plain wrong, morally. Not only is it incompatible, but it gives them credit for something which they deserve no credit for.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Elspeth
    The argument V, is that what you’re describing is not game. That it has always existed in loving marriages just as the neg has have been around since Hobbits tilled the soil of the Shire.

    That giving Roissyites credit for something that enhances Christian marriage is just plain wrong, morally. Not only is it incompatible, but it gives them credit for something which they deserve no credit for.

    If the Roissyites deserve no credit for collating/codifying the information we are describing, could you please point me to the folks who have done this work either prior to Roissy or (entirely separately) in parallel? This will be an outstanding thing to be able to point Christian husbands to, and I look forward to your reply so I can quickly write a post doing so.

    If such a group/resource can’t be found, then the claim that the Roissyites don’t deserve any credit is dishonest.

    Or is the argument what Rollo has described, that Christian husbands should “just get it”?

  • Zippy says:

    Alte:
    Did your husband learn his behaviors from Roissy or some other PUA blogger? If not, why adopt the PUA vocabulary?

    Dalrock:

    If the Roissyites deserve no credit for collating/codifying the information we are describing, could you please point me to the folks who have done this work either prior to Roissy or (entirely separately) in parallel?

    You are begging the question. What the Roissyites have ‘codified’ is laced with moral poison, and is not “an outstanding thing to be able to point Christian husbands to.” It is at very best a minefield of mixed-up falsehoods and truths, like Islam (see my previous post).

    Who “deserves credit” is beside the point, but it is certainly true that Roissyites deserve credit for the poison they spread.

  • sunshinemary says:

    I suppose Roissy et al have described some of that which was previously just unwritten/unspoken but understood. My husband has always teased me lightly, for example. And he figured out how to pass fitness tests (which I described in the post about how he was my ice cream bitch) on his own, long before he read anything in the manosphere. A lot of his reading on game sites has just been like, “Oh yeah, so that’s why that works” kind of stuff.

    But I don’t think the pua-crowd came up with any of what might be good about game, do you? Isn’t it more like they just described what people used to know?

  • Zippy says:

    Sunshine:

    Isn’t it more like they just described what people used to know?

    Yes, and only to the extent it was helpful for them to be able to bed lots of sluts. Furthermore, the demand that PUA deserve some special pioneer leadership status unless we are shown where someone else has ‘codified’ conventional wisdom that people in a functional society learn without having to crack open a technical manual is not only counterfactual, it is also counterproductive. Conferring special leadership status on perverts just adds fuel to the fire of our society’s celebration of the perverse.

  • deti says:

    “You are begging the question.”

    I know you aren’t going to publish this but I’ll ask it anyway.

    If men shouldn’t learn masculinity from the Roissyites, then from whom should they learn it? Where can men learn masculinity when fathers, churches, pastors, and other men don’t instruct other men on it; and there is no longer a strong patriarchy?

  • deti says:

    “Who “deserves credit” is beside the point”

    That’s a copout. Why don’t you just tell men where they can learn authentic masculinity, if they shouldn’t learn it from PUAs?

  • Zippy says:

    “Who will bring me water if I do not drink the poison?”

  • deti says:

    Do you have an answer to the question?

    Or as Dalrock pointed out, is the answer as Rollo says, that Christian men should “Just get it”? That’s weak sauce, isn’t it? That’s an answer that women give men.

    I mean this in good faith, but you’re not answering in good faith. Don’t you have something better than women? Don’t you have something better than “just get it”?

    Surely you must, or you wouldn’t be writing about it so prolifically.

  • Zippy says:

    Deti:
    No, I do not have a technical manual for the machine “Woman” that I can give to you so that you don’t have to learn anything the usual way.

    (I’ve said as much many times).

  • deti says:

    I know you don’t have a technical manual. What “usual way” do you learn it? From whom? Are you talking about simple trial and error? Are there writings (other than the Bible of course)?

    Or is this just a roundabout way of “just get it” and “just figure it out for yourself”? IF it is, and if that’s your answer, that’s fine; I just want to make sure I’ve drilled all the way down here.

  • Zippy says:

    Deti:
    I’ll indulge you, but I am not going to let you turn this into one of your endless foot-stomping exercises. You are welcome to start you own blog or do it in the comboxes of more indulgent bloggers than me.

    Almost everything that men and women know and understand about each other is not explicitly taught; not now, and never in any society ever. The demand that now it should be explicitly taught in some comprehensive fashion is inherently unreasonable.

    The biggest barrier in the way of men learning about women – or at least the biggest barrier that they can actually do anything about – is the fact that almost everyone is in thrall to liberalism. (This affects people in very many ways in addition to relations between the sexes).

    So the approach I recommend (and have been recommending for decades) is repentance: to repudiate liberalism utterly. At that point, yes, you have to “figure it out” — very much like you have to figure out every other important thing in life in the context of modern society.

  • sunshinemary says:

    Why don’t you just tell men where they can learn authentic masculinity, if they shouldn’t learn it from PUAs?

    Where Christian men should not learn about masculinity:
    1. From women.
    2. From the modern church.
    3. From Disney Princess movies.
    4. From Rom Coms.

    Possible places for Christian men to learn about masculinity:
    1. From the Bible.
    2. From their own observations of the world around them.
    3. From other Christian men who have rejected liberalism (there are a bunch of such men in the men’s sphere and the wider reactionary-sphere whose entire life doesn’t seem to be centered on chasing tail).

    It’s odd, but we women never fuss about where to learn femininity from. Once we realize that feminists (and liberals in general) are liars, we just look to collective past wisdom for a description of what is valuable in a woman. I wonder why this is so much harder for men? I genuinely don’t know.

  • Zippy says:

    The more I consider it the more the objection to “just figure it out” is odd as something supposedly contrasted to Game. Probably Game’s most effective recommendation is to approach, approach, approach, learn from it, accept a low hit rate, and keep on keeping on.

    In other words, just man up and figure it out.

  • Zippy’s point about liberalism is one that should be stapled to the forehead of everyone whining that he isn’t giving them manuals or whatever. The Game-worshippers and Roissy-slaves are just like (to take a current obviously liberal example) the living wage people demanding not just a job handed to them, but a ‘good job’ at a ‘good wage’ with ‘benefits’.

    These knuckleheads want a ‘good wife’ and high status (not just status, but HIGH status specifically) and just like the living wage types, they don’t feel they need to be worth that value themselves. No, it should just be given them because they yelled and stomped their feet a bunch.

    Why should men look to any of these knuckleheads as authorities, high status men, or leaders? Why would the knuckleheads warrant the care and love and affection and lifelong marriage bond of a genuinely Godly, warm, devout, feminine woman?

    Zippy isn’t the problem. Bad advice from the Christian culture isn’t even the problem, not really. Monstrous, uncontrolled 50 foot hamster entitlement on the part of teh menz is the problem.

  • Zippy says:

    TUW:
    To be fair, though, there isn’t just one problem or even one kind of problem. The practical problems that arise when one ‘wakes up’ from the liberal trance are all over the map; and the later in life it happens, the further down the rabbit hole one may find onesself.

  • […] a recent exchange at Zippy Catholic, Alte and Elspeth discussed the controversy over teaching Christian husbands “Game” […]

  • Dalrock says:

    @Zippy
    What the Roissyites have ‘codified’ is laced with moral poison, and is not “an outstanding thing to be able to point Christian husbands to.”

    The “outstanding thing” I was referencing was not Roissyite Game, but the hypothetical group teaching men tools for headship, etc. who haven’t been tainted by Roissy and company. If they exist, I very much hope someone will point me to them so I can share this information with others.

  • sunshinemary says:

    @ Dalrock
    But people have pointed you to such men, have they not? Granted, they are rather few and far between. But you’ve been pointed to Voddie Baucham, to Doug Phillips (who, unfortunately, is now a bit disgraced for having engaged in an affair, but that shouldn’t be a problem for Christians in the manosphere, right?), and to the Love and Respect ministry. Even Jenny Erikson’s pastor excommunicated her, something that I would have expected you to laud, but you were rather silent on this issue. Respectfully, you tend to ignore Christians who are doing the right thing. Given that you do, it doesn’t seem fruitful to point them out to you.

  • Zippy says:

    Dalrock:
    As you continue your quest for the Holy Technical Manual on Female Psychology, the obviously Christian thing to do in the meantime is refer men to Heartiste and the Sixteen Commandments of Poon.

  • If they exist, I very much hope someone will point me to them so I can share this information with others.

    That seems to be missing the point a bit, no? The point isn’t that we have so many other sources to look at. The point is that the pick up artists are just as bad a source to go to as any of the others.

    Maybe we simply don’t know the answer. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Obviously in the past people got along quite well without Roissy, better than we’re doing now. But that we don’t, ourselves, actually know it might just be a fact of life we have to find ways to deal with. Sometimes life gives you lemons.

    Looking for advice about marriage from submissive men is a bad idea. But so is looking for advice from perverts.

  • Mike T says:

    Looking for advice about marriage from submissive men is a bad idea. But so is looking for advice from perverts.

    But what you’re forgetting is that a submissive man cannot tell you how to get your wife to desire you. The submissive Christian man likely has literally nothing of value to teach, aside from regurgitating scripture that he clearly does not understand as evidenced by his life. Well, perhaps his life can be the lesson, but there’s a demotivator for that that is shorter and pithier.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    “But what you’re forgetting …”

    Nobody is forgetting that.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: Roissy. One reason I have only Dalrock bookmarked is that he doesn’t link there, and frankly many here seem to advise others to go there to see how bad it is.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Here ya go Dal,

    http://www.sterling-institute.com/

    “The Men’s Weekend on Relationships and Marriage:

    The Weekend is led by A. Justin Sterling, an acknowledged relationship expert, author, and founder of the Sterling Institute. His expertise and familiarity with the innermost thoughts of women, has given him the insight and perspective to teach men to be better relationship partners by being more masculine, more honorable, and more disciplined. Men who are not ready for a long-term relationship will find good advice on how to manage their emotional well-being in romantic endeavors, while men who are considering marriage and family will find much needed guidance on self-preparation, choosing the right mate, and staying on the path to a thriving marriage. ”

    Since 79. Had some friends do this 20 years ago, definitely showed them how to be men.

  • Alte says:

    “Did your husband learn his behaviors from Roissy or some other PUA blogger?”

    No, the men around here are all like that. They can’t help it.

    “If not, why adopt the PUA vocabulary?”

    Because I was trying to describe his behavior to men who haven’t really seen something like that before, and the Gamers were the only ones who’ve built up a lingua franca. It was their idea to start writing about the subject, in the first place.

    My children and I struggle with social interactions and have to learn the rules with painstaking care, so I guess my natural inclination is to sympathize with people who “don’t get it” unless it’s deliberately explained. Not everyone picks up stuff effortlessly.

    As I stated before, I give the Gamers credit for coming up with the idea, but I think we can now move on and discuss the subject amongst ourselves without having to constantly refer back to them. Most of what they write is garbage, we’ve got our own deal going now, and we can point them to more edifying sources of such information.

  • Alte says:

    “If you can, would you mind sending me the link to that article, or leaving it here or on my blog?”

    I just looked for it, including on my old blog, but I couldn’t find it. It was something about “emtpy vessels”, but nothing comes up in a search.

  • Random Angeleno says:

    “Deficiencies in fatherhood cannot be filled in by the Church, and they cannot be replaced by the “wisdom” of sexual perverts. Note the word cannot. If the Red Pill is supposed to be about accepting reality as it actually is rather than as we would like it to be, then accepting this reality should be a part of it.”

    That’s real helpful, Zippy. /sarcasm

    A seriously condemnatory attitude toward the men looking for help. An attitude proved wrong by the experience of a fair number of Christian men. Sometimes I wonder why I still browse here. At least some Christian men are trying. Cane, Donal, Chad and Deep Strength to name a few. I think they are well worth reading. How about you go over there and infect them with your pessimism…

    Long ago, I challenged you to engage in a number of behaviors with your wife that are strongly advised against by the “game” writers. In other words, do the “don’t do this” behaviors with your wife. Of course you wouldn’t touch that one with a 10-foot pole. Heck, you would never admit it because you won’t admit those “perverts” have anything useful to say, but you knew down deep that engaging in those behaviors would not be good for your marriage. Your actions in this instance belie your words, that’s all I have to say…

  • Zippy says:

    Random Angelino:
    Sometimes I wonder why I still browse here.

    By all means don’t.

    Your actions in this instance belie your words, that’s all I have to say…

    You say that because you don’t comprehend my words.

  • Zippy says:

    Alte:
    I guess my natural inclination is to sympathize with people who “don’t get it” unless it’s deliberately explained.

    I sympathize with them too. If I didn’t, I would have no motivation to write what I do on the subject.

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 Game in Hobbiton, or, Bilbo demonstrates the neg at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: