The central paradox of “Christian Game”

February 2, 2014 § 123 Comments

If Game cannot be defined, it is tantamount to “just get it”.

If Game can be defined, it is the Sixteen Commandments (content warning).

§ 123 Responses to The central paradox of “Christian Game”

  • jf12 says:

    Game is conspiring ith a woman to pick her up.

  • Opus says:

    I am not convinced that Game (even if I could work out exactly what it is) exists; that even if it does it achieves its stated effects; and that even if it does achieve those stated effects that it is any way for a man to live without being a pussy-beggar: there are endless instances of men doing the very opposite of Roissy’s sixteen commandments, who are successfully with women. Negging (attempting to demonstrate value) often backfires badly and worse, even if it works, that is no way for a man (Xtian or otherwise) to live contentedly and at ease with himself.

    I suspect therefore that Game is metaphysical nonsense and is surely scientifically not falsifiable – and thus pseudo-science.

  • peppermint says:

    Game isn’t a thing, it’s how a man who understands female psychology as different from male psychology acts when he wants to attract women.

    I had to catch myself, I accidentally wrote ‘someone who understands female psychology…’ and thought about lesbians, transsexuals, and social constructs.

    The reason game is a thing is that the most visible people who talk explicitly about that there’s a difference between men and women are garbage collectors.

    Christian game is game as done by a Christian. James Bond revels in sin; Jason Bourne does not.

    If only Christians could talk openly about sex differences, no one would ever have heard of a PUA.

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    I have to confess that, while I’ve been following along recently, I still don’t understand your antipathy to Game in a merely positive sense. If one thinks of Game as just (and this is how it seems to be used by most) “a systematic collation of theory and practices intended to improve a man’s influence over women by increasing his attractiveness,” there is nothing intrinsically immoral. Sure, Roissy is uncouth, but that hardly rises to untruthfulness.

    If one were to excise the PUA culture, what would be your take on the idea of Game as such?

  • DeNihilist says:

    Bryce, as demonstrated by one of the biggest PUA’s, Krauser, game DOES NOT give you an advantage of picking up woman! His .027 batting average for 2013 confirms this. The only thing game gives men is the advice to hit up as many woman as possible, and with this advice, you will eventually run into a slut PERIOD!

  • DeNihilist says:

    or try this. Krauser approached 1000 woman. Let’s say for sake of argument he spends an average of ten minutes qualifying with each. That is 10,000 minutes or 167 hours of time. Take that time, multiply by 30 bucks an hour (what I pay my journeymen) for a total of 5000.00 in wages. Divide the 5 grand by 250 bucks for a high quality hooker, and without all of that aggro, he could have bedded 20 “high quality women”!

    No time spent getting ready, stalking his prey, down time in between approaches, etc.

    Kinda makes you wonder were the benefit is don’t it?

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    jf12,
    I am not interested in ‘picking up’ women, I am interested in finding a good wife.

    Opus,
    Look at the language you used; is that any way for a Christian man to think or speak? Christianity has *always* taught that lust is a sin, that men (and women) need to master self-control, act justly, etc.
    In other words, thinking and acting as a Christian makes “game” as you described it meaningless.

    Peppermint,
    If “game” involves any psychology it is not the psychology of solid, lasting marriage. Indeed, if there is any accuracy in “game” it is focused on the *opposite* of what Christians are meant to have.

  • jf12 says:

    @Aquinas Dad, and you expect her to fall from heaven into your bed?

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    jf12,
    No, nor did I imply that, did I?
    Further, into my life, not just my bed.
    The repeated implication that only “game” can teach you how to meet/get women is not just unsupportable, it is laughable. As I point out a number of places, and is pointed out by, oh, Deti and Heartiste, the sorts of men PUAs call ‘natural alphas’ reject “game” as silly (or, in other cases, silly and immoral).

  • jf12 says:

    “Just be born a natural already, wouldja”

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    jf12,
    ““Just be born a natural already, wouldja””
    This? AGAIN? Are you and Deti constitutionally incapable of remembering what other people wrote more than 1 day ago?
    No one is born a leader. No one is born confident. No one is born courageous. Etc.
    Character traits that habituation to create and a lifetime to attempt to master.
    *THAT* is one of the reasons ‘you’re just a natural alpha, shut up’ is *funny*. One, the entire ‘alpha/beta/gamma/omega/signma’ thing is obviously false and no one is born with character traits – we *all* develop them.
    Of course, that might explain a great deal.
    [thinking ‘aloud’ here]
    PUAs all seem to share certain character flaws; if they believe they were ‘born’ that way they could, conceivably, be unable to see others without those flaws as anything but ‘born’ that way. They see their flaws not as, say, a need to build leg strength (something that diligence can remove) but as being crippled (such that they need a crutch or leg brace to overcome). So when others who have already overcome that flaw say,
    ‘What are you doing?! Why waste your rime on that? Here are some exercises…’
    their reply,
    ‘No! Don’t you get it? I was born like this! You have naturally strong legs but I *need* this leg brace!’
    suddenly makes a weird sorta’ sense.
    They would reject any source of character development that does not begin with the (false) premise that they are crippled from birth as not applying to them. Warning them that their course of action is harmful to them will be dismissed – they *need* this, don’t you see? Only “game” acknowledges that they are crippled to begin with….
    Hmmmm. Maybe.

  • Mike T says:

    No one is born a leader. No one is born confident. No one is born courageous. Etc.

    This is demonstrably false if by this you are including those men who are born with strong natural tendencies toward those things.

  • Zippy says:

    I agree with Mike T: that is, on the nature/nurture thing the correct answer is “both/and” not “either/or”.

    But Aquinas Dad is certainly right that everyone has the opportunity to develop virtue and character, and that you won’t know who did the work to “just get it” vs who was “born that way” by superficial inspection.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike T,
    You do know the difference between
    “…strong natural tendencies toward [something]…”
    and actually *having* that thing, right?
    I have a great voice and am told I could easily be a singer (strong natural tendencies). I have never worked on it and haven’t been trained on it – so I can’t sing very well. I am tall, strong, with good reflexes but I never really played much basketball so I am not a good basketball player.
    etc.

  • Opus says:

    It seems to me that Christians who use or at least support Game do so in some surely vain attempt to control female behaviour generally. When they fail they will persuade themselves that they were doing it wrongly, but when a woman comes to heel they will be convinced they were using Game successfully. It is nice to think that there is some magic formula to control females but frankly demonstrating dominance is just as likely to backfire.

    Game is surely some derivative of Game Theory; in Prisoner’s Dilemma one always has the option to play Dove; that can work as well, and breeds trust: playing Hawk does the opposite but that seems to me to be what Christian Game proponents are suggesting as the preferred and optimal strategy at all times. Doesn’t sound very Christian to me.

    None of this is to suggest that one should allow women to walk all over one or that failing a fitness test will not derail your intended seduction.

    Clearly Krauser has some success but then he is motivated enough to put in a lot of effort. The game is stacked against men – Krauser’s strike rate would be absurdly low for a woman similarly motivated.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Zippy; Mike,
    Sure – nurture alone isn’t all their is; some people have natural charisms, sure. But we must *all* strive to develop them or they languish.
    I am sure that at least some of those guys dismissed as ‘natural alphas’ worked their tails off to develop those traits.

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    @DeNihilist

    I don’t know what’s wrong with Krauser, but I’ve had much better success with women (in terms of my controlling the relationship to my own ends, I’m Catholic, so obviously that precludes sexual ends) by internalizing Game than before. You might argue that Game is just a placebo, but even a placebo works better than the control. I don’t think it’s just a placebo; the insights to female psychology available through Game are indispensable, and I’d like to see someone challenge those claims.

    It’s anecdotal evidence, but it doesn’t rely on “well eventually you run into a slut.” I’ve used Game to improve my relationships with my own family members. There’s something to it that isn’t a selection mechanism.

  • slumlord says:

    @Aquinas Dad

    Apropos: But Aquinas Dad is certainly right that everyone has the opportunity to develop virtue and character

    Cue Eros. Is there such a thing as Christian sexual virtue that needs to be cultivated: not merely in the negative sense such as modesty, but in the positive sense, such as femininity and masculinity?

    Modesty is only a virtue when there are positive sexual goods to regulate. There is no real need for modesty when there is no erotic capital.

  • There are a number of systems that people have used to “improve relationships with family members/the opposite sex/co-workers” that are not “game”.

    Many of them are New Age-derived. Some are variations of sales techniques. There is nothing special about “game” that makes it a requirement or even that great a method to “improve relationships”.

    My relationships with family members improved when I read my Bible more and prayed more often for them. You’d think methods along those lines might come up a bit more among Christians enthralled by the ridiculous nerd festival that is “game on the internet”.

    One major piece of realism about men and women game will never teach you is that there is a substantial, double-digit minority of men and women who don’t care much for the opposite sex in a social sense, but who aren’t sexually attracted to the same sex.

  • Zippy says:

    Bonding of husband and wife into a family union for raising children is a pretty obvious positive good.

  • Mike T says:

    Aquinas Dad,

    Obviously there is a difference, but someone with a strong talent for something will usually not require nearly the effort to manifest that talent as an actualized ability versus someone born with little to no talent for something. The fact that single moms are capable of producing both quasi-barbarian alphas and betas without much male input should suffice to show that there exists a subset of males that will naturally, short of extraordinary indoctrination and intervention, turn out more or less alpha by nature. It’s just in their nature to trend toward socially dominant, assertive, even aggressive behavior among other “alpha traits.”

    slumlord,

    There is no real need for modesty when there is no erotic capital.

    A number of women make that very very wrong.

  • Novaseeker says:

    A number of women make that very very wrong.

    Well, I’d say more that women, if they are average or above in attractiveness in physical terms (which is admittedly a harsh qualifier, but such is life) have a natural erotic capital that can be very easily accentuated unless they practice modesty. That is, as a female friend once said, “if a woman is objectively pretty enough, she could be dressed in a potato sack and most men would still find her attractive, so that’s where modesty comes in … the same woman dressing like a stripper or prostitute sends it to cloud nine, she is trying to hard and setting off too many bells” (paraphrase). So that’s the case for female modesty where there is some erotic capital — which I think there is with women who at or above that middle threshold.

    For men the situation is different because what makes men attractive is different, so a case can be made that (1) the percentage of men who have to worry about having a lot of natural erotic capital so as to trigger the need to focus on modesty is much smaller than it is for women and (2) for the rest of the men, they have to focus on building up more erotic capital to be in the ballpark where they need to worry about modesty. Yes, there are women like this, too, but there are fewer of them.

  • Novaseeker says:

    I don’t think it’s just a placebo; the insights to female psychology available through Game are indispensable, and I’d like to see someone challenge those claims.

    Well, they are being debated currently. Some places to look are here, obviously, but also canecaldo.wordpress.com, deepstrength.wordpress.com, etc. The debate tends to ebb and flow, but it’s in a flow mode now.

  • jf12 says:

    “for the rest of the men, they have to focus on building up more erotic capital” i.e. game.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Bryce, “how to win friends and influence people” could have led you to the same position. The Sterling Institute could have led you to the same position. Working as a dog trainer could have led you to the same position.

    They are all systems that lead you to yourself. The difference is, that these systems are working within the moral realm, helping people to become better, where as game is sold as the system to bang sluts. and the real life players have shown that it fails tragically!

    If you feel that game has given you confidence in different aspects of your life, I think you need to look deeper, and maybe you will see, that game is just an excuse for something that was already there, and just needed a poke to wake it up.

  • johnmcg says:

    jt12,

    Hypergamy suggests that a man would increase his erotic capital by pursuing and landing a promotion to a better job.

    I don’t think a man who achieves this need tip his cap to Roissy et al.

  • jf12 says:

    johnmcg, hypergamy in the form of the feminine imperative suggests that being a provider is an MMV strategy, a BB strategy, almost the opposite of erotic SMV in any culture like ours is which sex and marriage are so strongly discoupled. You do not get extra points for wishing society was not the way it is.

  • johnmcg says:

    So you’re saying that someone pursuing and landing a more prestigous (and higher-paying) job does not increase his erorotic capital?

  • jf12 says:

    It never helped me. It never helped Bill Gates.

  • Zippy says:

    A better job is like a woman being able to cook. It is great, but it isn’t especially sexy.

    Folks are always confusing formal respectable “hierarchies” with the social hierarchy. They aren’t the same thing at all, for reasons I’ve explained in a couple of my posts. Remember that under liberalism the social hierarchy is sociopathic because of the nature of liberalism; and the formal hierarchy is formally pure voluntarism and thus no hierarchy at all in the pertinent sense.

  • johnmcg says:

    Well there are other dimensions to “better” than high-paying. I don’t think it’s been a secret for long than women are into doctors, lawyers, or even blue-collar workers like cops and firemen. Men have been (in part) going into those lines of work for years in hopes of attracting women, and they didn’t need Game to know to do that.

  • Zippy says:

    I remember an episode of the show King of Queens where the main character has a “food affair” – not an actual affair of any sort – with a woman significantly less attractive, but a far better cook, than his wife. There is also a Seinfeld where George combines food and sex. People find these things funny because they either explicitly or viscerally know the difference between attractive qualities and sexually attractive qualities; and they know that intellectually these are frequently conflated.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Game.

    2 neighbours in their early twenties decide to start vegetable gardens, so that they can have fresh food. Both lift, are in great physical shape with no underlying genetic or other conditions.

    Dave gets his manure from the hardware store, bagged and neat.

    Sam gets his literally from the horses rear end.

    Unknown to Dave, the plant where his manure is processed used to be a lead battery recovery plant. Both men have successful gardens and physically develop eye catching bodies. Things are good.

    5 years later, they are offered a free soil sample from Zippy’s Garden Works. Sam’s soil passes with flying colours, Dave fails drastically. Zippy lets Dave know that his soil is contaminated with lead, brought in by his use of the store bought manure. Zippy tells Dave that he should stop growing his veges in that area, to find a new plot and to use other manure. Dave thinks for a while, then decides that his body must be different then others. “I am strong, vibrant and never felt so confident before. My body must metabolize the lead while others cannot.” Dave continues to use the lead infested land for his veges.

    5 years later, Dave is having problems remembering small thing. 2 years later he develops a bad case of the dropsies. Within 3 more years he is confined to a wheelchair.

  • Zippy says:

    One of the things I’ve concluded after reading the manosphere since 2012 or so is that the foundational “Game is a box of amoral tools” framing is completely wrong. I’ve been puzzling over moral theology and immersed in its literature for a good long while. Also, I have no particular self-interest in this subject which could distort my perspective. Yet as anyone who reads here knows, each time I pick up and examine one of these “tools” up close I find it – if there is more to it than an obvious platitude for anyone who is not a liberal – far from obvious how to separate what is good out from what is evil. If it isn’t obvious to me, that means there is a whole lot of “just get it” discernment work involved for any serious Christian. And at that point you have to ask yourself what the value is.

    A lot of the anti-anti-Game energy seems to be fueled by the notion that the perverts have created a “system” or “toolbox” that serious Christians can just pick up and use bits of without engaging in serious and difficult work of “just get it” discernment. As far as I can tell that is just straightforwardly false.

  • jf12 says:

    @Zippy “far from obvious how to separate what is good out from what is evil.” Suppose a man’s intent is to sexually arouse his wife, and he finds that, contrary to everything he’s been taught and everything she says, that she is easier, more submissive, more sexually available, a better wife making him a better husband and better man elsewhere, when he pinches her rear in public.

    Is it really better for him to be told “You should have found a wife who is aroused in a more good way.”? Is it really better to tell husbands who seem to find game working, that they should have chosen differently?

  • Mike T says:

    Novaseeker,

    I was criticizing slumlord for failing to take into consideration women who are unattractive to outright ugly (especially fat and ugly) who need modesty precisely because their mode of dress amounts to a form of assault on the eyes.

  • slumlord says:

    @Mike T

    I was criticizing slumlord for failing to take into consideration women who are unattractive to outright ugly (especially fat and ugly) who need modesty precisely because their mode of dress amounts to a form of assault on the eyes.

    Modesty is for those with erotic capital, courtesy for those without.

  • Zippy says:

    I like how DeNihilist’s parable implies that one is better off getting advice literally from the horse’s ass than from a PUA.

    A counter would be that the store-bought manure can be filtered and processed by the gardener to remove the toxins. But at the end of the day doing so may take capabilities far beyond what is required to “just get it” from the horse’s ass.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Game

    The serpent states to Eve, that with the knowledge that eating the apple will unleash, then humans themselves will become gods.

    Knowledge in itself is not evil nor good, but how we acquire it can be evil.
    The consequences evident in the fall from Eden.

    By using game to instill manly confidence within ourselves, we are saying that I AM DIFFERENT! That the poison contained within the very genetics of game will not affect me. My moral character is stronger then the horseshit that game was grown in.

    Taking the wont of gamers to use fantasy to describe reality, in Lord of The Rings, only one mortal had the strength to ever give up the seduction of the ring, Bilbo.

    One mortal!

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    @DeNihilist

    >They are all systems that lead you to yourself. The difference is, that these systems are working within the moral realm, helping people to become better, where as game is sold as the system to bang sluts. and the real life players have shown that it fails tragically!

    What is intrinsically immoral about the precepts of Game? “Men are more attractive as leaders” seems pretty neutral. The gist is the notion that social interaction is an art. Other approaches might get one to those behaviors, but the general theory (Roissy’s god of biomechanics, as a specific example) appears sound and I’ve seen it corroborated day-in day-out.

    In short, as a theory of social interaction, it has high explanatory value and high predictive power. That’s where I’m coming from on the issue.

    >If you feel that game has given you confidence in different aspects of your life, I think you need to look deeper, and maybe you will see, that game is just an excuse for something that was already there, and just needed a poke to wake it up.

    I’ll be honest in pointing out that this sort of mushy claptrap has absolutely no value. You haven’t provided a means of interacting with the world, you’ve simply provided a bellyfeel platitude. Even supposing there was something “there all along” Game must have succeeded in rousing.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Zippy – “A counter would be that the store-bought manure can be filtered and processed by the gardener to remove the toxins. But at the end of the day doing so may take capabilities far beyond what is required to “just get it” from the horse’s ass.”

    Yup. As you have stated game is less effective then a placebo, or even more embarrassing, then walking down the street with an empty guitar case –

    http://nsippets.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/from-the-journal-of-you-kind-of-already-knew-this/

    31% of woman gave this stranger their phone number, just because he had a guitar case slung on his shoulder! Guess Rosey will be scrabbling to put a post together about “empty guitar case game” right about now!

    Game’s biggest rule is to filter, filter, and filter some more. In other words, you have a better chance just walking up to random woman and asking them for sex point blank.

    Game comes from a dark place, and no matter how much the gardener filters and processes it, the poison will always be there working on you, destroying you and your relationships, PERIOD!

    Game is about manipulation, nothing more. But as Krauser admits, it isn’t even very good at doing that. So why would Religious people look to this fallacy as a way to “Tame the Shrew”? Better to go out and buy a guitar case!

  • Zippy says:

    Bryce Laliberte:
    “Men are more attractive as leaders” seems pretty neutral.

    It is also a banal slogan.

    Most modern slogans are equivocal: they have a ‘strong form’ which falls to criticism, and a ‘weak form’ which is meaningless banality to which nobody could object. I’ve discussed this phenomenon with the concepts of ‘equal rights’, ‘just powers derive from the consent of the governed’, and others over the years. It is just as true of the things put forth as “Game”. Once they are specific enough to criticize at all, they become problematic. As banal slogans they are as defensible as any banal slogan.

    I’ll be honest in pointing out that this sort of mushy claptrap has absolutely no value.

    Well, yes.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: banal claptrap. Just be a Good Man, and then you may or may not get lucky in getting to marry a Good Woman who by definition sexually appreciates a Good Man, regardless of whether any of those women actually exist, and regardless of whether it is better to marry than to burn, or not. “Que sera, sera” is not very helpful, really.

  • Zippy says:

    See here for example where I talk about how “consent of the governed” equivocates between an incoherent ‘strong’ form and a vacuous ‘weak’ form.

    Game concepts are like that. Whenever criticism is leveled against something concrete enough in Game that it rises above vacuous banality, Game defenders come out of the woodwork with the banalities — just like the consent idolaters come out of the woodwork with banalities like the fact that if the populace didn’t ‘consent’ the government would be overthrown, etc.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Bryce, yes game can “help” to give you confidence, but the immoral ground that the roots live in will slowly poison your life. And as the gamers themselves state, you still have not really tried game, as you admit, you are not out to bang sluts. Unfortunately they are totally right with this quip. Look at it this way, Krauser is on the front lines with live ammunition whizzing past his head. You on the other hand are stationed a hundred miles behind the lines, filling Krausers ammo belt and K rations. If you are not out to bang woman, then you are not internalizing game. You are living a placebo. Period.

    You state that you see how game has changed your relationships with others. I submit that you are seeing what you want. Ask these others if they have noticed a new you. Are you trying to date any of these woman who you have put under your game spell, or are you just LJBFed? Do you think, that if you are the odd one, whom game actually works for, that you will be happy spending your life manipulating people? Staying on the outside? Never allowing anyone in, in case you get hurt?

    The rules of game are neither moral nor immoral, it is the gestation that poisons the whole concept. But me thinks you know this deep down, but as Eve was, you are under the impression that you are a special human, and you can just take the good and “metabolize” the evil. Good luck with that.

    As an aside, I have lived the life. But in my day it was called seduction, not game. I spent time with the Guru Osho. the whole atmosphere was so sexually charged that the ugliest man on earth felt that he had game. In time you either become a caricature of yourself – see Hugh Hefner, or you wake up and repent (comes from the same root as return, as in return to the grace of God). Unfortunately, there is no other outcome.

    Now go ahead and convince yourself that game is moral and you are strong enough to only take the good. Live the life, be the prodigal son, but remember this older guy, the day you realize how much of your life you wasted on a false god.

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    @Zippy

    Doesn’t seem very banal to me. Women demonstrate attraction to men who take on a role of leadership. Insofar as Game is effective in instilling the means of taking on leadership, Game is effective for increasing attractiveness. That seems like an empirical claim that can withstand scrutiny.

    @DeNihilist

    For what it’s worth, people have come forward and told me I seem very different. Not only that, but the reactions of those around me have consistently been far more to my own preferences.

    If there are specific instances of immorality in the techniques of Game, I’d be interested to hear, but a systematic method of approaching social interaction (which is how I understand Game) cannot be intrinsically immoral, no matter the vestiges under which it was born. You can’t know something and not act on it, and given my acquaintance with Game (and its repeated corroboration, unless I am magically unacquainted with the world since learning Game), when I know that my behavior x will produce response y in someone, and both of us are happier by response y, am I supposed to not go through with behavior x because of my understanding of the relation between x and y? Does heightened awareness of how social interactions actually work make social interaction immoral?

    In short (I might consider a post at my own blog later on), I don’t see any substantial problems with Game. The theory is valid and sound, it stands up to lived experience, and it has, so far as I can understand any theory, provided me with a better standard of social integration. Being anti-Game has little going for it, and while I submit a Christian reprisal of Game is needed and ongoing, I can’t see why the idea of a theory of social interaction, whatever it goes by and whyever it was originally formed, is intrinsically immoral per se. One can certainly critique specific hypotheses, and undoubtedly there are aspects that stand in need of better articulation, but it doesn’t seem one can truly disregard the whole of Game through the claim that it is inherently immoral.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Psychopath Game: “The psychopath’s character and method is the distilled essence of Game.”

  • jf12 says:

    Re: psychopath game. Yes, but not just. Nice guys also have a marked lack of narcissism and Machiavellianism, in addition to lacking sufficient psychopathy. That’s the essence of their whole problem with women. Right? And you: Do you have enough empathy to provide a solution for nice guys?

  • DeNihilist says:

    ” Game is effective for increasing attractiveness.”

    Krauser – 2.7% effectiveness in attraction using game.

    Guy with empty guitar case slung on his shoulder – 31% effectiveness.

    Yup, game is effective huh?

  • DeNihilist says:

    Interesting final paragraph from the father of game (from Peter Blood’s link)

    “Chicks dig narcissistic psychopaths who show more concern for themselves than for the women who love them.

    Is there any doubt remaining why women love psychopaths? The psychopath’s character and method is the distilled essence of Game. Of applied charisma.

    Psychopath Game is End Game. It’s where a player will go should he decide to pursue his calling to the extremes of accomplishment. All that’s left to wonder is what of the future? Is our world becoming more welcoming to psychopaths and their depredations? Are women, freed from the shackles of reliance on emotionally healthy beta providers, seeking in increasing number the very special attentions of the charming psychopath?

    If so, shudder for your posterity. Because that demon retreat awaits them.”

    Psychopath game is end game, nope nothing wrong with game at all.

  • Alte says:

    Modesty will dry up the male attention a woman gets, regardless of what she looks like, because it makes her look unattainable. You might think a woman is unattractive, but there’s a similarly-unattractive guy out there who might have given her the time of day if she’d put on a low-cut shirt, who is now passing her over in favor of someone else.

    Dating and mating is largely assortative, so the prettiest women aren’t getting that much more male attention than the less-attractive ones (or possibly even less, as men tend to aim low), so they’ll feel the drought of male attention that results from modest clothing just as much as the others do, and vice versa.

  • Alte says:

    “Are women, freed from the shackles of reliance on emotionally healthy beta providers, seeking in increasing number the very special attentions of the charming psychopath?”

    I don’t really see why you are all assuming that men who are faithful providers can’t also be mildly psychopathic. The one doesn’t necessarily flow from the other.

  • Alte says:

    I mean… who’s the biggest psychopath on this blog?

    If I had a nickle for everyone who showed up here to whine that Zippy’s an uncaring meanie, I’d be be buying a house instead of renting. There is, after all, no proven association between psychopathy and immorality, IQ, or anything else. It’s just a personality type taken to an extreme.

    Most psychopaths aren’t playas, even if most playas are psychopaths.

  • jf12 says:

    @Alte, not picking, “I mean… who’s the biggest psychopath …?”

    I will redirect. What group of people cares the least about betas? What group of people even gets some evident joy out of betas’ suffering?

  • Alte says:

    I’m not really in agreement with the purported alpha-beta dichotomy. It strikes me mostly as someone coming up with a scale tailored to put himself on top, and then acting as if it were applicable to the rest of mankind. The more people complain about this, the more vague the criteria get, and the less informative the entire scale is. Sort of the way the entire Game movement has been going.

    My overall point is that a lot of what the self-described Internet Betas whine is psychopathy is actually just the sort of male insensitivity and indifference that women have always complained about. Of the “I can’t believe you forgot my birthday!” and “I’ve been waiting all night, why didn’t you call if you were going to stay out late with your buddies?” variety. Being a bit of a jerk doesn’t have to involve sleeping around. Men seem to find lots and lots of other things to give us to complain about, even if they find their way home to their wives every night.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Math

    Given that 50% of marriage ends in divorce.

    Since I do not know how to get the stats, I will WAG that of the 50% divorce rate, 10 – 15% are repeat offenders. This brings the actual first time split to around 40%.

    Ergo, about 60% of all marriages are “stable”.

    Using the 15% of college men bed 80% of the woman stat (LOL!), that means that approx. 9% of the sixty are married to “alphas”

    This leaves a slight majority of all marriages being “stable” with beta or lesser husbands.

    Yet we need game to ensure that our woman sticks by us to the end?

  • jf12 says:

    It is betas who insist they are in a class of mistreated males, and in betas’ experience it is females and their coconspirator alphas who pretend betas don’t really exist. The women’s excuse/reason is that they all suffer from the apex fallacy. I don’t know what the alphas’ excuse is.

    “My overall point is that a lot of what the self-described Internet Betas whine is psychopathy is actually just the sort of male insensitivity and indifference that women have always complained about.” from alphas. Women are creeped out by sensitivity, and whining, and etc., from betas.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: something or other. For various reasons, maybe mostly because everyone was doing it, just prior to getting married to my wife in 1970 while in college in Atlanta, we attended a largeish (couple of hundred couples) premarital retreat, one of a large series put on by an ecumenical group, on the grounds of a Catholic monastery in Georgia. We had not kissed yet, and would not do so until the wedding.

    The Catholic married couple leading the day discussions were unshockingly shocking. He tried unsuccessfully to be hip and relevant including having long hair and using bad words, and she tried successfully to be slutty looking. (And now all of you are going “Hey! I must have been to that same retreat!”)

    The Catholic priest leading daily mass (in which nonCatholics were invited to partake of the Wonder whitebread fragments) was the nicest guy, really he was, but other than his urgings to prayer I gleaned nothing of value from him, other than him claiming to be the world’s expert on masturbation (seriously, said during a sermon).

    Many of the couples sat in each other’s laps, stroking each other, while being spoken to of chastity. I tried to keep my eyes on my beloved across the room, often winking or making surreptitious eyebrow raisings for her amusement.

    The Protestant couple, minister and counselor, leading the evening sessions had some interesting exercises that effectively utilized the group and individual dynamics, including enforced mutual sharing of daily diaries between to-be-married partners, with an open invitation to read aloud to the group anything one partner wanted to. I never read anything aloud that I wrote, but I read a fragment of a poem written to me that made the whole room weep with me.

    The monks we encountered strolling were uniformly very smelly, with by far the dirtiest longest toenails I’ve ever seen. Some kind of anti-Game maybe. Probably had the effect of making me seem desirable in contrast.

  • Mike T says:

    Yet we need game to ensure that our woman sticks by us to the end?

    Sure, she may stick with you. But how much does she listen to you, submit to you, sleep with you, etc.? Inertia plays as much a role as love in keeping many of these marriages together.

  • Anon says:

    That was in fact the first time I have ever visited that site. I felt like I was listening to my older brother tell me his version about “chicks” right before I started high school.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: my younger brother. My younger brother supposedly idolized me, except for my (vaunted, believe it or not) lack of success with girls, until I got married and he began to fill out, at about the same time. By the time he was 16 he was v-shaped, and unruled at home, headed by my party-girl younger sister who bought beer for the neighborhood whenever there was any money, our mother being always in bed with a wet rag on her eyes. He was about 51 for 50, not a typo, by the time he was the age I was when I got married.

  • I just wish all these people with the obsessive idol-attachment to “game” felt as strongly about, you know, their supposed Christian faith. When God is enough, you aren’t all eaten up about sluts rejecting you.

  • DeNihilist says:

    And Mike, that opens another conversation.

    The Guru I hung with the most had an idea, that when the kids were grown up, the parents should feel no guilt about splitting, if that was what they wanted. He felt that at this older age, we should be able to enjoy different people and their bodies. We had done our duty to society, so go and play. Of course there would be couples who would still be fulfilled in their present relationship, and not follow this advice.

    The other thing would be, with kids stating in the home much longer then my generation, by the time they left, you might be to old to have a body that someone else would want to play with. 🙂

  • DeNihilist says:

    But Unreal, the Christians that use game do not use it for the sluts, they use it to “better” themselves, dontcha know?

  • “I manipulate people into doing what I want whether it’s good or not” is not really better either.

  • Mike T says:

    And Mike, that opens another conversation.

    And it’s a conversation that makes most of the critics (aside from Zippy) here deeply uncomfortable, I’d wager. The Unreal Woman only has one retort (if you can call it that) which is to run around like a muppet with her arms in the air yelling about how they aren’t Christian, how they’re “sex-obsessed,” etc. Never once addressing the fact that many marriages suck precisely because “good people” in Christian circles have often gone “reverse Roissy” on impressionable young men.

    Outside of a true minority of Christian churches that unapologetically preach patriarchy (expecting men to lead and expect women to submit and not submit just when they feel like it), Christian advice on relationships, sex and marriage is only slightly less poisoned than mainstream secular advice. That’s slightly less poisoned because it mixes scripture, which being infallible, ensures that nothing which uses it can be 100.00% false (so in effect, damning with negligibly feint praise).

  • jf12 says:

    “Only bad men manipulate women” is the same argument as “only criminals should have guns”.

  • jf12 says:

    I’m wondering if oneitis is less of a problem in the church than not-the-one-itis.
    http://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/preparing_for_marriage/searching_for_a_sole_mate/is_there_one_man_for_me.aspx
    It is not doctrinal that there is a best one to marry, nor even that you ought to marry the best one even if there were a best one. What is doctrinal is that if you are not going to remain a virgin for your entire life then you ought to exert yourself to pick one of the many good-enough ones early and go grow better together.

    But the present culture has so infected so many not-destined-to-remain-virgin church women with not-the-one-itis that far too many good-enough not-destined-to-remain-chaste men are destined for doom by way of gloom etc. Those nice church men are deprived of the abundance mentality by the church, because in other cultures and in other groups of men (e.g. bad boys), those other men’s abundance mentality had to be regulated and confined.

    “Flee fornication” is the best possible advice to any man who is faced with the possibility of fornication. It is AT BEST meaningless to most nice church men currently.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    jf12,
    You wrote,
    “Nice guys also have a marked lack of narcissism …”
    False. ‘Nice Guys’ are passive-aggressive types filled with rage who use what they think is polite behavior to pretend to be virtuous. One of the core elements of passive-aggressive behavior is some unhealthy level of narcissism.
    Guys who use “game” are Nice Guys who now act like they think psychopaths act in order to pretend to be more vicious than they really are.
    What is really going on with “game” is painfully evident if you just read roosh, roissy, etc. They were socially awkward guys who often couldn’t talk to girls, let alone get a date. They ran into another variations of ‘Be Confident and You Can Do It’ and talked to girls. And the girls talked back! They finally had sex!
    Now they have their own version of BCAYCDI that includes the scary alphas and the pitiful betas
    [quick aside – ever notice that roissy classifies betas as ‘guys who get 2-3 times as many sexual conquests as average’? No?]
    So “game’ has boogeymen, alphas, and pariahs, betas. Along with other ridiculous claims like ‘alphas sleep with 80/90% of the women’ they also try to convince people that women have no agency. ‘Women can;t help it’ they chant ‘;they will always sleep with an alpha and they will always exploit a beta’, or to that effect.
    So fi you don’t use “game”, well – you’re a beta and to be ignored. If you act like them you’re an ‘alpha’. What’s that mean? Well, since the definition of alpha varies within the same long post from roosh or roissy, who knows? Toss in roosh spilling tons of ink on how a lot of women reject alphas for betas and who cares? And what about guys that fit many or not all of the various definitions of alpha and yet reject “game”? ‘Natural alphas’, they say. ‘natural alphas have nothing to teach us’ sniffs Deti, ‘just ignore those men that have everything we tell you to desire by other methods than those we teach’.
    Anyway, out in the world some other passive-aggressive ‘nice guy’ who thinks that women are mean because that girl he has never talked to doesn’t love him yet reads about “game”.
    ‘Huh’, he thinks, ‘anything is better than being this miserable’ so he irons a shirt, uses mouthwash, and starts talking to girls. Wow! They are nice! They smiled! He has a date! “Game” obviously works!
    The majority of these guys quickly realize a simple truth – BCAYCDI is the majority of what any man needs to break out of passive-aggressive behavior. By simply learning to actually decide and actually act they can, and do, change and grow. These guys move on and if they reference “game” at all it is an ‘oh, yeah’ sorta’ way.
    Some of these guys, though, now believe that women have no agency and that all men can be neatly divided into two camps (even though 6 camps are defined)! Even though the particulars of “game” are obviously false, even though the champions of “game” aren’t very successful with women even by their own rather low standards, these guys are now true believers. It may be gratitude, it may be they are still dazzled by the fact they can actually talk to girls, but they have hopped on the rickety bandwagon.
    These are the guys that seem to honestly believe no one and nothing else but PUAs and “game” teach self-confidence, conversational skills, or self-improvement. These are the guys that think the place to start talking about masculinity inside the Church is from “game”.

  • DeNihilist says:

    I’m working on a notion, that our trending in the last 100-150 years from mainly rural living to mainly urban living, has a lot to do with the lack of masculinity nowadays. On the farm, you did not have the internet or experts or for that matter neighbours that are spittin distance away. Something needed doing? a solution had to be found? you had to get meat for the table? Ya just did it.

    Now a days we just buy it.

  • A lot of marriages suck because a lot of people aren’t fit for marriage, male or female. Even though I am a Protestant, I recognize that not everyone should marry. Whining about how you’re entitled to marriage is just that, whining. Anyway, as is typical for gamers, you dismiss any kind of effective action that would make it easier for women to be wives in favor of bleating about “Churchians” and the like.

    And if amoral manipulation doesn’t concern you, and you claim to be Christian, you have way bigger problems than me or Focus on the Family.

    Manipulation is risky enough from a spiritual perspective without relying on perverse methods to do it. Frankly, guns are less morally problematic than game and its advocates.

  • jf12 says:

    I am aware that you consider the water dirty that I’m here trying to make you drink. Grant me that, at least. So I concede it’s not worth either of our whiles to try to lead you to it. I can, however, try to splash it harder. I will try to construct A New Kind Of Argument, in which the central paradox is centralized instead of ignored, and I truly hope you will smirk with amused mastery at how terrible this argument is and how it isn’t working on you.

    Given that “Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.”, it is one of our duties as men to help prepare other men to find wives. It is NOT our duty to help men become eunuchs; “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.”

    Wouldn’t it be nice if “all” we had to do was to convince men that they should be more “trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent” and they will find wives? Or, as I understand you to say, to convince them that ANY man who is all that WILL have to choose amongst the dozens of virgins throwing themselves at his rose-scented feet.

    But, you may have noticed, men don’t act like they are convinced of that. Good men act, at best, like they realize they ought to be good men anyway despite their goodness not effecting the 72 virgins in this life. At worst, of course, worse men act like they realize that to get a girl they ought to be badder.

    We know, although you may not like to know, that the reason bad men are biologically more successful with women is because women’s biology makes them more susceptible to bad men then they ought to be. And I know your nostrils are now fully inflated and you’re snorting and stamping, and you’re getting a little wet already. So for the sake of argument (take my argument, please …), acknowledge that although you hate the fact, it is absolutely true that women’s biology makes them susceptible that way. In fact, signal that you want to continue arguing by acknowledging that I am correct so far. If instead you bother trying to deny I’m right, I hereby congratulate myself on getting you to lie, and I declare your mouth full of muddy water.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    “We know, although you may not like to know, that the reason bad men are biologically more successful with women…”
    Um, no. Indeed, roissy has about, oh, 5 big posts where he goes on and on and on that being a father and having a lot of kids is something alphas *don’t* do, that ‘betas’ have more kids than ‘alphas’.
    And the science is well proven – married men have more and higher quality sex than single men.
    So peddle that soap elsewhere.
    Again, as Zippy has been highlighting in this very blog for a few posts – the advocates of “game” themselves admit that they aren’t very successful. Or haven’t you been paying attention?

  • jf12 is busy worshipping his real god, game and its grody prophets. he’s genuflecting before them furiously, and is too busy with that to let statistical and genetic reality get in the way of his insistence that ‘bad boyz’ are reproductive successes.

    as ever, these types have really disgusting projection of their own emotional and physical responses onto anyone who dares call their gods plaster.

  • Mike T says:

    And once again, The Unreal Woman acts like an upset muppet instead of offering a response of substance.

  • LOL. You are very funny, Mike T.

  • Mike T says:

    And the science is well proven – married men have more and higher quality sex than single men.

    It would be an interesting examination of the science to see precisely how they evaluated this. I would wager that among many things, they didn’t control for the difference between the sex lives of the top percentages of men (ie men who can get a lot of pretty women) versus ordinary men who are lucky to have 3 different women over their lifetimes (lucky in the secular sense). Obviously, the latter will find that having a regular supply of sex with the same woman, who can get to know them and their desires over time (and vice versa) is better than most of their pre-marital encounters. Chances are, many of those encounters are rather sub-optimal compared to their more effective counterparts in terms of the very quality of women they were attracting. If you ask the average guy if he’d rather have “good sex” with a 5 or “mediocre sex” with an 8, many ordinary men would take the latter. Heck, many of them would even go so far as to say that having sex with the prettier woman is itself inherently higher quality sex unless the 5 is a master of the kama sutra.

  • DeNihilist says:

    JT – “We know, although you may not like to know, that the reason bad men are biologically more successful with women is because women’s biology makes them more susceptible to bad men then they ought to be”

    Just because the 2 R’s say so, don’t make it real. The thing that advocates of game keep on hiding under the rug, is that the “high” quality women that are attracted to the bad boys are a very small sub-set of all women. Generally speaking, they are sluts (have sex with many people), and are probably thinking that their woman game is pretty good.

    I have coffee first thing in the morning, therefore all men have coffee first thing in the morning? Really?

    This whole tingle thing is a Roosh, er Ruse. Women are just as human as men and different things attract different women to different men. There is nothing wrong with being a gamer. Just don’t project your feelings onto the rest of humanity.

    PS – if your game is working (remembering that you will have more success by carrying an empty guitar case, which is no way close to the dark triad), I would suggest that you always wrap the little man up, cuz the woman you have gamed, has been there, done that and bought the herpes.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    The myth of the ‘alpha who sleeps with 80%/90% of the women’ is just that – a myth. While there are a few men with high counts of partners (and women) remember – the Dunedin Survey shows that the association of multiple sexual partners over and depression, drug abuse, unemployment, and attempted suicide are almost linear – an N over about 30.
    Further, multiple follow ups show that quality of sex is is a lot more than ‘she’s hot’. Various studies, especially the Ohio State sex survey, show that unmarried with high numbers of sexual partners enjoy sex muxh less regardless of the appearance of the current partner (part of this was big news in teh interwebz recently).
    And from both the anecdotal statements of others and my own experience pre-marriage and pre-conversion very pretty girls are less likely to be ‘active’. Or, as Billy Bob Thornton famously said, ‘F***ing the most beautiful woman in the world is like laying on the couch’.
    And, once more, with feeling, by their own admission guys like roosh don’t really have a lot of sex. Just pay attention to his twitter feed and his past blogging about his travels.

  • DeNihilist says:

    To further the roosh gambit, he quite often blogs about not caring if the woman is satisfied, just so long as he ejaculates. Yup, that’s really enjoying the sex!

  • jf12 says:

    All I see is mud spewing so far. Deniers of concupiscence, all. For shame.

  • Alte says:

    “from alphas”

    The whole alpha-beta thing doesn’t make numerical sense to me, seeing as how most of the men I know personally seem pretty “alpha” to me. If everyone’s an alpha, then nobody is, and you have to recognize that some people’s marriages are unhappy or downright miserable for other reasons. Such as the general suckiness of life, problems with kids and relatives, problems with money or jobs, illness and death, and etc.

    There’s something downright bizarre about the idea that everyone should always be happy and in love all the time, or that a married-person’s happiness should depend entirely upon their spouse’s efforts. I’m all for putting in a good-faith effort to fulfill your spousal duties, but there is a point where you should just tell the other person to get over it and get some sort of a hobby. People have too much energy, and they expend it on romantic drama. I was getting like that for a while, so I got a day job and calmed down.

    “Women are creeped out by sensitivity, and whining, and etc., from betas.”

    No, from any man. I do agree that whining, especially, really does totally creep women out.

  • Mike T says:

    The myth of the ‘alpha who sleeps with 80%/90% of the women’ is just that – a myth.

    That’s not even remotely what I was getting at. It’s not at all unrealistic for more successful men to have a dozen or more partners versus the usual 3-5 for normal men. And of those dozen or so, many of them may be substantially prettier than what the average man gets. And furthermore, if you asked the average man if he’d rather have mediocre sex with a 8 or 9 versus great sex at the same frequency with a 4 to 5, most men would rather the former. If for no other reason than the bragging rights that would come with that (plus the reputation that might lead to more access to 8s or 9s).

    Once again, I’ll remind everyone of the elephant in the room which is that whatever the faults of Gamers, and they are myriad, the real problem is that the majority of alternative advice is very corrosive in its own right. Where Game at least puts men onto a path of darkened masculinity, mainstream Churchian advice strips men of masculinity altogether.

  • Mike T says:

    That is to say, even though I have a great deal of sympathy for Zippy’s criticisms of Game, I say mainstream Christians need to get the f#$% over their liberalism and clean their own f#$%ing house of feminist rot before they can claim to have an alternative to Game.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    You state the false dichotomy that we are presented with well (serious not snarky): “darkened masculinity” vs “Churchian”.

    One of the long-standing themes of my writing has been rejection of the false choices that modernity lays before us.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    Let me repeat;
    The higher your N, as they say, the more likely you are to be mentally ill, an addict, broke, and/or suicidal.
    Does that sound ‘masculine’ to you? Even ‘darkly masculine’, whatever that is supposed to mean?
    And your comments on ‘most men’ is rank speculation. Its akin to claiming ‘most men would rather have a poor quality, overcooked steak than a properly-cooked, high-quality fish’. that isn’t intuitive and doesn’t sound provable and, is fairly tangential to the points at hand. After all, I was pointing out that married men have higher quantity and higher quality sex – the relative beauty of the women involved is sorta’ beside the point, ins’t it, since men marry pretty women as often as not.
    You wrote,
    “…the real problem is that the majority of alternative advice is very corrosive in its own right.”
    How to Win Friends and Influence People is corrosive? How? The Imitation of Christ, the most-translated book other than the bible, is corrosive? How? Faith, hope, and charity are corrosive? How? Regular prayer, regular church attendance, and good works are corrosive? How?The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius are corrosive? How? Self-control, prudence, justice, and courage are corrosive? HOW?!
    Or are you trying to pull the ‘Christian leaders are telling us to ‘marry the slut” BS that Deti loves to repeat but will admit is both not said anything remotely like that and by not too many pastors? And while I am no fan of liberal ministers you seem to be ignoring, oh, the Orthodox, the trad Catholics, the Orthodox Jews, etc.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Mike T – “Once again, I’ll remind everyone of the elephant in the room which is that whatever the faults of Gamers, and they are myriad, the real problem is that the majority of alternative advice is very corrosive in its own right. Where Game at least puts men onto a path of darkened masculinity, mainstream Churchian advice strips men of masculinity altogether.”

    and again, The Sterling Institute –

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

    From the website – “The Men’s Weekend on self-confidence:

    Masculine pride is a very important factor in the emotional well being of a man. Men are particularly vulnerable to becoming depressed or apathetic when they do not feel useful, competent, or valued. The Weekend connects men to the legacy of heroism, self-sacrifice, and honor that have been the hallmarks of pre-modern day man. Becoming part of that tradition renews the pride men have in them selves, in the accomplishments they have already achieved, and in the knowledge that they are prepared to act competently, honorably and without hesitation in the future.

    The Men’s Weekend on spirituality:

    More often than not, men are unfamiliar with their spiritual landscape, or have had a gender-neutral experience of spirituality. Through opening the heart to accept and be accepted by brothers in the same battle of life, the Weekend can initiate a man’s personal spiritual journey, or add to it the richness of masculine energy. ”

    From the Q & A – “Could you describe your basic philosophy of the Men’s Weekend

    If I had to describe it in a simply, I’d say that even though men think women want them to be more like women, they really don’t. They want a man who has the courage to be himself and not sell himself out by pretending to be someone else, a man they can respect because he doesn’t let anyone (including his woman) push him around. The basic philosophy of the Men’s Weekend is that men must be encouraged to rediscover their essential masculinity and, through that, redefine what it means to be male in this culture. The Weekend philosophy helps men understand the conflicts they face and find their own power, success and personal freedom through becoming “the man they always wanted to be”. ”

    Hmmm, sounds like something that might actually help men get their vision back, in a context of love and relationship, as opposed to skank hunting. Will the churches support it? Who knows, but why are people preaching game to men who want to be, and want to stay married, when there are such better alternatives?

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “I’d say that even though men think women want them to be more like women, they really don’t.” ” men must be encouraged to rediscover their essential masculinity and, through that, redefine what it means to be male in this culture.” ” helps men understand the conflicts they face and find their own power, success and personal freedom through becoming “the man”
    Sounds like the pagan winter solstice is to be called Christmas.

  • jf12 says:

    @Mike T, if we average the 10% of single men who get a half dozen or more women in a year with the 10% of single men who get two and with the 80% who get zero or a fraction, then the average single man has slightly less than one woman-year per year, thus proving that married men have more women than single men. So rather than learning from the top 10% on how to be attractive and from the bottom 80% on how not to be unattractive, we should instead talk about something else instead.

    I fail to comprehend how my (in my opinion devastating) attacks on these nonsensical attempts to avoid dealing with reality have not yet provoked sufficient shame.

  • jf12 says:

    Off topic, in the same way that Israel’s wandering was off course towards getting to the promised land but paradoxically was the only way they were going to get there. In Exodus 16:25-27 Moses is telling people about the sudden but expected lack of new manna. “And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the LORD: to day ye shall not find it in the field. Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none. And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none.”

    The periodic daily manna was a really weird miracle, the sudden cessation of manna every seven days was an even weirder miracle. Superstitious peoples could have said “Well, the sun god interacts with the cloud god every morning” or otherwise attempted to rationalize what they observed for six days out of the week, but this breaking of that daily pattern, in accordance with prophecy, *helped* belief in God’s word. Notice in this passage that Moses prophesied “to day ye shall not find it in the field.” How else could that prophesy have been fulfilled, other than for some people to go out and look?

    You may ask “What are you trying to say?” to which I will answer “What do you think I’m trying to say?”

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    jf12,
    “Frequency of sex” refers to ‘how many times you have sex’ not ‘how many distinct partners you have’. So your little ‘analysis’ is not ‘devastating’ it is proof you don’t understand what you are talking about.
    “…if we average the 10% of single men who get a half dozen or more women in a year with the 10% of single men who get two and with the 80% who get zero or a fraction,…”
    Let me repeat, with emphasis;
    The “10%/20%/whatever of men get 80%/90%/whatever of women” BS that PUAs, etc. spout is simply wrong.
    Not only is there no scientific study that supports it (no, the oft-cited voluntary poll by ABC wasn’t scientific) the numbers we do have and the studies that have been run actively *REFUTE* it! From the GSS to the LSS to the University of London Studies to the CDC numbers, everything points to the 80/20 sex story being a myth.

  • Patrick says:

    ” Where Game at least puts men onto a path of darkened masculinity, mainstream Churchian advice strips men of masculinity altogether.”

    So why aren’t there systematic explanations of masculinity from Christians in the manosphere? I see them always using game or “churchianism” as a jumping off point, but not saying anything unique. They say they don’t support te game or churchian position but don’t have a coherent third option that stands on its own. It’s always a drawn contrast to one of those two positions. Why don’t Christians write about how to date and marry an attractive Christian girl? Why don’t they talk about shit tests or other aspects of intersex relations that exist? Game defined shit tests and ways to respond, then Christians say, “oh, well yeah of course, Christianity teaches men not to put up with crap from women so that’s not unique to Game.” Then why have I never seen that point made plainly anywhere in Christendom, ever, not only in daily life but anywhere on the Internet? And I hang out in conservative Christian places.

  • jf12 says:

    @Patrick. I’ll make the correct antiGame case clear in this reply, but keep in mind I’m working against it. (but I’m not presenting an argument against it in this reply)

    1 Cor 7:32-33 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

    The energy that a man exerts in pleasing a woman always diminishes the energy that he could put to better use. But wait, there’s more! Game, by any stretch, if it is anything, is a way to specifically please a woman’s baser nature. And we’re supposed to don’t.

    Rom 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

    Thus Game not only is a negative good taking away from blessing, it is a positive evil bringing down curses.

    Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

    Thus we have derived that a man ought to be a eunuch. Oops. You go first.

    Hence, there is something wrong, bad wrong, with the antiGame case. QED.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Patrick,
    I have spent years traveling in conservative Christian circles (mostly Catholic, sure) speaking about all sorts of things, especially about raising kids, home schooling and for the last while courtship and engagements. In ll that time there is a statement I never heard until I starting looking into the manosphere a few months ago.
    That phrase is ‘Christians don’t teach masculinity’. It is coming to be as unique to the manosphere to my ears as ‘neg’ and ‘shit test’ etc.
    And it is just as wrong.
    You might be too young to remember Promise Keepers but a few years back they were filling football stadiums with men and teaching masculinity, leadership, etc. There are dozens of books and videos associated with that movement a large portion of shich include practical tips on raising masculine sons, feminine daughters, and setting up courting for them.
    What REALLY cracks me up about the entire line of ‘no Christians are teaching step-by-step how to meet girls’ is the fact that Joshua Harris exists. His first book, I Kissed Dating Goodbye, not just explains why not to date but gives details on courtship and how to do it. Exactly what you and others say doesn’t exist. Of course, the book only sold about 2 million copies, plus a study guide, a video course, a number of speaking tours, and sequels which add more details on how to approach, meet, and marry women.
    He’s just one guy, of course, and despite being a huge sensation for almost 20 years you might have (somehow) missed him.
    But what about other Christian writers with very popular books on the practical steps of Christian dating? You know, like Morrow, Phillips, Edgar, Meng, West, Leslie, Townshend, Cloud, Wilson, and Munroe? Or the specifically Catholic writers like Schmieier (who has videos, too), Cassanto, Bonaccorso (although she mainly writes for women), Doyle, Nelson, Lovasik (who is *huge* in trad Catholic circles), Scott, Champlin, and Buono?
    There are literally scores of books, videos, audio sets, study guides, etc. on, yes, the nuts and bolts of dating and courtship from a Christian perspective. So when someone who knows this, or has access to google, hears a statement like,
    ” Why don’t Christians write about how to date and marry an attractive Christian girl?”
    Of course blank surprise is the reaction!
    As for,
    “Game defined shit tests …”
    Um, no. Like many have pointed out before (including me) when it comes to things like that PUAs are about 80+ years behind. People from Dale Carnegie to Zig Ziglar have been talking about that sort of thing since before WWII. Thinking that guys like roosh were the first or only to define conversational gambits and how to respond to them is, well, hilarious.
    Patrick, I am not trying to mock you, I am just pointing out that there is a LOT of info. on these topics out there – virtually all of it older and better than anything PUAs will ever do.

  • Patrick says:

    @Aquinas Dad

    I do remember the I Kissed Dating Goodbye and Promisekeepers things. I was deep in conservative Protestantism at their peak I think. But they didn’t strike me at the time as masculine in manosphere terms. They seemed more like the Mark Driscoll stuff Dalrock occasionally discusses. I’ll take your word that all the other authors you mention did what you’re saying. I’ve never heard of any of them, and I ran in circles where I Kissed Dating Goodbye was a big hit. Maybe shit tests etc were identified for other people elsewhere, but I never heard word one about that kind of stuff. I tend to think you’re wrong for two reasons: because Christian manosphere writers rarely produce anything distinct but just critique either game or churchian perspectives and because the state of the averge Christian male continues to devolve. The Promisekeepers and I kissed Dating Goodbye things, only judging by what I remember seeing, seem susceptible to “build a better beta” criticisms. I recognize I could easily be wrong about all this if my experience in Christianity is actually farther from the norm than I thought.

  • Patrick says:

    I just scanned the “16 commandments”. If that’s game then except for VII if you’re married and XIV if you’re dating, I don’t see how the “commandments” wouldn’t be essentially compatible with Christianity. These ideas appear nowhere in Christianity in my experience.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Patrick,
    So…. You *are* aware that there are, yes, Christian guides to dating and that at least some of them are detailed? Then why did you earlier write,
    “Why don’t Christians write about how to date and marry an attractive Christian girl?” ?
    Did you forget? Were you omitting it on purpose?
    You wrote,
    “…they didn’t strike me at the time as masculine in manosphere terms”
    You mean narcissistic, dishonest, and psychopathic? Because the manosphere doesn’t define ‘masculine’, they define ‘alpha’, etc. (and I have mentioned elsewhere why the alpha, etc., classifications are flat wrong, but…).Since the manosphere wants you to act ‘alpha’, then they want you to act narcissistic, dishonest, and psychopathic.
    You wrote,
    “…Christian manosphere writers rarely produce anything distinct but just critique either game or churchian perspectives …”
    Is this like how you earlier wrote that there are no Christian guides to dating? You know it isn’t true but are pretending? Or is ‘rarely’ used more broadly than I am used to?
    As for ‘building a better beta’ let me clue you in – even if roissy, etc., were right being a beta is better than being like roosh, etc.
    You don’t think so? Go re-read roissy’s definitions of the various classifications, then look at statistics on the frequency and quality of sex for married men vs. single men, then look at the ‘success’ rates of roosh and other PUAs and get back to me….

  • Patrick says:

    I forgot. I haven’t thought about that for quite a long time

  • YBM says:

    Thoughts on these posts Zippy:

    George says:
    February 1, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    For him, EVOLUTION is not an explanation for observed phenomena but a prescription for how to act and a symbol of religious belief.

    So evolution, which began as science and was used to attack religion, is now being used as the basis for the ethical and religious life (religious in the sense that these men seek meaning in EVOLUTION. It’s no longer a neutral, necessarily mute explanatory principle), in one of the funnier world-historical ironies and transformations, and is now EVOLUTION.

    Roosh used to claim he was fulfilling the dictates of EVOLUTION by chasing women, that men exist merely to fulfill the goals of EVOLUTION, and similar things. It is basically religious/meaning/ethical language rather than scientific/explanatory/neutral language and his readers ate that stuff up. They loved it because they craved meaning in their lives.

    Game fills a need of the heart and not the head. Just as religion feels a need of the heart and is not just an inadequate science as Frazer in the 19th century thought. It might seem as if religion was successfully defeated by science and reason, but not before secular society took over many of the myths of Christianity like progress, eschatology, and the divinization of humanity.

    George says:
    February 1, 2014 at 3:48 pm

    That’s whats so funny. Men never evolved to chase women, and women never evolved to be super-selective because women almost never did the selecting. Parents did it for them or the strongest male just took what he wanted. Female choice was always, by necessity, the lesser factor, especially so the further back you go. It explains why women rely on social cues and non-sexual factors for mate selection far more than men.

    Game serves as a vehicle for modern myths, not science.

    In the modern world studies show women like men with more feminine faces, and not just when they’re not ovulating. Heh. Go figure.

    What a mess Game is. It gets everything so wrong. Poor Game, if you assume its about reality. But if you understand as the creating of a new myth that gives hordes of disaffected young men meaning in their lives, it is very, very successful and will never be eradicated by reason. And why would you want to take it away from these guys?

    The more I understand Game the less I feel compelled to try and eradicate it. I am against in general depriving people of religious consolations and I am beginning to think its a mistake to see Game in rationalistic terms. Its not really trying to be a science even tho it presents itself in scientific language. In reality most guys who are into game never really put these “alpha” principles into practice and remain as normal/abnormal as they always were, but have a new religion that makes them feel better. The few guys who treat game as a science and a model of reality and put these retarded alpha principles into real practice get burned hard and quickly and usually become fierce anti-game warriors like AlekNovy. Alek was quite right when he used to say most gamers are basement dwellers who never actually put game into practice and ironically it’s only the guys who take game seriously and really try who see how retarded it is, but he failed to draw the right conclusions from this; that for most guys, game isn’t fulfilling the need for a model of reality or a way to pick up girls, but a need for myth and meaning. The Fifth Horseman used to say that he refused to discuss game with anyone who refused to accept that it worked. He said this without irony. Isn’t that sufficiently clear that you are dealing with a Church Father? At a certain point you have to lay off and leave each man to his faith.

    You can only create a counter religion to replace game. It fills a vacuum in the heart not the head. Most of the gamers never hit on women. The late Hellensitic world produced things like Stoicism and Epicureanism and Cynism which at least were quite rational. But they also had dark Mystery Religions like Orphism. Early 21st century myths and religions are things like Game, liberalism, humanism, feminism, progress, etc.

    Humans need this kind of thing to feel happy.

  • jf12 says:

    Mud, as far as the eye can see.

  • Patrick says:

    Like I said I’m extrapolating from my own experience which was presumably fairly normal for conservative Christians. No I don’t see things that occupy a distinct Christian territory in the manosphere that I can picture in my mind like the churchian or game positions. I myself tend to “Christianize” game in my mental scheme. Maybe you’re right and I’m just not seeing what is there. I don’t know. Is I KISsed Dating Goodbye the authentic Christian approach to intersex relations? I don’t know. But to me at the time it was wholly uninspiring. Same as Driscolls claptrap.

  • Patrick says:

    I suppose the only reason any of this matters to me is that because of what I’ve read in the manosphere, if I ever do get married, I’m not going to be stuck with an obese loud mouth like my brother did or some slutty uggo or single mom. My brother pretty much followed the conservative Protestant scheme in wife finding. Call me a cynic. I’d rather adhere to game principles.

  • Zippy says:

    YBM:
    Welcome back, and thanks for the kind words.

    I don’t have a lot of time to think it through right now, but my knee-jerk reaction to the comments you quote is that the commenter may be over-thinking it.

    I think antiliberalism (as I use the term “liberalism”) has inherent appeal to self-respecting thoughtful people because liberalism is self-contradictory and its incoherence is becoming more manifest. I think when you synthesize that with the promise of sex as a multiplier the appeal scales by orders of magnitude. Sex sells, as every modern marketer knows. Thus Roissy.

    Combine that with positivism, also a pervasive mode of modern thought, and you get devotion to Game (whatever it happens to be): modern people are really trapped in the notion that for every problem there is a systemic solution, etc, and we just can’t admit the state of our ignorance. I’m thinking up a post on that related to the practice of medicine based on some things I’ve recently learned (or confirmed) at one of the world’s top medical institutions.

    Of course now it looks like I am over-thinking it even more than the commenter. So I suppose I’d tack a bit and suggest that he is over-dramatizing it. The attachment to Game probably isn’t (for most) to fulfill some deep religious need; it is just because “red pill” men want either sex itself and/or a sense of moral superiority when it comes to their personal sexual problems, and women like the way that Game continues to make them the center of attention. Combine that with a modern jerk of the knee toward simplistic easy pat answers and you get what we see.

    Again though that’s just my off-the-cuff impression and could easily represent a failure to do justice to the comments.

  • jf12 says:

    “women like the way that Game continues to make them the center of attention.” Yes, but in a specific way: as the woman half of a couple in which she and the man are a thing unto themselves, both of them together in the mutual center of their attentions.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Patrick,
    I am sure that you did forget. But please remember; when you started commenting you started from the position that you had never heard of anyone in the Christian world providing an approach to dating. Now that you know that not only is this false but that you had personal experience with some of it, do you plan on doing any research into alternatives to “game”?
    I am guessing you won’t, and here’s why.

    1) You forgot. This is something I see very frequently amongst “game” proponents; they don’t remember anything but “game”, they research nothing but “game”, they deny anything but “game” exists in anything approaching coherence. Prove them wrong and, well, a day later they are yet again insisting that it is “game” or feminism, over and over. This is symptomatic of a defense mechanism to protect the ego.

    2) Your level of expressed bitterness. Late in the last post you, like Deti, jf12, Ton, and many others, revealed an intense bitterness and/or anger strongly focused on women. Even the anger towards men or the church is concerned with how men didn’t train you to protect yourself from women or how the church is making you defenseless against women. Again, the appeal of “game” which promotes that men be uncaring towards women and paints women as virtual automata incapable of moral decision making, loyalty, or honor reflects and feeds this intense negative emotion.

    3) Your narcissistic worldview. Again, very common (probably well-nigh universal) among “game” advocates. I can’t got more than a thread or two without reading some variation of ‘I do not recall observing this myself, therefore it cannot exist’. Again, even when proven wrong the “game” advocate will act as if stating ‘well, in my experience this is not the case’ is a refutation, a hallmark of narcissism.

    Observations such as these are why I wrote my first comment in this thread: strong advocates of “game” appear to show the traits of a passive-aggressive personality, often markedly so, as well as some degree of fear of/anger toward women as a group.

    It is no way to go through life. And “game” will not deal with the base issues.

  • slumlord says:

    @AD

    As for ‘building a better beta’ let me clue you in – even if roissy, etc., were right being a beta is better than being like roosh, etc.

    You’ve completely missed the point. The aim is not to be Roosh or Roissy, rather, to take their insights and apply them to a Christian marriage. See the famous Dave from Hawaii post over at Roissy’s. Note, Dave was a guy who hunted boar with a knife, was physically fit and would be considered more masculine by the average male.

    The Christian manosphere is about reclaiming the erotic component of masculinity. It’s not just about being a man but its about being a man with erotic capital. Here’s the thing, given the complementary and pre-Christian nature of Eros, the sexual dimension of masculinity is determined by the carnal nature of woman. Likewise, feminine sexual erotic capital is determined with reference to the nature of men.*

    Man on the street version: Women define what is sexual in men. Men define what is sexual in women. No homo’s.

    Chest thumping, integrity, courage, prayerfullness etc, are all irrelevant when it comes to defining the erotic nature of man. What matters is what turns women on. When it comes to mainstream Christianity this dimension has been unfortunately the subject of neglect, derision and historical opprobrium. I’ve got an open mind. Can you point me to a Christian book which tells men about what turns women on? Seriously.

    *Now for the obligatory qualifier, since people seem to impute whatever they want in what I say. “Eros potentiality” is but one dimension of the human person. Of course things like integrity, courage, religiousness, etc. matter. But when it comes to the subject of erotic love these things assume a secondary importance. Woman does not love on Eros alone, but it sure as hell makes the marriage better.

    BTW the Christian manosphere is analogous to Thomism, a synthesis of PUA and Christian thought. It history repeating isn’t it? In Thomas’s day there were plenty who thought that his synthesis was a pollution of Christian thought by Pagan ideas.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    slumlord,
    You mistake me in two ways. I am pointing out that Patrick’s dismissal is not a dismissal.
    Second, you seem to miss my core contention – “game” has nothing to teach Christians because there is nothing there. Confidence? Dealing with conversational gambits? Improving your own appearance and demeanor? All dealt with long before PUAs and much better. So what is left of “game”, then? Only its claims on women’s behavior and male attractiveness..
    Of course, these claims are, yes, core to “game”. Their theories on male attractiveness lead to the ‘alpha/beta/blah blah’ which are demonstrably false AND demonstrably inapplicable to a faithful Christian (remember, if you follow God’s laws you are, according to PUAs, incapable of ever being anything but a gamma *at most*).
    And according to them women have no moral agency – regardless of their intelligence, faith, training, etc. well – the girl can’t help it. If a ‘higher alpha’ wanders along, she is going to have sex with him if he wants her to. It isn’t up to her, she can’t resist.
    That is pure BS. Everything from psychology to the CDC’s statistical analysis proves this just ain’t so.
    So – PUAs core theories are flat wrong. The only things they promote that work is cribbed, and poorly, form other older, better sources.
    [note: the BCAYCDI idea is pretty much universal]
    As an aside, the PUAs themselves admit that “game” is far from a universal theory. From roosh’s posts on ‘ some women want a beta’ to the various admissions that “game” only works on certain narrow types of woemen and then only a small fraction of the time to the various admissions that ‘”game” doesn’t work at all in Canada/Denmark/wherever’.
    There is nothing to learn from these losers.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Game.

    If you are not trying to lay every “quality woman” you happen upon, YOU ARE NOT practising game! The end. Ask the players, they will tell you this themselves.

    If you are interpreting the rules of game to make yourself a more confident male, then you are only using “how to influence people and make friends” part of game theory, which is basic and has been around since we hopped down from the trees and is just a starting point for the dark art.

    The biggest problem with game, which you disciples refuse to accept, is that it does nothing, NOTHING to up your chances of getting laid in the general population. It only hones your radar to picking out the sluts in the crowd! My Lord, Krauser has so much as admitted this. Roosh a few months back was waxing about how bored he was with the game life, until the sales of his books dropped off (more then likely) now has gone all in on the evil incarnate of women. Open your eyes boys, if you are “using” game to be a better male and are not approaching and trying to close, you are not a gamer. Live with it!

  • Zippy says:

    I propose that when Roissy gets compared to Aristotle something analogous to Godwin’s Rule has taken place.

  • Zippy says:

    The comments YBM cites may be pertinent here too, along the lines of pointing out the inherent feminism of Game. For most of human history the practical (for both men and women) answer to the question “what turns women on sexually” was “who cares?” It is only in the context of the modern coddled-empowered strongindependent feminist that the question even becomes practically relevant.

  • jf12 says:

    “the question even becomes practically relevant”
    There is a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.

  • Zippy says:

    Dalrock is fond of suggesting that if a woman isn’t looking for casual sex, she doesn’t really need to know how to spot the player. Perhaps this is also true, complementarily, for men: if you aren’t looking for casual sex with a slut, you don’t need to know how to use Game to make yourself attractive to sluts.

  • Patrick says:

    Aquinas Dad:
    Call me a cynic, then, like I said, or discount my perspective to whatever degree you want. I have a lot of experience with conservative Christianity. I was raised in it, abandoned it, and reentered it as a Catholic.

    I wouldn’t mind doing research into alternatives to “game.” But are there any real alternatives? Since “game” is evidently a collection of old truths repackaged as “game” and is therefore either completely useless to Christians because everything good in it exists elsewhere or as useful as anything Christians have produced, depending on your perspective. Can you point me to any websites or blogs? Which author/book would you recommend for a misogynist Catholic convert?

    Here’s a poem written by the author of “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” the flagship work on Christian intersex relations:

    A Woman’s Question

    Do you know you have asked for the costliest thing
    Ever made by the Hand above?
    A woman’s heart, and a woman’s life—
    And a woman’s wonderful love.

    Do you know you have asked for this priceless thing
    As a child might ask for a toy?
    Demanding what others have died to win,
    With a reckless dash of boy.

    You have written my lesson of duty out,
    Manlike, you have questioned me.
    Now stand at the bars of my woman’s soul
    Until I shall question thee.

    You require your mutton shall always be hot,
    Your socks and your shirt be whole;
    I require your heart be true as God’s stars
    And as pure as His heaven your soul.

    You require a cook for your mutton and beef,
    I require a far greater thing;
    A seamstress you’re wanting for socks and shirts—
    I look for a man and a king.

    A king for the beautiful realm called Home,
    And a man that his Maker, God,
    Shall look upon as He did on the first
    And say: “It is very good.”

    I am fair and young, but the rose may fade
    From this soft young cheek one day;
    Will you love me then ‘mid the falling leaves,
    As you did ‘mong the blossoms of May?

    Is your heart an ocean so strong and true,
    I may launch my all on its tide?
    A loving woman finds heaven or hell
    On the day she is made a bride.

    I require all things that are grand and true,
    All things that a man should be;
    If you give this all, I would stake my life
    To be all you demand of me.

    If you cannot be this, a laundress and cook
    You can hire and little to pay;
    But a woman’s heart and a woman’s life
    Are not to be won that way.”

    That’s some Game. I just need a heart like ocean and I can have all the hot mutton I want.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Patrick, what is about game that intrigues you?

  • Dystopia Max says:

    Poem does seem a bit demanding, though it’s more about unrealistic domestic dreams than unrealistic slut dreams. And denigrating laundresses and cooks is a bad sign, lots of women (Ruth comes to mind) had their loves start in the everyday serving of their favored men.

    “How DARE you suggest that our marriage is in any way based on the little things we do for each other every day, nay, it’s MUCH MORE than that!”

    Sorry, woman, the majority of men will never live out your god-king fantasies, just as the majority of women won’t look like your average Playmate, model, or Hollywood starlet. But the average men and women have had more children, and the seamstresses and cooks tend to to much better at raising them than the wife whose demands on her husband escalate forever. Sooner or later you have to realize that you may not be the generation that will have, is competent to have, or deserves to have the opportunity to chase ideological dreams, and you’ll need to learn to settle for the sake of the next generation.

    Woman sounds like one at a high risk of becoming an amoral familist.

  • […] of Game.  As debate over Game proceeds the probability of some Christian Game proponent comparing PUA to the Greek philosophers, whose thought was selectively incorporated into Christianity by some of the greatest saints in […]

  • Alte says:

    For most of human history the practical (for both men and women) answer to the question “what turns women on sexually” was “who cares?”

    This is a good point, and something I was ruminating about this morning. None of the men I know around here ever wonder about what women find sexually attractive. It’s just something they don’t really think about, or take seriously, which we women find sort of frustrating because attention.

    I’m thinking that the question of seduction is only essential when the question of female consent is essential, such as under the stringent enforcement of rape and sexual harrassment laws, and easy divorce. Otherwise, seduction boils down to trapping the woman you desire alone in a dark room and telling her to brace herself. If she screams bloody murder and tries to claw your eyes out, or some other man catches you with her and beats you up, then it’s a no. Otherwise, congratulations and enjoy yourself, Casanova.

    I mean… did men really used to wonder if their wives found them sufficiently sexy? She has to have sex with you, regardless of whether she finds you sexy or not.

    Perhaps Modern Men just have more scruples about bedding a woman who hasn’t melted into a puddle at their feet first. Sometimes I think that’s an improvement, but most of the time it just seems sort of lame. And it seems to lead to men getting strangely picky about the sex they get, as if their libido has gotten up and walked right out of the room.

  • Mike T says:

    Frankly, guns are less morally problematic than game and its advocates.

    This speaks volumes about The Unreal Woman’s worldview. Guns are “less problematic?” Guns are not even slightly morally problematic. Even the Mennonites I know are not bothered in the least by firearms because they recognize that you can be a committed pacifist and still be a hunter.

  • jf12 says:

    It’s the height of irony that women would say a man using force is moral but a man using seduction is immoral.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    jf12,
    Force is morally neutral. Seduction is not.

  • […] Zippy Catholic, who I otherwise find to be an illuminating and edifying read, has been on a spiel lately with lots of poorly formed criticism of Christians learning from and applying Game in their lives. His fundamental error appears to be an inability to separate positive facts concerning the proclivities of female behavior from the intent which produced the body of knowledge that goes by the name of ‘Game.’ For the purposes of demonstrating the essential truths of a body of knowledge concerned with the regularities of female behavior and in order to set out a means by which Christian men may understand and apply the truths of Game in their own lives, for their own and their present or future wive’s benefit, this sets forth an abstractive defense of the possibility of social technology. Christians ought to be interested in all bodies of knowledge not only for its own sake, as all truth is God’s truth, but also so that revelation may be re-articulated down through the ages and proclaimed to all peoples. Though Game is pagan, I follow the dictum of Mark 16:18 that what is evil in the hands of pagans may be appropriated by Christians and baptized to holy purposes. […]

  • Mike T says:

    Force is morally neutral. Seduction is not.

    Seduction is generally immoral because the number of scenarios where it can be applied licitly are few. There is, however, nothing intrinsically wrong with seduction because seduction neither must intrinsically follow into a sex act nor must it necessarily be done outside of marriage.

    It’s the height of irony that women would say a man using force is moral but a man using seduction is immoral.

    Actually what she was implying is that neither is particularly moral. It came off as an attempt to say “as bad as guns are, they’re not nearly as bad as seduction/game.” Sort of like saying as bad as Mao was, at least he didn’t kill 1/3 of his people like Pol Pot.

  • […] debates continue to rage on at Dalrock’s, Zippy’s one and two, Cane’s, Anarchopapist’s and others even though I believe I’ve accurately […]

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 The central paradox of “Christian Game” at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: