Send in the clown

February 9, 2014 § 366 Comments

I have a few more or less random disjointed thoughts to wrap things up (for now — you know how blogging can be) on the subject of Game.

Something akin to Godwin’s Rule applies to discussions 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 history, approaches one.   This suggests to me that I am right that the spirit of Game inherently exalts perversion and perverts.

Dalrock is fond of suggesting (when he isn’t suggesting that I said something I didn’t) that if a woman isn’t looking for casual sex, she doesn’t really need to know how to spot a player. It is an excellent point worth repeating — something for women to keep in mind more than men, really.  But perhaps it 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 PUA “tools” (to the extent that Game is well defined at all) to make yourself attractive to sluts.  And if you are using Game to attract a woman as part of your quest for a wife, chances are you are going to attract a woman like that.  As frustrating as it sounds, the wise (and even Biblical) answer is that it is better never to marry in the first place. I’ll let you find the Scriptural references yourself, as I am blogging from a smartphone.

That does leave men who happen to be married to sluts (as a matter of personal history, conversion after marriage, etc) in a bit of a conundrum, I suppose.  But it is far from clear that Game is the answer to that situation rather than just a temptation to go find a floozy.  The man who goes all Dread Game (in the sense of proving that other women find him attractive) on his wife is like the woman trolling for casual sex: their rationalization hamsters may not admit what they are doing, but we all know what they are doing.

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.  It is therefore ironic but not surprising that modern men obsessing over what turns women on has the effect of turning them off.

And finally, there is certainly no problem with men giving each other advice about women. Because men have adopted liberalism and destroyed all non-sociopathic hierarchy, the “who cares?” practical answer above might not apply to your particular situation, if your life has been cozy and trouble-free enough that tingles actually sit somewhere high on your legitimate priority list.

But the Game which can be Christianized is not true Game. Game is the lying and manipulation of perverts in a quest for casual sex with other perverts. That is its essence.

§ 366 Responses to Send in the clown

  • DeNihilist says:

    Well Zippy, you kinda stole some of my thunder. I was approaching the married to a slut theme in my mind when I opened your blog. Only I was gonna go at it from the other perspective.

    All these men on the game sights, whining, “if only I had found the red pill earlier, I would still be married!” (let’s not get me started on their adolescent use of the matrix to define themselves!), I was thinking about this and what resonated with me was, “well if you needed game to stay married, then you were probably married to a slut! So you not knowing game probably set you free from a life of misery”

    As has stated clearly, yet always obscured by the proponents –

    game is a system that has no bearing in reality whatsoever in seducing woman (see Krauser et al. 2013), except for one small sub-section of that population, commonly known as sluts. Sluts are referred by that moniker to identify females who have sex randomly, often, and basically don’t care whose on top, so long as [redacted], then it stands to reason, that game has little if any bearing on the seduction of said sluts. A still warm body with a [redacted] may have the same ability to seduce a slut as a living male using game.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Also, am pondering when game finally falls over the precipice and becomes a full blown cult. There already signs that it is well on its’ way.

    – Proponents not allowed or unable to see beyond their belief system

    – leaders brooking no dissent from within or without. I was banned from roissy’s place from my first comment on this article – http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/big-mistake/
    Turns out that if you went to the wedding album sight, about 2-3 pics earlier shows the couple in a deep kiss, moves on from there to the one roissy used to rile up the troops. Still banned because I would not fall into lockstep with his bullshit.

    – using words and signs specific to the movement.

    – developing an us against them barrier – also known as hypergamy ROFL!

    – fighting off rational arguments by attacking the person – whiteknights, mangina, beta, etc.

    – circling the wagons when things start to heat up

    Holy Cow, just realized, these guys sound an awful lot like the “consensous” twits in the global warming scam, hmmm….

  • DeVacuus says:

    DeNihilist:
    fighting off rational arguments by attacking the person – whiteknights, mangina, beta, etc.

    Why are you using the same tactic, then?

  • Zippy says:

    DeVacuus:

    Why are you using the same tactic, then?

    Which person is DeNihilist attacking? He mentioned/claimed that Heartiste banned him when he pointed out the additional photographic context of the photo in the post; but that isn’t an ad hominem.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Actually Zippy, DeV is right. Sorry. Should not have compared gamers to the twits from the global warming scam. My humble apologies.

  • sunshinemary says:

    Dalrock is fond of suggesting (when he isn’t suggesting that I said something I didn’t) that if a woman isn’t looking for casual sex, she doesn’t really need to know how to spot a player.

    I do not fully agree with you and Dalrock on this point. There are a few players who have publicly said they try to be honest about what they are after, but there are more who out and out admit that they attempt to lie to and deceive women about their true intentions. There is a reason why that is an important point, but I’ll leave it alone for now, since Donal Graeme and I are working on a collaborative post on this.

  • Zippy says:

    Sunshine:
    I look forward to the post. I think the main point is that a woman who is fully committed to chastity is going to avoid players simply by sticking to that commitment. It is an idealization though: in the real world human beings are subject to temptation, there are plenty of folks in the muddy middle who will choose the better path with a little help (or the worse path with a skilled tempter). Most of those in the muddy middle aren’t the sort to even ask how to spot the player though.

  • Zippy says:

    (Anyway we can wait for the post to discuss it further).

  • DeNihilist says:

    SSM – “but there are more who out and out admit that they attempt to lie to and deceive women about their true intentions.”

    and now we have Heartiste declaring that being a psychopath is the ultimate game – http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/psychopath-game/

    So where to now – rape game, cuz you know she wants it! Why waste time with words?

    And Dalrock and others still admire this dick? Really?

  • I guess I missed the post where “Game” was defined as not merely “psychological techniques applied to power relations” but “lying and manipulation of perverts in a quest for casual sex with other perverts”. Given the latter definition, your conclusions are indeed unavoidable; certainly there could be no such thing as “Christian Game”. But we will now require a more snappy name for “psychological techniques applied to power relations.”

  • Zippy says:

    “When I use the word ‘Game'” the Christian Game supporter said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make ‘Game’ mean so many different things.”
    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    Sounds like Zippy has a monopoly on the definition and use of Game.

    Wittgenstein disapproves.

  • Zippy says:

    ‘Game’ either refers to PUA techniques, or the use of the term is postmodern crap (like the way people who favor the right to murder children use the term ‘choice’).

    In either case no self-respecting Christian essentialist should use the term favorably.

  • Zippy says:

    I fully embrace Wiggy’s disapproval, BTW, though in fairness to him it is not completely clear that he would endorse what you suggest he would endorse. It is actually very appropriate to invoke a philosopher at the epicenter of the modern positivist-antiessentialist revolt here.

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    I imagine if Wittgenstein were here he would approve, but as he’s not, he can express neither sincerity nor dishonesty. Language games wot wot.

    Anyway, I think you should respect the appropriation of ‘Game’ as used by Christians like Dalrock and myself. To us, it is the systematization of behaviors that (by reasonable means of inference) demonstrably correlate to female attraction in men.

    I’m probably not an essentialist by your use.

  • DeNihilist says:

    No Bryce, game is defined by the gamers, those who actually believe in the model. Game is a set of actions designed to actuate the female tingle, thus getting said female to have sex with the gamer – PERIOD

    No other definition is applicable – PERIOD

  • DeNihilist says:

    Your definition is laughed at by the PUA’s, but carry on….

  • Zippy says:

    Bryce Laliberte:

    I think you should respect the appropriation of ‘Game’ as used by Christians like Dalrock and myself.

    And I think you shouldn’t, even if you aren’t an essentialist. There is absolutely no justification for Christians actively and deliberately associating authentic masculinity with modern soft-in-the-head perverts.

    I’m probably not an essentialist by your use.

    Probably not.

  • Surely you don’t mean to say that a married man ought not to learn psychological techniques which stabilize the relationship with his wife?

    Surely you don’t mean to say that a married woman ALWAYS knows what she needs and communicates this clearly with her husband, so that any wise married man need ONLY ever take what she says at face value?

    Surely you don’t mean to say that every married man will naturally and, without training, practice or prior thought, exercise an amount of dominance over his wife that calms her (in the long run) and directs her natural gifts toward godly ends?

    Whether human history has been a non-stop chorus of “Who cares?” about such issues, I hardly think you would argue that this is the optimal response. In an age where divorce was either impossible or incurred social opprobrium, perhaps “who cares” would work just fine. But in an age, when the big red button of divorce can pressed by anyone at any time, “applying psychological techniques to the power relation” you have with your wife, must surely be of SOME value, no?

  • Zippy says:

    When someone spends the better part of a comment creating a list of bullet items of things I surely didn’t mean to say, there is a good chance that I didn’t mean to say those things.

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    If you didn’t mean to say those things, it sounds like we’re agreed in essence. Don’t call it ‘Game’ if you want, but when Christians refer to ‘Game’ that’s what we mean.

  • Denise says:

    ::peeks in:: ((Not to mention the fact that most people who end up in cults do so because they are in an emotionally vulnerable place and find themselves seeking answers. Such individuals are targeted.))

  • Zippy says:

    I meant to say the things I actually said. And as long as you deliberately and actively associate authentic masculinity with perverts, we definitely don’t agree in essence.

  • johnmcg says:

    I do wonder why some are so adamant at maintaining the linkage between the tactics of pick-up artists and a this new vision of masculinity for married Christian men.

    I’m sure that our own military has learned much form the tactics of generals like Rommel. But it would be beyond strange for them to refer to these tactics as something like American Nazism (and, yes, I understand that picking up women for causal sexual encounters is, though deeply immoral, several degrees of magnitude less evil than Nazism), and odder still if they clinged to that name when the problematic parts of it were pointed out to them.

    It seems like something more is going on that a simple case of wanting to give credit where credit is due. Do you think the Elders of Game are really concerned if a bunch of Christian husbands don’t tip their caps to them when they don’t give in to fitness tests?

  • What’s going on is that you have a group of men absolutely desperate to be led, and they are settling for pottage and scraps of leadership via gamers because they truly don’t know any better and don’t want to know any better.

  • Alte says:

    Reposting this here, as it seems more appropriate.

    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.

  • Alte says:

    well if you needed game to stay married, then you were probably married to a slut!

    LOL True. Technically, if your wife divorces you and goes on to sleep with anyone else, she is an adulteress. I suppose that’s a sub-order of slut.

    This is the key to staying married: Don’t get divorced.

    I know, pure genius. You are very welcome.

  • Alte says:

    So where to now – rape game, cuz you know she wants it! Why waste time with words?

    I don’t think so. These guys are too obsessed with how desireable they are, and too fully emersed in the feminist mindset, to go there. They’re only feigning indifference.

    A natural alpha takes pains to pretend that he cares about what women want, and an artificial alpha takes pains to pretend that he doesn’t care about what women want.

  • Alte says:

    and, yes, I understand that picking up women for causal sexual encounters is, though deeply immoral, several degrees of magnitude less evil than Nazism

    Is it really?

  • Elspeth 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?” It is only in the context of the modern coddled-empowered strongindependent feminist that the question even becomes practically relevant. It is therefore ironic but not surprising that modern men obsessing over what turns women on has the effect of turning them off.

    Excellent. Just excellent.

    These guys are too obsessed with how desireable they are, and too fully emersed in the feminist mindset, to go there. They’re only feigning indifference.

    I know you are largely neutral on the subject of Christian men and game Alte, but right here? You just hit the crux of the problem. The feigning. Christians shouldn’t be feigning anything. Being honest and up front is paramount.

    If you care so much about what women think that you are tempted to start acting indifferent, stay single and work on your spirituality and relationship with God until you aren’t tempted to be a fake just to get some woman to want you.

    Seriously Alte, could you ever in a million years imagine your husband faking anything to get you turned on? I didn’t think so.

    I can’t imagine mine doing that either. Ever.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “rationalization hamsters may not admit what they are doing” I don’t say I am blind, but that I now see.

  • jf12 says:

    “Game is the lying and manipulation of perverts in a quest for casual sex with other perverts.” in the same way that oral sex is also ONLY for perverts because its sole purpose is to make provision for the flesh.

  • jf12 says:

    “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.” Men did and do wonder. Freud wondered what women want. The main thing that occupies Hawking’s mind is thinking about women and what they might want.

    Even when it was a societal and religious rule, women STILL refused to have sex, STILL refused to be submissive etc.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mr. Laliberte,
    You wrote,
    “To us, it is the systematization of behaviors that (by reasonable means of inference) demonstrably correlate to female attraction in men.”
    I disagree. The creators of this systematization themselves admit, often quietly, but sometimes directly, that their definitions and systematization are far from universal. And even within the ratehr narrow sub-cultures that they claim their conceptualizations work best they don’t work much at all.
    Based upon these two facts I think it is clear that ‘reasonable means of inference’ and ‘the presented evidence’ all point to “game” being false.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mr. Steves,
    You wrote,
    “Surely you don’t mean to say that a married man ought not to learn psychological techniques which stabilize the relationship with his wife?”
    I am not aware of anyone saying anything akin to that. I must ask, however, do you think that there is a dichotomy of “game” vs. nothing? And are you actually attempting to define *any* attempt to improve communications as “game”?

  • Alte says:

    Well… Freud was living in a rather decadent and hysterical section of society. I doubt your average coal miner or logger was staying up late, wondering about whether he needs to up his Game so that his wife wouldn’t fight him off at night.

    Seriously Alte, could you ever in a million years imagine your husband faking anything to get you turned on?

    Unfortunately, no. My ego would be grateful for it, though. At least occasionally. Like on my birthday, or something. LOL

    Over the last six months, I’ve come to the unsettling conclusion that the guys around here are so hot because they have a very murky concept of female sexual consent. As far as I can tell, the whole mating game is largely an intra-male competition, with trophies going to the winners. Women don’t want to be trophies, though, we want to be referrees.

    Women love Game (as long as they’re not directly confronted with the dirty details) because it makes them feel like referrees. It makes them feel like they’re calling the goals, like they’re in control of whom the winner will be, like the men are performing a dance for their entertainment.

    If you live in a place where the men get together, get drunk, and then talk about you in the third person to decide who’ll get to put you on your back later… you start to think Game is downright romantic.

  • jf12 says:

    ” the guys around here are so hot because they have a very murky concept of female sexual consent” rape game?

  • jf12 says:

    “could you ever in a million years imagine your husband [doing] anything [specifically] to get you turned on?”

  • Elspeth says:

    Unfortunately, no. My ego would be grateful for it, though. At least occasionally. Like on my birthday, or something. LOL

    LOL, no sister. I said “faking” anything. For some reason I can’t say I’d find that particularly alluring.

    That’s different from romantic gestures that come from the heart. I get treated to those from time to time, usually when I least expect it.

    But remember that mush post you wrote about being taken for granted? Is there any amount of “game” your husband could have run that would have topped that?

  • Mike T says:

    Even when it was a societal and religious rule, women STILL refused to have sex, STILL refused to be submissive etc.

    True, but society also allowed men a wide degree of tactics that even most gamers would not support. For example, if you finally had enough of your wife flirting with other men and back-handed her, the pre-modern state couldn’t give a damn less. The flip side was that if you made a habit of hitting your wife for anything less than a Very Good Reason like flirting with adultery (or actually committing it) the same state would also not raise its hand against her father for killing you.

  • jf12 says:

    “society also allowed men a wide degree of tactics that even most gamers would not support” i.e. physical dread game.

  • jf12 says:

    Women love to fool themselves that they can tell when a man is faking.

  • Elspeth says:

    Women love to fool themselves that they can tell when a man is faking.

    I see what you’re getting at jf12, but this is not that. Firstly, I do think it is impossible for anyone to keep any kind of act up over the long haul. We just aren’t built that way.

    Secondly, when I met my husband he was 19, and he was “like that”: confident,fearless, and not given to being swayed by the whims of others. 21 years later, he is still like that except his confidence is defined by his faith now.

    His interactions with people are consistent. They know what to expect even if they know they’re not going to like it.

    He hasn’t studied game, and he is not faking it. It’s nigh impossible for anyone to keep up an act and fake any character trait over the long haul. We just aren’t built that way.

    Now whether any other man is faking it, I probably couldn’t tell. But if he is married, it won’t be long before his wife can tell if he’s faking it. If she’s paying any attention at all to her man, I mean.

  • Elspeth says:

    I have a question though:

    Why are some of y’all so invested in the narrative that any guy who is able to have a good relationship with his wife is running some type of game?

    Maybe the man is just man enough to refuse to spend his life calculating and chasing tingles for a woman, even the one he married. After all, why should a man need to game his wife, of all people?

    The irony is that once he decides that he shouldn’t have to do that anymore than he should be cowing to her tantrums, he is probably more attractive.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “Maybe the man is just man enough” i.e. “just be born an alpha already wouldja?” aka No True Man. That advice doesn’t work for the majority of men.

  • jf12 says:

    I ask, again, ““could you ever in a million years imagine your husband [doing] anything [specifically] to get you turned on?”

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Elspeth,
    You wrote,
    “Why are some of y’all so invested in the narrative that any guy who is able to have a good relationship with his wife is running some type of game?”
    My theory? “Game” is all they have.

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:

    Women love to fool themselves that they can tell when a man is faking.

    Now I have a transvestite dressed like Meg Ryan in my head. Thanks for that.

  • jf12 says:

    from
    http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2014/02/wtf.html
    “In the West, it is the women who control sexuality and if the place resembles a brothel is because women want it to be that way. The PUA’s are simply taking advantage of the situation: they are a second order phenomenon. The primary pathogen is female promiscuity.

    No PUA advocates rape, despite feminist attempts to smear them with this charge. For every successful notch there has to be a woman who has willingly spread her legs.”

    But here, and elsewhere, seduction is criticized and unwilling-wife-forcing is proffered as an acceptable alternative. The irony, it burns and stings and is oozing some kind of pus.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    jf12,
    As I have mentioned before, if women really ‘control sexuality’ in the West why do they spend so much time complaining about how they can’t get what they want?

  • jf12 says:

    Zippy, I used to be accused of being irrationally confident by women. The Steve Urkel type. It doesn’t actually help. Being Non-acting Confident is not a turn on. In fact, women will claim (may need a whole saltshaker-full, though) that they are MUCH more turned on by a man who [acts like he] doesn’t know how attractive he is than by a man who acts more attractive than he is. Another word by women for that latter sort of man is creep.

  • jf12 says:

    @AquinasDad because sexuality is decouple from marriage.

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:

    unwilling-wife-forcing is proffered as an acceptable alternative

    For the record, there is a nontrivial difference between female tingles being a low priority (for men and women alike) – even low to the point of irrelevance – and rape. One pervasive constant in Internet discussions is an appalling lack of imagination, a positivism which boxes many people into little mind traps of their own construction.

    Part of the reason for this is because modernity is built on a foundation of such mind traps, e.g. the false choice between liberalism and tyranny. People are pervasively socialized into positivism.

  • Elspeth says:

    This is what women find creepy:

  • jf12 says:

    @Zippy re: “false choice”. I agree. Hence, the middle way, of coopting some tools (after leaning how to use them without injuring yourself).

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    So do I. So why do you insist on reading me as meaning something I have explicitly denied? When I say Game is in a rudimentary sense the systematization of a set of behaviors which increase a man’s attractiveness to women, for what reason do you go on about perverts?

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:
    Most men will not enthusiastically follow a dork into battle. It just isn’t going to happen. I’ve suggested that men set the actual social hierarchy, but I haven’t expressed any theories on how they set it (partly because I don’t have a theory). I do expect it to reflect (in part and among other things) some underlying objective truths about masculinity though, and dorks aren’t masculine.

    I think you’ve just undermined one of the central ‘practices’ of Game, though, which is expressing irrational self-confidence toward women. I’d suggest that actual self-confidence toward men and women but especially men is what they don’t understand but are trying to mimic. Notice that an Urkel-dork expressing irrational self-confidence toward a masculine man is not going to jump above him in the hierarchy by doing so: he actually lowers himself in the hierarchy by adding ‘annoying’ to his list of qualities, and by projecting his dorkiness up on the big screen.

  • Zippy says:

    Bryce Laliberte:
    By adopting PUA terminology, you – objectively – associate authentic masculinity with perverts. It doesn’t matter whether you intend to do so or not, because in objective reality you actually do so. So your denial of intending the association is no doubt perfectly true, but irrelevant.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: creepy. The Brady Rulez apply. I can’t do anything about not being handsome (Well, technically I could. The single greatest threat to women’s being able to “just tell” is men’s facial bone plastic surgery. In contrast to women (like Bristol Palin), who typically do not report ANY increased interest from men but they feel better about themselves, EVERY man who gets a more masculine face from “faking” through surgery reports vastly increased interest from women.) but I did work a little on being attractive, with a little effect. A better return on investment has been on working on “don’t be unattractive” by upping my brutishness, not suaveness. Would Peter have been better served by stomping through the streets like a mini King Kong?

  • jf12 says:

    Re: the middle way. Given that non-liars cannot rationally deny that women are more turned on by bad boy behaviors than nice guy behaviors, then the middle way has to be none other than the nice guy acting more bad boy.

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:
    My point about positivist lack of imagination wasn’t even slightly about finding an Aristotlean golden mean. Not that there is anything wrong with that, in general. My point was about the appalling lack of imagination that leads so many people to think that they understand what other people are saying and its implications, when what they are really understanding is implications drawn from their own mind traps.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    By adopting PUA terminology, you – objectively – associate authentic masculinity with perverts. It doesn’t matter whether you intend to do so or not, because in objective reality you actually do so. So your denial of intending the association is no doubt perfectly true, but irrelevant.

    Bingo.

    My point about positivist lack of imagination wasn’t even slightly about finding an Aristotlean golden mean. Not that there is anything wrong with that, in general. My point was about the appalling lack of imagination that leads so many people to think that they understand what other people are saying and its implications, when what they are really understanding is implications drawn from their own mind traps.

    *cough!*

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    jf12,
    Given that men who understand clinical studies and statistics know that the studies on ‘dark triad’ traits and sexual attractiveness are all either
    1) too limited in number to be statistically significant
    2) too limited in population sample to be statistically significant
    3) based upon self-reporting by individual selected because of their tendency to lie and self-aggrandize, making them statistically useless, or
    4) some combination of 1, 2, and 3.

    *Never mind* that there are serious procedural questions about treating the Dark Triad as a single trait. Peer review has cautioned that
    ‘these various studies cannot be used to make claims about general attractiveness, general mating strategy, evolutionary biology, or evolutionary psychology’.

    Actually significant studies refute the idea that ‘all women want bad boys’.
    For example, a multivariate study out of Oxford found that women seeking a husband responded best to kindness (not supplication – kindness).
    The University of Northumbria had a large study that indicated women looking for husbands found humor and intelligence as key decision making factors.
    North Carolina University confirmed the intelligence bit,a s well as a number of other studies.
    A series of studies from UCLA also confirmed the kindness study our of the UK.
    And damn near every study confirmed self-confidence.
    Common traits that were *negatives* to women seeking husbands?
    Deceit, sarcasm, self-aggrandizement, rudeness, and past infidelity.
    So if you want to sleep with sluts who don’t have or want a future, pretend to be a bad boy.
    If you want a wife then be a decent, honest man.

    Let us also remember – ‘bad boy’ traits are associated with lower income, less overall wealth, and high levels of debt. Money is a huge status marker once you aren’t 23 or so anymore.

  • jf12 says:

    Request for clarification. By the positivism of game proponents I assume you mean their emphasis on (claimed) results, or in a behaviorist sense the black box approach. But then a middle way would certainly be a game proponent going after hearts and minds, e.g. with a doubly strong theory of mind, and not bodies per se.

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:
    I don’t mean any of those things by positivism, and this post isn’t about positivism. You can always search my blog or W4. I don’t have a systematic set of posts on it, though I may develop one at some point.

  • then the middle way has to be none other than the nice guy acting more bad boy.

    Don’t be a nice guy or a bad boy; be a good man. Aim toward heaven and you’ll get earth thrown in. Aim toward earth and you’ll get neither.

  • Alte says:

    But remember that mush post you wrote about being taken for granted? Is there any amount of “game” your husband could have run that would have topped that?

    No, I was thinking more “in addition” to that because ATTENTION!!!

    My husband does sometimes get mushy and romantic about me, but that’s not Game. That’s like the antithesis of Game. He likes to be nice to me sometimes, so that I don’t get all weepy and cry and stuff.

  • Alte says:

    ”the guys around here are so hot because they have a very murky concept of female sexual consent” rape game?

    Well… I didn’t want to put it that way.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    “He likes to be nice to me sometimes, so that I don’t get all weepy and cry and stuff.”
    I did, yes, LOL

  • Alte says:

    “could you ever in a million years imagine your husband [doing] anything [specifically] to get you turned on?”

    Sure, but the point is that he’s not being calculating about it. He’s just being himself.

    Unless you mean something completely different, to which I can say… only if I’ve been a good girl.

  • Alte says:

    I’ve suggested that men set the actual social hierarchy

    Yes, but only in places that aren’t too anonymous. I’ve noticed that most of the Game stuff is coming out of the metropolitan areas, where men have trouble judging each other’s ranking and have to sort by superficial things.

  • Alte says:

    For the record, there is a nontrivial difference between female tingles being a low priority (for men and women alike) – even low to the point of irrelevance – and rape.

    Thank you for pointing this out. It’s obvious, but some people are sort of slow to catch on.

    I would say, though, that if the purposeful seduction is no longer the main mating tool, then men have to come up with a different system for women to be protected from unwanted advances. Chaperoning and dueling, and that sort of thing.

  • DeNihilist says:

    The heartiste post on psychopath game is basically saying. “men, woman want you to take em any way you want. They will love you forever.”

    This is the post that got me out of the frivolity of game and into serious consideration of what it really is.

    Then Rollo posted on sperm banks –
    http://therationalmale.com/2014/01/29/secret-of-the-sperm-bank/

    I looked for the humour tag, nope, dead serious.

    These guys are getting desperate. My thoughts are that they have hit peak game and are starting to decline in disciples. Less disciples, less money to go around.

    And yes, I am stating that this whole game phenom, is nothing more then a con.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    DeNihilist,
    I like you more all the time.
    Of course it is a scam – read roosh’s tweets!

  • DeNihilist says:

    AD – read roosh’s tweets!

    “Do I have to?” in a whiny voice…..

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    DeNihilist,
    Oh. Good point,
    No, you don’t

  • Elspeth says:

    “For the record, there is a nontrivial difference between female tingles being a low priority (for men and women alike) – even low to the point of irrelevance – and rape.”

    Maybe I misinterpreted what was said here Zippy. Were you not saying that there is a major difference between rape and women’s tingles being a low priority?

    Or stated this way: “Not prioritizing a woman’s tingles is not endorsement of rape.”

    Thank you for pointing this out. It’s obvious, but some people are sort of slow to catch on.

    I would say, though, that if the purposeful seduction is no longer the main mating tool, then men have to come up with a different system for women to be protected from unwanted advances. Chaperoning and dueling, and that sort of thing.

    I don’t know that seduction should be a mating tool, V. It’s this very thing that has gotten us into the mess in which we find ourselves. (Yes, I see the irony, sister. I’ve had a lot of time to think about this.)

    When the pursuit of sexuality is limited to the marriage relationship, there are certain things that are going to take place. One of which is that both parties will have some investment in the sexual satisfaction of the other. This is common sense isn’t it? Maybe not.

    Outside of that specific context however, the prioritizing of a woman’s sexual arousal becomes problematic. And I mean that quite specifically. Husbands have no business being afraid to be honest or needing to wash dishes or any other number of things in order to *get some* later.

    However, that is exactly what you get when you rely on seduction, which I respectfully submit is a very different thing from romance in marriage. That men are capitulating, jumping through hoops, and engaging all kinds of dishonesty merely for the chance to sleep with their own wives is just downright silly.

    Why are husbands negotiating for sex? This is crazy stuff!

  • DeNihilist says:

    Thank you Elspeth! – Why are husbands negotiating for sex?

    Why are there bloggers out there telling men to learn game, but just the noble points, so that they can control their wives, but more importantly, their wives sexuality?

    My experience of 28 years with the same woman is that our sex life is still going strong, but yes, she is now saying no a bit more often. So by the Christo-gamer thinking, she must be re-tingleized before her hypergamy whisks her away in the arms of a HSM, and stops doing my laundry!

    Walking away shaking head…..

  • johnmcg says:

    Well, I think it’s part of the “one weird trick” culture, even if it’s not explicitly sold that way.

    Washing dishes and giving her her way on how to decorate the house, etc. doesn’t work and is a pain.

    Becoming a better man is a lot of work, and isn’t guaranteed to work either.

    But if you just learn and apply this one weird trick, your wife won’t be able to keep her panties on around you.

    And if she doesn’t, you’re doing it wrong. (Just like if washing the dishes isn’t working, you’re probably doing them wrong, or you’re doing them in a transparently manipulative way, etc…)

    Now, I think that many of the Game proponents believe that applying the principles of Game is not mutually exclusive with becoming a better man, and that indeed will make one a better leader and spiritual head.

    But I think part of the appeal, and I think part of the reluctance to kick the PUA artist to the curb, is that one simply needs to master these few techniques to improve one’s prospects.

  • Zippy says:

    Alte:
    Re: men sorting out the hierarchy, it definitely takes time. In my all male MBA cohort the apparent hierarchy at the beginning bore no resemblance to the settled hierarchy two years later.

  • johnmcg says:

    I agree that men in general set the hierarchy, but it seems there are some exceptions — I’m thinking about the John Mayer-sensitive musician type that women swoon for and men detest. Musicians and artists aren’t generally champions of male hierarchies, but nevertheless *seem* to have as much mating success as they care to have.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Well Zippy, it is official, you, AD, me and others of like thinking are now proclaimed haters of the Church of the Almighty Game. One of their highest Bishops, Rollo has assured his flock, that haters know not what they speak, so can be ignored, and don’t forget to leave a donation on your way out. He came to their rescue on Dal’s sight.

    Sigh, I’ll never give my wife tingles again….

  • Zippy says:

    Well, remember, “determine the hierarchy” isn’t the same thing as “like”.

  • nickbsteves says:

    So Zippy, since you agree that a man can and almost certainly must learn and apply psychological techniques to manage and direct his wife, for their mutual edification, what DO you propose calling them? Once we have settled on that name, what if those same techniques are used, illicitly and ill-advisedly, to bed sluts? Will they then, and ONLY then, be called “game”?

  • jf12 says:

    Re: purposeful seduction, and irony. “Why aren’t wives submitting for sex? This is crazy stuff!”

  • Patrick says:

    Game vs. Authentic Masculinity:

    Outcome independence vs. authentic outcome independence

    Fornication as a possible outcome vs. authentic love-making as a possible outcome

    Lots of girls on the girl tree vs. who cares what makes her tingle

    Projected-kindness in comfort stage of seduction once projected-masculine strength is established vs. authentic kindness in the context of authentic masculine strength

    Perverts projecting self-confidence vs. authentically confident men

    Because clearly masculinity–authentic masculinity–isn’t a trait like size or strength, but is something mysterious and possessed only by the true of heart. No pervert was ever truly masculine.

  • Zippy says:

    nickbsteves:

    …since you agree that a man can and almost certainly must learn and apply psychological techniques to manage and direct his wife, for their mutual edification, what DO you propose calling them?

    I actually didn’t agree to (or disagree with) those things. You are once again confusing things I haven’t said with things I have said.

    But “masculinity” is a perfectly good word for how a man ought to behave -qua- man.

  • nickbsteves says:

    But you WOULD agree that “masculinity” involves the application of learned psychological techniques? Techniques that are today rarely learned, poorly understood, not well-advertised, considered pathological, and are frowned upon by mainstream pundits.

  • Zippy says:

    nickbsteves:

    But you WOULD agree that “masculinity” involves the application of learned psychological techniques?

    No. You’ve assumed the frame of modernity, which you reveal through word choice and concept emphasis: “psychological techniques” and the idea that masculinity is specifically taught or indoctrinated rather than innate and natural, capable of being distorted and destroyed by artifice but not itself a product of artifice.

    Techniques that are today rarely learned, poorly understood, not well-advertised, considered pathological, and are frowned upon by mainstream pundits.

    It isn’t techniques which are frowned upon. It is masculinity which is frowned upon.

  • nickbsteves says:

    Oh fer Heaven sakes… Masculinity is only for “Naturals” I suppose. I didn’t say ONLY learned, that masculinity was ONLY a social construct. Would you accuse St. Benedict for adopting the “modern frame” suggesting that the paths of holiness might be learned by certain careful practices? Perhaps sainthood is only for “naturals” too… but I doubt it.

  • Zippy says:

    So now Roissy is St. Benedict.

  • nickbsteves says:

    Touche… something *I* didn’t say.

  • jf12 says:

    50 shades of que sera sera.
    1. Men aren’t supposed to have to be seductive, so if you find that being seductive is working for you, stop it. Right now.
    2. Don’t call seduction “game”, or “seduction”, either, unless it’s not working.
    3. Just be born an alpha already, wouldja?
    4. No True Man does anything specifically to make his wife happier. She just naturally is the happiest woman alive. The merest rumblings of his mighty belly cause her to have involuntary spasms of her pelvic girdle muscles.
    5. Why not realize that women are the voice of God so if they haven’t discerned you are attractive to them, then that’s God Himself telling you should embrace your vocation of betaness.
    6. Not that there is really anything such as betaness, but supposing there is.
    7. Not that there’s anything wrong with being beta, if that’s how you really are.
    9. And come to think of it actually women think other men besides you are the voice of God, even if they don’t think you are the voice of God, so be some other man besides yourself.
    10. But Just Be Yourself, and you’ll be attractive, provided yourself is attractive, mutatis mutandi non potest.
    11. Besides, women are all attracted to holiness and such. So just work on being more holy, especially if that’s not yourself at the moment.
    12. Counterexamples don’t count. Because I said so, that’s why.
    13. And anyway why would you want to be more attractive to women? Women are icky.
    14 etc

  • nickbsteves says:

    OK we’re even. Now answer the question: Learning and getting good at psychological techniques is part of proper, i.e., fully formed, masculinity? (I mean for those of us mere mortals who weren’t “born that way”.)

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @NBS

    Would you accuse St. Benedict for adopting the “modern frame” suggesting that the paths of holiness might be learned by certain careful practices?

    Are you suggesting that the paths of holiness might be learned by any sort of practice at all, as long as it was careful?

    Perhaps sainthood is only for “naturals” too… but I doubt it.

    No. Sainthood is given by God. Saints don’t learn magic tricks by careful study. They are conduits for miracles because God wanted to use them in their circumstances. Simon Magus is not a saint.

    You’ve got the wrong map.

  • nickbsteves says:

    Cane:

    Sainthood cannot happen without holiness; holiness cannot happen without human effort freely engaged; effort is often (not always) guided by rules. The rule will not make you holy, but most will not be holy without the rule. If you’ve a problem with that, take it up with Saint Benedict.

  • St. Benedict would definitely argue against learning anything from warlocks.

    Sheesh. What’s so great about a guy on the internet writing bad fanfic about dames that all these supposedly ultra-conservative, reactionary, anti-modern Christian men scamper about defending his gibberish as the only possible way a man can do man-stuff manfully?

    As well argue that Christian women need to intern at brothels to learn proper “psychological techniques” before marriage.

  • nickbsteves says:

    Unreal woman, I wonder if you can even spell non sequitur.

  • jf12 says:

    Women interning at brothel-like behavior is the cause of the problem of lack of submissiveness in marriage.

  • johnmcg says:

    Women interning at brothel-like behavior is the cause of the problem of lack of submissiveness in marriage.

    So why do we want to imitate this pattern of behavior?

  • jf12 says:

    Players are the opposite of johns.

  • johnmcg says:

    Players are the opposite of johns.

    Are they?

    Both seem to be after the same thing — sex outside of a committed relationship. The main difference is that the johns pay for it with real money, and the players use their capital in the sexual marketplace.

    As the joke goes, we’ve established what they are; now we’re just haggling over the price.

    It seems to me they both reside on the opposite side of the continuum from committed married husbands.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @NBS

    effort is often (not always) guided by rules.

    If Saint Benedict makes the assertion that following the rules makes you holy, or even that it is likely to make one holy, then I certainly would take it up with him.

    It is still not “the rules” that make sainthood happen, as you accede. It is not even “the effort”, but God’s recognition and acceptance of “freely made effort”. It is the case that following “the rules” is a fruit of holiness; not the branch.

    This doesn’t mean that, say, participating in the Eucharist isn’t essential for the person who can do so. It certainly is: Plants are valued for their fruit, and faith without works is dead.

    Are you tracking the trajectory of this conversation? Whether you agree with me or not on works, faith, etc.: Keep in mind that Zippy started out talking about the efficacy on the hows and whys of attracting women, and you segued straight away to principles on how to make oneself holy.

    Whatever decision you reach about Game is going to part of your whole pattern of thought on the reason for your existence, your place in the world, how you should conduct yourself… If your source–your branch–is nihilism, psychopathy, hedonism, sloth, envy, pride, and every other “rule” preached against in the Bible and by the Church, then what sort of fruit–what actions born of your freely engaged patterns of thought–will you bear?

  • Novaseeker says:

    Masculinity is only for “Naturals” I suppose.

    This is the exact root of the issue, it seems to me.

  • Zippy says:

    Masculinity is not for naturals; it is natural. That is a fact of life, and if the “red pill” is about anything it is supposed to be about accepting, without prejudice or fear of the consequences, the facts of life.

    And the objection isn’t to men who have been deprived of their birthright – who have had their masculinity surgically removed by modernity – seeking healing. People who think that either haven’t followed the discussion or have run out of excuses for thinking it.

    On the hooker/john thing, I’ve proposed before that slut : player :: john : hooker. So men learning “masculinity” from players is directly analogous to women learning “femininity” from hookers.

    Cane: we Papists would put the principle as “lex orandi lex credendi”.

  • Novaseeker says:

    What we pray is what we believe — Orthodox also believe this. But Game as Bryce describes it is now somehow a prayer?

    And in any case, I sense nothing but absolute indifference from you personally, Zippy, for the millions of guys who are in the position you describe. That won’t get their masculinity back. Not in the least. Your position is fine for you, staying clean in your tower of naturalness. It isn’t pragmatic for everyone else.

  • No, masculinity is for normal men. They seem to manage just fine at finding wives and having children and being married for a lifetime.

    Or, alternately, not marrying and getting along amiably enough without a wife, as was the historical norm for (sometimes) a majority of men,depending on the era.

    There is presently a lot of feminization in much of Western society. Game caters to that by encouraging men to behave in a particular sort of disordered, feminine fashion. What it doesn’t do is provide a serious parallel path. It merely presumes that the current social environment is permanent and unchangeable, and offers tactics for manipulating a small subset of women into unhealthy and immoral behaviors (yes, even wives, there is no shortage of advocates to encourage wives in sexual immorality among the game-brigade),

    We must all be ruled, and the eagerness of some men to be ruled by charlatans is sad for them and any misfortunate folk they might manipulate for ill ends. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, after all.

  • I mean, really, is it millions of guys, or does the manosphere simply select for particularly unfortunate cases who think they are typical men when they are very much not?

  • Zippy says:

    Novaseeker:

    I sense nothing but absolute indifference from you personally, Zippy, for the millions of guys who are in the position you describe.

    Quite the contrary. My concern for men getting pulled into the orbit of perverts is completely sincere. But for some reason these discussions always end up bubbling up accusations of my supposed indifference toward and hatred of betas.

    If I was indifferent, I wouldn’t post on the subject.

    Is Dalrock being insincere when he points out that the way for women to avoid players is to keep their legs shut? I don’t think he is, even though it isn’t something women like to hear.

    Same kind of thing here.

  • Novaseeker says:

    Yet Dalrock disagrees with you about the use of “Game”, whatever we define it to be. Interesting, no?

    And, no, TUW, it is millions of guys. It has nothing to do with the manosphere. It’s much bigger than the manosphere, anyway, even though we are discussing something here in a very tiny subquadrant of the internet that is very loosely connected to the manosphere.

  • Zippy says:

    Novaseeker:

    Yet Dalrock disagrees with you about the use of “Game”, whatever we define it to be. Interesting, no?

    It is completely irrelevant to the point, actually, which has nothing to do with who agrees with whom about what. Basically you ran out of substantive objections and went there.

  • Novaseeker says:

    No, actually, I simply find your argument tiresome.

    There isn’t any parallel between what you are saying and what Dalrock is sating because comparing using psychological techniques to generate and maintain attraction to a woman opening her legs is a false comparison. The proper comparison is a woman putting on makeup and heels. I realize you will disagree, but I don’t think much of the substance of your argument, to be honest, and I think you are aware of that. Neither does Dalrock, by the way, which was the point of my allusion to his obvious disagreement with you relating to this comparison.

    I never said you “hated betas”. You are largely indifferent to them, however.

  • Zippy says:

    Novaseeker:

    There isn’t any parallel between what you are saying and what Dalrock is saying…

    And again, for the second time, I wasn’t drawing a substantive parallel. I was addressing your pretense to be able to read my mind and determine that I am indifferent.

    Re-read that as many times as you need to. That way I won’t have to keep correcting the same error over and over again.

  • Novaseeker says:

    Your indifference is very obvious. I don’t have an interest in your denials, and supposing that I am psycho-analyzing you by simply making an observation which is rather obvious from your writing over an extended period of time is inapposite.

  • Zippy says:

    Novaseeker:

    Your indifference is very obvious.

    It is what drives me.

  • Novaseeker says:

    You’re misunderstanding.

    We know that you are not indifferent as to the spiritual destiny of these guys. You are, however, indifferent as to whether they find wives, or whether women find them attractive. You may bemoan the circumstances which led them there, but at the same time, you are outcome indifferent as to *that* aspect of things (the latter, not the former).

  • Zippy says:

    Novaseeker:

    You are, however, indifferent as to whether they find wives, or whether women find them attractive.

    No, I’m not.

  • Of course, vast numbers of women manage to marry and well without using makeup or heels. They are not essential or even necessary components for getting a decent husband.

  • Novaseeker says:

    Certainly doesn’t look that way from where I have been observing your comments on this over a year and more, to be honest.

  • Zippy says:

    Novaseeker:
    Your impression has been noted.

  • Novaseeker says:

    Of course, vast numbers of women manage to marry and well without using makeup or heels. They are not essential or even necessary components for getting a decent husband.

    The point is that one is being criticized morally and the other is not. Are women immoral for being deceptive by enhancing their appearance through makeup heels and clothing beyond just being themselves?

  • Zippy says:

    Novaseeker:

    The point is that one is being criticized morally and the other is not.

    Wrong again.

    What is being criticized is Game, that is, PUA techniques.

    The first order adaptation made by Christian “Game” supporters is to make the postmodern gambit and claim that Game is not actually PUA techniques at all; it is pretty much anything that helps any man learn how to be masculine and attractive to some women. No doubt “carry-an-empty-guitar-case Game” is making it way into the folklore alongside “psychopath game”.

    Stipulating the content-shift, it is morally wrong to deliberately and consistently adopt the PUA terminology, thereby publicly and pervasively associating authentic masculinity with perversity and perverts.

    So you have your choice: either Game is Roissy, or you shouldn’t be calling whatever you are teaching Game.

    The Christian manosphere has a PUA problem, a core moral problem not a value-neutral microeconomic analysis, whether it wants to admit it or not. And no amount of “shut up Zippy and Cane” will make that problem go away.

  • That is presented as an argument in some Christian circles, that it is immoral or improper for women to doll up with makeup and fancy clothes.

    But game-advocates claim is that game is necessary, not that it’s a fun alternate option if you like, wanna do that and stuff. We keep hearing over and over that there’s just no other alternatives and further, that it is essential to both garnering and sustaining a marriage.

    It’s like women arguing that you absolutely have to wear makeup to get and keep a husband, that there’s just no other way of being feminine.

  • Zippy says:

    TUN:

    That is presented as an argument in some Christian circles, that it is immoral or improper for women to doll up with makeup and fancy clothes.

    There is definitely a level of slutty dress etc that rises to the level of immorality. But what is happening here goes beyond that. Suppose that Christian women were not only wearing slutty clothes, but were going around calling their dresses “slut dresses” and claiming that slut dresses are just a “tool” to make them attractive to men.

    Some of that actually does take place. Some women call their shoes “f***-me” pumps, and if there are any going around teaching young women publicly on ostensibly Christian blogs to wear – by name – f***-me pumps to make themselves attractive to men, I certainly do object. If they further went on to suggest that Madonna or some other public evangelical slut was doing God’s work by teaching Christian women how to be attractive, which they need to be in order to land a good Christian spouse in the modern SMP/MMP, I would certainly object.

    Folks will no doubt counter that circumstances are different for men. And that may be so, but I would object to women behaving that way in any circumstances.

  • Novaseeker says:

    So you have your choice: either Game is Roissy, or you shouldn’t be calling whatever you are teaching Game.

    Bryce, Nick have both said they don’t care what it is called. Let’s call it whatever – I certainly don’t care. I have no personal attachment to Roissy, Roosh or others in that camp. Dump the references to PUAs and keep the substance — work for you?

    I doubt it, for some reason, which means I think your objection is more to the substance than to the name of what we are discussing.

    But game-advocates claim is that game is necessary, not that it’s a fun alternate option if you like, wanna do that and stuff. We keep hearing over and over that there’s just no other alternatives and further, that it is essential to both garnering and sustaining a marriage.

    It’s like women arguing that you absolutely have to wear makeup to get and keep a husband, that there’s just no other way of being feminine.

    Everyone can do what they wish. I do think that much advice toward women is to make themselves more attractive as a necessary component, but if people don’t want to do that, it’s fine, as long as they accept the consequences. It’s the same for men — if they don’t want to do what it takes, they need to accept the consequences and not whine about how women do not find them attractive. Everyone has choices, and nothing is mandated. However, all choices have consequences.

  • Zippy says:

    Novaseeker:

    Let’s call it whatever – I certainly don’t care.

    Calling masculinity “masculinity” rather than “Game” is a start.

  • Novaseeker says:

    If we were to do that, and keep the substance as is (for Christians who write about these things), no problem?

  • Zippy says:

    Novaseeker:

    I think your objection is more to the substance than to the name of what we are discussing.

    That’s fair and worth exploring.

    Suppose a group of Christian female bloggers evangelically proclaimed the utility of “f-me clothes and makeup” in making themselves attractive to men. They routinely link to articles in Cosmopolitan and praise the wisdom of its writers, suggesting that while some of it is morally suspect for Christians it is really just a “toolbox” from which women can draw to make themselves more attractive to men.

    There is a multi-layered problem here, the first of which is the explicit embrace of slut culture which is intrinsically bound up with the adoption of slut terminology and linking favorably to slut publications. But there is also another layer of problem, which is the substance of what they are recommending.

    Parsing that second layer is nontrivial, to say the least. Women who are capable of discernment probably don’t need to do so, and those who feel that they need to do so are probably not well equipped to do so. So there is a kind of built-in paradox. A few bloggers who are capable do some of the work, and that’s good — but when they do so they shouldn’t be saying “here are some great Christian f-me dresses” and linking to Cosmo favorably.

    Now if that is the situation, and I don’t happen have a ready-made encyclopedic manual of morally acceptable Christian beauty tips available to hand out – and if I recognize that creating one from scratch is a nontrivial undertaking to say the least – it doesn’t follow that my objections to the situation lack quiddity.

  • herbie31 says:

    Nothing to add(as usual) but that was a helluva post, Zippy.

  • Novaseeker says:

    Women are doing that all the time, Zippy, without moral commentary. Cosmo isn’t moral, but tons of good Catholic girls have read a Cosmo or two (or similar) and extracted pragmatic advice from it without wailing and gnashing of teeth from the peanut gallery. Similarly women share tips on these things on an amoral basis, regardless of their faith, in the ordinary course. It isn’t new, so it’s just accepted. When men try to do the same thing, which is newer for them, it’s a moral crisis because of the source.

    Women simply seek out the source material in women’s magazines and websites which are mainstream and basically criticized by no-one (and each other) and as long as they don’t go ideological on it (which most do not because they are just seeking pragmatic advice as to how to become more attractive) they don’t get critiqued — they extract the advice they need, from whatever source, to make themselves more attractive without criticism — precisely because this advice which they did not get growing up, or which needs to be updated or what have you, is readily available in a mainstream way that is largely off the radar screen of critique.

    So no, women aren’t going about this a systematic way because they don’t need to — the information and advice they need is in the mainstream and is criticized by pretty much no-one in the church as long as they don’t go over the top full on slut, or become ideological feminists. That is, women are de facto trusted to sift and use the information properly. Men are not.

  • Zippy says:

    Novaseeker:

    Women are doing that all the time, Zippy…

    If a group of Christian women were doing just what I described, including the evangelical blogging, use and embrace of slut terminology, linking to slut publications, etc;

    and I wrote a blog post criticizing them and suggesting that they shouldn’t do that;

    would you jump in here and defend them with a long string of comments, tell me to leave them alone, complain that I have no empathy for the poor ugly Christian girls who need a little help, and express how unimpressed you are with my arguments?

  • Silly Interloper says:

    It is what drives me.

    Hah!

  • Novaseeker says:

    Inapposite because they don’t need to do that — that was my point. It’s in the mainstream.

    The stuff for guys to sift through is not in the mainstream, so they take it from outside the mainstream through networks of anonymous blogs and therefore they are behaving immorally.

    Women are. doing. the. same. thing.

    They are just doing it in the mainstream and in their traditional, socially-networked way, as they have done for generations. It therefore doesn’t get critiqued. That men are doing it differently is obvious, because the info isn’t in the mainstream, so the way it has been approached has been through an odd corner of the internet. But women are doing the same thing out in the open without criticism.

  • Peter Blood says:

    But Zippy, why don’t you care?

  • Peter Blood says:

    They won’t quit until you show them you care.

  • I would disagree completely with that, Novaseeker. It strikes me as not accurate to what devout Christian women are doing at all. Even Christian-culture women have never in my experience (and I hail from the South!) been doing what you speak of with no blowback. That’s just not true. They get plenty of blowback and it’s not considered bland harmless behavior at all.

  • Denise says:

    Novaseeker & Zippy’s exchange reminds me of a moral dilemma I had reading The Rules Revisited blog. Not Christian in the least, but immensely practical information for women from a man’s perspective. With both the advice directed toward women and the advice directed toward men, one must ask whether its aim is toward a Christian end. What exactly is a man attempting to evoke in a woman? What is a woman attempting to evoke in a man? Are we speaking only of generating lust?

  • Zippy says:

    Novaseeker:
    That is nonresponsive, obviously. But thanks for helping me clarify it for others.

  • Denise says:

    Oh, and I agree with TUW; at least in Christian circles, there’s nothing about Cosmo that is particularly welcome. The “modesty” articles are endless. Analogous to the beta-ization of men in the church?

  • Novaseeker says:

    It isn’t nonresponsive from my perspective, Zippy. I disagree with your frame.

    Sue me.

  • Novaseeker says:

    Oh, and I agree with TUW; at least in Christian circles, there’s nothing about Cosmo that is particularly welcome. The “modesty” articles are endless. Analogous to the beta-ization of men in the church?

    Cosmo is a lightning rod, so perhaps it was ill-advised to refer to it specifically. I did mention “and similar”, but those two words are overshadowed by the image of Cosmo.

    I don’t live in the deep south. In any case, I do know that women are taking beauty/fashion/makeup/behavior advice from the mainstream with a view to attracting men — and that is Christian women as well. It isn’t written up in blogs and turned into a system because it’s in the mainstream — it isn’t samizdat, so it doesn’t need to act like samizdat. It isn’t particularly relevant if it comes from Cosmo, another magazine, a woman’s fashion/beauty/dating website I’ve never heard of, or the woman in the neighboring cubicle — my point is that this is ubiquitous and is not critiqued, generally, from a moral perspective outside of fringes.

    Again, going back a few comments, the point isn’t “treat men and women the same out of fairness”, the point is that similar behavior (in terms of what attracts the opposite sex) is being engaged in by women and is largely accepted as long as it isn’t taken to an extreme, whereas when men even start to try to get their own act together in terms of attracting the opposite sex it’s immediately clamped down upon, viewed as immoral, and denounced, because the sources are morally questionable and it is happening in a samizdat way. The sources of much of the advice women are imbibing are also morally questionable (even leaving aside Cosmo), but it’s less obvious, more hidden, much more mainstream, not samizdat, and so goes mostly under the radar screen.

    Does any Christian tell a Christian woman it is immoral to wear makeup and dress to attract (provided not over the top) because this is deceitful and dishonest in terms of presenting “the real you, as you are”? Why do so with men who use ideas from “Game” (or whatever we want to call it) with the same restraint and for the same reason? Is it because we don’t trust men to use it with restraint because of the source? Plenty of the sources of beauty/fashion/dating advice that women are chewing on don’t use it with restraint either, yet, again, this is mainstream and is not critiqued as long as the woman who takes the advice isn’t herself acting like a slut. I simply cannot see why men also cannot do the same thing — that is, use practical advice to become more attractive without behaving immorally. Why do women get the benefit of the doubt that they can do this, while men do not? Is it because they have been doing it for longer, and so it’s accepted by conservative oriented sorts?

  • jf12 says:

    Masculine qua masculine doesn’t attract women, unless you pretend No True Man is valid. Sorry to burst your bubble. In the same way, pursuers qua pursuers don’t get caught by prey.

  • Yes, Novaseeker, Christians totally, all the time tell Christian women it’s not the real them to wear makeup and flattering clothes. They are told it’s deceitful and dishonest. They are also told that women’s magazines in general are not useful or profitable sources of feminine expression for Christian women.

    You are simply wrong about this. And I come from a region where there are women love to wear lowcut tops, and skintight blue jeans with heels to church, along with blaring makeup and loud wigs.

    It’s even presented as a means by which men are led to sexual sin.

  • Novaseeker says:

    I’ve never seen a woman critiqued by a priest for wearing makeup, flattering clothes and heels, all of which are to some degree deceitful. Great to hear that’s what you see in the South — not what I have seen living in NY, CA, NC, VA, the UK and Germany over the years. YMMV — mine certainly has.

  • Denise says:

    “Does any Christian tell a Christian woman it is immoral to wear makeup and dress to attract (provided not over the top) because this is deceitful and dishonest in terms of presenting “the real you, as you are”?…Why do women get the benefit of the doubt that they can do this, while men do not? Is it because they have been doing it for longer, and so it’s accepted by conservative oriented sorts?”

    Well, it’s not necessarily the mainstream view, but there are definitely circles (like TUW mentioned) that do take issue with makeup and any type of form fitting clothes or pants. Other circles that aren’t as strict will still have those that view makeup as an indicator of vanity (“let not your beauty be merely outward…”)

    I do see your point, but I also am not sure that the distinction is that cut and dry. The reason being that women’s fashion and style really are not promoted with reference to men *unless* women are being taught specifically how to be sexy (not just cute or pretty or fashionable). Otherwise, women are dressing for themselves and their friends. But if women are being taught how to dress for men, then it pretty much without fail means they are being taught how to be sexually alluring. And that issue has a real moral dimension to it. Are we talking about how to intentionally evoke lust? That’s what I’m not clear about.

  • Novaseeker says:

    Are we talking about how to intentionally evoke lust? That’s what I’m not clear about.

    Attraction. It works differently for each sex, obviously, but it is there for each sex, and each sex does it in a different way. When a couple who are subsequently married first encounters each other and is attracted, do we denigrate that as “lust”? Most of us, including most Christians, do not.

    I know that women dress fashionably to maintain a certain status in the female hierarchy/herd. I get that. But women also dress to attract men, and take advice from similar places. And, in any case, makeup and heels are inherently deceptive as to the reality of the underlying woman in height and complexion, so for whatever reason they are doing it (even for in-group status), it’s still deceptive and subject to a similar moral critique on that basis. That is, that the motive is maintenance of in-group status rather than attracting men, in some circumstances, doesn’t seem to alter the moral analysis of the act of deception.

  • Denise says:

    Men and women have their own inclinations, interests, ways of being, etc. It seems that when men and women are being themselves as such, they are inherently attractive to the opposite sex. Usually when people (men and women) begin to act in ways specifically designed to attract the opposite sex, their actions take on a different color. Masculinity and femininity just *are* attractive to the opposite gender. That’s why I wonder what the aim of the “extra” is, as it seems to be something other than simply “becoming a better man”.

  • Novaseeker says:

    Men and women have their own inclinations, interests, ways of being, etc. It seems that when men and women are being themselves as such, they are inherently attractive to the opposite sex.

    That isn’t true for most men. Masculinity must be learned for most men, it doesn’t *inhere*. I don’t doubt that femininity also must be learned in a similar way. The key is that many millions of men are becoming adults without knowing how to be masculine. So “just being themselves” isn’t “inherently attractive” because they are not masculine when they are “just being themselves” as they experience that to be.

    The whole Christian “Game” issue is about trying to address that, instead of saying “well, you didn’t have a decent father or male relatives to teach you, so I’m sorry, but that’s that — oh, and if you read these bible passages and try to follow them, that may help, but it may not — I mean, the church isn’t here to replace the shortcomings of your father”. That isn’t helpful in the least, at all.

    I realize that AD will be here soon (surprised not already) to say that he has been teaching this for the past thousand years in seminars and weekends and so on, but I can tell you that as a cradle Catholic myself who was Catholic until 2000 (after which I was received by the Orthodox Church), I never saw such things other than encounters and Cursillo, and when I attended those (did a few) I found them worse than useless and having nothing at all to do with masculinity as defined in any way. Yes, “no true Scotsman” will also be raised (“well, you weren’t in my trad Catholic circles“, which is, of course, the true Scotsman, but I digress …).

  • Zippy says:

    That is the utility of the “but women wear makeup” retort: it reframes the issue by tucking several essential features of the Game debate under the rug, followed by a declaration of victory.

    Perhaps one of the pro-game types would like to actually address the point, including all of the pertinent features, rather than just avoiding the issue with various forms of “shut up Zippy” (e.g. “I reject your frame”, “inapposite”, etc).

  • Novaseeker says:

    All you are doing is drawing attention to the differences in the way men and women do the same thing — because, yes, it’s different.

    Again, if we came up with a sanitized version of what is now known as “Game”, with no slut terms, no embrace of hedonism, scrubbed from top to bottom, and named something else to boot — if all of that were done, would you still object? No more blogs referring to Game and negs and kino and the idea of seduction and instead repackage the same ideas as positive Christian masculinity (obviously leaving aside the clearly immoral — and yes, before you counter on that, I know you think that’s grey at best for all of it, but let’s assume for this thought exercise that it can be distinguished)? All OK then?

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    That is the utility of the “but women wear makeup” retort: it reframes the issue by tucking several essential features of the Game debate under the rug, followed by a declaration of victory.

    Word. Whenever I say something to the effect that “nihilism is bound up in Game”, the retort is some variation “but women wear makeup”, or my other favorite: “What’s wrong with working out?”

    As if I had denounced calisthenics, and as if they are asserting that calisthenics was unknown before PUAs.

    Suppose a group of Christian female bloggers evangelically proclaimed the utility of “f-me clothes and makeup” in making themselves attractive to men…

    My experience is that my attacks on such things (which are frequent and famous/infamous) does something stranger than fall on deaf ears. See below.

    @Nova

    But women are doing the same thing out in the open without criticism.

    I have excoriated the worldly habits and rationalizations of the great mass of Western Christian women (and a good number of particular ones) since I started commenting in the Men’s Sphere, and the results are interesting: Those women respect me, while the men most loudly claiming “oppression” (who would most benefit from my supporting fire) flock to the very sites of the women I torched; fawning over them.

  • Novaseeker says:

    Cane —

    Sorry but you lost any possible remaining credibility you had with me when you wrote this:

    Suffice it to say that a clear reading of the Bible is more useful, shorter, and deeper than some ancient nerd’s meandering attempt to justify the living Christ to dead Greeks.

    Unrelated? Not really, and in any case even if it is unrelated to this discussion, it is directly related to how seriously I take your views (i.e., I don’t at all).

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:

    As if I had denounced calisthenics, and as if they are asserting that calisthenics was unknown before PUAs.

    Anyone who did calisthenics before Roissy is a “natural athlete”.

  • Zippy says:

    Novaseeker:

    Again, if we came up with a sanitized version of what is now known as “Game”,

    Once you concede that I’m right about Game, we can talk about how Christian bloggers might be able to address the situation.

  • Novaseeker says:

    Once you concede that I’m right about Game, we can talk about how Christian bloggers might be able to address the situation.

    No, not interested in making peremptory concessions. But you knew that, so why even ask?

  • Zippy says:

    Novaseeker:

    But you knew that, so why even ask?

    To make your attempts to avoid and obfuscate the arguments and the conclusion clear.

  • Novaseeker says:

    Nope.

    You’ve framed things up as you see fit. I disagree with that frame and refuse to argue within it. That’s my prerogrative. You can see that as avoidance. I see it as an improper framing. So be it.

    In any case, no, I will not concede the argument within your (improper in my view) frame as a precondition to discussing my frame.

    So we have a clash of frames. If I am obfuscating so are you. Live is wonderful, isn’t it?

    Believe me, Zippy, I can do this all day and all night. It’s somewhat entertaining, really, although I admit it may get tedious personally after a a time.

  • jf12 says:

    “Masculinity and femininity just *are* attractive to the opposite gender. ” which explains why so many average men are so attractive to women.

    Fail. Couldn’t fail worse if you tried.

    I reject the No True Man argument as from the devil.

  • Zippy says:

    Novaseeker:
    There is no frame, only truth. And you are avoiding it.

    Believe me, Zippy, I can do this all day and all night.

    Actually, no, you can’t.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Nova

    Sorry but you lost any possible remaining credibility you had with me when you wrote […]Unrelated? Not really, and in any case even if it is unrelated to this discussion, it is directly related to how seriously I take your views (i.e., I don’t at all).

    Malarkey. Since we first interacted you have maintained constant disdain for me, and you’ve expressed it several times before in similar terms. This is just your latest bit of pretension to make yourself sound reasonable and sophisticated while you try to muster together an argument.

    As always: I remain unconcerned with your estimation of me, and continue to look for your comments; combating them when they are wrong, and agreeing with them when they’re right.

    I was a bit disappointed to see your site had stalled out, but not surprised. Your morale sucks. That’s why your habit is to wonder when someone is going to fix your problems for you.

  • Novaseeker says:

    Malarkey. Since we first interacted you have maintained constant disdain for me, and you’ve expressed it several times before in similar terms. This is just your latest bit of pretension to make yourself sound reasonable and sophisticated while you try to muster together an argument.

    Which is why I said any remaining possible credibility — guess what was implied by that sailed over your obviously empty head.

    In any case, the response to the rather obviously horrific nonsense on your own site will come. Maybe from me, maybe from others. But it will come.

    As for veritaslounge, yeah, it lapsed. I’m not concerned. I’ve been very busy and I don’t really have the time for it at this stage, so while I am thoroughly unconcerned by your transparent attempt to status monger me on that basis, I offer this datum as information, and in no was as an acceptance of the slander you just scrawled there.

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    If you’re poor, it’d be immoral for you to put effort into understanding and appropriating the tools of improving your financial standing, since indubitably evil men have understood and utilized these principles for their own benefit at the expense of others. The tools by which a person might improve his employability cannot be separated from the greedy intent of money worshiping capitalists. Financial savvy is unChristian, how dare anyone suggest that a Christian man might learn a thing or two about the truths of the consumer market.

    Zippy, with all respect, you are tone deaf to the plight of men who do not share your fortune of ease with women. You have demonstrated a fundamental lack of empathy for the downtrodden and a lack of humility in your own response to those who have only wished for you to accept their explanation of what they mean by a word. No young man has anything to learn from you, and any who would follow your advice shall be left vulnerable to the capricious nature of feminine wiles for which the consequences are soul destroying. I wish my younger self had been fortunate enough to perceive your absolute lack of wisdom concerning matters with which you have no experience or even the desire of understanding. You are soapboxing, you are egotistical, your advice is of the devil.

    If you think I am being hostile, it is because you are essentially saying to my past self which suffered grievously at the hands of your handicapping anti-advice “Sucks.” It is simply an unChristian sentiment, all the worse for your virtuous posture. The Church cannot afford to retreat and leave every tool of advantage to evil.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Reading this (warning sexual content) –

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10441027/How-porn-is-rewiring-our-brains.html

    I started to change porn to game. This is where the roissiettes are heading.

  • Game is analogous to MLM rather than useful financial management advice. The responses of its boosters amply illustrate this, as they behave exactly like MLM-boosters.

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    @Aquinas Dad

    >Based upon these two facts I think it is clear that ‘reasonable means of inference’ and ‘the presented evidence’ all point to “game” being false.

    Have you actually tested game? Given your hostility, it would seem not.

    I have tested game. I have found it successful to the ends I desired; the facilitation of rewarding, wholesome relationships with women who expressed pleasure at my company. Sinful? Given my (present) chastity and adherence to Catholic ethics, I would be surprised to find out what sin I may have committed through a better control over my own social presence.

    For what reason do I attribute general soundness to game? For the simple reason that, before my study and internalization of it, my relationships with women proved to be disastrous, and for which the consequences are yet ongoing. If I could teach my younger self any one thing, it would be game; but then, lacking any acquaintance with the bitter reality of a woman you love who has lost her love for you, I wonder if I could’ve understood its importance.

    To me, game is the difference between suffering and happiness. I wasn’t fortunate enough to be provided a nature adept to social situations, nor parents who expressed any concern for my social maturation.

    I am not, and would never, suggest that the PUA model is an ideal for Christian men, and it is regrettable the cost by which this knowledge was regained, but it was lost for a lack of fathers teaching their sons about the nature of women and a society which penalized the expression of truth. The Church has abandoned us young men and women; she goes through the motions, but all the benefits of parish community and Catholic culture are void. We are left to fend for ourselves. Should it be any wonder my generation is so degenerate and feral? We yearn authority and leadership, but those in a position to do so retreat at the behest of demonic forces. Zippy here is but one further instance of the failure to provide leadership in the practical arts of society. His negligence is a lack of concern for souls posturing as moral virtue.

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    @Unreal Woman

    “Hope you win the lottery” is even worse, even supposing the analogy held.

    You might have to explain it to me. I’m acquainted with game, and of course MLM as well. I don’t see the analogy. Acting so as to practically improve one’s standing in society through the recognition and utilization of social regularities doesn’t seem like a scam.

  • DeNihilist says:

    So Bryce, going into fantasy as the game world is so apt, you would have yielded the Ring against Sauron?

  • DeNihilist says:

    er wielded

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    I would have wielded Anduril. I can only hope Zippy here is more like Treebeard, who may be shaken to action when he sees the ruin wrought by Saruman.

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    If you think game is the Ring, well, you’re not thinking nearly big enough. Our problems are far deeper than some pervert PUAs; they are but epiphenomena to the rot which has set into the West, former Christendom.

  • Catholic Economist says:

    “When people desire anything to an extensive degree, they immediately lose their peace of soul. The proud and avaricious are always perturbed; while the humble and poor in spirit live in peace and contentment. Those who are not mortified are easily overcome by small temptations.

    It is difficult for people to withdraw themselves from worldly desires when their spirits are still weak and inclined to the things of sense. While in this state their hearts are heavy when they try to detach themselves and they are quickly angered by those who oppose them.

    If they give in to themselves, then they suffer remorse of conscience because they have yielded to temptation and do not find the peace of mind they desired. We find our peace only by resisting our passions, not by giving in to them.

    Peace is in the heart of the devout and fervent, not in those who are carnal and give themselves to outward things.”

    “The Imitation of Christ” Book 1, Chapter 6 – Concerning Inordinate Affections

    Does this sound like the advice of the devil? Is Zippy’s message really that different from the sage words of Thomas à Kempis?

  • Alte says:

    I don’t know that seduction should be a mating tool, V.

    Oh, I agree. Nothing good comes out of giving priority to women’s basest desires.

    I’m just seeing what tends to replace seduction and I’d like to point out that it isn’t always pretty, that the men will rank each other as ruthlessly and rigidly as women now rank them, and that there will still be a significant sub-section of men that end up absolutely, crazy-desperate. This is another one of those traditionalist dreams that aren’t so rosy IRL, and mostly involve a shift in the suffering from one group to another, for the benefit of the entire group.

    I mean… there’s a reason that people moved to the cities. The anonymity benefits the upwardly mobile and allows a lower-ranking man to score a quality woman without having to risk her men dragging him outside and feeding him his own liver. All he has to do is seduce her. He doesn’t have to inherit property, or win political office, or spend 15 years in the volunteer fire department, or win a bunch of sports trophies, or whatnot.

    If he’s talking to her at a party, nobody is going to come up and tell him that she’s out of his league and that he needs to move along before there’s trouble. It’s just two people, chatting, seeing if the chemistry works. If you give that romance up, then the men are in charge of deciding who gets to sleep with whom and women’s consent becomes largely irrelevant.

  • Alte says:

    In my all male MBA cohort the apparent hierarchy at the beginning bore no resemblance to the settled hierarchy two years later.

    It’s different in a town, as your relatives and what you did in your youth are part of the calculation. But it does grow very slowly. You can’t just learn a few tricks and then end up on top. It takes years — sometimes generations — to move up the ladder.

  • Alte says:

    Does any Christian tell a Christian woman it is immoral to wear makeup and dress to attract (provided not over the top) because this is deceitful and dishonest in terms of presenting “the real you, as you are”?

    I wrote something in that vein once, in a fit of peity, and I got hit by a wave of, “Well, that’s easy for you to say! You’re a natural.”

    Same difference.

  • Zippy says:

    Bryce Laliberte:

    Suppose that I criticized a developing community of Christian women for promoting “Christian Sluttiness” — that they actually insisted on calling it “Christian sluttiness” by name, linked to slutty publications, treated public sluts as gurus because they are sluts, and became angry and defensive when told that Christian Sluttiness is inherently wrong. Then suppose that after I criticized Christian Sluttiness some young Christian women came to my blog and commented how they were so awkward before they found Christian Sluttiness, that Christian Sluttiness had changed their lives, that Christian Sluttiness means what they say it means, that I’m not the boss of them, and that I am evil and of the devil for my lack of empathy toward awkward Christian young women.

    Does the outrage at my criticism on the part of boosters of Christian Sluttiness in any way call into question the objective merit of my criticism? Do their personal anecdotes of positive experiences in implementing Christian Sluttiness and their insistence that Sluttiness is a box of tools with which one can do good or evil carry any objective water?

  • Zippy says:

    Alte:

    …that the men will rank each other as ruthlessly and rigidly as women now rank them, and that there will still be a significant sub-section of men that end up absolutely, crazy-desperate.

    More ruthlessly and more rigidly, I would expect, because men aren’t as easy to fool as women.

  • Mike T says:

    Well for one, sluttiness is not something that can really ever intersect with actual chaste behavior. By definition a slut is either a serial fornicator or a woman who by public decorum wishes to be perceived that way. Sluts are the female equivalent of PUAs.

    And as I pointed out to you, Aquinas Dad and others here, the problem with your critique is that sluts and PUAs are sufficiently like women and men generally (respectively) that many things that work for them and with them will work in varying degrees on their sex generally. You are absolutely right that game won’t work on all women, but if a successful, skeezy rockstar went to the average group of women he’d have at least a share of “good girls” willing to suddenly make an exception. The same is true if a porn star, high price call girl or supermodel did the equivalent with a group of men.

    Sluts and perverts (or whatever you prefer to call the men) are not just end states, but a continuum. Most people have some of that in them. That’s why game can even work at all. A typical slut didn’t make the conscious decision to become one, but rather simply didn’t control herself until she found herself on the far end of the spectrum. However, that doesn’t mean the married-as-a-virgin house wife who is normally entirely chaste, when faced with a man who knows women well, wouldn’t suddenly find herself “acting of out of character.”

  • Mike T says:

    I would say that if you are criticizing women for merely studying sluts to learn how to maximize their sexual knowledge without having to acquire it from experience then you’d be quite wrong in most situations. There is value even in studying their behavior with men to learn both how to behave and how not to behave. Some sluts are better at extracting commitment than others. Even the basest things can teach us valuable things.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    How about addressing the actual parallel situation as I expressed it?

  • Mike T says:

    Well, for one I see many Christian men who are in fact agreeing with you that using the tactics for the PUAs purposes is intrinsically immoral. Where the disagreement seems to stem is in two main places. First, you seem to believe that the source of the information taints it beyond redemption and second that it works mainly or exclusively on women who are far to the slut end of the “virgin-whore” spectrum.

  • Zippy says:

    So Christian Sluttiness – with all of the features I’ve outlined – is only problematic when it is used for fornication?

  • Mike T says:

    1. Being a Christian slut is an inherent contradiction in terms.
    2. There is a subset of slut behavior, however, that can be useful for chaste women to adopt.
    3. Game, like point #2, does not inherently require that a Christian man adopt all of the methods and intentions of a PUA.

    Speaking of mind traps, I’d suggest you stop ignoring the tingling in your leg because I think you’ve been standing in one for the last few posts.

  • Elspeth says:

    Are you serious Nova?

    Surely you are aware (deep South or not), that there a significant numbers of Christians who believe that any kind of adornments on a woman is at best immodest and at worst a blatant and sinful violation of Scripture. Even a certain prolific commenter here whom I shall not name ;), has been quite vocal on the subject.

    They would in essence, equate said adornments with game as used by men, and they don’t make distinctions for whether or not a wife is wearing lipstick because her husband likes it. Case in point, this guy who debated vociferously against feminine adornments of any kind on this TC thread:

    http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/on-feminine-beauty-and-godliness/

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    Christian Game is no more or less a contradiction in terms than Christian Sluttiness. Proponents in each case can make the Humpty Dumpty gambit and claim that it means just what they say it means, nothing more, nothing less.

  • Elspeth says:

    I wrote something in that vein once, in a fit of peity, and I got hit by a wave of, “Well, that’s easy for you to say! You’re a natural.”

    Same difference.

    Well you are. And it is easy for you to say. My objection to game is not the same thing as an objection to men recapturing their masculinity (or taking their balls of their wife’s purse, as my husband would say).

    My objection is the insistence by some that Game and recapturing masculinity are one and the same thing.

  • Zippy says:

    Elspeth:
    Exactly.

    It is ludicrous to attempt to make promotion of game/sluttiness equivalent to recapturing masculinity/femininity. That is, it is ludicrous unless we have all become nominalists and given up on the public meaning of words, in which case we have much bigger problems than whether chicks dig us.

  • Mike T says:

    My objection is the insistence by some that Game and recapturing masculinity are one and the same thing.

    They are not, but what Aquinas Dad, DeNihilist and others are doing is denying that Game can have any value, even marginal value, in getting there. They serve the same purpose here, IMO, that anti-conspiracy theorists serve in opposition to conspiracy theorists.

    Proponents in each case can make the Humpty Dumpty gambit and claim that it means just what they say it means, nothing more, nothing less.

    Because we all know that the mere existence of competing definitions presents an irrecoverable dilemma.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mr. Laliberte,
    Have I tested “game”? Depends upon what you mean by “game”.
    Am I confident in my approach to and discussion with all others, including women? Yes. Do I ignore passive-aggressive behavior in others? Yes. Am I clear in my intentions when interacting with others? Yes.
    But that stuff isn’t “game”, is it? No, that is general interaction. That is how I learned it [again; like others you assume that some are born suave. Everyone must learn personal interaction skills]
    You state that you have internalized “game”. Let me ask you;
    – Do you actively strive to make other women jealous?
    – Are you careful to limit your charity to women based upon a 2/3rd ratio of her charity to you? Have you discussed limiting your charity based upon limited reciprocity with your confessor?
    – Do you often refuse to answer her questions or at least to answer them directly?
    – Are you working to maintain emotional connections with three women or more at the same time? If so, have you discussed this with your confessor?
    – Do you refuse to admit fault or apologize for errors unless you are absolutely forced to?
    – You are chaste, so I know that you are ignoring that rather central tenet of “game” – to be promiscuous
    – are you committed to abandoning any woman, regardless of her emotional connection to you (which you have encouraged and built) or your emotional connection to you?

    I look forward to your answers.
    As I have said many times before what you are experiencing is simply what any man who tries any of the hundreds of BCAYCDI systems feels. It does not validate the metaphysics of “game” *as you, yourself, tacitly acknowledge* by refusing to be promiscuous!

  • Scott says:

    This discussion between BL and AD is powerful. Please continue! I have sensibilities that are being appealed to by both sides and I await the conclusion of these thoughts. AD–may I again invite you, respectfully to check out my site?

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    It isn’t a dilemma. There are moral and social consequences to publicly advocating “sluttiness”, even if one attempts to force fit the word to mean something different from what it already means.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Novaseeker,
    You wrote,
    “tons of good Catholic girls have read a Cosmo or two (or similar) and extracted pragmatic advice from it without wailing and gnashing of teeth from the peanut gallery. Similarly women share tips on these things on an amoral basis, regardless of their faith, in the ordinary course.”
    You don’t seem to travel in the same Catholic circles that I do.

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    @Aquinas Dad

    >But that stuff isn’t “game”, is it? No, that is general interaction.

    Not consciously recognizing and referring to the system of behavior you employ that produces the ends you desire (or else you would change your behavior, no?) doesn’t mean there isn’t an implicit system. Game, re: general interaction and more specifically male-female interaction, only makes that explicit. Believe it or not, there are many men in the world who have bought into false models of how the world works, and the explicit distinguishing between those behaviors that don’t work and those that do is just an aspect of game.

    If we suppose you were acting in such a way that maximized the attraction of your spouse (so I’m inferring), I’d say you have good game. You wouldn’t call it game, maybe just something like “social grace,” but these are really the same thing. The Victorians developed explicit systems intended to facilitate interactions between people. This is in the same vein.

    >Do you actively strive to make other women jealous?

    I don’t have a use for it at present, given my chastity and prioritization of other things at present. Whether it would amount to jealousy or a mere preference for more attention really just depends on the girl. (Jealousy is but a disordered form of a good thing.)

    >Are you careful to limit your charity to women based upon a 2/3rd ratio of her charity to you? Have you discussed limiting your charity based upon limited reciprocity with your confessor?

    Limit my charity? You mean, act towards a women that she enjoys my company and isn’t annoyed by a supplicating inferiority? Girls like guys who act like, well, guys. That means leadership and the occasional dominance. At times leadership requires saying no or disregarding stated wishes. What is called “shit tests,” the passing of which signals social adeptness.

    I’m not in this looking to exploit people and reciprocate as much as is proper. I could, if I so wished, apply more pressure to get more in return than I give, but considering I desire the good for my friends, I will act so as to maximize that. Giving and withholding are alternately called for to that end.

    >Do you often refuse to answer her questions or at least to answer them directly?

    I would not explicitly refuse (unless the question were of such a nature that anyone could feel entitled to not give a reply). The point is merely that much of social interactions occurs at a subtextual level. Much like we begin our social interactions with people by asking “How are you?” we aren’t necessarily looking for a developed accounting of the person’s inner life. It’s a verbal handshake.

    Further there’s no command anywhere that we are required to answer questions. This is part leading the situation, part acting in a way that women enjoy. What is literally a question may be subtextually a response that forwards the conversation.

    >Are you working to maintain emotional connections with three women or more at the same time? If so, have you discussed this with your confessor?

    Am I friends with women? Sure. There are a few women whose company I enjoy. (And if you’re going to accuse me of impropriety for leading them on, I’ve made it plain I’m not interested at the moment. But I’m confident a few would be open to a more romantic relationship.)

    >Do you refuse to admit fault or apologize for errors unless you are absolutely forced to?

    I admit what faults are necessary. But these are few and far between, and I don’t do so in a supplicating manner. What women find annoying and unattractive in men is the lack of confidence. Constantly apologizing for doing nothing wrong isn’t the same as admitting error. I don’t need to apologize for simple mistakes; you can wave them off and continue the discussion. If women are bothered by this, it’s curious that they give me more attention now that I’m not constantly saying I’m sorry or asking what they want.

    >You are chaste, so I know that you are ignoring that rather central tenet of “game” – to be promiscuous

    Undoubtedly some in the PUA community would insist there is no masculinity outside of womanizing, but a majority of men in the Manosphere would tell you that as a Christian you are well within your rights to reserve yourself from promiscuity while still applying the behaviors such that women are more attracted to you. These behaviors would work on one’s spouse, after all.

    >are you committed to abandoning any woman, regardless of her emotional connection to you (which you have encouraged and built) or your emotional connection to you?

    I am committed to severing connections when the relationship is unhealthy or detracts from my priorities. Depending on the particulars of the situation and the nature of the relationship I would like to maintain (or not), I can be alternately brusque or straightforward. Sure, she may have preferred I continue giving her attention, but there is no command to be a woman’s attention slave.

  • nickbsteves says:

    So you have your choice: either Game is Roissy, or you shouldn’t be calling whatever you are teaching Game.

    Personally I’m fine with coming up with a different name, but I’m waiting for an admission that many of the underlying principles of human psychology are shared between “Game” (defined to be identical to PUArtistry) and “Masculinity” (good & proper).

    It is quite strange, however, to call them by two different names based solely on intent of their use. An analogy would be to call the Principles of Microeconomics “Being Good to Your Customers” when they were used for licit reasons and “Shystering” when they were deployed for illicit. The Principles of Microeconomics are unchanged by their use or abuse. Sure we could get rid of name “Principles of Microeconomics” entirely, but doing so is at least somewhat deceptive; wherein we pretend to live in a world where twain never meet and there are no shared principles between “Being Good to Your Customers” and “Shystering”.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Novaseeker,
    You wrote,
    “Inapposite because they don’t need to do that — that was my point.[how to be feminine without being immoral is] in the mainstream.”
    First, that fails to address Zippy’s main question. Two, it ignores that there is a vast amount of information on being masculine without being immoral that is mainstream.
    Unknown to you != unknown

  • Zippy says:

    I’m still waiting for “Christian Game” supporters to explicitly endorse teaching women about femininity under a rubric of “Christian Sluttery”. At least that would be consistent.

  • nickbsteves says:

    Cane, it was a million comments ago, but I think we disagree fundamentally about how grace works in human souls. I do not detect much Catholicism in your view; so we may be at an impasse. My point was not to equate any purveyor of “Psychological Techniques to Influence Power Relations” to Saint Benedict (tho’ I suppose in theory a purveyor of such godliness and influence could show up), but only to say learning, studying, and training in “Psychological Techniques to Influence Power Relations” to improve one’s life (and the lives of those around you) does not deny inborn human nature any more than following the Rule of St. Benedict denies it. On that, I think, we are agreed.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mr. Laliberte,
    You wrote,
    “f you’re poor, it’d be immoral for you to put effort into understanding and appropriating the tools of improving your financial standing…”
    I actually directly addressed this once before.
    This is a false dichotomy. A poor man may learn frugality, take on a second job, increase his education, and a myriad of other steps to increase his financial security.
    Or he could become a grifter and conman.
    What Christian advocates of “game” appear to be arguing is as follows,
    Advocate: ‘Look, these grifters may be immoral but their techniques obviously work! I mean, sure, you can’t con an honest man and even within their targets their con games only work a tiny fraction of the time but we need to look at the cons as just a tool box.’
    Opponents: ‘Look, this stuff is a con game no matter how much you polish it. Not only isn’t there anything to learn messing about with this stuff can be harmful’
    Advocate: ‘But there is nothing else out there! The church isn’t teaching us how to get rich, our fathers aren’t teaching us how to get rich, I have never found anything else on the internet about getting rich. Do you just want Christians to be poor?’
    Opponent: ‘Of course I don’t want anyone to be poor. But there are a lot of other ways to increase your wealth. You can get training, a second job, be frugal. I mean, the core ideas of being a good steard are right in the bible, especially in Proverbs, and there have been people writing about this for decades’
    Advocates: ‘Oh, ‘just be rich’, huh? Easy for you to say! You have no idea how the average man struggles and here you are saying ‘just be yourself’, and ‘just be rich’. You just don’t *care*, do you?’
    Opponent: ‘That is not what I am saying. I am saying there are a lot of alternatives to grifting that are moral and proven to work.”
    Advocate: ‘*I* have never heard of any, so they must not exist. Besides, look at the proof! Grifters talk about being confident, presenting a trustworthy facade, being well-groomed, etc. Well, since I started dressing and acting like a grifter people seem to trust me more. People don’t avoid me like they did when I dressed poorly and wouldn’t look them in the eye. This just proves grifting is true!’
    Opponent: ‘Listen, being confident, good grooming, and the rest of that isn’t grifting and it isn’t what we ar talking about. We are talking about conning people out of their money.’
    Advocate: ‘See? You don’t even know what grifting means! Until I started internalizing grifting I had no confidence. Now that I act like a grifter I feel confident. Nothing you say can change my mind’

    Yeah. That does sound familiar, doesn’t it?

  • nickbsteves says:

    A) Sluttery, in ordinary use, refers to inherently illicit acts. “Game” does not. (Tho’ you’re trying AWFULLY hard to make it seem that way.) “Game” can and does, in ordinary use, but not always, refer to psychological or competitive excellence.

    B) There is no proposed set of principles (AFAIK) which unite “Christian Sluttery” with the regular (illicit) kind. I can imagine there being some filed under “showing your husband a good time in the BR”, but this would not be ACTUAL sluttery, but licit participation in things we might imagine sluts do.

    Therefore the analogy between “Christian Game” and “Christian Sluttery” is quite poor.

  • johnmcg says:

    To further the analogy, are there skills that a grifter has and uses that would benefit someone trying to ethically work his way out of poverty? Sure. Presenting himself with confidence, working hard, being able to accept refusals, etc.

    Would it thus be good to present these techniques as “Christian Grifting?” If a financial seminar at your church began with a founding story of a con man and approvingly siting his works, wouldn’t you want to kick him out?

    There is no quick fix. Yes, this is difficult news to hear. But pretending there is a quick fix is crueller than acknowledging the truth.

  • Zippy says:

    nickbsteves:
    But that isn’t how I use the term “sluttery”. When I use the term sluttery it means just what I say it means: nothing more, nothing less. Sluttery is just a box of tools that women can use to make themselves more attractive to men. Sure some women use sluttery for evil ends; but good Christians can use sluttery to improve themselves.

  • johnmcg says:

    1. Game was started as a way for men to manipulate women into casual sexual encounters. Its founding documents beg recommend promiscuity. Claiming it is just about psychological and competitive excellence is like claiming Nazism was about making the trains run on time. The term has been irredeemably poisoned.

    2. If the inherent illicitness of “sluttiness” bothers you, how would you feel about a group called “Christian Feminism” that clung to the feminism name even after it was pointed out to them the problematic associations with that word.

    Feminism is another example of a word whose meaning constantly changes to suit the agenda of the speaker. When surveys reveal people are reluctant to call themselves feminists, commentators will lament how people could possibly oppose, say, women being able to earn a decent living. But they are also quick to call anyone who deviates the slightest from their radical agenda anti-feminist.

    You are repeating the same error.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    You wrote,
    “They serve the same purpose here, IMO, that anti-conspiracy theorists serve in opposition to conspiracy theorists.”
    You mean – dismissing foolishness as foolishness?
    I have never said there is nothing to learn from “game”. I have said there is nothing there for *Christians* to learn.
    I learned confidence, conversation, etc. from other sources long ago. Before I married and became a Christian I learned to seduce women from other sources. Christian men can learn conversation, confidence, etc. from moral sources. And they have no need to learn seduction.
    And before I hear more whining about this – seduction != attraction.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mr. Laliberte,
    You wrote,
    “Not consciously recognizing and referring to the system of behavior you employ that produces the ends you desire (or else you would change your behavior, no?) doesn’t mean there isn’t an implicit system”
    There is a system to my behavior, as I have said over and over – virtue. I strive to be prudent, temperate (theological meaning), just, and courageous in all of my dealings while maintaining a focus on faith, hope, and charity.
    You continue,
    “Game, re: general interaction and more specifically male-female interaction, only makes that explicit”
    You are conflating “game” with ‘general interaction’. They are not the same. People have been teaching some variation of Be Confident And You Can Do It since Babylon, I am sure. No, the only things unique to “game” and what define it are its metaphysics (psychopathic narcissistic men are to be emulated; women have no free or moral agency; the telos of male existence is promiscuity; the commitment of being a husband and father are to be avoided). These concepts are core to “game” and, in the end, *ARE* “game”.
    It is obviously incompatible with Christianity.
    Mr. Laliberte, you seem to be part of a rather large group of young men who have encountered “game” and now think ‘anything that involves interaction with women that appears to work’ = ‘”game”‘.
    This is not the case.
    I do wish you well but I hope that you understand that if you reject the metaphysics I listed above you *must* stop referring to those who hold and espouse them.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    johnmcg,
    Indeed. You see – confidence, acceptance of refusal, etc. is far from unique to “game” (indeed, PUAs don’t teach those traits very well, TBH) and, thus, can be learned from a number of BETTER SOURCES that have no association with “game” or PUA.
    So why waste your time with PUAs and “game”?

  • Scott says:

    BL-

    Most of your comments at 1219 above struck me as justification in the context of missing the “spirit” of game. Except this one:

    “Further there’s no command anywhere that we are required to answer questions. This is part leading the situation, part acting in a way that women enjoy. What is literally a question may be subtextually a response that forwards the conversation.”

    This reminds me of a situational ethics dilemma I confronted a professor in seminary with once. He was arguing that ALL lying is sin. I asked: “You are standing on a corner and a woman with torn, bloodied clothes runs past you in obvious distress. Next comes a man with a knife and asks you which way she went. Do you lie?”

    I have read many posts on your blog and your sophisitcation with this type of material speaks for itself. Is it your contention that the context drives the “rightness” or “wrongness” of these tactics? Because I think you may be right–about some of it, but AD has placed before you (and other Christian Game advocates) a very difficult to surmount challenge in the form of context-free behaviors that are just sin in and of themselves. Many of the “commandments” on the heartiste page appear to meet that criterion.

  • nickbsteves says:

    But that isn’t how I use the term “sluttery”. When I use the term sluttery it means just what I say it means: nothing more, nothing less. Sluttery is just a box of tools that women can use to make themselves more attractive to men. Sure some women use sluttery for evil ends; but good Christians can use sluttery to improve themselves.

    That doesn’t answer either objection because A) you may use the term that way but no one else does in any context; and B) no imaginable slutty tool does, in fact, make women more attractive to men interested in licit relationships.

    The analogy remains poor.

  • nickbsteves says:

    Heartiste’s “16 Commandments” point to underlying psychological traits common to most normal women. Obviously, no Christian can advocate “obeying” the commandments (I’m not even sure Heartiste would content for such a fundamentalist reading), but no Christian ought pretend the underlying traits therefore do not exist.

  • jf12 says:

    Re Alte’s: “If you give that romance up, then the men are in charge of deciding who gets to sleep with whom ” would be fine with me, with all antigame trads, AND with all PUAs.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “good Christians can use sluttery to improve themselves.” Sure can. The marriage bed is undefiled.

  • No, actually, there are tricks of harlotry (slutty tools if you will) that do not even involve sexual conversation, much less sexual touch that can make a man extremely interested in marrying a woman. Men can be manipulated too. That doesn’t mean it’s a route Christian women should take to wifehood.

    Likewise, game isn’t a route Christian men should take to husbandhood.

    There are always disordered ways to achieve a “good” goal, but the journey is also part of the goal and if you use evil means to pursue a “good” end, you might find the end isn’t so good after all.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Bryce, you say game has no sway over you, yet your language gives your heart away. You have “internalized” game, you “act” the way women enjoy, you do not “supplicate (yet Christ Himself did), etc.

    This gets to the point of why some of us are against using game as a way to better yourselves, it is a poison that slowly eats your soul away. Satan is known as the great Seducer for a reason.

  • The marriage bed isn’t heaven, what’s done in there can be defiling if it is unchaste.

  • Thinking out loud – look at blogs like Return of Kings. I’m not allowed to say this because it would mean, in a very broad sense, siding with the Evil Feminists (by the way, I AM very anti-feminist, but I’m making a point here), but I think Return of Kings is batshit crazy and frankly pretty sexist.

    Posts like “why you should date a girl with an eating disorder” – complete with a puking, bulimic women proudly displayed at the top barfing into a toilet (!) are ridiculous and, yes, the “o” word (offensive).

    http://www.returnofkings.com/21313/5-reasons-to-date-a-girl-with-an-eating-disorder

    You aren’t practicing game, or making yourself attractive, or combating feminism when you say idiot things like that. You’re being a jackass, to be blunt. And Return of Kings is one of the most popular “game” sites.

    And here’s the thing: I bet the majority of people who supported that post in the comments section probably didn’t before the post was up. But now that everybody’s favorite game site has posted something outrageous that pisses off feminists, well, yeah, of course I think dating a girl with an eating disorder is a good idea!

    I am not impressed by the insights such men have.

    Sometimes, in my dark moments, I start to believe Paul was right an celibacy is the best way to go.*

    *Yes, sarcasm, I always believed Paul was right.

  • nickbsteves says:

    “Game” was started about 15 seconds after the Fall of Man. “You will want to control your husband [curse], and he shall rule over you [blessing]”. For most of human history, natural institutions (e.g., marriage and civilization) were of sufficient strength to ensure that the risk/reward ratio of sexual relations was low enough to be an attractive proposition for most people. The set of psychological techniques by which a husband “tamed” his wife did not a name. But sadly these institutions have been under attack for at least 400 years and in the last 50 we have seen the complete triumph of technocratic rule. Things that once came naturally now need a name.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Nick – “Heartiste’s “16 Commandments” point to underlying psychological traits common to most normal women.”

    Thanks Nick, you have lifted a veil of one of the things that has been bothering me about game. I keep on forgetting that woman have buttons we can push to make them do our bidding! They are in no way like men who have agency and free will.

    Whoo! that feels better!

  • Elspeth says:

    No, actually, there are tricks of harlotry (slutty tools if you will) that do not even involve sexual conversation, much less sexual touch that can make a man extremely interested in marrying a woman. Men can be manipulated too. That doesn’t mean it’s a route Christian women should take to wifehood.

    This is true, Unreal Woman. It is of course, easily rationalized away by women because they haven’t “sinned” the same way game is rationalized away by Christian men because they haven’t “sinned” according to the letter of the law.

    However, we are supposed to be concerned not only with the letter of the law, but with the spirit of it as well.

  • nickbsteves says:

    This gets to the point of why some of us are against using game as a way to better yourselves, it is a poison that slowly eats your soul away. Satan is known as the great Seducer for a reason.

    As is often the case, somewhere around 200 comments or so, these discussions often trail off into Gnosticism.

  • nickbsteves says:

    I keep on forgetting that woman have buttons we can push to make them do our bidding! They are in no way like men who have agency and free will.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, you’re arguing, DeNihilist, like a woman. Which is to say, not arguing. Like I said… Gnosticism.

  • johnmcg says:

    Things that once came naturally now need a name.

    And so we’ll give them the same name as a program men used to manipulate women into casual sexual encounters…

  • johnmcg says:

    Not to put too fine a point on it, you’re arguing, DeNihilist, like a woman. Which is to say, not arguing. Like I said… Gnosticism.

    As opposed to this oh-so-manly — you don’t like what I say, and I’ve been oppressed and under attack by society, and your disagreement with me shows that you have no compassion for my suffering — argument.

  • […] Old news, I know, but I might as well. This is taken largely from a post I made down at Zippy’s. […]

  • nickbsteves says:

    If I’ve said it once, I’ve said a million times, “Abusus non tollit usum.”

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Scott,
    Lying to the knife wielder is a sin, yes. Of course it is! But you can lie to the Nazis to save Anne Frank – avoiding venial sin such that you are participatory in a mortal sin is no virtue.

  • Sub Rosa says:

    Just a thought: Is the problem with defining Game the built-in fluidity of the very meaning of Game?

    To put it out front, here is my definition of Game “understanding the social dynamics between men and women in 21st century America.”

    Game is a context of culture, place, and time. As any of those variables change, so does the understanding of game. Would the caddish PUA ‘s use of game help someone in say 21st century Iran?

    Would Dalrock’s and Keoni Galt’s “Game” admonition to rid ourselves of the feminist Beta programing in our marriages be necessary in, say, the Yuan Dynasty of the 13th century?

    Are the critics of Game merely embracing the universals of attractiveness to be found in all time periods and chiding the uniqueness of its 21st century American appearance? The universals of attraction that transcend all time and place: Leadership, respect amongst community, financial stability/wealth, fame. The critic is able to say this is nothing new, while at the same time criticizing its feminist appearance and application in current American culture (i.e. ability to deal with the American feral woman, hypergamey, frivorce, etc.).

  • DeNihilist says:

    Sorry Nick, forgot the SARC tag. This constant throwing of this shit, that women are machine like, on the wall so that some of it will stick, is juvenile.

    Oh, nice ad hominem. Problem with it, is that you think it is a put down to be compared to women. LOL!

  • Anon says:

    AD– wait– now I’m confused. I would lie to both the nazi and the knife weilder, and my conscience would be clean. When Christ ate of the field on the sabbath he noted the context to his accusers– we are hungry and the sabbath is for us, not God. Unless you were being sarcastic? If so, I got you.

    The list you gave of “game” tactics was conpellIng– those things are wrong in or out of marriage.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “It is of course, easily rationalized away by women because they haven’t “sinned” the same way game is rationalized away by Christian men because they haven’t “sinned” according to the letter of the law.”

    So you expect us to believe you want to think no woman has ever rationalized away doing things such such as batting her eyes, being submissive and girly and giggly, and looking at him with adoration and expectation. No woman ever. Glad to know.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Gnosticism, a bit, but more Eastern Mysticism, I see women and men as just the other sides of the same coin.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mr. Steves,
    You wrote,
    “Heartiste’s “16 Commandments” point to underlying psychological traits common to most normal women”
    Probably not. As mentioned other places, including here, the “underlying psychological theories” of “game” are almost certainly false or so narrowly focused as to be useless to Christians.
    Roosh and roissy, and others, openly and readily admit that “game” flat out doesn’t work on a great deal of women (arguably the majority of them) and even within the ‘target audience’ of the PUAs they have a very low ‘success rate’,as it were. If “games” metaphysics and psychological model was actually universal this would certainly not be the case.
    Indeed, for every variation of some guy in the manosphere writing ‘you just watch, even ‘good girls’ fall to “game”‘ I can point to 3-4 posts from roosh and his companions of ‘approached 20-30 target women in bars (i.e., the target audience) and had no luck.
    And this shouldn’t be a surprise! After all, their psych theories derive from their theological anthropology (the telos of man is promiscuity; women lack free agency; etc.), which is obviously false.
    [another example, which I find humorous. roissy claims to base his theories on evolutionary psychology but claims many offspring is not a trait of top men; indeed, he argues many kids are a negative trait in evolutionary psych. Perhaps he needs to brush up on the core concepts of evolutionary theory?]

  • Mike T says:

    Aquinas Dad,

    You mean – dismissing foolishness as foolishness?

    No. Much like anti-conspiracy theorists go out of their way to dismiss any possibility that conspiracy theorists may ever be right about anything, you, DeNihilist, The Unreal Woman and others here have gone out of your way to make it sound like “game” has literally no value, teaches nothing worth teaching, etc. That is to say you are a few steps short of saying 2+2=5 because gamers says 2+2=4.

    Even Zippy has spent a lot of time trying to say “well, since most of what it teaches isn’t new, we should ignore it as a bunch of idiots grasping old truths.” As I said, the problem with his critique is, paraphrasing Orwell that the first and most fundamental act of revolution is to merely state simple and clear truth when society speaks lies. Gamers are undoubtedly wrong about many things, but they are actually far closer to the truth on many things about egalitarianism and sex than even most conservatives! In fact, their views on egalitarianism and what women really want in a man are more apt to jive with ancient wisdom than most of what passes for “conservative thought” today. Again, not perfectly or consistently, but a good deal closer to the truth than most “conservative/orthodox Christians” who are really just parroting Christianized feminism.

    Zippy,

    We’d concede your point if, as someone already observed, sluttery didn’t already entail certain intrinsically immoral behaviors. However, the problem you face is that a slut can in fact teach a woman how to be quite feminine. Case in point, the average courtesan who could be a lady one minute and a total whore the next.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Anon,
    You wrote,
    “AD– wait– now I’m confused. I would lie to both the nazi and the knife weilder, and my conscience would be clean”
    It shouldn’t be. If a man broke into my home and threatened my family with a weapon so that I killed him I would *still have committed the sin of murder*. Was it a moratl sin? Probably not (my will was constrained; it was done to avoid the murder of innocents, etc.) but the sin remains until I am contrite, until I confess, and until I do penance.

  • Mike T says:

    If “games” metaphysics and psychological model was actually universal this would certainly not be the case.

    I’m going to be charitable and assume you don’t read Roissy much. Having read Roissy off and on for about 2-3 years, I call bull#$%^ on your argument here on the simple basis that you don’t even seem to realize that Roissy has frequently written that you would need to shift your approach with different types of women. For example, Roissy has said in not so many words that the approach he calls asshole game will typically work on career women, but utterly fail on a loving, submissive little thing who just wants to be a stay at home mom. Why? Because Roissy has observed that while the strategy (project yourself as the stronger, more dominant, more qualified mate) is the same, the tactics are not the same. In fact Roissy and some others (not necessarily Roosh) have written explicitly that men should be versed in the tactics of pursuing what they want otherwise the strategy will collapse.

  • Mike T says:

    It shouldn’t be. If a man broke into my home and threatened my family with a weapon so that I killed him I would *still have committed the sin of murder*.

    It would not be murder to kill a man who came into your home threatening you, your family or a wounded person seeking refuge. In fact I think God would permit you broad discretion to kill him in such a situation since his intent is so unjust and violent and your recourses to prevent evil so few.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    So now you are all revolutionaries speaking truth to power?
    Or are you the brave truth-teller that keeps explaining that JFK was assassinated by Reptilian shape-changers from Alpha Centauri because he was going to tell the truth about Nazi saucers and zippy and I are the forces of oppression trying to keep the sheeple asleep?
    Or are you both?
    “Most of what “game” teaches isn’t new”
    Correct. Also, they understand it poorly and teach it badly. Why not learn such things as confidence, conversation, and grooming from better, moral sources? because *you* had never heard of Dale Carnegie but *did* read roissy? That is no reason, it is an excuse for you not to grow.
    So what *IS* unique to “game”? Very little; just its psychological theories (demonstrably false) and its metaphysics (demonstrably false). Do you want to follow or promote things that are not just obviously wrong but also immoral?
    No?
    Then why do you insist on calling what you *DO* want to teach and promote “game”? It is akin to you saying ‘well, Communism is obviously evil, but they promoted exercise. I like exercise, so I am going to call my exercise program Communism and appeal to Marx and Stalin’. The general reply would be ‘why no learn from and teach Jack Lalane and ignore Stalin?!’
    And as for this repeated whinging that ‘the church only teaches feminism’ – total BS. I have a list of writers, organizations,etc. that I have now posted in various threads a number of times and yet I keep being told these resources simply don’t exist. It is as if proponents of “game” don’t *want* to look for legitimate Christian sources of confidence, etc….
    I keep hearing proponents of “game” repeating the same three arguments again and again and again and I have never seen them respond with anything but more of the same.
    ‘”game” isn’t immoral!”
    ‘OK, “game” *is* immoral, but it is the only way to learn some things!’
    ‘OK, there are other places to learn those things, but “game” is more convenient!’
    rinse, repeat

  • nickbsteves says:

    Sorry Nick, forgot the SARC tag. This constant throwing of this shit, that women are machine like, on the wall so that some of it will stick, is juvenile.

    Well that was obviously NOT what I was saying. So no sense perpetuating it. There are psychological techniques that work on men too… they’re just different from what works on men… And this is not in spite of but BECAUSE there is such a thing as essence.

    Oh, nice ad hominem. Problem with it, is that you think it is a put down to be compared to women. LOL!

    Women tend to have many natural virtues. Liberal use of the non sequitur is not among them.

  • Scott says:

    “It would not be murder to kill a man who came into your home threatening you, your family or a wounded person seeking refuge.”

    On this one, I would have to side with Mike T. The English translation to not “kill” is, if I were given one wish, the thing I would wave a magic wand over and change–including all of the nonsense which has followed.

    All of the subsequent scholarly translations have corrected it, but the toothpaste cannot be put back in the tube. “Kill” is a context free, amoral act. “Murder” (the Hebrew makes the distinction as well) is an unlawful killing. If all killing is sin, then why do all 5 books of the pentatuch call for all manner of violators to be put to death?

    The church has done an incredible amount of theological and linguistic gymnastics to try to force those two things to both be true. It would be easier to fix the translation error.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    Was that meant to be a response? If so, who am I supposed to believe, you about roissy or roissy himself?
    And as for the sin of murder, either you didn’t read all of what I wrote or you simply didn’t get it. Of course God can forgive you – that doesn’t mean it isn’t a sin.

  • nickbsteves says:

    As mentioned other places, including here, the “underlying psychological theories” of “game” are almost certainly false or so narrowly focused as to be useless to Christians.

    That would be a very clever mis-identification I think. (Were “The Jews” involved?) The practiced development and maintenance of a cool masculine frame for one is applicable to all men everywhere for virtually every social interaction. Someone is either a liar or an ignorant fool (or both).

  • Peter Blood says:

    Can one of the pro-Game people come up with a “16 Commandments of Christian Game” for us? I want to see what Christian Game looks like, because I’m a natural alpha.

  • nickbsteves says:

    Seems pretty far off topic, but it may be actually quite close to the heart of the dispute, are you arguing, Aquinas Dad, that there is no such thing as Just Killing? Seriously???!!!?? (With a name like “Aquinas” anything? <smh>) OK so maybe if you don’t believe in just killing, maybe it is understandable that you don’t believe in just use of psychological techniques to influence others. Just a theory.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Once we have the list, we’ll just rename it to “16 Commandments of Christian Masculinity” and we’ll all have the checklist.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Mike, you answered yourself. Game did not “invent” masculinity as you have said yourself. This is where the train always leaves the track. I am not, nor have I ever stated that being masculine, showing leadership, getting into physical shape, etc. is game. I state that the marketing of game to “marks” is that women are automans who if you push the right buttons, you will be swimming in poosy (roissy). That Krauser et al. 2013, proves to this point in time at least, that game statistically has as good of a chance of getting you laid as chance, and less then if you just approach women with an empty guitar case. That the head priests of game are snake oil salesman who are preying on the weak and vulnerable. That moral people who are either too lazy or more then likely are lying to themselves, refuse to admit the above points and keep chanting, “then if not game then what? There is nothing else! Before game, everyone was a natural, etc., etc., etc.”

    If you want to “internalize” game, then do it. Start approaching, and trying to swim in that pool of pussy. But if you are only using the name, to make yourself look cool, and are not willing to actually internalize the teachings and methods, then JSTFU!

    You have not internalized game, if you have finally started to go to the gym. You have not internalized game if you are acting more confidant. You have not internalized game UNTIL you try to use its teachings to bed woman then dump them.

    Game is not about confidence, game is a confidence racket.

    Is that clear enough?

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    Game also involves intrinsically immoral behaviors, unless you assert by definition that it does not. The game (hah!) y’all are playing is, transparently, “nominalism for me but not for thee.”

  • Peter Blood says:

    I’ve not seen any of the pro-Game folks here actually define Christian Game, so let’s get cracking.

  • Mike T says:

    If so, who am I supposed to believe, you about roissy or roissy himself?

    I don’t care who you believe, but since I seem to have much greater familiarity than you do, if you hope for me to not regard and treat you as an ignoramus that you consider the possibility that I know more about it than you and use that as an impetus to familiarize yourself better.

    And as for the sin of murder, either you didn’t read all of what I wrote or you simply didn’t get it. Of course God can forgive you – that doesn’t mean it isn’t a sin.

    Not only did I read it, but I got it and still don’t agree with you. Murder requires either disregard for life or actual desire to unjustly kill. Since killing someone threatening your family is, by definition, a just killing it cannot be murder. If you say otherwise, then the bulk of scripture and sacred tradition call shenanigans on you.

  • nickbsteves says:

    nominalism for me but not for thee

    Fair’s fair. Nominalism for everyone.

  • Mike T says:

    Aquinas Dad,

    Let me make it really simple for you on murder.

    1. Man is peacefully talking to my wife in the kitchen, I walk down stairs and shoot him dead.

    2. Man is beating my wife senseless, her face covered in blood while she screams bloody murder and I race down stairs and shoot him dead.

    3. I hear a deranged man holding a knife threatening to give my wife a colombian necktie if she doesn’t do as he commands, so I come downstairs and shoot him the moment I see him waiving a knife at her.

    #1 is murder. #2 is not murder. #3 is also not murder.

    Why is only #1 murder? Because the other guys were actively engaging in or threatening to engage in murder.

  • Zippy says:

    nickbsteves:
    Re: nominalism for everyone, maybe y’all should put that in the official neoreactionary canon. Best of luck with that.

  • Scott says:

    Mike-
    That is a very clear explanation. Now—this issue of what is murder came up in the context of the “Christian Game” problem—that I am still more or less on the fence about.

    It is easier for me to use a similar problem from my profession, psychology. The DSM-IV (and now V) defines psychiatric disorder without reference to etiology (mostly) or theoretical model. It simply says that “Depression” is a construct that is present if 5 of 9 signs/symptoms (diagnostic criteria) are found. In graduate school, you learn (or are supposed to develop) an internal theory about what that construct REALLY is, because otherwise it is merely a list of criteria—and you cannot treat that.

    Similarly, is “Game” nothing more than a set of behaviors/attitudes/etc that in and of themselves have no moral or other implications? Based on the featured article at the top of this post, I am dubious of the behaviors and attitudes expressed therein. I would (subjectively) feel like I was sinning if I “did” them to my wife, which IS a sin. (Violating ones on conscience).

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Scott,
    Side with whomever you wish. As a theologian with an mandatum I will continue to think and speak on this topic as I do.

  • Scott says:

    “As a theologian with an mandatum I will continue to think and speak on this topic as I do.”

    I guess, but that actually seems like the sin of pride to me. I was truly trying to figure out why I should go to confession for killing a murderer. Until today (and also having been seminary trained) I had never encountered that concept. It’s not like I am way out in left field on that one.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mr. Steves,
    Ah, that most perennial of responses from the immoral – the ad hominem. OK, let us assume I am an ignorant fool.
    There – that is out of the way.
    Now; how was what I wrote incorrect?
    Please note that ‘keeping a cool masculine frame’ is *NOT* the underlying psychology (as I specifically mentioned – as a matter of fact, I directly, clearly defined what I meant by that term) so has nothing to do with the point at hand.
    Of course, nothing else you wrote had anything to do with what is at hand, either, so none of us should be surprised.
    Tell me; are you going to actually reply to what I wrote or are you going to have another little tantrum of name-calling? Telling me up front would save us all a little time.

  • Where I am coming from with my dismissal of game as useful is from the place of observing numerous successful Christian marriages (including among men under 40) that simply don’t focus on the wife’s tingles or lack thereof or focus on sex as the highest and primary focus of married life.

    What happens when one of you gets sick, perhaps terminally so? Or one of the kids? What about when there’s no money because there’s no jobs to be had? What about getting foreclosed on? What if serious religious persecution arrives and you face jail time for reading the Bible in public? Yeah, the bank will totally fall to your agree and amplify.

    What about having to take in relatives who have nowhere else to go? Or having to move ten times in six years to find work? Clearly some kino will solve that one!

    There are so many different travails that game is utterly useless for dealing with that are more common strains to marriages than the comparatively easy plaints regarding tingles.

    I would never want my children to marry someone who thought game was a “useful tool” to persuade them into marriage. I would not for one second believe that such a person had the moral and psychological fibre to weather the various difficulties that can occur in marriage over the years and decades that have nothing to do with womanly whims or sexual attraction.

    Thankfully our household will be able to pursue traditional avenues for marrying off our little darlings. One hopes more conservatives will make similar decisions in the coming decades.

  • Zippy says:

    TUW:

    What happens when one of you gets sick, perhaps terminally so? Or one of the kids? What about when there’s no money because there’s no jobs to be had? What about getting foreclosed on? What if serious religious persecution arrives and you face jail time for reading the Bible in public? Yeah, the bank will totally fall to your agree and amplify.

    What about having to take in relatives who have nowhere else to go? Or having to move ten times in six years to find work? Clearly some kino will solve that one!

    In the second to last paragraph of the OP I referred to this. People who lead lives in which the tingle even makes it onto the first page of the priority list are a bit of a puzzle to me, though I know they exist.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mr. Steves,
    You wrote,
    “are you arguing, Aquinas Dad, that there is no such thing as Just Killing? ”
    Of course not! Any honest reading of what I wrote would make it obvious I said no such thing!
    BUT! Being justified in an action does not remove all aspects of sin from it.
    Oh, do you disagree? The what about Oza (Uzzah)?
    2 Samuel 6
    [6] And when they came to the floor of Nachon, Oza put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it: because the oxen kicked and made it lean aside. [7] And the indignation of the Lord was enkindled against Oza, and he struck him for his rashness: and he died there before the ark of God.
    Was Oza justified to do as he did? Yes – he was preventing the ark from falling over. Was it still a sin?
    Yes.
    Is killing an intruder justified to save the life of the innocent?
    Yes.
    Is it still a venial sin that needs confession and repentance.
    Yes.
    Folks, this is Baltimore Catechism, learn it is 7th grade stuff, here. If you are Catholic or Orthodox and weren’t taught this in basic catechism I urge you to go to your confessor and confirm this ASAP.

  • Anon says:

    I’m sorry but if those things are sin, then God has violated his own promise that you never have to sin when faced with a dilemma. 1 Cor 10:13.

    If you must sin in order to do the right thing, it is an impossible situation. What would Christ have done if faced with such a conundrum?

  • Zippy says:

    AD:
    I am aware of that theory, and as I understand it it is within the bounds of orthodoxy, though not compulsory. I don’t subscribe to it myself since I think it makes a hash of things. I believe it is contrary to Aquinas own understanding as well, at least when a competent authority (father) acts on behalf of the common good of the community (family).

    In any case it is OT; not that there is anything wrong with that in a thread with hundreds of comments.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    If your grasp of roissy’s writings is as good as your grasp of theology I would, in your shoes, be more careful about using the word ‘ignoramus’.
    As for that, let us assume you know roissy so well you have memorized everything he has ever written.
    Now, again – should I believe what you *tell* me he means or should I believe what *roissy himself* wrote?
    Believing roissy about roissy doesn’t make me an ignoramus, it means i trust roissy to tell me what he means.
    Or is this like how Mr. Steve suggests that when roissy tells people to obey his 16 commandments he doesn’t mean that people should follow his 16 commandments?

  • Anon says:

    What 7th graders (catholic or not) learn in school is of no consequence if they haven’t re examined it as an adult. I can convince a 7th grader of anything.

  • Zippy says:

    Scott:
    Ironically I (fairly or unfairly) associate the evil-but-still-ok-to-do-it theology with the Greek side of things. I attribute it to either communication breakdown or material heresy which has not (yet) been declared formal heresy.

    But that is the Catholic Church for you: always telling everyone what to do in excruciating detail and failing to clarify what everyone should do in excruciating detail. I don’t know how the positivists among us can stand it.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Scott,
    Since when is following my training and bowing to the authority of the local bishop ‘pride’? If you did go through deminary then you should know that a mandatum states that what I teach in theology has been and is examined by the office of the bishop to ensure it is orthodox; i.e., I am being watched and checked up on.
    And, again, I would still shoot the guy; I’d just go to confession and accept my penance.
    [talk about getting side tracked in a thread]

  • Anon says:

    Ha! I am on my way to meet with the Byzantine priest who will taking my confession this very moment! Will you pray it goes well?

  • Zippy says:

    Scott: St Padre Pio and St John Vianney have got your back 🙂

  • Anon says:

    That last one was for zippy BTW

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Zippy,
    The Summa, II-II, Q64, A7:
    [partial response]
    “But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.”
    Justified? Yes. But….
    Like most of life, it is complicated.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Anon.,

    I have prayed that you have a good confession. Pax tecum.

  • Zippy says:

    AD:
    Right. That confirms exactly what I said about Aquinas. But it doesn’t say that killing is ever both justified and sinful at the same time.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Zippy,
    My Professor of Systematics suggested we think of Catholic theology as a lot like baseball –
    The basics are easy, the official rules fill volumes, a lot rides on the decisions of the authorities, and we revere the greats of ages past.

  • Anon says:

    AD and Z– thanks.

    AD– when I switch to my phone it reverts to “Anon” but I am the same person. Long story, but chrismater Serbian orthodox, raised (and seminary trained) Protestant and now married to a Latin catholic. Going through a very abridged “formation” as an eastern catholic (because my rite was given ti me as an infant).

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Zippy,
    ….actually, it does.
    “… it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority…”
    A father is not one with public authority; nor is a bachelor in his own home. The specific examples given to illustrate ‘public authority’ are soldiers and magistrates. Yes, earlier Aquinas states that it is no sins if you use force on a man in self-defense *with no intention to kill* and he dies accidentally, but he also states that no priest may ever kill because they lack the appropriate authority (bishops or higher with secular power are different, of course).

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Scott/anon,
    Wow! Welcome home! We have some amazing Eastern Catholic priests near here, I love meeting them to discuss theology/drink.

  • jf12 says:

    Since there is a God-intended “natural use” of a woman, it cannot be a bad thing to remind men of that, especially when they have been instructed otherwise.

  • Anon says:

    Thanks! Still need to figure out if “game” is compatible with my sacramental marriage though. 🙂

  • nickbsteves says:

    Re: nominalism for everyone, maybe y’all should put that in the official neoreactionary canon.

    You are usually more serious than this.

    Ha ha, it was all a joke. Zippy’s blog. He gets to make the jokes. Stupid, we thought he wuz serious.

  • Zippy says:

    AD:
    I could continue the discussion – I think that objectively a father actually is by nature the competent authority responsible for a community – but that is all beside the point, which is that Aquinas says that sometimes killing is justified and he doesn’t say justified-but-still-sinful. I personally think that “justified but sinful” is self-contradictory.

  • Zippy says:

    nickbsteves:
    I am quite serious, though also amused. If you don’t dump nominalism your project will eat itself.

  • nickbsteves says:

    I’m sorry to have wasted my time here.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @NSB

    I’m sorry to have wasted my time here.

    You haven’t wasted your time here; not by my estimation. What you have seen is a playing out of what I have been talking about.

    What you want–what anything worthwhile should concern itself with–is the Things we have heard and known: Wisdom. Not Game. Not psychology. Not even theology. No sort of system of thought.

    Honestly: The discussion came back to Aquinas, and I had nothing to do with that!

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    @Aquinas Dad

    >Yeah. That does sound familiar, doesn’t it?

    Game: the system of behaviors a man may internalize so as to increase his attractiveness to women.

    Leaving aside everything else, would you say that a man consciously acting so as to be more attractive is immoral?

    And if your answer is yes, do you also disapprove of women applying makeup and watching what they eat?

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    @Aquinas Dad

    >There is a system to my behavior, as I have said over and over – virtue.

    Okay, then call it “social virtue.”

    >I strive to be prudent, temperate (theological meaning), just, and courageous in all of my dealings while maintaining a focus on faith, hope, and charity.

    Join the club.

    >You are conflating “game” with ‘general interaction’.

    Actually the originally game proponents pointed out that it improved a man’s social outcomes in all spheres.

    >No, the only things unique to “game” and what define it are its metaphysics (psychopathic narcissistic men are to be emulated; women have no free or moral agency; the telos of male existence is promiscuity; the commitment of being a husband and father are to be avoided). These concepts are core to “game”

    They are? That’s news to me.

    I like your method of arguing. For every time you say ‘x’ I will equate it to ‘y’ and then say that *I* know better than you what you mean if you insist otherwise.

    So, you call it virtue? Okay, Aristotle promoted virtue. Aristotle was a pagan. Therefore, virtue is inextricably pagan. You may *think* it means something like “that system of behavior conducive to moral excellence,” but it actually means “being pagan.”

    Or maybe you are engaged in sophistry, not philosophy. When I insist that by game I mean a particular specific thing, perhaps that is because I really do mean that particular specific thing. But if you want to insist that I am not capable of knowing what *I* mean, we’re obviously at the end of our “discussion.”

    >Mr. Laliberte, you seem to be part of a rather large group of young men who have encountered “game” and now think ‘anything that involves interaction with women that appears to work’ = ‘”game”‘.
    >This is not the case.

    What is the meaning of a word, but its use? If that is how a community uses the word, that is what the word means.

    So, alright, suppose I called it something other than game, and avoided those exosemantic terms associated with the Manosphere and PUA communities, yet everything I meant promoted a behavioristically identical set of behaviors. Would it be okay then?

    Or are truths forever defiled when evil men voice them?

    >I do wish you well but I hope that you understand that if you reject the metaphysics I listed above you *must* stop referring to those who hold and espouse them.

    So the problem is merely one of association, not that its actually false or intrinsically immoral. Is that the entirety of your case? “Evil men use those terms?”

    Satan is a theist. It’s worth keeping in mind.

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    @Scott

    >I have read many posts on your blog and your sophistication with this type of material speaks for itself. Is it your contention that the context drives the “rightness” or “wrongness” of these tactics? Because I think you may be right–about some of it, but AD has placed before you (and other Christian Game advocates) a very difficult to surmount challenge in the form of context-free behaviors that are just sin in and of themselves. Many of the “commandments” on the heartiste page appear to meet that criterion.

    Attraction is attraction. What individuals find attractive is a positive fact void of moral content. What one does about that is where ethics comes in.

    Acting to as to increase my attractiveness to women does not seem like it can be immoral. Aquinas enjoyed a glass of wine, and enjoying company seems of the same kind. Being in such a way that others enjoy my company seems an excellence of the social kind, rather than a defect.

    It is naturally regrettable that the knowledge about how men may attract women has been lost, but it is precisely the failure of Christians to promote such knowledge that young men are left to turn to less wholesome characters. To that end, I would promote a recovery of truth, so that no one may be left confused as to where the positive facts of the matter and toxic, unChristian conceptions of masculinity separate. Zippy here would only see confusion furthered by denying that truth is truth no matter who says it. The father of lies, after all, is willing to use truth as it fits his purposes.

  • Zippy says:

    BL:

    Zippy here would only see confusion furthered by denying that truth is truth no matter who says it. The father of lies, after all, is willing to use truth as it fits his purposes.

    Wrong again. Perhaps you should work on accurately paraphrasing what I’ve actually said (citation of my actual words would be helpful here). Instead I just keep seeing boilerplate manosphere counter arguments to things I haven’t said.

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    For what it’s worth Zippy, I don’t give a fig what you think you mean as you won’t extend that courtesy to me.

  • Zippy says:

    BL:
    I know exactly what you mean. You want to re-purpose the term “Game” to mean something it doesn’t; just as if some Christian women were trying to re-purpose the term “slutty” to mean something it doesn’t.

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    Hey NBS, what does ‘game’ mean?

  • nickbsteves says:

    I preeeety sure the official definition is “the application psychological techniques for social influence” (or something like that), but I could be wrong. Zippy’s got his dictionary and I got mine.

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    It seems we’re able to communicate.

    Isn’t language funny like that?

  • nickbsteves says:

    Funny ha ha or funny Fargo?

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    Probably both.

  • Sales techniques are actually what you guys are batting about. Game involves modifying some of them for sexual ends and misapplying others. Sales is not really a field for Christians, though it is possible to be in the industry and not be dishonest, it’s very difficult.

  • And also brainwashing, especially in the forms as used by cults.

  • Zippy says:

    BL:

    So, you call it virtue? Okay, Aristotle promoted virtue. Aristotle was a pagan. Therefore, virtue is inextricably pagan. You may *think* it means something like “that system of behavior conducive to moral excellence,” but it actually means “being pagan.”

    Every time a Game supporter compares PUA to Aristotle, God kills a kitten.

  • lumberjack jones says:

    I find these posts and ensuing discussions both enlightening and hilarious. Allow me to summarize and correct me when I am wrong
    .
    1)the term “game” can only be defined by the user of the term. Therefore Zippy’s definition is superior in his castigation of “Christian game proponents” and the commenters definition is superior in the defense of “Christian game proponents”

    2) According to Zippy any system of interaction with the world is inherently sinful if the origins of the system are pagan.

    3) According to the commenters a system of interaction with the world is beneficial based on its supposed merits regardless of its origins,

    4) According to Denihilist “game” (as she defines it) is ineffective based on some unbelievably poor statistical comparison.

    5) “Game” as a system would possibly be acceptable to Zippy if it was called “masculinity” and was not taught by pagans. (note: I am unclear on this point as Zippy has freely admitted he does not have an alternative to “game” for Christian men in monogamous relationships)

    6) The “anti-game” (again as defined by the individual) position seems to be that the amoral positions of game (e.g. confidence, stability, personal ambition, looks etc.) are older than the “heroes of the manosphere” and therefore cannot rightly be called game and to include them in game is immoral somehow.

    7) Denihilist is in her (or his, no judgment) late 50s or early 60s and can’t understand why people under the age of 30 might need a system (ala game) to negotiate the modern sexual marketplace. She knows it was easy for her to get laid in the 60s or 70s why is it so hard for these idiot kids now?

    8) Zippy’s personal worth is inherently tied to defending his position at all costs.

    9) Denihilist is solipsistic.

    10) The “pro-game” (as defined by the individual) position is either unable to see why the immoral aspects of the pick up culture taint aspects of game or does not care that it is possible that is the case.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Jack, good call on the age, but .am male. Have to look up solowhatever.

    Well so far we only have limited field work by a true game advocate, so it is the only thing we can analyze right now. And it is not looking good for the touted claims of the disciples.

    I have no problem with game, if you want to try it to get laid, as it is intended. My problem is with the BS that learning masculine things like confidence, etc. was invented by gamers and that a lot of the “leaders” in the community are just confidence men.

    And yes, I really do find it weird that so many young folk complain about how hard it is to get laid on these forums. Both my boys are in strong LTRs, and my apprentice seems to have no problem getting laid. Maybe it is the area I am presiding in and the woman here aren’t as stuck up as they seem to be elsewhere.

    LOL – just looked up solopism. farthest from my philosophy as possible. I actually think that the mind is a construct of evolution and continually gets in the way.

  • Zippy says:

    lumberjack jones:

    correct me when I am wrong

    OK.

    the term “game” can only be defined by the user of the term.

    Wrong. Words have a public meaning which cannot be arbitrarily reconfigured by the writer. For example, suppose someone said that when he uses the words “stupid jackasses”, he means that as a completely value-neutral term for “people who think Game is compatible with Christianity”. Suppose he proceeded to write a long treatise about what he thinks of “stupid jackasses”.

    If we take the nominalist idea seriously then nobody would have any reason to interpret the string “stupid jackasses” in his writing to mean anything other than or in addition to “Game supporters” as a value-neutral referent.

    According to Zippy any system of interaction with the world is inherently sinful if the origins of the system are pagan.

    Wrong.

    According to the commenters a system of interaction with the world is beneficial based on its supposed merits regardless of its origins,

    That isn’t so much wrong as just something with which I haven’t taken issue. I haven’t noticed anyone else take issue with it either. I have noticed a bunch of folks argue as if someone had though.

    There are more wrong assertions in the comment, but that is enough for now.

  • Zippy says:

    DeNihilist:

    LOL – just looked up solipsism.

    That won’t help, because the manosphere doesn’t use the word correctly. They don’t use it to refer to a philosophical position at all. They use it instead of using the term “self-involved”, because they think it sounds more intellectual.

  • Anon says:

    “That won’t help, because the manosphere doesn’t use the word correctly. They don’t use it to refer to a philosophical position at all. They use it instead of using the term “self-involved”, because they think it sounds more intellectual.”

    Kind of an issue I have too. It used in some (old) psychology literature to describe a pretty bizarre internal experience though. In that context it’s meaning is roughly the same as the philosophy but it is a thought disorder feature.

  • lumberjack jones says:

    “lumberjack jones:

    correct me when I am wrong

    OK.

    the term “game” can only be defined by the user of the term.

    Wrong. Words have a public meaning which cannot be arbitrarily reconfigured by the writer. For example, suppose someone said that when he uses the words “stupid jackasses”, he means that as a completely value-neutral term for “people who think Game is compatible with Christianity”. Suppose he proceeded to write a long treatise about what he thinks of “stupid jackasses”.

    If we take the nominalist idea seriously then nobody would have any reason to interpret the string “stupid jackasses” in his writing to mean anything other than or in addition to “Game supporters” as a value-neutral referent.”

    OK, I can see your point but, you incessantly define game as one thing and your commenters define it as another so we have a problem with the “public meaning.” You have asserted your definition which is “arbitrarily reconfigured by the writer” but that does not mean it is the definition,

    “According to Zippy any system of interaction with the world is inherently sinful if the origins of the system are pagan.

    Wrong.”

    So your problem with the glorification of “game” in the so-called “Christian manosphere” is what exactly? I admit to being a dumb logger but I have read your posts on the matter and this is the conclusion I came to. I am willing to admit this is my fault for being unable to comprehend your larger point which may be that … I am not really sure I guess … I thought I read that the glorification of “game” was wrong because “game” had an end result of fornication by pagans and therefore had no value to Christians, but again we have an issue with the definition of “game” on this point I was conceding your definition which was “arbitrarily reconfigured by the writer”

  • Zippy says:

    lumberjack jones:
    Christian Game supporters are under the false impression – because they are nominalists – that they can arbitrarily reconfigure the meaning of Game such that all the bad stuff is filtered out and only the good stuff is left in. That is the intent of all the “Game is a toolbox” talk: it assumes nominalism. That is the intent of all the will-to-power assertions that ‘my “Game” doesn’t include any of the bad stuff’.

    But Game isn’t a value-neutral “toolbox” any more than “jackass” or “slut” are value-neutral labels for arbitrary referents.

    “Christian Game” supporters therefore are either embracing an evil system created by PUA, or they are embracing nominalism. Either one is a basic, foundational mistake that ends up leading folks astray.

  • lumberjack jones says:

    “the term “game” can only be defined by the user of the term.

    Wrong. Words have a public meaning which cannot be arbitrarily reconfigured by the writer. For example, suppose someone said that when he uses the words “stupid jackasses”, he means that as a completely value-neutral term for “people who think Game is compatible with Christianity”. Suppose he proceeded to write a long treatise about what he thinks of “stupid jackasses”.

    If we take the nominalist idea seriously then nobody would have any reason to interpret the string “stupid jackasses” in his writing to mean anything other than or in addition to “Game supporters” as a value-neutral referent.”

    By the way, that is kind of my point, If you were to think “stupid jackasses” was a value neutral term for people who think “game” is compatible with Christianity many other people would be willing to comment that you are wrong in your definition of “stupid jackasses.” They might say for example that “stupid jackasses” included a much broader spectrum of individuals, or a broader spectrum of ideologies.

    I assert (quite possibly incorrectly) that you have defined “game” rather narrowly to support your position and that your commenters have defined it in other terms which make your argument to the morality of “game” specious due to the problem of definition. This is the same argument you would apparently make regarding “stupid jackasses.” but not to “game” because … ?

    I am not tied to this argument in any way, I don’t care, but you seem inextricably bound to your position. Is this an exercise for you? Quite honestly, I would appreciate it if was an exercise in logic for you and I applaud you if that is the case, If that is not the case I fear you may be being intellectually dishonest with yourself in order to be “right” about an argument that has little eternal value.

  • lumberjack jones says:

    so there are no moral possibilities other than nominalism or universalism? no realism or conceptualism or anything like that?

    That is an interesting position and one I can understand. I may not agree but I understand. Although I wonder if you are being nominalist by defining game in such a way that it precludes all amoral aspects yet includes all immoral aspects? Precluding the amoral strikes me as less than universalist.

  • Zippy says:

    lj:
    It isn’t any more complicated than the fact that “Game” is no more value-neutral or arbitrarily reconfigurable than “jackass” or “slut”. There are consequences to Christians endorsing Game that cannot be contained or constrained by the arbitrary will of writers who presume that they do get to dictate the consequences by fiat.

    And it isn’t (or isn’t only) an airy academic point. The consequences are real. The same people who embrace Game under a rubric of coopting it for Christ (“sluttiness for Christ!”) end up exalting perverts, as we’ve seen time and time again. Christian Game supporters frequently (including in this very thread) liken perverts to Aristotle, for example, and their own project of “coopting” Game from PUA to the work of saints and doctors of the Church studying Greek philosophy. That alone should make anyone with the slightest modicum of sense take a step back and critically examine the hothouse.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Game – a term devised by PUA’s in the early eighties to describe their combined experiences in their pursuit of woman’s vagina’s. This led to a small, clique group of men hanging out together and chasing “ta poon”.

    Later updated and polished by the marketers, claiming these techniques were based on solid physiological and psychological tenants. Seminar and books were now available from the “alpha’s” to “help” the betas to get as much poosy (roissy) as the pro’s. Some of the early players are able to quit their day jobs and live off of the avails of their “knowledge”.

    Later again updated to now include historic masculine properties, physical fitness, social savvy, confidence, etc. By making game more mainstream, the market was now embiggened and more lucre was to be had by all those running the business. Other blogger/business men, noticing that some men were now able to live a life of foreign debauchery and comfort, from the age old sales tactic of selling sex, jumped on the bandwagon.

    The term game, like the letter i, was now attached to many different sub sets of the manosphere. Suddenly their was Christian Game, Marriage Game, I Hate Feminist Game, Brony Game, etc. By weaving their particular brand into the rising tide of Game, many business men were able to become household names and partake of the flowing lucre.

    With the market nearing saturation, others, wanting to feast at the trough went back to the future and started to define the elements of the physiological and psychological traits. The term hypergamy, known mostly to an odd collection of behavioral psychologists, now was trotted out, cleaned up and presented as the solution for why women behaved the way they do. By delving deep into this woman only condition, it was surprisingly realized that only game could save the western world! The flock lined up 10 abreast, fighting with each other to be the first to throw their lucre at the hands of the saints. For with this dark and mysterious force, known as game, soon men would have their rightful place back, pushing hypergamy into the void, and women would once again make him a sandwich!

    How game saved the western world, and Woman started making men sandwiches again – DeNihilist et al. 2014

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mr. Laliberte,
    What a generous definition of “game” you have. It is so broad as to fit anything one thinks or does that a woman might find attractive, even if only you think this may be true. Of course, roosh, roissy and the rest disagree with you, so I will decline to accept your over broad definition.

    As for the rest, let us check with the Summa Theologica, 2b, Q55, a3-5
    [mildly edited for length]
    “When a man uses trickery, or counterfeits honesty, when working for an end, he is guilty of craftiness. This is a special sin against prudence, distinct from carnal prudence but like it in masking itself as true prudence….

    Craftiness is chiefly in the tmind of the deceiver; it is a quality of his plans and projects. But when plan or project is carried out in fact, then it appears as guile.

    Guile may take the form of words or deeds. When it appears in deeds, it has the special name of fraud.”

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    “What is the meaning of a word, but its use?”
    How can I respond to such sophistry, for he shall claim to use any word as he sees fit. Up shall mean down, red shall mean brown, and virtue shall mean vice.

  • Alte says:

    More ruthlessly and more rigidly, I would expect, because men aren’t as easy to fool as women.

    Yes. And they also have a lower tolerance for bullshitting, whining, and excuse-making.

  • Alte says:

    Re Alte’s: “If you give that romance up, then the men are in charge of deciding who gets to sleep with whom ” would be fine with me, with all antigame trads, AND with all PUAs.

    Well, it would actually lead to more intra-male fighting, as not everyone would initially agree on which women belong to whom. It would take years, possibly decades, for such a hierarchy and pattern to emerge, and would involve excessive amounts of chianti and fava beans.

    I also wonder if the Anglo guys talking all macho on the interwebs would have the stomach for the amount of domestic violence tolerated in such a system. I find it absolutely unnerving.

  • Alte says:

    People who lead lives in which the tingle even makes it onto the first page of the priority list are a bit of a puzzle to me, though I know they exist.

    It’d be fascinating to read accounts from more people living in actual, traditional systems, but all I can find are outraged and horrified reports from feminists. Even those Anglos who see themselves as traditionalists, living in traditional systems, are still largely under a feminist police state, and that skews their views, interests, and results. That’s why even so many of the Christian guys are so obsessed with tingles — they’re constantly trying to counteract the law of the land and the overarching social construct.

  • Alte says:

    All of the joking about killing of kittens and baby seals aside, the reason people pull up Aristotle when discussing Game is because he was a rhetorical expert, and Game is a subset of rhetoric. The same as political science, marketing, salesmanship, public ministry, etc. So, this is just a rehashing of an ancient argument, hence references to the ancients.

    You have to remember that the main argument against rhetoric (and it was a controversial topic, even back then, especially after the trial of Socrates) was that sophists could use it to “make the weaker case the stronger”, and that men of honor should therefor not trust it or use it themselves because it upsets the natural order. In this particular context: It gives scummy guys the ability to appear desirable, in order to trick women into finding them more attractive. Obviously, nobody but the scummy guys wants this, so the outrage is understandable.

    The obvious counter-argument is that the greatest men have always had the strongest grasp of rhetoric (including the powers of seduction), but were discriminating in how they used it. And that it is inherently unjust to keep lesser men from achieving a similar education, simply out of fear that they are too simple or corrupt to handle it properly.

    And then there is always the question of the greater man’s underlying intent. Does he really want what is best for the lesser, or does he just fear the increase in male competition? As with beauty tips for women: the lesser than student, the more he will benefit from the education, and the more dramatically his education will level the sexual field. Beautiful women’s status suffers when everyone wears makeup, and naturally commanding men’s status suffers when other men imitate their mannerisms. In both cases, the imitation is of lower value than the original, but not by much, and the person whose status is negatively affected by the change will be suspect if they protest the change. I.e. the ole, “Well, that’s easy for you to say!” Because, yes, it really is quite easy for you to say.

    The onus is therefore on you to prove that you really are writing all of this out of love for your neighbor, and not out of jealousy or indifference. Since your audience here is not the people who agree with you, but those who disagree with you, I — a member of your audience — remain unconvinced. And I suspect the other members feel the same way. You might want to try a different argument than the ones you are currently using, as they don’t seem to be particularly effective at doing anything other than exciting your supporters.

  • Alte says:

    Rhetoric — the art of persuasion — is all essentially a form of manipulation, but the question for me is whether it is ever morally justified to manipulate the emotions of other people in order to persuade them to do or think what you want.

    I would say, yes. As much as it hurts people’s pride to think of themselves being manipulated, I would say that manipulation and persuasion are essential tools of human leadership and I am for a liberal education for all men (and women, of course). If they choose to use those tools to rebuild a society or tear it down, is an entirely different issue. The problem I see there is that it is dangerous to teach rhetoric in a moral vacuum.

    As for whether we call it “Game” or just discuss it in a more overarching education, I’m obviously a proponent of the latter. But I fail to see how this is the essential issue, and most of the arguments against using that particular word strike me as hair-splitting.

    At any rate, after the fall of Socrates (who was Plato’s teacher), Plato soured on the whole rhetorical business and complained about it to anyone who would hold still long enough to listen. Aristotle (who was Plato’s student, and at odds with him on the subject) took pains to resurrect the teaching of the art and redefined it away from sophistry and seduction, and toward the goal of virtuous leadership and personal nobility.

    So… do we emulate Plato or Aristotle? Do we see this as a problem or as an opportunity? It’s gotten off to a rough start, but from here forward, I see miles of opportunity.

  • Mike T says:

    Christian Game supporters are under the false impression – because they are nominalists – that they can arbitrarily reconfigure the meaning of Game such that all the bad stuff is filtered out and only the good stuff is left in. That is the intent of all the “Game is a toolbox” talk: it assumes nominalism. That is the intent of all the will-to-power assertions that ‘my “Game” doesn’t include any of the bad stuff’.

    Or as in other cases, many of us are acknowledging the bad with the good and making a case for specifically choosing only the good. That would be arguing that discernment is necessary here, as in all things and fools gonna be foolish anyway…

  • Mike T says:

    It’d be fascinating to read accounts from more people living in actual, traditional systems, but all I can find are outraged and horrified reports from feminists. Even those Anglos who see themselves as traditionalists, living in traditional systems, are still largely under a feminist police state, and that skews their views, interests, and results. That’s why even so many of the Christian guys are so obsessed with tingles — they’re constantly trying to counteract the law of the land and the overarching social construct.

    Indeed, Alte is more or less correct here. I’d also add that contra TUW and Zippy, more extreme scenarios like a spouse getting very sick or injured is not the most practical concern for most families today. In our urbanized/suburbanized culture, the wear and tear of commuting and work life on home life is. Living in metro DC, I can say that the stress on middle class families here is significantly higher on average than anything I saw living in rural Virginia. If you rely on caritas to fill in all the gaps here, you’re a damn fool because you’ll find yourself stuck between the stressors ripping up your family’s peace and the distinct possibility that some scumbag will go after your wife at work (or some bitch after your husband).

  • Zippy says:

    So we can add Alte to the list of ostensibly serious Christians who, apparently with a straight face, compare the Sixteen Commandments of Poon to The Rhetoric.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    That’s the paradox I’ve brought up several times: nobody who is already in possession of the wisdom to discern what is true in the Sixteen Commandments needs to read the Sixteen Commandments.

  • Mike T says:

    That’s only true if you make certain critical assumptions for the sake of (bolstering your) argument. One of those is that you assume that someone who is morally wise must necessarily be wise with women. Not even remotely true.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Zippy,
    But isn’t a comparison of, say, roissy to gorgias apt?

  • Mike T says:

    To illustrate my point, I’ve been around a lot of cops and ex-cops growing up in a law enforcement family. Often some of the men who are the best at analyzing people for suspect behavior are clueless toward their own wives. Men who can ferret out law breakers most would miss, suddenly miss what are clear signs (when they learn better) that their wife was bitterly unhappy.

  • Mike T says:

    Aquinas Dad,

    Back to your “point” about murder, killing someone in self-defense or defense of another is not murder. There is no need to offer contrition to God for taking a life if the life taken was a man coming at your wife with a knife projecting clear intent to slit her throat because you are factually innocent of the sin of murder. There is not even veniality in interceding to kill him unless killing him is so easily avoided that it would be easier to just injure or maim him than kill him (ex: your 90 year old father-in-law with advanced dementia attacks your wife). Some 25 year old thug tries to rape and murder your wife? F#$% him. If he didn’t want to risk a violent death, he shouldn’t have engaged in mortal sins that justly carry the right of armed response by those around him.

  • jf12 says:

    @”One of those is that you assume that someone who is morally wise must necessarily be wise with women. Not even remotely true.” they are almost exactly antithetical.

  • jf12 says:

    Alte is exactly correct. “The problem I see there is that it is dangerous to teach rhetoric in a moral vacuum.” Hence, teach game within moral pasturage, instead of letting them learn game in the jungle. Same reason for Christian parents to teach their children sex ed.

  • jf12 says:

    @Alte. “Well, it would actually lead to more intra-male fighting.” No, it leads to less. When men are actually in charge, in patriarchal monogamy, the men divvy up the women equitably with essentially no fighting. But the feral women don’t like it.

  • Mike T says:

    Anecdotal data in support of jf12’s statement that the distribution tends to be more equitable when the power is held by men and not women.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Mike, found this comment very interesting from your link –

    “Women really know nothing about Justice, they only know equality.”

  • jf12 says:

    Keep in mind [a Christian woman blogger I’m not allowed to mention]’s solution: polygamy to keep the women happy and a few alpha guys happy, and relabeling the lost boys, the majority of men, as unwanted creeps and machinegunning them.

  • Most women who work outside the home work with other women and very few men (and no, not “alpha” men at that). DC is not representative of the rest of the country. Men and women worry about keeping the jobs they have a lot more than they worry about sexing the boss.

    Of course, it’s also not true that the best salesmen are the most honorable men (quite the opposite in fact), which is the thrust of Alte’s argument.

    Health issues have always been a big deal in marriage, including their effects on sex life. It is…improbable that even in DC nobody has to deal with such issues in the course of a marriage.

    If the experts in game were married to wealthy, reasonably attractive women and had high-social status mistresses, this would be a different comment string entirely. But then again, if that were the case, game wouldn’t need a string of beta orbiters rushing to its defense in any corner of the internet where someone dared question its utility, particularly its utility for Christian men typically living in a feminized social milieu.

  • jf12 says:

    No True Salesman etc.

  • nickbsteves says:

    In answer, or rather principled non-answer, to Peter Blood’s (actually) honest question (in the sad case that he is still reading), I see declaring the principles of “Christian Game” to be akin to declaring the principles of “Christian Biology” or “Christian Chess Strategy” or “Christian Rock Music”. This happens to be yet a third (BONUS) reason the analogy of “Christian Sluttery” fails.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Believe it or don’t, I am still reading–it’s my monthly hairshirt day. So don’t feel sad for me.

    I saw Roissy’s “16 Commandments” as “PUA Game” and that we could generate a parallel “16 Commandments of Christian Game” and it’d be something a Christian man could do and not go to hell.

  • Mike T says:

    TUW,

    You have a real knack for missing the point. Simply put, metropolitan regions like DC are where a very large percentage of Americans live now and their lifestyle is quantifiably more stressful than in rural/smaller town America on average. That stress, much of which is based on the commuter culture, has been studied and proved to be a serious threat to marriages in those regions. Not only do we have the same basic problems like the threat of job loss, but a much more stressful culture and often being forced to work with people of questionable ethics who won’t hesitate to bang your spouse if they grow distant for a time.

  • Mike T says:

    “Women really know nothing about Justice, they only know equality.”

    Obviously false as a universal statement, but unfortunately it’s often much more true than false. One of the manosphere’s gripes that is sadly more true than false is that women are typically incapable of sacrificing something that benefits them and objectively hurts men, even if they admit the harm. No fault divorce and alimony are good examples. I’ve seen conservative women go from sputtering about easy divorce to stridently defending no fault divorce and giving women who file for it alimony, even though they’re literally defending a baseless divorce and redistribution of wealth toward the wrong-doer.

    I would say that it’s not that women are amoral, but rather that the social wiring in women makes it difficult for most women to understand that justice often requires various cold, unemotional calculations and sacrifices. Even some of the women in my family who are vehemently anti-divorce cannot wrap their heads around the fact that there is literally no situation in which God will OK a technically illicit remarriage because divine grace is unable to transform what is intrinsically illicit into something that is situationally licit.

  • Scott says:

    NBS-

    I kind of see what you are saying, but the four you listed don’t seem to compare well. “Christian Rock Music” and “Christian Game” do though. (At least from the perspective that I am taking).

    I find the reason “Christian Rock Music” is so lame (and no one REALLY likes it) is because of it’s built-in contradiction. Rock music has always had a set of values that were expressly anti-authority, anti-establishment, etc. “Christian Rock Music” should therefore be called “Christian Music that uses the same chord progressions, the same tempo, same instruments, and the same basic structure” but it is not “rock.” It cannot be, by definition.

    I think many on here are doing the same with “Christian Game” (although doing it with way more style in their rhetorical device than me).

  • Scott says:

    Peter Blood- I think it is entirely possible to create what you are talking about. In fact, I think it is needed, desperately because of the barren wasteland that father-son training has become. We can argue all day long about why that has happened, but it is the situation as we have inherited it. The scripture is filled with passages about how men and women should interact, and Proverbs is loaded with pithy little statements about masculinity and femininity.

    There is a program at the RC church I am attending called “that man is you” and I have not attended it yet. Based on the way it is presented, I AM SURE it is garden variety “man up” crap. I intend to start going there and essentially take it over. I think my personality is strong enough, and I have the truth on my side.

    I would welcome a canon put together of “Christian Manly Qualities” that are compatible with Truths “re-discovered” recently by pagans. That would be absolutely fantastic. Multiply that by a million churches and their stupid mens groups…

  • […] 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 […]

  • DeNihilist says:

    Alte – “splitting hairs”

    I have to say first off, I think Scott has brought the best analogy yet, about Christian Rock.

    For me, game is a set of psychological maneuvers that are intended to elicit sex from a woman by breaking down her inbuilt resistance to sleep with just anyone. Formerly known as seduction.

    Building confidence, leading, taking care of ones physical appearance, etc., is not in my basic definition of game/seduction. Unfortunately, the society we live in today has a desire to link anything that is “in” to their own product to help gain attention.

    Where I live we have a grocery chain that years ago came out with a new line called ” Save On Foods”. They are very successful. Now we have “Save On Eyewear”, “Save On Meats” etc.

    Game right now is a very popular term. But the addition of the moniker to your chosen topic, i.e. Christian Game, does not make it so.

    As Deti is so fond of saying – “Words have meaning”

    The word game, used in relation to relationships has a meaning. Or put another way, why not just call it “Christian Seduction”?

    PS – This just in – The mysterious energy known as Dark Energy, has now been proven as fact. Scientists, using Game, have proven once and for all that both Dark Energy and Dark Matter do indeed exist. Film at six.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: Thou Art The Man! is Biblically negative. Don’t Be That Guy is even worse.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Scott –

    Rule one – join Toastmasters. By having to stand in front of people and talk, you will realize how banal your fear of public discourse is

    Rule two – join the Chamber of Commerce or like group, where you already have shared interests with the woman there. While attending these meetings, TALK to the woman. By sharing an interest your invisibility cloak will dissolve. Aside – (one of the problems of game is that it is based on seduction and mostly at bars, gee, do you really wonder why 80% of men are invisible to the woman looking to get picked up?) By talking to the women, you will realize that not all woman want to next you.

    Rule three – thicken your skin. Get ready, when you do actually approach a woman you are interested in for romance to be nexted. The more this happens, the less it hurts

    Rule four – if able, get a dog. And sign up for obedience training. This will accomplish 2 things, you will learn leadership, and again be around woman with similar interests.

    Rule Five – Stay in shape

    Rule six- (this one is how I met my wife) play co-ed sports if possible, or start rock climbing or join judo, etc. goes with rule five, but also I find that women who partake in sports, on average are decent hard working gals, i.e. marriage material

    Rule seven -?

  • […] before you have been through it — especially when commonplace but terrible adversities, like the ones a commenter mentions, hit. It ends tragically, with death, every single time.  If you are married and it hasn’t […]

  • DC is not representative of major metro areas. Most people don’t make very much money and are not swimming in “hypergamous” environments where sociopaths have collected in disproportionate share (even for urban environments).

    But I guess if you really think women working in daycares or low-end retail stores are going to run off with the lady boss, you are free to think that.

    You fall prey to the inability to understand selection bias. It’s cute.

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    @Aquinas Dad

    >What a generous definition of “game” you have. It is so broad as to fit anything one thinks or does that a woman might find attractive, even if only you think this may be true.

    I wouldn’t say it is necessarily that broad, but it is certainly less narrowly defined than Zippy’s use. At this point I’m only wondering whether you or Zippy can concede that in principle techniques that increase a man’s attractiveness, whether it be called game or masculinity, are possible, and whether or not there is the moral use of those techniques.

    An analogy to game is woman’s application of makeup, which has the intent of increasing her attractiveness. Would you admit that there are better and worse techniques of applying makeup to the end of increasing a female’s attractiveness? Would you admit there exist morally positive uses of that knowledge?

    If your answers to those questions are yes, you have the burden in demonstrating that “increasing attractiveness” is immoral when men do it.

    >Of course, roosh, roissy and the rest disagree with you, so I will decline to accept your over broad definition.

    Einstein didn’t use the word ‘mass’ in the same sense as Newton. It’s almost as though the definition of words evolve through their use by separate language communities and knowledge paradigms. Christians don’t use ‘eudaimonia’ in the exact same sense Aristotle specified (so dies a kitten apparently). If Christians are capable of extricating the paganism from pagan philosophies (something which the early Church apparently approved of, given the proclivities of the Church Fathers for Plato and later Aquinas’ excavation of Aristotle, and yes I hate kittens), this is really just more of the same. No one is suggesting the techniques have not been known and understood before.

    I’m not sure the Manosphere would disagree with my use. They would understand what I mean by the term, and I would understand what they mean. I’ve had discussions with Manospherians specifically concerning the moral and immoral use of game, suggesting that they also use it in a positive sense with the ability to dissociate its meaning from the more hysterical elements that equate masculine excellence to nought but notch counts. Whatever it’s worth, I’ve had a number of productive discussions with Christian and non-Christian Manospherians.

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    @Aquinas Dad

    >How can I respond to such sophistry, for he shall claim to use any word as he sees fit.

    That’s hardly what “meaning is use” means. It means only that if the word’s use succeeds in producing the intent impression to the other, then it is being used correctly. I and many other Christian and non-Christian are able to communicate using the word ‘game’ and to discuss its extensions, which would imply that my use of it isn’t at odds.

    Zippy’s use, on the other hand, is problematic, since it doesn’t actually coincide with its use.

  • nickbsteves says:

    Scott, by making the concept of “Christian Game” to “Christian Biology” or “Christian Rock Music” I was attempting to reject possibility of the category. To the extent biology is particularly Christian it ceases to be mere biology. There may be applications of biology that are of some interest (for some reason) to Christians in particular, but it is just regular ol’ Biology. The category “Christian Biology” cannot exist. Same for “Christian Game”, “Christian Sluttery”, and “Christian Rock Music”.

    There may be applications of “Game” “Psychological techniques to influence power relations” that are of interest to Christians, which, tho’ they be expressed and promoted by pagans and degenerates, may nevertheless be true. In fact, I’d go so far as to say, a Christian man with sons (present or future) would be a moral idiot to ignore them. But that doesn’t mean there is a category called “Christian Game”.

  • Zippy says:

    BL:
    As soon as you admit that music theory exists, I get to label Clare de Lune “rock n roll”.

    Seriously, you should take a good hard look at your anti-essentialism, and consider (for example) what it would imply for understanding (say) other social phenomena like liberalism.

  • Bryce Laliberte says:

    I only said I was unlikely to be an essentialist in your sense. Indeed, I’d be skeptical of saying I was any particular thing in your sense, given your tendency to redefine words retroactively as suits your rhetoric.

    I would otherwise identify with the A-T essentialism of those like Edward Feser, David Oderberg, and Alexander Pruss (who is not, obviously, a pure A-T essentialist). Otherwise, I don’t care to submit any of my philosophy to you, since you don’t really care what I would say about it.

  • Zippy says:

    Bryce Laliberte:

    Seriously, just stop and think for a minute.

    Suppose that you were required to grant liberals the antiessentialism (“Liberalism means just what I say it means, nothing more, nothing less, so none of your criticisms hit the target against my Liberalism”) that you expect me to grant you w.r.t. Game.

    You’d never do it, because it is a nominalist/antiessentialist reframe — an empty and meaningless declaration of victory-by-definition.

    But liberalism is what it is; people have varying degrees of loyalty to it; people who are loyal to it don’t usually even fully understand the implications of what they are loyal to, but its implications are objective; etc.

    Same with Game.

  • Scott says:

    NBS–I’m tracking. That actually makes sense. I think this is why I keep asking myself “what exactly is the substantive disagreement about?” The key word there being “substantive.”

  • Zippy says:

    Scott:
    There are a number of substantive disagreements, but one of the most basic ones is over essentialism/antiessentialism. The essentialist position is that things like liberalism, sluttiness, rock-n-roll, and Game have an objective character that cannot be arbitrarily remade through tricks of language and other techniques to produce (for example) “Christian sluttiness”.

    So I criticize sluttiness, and antiessentialist supporters of sluttiness – who think of sluttiness as an arbitrary label rather than a thing with an essence – come along and say ‘Zippy, how can you possibly object to pretty dresses? When I use the term “sluttiness” I am referring to the good and feminine things that sluts do, and only those things.’

    I reject the antiessentialist reframe for any number of reasons; but chief among them is that it embodies a basic, critical error that destroys one’s ability to think and talk about reality objectively.

    The problem people have with this is that nominalism/antiessentialism are the air we breathe, and stepping outside of them is a far more difficult red pill to swallow than “egalitarianism is false and women are naturally attracted to masculine men that they look up to”.

  • It does appear to be quite difficult for the various ‘spheres of the dissident right. They slide very easily into such frames, which is why many of their claims are to truthiness rather than truth.

  • Elspeth says:

    The problem people have with this is that nominalism/antiessentialism are the air we breathe, and stepping outside of them is a far more difficult red pill to swallow than “egalitarianism is false and women are naturally attracted to masculine men that they look up to”.

    In other words, the red pillers have hamsters too. I admire your steadfastness Zippy and ability to consistently reject the anti essentialist frame. Some of the rhetoric being leveled at you (and CC) is pretty vitriolic.

    Black and white thinkers are often criticized for their insistence on an objective reality. I have easily slid into such a frame as well. Thankfully I have someone to slap me out of it (figuratively, not literally).

    It is nigh impossible to have an ethical standard when your moral code sits on a subjective foundation. Or so he tells me.

  • DeNihilist says:

    These comments remind me of a Samuel R. Delany novel titled “Babel 17”.

    As Deti says, “words have meaning”

  • Alte says:

    Men who can ferret out law breakers most would miss, suddenly miss what are clear signs (when they learn better) that their wife was bitterly unhappy.

    This. Interactions with the opposite sex are a whole ‘nother can of worms.

  • Alte says:

    When men are actually in charge, in patriarchal monogamy, the men divvy up the women equitably with essentially no fighting.

    My point was about the transition phase, until the hierarchy fully revealed itself, and the men were still jostling for status. It’s not as if the playas are going to be like, “Oh, sure traditional guys. You can have all of the quality babes. We’ll just go right on back to banging the dregs, as if feminism never happened. Do de do.”

  • Alte says:

    Of course, it’s also not true that the best salesmen are the most honorable men (quite the opposite in fact), which is the thrust of Alte’s argument.

    No, you just turned my argument on its head. My argument was that the most honorable men tend to also be good salesmen.

  • Alte says:

    I admire your steadfastness Zippy and ability to consistently reject the anti essentialist frame.

    Yeah, he’s got great frame-control. LOL

  • Alte says:

    Game strikes me as something largely cultural, though, which is necessitated by the state of the overall society. I can’t say that my husband is either “alpha” or “natural alpha” or “beta” or whatever. The terms are all non-applicable here because the men are simply callous. They don’t have “frame control”, they just really don’t give a damn.

    It’s easy to forget that Ephesians 5 wasn’t groundbreaking because of the bit about wifely submission, but because he went on and on about how husbands should love their wives. I can just imagine the male listener’s looks of complete astonishment, and not much has actually changed since then, outside of feminist-controlled areas. The thing that is marking this entire discussion is the false assumption that men naturally care about what their wives want. Once you get rid of that assumption, Game becomes completely irrelevant as a topic for married men.

  • Elspeth says:

    Yeah, he’s got great frame-control. LOL

    I’m tellin’ ya!

  • Elspeth says:

    The thing that is marking this entire discussion is the false assumption that men naturally care about what their wives want.

    “They” would say that this isn’t a false assumption at all; that men DO naturally care about what their wives want and that it has been used against them.

  • jf12 says:

    @Elspeth “They” would say that this isn’t a false assumption at all; that men DO naturally care about what their wives want and that it has been used against them.” Yes.

  • DeNihilist says:

    if you have a few minutes here is Stuart Schneiderman’s latest on sex in marriage. This guy is good.

    http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.ca/2014/02/sex-in-marriage.html

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mr. Laliberte,
    You wrote,
    “At this point I’m only wondering whether you or Zippy can concede that in principle techniques that increase a man’s attractiveness, whether it be called game or masculinity, are possible, and whether or not there is the moral use of those techniques.”
    I am beginning to classify you as akin to Deti – someone who is incapable of remembering something they read more than 15 minutes ago.
    In this very comment thread I have repeated what I have said many times – not only are such things as instilling confidence, etc. possible they are inherently good. As a matter of fact one of my arguments against “game” is that “game” *IS BAD AT* teaching things like confidence and conversational skill!
    As for the definition of “game” I see that you persist in not only refusing to address my rather clear, oft repeated definition of what I am speaking of, nor are you using the definitions made by roissy or roosh or any other PUAs that invented the definition but rather a squishy sort of ‘whatever Bryce means right now, regardless of what other people are already talking about’. I have always understood that you want “game” to mean ‘anything Bryce thinks is good about men’ but I refuse to accept it, preferring the actual definition or my own more narrowly-defined version for the sake of clarity.
    I would normally classify someone who acts as if they can’t understand points that are repeated over and over in a number of different ways as a troll but I suspect that you are simply incapable of understanding.

  • […] Zippy agreed with Dalrock that just looking for a husband rather than a boyfriend will weed out the players: […]

  • Zippy says:

    Alte:

    It’s not as if the playas are going to be like, “Oh, sure traditional guys. You can have all of the quality babes. We’ll just go right on back to banging the dregs, as if feminism never happened. Do de do.”

    In any genuine transition back to patriarchy the perverts would crumple like paper. Few or none of them have what it takes to face real adversity, and every one to a man is a sexual beggar, slave to his base passions. They only exist in appreciable numbers because of the softness of modern life.

    Of course it is a moot point, because it isn’t going to happen any time soon.

  • […] terribly offended Novaseeker’s sensibilities, and he went around to at least three blogs of which I am aware, and made sure the people he respects knew what […]

  • […] Zippy agreed with Dalrock that just looking for a husband rather than a boyfriend will weed out the players: […]

  • […] heroes, architects, and analysts of the secular ‘morally neutral’ manosphere see the desolation […]

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 Send in the clown at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: