The Good Shepherd of Fire

February 12, 2014 § 466 Comments

Sorry, I really did intend for the previous post to be my last on this subject for a bit.

Other folks are discussing what they think of my views here [1] (see the comments as well). I especially like how my views are explained by the fact that I am both autistic and a natural alpha. Everyone always thinks they know something about me, but I don’t share personal details about my life on line (for a number of reasons — but one good one is that it should keep things focused on the subject matter). The speculations are hilarious to anyone who knows me in person.

I think folks tend toward overly complex interpretations of my views because of positivism: because of an aversion to the large empty spaces between what is definite in our knowledge. The pragmatic man wants to grab a tool and get to work; but there are no easy and efficient tools around to repair destroyed fatherhood, and the tools that are around have gun barrels that point back at the user. It is a conceit of Christian Game supporters that, not only do they personally have the wisdom and discernment to separate the gold from the dross for themselves, but all the men they are evangelizing do too. Yet it really is better to end up not married at all than it is to end up married to a slut, etc.  And even that fate is better than getting pulled into the vortex of nihilism.  Game is less a way of embracing reality than it is of avoiding reality, and asking for an alternative to it is frequently just a rhetorical bluff.

Part of the problem is the idealization of life in modern society. The grass is always greener until you are the one facing down the cannons. On Facebook people only show the good and flattering stuff. The neighbors always have a nice lawn.  Marriage and family is hard, hard, hard, hard, harder than you can possibly imagine 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 gotten hard like that yet, it will.  If the person by your side is someone you have to manipulate like a child, you will wish you had never been born.

Scott’s observation that you can’t really Christianize Rock without it becoming something other than Rock – and not particularly good as an art form – is a pretty good analogy, but the consequences here are greater for the men who become caught up in Game. Folks say that they have become less awkward, more dominant, learned to take the female emotional roller coaster less seriously, etc through Game — but becoming less awkward, more dominant, etc is something that awkward men have had to do throughout all of history. That isn’t Game, and trying to make it Game in an act of the will results in the church choir going on tour with Avenged Sevenfold. The Church choir is going to end up drunk and with the groupies; Avenged isn’t going to start having daily Mass on the set. And the people who are attracted to that sort of solution are just the sort of people who aren’t equipped to deal with it.  Game has no part in Christian marriage because Christian marriage is sacred; and we don’t mix the sacred with the profane.  Sure, we all adopt secular and pagan practices in our day to day lives, more power to us.  And I realize that many modern Catholics actually do like profaning the Mass with banal secular music, though not nearly as much as Evangelical Protestants in the Church of Rock Band.

But they are wrong too.  It isn’t just that it doesn’t “work”: it is counterproductive to the work at hand.

—–

[1] For the record, Novaseeker is welcome to keep commenting here but I put him into moderation because he expressly announced his intention to play the troll in the thread.

§ 466 Responses to The Good Shepherd of Fire

  • Mike T says:

    It is a conceit of Christian Game supporters that, not only do they personally have the wisdom and discernment to separate the gold from the dross for themselves, but all the men they are evangelizing do too.

    To which I would say that life is fraught with similar situations. Protestants seem more numerous among game supporters because we are already accustomed to having to try to figure out the truth for ourselves based on study and considering what we encounter.

    Yet it really is better to end up not married at all than it is to end up married to a slut, etc.

    Yes, that’s true, but what about the men who marry one accidentally or foolishly do so thinking she’ll be a great, horny wife? Since divorce is not an option and being a husband to such a woman requires a bigger skill set than most men are taught by the “good, upright teachers” then one has to ask how you manage such a woman so you can get through life without divorce.

    It’s easy to say it’s better to just not marry in such cases, but that attitude is no more practical than tut tutting us for the aforementioned “conceit.”

  • CJ says:

    I think Zippy’s right to focus on the role of fatherhood in this discussion.

    Growing up, I was the platonic ideal of a Gamma in Vox’s heirarchy. My dad got tired of hearing me whine about some girl wanting to be just friends. He threw a rubber band at me and said “sounds like you need this to hold your game together” (this was ~5 years before Al Gore invented the internet). He then proceeded to teach me what could be characterized as Christianized Game. But that’s a misleading characterization. He taught me masculinity. Game consists of PUA-inspired accretions to masculinity.

    In practice, it would probably be hard to tell the difference in content between Christianized Game and “masculinity training” that began without reference to Game. I wouldn’t recommend that anyone swim in the sewer to find a penny, but I won’t necessarily deny that the penny is in there.

  • jf12 says:

    “Come out from among them and be ye separate” is excellent advice to everyone except to young men who can’t get any dates at all.

  • Scott says:

    By the way–you are right. The “Christian Rock” thing is an analogy that doesn’t really convey the true stakes in the problem of “Christian Game.”

    I assent that attempting to Christianize rock is just retarded. Trying to Christian Game may cost you much more.

  • Pilgrim of the East says:

    Ok, this will be a bit longer:

    It is a conceit of Christian Game supporters that, not only do they personally have the wisdom and discernment to separate the gold from the dross for themselves, but all the men they are evangelizing do too.

    That discernment doesn’t look too hard though, judging from what Dalrock recently wrote:

    Still, as a reminder I propose the following simple test when considering if applying a Game concept is sinful or not:
    Is it loving, and in accordance with your role as a biblical husband?
    Is it otherwise sinful, or does it encourage either of you to sin?

    Either you can assume that all game is sinful and therefore people who stuck to these rules won’t follow it at all or they understand by “game” something different than you.

    Game is less a way of embracing reality than it is of avoiding reality, and asking for an alternative to it is frequently just a rhetorical bluff.

    IIRC, the one who was asking was Free Northerner, who seems to support DeepStrength’s views now. None of people who are still arguing from the Christian game perspective asked for game alternative, so you’re just being demagogical.

    The grass is always greener until you are the one facing down the cannons. On Facebook people only show the good and flattering stuff. The neighbors always have a nice lawn. Marriage and family is hard, hard, hard, hard, harder than you can possibly imagine before you have been through it — especially when commonplace but terrible adversities, like the ones a commenter mentions, hit.

    But being single and sexually frustrated is a bed of roses, right? You are doing exactly what are you accusing others of.

    Scott’s observation that you can’t really Christianize Rock without it becoming something other than Rock

    or maybe it isn’t observation but just unfounded claim, because saying that inherent part of rock music are anti-establishment lyrics is easily refuted by rock music which is for example only about romantic love.

    but becoming less awkward, more dominant, etc is something that awkward men have had to do throughout all of history.

    is it really? Isn’t there just a slightest possibility, that being raised in front of computer screen playing computer games alone made men today far more awkward than anytime in the past?

    And the people who are attracted to that sort of solution are just the sort of people who aren’t equipped to deal with it.
    right, you mean like this – http://josephofjackson.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/my-story/ ?

    P.S.: that stuff about Novaseeker seems a bit hypocritical – his attitude of “you can’t make me change my mind, but I will continue to argue with you” is identical to yours

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:
    It has been at least a year since Deti said anything I didn’t already know he was going to say.

  • Patrick says:

    I think Game speaks to people basically because the average game pervert has a better handle on masculinity than the average Christian. I read Roissy I would say because he gives all kinds of examples of masculine dominance in action. Same with Sunshine Mary who gives examples of masculine dominance by explaining her own submissiveness and critiquing feminist behavior. She’s a Christian. Vox Day gives a lot of examples and explanations of female behavior. The whole situation is humorous because Game is in essence masculinity detached from morality and sentimentality. But Christians out there mostly want to reconnect it with sentimentality. In the manosphere Christians and game perverts alike will say men and women are not equal. In the Church all you ever hear is men and women are equal in dignity, pure sentimentality.

  • Scott says:

    “or maybe it isn’t observation but just unfounded claim, because saying that inherent part of rock music are anti-establishment lyrics is easily refuted by rock music which is for example only about romantic love.”

    That’s true but I have always been under the impression that there is no such thing as a perfect analogy. Christ himself told some pretty cool stories that were great analogies but you could nit-pick each parable and say “yeah, but it’s not EXACLTY like that.”

    I have gone over the Deti’s post and thing is he make some compelling points. He is focused on 1. the lies Christian men have been sold/told and 2. stop analyzing what they can’t do because they have heard enough of it already. Both of those are true/excellent points.

    It is clear to me that I arrived late in the discussion and need to read more. I will refrain from more comments because the body of literature on this topic is obviously robust and I have not read it all.

    I am 42 and married. My wife has on our own website admitted to having to be dragged kicking and screaming across the biblical submission threshold. I think that has given me some experience/wisdom I might be able to impart on young Christian men around me. Some are married. Some are considering it. For now I have concluded that 1. “Game” probably has aggregated wisdom from many sources–and much of it is from what theology calls “general revelation” and is therefore harmless. 2. It’s current format [may have] arose from an attempt to help guys pick up girls and get laid and that concerns me. 3. I am personally uncomfortable with much of it for reasons I have discussed [mostly at Dalrock] but essentially because it makes me feel like I am following my older brothers “how to get chicks” advice when I was in high school (and it worked). Those are internal problems for me to work out, of course.

    I remain on the fence about what to call it, and grow weary from time to time discussing it. As I wrote at the top of this, I will stop and read much more than I comment for a while. I have much to digest and I think that’s why God puts other Christians in our lives–I learn a little from you, you learn a little from me. Please, continue!

  • From Mike T:
    “what about the men who marry one accidentally or foolishly do so thinking she’ll be a great, horny wife?”

    Game, if anything, increases dramatically a man’s likelihood of securing exactly this type of woman as wife, even granting that it works at all to secure marriage.

    Also, let me just point out for the cheap seats that “game” is a very, very, very, very, very small community. And yet game-advocates whine epically, as Patrick does, that no church anywhere teaches that men and women are different and when told of a church or parish that does, sneer dismissively or openly ignore the information.

    It is completely true there aren’t many churches preaching and behaving sanely about masculinity and male/female roles. But they do exist and the easiest way to have more of them is to…attend them or listen to their sermons/homilies where available if attending isn’t possible.

    And yet people who will spend hours upon hours parsing roissy blog posts for “wisdom” will not bother going to such churches, or quite often, church at all. The unchurchedness of Christian game-fans has always been a clear sign of the spoilt quality of the fruit game grows.

  • Peter Blood says:

    P.S.: that stuff about Novaseeker seems a bit hypocritical – his attitude of “you can’t make me change my mind, but I will continue to argue with you” is identical to yours

    Blog Owner == AMOG.

  • Elspeth says:

    Game, if anything, increases dramatically a man’s likelihood of securing exactly this type of woman as wife, even granting that it works at all to secure marriage.

    +1

  • Patrick says:

    You’re doing a great job furthering your cause as an imitation woman by incessantly yammering and lecturing men. Yes, that is the role intended for women in Christianity.

  • Gavrila says:

    Around 1960 or thereabouts all traditions, all the wisdom of the ages, were jettisoned from public discourse and I think this is the reason why modern people are so helpless – lacking even the knowledge of where to look for knowledge. Political correctness is the eradication of true knowledge of human nature from life.

    However I read many, many old books and I can tell you (after reading all of Roissy’s archives in a pique of boredom) that all the true elements in manosphere/game have been stated previously, elsewhere, and more eloquently.

    You could learn more from flirting with women in the day-time and reading Chaucer and Tolstoy in the evenings than you could from reading twenty game blogs.

    Part of the appeal of Roissy is the intellectual hand-holding where he goes through an encounter/exchange/concept and purports to explain it bit by bit. Aspects of masculinity are pinpointed and labelled. For people who know nothing, this must be reassuring.

    But even if you were to sanitise game for Christian sensibilities (removing profanity, references to fornication etc.) you would still be left with, at best, a half-true thing.

    “The instruments of darkness tell us truths,/Win us with honest trifles, to betray us/In deepest consequence.”

  • Game-fans, at least in comment-discourse, seem to have trouble with the concept of being polite without genuflecting. They seem to believe all politeness is genuflection. That kind of social fail hardly speaks to game’s supposed genius at teaching men to tame the dark hearts of naughty women or whathaveyou.

    When they snark, it’s catty, basically feminine. That’s also fairly telling.

  • Patrick says:

    I’ve read Chaucer and Tolstoy and I still like the infotainment of Game blogs.

  • Gavrila says:

    Before I delve into the falsity of game, let me discuss the why of the falsity of game. (Partial explanation only, since the falsity of game is a big topic.)

    Ok. I’ll begin at the beginning. God makes man. God destroys world in flood. Starts over.

    Then everything is going swimmingly (more or less) up until about 1960 or so. Political correctness begins and all cultural wisdom is thrown-out.

    Fast-forward to 2014. Man knows not himself nor woman neither. His surrounding culture is composed of ideological gibberish which, in practice, does not conform to reality.

    How does the PUA/Gamer attempt to free himself from this situation?

    He goes out, participates in male-female sexual interactions – observes, collates empirical findings (field reports), identifies conceptual understandings of female nature and labels them. He creates an intellectualised understanding of (what he calls) true male and female nature – in defiance of, and conflicting, PC.

    What is he doing wrong? Answer: He’s doing everything wrong.

    What gamers call a “natural” is someone who is tuned in to what we could call, for lack of a better term, the ‘wisdom of the body’. They are acting from instinct or from unconscious understandings gained through early experience.

    The gamers, on the other hand, are operating from a textbook – which they wrote themselves! They’re ensconced within the post-1960 culture, knowing nothing, and they’re going to reinvent the wheel from scratch.

    Consequently the problems we sometimes see with flawed political or economic theories crop up in game, e.g. conflating correlation with causation, misinterpretation of phenomena.

    Except Game is not even a pseudo-science since no gamer ever claimed to be using the scientific method or to even know what it is.

    And why do game writers so often assume that the counterintuitive explanation is most likely to be true (I see this over and over in game blogs)? Intellectual vanity? Gnostic inclination? Perhaps it is because they are such perfect counter-naturals.

  • Gavrila says:

    Hi Patrick.

    Somewhere in ‘The Canterbury Tales’ (I forgot to bookmark it), the word “nyce” is used disparagingly as a synonym for stupid. So apparently “nyce” guys were the butt of insults even in the 14th century!

  • jf12 says:

    If anything, (hetero) game involves potentially naughty-seeming play between a man and a woman. It is Biblically expected (Genesis 26:8, Song of Solomon, etc.). Moreover, although cautionary, it is Biblically expected that a man is going to have to be worldly in order to be pleasing to his wife.
    1 Cor 7:33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

  • nickbsteves says:

    The speculations are hilarious to anyone who knows me in person.

    I cannot resist speculating that you do not have unmarried sons between the age of 13 and 25. Perhaps you do, and perhaps they will all find excellent wives and be excellent husbands and live excellent lives, but if they managed to do that without learning “psychological techniques to influence power relations” then they (and you) will have been uncommonly lucky.

  • peppermint says:

    And even that fate is better than getting pulled into the vortex of nihilism.

    Please consider that I was a nihilist, interested in all manner of perversions, before finding the truth that men and women are different, that sex is for procreation as well as for fun, etc. etc.

    You are not speaking to an audience of Christians in a Christian culture about the dangers of an idea that they could just as easily spend their entire lives ignoring while getting married and having kids. Whatever today’s 20-somethings are, it’s the result of spending their entire lives surrounded by an education and media bubble that refuses to allow hatefacts in, like sex being for procreation, or children are probably going to be like their parents and not just physically. Can you imagine if just one day of a semester of sex ed classes for 16-year-olds focused on drawing Punnett squares? Instead, it’s ‘here, put this condom on a banana and make sexual inuendoes’.

  • Zippy says:

    peppermint:
    FWIW I grew up on Dr Ruth Westheimer and MTV. Our classroom condom banana demonstration was done by an AIDS-infected homosexual; except that it was an actual plastic penis model not a banana, and he also pointed out the most sensitive spots with obvious relish.

  • Zippy says:

    NBS:
    My comment to BL in the other thread applies to you also. You should really take a good hard look at the implications of applying the anti-essentialism you apply to Game to other social phenomena like liberalism.

  • I guess that’s one benefit of game for Christians– easy way to weed out some of the obviously bad husband candidates for our daughters.

  • jf12 says:

    If we totally lop off the badword PUA sites and just link to Dalrock and other safer havens, for explanations of terminology (such as hamsterization) intended to be shorthand characterizations of oft-observed behaviors then we are left with … what I’ve been doing these past couple of months.

  • Sis says:

    I love that you mentioned pragmatism, few have named it as central to game.

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:
    I am supportive of Dalrock and his mission. As I understand it his position is that Christians don’t need Game if they have Biblical marriage. I do take this further than he does, since my position is that support of Game actually undermines important truths and damages Christians. But I don’t expect to agree with anyone about everything.

  • Thankfully pragmatism isn’t central to Christian faith. What I’ve seen of Christians promoting game gives much credence to Zippy’s position on it.

  • peppermint says:

    Back when I was in highschool, they had me truly believing that HIV was easy for anyone to get and not in any way related to the behavior of most gays. They had us unwrap condoms and put them on bananas ourselves, as if unrolling a condom is in any way complicated. Then, my highschool sweetheart ate my banana in front of everyone, which I was a bit scandalized by, believing that displays of affection should be strictly private (unless it’s sodomites making out during a pride parade; then it’s a courageous political statement).

    I wasn’t all feminist, though. I was also a bit of an MRA: I thought that it was great that women could get abortions, and men should be allowed to disavow children.

    Marrying a slut may well be worse than not getting married. What happens if you don’t have any idea what marriage means (indissoluble, open to children)? A lot of kids at my school had single parents; some were never married. This was, of course, completely normal, and not in any way problematic. What happens if you think that everything everyone believed before, say, 1960, was nonsense, and not worth paying the slightest attention to? At one point we were talking about ancestors. I was surprised that the teachers were so horrified by my disparaging remarks concerning the entire concept. I conjectured that washed up old women need to feel like they can live through their children; and made a show of being tactful.

    Your answer, so have a good father, is insulting. My father is a good man, but he is a communist. The only thing he told me about women is not to take advantage of them sexually. I was under the impression that that meant 1-3 year relationships instead of one-night stands, and no sex with drunk women.

    And so I had 1-3 year relationships and did not have sex with drunk women even when they invited me into their beds.

  • Patrick says:

    easy way to weed out some of the obviously bad husband candidates for our daughters.

    You’re just bursting to pile some hate on unworthy men, aren’t you. You fit perfectly into the Game paradigm. You’re part of the reason it exists.

    Maybe the problem some have with Game is they don’t want to let go of their daughters.

    Marriage is a strange topic. On one hand you hear people talking about how good and wonderful it is and how but should be promoted. Then on the other hand people talk about it like it’s a horse race through the Ocean of Fire.

  • Zippy says:

    Patrick:
    It is both of those things.

  • Ian says:

    Zippy,

    I’ve enjoyed following your analysis, and I agree with it. I have not spent much time on Game sites, but on the occasion that I have read one of Roissy’s posts, I get a visceral feeling as though my soul is sinking into hell! Similar perhaps to how I’d feel if I started reading occult material to see what it was all about. I am a bit surprised at how many Christians don’t seem to have this visceral reaction against it.

    I would not feel comfortable if I knew one of sisters were dating a man who read Game sites regularly.

  • No, I don’t fit into the silliness of game, Patrick.

    It’s interesting that you interpret non-approval of game as “hate”. I don’t hate game, it just doesn’t appear to work and doesn’t have much to do with masculinity. Where it does, there are plenty of other, better options to access.

    My children have a good father and husband and are surrounded mostly by Biblically masculine and feminine Christians.

    Of course, whenever a woman says she is well-married, content and fertile, game-advocates proclaim that this means her husband has game. Tautologies are tautological.

    I mostly feel sympathy for the defenders of game. Some of them are fathers and don’t want to consider the option of ‘being a good father’ themselves to prepare their sons to be suitable husbands for a devout Christian woman.

    Sometimes the right choice is hard. Game sounds a lot easier, it’s tempting to think there’s an easy answer, a little red pill to fix all one’s woes.

  • Patrick says:

    You do fit into game, perfectly, like I said, but arguing the point is counterproductive. I know that because of Game.

    You don’t attack Game, you attack defenders of Game.

    “Hate” in context can’t be taken literally or as referring to disapproval of Game, but only as to vocal disapproval and rejection of Game adherents.

    Even your attempt at sympathy is a veiled rejection the unworthy who “don’t want to consider the option of ‘being a good father’ themselves…” Speaking of tautologies.

    You’re wrong. There are not plenty of other better options.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Just a quick note. Went to Deti’s post. He asks for alternatives to game. I offer some. Turns out that the other good thing about game is that you don’t have to really put effort or money into it to get it. Who woulda known?

    Zippy, you have him pegged. You offer solutions that are not game, he finds deficiencies and cry’s no, again only game has the answer.

    My last comment was, “then stop asking and start selling”

    What a tool.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Nick – “but if they managed to do that without learning “psychological techniques to influence power relations” then they (and you) will have been uncommonly lucky.”

    Really? you jest surely?

    I have 2 sons that have strong LTRs right now. They don’t “practice” game. they were just raised with discipline and expectations. You know, I was a father.

  • Blogmaster says:

    Another home run, Zippy. Hammer, nail, wham.

  • Alte says:

    Can we please stop acting like Roissy is the only blogger to write about Game? I wrote lots of Game posts, too, and so have many other Christians.

    As I understand it his position is that Christians don’t need Game if they have Biblical marriage.

    Utopianism?

    I, for one, am grateful for the explicit illiteration of the rules of social interaction — including those involving the opposite sex. My children have to learn that sort of thing painstakingly, and it’s nice to know a way to describe it in a clear and simple manner.

    The entire counter-argument to Game boils down to, “If you have to ask the price, then you can’t afford one.”

  • Am I the only one who thinks it’s bizarre that much of this discussion revolves around some men being hysterically angry that a stranger on the internet who goes by Zippy “doesn’t care?”

  • Can we please stop acting like Roissy is the only blogger to write about Game? I wrote lots of Game posts, too, and so have many other Christians.

    No, but Roissy is, if not the father, the godfather of game. To speak of game, you ultimately will get back to Roissy.

  • The entire counter-argument to Game boils down to, “If you have to ask the price, then you can’t afford one.”

    No, it’s “If you reject the immoral parts of game, it’s no longer game.”

  • Zippy says:

    Who practices Game by name and has never heard of it being used for pickup? Who evangelizes about Game by name and has never heard of Roissy?

    Game without sexual (and other) immorality is like liberalism without freedom and equality.

    “Liberalism is a tool box. We can take what is good in it and avoid what is evil. Those evil consequences don’t stem from our liberalism.”

    From such antiessentialist sentiments our present conditions were wrought. So if we want more of the same, let’s go ahead and embrace antiessentialism.

  • nickbsteves says:

    You should really take a good hard look at the implications of applying the anti-essentialism you apply to Game to other social phenomena like liberalism.

    That presupposes quite a series facts not yet entered in evidence—a series so tenuous, in fact, to make me suspect one would require secret knowledge to see them.

  • jf12 says:

    Let’s suppose we can repackage for our children the PUA “gifts” of demysteryfying (ho ho ho) and reductionism of seduction elements, and call those combinations of elements and techniques different names, directing those means to the end of a better wife, and never tell them about the bad santas. Why, we can even refer them to published peer-reviewed psycho-social research that confirms PUA elements. Given that, as supposed, there is no cigar odor tainting the “new” packages, what is the precise objection to them?

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:
    The proposal (which is typical of the responses I get) certainly sounds reasonable when it first strikes the ears, but it again rests on a reductionist and antiessentialist view of the matter. It is analogous to right-liberal (or classical liberal) proposals to create a liberal democracy that doesn’t devolve into leftist tyranny, and their protestations that leftist tyranny isn’t true liberalism: that they can construct a liberalism under which they select what is genuinely good about freedom and equal rights and avoid crafting an incoherent foundation that leads to tyranny and the destruction of the good, the true, and the beautiful.

    It sounds reasonable, but it is a utopian dream.

    Proposals to ‘rescue’ Game from its own essence are like proposals to ‘rescue’ liberalism from its own essence. They are well-intentioned, sound perfectly reasonable to modern ears, strike the practical man as common sense, and are a disastrous error. In my view folks who think that way need a change in their fundamental understanding of social reality. They need to take the “red pill” and see that they live in a world of essences; essences which cannot be arbitrarily partitioned and selected and reconstructed according to their will; that things like Game, liberalism, democracy, sluttiness, rock-n-roll, etc have essences and that the modern project to remake them as we see fit according to our will is a complete failure. There is a reason why the smartest of the perverts see “Christian Game” as a joke: because they are essentialists, and it is the Christian Game supporters who are antiessentialists.

    That fundamentally is why Christians must reject Game: because for men to accept the idea of a “Christian Game” is for them to accept the entire antiessentialist metaphysics of modernity, and just haggle over irrelevant details.

    The usual move from there is to dismiss this as an academic point that ignores practical realities. But it isn’t an academic point. As many have learned from just losing some of their illusions about women and feminism, changing one’s fundamental world view to better reflect reality – including the reality that social ‘things’ have essences which cannot be remade in an act of the will – is far more practically important than any technique.

  • johnmcg says:

    Go into the comments section of any Game-friendly site, write something critical of Roissy, and watch what happens.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Let’s suppose we can repackage…

    Will nobody put that package together? Then we can argue over it and validate Zippy’s contention.

  • Zippy says:

    Peter Blood:
    In the case of liberalism, right-liberals (“conservatives”) have been trying to do just that for a couple of centuries. How has that worked out for them so far?

    It is no accident that men with a naturally ‘conservative’ disposition are the ones who are trying to ‘Christianize’ Game.

  • Patrick says:

    How about my explanation that Game is masculinity detached from morality and sentimentality? Isn’t that still essentialist? Does masculinity equate with morality or are there perverts who are authentically masculine? I think the problem for the anti-gamers is like I said above, that the game bloggers have a better handle on masculinity today than the average Christian. If you want to learn about masculinity, go to the masculine men. If you want to learn about movie-making, go to the best movie-makers, not to Christian studios whose best work is the Left Behind movies.

  • Zippy says:

    Patrick:

    …game bloggers have a better handle on masculinity today than the average Christian.

    So does the average heavy metal singer. I’m not sure why anyone thinks this addresses the point.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Zippy, it’s really a matter of shoving in enough of Auster’s “unprincipled exceptions” to make it tolerable, isn’t it?

    I’d still like to see them give it a go. It could be valuable as a case study.

  • Zippy says:

    Peter Blood:

    Zippy, it’s really a matter of shoving in enough of Auster’s “unprincipled exceptions” to make it tolerable, isn’t it?

    Yep.

  • Peter Blood says:

    It could be valuable, because a lot of people will see better when dealing with a concrete specific than with the highest-level abstract. I’m like that, I always like examples.

  • Patrick says:

    If you want to learn about masculinity you find masculine men and learn about masculinity.

  • Zippy says:

    Patrick:
    That’s all there is to it, eh? If you didn’t have a daddy, any daddy will do?

    What could possibly go wrong?

  • Patrick says:

    There are no easy answers, right?

  • Zippy says:

    Peter Blood:
    The problem is though that things can look very reasonable until the consequences work their way through society and individual lives. Even folks as late in the day as Chesterton might be forgiven for thinking that liberal democracy could be rescued from itself. But it can’t.

    Here is how one of the most vociferous married advocates for Christianizing Game in these threads recounts how he is using Game in a totally, totally, innocent value-neutral Christian-compatible way.

  • Zippy says:

    Patrick:

    There are no easy answers, right?

    Actually you proposed an easy answer: “If you want to learn about masculinity you find masculine men and learn about masculinity.”

    No, you don’t. The answer isn’t that easy. If you are Christian you don’t make perverts into authorities on authentic masculinity.

  • jf12 says:

    Vociferous only because new and still in the room of the unlearned. Young men SHOULD have gotten the message that girls are easy when they were in their teens. Instead, the vast majority of men learned the hard way that girls make themselves extremely difficult except for bad boys.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Isn’t jf12 married?

  • Zippy says:

    Peter Blood:

    Yes.

  • jf12 says:

    Also, my rationalization.
    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/how-to-spot-a-player/#comment-108832

    Let’s bandy about the definition of the “masculine”, shall we? Does it encompass being attractive to women?

  • Peter Blood says:

    From his comment at Dalrock’s: “Game game is the game I’ve been running on now 13 for 13 women of all ages in the past year or so.”

    Married man running game on 13 women in one year?

    Being a natural alpha, I guess I’m unwittingly running game on every woman.

  • Zippy says:

    That’s my problem too Peter. I live inside an autistic-natural-alpha reality distortion field.

  • johnmcg says:

    First is improving my abundance mentality in order to help me help my wife be a better woman without me resorting to dread game.

    Yes, because this captures the entire universe of options.

    We had to abort the baby rather than condemn her to a life of misery and abuse.

    Second is improving my ability to withstand tempting offers upon improving other aspects of me, including physical attractiveness and dominance (separate from game) towards women, which was already problematic twice before deciding to start gaming up and will be increasingly, as I suspect.

    Which is why prudent recovering alcoholics regularly hang out in bars.

    Third is me helping women get the game I now know they want without them having to resort to bad men.

    Prostitutes could justify their behavior similarly.

    Married Christian man should not be describing interactions with women not their wives in the manner of a Penthouse Forum letter.

    Period.

    And if you find yourself doing that, it should be a clue that you’ve stayed significantly from the straight and narrow, not bragging about it.

  • jf12 says:

    Concerning myself and calibrating my own unlearnedness for you, I had kinda sorta set out on using my first “conquest” specifically to make my wife jealous, just so she could see some other woman might be interested and thereby maybe step up, and I fumbled the ball. After my indeed arousing actual interest in a platinum (bottle) blonde submissive-towards-me single mom, she was kinda sorta looking forward to meeting my wife, who was barely aware of her. When they met, though, it was no contest, a forfeit, my wife being an alpha among women.

    What does one learn from one failure the one time one tried one thing, without guidance?

  • jf12 says:

    I can’t justify it EXCEPT on my total lack of prior success with women. What do you propose would have solved that?

  • Peter Blood says:

    jf12 also says, “…improving my ability to withstand tempting offers…

    If you think you know you’re rationalizing, you’re not.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Zippy, I guess jf12 suffices as a good example.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: prudent recovering teetotaler (and btw I do not drink). Consider the plight of an unattractively beta married man who rather suddenly finds himself the object of attentions from an attractive woman, perhaps as a result of him following a Christian masculinization program (Guaranteed Results! It’s a bloominary tautology!), say. Would it be better for him to erroneously think that that one attractive woman is the one who would be attracted? Or would it be better for him to find out that multiple women are attracted?

  • jf12 says:

    I do consider myself a good example of the overwhelming need for gooder game training.

  • johnmcg says:

    ). Consider the plight of an unattractively beta married man…

    Consider the Cross.

  • Peter Blood says:

    jf12, you learned these skills and powers, but now you can’t stop! Oops.

  • jf12 says:

    I can stop any time I want to!

    Keep in mind I got frivorced at 30 from the only woman ever to have shown interest in me, heroically died a thousand deaths while trying to date uninterested women for a decade, then unheroically got married to the second interested woman, who then became uninterested.

    And your alternative is …?

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “an autistic-natural-alpha reality distortion field.” I wouldn’t say that, but I would say you tend towards the Somebody Else’s Problem field.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Uh, stop running game on women not your wife?

  • johnmcg says:

    I may have been a little harsh, so let me unpack a little bit.

    Is it the worst thing in the world that a married Christian man would enjoy sexualized attention from a woman other than his wife? Probably not. It’s a sin, but I can’t claim with confidence that I would not succumb to the same temptation given the opportunity.* It’s a matter between one’s self and one’s confessor.

    What is more problematic to me is membership in a group where such activities are something to brag about and get cheered on than something to be meekly confessed. That is a real problem. We should aim to surround ourselves with people who call us to our best selves, not who give us high fives for our sins.

    As for my “consider the Cross,” which I understand may come off a little flippant.

    I understand that the current trends represent a bad deal for many men, in some cases intolerably so.

    Nevertheless, in global and worldwide terms, my suspicion is that being a white Christian male in 2014 America is still one of the best deals historically and globally. A bit of perspective is in order. Given the opportunity to trade places with a random other person throughout the world or throughout history, few 2014 white American males would take that offer.

    If white Christian males in 2014 America are justified in entering into PUA culture because they’ve gotten such a raw deal, who in history would not be so justified? How can we justify any criminal laws or judgments, since I’m quite confident all perpetrators are acting from a narrative (in many cases and accurate one) that this is the only valid response to their oppression?

    So yes, I think the Christian white male who finds himself married to a demanding wife who has put on some weight and doesn’t want to have sex with him any more should spend as much time looking at a crucifix as he does looking at PUA sites.

    * which also raises the question of presenting oneself in such a manner that welcomes such opportunities.,

  • Andrew E. says:

    “Uh, stop running game on women not your wife?”

    Part of game just means to run game on women not your wife, or your girlfriend, or whatever.

  • Andrew E. says:

    Which is to say that jfl2 is doing it right.

  • johnmcg says:

    Part of game just means to run game on women not your wife, or your girlfriend, or whatever.

    Is that part the baby or the bathwater?

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “* which also raises the question of presenting oneself in such a manner that welcomes such opportunities” The only real Alternative that I discern is sharpening the knife to help my eunuchization.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “Is that part the baby or the bathwater?” There is not a magic feather of confidence. The relevance of confidence, here, is nothing more and nothing less than the abundance mentality. And there is absolutely no other way for a non-abundance-mentality man to get it. Which is to say: What is YOUR suggested alternative?

  • johnmcg says:

    The only real Alternative that I discern is sharpening the knife to help my eunuchization.

    Well, that would at least be Biblical.

  • johnmcg says:

    What is YOUR suggested alternative?

    In short, my suggested alternative is the Cross. It is not popular. It is not a quick fix. It is not guaranteed to lead to happiness. It is not something I follow perfectly myself. But it is the only Way for those of us who claim to be Christians.

    If that means living as a celibate, it means living as a celibate. if it means casting aside that which causes you to sin, it means casting aside that which causes you to sin.

    I do not have a set of moral steps for you to follow to get what you want, because I’m not positive you’re supposed to have what you want.

  • Peter Blood says:

    jf12, I suggested you stop running game on all women, and you rejected that. FULL STOP.

  • jf12 says:

    “I’m not positive you’re supposed to have what you want.” Earthly marriage is supposed to represent to the world the love between the ascended Christ and the Church triumphant. It fails in purpose whenever the wife is unsubmissive because she in unattracted because her husband was too nice to her before.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: stopping. Yes, but I only just started. Stopping, i.e. not starting, earlier, didn’t work.

  • johnmcg says:

    Each step in your conclusion is far from 100% established.

    The fails in purpose
    whenever the wife is unsubmissive
    because she is unattracted
    because her husband is nice to her before.

    Let’s say each of of those steps has a 90% chance of being true, assuming the truth of its precendencs. I.e., if the marriage is failing, we are 90% sure it is because the wife is being unsubmissive, and if that’s true, then we are 90% sure it is because she is unattracted.

    Given that, we the probability of this entire chain is 0.9 * 0,9 * 0.9 * 0.9 = 59%.

    And I would say 90% is a pretty high degree of confidence to apply to each of these diagnoses, particularly since they lead to self-serving conclusions.

  • jf12 says:

    Not a hypothetical. Suppose there is a love pill, which if a wife takes regularly will ensure that she continues to act submissive and loving and sexually available for her husband, so he doesn’t have to work at being broadly attractive to, uh, broads, to get her attentions the way she’s supposed to. Would her taking the love pill be a good thing? An alternative, of sorts?

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “particularly since they lead to self-serving conclusions” true. The observable fact is that running game is suspiciously easy on the new women and suspiciously difficult on the old, er, lady. I doubt this is because I selected her *because* she was difficult. Instead, I think this merely an instance of familiarity breeding contempt, as also characteristic of essentially all women greatly losing interest after a short honeymoon period. Is there a *viable* alternative to reigniting interest other than the man becoming less familiar i.e. more estranged?

  • johnmcg says:

    “Reigniting interest” is not God. God is God. It is possible you may be called to a life that is not dependent on your wife’s continued sexual attraction to you.

    The pill you propose has (if you accept my probablilities) a 59% of addressing the root cause of the issues, even if one assumes it is 100% effective at addressing every step in the chain, which in reality is unlikely.

    It also has a nasty side effect of (at least as you have applied it) leading the husband into sin 100% of the time.

    So, in my mind, it’s far from a slam-dunk.

  • Peter Blood says:

    I’m not some great advice giver, and as a natural alpha, I don’t think I am capable of directing young men on how to repair marriages damaged from excess betatude.

    But, man, even I can tell you’re playing with fire.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: side effect. No, literally a pill.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/unexcited-there-may-be-a-pill-for-that.html
    An “easy answer” real Alternative.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “as a natural alpha” exactly. Your advice to “flee fornication” is great advice to those for whom fornication has a nonvanishing probability. For incels and others with betatude, it’s merely a mocking insult.

  • Peter Blood says:

    So you’re not really deliberately pursing getting tempted by tempting offers from other women? It’s just Internet Boasting? OK, next time give us the truth up front.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: alternative. I’ve shared several “Penthouse” narratives depicting the efficacy of game (platonic albeit stomping all over the line). Anyone care to share a narrative depicting the efficacy of non-game alternative?

    And no, “I was just sitting there, all masculine and all, naturally, and she just started bringing me sandwiches for no reason!” self-serving exultations do not count.

  • jf12 says:

    I’m “really deliberately pursing” nonbetatude, really, yes.

  • So game gets you committing adultery in your heart (in Christian terms). That’s not much of an advertisement for Christian husbands to rush out and start using game.

  • jf12 says:

    I find it interesting that the women commenters, here, all claim that their husbands do not bother seeking to please their wives.

  • jf12 says:

    “That’s not much of an advertisement for Christian husbands to rush out and start using game.” hence the need for an alternative.

  • This woman made no such claim. I barely mentioned my own husband specifically except to note that he is a good father and husband, which he is.

  • Peter Blood says:

    In my view, “stomping all over the line” with a view to “improving my ability to withstand tempting offers” == playing with fire. You don’t see it that way? How are we supposed to see it?

  • Zippy says:

    The lyrics to the theme song for this post are remarkably appropriate given the progression of the comments.

  • Peter Blood says:

    I really do have sympathy for young men who struggle with masculinity, or have a wretched marriage. I’ve never posed as someone who has all sorts of answers, I have no problem admitting that and even saying I’m a natural alpha.

    So jf12, why are you such a bitter pill to deal with?

  • Patrick says:

    Actually you proposed an easy answer: “If you want to learn about masculinity you find masculine men and learn about masculinity.”

    No, you don’t. The answer isn’t that easy. If you are Christian you don’t make perverts into authorities on authentic masculinity.

    That’s the only answer, as far as I can tell. Has anyone proposed something different? Since authentic masculinity is amoral, perverts can embody it as well as anyone. My sense of it is the game bloggers have authentic masculinity, and there is dismay, with reason, that non-Christians have basically cornered the market on masculinity, in the blogosphere and on the web, anyway, and in parishes for the most part. If there were an actual Christian alternative, it would be obvious. Catholic men are probably too busy with their kids to write about things of interest to unattached drifters and misogynists, or are priests who naturally aren’t that interested in intersexual dynamics.

  • jf12 says:

    An analogy. Ultra clean.

    One day Thomas the Train crashed into rubbish on the tracks and derailed. “Oh noes! Help! Help!” he wailed, lying on his side. Some time later, Sir Topham Hatt puffed up on Percy, unhelpfully. “Tut, tut,Thomas, you are being MOST unhelpful,” he tutted severely, before puffing away. The rubbish was cleared away by Toby with his cowcatcher. “Thanks, Toby,” said Thomas, “but I could really do with a lift back onto the rails. Do you know of anyone who could do that?” “How about Kevin the Motorized Crane?” suggested Toby. “I’ll swing by his place on the wrong side of the tracks before hitting the shed for the night.” Thomas sighed in relief. “Thanks, you’re a real friend, Toby!”

    The next morning, Sir Topham Hatt was scolding Thomas for not doing right when Kevin drove up. On the road. Off the rails. “What is that contraption doing here?” spluttered Hatt loudly “Don’t you know we don’t allow any off-rail activities here?! Besides, you can’t lift an engine ONTO the rails by working OFF the rails. That’s like a natural law, or something,” followed by a sotto voce disclaimer that neither Kevin nor Thomas heard. “But Sir,” demurred, “Kevin’s done it before with others! And look! There are lifting hooks on me, here, and here!”

    “NO!” shouted Hatt. “I will not listen to any more of this nonsense. Those lifting hooks were placed there for the railcar crane which I’ve designed and redesigned and have been forever just about ready to show the world. I’m sorry, Thomas, but you’ll just have to lie there, unhelpfully, until the Alternative arrives, maybe next spring if you’re lucky.” “Thank you, Sir!” said Thomas gratefully, having learned where ungratefulness might get him. “Spring is the loveliest time of year!”

  • Zippy says:

    Patrick:

    Has anyone proposed something different?

    The commenter Aquinas Dad has had lots of suggestions across multiple threads and web sites.

    Since authentic masculinity is amoral, …

    That is one assumption; a reductionist one. But it is far from obvious that it is actually true; in fact it almost certainly is not, because authentic masculinity is good. A big problem with the whole “Christian Game” mindset is the idea that there are all of these value neutral things that can be taken apart and reassembled in such a way that their evil configuration has been destroyed and replaced by a good configuration.

    But very little in this world is truly value-neutral. Just as the world is filled to the brim with essences, it is also filled to the brim with values. I agree with Andrew E that commenter jf12 is practicing Game correctly; and only a fool thinks that what he is doing is value-neutral.

  • johnmcg says:

    Can I also point out the severe irony of Christians, who follow a religion named after a man, whose central belief is that God Himself came down from Heaven to live among as this man, lament that Christianity offers them no models of Christianity, and thus they must sit at the knee of pick-up artists?

    Yes, I know Jesus didn’t marry, but my goodness…

  • Well, when people post links to churches and denominations that seem to have masculinity on the ball, those links are dismissed as irrelevant. I think it boils down to pro-game Christian men not wanting to submit to properly ordered authority and accept their places in a correctly ordered hierarchy.

    I’ve written about it a little bit on my blog, the complete misunderstanding of patriarchy. It’s not just bossing your wife around or manipulating her like a ball of playdoh. It’s a complex set of interrelationships where in some circumstances a man can in fact be overridden as authority in his own household. And no, those circumstances are not ‘wife is mad at/bored with husband’.

    This has little to do with the modern denial of right authority, it’s simply that in trying to climb out from under that pile of error, pro-game folks end up in a different, but still atomized modernist view of husband-wife relations. Thus they think game is a solution, when it’s just a different sort of problem.

  • Zippy says:

    TUW:
    I’ve mentioned before that “men are leaders, women are followers” is wrong because men are mostly followers too. In a natural hierarchy most men would be under far stricter authority than they are now. So I agree that what many of them want is a new kind of arrangement: liberalism for men but not for women, in effect. For that sort the red pill may be swirling around in their mouths, but they haven’t actually swallowed it yet.

  • jf12 says:

    We’ll let lying Thomases be very unuseful, I suppose.

    Anyway here is the reason for the paradox of Christian game:
    Marital knowledge, characteristically especially (but not limited to) carnal knowledge, is fundamentally and INHERENTLY worldly. Not spiritual. It is earthly temporal stuff, not heavenly eternal stuff.

    Matt 19:10-12. Matt 22:30. 1 Cor 7:33. 1 Cor 7:38. C’mon, surely you can give me more. Right?

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @jf12

    “Anyway here is the reason for the paradox of Christian game:
    Marital knowledge, characteristically especially (but not limited to) carnal knowledge, is fundamentally and INHERENTLY worldly.”

    Those verses do not say what you want them to say, and you have purposefully left out the surrounding verses that give a context you don’t want to confront.

    Those passages do not say if we be married then we must be worldly. They say if we marry then we will desire to be more worldly for the sakes of our spouses, and anxious about it. They encourage us not to fall to that temptation; to live as though we were not anxious about the things of the world; to keep our attentions on how to please God while yet married.

    Not spiritual. It is earthly temporal stuff, not heavenly eternal stuff.

    1. One of the mysteries of Christ is His fully divine and fully human nature. The Son of God really lived. He really died. He really rose from the dead. The earthly temporal stuff matters.

    2. So quickly you forget that this whole thing started with a disordered relationship between Adam and Eve.

    3. The Epistles refer repeatedly to the importance of ordered marriage as a symbol of the Gospel (see 1.), and as a tool (the good kind!) to combat sin.

    4. Ordered marriage is a pre-requisite for official positions in the church. It is a main way we can deduce whether that person has the understanding to lead and serve effectively.

    5. Sex is the marital act; the thing you do when married. It brings forth life, and it is incredibly rewarding in a host of ways.

  • jf12 says:

    And it is better not to marry. So, it is worse to marry. The end.

  • jf12 says:

    The condom with the hole in it. That’s how the light gets in …

  • Alte says:

    The arguments against Game are spiraling down into philosophical silliness.

    Group 1: Men who want to acquire or have acquired Game through grueling personal effort. (The idea that Game is easy is ridiculous, by the way. Self-improvement efforts are hard, which is why most people don’t bother with them.)

    Group 2: Men who have Game and the women who tingle for them. These men don’t use Game intentionally, they just ooze sex by habit, and are therefore all holier than thou and stuff.

    And then you wonder why the Group 2 men aren’t going to take your advice on the subject, Zippy. You have no cred on the subject cuz you drool testosterone all over your keyboard and act like a total psychopath and then go, “I don’t use Game. In fact, I denounce Game!” and expect them all to be impressed. Heh. Nice job, if you can get it.

    I would like for all women who wish to improve their looks to know:

    Stop being so vain! Look to the cross! If you had a Biblical marriage, then your husband wouldn’t care about your appearance anyway. If you are beautiful when you marry, then you’re just going to end up with a man who expects his wife to be beautiful, and nobody wants such a man. Besides, why do you want to be married, in the first place? If you were really serious about the faith, you’d happily die a virgin, like none of us will do. And blah, blah, blah, drop a few Bible verses, blah, blah, blah, mention that I am naturally and effortlessly attractive and how that’s a TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING, and etc.

    And now I’m just repeating myself and finally losing interest in the subject. Even your awe-inspiring frame-control, neg-dropping, relentless qualifying, irrational self-confidence, boldness, and emotional coldness gets boring eventually.

  • Zippy says:

    “The arguments against sluttiness are spiraling down into philosophical silliness. Ugly girls with daddy issues need sluttiness in order to acquire their share of alpha f**** and beta b****.”

  • Zippy says:

    It seems to me that some Christian women want to protect slutty dress and behavior from criticism (as long as it doesn’t lead to actual fornication) for the same reasons that some Christian men want to protect Game from criticism. So naturally the interests of men who defend Game and women who defend sluttiness are aligned, for those who are perceptive enough to see it.

    That’s just the actual situation, and silly speculations about my personal life don’t change anything. If I didn’t exist at all the song would remain the same.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: philosophical silliness. It is, for example, silly to pretend to validly argue from Personal Authority towards e.g. me, especially The Argument From Pomposity starting from “JF12 you ignorant slut. Words in the Bible are infused with the meaning that I give them, not what they say plainly.”

    And then Alte pretends (?) like what she says “Besides, why do you want to be married, in the first place? If you were really serious about the faith, you’d happily die a virgin, like none of us will do. And blah, blah, blah, drop a few Bible verses, blah, blah, blah, mention that I am naturally and effortlessly attractive and how that’s a TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING, and etc.” is NOT the entirey of the Alternative so far presented.

  • Elspeth says:

    LOL, V!

    I found that diatribe thoroughly entertaining, sister. I have to admit that when I read Zippy I find his frame admirable (even those times when I don’t fully agree).

    The problem that these testosterone oozing men have ( and I wonder if Zippy finds hat characterization humorous) is the insistence that one can only develop frame and godly confidence by studying in a school for pick-up artistry. My husband agrees, but then he is a man of strong Christian principle, not given to pragmatism as the route to righteousness.

    But you’re right about one thing. These two sides will never meet so best to just agree to disagree.

  • Elspeth says:

    And even though I am firmly in the “anti-game” camp, I do feel for the men who have been thoroughly emasculated by our sick culture and/or fatherlessness. It’s quite a mess, but even those men mostly end up married.

    From where I sit there is far more work to be done toward training young women to lay aside their tiaras and understand what it means to be a committed and godly wife than there is toward training men to generate tingles.

  • Zippy says:

    Elspeth:
    “Testosterone oozing” is a transparent neg. It is supposed to look like a compliment while undermining my credibility, and is typical of the dishonest dealing inherent to Game.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “there is far more work to be done toward training young women to lay aside their tiaras and understand what it means to be a committed and godly wife than there is toward training men to generate tingles.” couldn’t be truer. And the suggested Alternative for men to be doing during the upcoming umpteen generations (ha!) that it will take to cram the genie of women’s lib back into the home-bottle? Twiddling their thumbs?

  • Elspeth says:

    And the suggested Alternative for men to be doing during the upcoming umpteen generations (ha!) that it will take to cram the genie of women’s lib back into the home-bottle? Twiddling their thumbs?

    I;m not sure, but somehow the strategy of finding ways to sexually arouse rebellious women feels like a losing strategy for Christian marriage over the long haul.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    TUW,
    You wrote,
    ” I think it boils down to pro-game Christian men not wanting to submit to properly ordered authority and accept their places in a correctly ordered hierarchy.”
    And there it is, the simple truth. As a theologian and political theorist each year I am more and more convinced that a huge amount of the problems of the modern world boil down to rejection of legitimate authority.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “You’re twiddling your thumbs wrong.” Yeah, well, I know.

  • Mike T says:

    Zippy,

    Sluttiness, like autism, is both a spectrum and an end point. This is why much of TUW’s criticism and even much of yours doesn’t really address the issue as well as y’all think. It’s not a binary state and it’s entirely possible to marry a woman who is a virgin but has the mindset of a whore.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    I think you are confusing attitude and action. Can a woman who is modest of dress, demure of speech, chaste in action, a virgin on her wedding night, enjoy the marital embrace?
    Of course! But an eagerness for and enjoyment of the marital embrace does not make one a ‘whore’ or a ‘slut’ any more than a husband with the same attitude who is true to his wife is a ‘philanderer’ or ‘cad’.
    On the other hand, a woman who is immodest, brash, and unchaste but has not yet succeeded in debauchery for whatever reason is guilty of immodesty, imprudence, scandal, etc. but she is not a ‘whore’ or a ‘slut’.
    Let us take the reverse – if I were to point out a woman who is immodest, imprudent, and a well-known fornicator would you claim that she is ‘a slut with the mindset of a virgin’? I do hope not!
    Is there a bit of a continuum between ‘virgin’ and ‘slut’. Perhaps a bit of one, but not a great deal of one, actually.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: The effects of sluttiness and playerness are not symmetrical, they’re symplectical. Why? Because I Said So, you ignorant …

    Actually, I’ll actually explain. Because a woman can always get sex, and even charge for it, if so inclined, it is NEVER and can NEVER be good advice to advise a good woman to be more slutty in order to get more interest, no matter the culture. The problem is not the quality of men she will attract, but that she doesn’t need sluttiness to attract. Most men are already attracted to most women, period, no discussion. A demurely dressed woman who submissively requests “Sirrah, wouldst thou do me the honor of escorting me acrost yonder thoroughfare?” is more likely to receive attentions than a sluttily dressed probable hooker.

    Not so for men.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    The sorites paradox is frequently a point of confusion when people think about vices. But if you are learning at the knee of a pervert, the sand pile you are building isn’t virtue.

  • Patrick says:

    At the top of Aquinas Dad’s list is “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” which is just a sentimental Protestant thing like the “The Prayer of Jabez” craze and the “The Shack” craze. He just throws out big lists of authors he knows no one wants to plow through. I asked for a single author/book and he went silent.

    Maybe “amoral” is the wrong word, then. An authentic sense of smell or sight isn’t value-neutral either–it’s good, but it’s possessed by the just and the unjust alike. I’m not talking about taking anything apart and reassembling it in a non-evil configuration. Authentic masculinity isn’t evil.

    Would you point out a living public figure you think embodies “authentic masculinity” and I’ll spend a some time researching him.

    @Unreal Woman
    So you’ve devised a complicated definition of patriarchy in which you’re in authority over men. I can’t say I’m surprised.

    Patriarchy at its most basic is just the kids a particular woman produces belong to the father, who alone has sexual access to said woman.

  • Patrick says:

    Oh sorry Aquinas Dad I didn’t notice you had started commenting in this thread or I wouldn’t have referred to you in the third person

  • Zippy says:

    Patrick:

    Patriarchy at its most basic is just the kids a particular woman produces belong to the father, who alone has sexual access to said woman.

    No it isn’t. Patriarchy is first and foremost a natural hierarchy of men. The nuclear family is just the most individualized social element in the hierarchy.

    But your understanding confirms exactly what TUW suggested: that what many want isn’t a return of patriarchy at all. What many actually want is a mostly liberal society, where liberalism is for men but an unprincipled exception to liberalism is made for the family unit.

    But there are no “mostly liberal” societies, because fully liberal societies are impossible in principle. So the “patriarchy” this sort of reactionary wants is empty. It is (as I’ve said before) just like the typical well-meaning naive “conservatism” that just wants to conserve an earlier, less purified form of liberalism. Indeed it is a form of that kind of “conservatism”.

    But that kind of “conservatism” is deluded. Every liberal society trends leftward by its nature, and trying to preserve liberal society while making unprincipled exceptions to liberalism cannot work.

  • Zippy says:

    (The commenter “Matt” in those VFR articles is me).

  • johnmcg says:

    jf12,

    Get. Over. Yourself.

    Seriously, What Alternative do you suggest for Coptic Christians in Egypt? The unborn child about to be aborted? And countless others who have much bigger problems than that his wife doesn’t want to have sex with him.

    I have some sympathy for your plight but it is exhausted when it is manipulated to call me to excuse immoral behavior.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Patrick, Toastmasters, or a variety of said. It gave me confidence and the ability to converse with anyone at any time. This is what confounds me. There are so many avenues open to people to advance themselves, charity work, mixed groups of like interest, martial arts, etc. BUT every single one of them takes time, money and commitment.

    I guess Deti has a valid point, game can be learned for free from the best right here on the internet. No need to leave your parents basement or actually apply yourself. – sarc

    Problem with men today, if it is as bad as Deti and others proclaim, is that few seem to be willing to take responsibility for themselves. They seem to not be able to think for themselves and NEED someone to tell them what to do.

    Unfortunately guys, for the most part, in the end, YOU do have to figure it out for yourself. That is the ultimate end game.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Were you the one who coined “Hegelian Mambo”?

  • johnmcg says:

    I do think there is something of an Apex Fallacy in some people’s longing for the old days of the natural patriarchy.

    The people who told the stories of those times were the winners — the ones who got married and had someone on the side. The “excess males” told didn’t write the stories, and aren’t the subject of historical dramas.

    So, it seems a lot of men seem to be under the impression that Feminism came along and ruined everything, and men who would have been married to submissive women are instead married to overweight harpies harboring divorce fantasies. The reality of what kind of lives these men would have led under the old patriarchy is likely much worse, and a celibate vocation probably represents one of the better case scenarios.

    Thus, hacks like Game are justified as an attempt to restore their “rightful” place, even though their place in the old order is likely not as head of a household nuclear family.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    It seems to me that some Christian women want to protect slutty dress and behavior from criticism (as long as it doesn’t lead to actual fornication) for the same reasons that some Christian men want to protect Game from criticism. So naturally the interests of men who defend Game and women who defend sluttiness are aligned, for those who are perceptive enough to see it.

    FOOOOOORE!

  • Zippy says:

    Peter Blood:
    Yes, that’s me.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: apex fallacy. King of one own’s home was NOT uncommon.

  • Zippy says:

    (I dissociated myself from VFR after a while because frankly I was sick and tired of Larry bashing John Paul II while simultaneously failing to comprehend him. But I’ve been commenting on this stuff since the days of Usenet).

  • Peter Blood says:

    The Hegelian Mambo is the danger of “dialoguing” with liberals. By “dialogue” I mean getting sucked ever leftward by dialectic. “Christian Game” is really thesis/antithesis–>synthesis.

  • Zippy says:

    Peter Blood:

    “Christian Game” is really thesis/antithesis–>synthesis.

    Yes, precisely. Cha cha cha.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Well, Larry could be prickly.

  • Patrick says:

    “Patriarchy is first and foremost a natural hierarchy of men.”

    Then why is it called PATRIarchy if it’s not fundamentally about fathers? What is the natural hierarchy of men and how is it determined?

  • Zippy says:

    Patrick:
    Now you are starting to think along the correct lines. Welcome to the red pill.

  • Patrick says:

    OK so you’re just theorizing about a natural hierarchy and don’t know what it is or how it’s determined. Why shouldn’t I be at the top of the hierarchy if it’s not a logical construction and is just a power struggle? Why should I recognize someone above me in the hierarchy if its simply a matter of strength and cunning?

  • Zippy says:

    Patrick:
    There is nothing theoretical about natural hierarchy. Read some history and study up the great books for men.

    Natural hierarchy isn’t arbitrary. It is human, which means it is frequently abused and misused. Liberalism uses that as a foil to foment rebellion. Natural hierarchy is in fact closely connected to fatherhood, but, as TUW observes, a father isn’t an atomized individual. Natural hierarchy is blood, soil, and cross.

    I know, I know. You want a quick and easy answer. Understanding that there aren’t any quick and easy answers is part of understanding the real world.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Patrick: think “king” and “aristocracy”.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Patrick: also check out Robert Filmer’s “Patriarcha”

  • Patrick says:

    That’s how patriarchy appeared in the first place. Men with the most power decided to impose it on men and women both. So in your scheme the men who find themselves at the top of the natural hierarchy of men should be obeyed, I guess, and the men in the middle of the pack and at the bottom should accept their God-given places. I guess that’s basically monarchism and rule by divine right, etc. But then if men at the top of the hierarchy decide not to impose patriarchy on the population, I guess they should be obeyed then as well by the betas, deltas, gammas and omegas.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Patrick,
    You may have misunderstood me; I listed ‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’ as a counter-example to one of the many claims that ‘no one is talking about alternatives to modern feminism except PUAs’. In at least one instance I have pointed out that I do *not* recommend that particular book.
    And I do not recall you asking for a single book or I would have given you that same advice I give everyone. You want to start building authentic masculinity? Start with The Imitation of Christ.

  • Peter Blood says:

    That America rebelled and disposed of having a king means we unmoored ourselves from a healthy patriarchy. We are now lost in a wilderness.

  • Patrick says:

    So Game is basically about men trying to raise themselves up in the natural hierarchy of men but you guys don’t like the method because its cheating or something.

  • Zippy says:

    Patrick:

    That’s how patriarchy appeared in the first place.

    What is how patriarchy appeared in the first place? Precisely what is at issue is whether patriarchy is arbitrary will-to-power or something natural that ultimately participates in the Divine.

    And yes, understanding and accepting the real world does actually require people to understand their place and act appropriately. That’s why TUW correctly observes that the men clamoring for “patriarchy” probably don’t really want it.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Patrick: yes, it was organic. But we’re swimming in a pool full of toxic waste, where only freakish mutations spring forth.

  • Zippy says:

    Patrick:

    Restated to more accurately reflect the view:

    So sluttiness is basically about women trying to raise themselves up in the natural hierarchy of women but you guys criticize the method because it is objectively immoral.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Patrick,
    You wrote,
    “Why shouldn’t I be at the top of the hierarchy if it’s not a logical construction and is just a power struggle?”
    The fact that you ask this questions demonstrates that it is largely a logical structure and that if it weren’t you wouldn’t be at the top.
    You wrote,
    “Why should I recognize someone above me in the hierarchy if its simply a matter of strength and cunning?”
    Well, it isn’t but if it *was* just those things you would recognize them because they are stronger and more cunning than you.
    The question you are edging up on is ‘what is the actual source of legitimate sovereignty?’.
    Hint: it isn’t ‘the consent of the governed’.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Patrick,
    [we are all writing so quickly)
    You wrote,
    “So Game is basically about men trying to raise themselves up in the natural hierarchy of men”
    In a way, yes! PUAs *want* to raise themselves in the hierarchy of men but my contention (as is shared by other critics of “game”) is that the PUAs concept of male hierarchy is so messed up it isn’t even wrong! The entire ‘alpha/beta/gamma/blah’ ladder betrays their own insecurities and disordered desires, not actual hierarchy. It is akin to how their conceptualization of women is infantile and their views on relationships are stunted. Thus roissy can claim that sluts are high value women and that men with faithful wives and many children are low-status.

  • johnmcg says:

    Patrcick,

    What I would say, in a probably not entirely fair way, is that Game is a way for men to trick women into thinking (or, maybe more accurately, sensing) that thye are at a higher place in the hierarchy than they actually are.

    To me, Game goes deeper than things like working out to improve oneself or getting a nice haircut and dressing up. And there are general advice like, “dress for the job you want not the job you have” that are in this vein but don’t strike me as harmful.

    Game strikes me (again, perhaps a bit unfairly) as promising men the right spot to smack the candy machine so it will give them a candy bar without them having to pay for it. And it justifies it by saying they were entitled to the candy in the first place, but feminism stole it, so all they’re doing is helping them claim what is rightfully theirs.

  • Patrick says:

    The human race was going along for a long time, then powerful men started imposing patriarchy on populations. They created the concept of fatherhood and legally tied fathers to children and that’s when civilization and written history started to appear.

    Ok now it’s full circle. I see. Game in your view “takes it too far” so to speak. It’s cheating, basically, a way to raise oneself in the hierarchy that shortchanges the man himself. It’s analogous to sluttiness not prettiness, makeup, long hair and flattering clothes on a girl.

  • Patrick says:

    And the alpha beta gamma thing, whatever you call the order of men on the ladder, needs to be accepted. I see a certain logic to it but I don’t see any moral value attached to settling into my place on the ladder. I see why someone higher on the ladder than me would want me to settle in

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    johnmcg,
    I may steal that analogy.

    Patrick,
    You wrote,
    “The human race was going along for a long time, then powerful men started imposing patriarchy on populations.”
    Uhhhh – no. Anthropology shows that patriarchy is the only system that has ever existed long enough to leave a trace in history. Stone age tribes in the Amazon? patriarchies. Ancient herders of the Siberian steppes? Patriarchies. Several anthropologists of the 20th Century pointed out that ‘patriarchy’ in a way means ‘how humans live’.
    You wrote,
    “They created the concept of fatherhood…”
    Again, no. God and biology are the source of ‘fatherhood’; it is not a social construct!
    You wrote,
    “… and legally tied fathers to children and that’s when civilization and written history started to appear.”
    Again, this well pre-dated written history and ‘civilization’.

  • Peter Blood says:

    The human race was going along for a long time, then powerful men started imposing patriarchy on populations.

    This sounds like anarcho-libertarian boilerplate.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Patrick,
    You wrote,
    “And the alpha beta gamma thing, whatever you call the order of men on the ladder, needs to be accepted”
    I refuse to accept something so blatantly wrong. Immoral buffoons with poor impulse control and the inability to form meaningful emotional attachments are ‘top of the heap’? Hardly!
    Listen, it is *painfully obvious* that “game’s” hierarchy of men is fatally flawed AND it does not address hierarchy of men in comparison to men or soceity but only in comparison to the subjective impressions of a small sub-population of women. so it is valueless in larger contexts anyway.
    Further, it distracts from the actual elements of masculinity and hierarchy is dangerous ways.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Anyone who looks toward Roissy/Game for masculine hierarchy is a blind man following the blind. Roissy engages in pretzel logic when he describes “beta” men with many children in a stable family as inferior from a Darwinian view.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Patrick, game is not cheating, it is marketing.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “What I would say, in a probably not entirely fair way, is that Game is a way for men to trick women into thinking (or, maybe more accurately, sensing) that thye are at a higher place in the hierarchy than they actually are.” Entirely fair, and exactly correct, with one addendum. By hierarchy is meant STRICTLY the hierarchy of attractiveness to women.

  • Patrick says:

    Well that conflicts with some of what I’ve read on the subject. What I’ve read is that prehistory was largely more akin to the ghetto today, matriarchal, matrilineal, where women scratched out a living however they could and collected whatever help the multiple fathers of the children would provide. The men were mostly like the worst of the game-adherents, out mainly to get laid. I got some of this info from this: http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

  • Patrick says:

    But then I ask again what is the true hierarchy and how is it determined?

  • DeNihilist says:

    Patrick, we have a bloke who ran a field test for a year, approached 1000 woman and bedded 27 using game. This is the same as zero percent statistically speaking. With blind chance you have as good a chance as him to bed 27 woman. He now, of course has a book out to “teach” you how to be successful:

    ” “In any good pickup the guy has to talk a lot at the beginning, but eventually the script flips and she’s doing most of the talking. Krauser is the first guy I’ve seen really break down how you balance this and lead her into talking”

    “Wit made easy. Not everyone is a naturally silver-tongued casanova, but Krauser’s templates, mindsets and themes for opening, cold reads, texting, etc. will get you most of the way there”

    “A masterful breakdown of long-game with real world examples…. I started using it immediately to great results…. Krauser’s playbook is better than anything out there.”

    “Krauser is the first I’ve seen to break down in detail a plan to keep your date moving, both when to be patient and when to escalate things properly” ”

    If you want more you can google his site yourself.

    Game is a marketing tool used by unscrupulous men to part over protected mama boys from their money.

    Or conversely to give them an excuse to not better themselves, by posturing that women have an imperative that is stronger then God, so it is not the man’s fault. ”

    But guess what boys, I have a book that explains all of this and if you purchase it, you will be able to put that woman only hypergamy in its’ place”

    Marketing all the way down.

  • Zippy says:

    Patrick:
    As I explained in a previous post, liberalism has banished hierarchy; so today’s natural hierarchy has gone sociopathic.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Patrick: matriarchal African tribes are not the “primal” condition. They are a dead-end. They lost the plot somewhere, somehow, and are going nowhere, slowly. Since they are going nowhere, they’ll never get to patriarchy.

  • Patrick says:

    Then it is basically determined by strength and cunning.

    I don’t have any problem with destroying Game as marketing. I don’t use verbal tricks or think they would be a shortcut to social dominance or something. And I actually don’t even desire social dominance. I mostly just don’t want to get stuck wed to a fat harpy or have to put up with women constantly probing for weaknesses and ways to undermine me. And I don’t want to get stuck with an a-hole setting the social dynamic for my little tribe out in real life. The game bloggers give relevant information about those topics.

  • No, they don’t. It’s incredibly easy to avoid getting married. Certainly don’t need game for that one. Also don’t need game to avoid putting up with women.

    It’s very telling that you assume patriarchs are “a-holes” as you put it.

    You don’t want to be married, you don’t like being around women and you don’t want to be under authority to any male.

    Game isn’t needed if you want to be anti-social entirely.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Patrick,
    You wrote,
    “Then it is basically determined by strength and cunning.”
    Concluded from what? As far as I can tell your thougt processes are something like this
    ‘I don’t want to be married to a fat harpy’
    ‘PUAs don’t want to be married, don’t like fat women, and don’t like harpies’
    ‘Therefore, “game” is correct and anything else is based on strength and cunning’
    [never mind that “game” is supposed to be about cunning]
    [I stress ‘supposed to be’]
    Hierarchy is about virtue, merit, personality, and position. Or
    -the facts about the content of your character as others can determine it
    -the facts about what you have accomplished
    -the impact of your personality on others
    -the details of the position or positions you legitimately hold

    This isn’t new, or unique. The Greeks were talking about this before iron.

  • Patrick says:

    UW,
    You misrepresent what I said:
    I don’t want to marry an obese shrew, and I don’t like being around irritating women. And I’m a Catholic convert who swore obedience to a whole Magisterium of men. You’re a Protestant woman who thinks she has authority over men. You’ve got your own serious issues with authority.

    AD,
    Concluded from Zippy’s remark that the natural hierarchy today is sociopathic.

    Here’s my thought process: all other things being equal in the social hierarchy as you lay it out, “Game” knowledge will tip the balance in its possessor’s favor. Other than that this is just a semantic dispute, I think, about the definition of “game.”

    But then what advantage is there in just settling into my low place in the hierarchy? It’s unappealing.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Patrick,
    You wrote,
    “… “Game” knowledge will tip the balance in its possessor’s favor.”
    Why? “Game” is predicated on hierarchy being based upon women’s perception of attractiveness.
    Excuse me, on slutty women’s perception of attractiveness.
    Excuse me, slutty urban women’s perception of attractiveness.
    Excuse me, slutty urban women who are not from Canada, Spain, Belgium, much of the Southern United States, Asia, Africa, or many other nations and their perception of attractiveness.
    Excuse me, slutty urban women who are not from Canada, Spain, Belgium, much of the Southern United States, Asia, Africa, or many other nations and their perception of attractiveness – about 10% of the time or less.
    Why not stick to the tried and true of improving your character, working on achievements, learning to be socially competent, and seeking out a position of responsibility and honor?
    Sure, it is a lot more work than memorizing 8 different ways of implying a woman you don’t know is fat but the rewards are much greater, too.

  • I have never claimed authority over men, Patrick. You are lying.

    Again, you don’t need game to avoid marrying a fat woman who’s mean or to avoid irritating women. It’s pretty easy to accomplish both in this highly atomized modern world.

  • Also, a Catholic convert who takes the Magisterium seriously should have some idea why a “low place” in a proper hierarchy is still a good place to be.

    Even Calvinist writing covers this one reasonably well.

  • Patrick says:

    It’s just a definition disagreement, the name “Game,” and the originators of it. That’s the source of all of it. Which is fine. I understand where you’re coming from. But since “game” the way I perhaps arbitrarily conceive of it includes “authentic masculinity” it “works” in smoothing interactions with non-urban girls, as well as in helping me recognize subtle social dynamics.

    I’ve implied no such thing. In the “game” conception of things, one is permitted to say the word “obese” in the presence of women.

  • Patrick says:

    How about this?

    “I’ve written about it a little bit on my blog, the complete misunderstanding of patriarchy. It’s not just bossing your wife around or manipulating her like a ball of playdoh. It’s a complex set of interrelationships where in some circumstances a man can in fact be overridden as authority in his own household. And no, those circumstances are not ‘wife is mad at/bored with husband’.”

  • You lied when you asserted that I ever claimed authority over men.

  • Patrick says:

    I accept my nothingness in the Church. Why should I accept it in a public hierarchy determined by sociopathy?

  • There’s no claim of authority on my part in those remarks. Crossposting ftw.

  • Patrick says:

    If I misunderstood that passage, I didn’t lie. I misunderstood. If you say I lied again, then you’re lying.

  • “I accept my nothingness in the Church. Why should I accept it in a public hierarchy determined by sociopathy?”

    Those aren’t your only two options, Patrick.

  • Mike T says:

    Aquinas Dad,

    I think you are confusing attitude and action. Can a woman who is modest of dress, demure of speech, chaste in action, a virgin on her wedding night, enjoy the marital embrace?

    Nothing you said addresses my point, which was quite clearly not about a woman being able to enjoy sex. Rather it was that a woman who is a virgin by choice can still have the underlying values of a slut. The flip side of this is that a young man can be a virgin and still have a pornified view of sex which means that at heart, he’s no different from the players he may outwardly (and even think inwardly) loathe.

  • Mike T says:

    More than just underlying values, a woman can have the same heart as a slut but for many reasons may have simply not acted on it. For example, she may be sufficiently restrained by peer and family pressure to not act out. However, throw her into an unhappy marriage and she may gleefully cheat on her husband. Objectively speaking, there’s no difference in character there between her and the party girl having sex in the bathroom with a random guy.

    This is why I’ve told my wife repeatedly that most “nice guys” are anything but. Scratch the surface and what you often find is not a genuinely nice and decent man, but what Vox Day calls a gamma male who can quickly go asshole (passive or active aggressive) when he gets a little butt hurt.

  • Mike T says:

    As I explained in a previous post, liberalism has banished hierarchy; so today’s natural hierarchy has gone sociopathic.

    Well, as I like to point out on W4, what value does “sociopathic” even hold in a society that embraces abortion rights? According to the average American, I’m a sociopath because I can say with a straight face that I would outlaw abortion on demand and make seeking it and providing it a capital crime to include the mother. So sociopathy is perhaps a relative concept itself.

    Someone told me that the Coptic Church has a saying about this that goes something like this:

    One day the world will go mad and the people will find a sane man and say “you are insane thus we must kill you.”

  • Zippy says:

    I finally had a look at the Just Four Guys thread. It confirms everything I am saying here. The ground rules for discussion are no “PUA bashing”, gratitude for what PUA have taught us, and no arguing over what Game actually is. “No grown ups allowed,” basically.

    So folks like Peter Blood who are curious to see concrete examples to round out the theory might want to go have a look.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    I think sociopathicity has objective content, but you are quite right to point out that to the extent it has objective content the whole “respectable” world has gone sociopathic.

  • Peter Blood says:

    I’m willing to cut guys slack on the passions of where they’re at, in the wilderness. The winds howl among the ruins of Western Civilization.

    If Zippy were really as uninfluential as deti makes him out to be, why is deti Captain Ahab to Zippy’s Moby Dick?

  • Mike T says:

    I think it would be interesting to see Zippy debate Vox Day on this subject. All it would take is for Zippy to email him and throw out the idea. Heck, just publicly challenge him and bring the challenge to his attention.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Mike T: “let’s you and him fight!”

    I, too, think this would be interesting.

  • Mike T says:

    Hah! I think it would be interesting because they’re probably the best two representatives of each side that Christians can watch and get something out of their discussion.

  • Latias says:

    Interest that game arouses so much attention…

    —-
    Funny how I participated about > 3000 words in a discussion about whether “Genesect” should banned…That discussion also has a lot of participation too. There was about 1300 posts.

    And my last night of laddering was about three weeks ago where I went 26-8…. I have no desire to battle anymore — I have seen too many Rotom-Ws already and I have a good feel for the Gen XY metagame now.
    —-

    I guess from that I am too much of a nerd to even be concerned with courtship or game. Does Game seem to concern a small portion of the “traditionalist” blogosphere? It barely is even acknowledged when I am among my Catholic peers.

    Like Scarf Genesect, I’ll just U-turn out of here since “traditionalism” or game isn’t an important part of my faith, and I am done scouting here… sayonara.

  • Ita Scripta Est says:

    Hah! I think it would be interesting because they’re probably the best two representatives of each side that Christians can watch and get something out of their discussion

    Can anyone really call Vox Day a Christian given his views on the Trinity? How could anyone debate on the compatibility of Game and Christianity when they don’t first agree on what it means to be a Christian?

    Heresy begets even viler heresy.

  • Peter Blood says:

    I was thinking similar thoughts about Vox Day. His Christianity is…idiosyncratic, to say the least. If you make a point about something Christian, you just don’t know if he’s on the same page at all.

  • Peter Blood says:

    But with respect to these points about Vox Day, Zippy may just say, “Q.E.D.” and declare victory.

  • Keoni Galt says:

    I find merit in a lot of your posts and comments on a number of topics both here and around the ‘sphere, Zippy. But this ongoing topic of Game and Christianity is devolving into farce.

    I don’t expect to convince anyone here of anything. I realize it would be fruitless and a waste of time…which is why I’ve basically read every post you have here about this topic of Christianity and game without adding my $.02. in, until now.

    I find it interesting in a rubber-neck-the-car-accident-fatality sort of way.

    Alte wrote: The arguments against Game are spiraling down into philosophical silliness.

    To which Zippy replies: The arguments against sluttiness spiraling down into philosophical silliness.

    There’s the source of this entire kerfluffle in a nutshell. You and your like-minded commentariat have the entire topic of game irrevocably tainted with fallacious reasoning. Game = Sluttiness is a complete non-sequitur.

    Note Alte’s comparison:

    “I would like for all women who wish to improve their looks to know…

    To which Zippy replies: “It seems to me that some Christian women want to protect slutty dress and behavior from criticism (as long as it doesn’t lead to actual fornication) for the same reasons that some Christian men want to protect Game from criticism.”

    So women wishing to improve their looks = slutty dress? Do tell Zippy.

    Was your wife “slutty” when she put on her wedding dress, and had her hair and makeup done all nice before walking down the aisle to take her vows with you?

    Or did she don sack cloths and smear her face with ash and cut her hair off in a great demonstration of “anti-slutty piety” on your day of holy union?

    Isn’t reductio ad absurdum fun?

    Oh, and “protecting game from criticism” is a hilarious take on what’s going on here. What I actually see from where I’m sitting, is a group of men who read up on the topic (and I contend Game is a praxeology, nothing more, nothing less), saw the ideas could very well be applied to their personal situations, tried it out and yielded positive results.

    For those of us that experienced this, we could care less about “protecting game” from your holier than thou criticism. Game doesn’t need protection from criticism, we are simply telling you that your criticism is wrong, because we already know through personal trial and error that game is based on axiomatic truth.

    This is how this entire debacle has played out so far amongst the Orthosphere denunciation brigade and the manospherelitariat:

    Former Christian nice-guy stuck in the perpetual friend zone with the ladies of his congregation: “Hey guys, check it out, I saw this topic called “game” on teh Interwebz, and these guys (Fallen, heretical, blasphemous and promiscuous sinners, all!!) said these are the things you do that work on improving your attractiveness with women and these are the things you do that don’t work, try it and see for yourself! I did, and I was able to finally get a date!”

    Former Christian nice guy husband in a sexless marriage with a formerly contemptuous, ball-busting wife: “Yeah, I tried it out in my marriage, and you wouldn’t believe how much better things are for my entire family!”

    Than the holy denunciation brigade of the Orthosphere comes riding in to declare these men having this conversation that they’re doing it all wrong, they’re engaging in sin and idolatry of the Anti-Christ Roissy and his false prophet Roosh, and that surely they are endangering their immortal souls for listening to these fallen sinners on teh Interwebz!

    Ludicrous.

    Your replies to Alte’s attempts to offer an analogy shows this quite clearly. Non-sequitur (Game=Sluttiness) and reductio ad absurdum (Women who wish to improve their looks = slutty dress and behavior) are fallacious and reveals quite clearly the beam in your eye that renders you incapable of objective discourse on this particular topic.

    If you wish to “protect your criticism of game,” you’ll have to employ much better rhetoric than that.

  • Mike T says:

    But with respect to these points about Vox Day, Zippy may just say, “Q.E.D.” and declare victory.

    So we’re accusing Zippy of immediately resorting to ad hominem now? I bet the average Arian priest had more true things to say about men and women than many priests and pastors today.

  • CJ says:

    Keoni Galt,

    The issue is that Zippy is an essentialist. For him “Game” just is the totality of what Roissy et. al. teach. There’s no such thing as Game without the “Fornicate her good” or “keep two in the kitty” maxims. If you pull those out, it’s not Game anymore. So in his view, Christians can’t practice Game and Game can’t be sanitized.

  • Scott W. says:

    “The issue is that Zippy is an essentialist.”

    Also a deontologist. Which means that, “Hey, I started lying, deceiving and manipulating and now my life is great!” doesn’t cut any ice. It’s the whole “torture works” non-argument all over again. And just like that and other subjects (eg. same-sex “marriage”), the proponents of such hopeless positions tend to avoid principles in favor of anecdotes and outlandish stacked-decked hypotheticals.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Keoni,
    You wrote,
    “Former Christian nice-guy stuck in the perpetual friend zone with the ladies of his congregation: “Hey guys, check it out, I saw this topic called “game” on teh Interwebz, and these guys (Fallen, heretical, blasphemous and promiscuous sinners, all!!) said these are the things you do that work on improving your attractiveness with women and these are the things you do that don’t work, try it and see for yourself! I did, and I was able to finally get a date!”

    Former Christian nice guy husband in a sexless marriage with a formerly contemptuous, ball-busting wife: “Yeah, I tried it out in my marriage, and you wouldn’t believe how much better things are for my entire family!””

    And?
    No, really, very seriously – so what? I have never claimed ‘no one says it works!’ or ‘everyone hates it!’.
    [Yes, I have said ‘it doesn’t work nearly as well as legitimate, moral systems and actual improvement of the character]
    Here’s a similar examples;
    -Former Christian nice guy can never catch a break and is always poor with a lousy job. “Hey, guys, I learned “con game” from some guys on the intertubes! Now I have money in my pocket *all the time*! You just have to work on your attractiveness, with others, develop confidence, and then figure out what does and doesn’t work. I finally have money! You guys saying that it is ‘immoral’ to do this are fools – everyone VOLUNTEERS to give me money! It is just a toolbox, just leave behind the immorality of deceit, theft, and betrayal.”
    -Former Christian nice guy husband in a sexless marriage with a formerly contemptuous, ball-busting wife: “Yeah, I started slapping her around and threatening to kill her if she tells anyone. Man! No more nagging and the sex sure is a lot more frequent! Only results matter, right?”
    Right?
    Guess what? Means matter as much as ends. *Intentions* matter as much as means or ends.
    I could tell people to get rich robbing banks – I’d be right: Christians shouldn’t do it.

  • Zippy says:

    I keep saying that supporters of “Christian Game” haven’t really taken any “red pills”: that their entire world view remains irredeemably modern. And they keep proving me right with their uncomprehending responses.

  • Zippy says:

    If we are antiessentialists and embrace the idea of “morally good Game” then there is also good liberalism, good communism, good naziism, good tyranny, good rape, good sluttiness, good blasphemy, good torture, and good satan worship.

    Everything evil contains elements of truth in it, or it could not exist at all. The price proponents of “Christian Game” pay for their nominalist mess of pottage is total, unilateral moral disarmament.

  • Zippy says:

    I suggest that honest proponents of Christian Game consider, for a moment, the social evil that they personally detest most and consider irredeemably evil. Maybe it is something I have mentioned and maybe it is something else: but choose what it is for you.

    Then “flip the script” on all of your own arguments.

    Instead of “Game”, which refers to the deceptive practices of leering unrepentant low-life perverts, insert the detestable social evil that you chose into your own arguments and pretend that someone is making that argument against you.

    “Abortion is a praexology” or “You would let the mother die? How terrible that you have so little empathy!” or “liberalism is a praexology” or “torture is a continuum” or whatever.

    Then you’ll have a better chance at seeing what is wrong with your arguments, and we’ll be happy to welcome you into the real world: the world of objective essences, including social and moral essences.

  • jf12 says:

    Is it SO very repulsive that undesired men can use worldly techniques to advance their desirability? “Bodily exercise profiteth little.” A little. But a little is all it takes. Christian game does not HAVE to involve perversion, no more than Christian wedding dress HAS to involve sluttiness as Keoni Galt made clear.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Zippy, Bruce Charlton commented about Neo-Reaction, saying,

    “I have written about this phenomenon in my own life; but it is striking how many of the secular ideologies are pre-immunized against Christianity: they are built on the assumption that whatever is the answer, Christianity is not the answer; that Christianity is at best useless, and at worse a major cause of the problem.”

    He also brings up Eugene Rose’s trajectory of Nihilism: Liberalism –> Realism —> Vitalism –> Destruction. It’s pretty clear that the manosphere is in a Realist phase, although it looks like the Vitalism is a major pull.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    jf12,
    False argument and false dichotomy.
    Working out is not “game”, it is physical fitness. See Jack Lalane, Richard Simmons, your local power lifting gym
    Dressing well is not “game”, it is grooming. see Dress for Success, How to Dress Like a gentleman, your local Jos. A. banks
    Being good at conversation is not “game”, it is conversational skills. See How to Win Friends and Influence People, How to Sell Anything to Anyone, or your local new car lot
    Not participating in passive-aggressive behavior from others is not “game” (although participating in it *yourself* is), it is called being mature. See How to Stop Worrying and Live, the Imitation of Christ, and the nearest adult.
    See? All the stuff Christian “gamers” talk about is found in dozens of other places, none of which are sources from immorality, founded upon obviously false metaphysics and a Freshman level understanding of psychology, and all time-tested, proven, and easily found.
    “But Aquinas,” you repeat again, “Why not just call all that “game?”
    Because it isn’t. It is far older and more mature and (again) unrelated to wacky meta-physics and pseudo-science.

  • jf12 says:

    I am undistractable from what I know to be your sticking-point: The worldliness of the approach, not the terminology. In game parlnace my frame is unshakeable.

  • Gavrila says:

    Hi Alte,

    You mention “Men who have Game [..] These men don’t use Game intentionally, they just ooze sex by habit”.

    What is game?

    It is gaming the system: conscious manipulation based on a (supposed) systematic understanding of human (woman’s) nature.

    A ‘natural’ (men who are charming, good-looking, know how to flirt without thinking about it etc.) cannot be an unintentional gamer because game is intentional by definition.

    I said upthread I would deal with the falsity of game itself, so let me deal with one of the great anti-insights of game and what I think is the ideological origin of it.

    The anti-insight of game I have in mind is the assertion that ‘looks don’t matter to women’ (they certainly do) or that women are ‘not visual creatures’ (they are). The first thing a girl cares about a boy is if he is ‘cute’. This is before she has talked to him. This mean she judges men partly on what his face looks like – just as men do to women.

    Why do the game ‘experts’ not understand/acknowledge this, probably the most basic element of male-female attraction?

    It is, I think, because looks are a non-fungible factor in attraction and to game adherents attraction is based on fungible speech and behavioural cues which any acolyte can master given enough time/effort.

    So the gamers do not place an emphasis on sartorialism, grooming etc. As an unprincipled exception many gamers dress very well but according to the system of game they could be wearing a potato sack.

    In this example we see that game mirrors political correctness in that a true aspect of reality is denied and replaced with a false intellectual supposition for ideological reasons. And since game is a gnostic system, it is related to the secret gnosis known to insiders/adherents.

    “Bodily exercise” is an incidental part of game. It is true that it will improve your appearance and give you a healthy complexion. It will also increase your testosterone. (As will eating broccoli). While gamers place emphasis on it, it is not gaming per se and many gamers even maintain that the only real benefit is to your internal state (“inner game”).

  • Gavrila says:

    We’ve discussed separating what is good about game from what is bad and using the remainder for honest purposes. Let me try this, for a thought experiment.

    Hmm the core of game is dishonest manipulation, is it not? But wait, let’s say we shall only use game ‘insights’ in a non-manipulative way. Like Spiderman, we shall only use our powers for good.

    Now what about the alpha-beta hierarchy? Well classifying humans based on anthropological taxonomies used to describe the animal kingdom is clearly based on a fundamentally atheistic understanding of life (“We’re all animals”), so that has to go too. It is a dehumanising and disgusting way of talking about people anyway. Good riddance.

    Anything/everything fornication-related must go. Snip.

    Then also – and this is very important – all of the false, non-insights of game which arose through the misunderstandings of gamers, their inability to understand women and the in-built ideological biases of game as a gnostic/ideological sect.

    And now?

    We’ve just jettisoned about 4/5ths of game. So we’re inadvertently back where we didn’t want to be: lacking an overall system. Which, as members of a consumerist society, we demand.

    What is left from the remainder of game after we’ve chopped it to pieces? Some tips on flirting, except compartmentalised* and given odd, pseudo-scientific names. For instance, teasing a woman, which is a part of flirting, is now called ‘negging’ and is explained so badly that many people do not know if they are supposed to be the insulting the woman or not. What a triumph of observational science.

    The excessive compartmentalisation of different aspects of flirting/conversation is part of what makes game, in Alte’s words, “grueling”. Conversations are organic and trying to isolate singular aspects of conversational skill, learn them and deploy them one-by-one is like taking a car apart and reassembling it.

  • I would just like to pop back in to point out that My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic (a cartoon about magical ponies written primarily for eight year old girls) offers a systematized way of improving communication (including romantic, but it is only implied) with your fellow man that demonstrably works in the real world with Asperger’s syndrome young men.

    You know, the sort who have a huge amount of trouble with understanding and implementing the basics of human interaction that many neurotypicals take for granted.

    You know, the sort who gravitate towards game because of its attempts to systematize isolated (and mostly sexually focused) aspects of human interaction . Several people have written about this fascinating real-world data regarding the cartoon and its male fans and you can see examples of it in action in the Bronies documentary.

    Usually when I mention the ponies, people just blow it off. But the lessons about friendship and family in the episodes are simple and readily understandable to autistic-spectrum men and those social interactions are presented in understandable contexts. It’s very much similar to the way that fairy tales illustrate prosaic truths of human existence, actually.

    So there’s an alternative to game. Watch ponies and read fairy tales. Can’t do much worse than being kind to your neighbors, protective and supportive of your friends and appreciative of your family and respectful of all lawful authorities in your village. The fairy tales have plenty of insights into how to get the girl, as that is a common, common theme. “The Sea-Hare” is a good example of such insights.

  • Patrick says:

    Hey that’s an interesting variant on the Chaucer-done-it-better theme of Anti-Game. I like fairy tales quite a bit. I’m into archetypes.

    There are two ways in fairy tales to get the girl: 1. Be born a prince. 2. Find a golden suit of armor/catch a magical fish/find a lamp with a wish-granting genie in it/get a talking bull with infinite food in its ear/buy some magical beans/pull a magical sword from a stone.

    Those actually came from a time before liberalism had destroyed hierarchy, though.

  • Patrick says:

    And actually the work/struggle/strive to make yourself worthy must also be a facet of liberalism in terms of social hierarchy.

  • Patrick says:

    And that’s basically the bone thrown to us peasants, that’s the mixing in of a little liberalism to make the whole scheme easier to swallow. It’s blood, sweat and the cross, but you CAN raise yourself. But you really can’t. That’s why it’s always framed in negative terms, of not-game. That’s why it was said above that men rhetorically yearning back for patriarchy don’t really know for what they are asking and probably wouldn’t like it if they got it. Interesting!

  • johnmcg says:

    To play Devil’s Advocate, I think the Game proponents who would assent to the notion the women don’t care about looks as Gavrilla articulated are few and far between.

    Indeed, I think this notion is more a feature of the prevailing feminist culture — if you really want to blow her mind on Valentine’s Day, get all the laundry done and pack the kids’ lunches, etc…

  • Patrick says:

    And Game would be loosely analogous to a golden goose or magic lamp that allows its owner to take from the aristocracy. Like the peasant boy who found the suit of armor and got the girl on the glass hill before all of the other landed gentlemen. That’s what it’s all about, fathers don’t want their daughters linked to the peasant with a gold suit he found.

  • jf12 says:

    The female hierarchy is the only one that counts for hetero pairings. The alpha female is not the one paired with the alpha-est male, she’s the female that is most followed by other females, and invariably she will have a high-functioning beta male as provider. The alpha male, in stark contrast, will have a lot of female followers (NOT a lot of male followers).

  • Gavrila says:

    Hi johnmcg,

    It is pretty much all the major Game proponents who assert that looks are not important – as well as their hundreds of followers. (Google “roissy on good looks” and read through his comments sections.)

    Where in game is the emphasis on sartorialism? When I was 13 years old I began learning rules of fashion, such as not mixing black with navy. I knew that every girl in the world cared about not mixing black with navy, even though I didn’t.

    Why aren’t the gamers teaching this? Actually there is one game blog that is also a style guide. But why aren’t they all, if they know so much? They repeatedly say looks are an incidental factor in “seduction”.

    In my city, there are many men with a highly developed sense of fashion. (Including me – I get compliments on my clothes.) But all these men are “naturals” and/or anti-gamers or if they are gamers, they are practicing an unprincipled exception to game.

  • Gavrila says:

    Hi Patrick,

    You wrote:

    Hey that’s an interesting variant on the Chaucer-done-it-better theme of Anti-Game. I like fairy tales quite a bit. I’m into archetypes.

    I was the anti-gamer who mentioned Chaucer, off the top of my head, along with Tolstoy upthread. You could substitute any other two great writers.

    My point is simply this: If you’re going to take insights on human nature to apply to your own life, you need to take them from someone who knows what they’re talking about.

    Great litterateurs are geniuses of social observation. Game bloggers are…not. Often they cannot even get superficial details correct.

    (This is aside from the fact that the gamers have put sexual immorality at the heart of their system.)

  • johnmcg says:

    I could only stand a surface appreciation of Game, but my understanding is that it includes maintaining a certain “frame.” They may not care about mixing black with navy or wearing white after Labor Day, but I think it would be extraordinarily difficult to maintain the type of frame Game demands while caring absolutely nothing about one’s appearance; e.g. wearing a potato sack.

    Indeed, if the Gamers reject an obsession with the rules of fashion, I would say this is something they got right, and feeds the notion that there is something salvageable about it (and if you’ve read my other posts, you know I am not exactly sympathetic to that view.). It’s best for men to present themselves well, but it seems wondering if what they’re wearing is breaking some sort of fashion rule is a kind of “fitness test.”

  • Gavrila says:

    john,

    Indeed, if the Gamers reject an obsession with the rules of fashion, I would say this is something they got right, and feeds the notion that there is something salvageable about it

    Learning certain rules of fashion – a few basic things about colours, matching, and getting a sense for these things – does not mean developing an “obsession”. It’s a normal way of learning how to present oneself well and women appreciate it.

    Gamers reject it – in theory only, perhaps – on the gnostic basis that the key to attracting women relies on special knowledge which only a few men know or can/will apply.

    According to the system of game, a dishevelled-looking man can attract a woman if he uses his tools of psychological manipulation correctly.

    The struggle to maintain a contrived persona (“frame”) must be stressful indeed.

    It would be better to present well and then use one’s own personality as the basis for interacting with members of the opposite sex.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    jf12,
    You wrote,
    “I am undistractable from what I know to be your sticking-point: The worldliness of the approach, not the terminology. In game parlnace my frame is unshakeable.”
    Translation,
    ‘nothing will ever change my mind’
    Yeah, I get that. For example, you insist on getting wrong what the actual problem is.

    You wrote,
    “The female hierarchy is the only one that counts for hetero pairings. The alpha female is not the one paired with the alpha-est male, she’s the female that is most followed by other females, and invariably she will have a high-functioning beta male as provider. The alpha male, in stark contrast, will have a lot of female followers (NOT a lot of male followers).”
    This is actually a great illustration of the basic errors in “game’s” overarching theory. “Game” tells its adherents to emulate “alphas”. But “alphas” aren’t high in the *male* hierarchy, they are high in what PUAs -think- the *female* hierarchy is.
    Except, of course, that women who are high status in their ideation of the female hierarchy do NOT pick “alphas”, they pick men from further down the “game” hierarchy of men.
    Let me repeat that – jf12 is only admitting what PUAs admit in their own writing – “alphas” don’t end up in stable relationship with the top women, the much-mocked “betas” do. PUAs like roissy argue that having a solid, stable marriage with a top-tier woman, a solid home, and a bunch of kids moves you *DOWN* the hierarchy – that this is a losing position to be avoided at all costs as it makes you a “beta”.
    Instead, say PUAs, *mock* the men in stable long-term relationships where they have children and provide for them and, rather, focus on pretending to be the men who *can’t* maintain a long-term relationship, imitate the men who work hard to *never* have children, and settle for slutty women [OK, OK, PUAs claim that sluts are ‘high value’ but we all know better].
    Sure, OK, this is all on the tin: guys who call themselves ‘Pick-Up Artists’ and openly claim that their methods are all about having as much consequence-free sex with loose women as possible have a theory that is, shockingly, all about having as much consequence-free sex with loose women as possible. The ‘it-would-be-funny-if-they-weren’t-serious’ part is that there are self-proclaimed Christians who want to use these theories to…. end up with a solid, stable marriage with a top-tier woman, a solid home, and a bunch of kids they provide for!
    If it weren’t so very sad I would be laughing.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “Except, of course, that women who are high status in their ideation of the female hierarchy do NOT pick “alphas”, they pick men from further down the “game” hierarchy of men.”
    I fail to see how this is an indictment of game. Why would a man, even a better beta, want a high maintenance demanding woman, IF he could get something else?

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:
    Like every good feminist you are confusing high status in the male hierarchy with high status in the female hierarchy. Feminists who try to climb the male hierarchy are not high status females; in fact they generally hate and reject femininity.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    jf12,
    This is getting funny.
    Let me rephrase that-
    This is getting funnier.
    So – “Game” teaches that sluts are high status and faithful chaste women are low status?
    “Game” teaches that mature, emotionally stable men are lower status than immature, unstable men?
    “Game” teaches that darwinian evolution favors childless men over men with many offspring?
    And, funniest of all, “game” is based on the idea that Feminist women determine which women are high status AND which *men* are high status?
    The first time I read roosh’s book I wrote down in my notes ‘a mama’s boy who sees everything through the lens of feminism’, I have stated a few times that PUAs were just just immature men with low social skills embracing feminism for the sake of low-quality sex.
    And you have just confirmed it, directly.
    Tell me again why Christian men who are letting feminist women decide their value are ’embracing masculinity’….

  • jf12 says:

    @Zippy, no, in fact it is you who claims that any man who is high in some men’s hierarchy but not on a women’s hierarchy is No True Man. Remember?

  • jf12 says:

    Why would a man, even a better beta, want a high maintenance demanding woman, IF he could get something else? Simple question.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    jf12,
    You wrote,
    “Why would a man, even a better beta, want a high maintenance demanding woman…”
    No man would. Which is why such women are not high status/high value.

  • Mike T says:

    So – “Game” teaches that sluts are high status and faithful chaste women are low status?

    Well, no. It teaches that beautiful women are high status and unattractive woman are intrinsically low status. But I suspect you already knew that.

    Much like how other commenters here know that some of the actual bloggers in question don’t say that “looks don’t matter” but rather point out that women are simply not anywhere near as visually oriented as men. That is to say, they teach that looks are usually not a deal breaker with women the way they are with men. Ugly men can still get hot women if they have their #$%^ together and are good with dealing with women. An ugly woman will typically not even get a top notch man to even notice that she’s a sexual being by comparison.

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:
    I’m trying to decide which is more morbidly fascinating to behold: your defense of “Game” as Christian alongside your personal accounts of your own adulterous behavior in the practice of Game, your satisfaction with “maintaining frame” in the face of the manifested ludicrousness of what you write, or your utter lack of comprehension of what other people mean when they write.

  • Mike T says:

    Regarding status of woman, chastity and other marital virtues are secondary considerations. Very valuable, even invaluable in marriage. But they are not the same thing as a woman’s general status in society. All of the virtue in the world and a $1.50 still won’t buy a woman who is objectively ugly another point upward in the socio-sexual hierarchy (nor buy her a drink at Starbucks).

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “No man would. Which is why such women are not high status/high value” among men. But such women are of the highest status among women.

  • Mike T says:

    your utter lack of comprehension of what other people mean when they write

    Similarly, many of his critics also display a very ludicrous lack of understanding while priding themselves on their masterful knowledge of Roissy, etc. For example, Aquinas Dad won’t let the fact that he’s probably read no more than the 16 commandments and a few minor posts stop him from telling me, someone who’s read Roissy from almost the very beginning, that he seems to quite severely misunderstand Roissy.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    I agree with most of your 12:05pm comment except the “Game teaches” part. Game is the prescriptive part of what is referred to as the “red pill”, not the descriptive part. “Red pill” is perception of reality; “Game” is action. There may be some merit to some elements of the former (for some people) as a rediscovery of what men already know qua men; although its exclusively sexual focus tends to strongly interfere with true perception of reality and allows even very smart and putatively antiliberal folks to continue to cling to their illusions, as the essentialist/antiessentialist thread of this discussion demonstrated rather conclusively.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: my defense. I don’t offer any defense EXCEPT that nothing else was working. Faint praise at best; we have been asking for an alternative.

  • Patrick says:

    “My point is simply this: If you’re going to take insights on human nature to apply to your own life, you need to take them from someone who knows what they’re talking about.”

    From what I’ve seen, game info about human nature and sociosexual interplay comports with reality and with what I’ve read in fairy tales and classic literature.

    I’m not that interested in getting a top-tier woman, unless you consider “not fat, a little pretty to look at, and able and willing to cook and keep house” top-tier. Being higher in the male hierarchy doesn’t necessarily get you that. It’s the “game” factors that make the difference. I mentioned my brother, who is a journeyman carpenter, a humble, hard-working man who was even asked to be an “elder” at his Protestant church. He is married to a very overweight shrew. My friend, a very successful engineer, perfect grades through all his schooling, and his wife is an average looking “vocal” feminist who doesn’t know how to cook or keep house and isn’t interested in learning.
    My other friend, an average success as an engineer, his wife keeps house OK but she almost never prepares dinner. My boss, started from ground level, worked really hard, raised himself to district manager in 7 years, just got divorced, his overweight wife was using drugs and sleeping around, also never cooked. My old friend, a very bright and principled phd chemical engineer, has a live-in girlfriend, a feminist, not as much of a shrew, fairly good looking, also a phd, he’s the provider, she never cooks, never keeps house, and was NOT chaste in the past. Another friend, low in the male hierarchy, a manual laborer, average intelligence, steady worker, reliable, he married a not too pretty single mom. She’s way more of a traditional housewife than any of the others mentioned, she’s also a former meth user. Another friend, who was a seasonal worker for a parks department when he married, his wife is a classic stay at home wife/mother, intelligent and worldly. He has an Irish accent which played a big part in their pair bonding. He’s still not that high in the male hierarchy. Another friend, a big fat guy, average intelligence, low skilled laborer, not too good looking, his wife is better than most of the wives in this list by most measures. He can sing pretty well and tried be a monk for a time, and that’s a big part of how he got his wife. He’s low in the male hierarchy except that he can sing for mass.
    So you guys simply aren’t dealing with reality as I perceive it from my own observations.

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:

    we have been asking for an alternative.

    Yes, well, and defenders of the Hiroshima bombing insist that it could not possibly be immoral unless there was some “better” alternative. In other words, the entire “Christian Game” mindset rests on moral relativism / antiessentialism / nominalism — and if you have a moral relativism problem, then whether or not chicks dig you is the least of your worries. In fact succeeding at getting chicks to dig you will only exacerbate them.

  • Scott W. says:

    The Robitussin was not curing his cough, but chopping off his head did. Until someone gives me better alternative, the prescription of scimitar remains.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    You wrote,
    “Regarding status of woman, chastity and other marital virtues are secondary considerations”
    To PUAs, of course, yes.
    You continue,
    ” But they are not the same thing as a woman’s general status in society.”
    Again, to PUAs, Feminists, and seculars, sure.
    You continue,
    “All of the virtue in the world and a $1.50 still won’t buy a woman who is objectively ugly another point upward in the socio-sexual hierarchy”
    Yes, you have clearly repeated the core ideas of PUAs and their “game”.
    “Game” very clearly holds that a decent, honest, devout, intelligent, chaste woman who can cook, clean, sew, and tend house is *ALWAYS* of lower ‘socio-sexual hierarchy’ [or ‘lower SMV’ or ‘lower MMV’ or whatever other cute little pseudo-intellectual phrase they are using at the time] than a lying, cheating, dim, talentless slut if the chaste girl is a “6” and the slut is an “8”.
    Now, tell me again why you think Christians should emulate such idiotic, shameful valuations of other people?

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    jf12,
    You wrote,
    “But such women are of the highest status among women.”
    *Which* women? Other feminists, maybe? Certainly not amongst devout Catholic women I know!
    All you ‘know’ about women you learned from “game”, right?

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    You seem rather fond of telling me I misunderstand roissy when I can link directly to posts where he says what I quote him as saying with rather vague statements like ‘if you read him every day like I have you would know what he really means when he says what you correctly quoted him as saying’.
    I’ll stick to reading roissy and believing what roissy writes about his own beliefs, thank you.

  • Zippy says:

    Aquinas Dad:
    Game is also inherently reductionist, because it attempts to take this thing called “attractiveness” and act on it in perfect isolation from everything else, typically (but not always) resting on naturalistic reductive concepts of “evolutionary psychology” – the latter being basically a form of modern mythmaking in support of the prevailing religion.

  • Peter Blood says:

    I think this talk in game about women’s status is mostly about women’s beauty, usually quantified on the 1-10 scale. I suppose other factors enter in (such as: will she let you sodomize her?), but they don’t seem to be related to stable family formation.

  • Zippy says:

    Peter Blood:

    I think this talk in game about women’s status is mostly about women’s beauty.

    As praexology (ahem) though Game insists that you next her if she doesn’t allow you to escalate sexually.

  • Mike T says:

    Peter Blood,

    More or less correct. What people like Aquinas Dad fail to see is that the world doesn’t rank women based on their virtues, but rather their hotness. Even other women do this to women. You will probably never see, outside of a convent, hot women of questionable character holding a lower or equal status with unattractive women of high character. It’s just instinctive to how humans rank other humans.

    What truly undermines Aquinas Dad’s critique is that we live in the world and thus must make note of how it works. Mocking it and ridiculing it is beside the point. The world won’t change until it finally does at the End of Days. Until then, human nature will be what it is and virtue in a woman will be secondary over her looks in terms of forming the first bonds that make a relationship possible.

  • Mike T says:

    As praexology (ahem) though Game insists that you next her if she doesn’t allow you to escalate sexually.

    Or as those like Vox Day teach, you next them when they don’t show interest in you period which leaves room for both the PUA and Christian to take the advice and work with it. By the way, Roissy has actually started being mildly influenced by Vox Day (Roissy has cited his hierarchy and even seems to be subtly moving away from his toward Vox Day’s). So while saying Game insists this, or Roissy teaches that may make the essentialists’ jobs easier, the fact is that it is an evolving playing field with some of the “authorities” continuing to evolve.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    I don’t think either you or Aquinas Dad are wrong. It is just that he is talking about natural hierarchy (remnants of which exist here and there), and you are talking about the intrinsically sociopathic hierarchy of modernity (which is dominant). He can speak for himself, but I take him to be suggesting that taking the modern sociopathic hierarchy as “given” is no way for any Christian to live under any circumstances. Instead we should recognize it for what it is: a moral and spiritual disease.

  • Zippy says:

    I don’t really read Vox Day, but what I’ve seen of his hierarchy looks rather ridiculous and counterfactual, kind of like what you get from the Meyers-Briggs obsessed.

  • Peter Blood says:

    What truly undermines Aquinas Dad’s critique is that we live in the world and thus must adjust Christianity accordinly.

    Fixed, lolz.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    You wrote,
    “What truly undermines Aquinas Dad’s critique is that we live in the world and thus must make note of how it works.”
    As opposed to Aquinas Dad who lives on Mars, then?
    See, I look at the world and see things, like, oh, average looking women who have been married to good men for 20+ years sitting next to ‘hot chicks’ who can’t find a husband. I live in a world where I have 8-9/10’s coming up to me at lectures and saying ‘why can’t I get a date, let alone a husband?’ right after the 6/10 and her doctor husband thanked me for my time.
    If your theory was correct Julia ROberts and Fergie would be lonely nobodies and Lysette Anthony would have been the biggest star of the 80’s on appearance alone.
    My suspicion is that you are a relatively inexperienced guy that knows “game” and virtually nothing else.

  • Peter Blood says:

    If we were to discover someday that the whole “Game” world was an Internet edifice built by frantically lifehacking techno-dorks, nerds, and spergs, would anyone be shocked?

  • Mike T says:

    Zippy,

    What part seems so ridiculous and outlandish? It matches my observations much better than the alternatives I know of.

    Regarding the hierarchies I don’t think Aquinas Dad is defending natural hierarchy at all. For example, his comment above ridicules the idea that socio-sexually absolutely beautiful but useless women outrank ugly but virtuous and talented women. It truly seems unnatural to him that women rank other women first and foremost on beauty and that the first thing most men (especially top men) look for his beauty when ranking who they want as a mate.

    Aquinas Dad seems unwilling to conceive of the possibility that part of the natural hierarchy can never go away. There is no record of civilizations where beautiful but useless women were held in lower socio-sexual esteem than beautiful and virtuous/talented women. Similar things are true for the male hierarchy.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    There is no record of civilizations where beautiful but useless women were held in lower socio-sexual esteem than beautiful and virtuous/talented women.

    Elinor of Aquitaine vs the scullery maid.

  • jf12 says:

    The weapons of their warfare are purses and shoes.

    Yajin Wang and Vladas Griskevicius. Conspicuous Consumption, Relationships, and Rivals: Women’s Luxury Products as Signals to Other Women. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 40, No. 5 (February 2014), pp. 834-854.
    “Whereas men often display luxury products to the opposite sex, women often seek to flaunt expensive possessions to the same sex.”

    Supplication from a man to a woman elevates the woman in other women’s eyes. That is how reality works.

  • Patrick says:

    “I live in a world where I have 8-9/10′s coming up to me at lectures and saying ‘why can’t I get a date, let alone a husband?’ right after the 6/10 and her doctor husband thanked me for my time.”

    Is that a common thing? That is fascinating. Why would a beautiful woman be unable to get dates or a husband? What do you generally tell them?

  • Mike T says:

    Have you ever compared the type of men they want to what those 6/10s want? I bet if you put that doctor on a blind date with the hot little thing she’ll find him a boring little man compared to the 6/10. Generally speaking. To the 6/10, landing a doctor with a decent personality is probably a big deal. That’s shooting high and winning for her. For the 9/10, not so much. I bet if you suggested to her a nice, but geeky doctor starting his residency she’d be more likely to turn him down if she thought it wouldn’t subject her to public criticism.

    If your theory was correct Julia ROberts and Fergie would be lonely nobodies and Lysette Anthony would have been the biggest star of the 80′s on appearance alone.

    Megan Fox during the Transformers series first two movies. Biggest starlet in Hollywood. QED.

    Seriously, it seems to just evade you that people might also value acting ability when ranking actresses. That is to say, most might rather watch a 7 who can act very well over a 9 who acts like a mannequin controlled by a drunken Jim Henson.

  • Mike T says:

    Elinor of Aquitaine vs the scullery maid.

    I’m assuming you mean Elinor was unattractive. To which I’d say that if Elinor hadn’t had her position and wealth, but was a poor peasant wench, how do you think she’d have fared back then?

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    Maybe your comment that I replied to was a typo.

  • Mike T says:

    Yeah, I meant to say “ugly but virtuous and talented.” I mean let’s face it. If Cleopatra had been a commoner she’d have been lucky to find work as a temple prostitute.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Peter,
    You wrote,
    “If we were to discover someday that the whole “Game” world was an Internet edifice built by frantically lifehacking techno-dorks, nerds, and spergs, would anyone be shocked?”
    Uhhhhhhhh. Peter, we need to talk,….

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Patrick,
    You wrote,
    “Is that a common thing? That is fascinating. Why would a beautiful woman be unable to get dates or a husband? What do you generally tell them?”
    The first time it happened, about 8 years ago, the Wife and I said ‘that’s weird’.
    Now? we both say ‘welp – another one today’
    Yeah, it is real and it usually involves them buying the ‘education, then career, then start thinking about a husband’ concept. Indeed, I think the 6-7/10 girls do better because they are afraid they’ll miss out while the 8-9/10’s assume there will always be time for them.
    And the more conventionally pretty women often have poor communication and social skills.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    Did you you just imply, even indirectly, that Julia Roberts can *act*?
    You’re dead to me
    🙂

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mind if I ask an off-topic question?

  • Gavrila says:

    Mike T,

    rather point out that women are simply not anywhere near as visually oriented as men

    Like I said, looks are the first thing women look for. In interactions, a woman will sometimes blush before the first word has been spoken.

    That is to say, they teach that looks are usually not a deal breaker with women

    For most women, they are.

    Game-gurus think it is the mumbo-jumbo that comes out of their mouth that appeals but women would not entertain it if they weren’t already attracted.

    Of course, confidence does matter as well. But even “blue pill” thinkers know that.

    An ugly woman will typically not even get a top notch man to even notice that she’s a sexual being by comparison.

    Roosh posts photos to his blog of himself with women, and the women are as ugly-looking as he is.

  • Gavrila says:

    In interactions, a woman will sometimes blush before the first word has been spoken.

    By the way, I don’t mean blushing out of shyness.

    I mean the look a woman gets on her face when she is attracted to a man. Some combination of the following: blushing, eyes widening, mouth opening slightly at the bottom lip, looking away.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Have any of you met Deti is Real Life? The kid seems wound *REALLY TIGHT* and probably needs actual help, not “game” BS

  • Gavrila says:

    Great blog, by the way, Zippy. I’ve been reading it for several months.

    Are you named for the comic book character Zippy the Pinhead?

  • Zippy says:

    Gavrila:

    Welcome.

    As for the handle, your question implies more thought than initially went into its selection. It was supposed to be a throw-away handle for one-off combox use some time around 2003; but as you can see it stuck. (Part of the reason it stuck is laziness: I found it relatively easy to spot my own comments and replies to them in long threads).

    It is possible that I had the pinhead very vaguely in mind when I chose it, but I can’t really say for sure myself. It really was just instantaneous whimsey with absolutely the minimal amount of thought necessary to actually pick any handle at all.

    I have on occasion been known to say “Yow!” and “Are we having fun yet!?” in the interim though.

  • Mike T says:

    Gavrila,

    Like I said, looks are the first thing women look for. In interactions, a woman will sometimes blush before the first word has been spoken.

    I wasn’t arguing with you on that.

    For most women, they are.

    I would say that insofar as the jive with what usually attends them, you are right. For example, dressing poorly and being severely out of shape is a strong signal that the guy is a loser who’d be a bad provider, protector and is probably a low status male. However, I’ve seen women with standards with men who are very overweight and not that handsome, but if you know the guy you find out that underneath the fat he’s built like a brick #$%^house and can lay down a world of hurt on most men. There in fact plenty of women who’d overlook the aesthetic issue there for the rest of the package.

    The argument here is simply that for most men, an ugly woman is… full stop… not even a consideration regardless of her personality and other good qualities. Maybe you have different experiences, but most men I’ve ever encountered would feel that way and could recount stories of uglyish men who had other good qualities getting decent or even good looking women.

  • Mike T says:

    Have any of you met Deti is Real Life? The kid seems wound *REALLY TIGHT* and probably needs actual help, not “game” BS

    I would agree with that. Some of his posts if I remember them right give me the impression he’s a good bit older than you think and rather bitterly divorced.

    As a Catholic, you might not understand where guys like that come from because as Zippy said he’s never experienced the kind of “nice guy/betaboy” (in the weak, simpering, self-deprecating, woman-pedastalizing/worshiping sense) indoctrination from Catholic sources but I’ve seen plenty from Protestants. It’s no surprise that mainstream Protestants are turning many men to game because tradcons have no home in Protestantism aside from hardline Calvinist churches, Anglican churches in communion with the African Anglican churches and groups like the conservative Mennonites.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    From his comments on ‘my generation’, his obsession with girls, and his version of logic I figured he was in his late teens!

  • DeNihilist says:

    and then the evo psych’s arrived……

    http://www.youbeauty.com/relationships/attractive-qualities

  • DeNihilist says:

    Patrick, Billy Bob Thornton, after being with Angelina “having sex with the most beautiful woman in the world, is like having sex with a mattress.”

  • DeNihilist says:

    Mike T. – yes, woman do look at how “hawt” a man is first, just like guys. If I was a player in my earlier life, then I was an aloof player. I rarely ever approached woman, but had many approach me. Supposedly, some of them got “lost in my eyes”. Now on Facebook, I find out that quite a few girls back in high school thought I was a real hotty. So from my view, woman care as much as men about looks.

  • Zippy says:

    Aquinas Dad:
    IIRC, Deti has shared (assuming its veracity, and heck, assuming he isn’t really a woman living in Tibet) plenty of TMI about his own marriage on-line. He claims to have married a high-N carousel-riding slut. He says that when she started denying sex he did a “dread Game” number and threatened divorce, and that that improved things. He has also been a proponent of the idea (again IIRC) that this “dread Game threaten divorce” approach should be used on wives who refuse oral sex (IIRC he demurred on other forms of sodomy, but I am going from memory here and may not have precisely the right picture).

    I am sure he finds the narrative he preaches personally validating. It certainly seems to do a good job of placing the blame for his self-professed troubles and morally dubious responses to them on others.

  • Mike T says:

    Dread game is probably a necessary evil if you believe divorce is morally permissible and your wife is not honoring her vows with her divorcing you looming over the horizon. For such women, it may be enough to think that their husband will only profit from divorce to make them think it’s worth fixing things.

  • jf12 says:

    re: dread. Jude has “And of some have compassion, making a difference: and others save with fear”. There’s a whole lot of others these days.

  • Zippy says:

    Apologetics for deliberate threats of divorce as a component of “dread Game” constitute evidence in favor of my view, it seems to me. It is extremely difficult for even a serious, skeptical, intelligent, and thoughtful Christian man to immerse himself in the prescriptive culture of Game – viewing Game as a positive good, which is what people mean when they propose that it is putatively neutral “tools” which can be used for good – and emerge without disordered moral ideas.

    This again is similar to the difficulty faced by a serious, skeptical, intelligent, and thoughtful Christian immersing himself in liberalism viewed as a positive good (all while claiming that his liberalism is the good kind).

    Liberalism, Game, sluttiness, etc are independent existing social things with essences.

    Game is wicked, just as liberalism and sluttiness are wicked. “Christian Game” supporters are members of the cult of St. Compromise.

  • jf12 says:

    “That hammer is inappropriate for those nails.” So where’s the alternative hammer?

  • Zippy says:

    The alternative to doing evil is always the same: don’t do evil.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    jf12,
    I do try to give you a miss, but,
    “…where’s the alternative hammer?”
    So you’re pulling a Deti and pretending you have never read of any alternative to anything?

  • Mike T says:

    Zippy,

    Note my apologetic is contingent upon already having a disordered view of marriage. That is to say that using dread game to bring a wife back from the brink may not be inherently immoral. I would liken that to making a man who is thinking about hurting you for specious reasons get the distinct impression that you are both capable of and willing to kill him at the drop of a hat if he acts on his violent urges.

    As for the use of it to get oral, I’d call that just straight up blackmail which is easy for “dread game” to become anyway.

  • jf12 says:

    “Who needs Dread game when you can just claim your marital right because she naturally Dreads you?”

  • Zippy says:

    “It is easy for a wealthy man to say that stealing is wrong.”

    The “you must be a natural alpha, so shut up” thing is clearly an ad hominem. The manosphere prides itself on dispassionate logic and facing reality as it is; but from where I sit the level of ad hominem is about the same as everywhere else.

  • jf12 says:

    “Dear, I’m not threatening to leave you, I’m giving you an opportunity to follow me into real marriage by you choosing to submit or else I’ll consider you as no longer willing to be really married.”

    It’s not my fault that “or else” can be a perfectly acceptable non-evil tool.

  • DeNihilist says:

    AD – nothing else is as sexy as game at this time, therefore nothing else exists.

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:
    “I will divorce you if you don’t submit” is either a lie (that is, a bluff) or a truthful intention to do evil.

    Interesting that the Gospel this Sunday contained Matthew 19:9, which was (partially) translated “unless the marriage be unlawful.” The idea that threatening divorce to “dread” her into submission is ok is probably tangled up with Protestant confusion about the dissolubility of sacramental Christian marriage.

  • Sub Rosa says:

    Late to the party!

    Oh, I wish. I wish. I wish the term “Game” would go away. But wishing it won’t make it so. It is concise, catchy, easily digestible, and seemingly all-encompassing. In other words, it’s perfect for our fast food culture. It’s here to stay.

    I do believe the purist definition of the word Game provided by Zippy is accurate. If you are looking at the origins of the phenomenon of Game, the definition he keeps falling back on is accurate. In the beginning, Game was a system for perverts try to bang sluts.

    However, something happened. Other men began looking at Game and parsing the results. They read blogs and articles about the interactions PUA’s where having. They began to see some of the underlying social dynamics that were at work and began extrapolating observations on the modern world that men and women inhabit.

    They used some of those discoveries for different purposes. Let’s take a hypothetical case. A man who wants to honor and obey God in a marriage with a women who tries to do the same. If he uses “Game” with any success in his marriage, he is NOT a pervert trying to bang a slut. Period. Full stop. Saying so would be dishonest.

    I can only come to one definition studying game once removed. Game is understanding the social dynamics between men and women in 21st America.

  • Mike T says:

    Athol Kay, who is about as much of an authority as Roissy, has some interesting things to say about why dread game should be avoided.

  • Mike T says:

    Athol Kay is a good example of how some of the commenters here don’t seem to know as much as they do about this topic. Roissy has frequently recommended him and others for how to do “game” in long term relationships even admitting IIRC that their system is better developed there than his.

    But of course we all know Roissy is the only law-giver here…

  • jf12 says:

    By their fruits etc. If the woman is acting like an unbeliever, by not submitting, then she is probably not really a believer.

  • Zippy says:

    I have Kay’s book. I might even be able to get through it if it weren’t for all the materialist “oxycontin bonding” crap you have to wade through. But life is short.

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:
    I can’t recall if you are Catholic, but the subjective “like an unbeliever” canard is a non-starter. “Believer” means, for the purposes of sacramental Christian marriage, “baptized”. A valid marriage between baptized Christians is indissoluble, period, no matter what apostasy or wickedness either or both spouses get themselves into.

  • Zippy says:

    Sub Rosa:
    I think later stage concepts of “Game” are similar to attempts to “save” liberalism, and are similarly misguided for reasons already discussed.

  • jf12 says:

    Zippy, no I’m not Catholic. Although I’d unflinchingly toss my hat in the ring of baptismal regeneration, baptism is merely necessary and not sufficient. And not being Calvinist, one isn’t finished being saved until one enters the pearly gates, so one can certainly unsave oneself.

    Luke 16:10 gives one sort of guide for distinguishing belief: “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.” If she can’t bring herself to believe she ought to submit to her husband, then she doesn’t actually believe Christ is Lord.

  • jf12 says:

    And I’m not making light of this, pretending 9% tithe of cumin is crossing the line. I’m saying she already is, and already has been way too far over the line for way too long, and probably already headed to hell because of her contempt for her undreadful husband.

    Inviting her to follow is not the same as abandoning her; if she doesn’t follow then it is because she chose to depart from following.

  • Sub Rosa says:

    I probably should be careful of the quick response here, as I am in the process of raking my way through your archives to get a better handle on your perspective.

    But…I wasn’t aware that being a better husband was an attempt to save liberalism.

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:
    A Christian with an understanding of “marriage” that allows divorce when you aren’t haaaaappy with your wife’s submissiveness probably isn’t sacramentally married at all, and has bigger problems than antiessentialism when it comes to Game. And I suppose I can’t expect folks who don’t know what marriage is to be capable of talking about why Game doesn’t mix with it.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    A Christian with an understanding of “marriage” that allows divorce when you aren’t haaaaappy with your wife’s submissiveness probably isn’t sacramentally married at all, and has bigger problems than antiessentialism when it comes to Game. And I suppose I can’t expect folks who don’t know what marriage is to be capable of talking about why Game doesn’t mix with it.

    They can’t add Athens to Jerusalem if they don’t know Jerusalem.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Sub Rosa,
    Thank you for your honest input. I hope you will not mind if I present my own views.
    -The definition of “game” used by its supporters is fluid and changing, so you largely have to make your own. Zippy has one, which is solid. Mine is more narrow, but we can use Zippy’s.
    -The general ‘skills’ associated with “game” [approach, ‘neg’, etc] are just overly-broad versions of what I call ‘BCAYCDI systems’ [‘Be Confident And You Can Do It’].
    -there are much better BCAYCDI systems than anything “game” has that have been around longer, are proven to work, and have no association with immoral activity, etc. Dale Carnegie and Zig Ziglar, for example. Not to mention many religious resources.
    -The core ideas of “game” ( the ‘alpha/beta/gamma/etc’ hierarchy, the telos of men, and the conceptualization of how women think and act) are obviously wrong and contrary to Christian morality
    Since these are my views my argument is – why waste your time trying to pull something out of “game” instead of going to other, better sources instead? it is like trying to get a decent meal out of a bag of funyons and some easy cheese when there is a farmer’s market across the street.

  • jf12 says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, which, you know, I’m not, but my understanding of the Catholic position here includes the idea that by choosing not to resist the effects of a losuy wife the man gains rewards like experience points (or heart points) because of his suffering. It’s even better, producing more bonus points than self-flagellation, when someone else does your flagellating for you.

    The moral problem of masochism, besides the sanity problem of not wrestling with and taking the whip from the sadist’s hand, is not the opportunity for the cleansing of your own soul (you DO deserve the beating, you worm!) but the fact that by enabling the sadist you are ACTIVELY promoting her damnation.

  • Royal Edan says:

    Jf12,
    You wrote,
    “Correct me if I’m wrong, which, you know, I’m not”
    You’re wrong. Read on,
    You continued,
    “…but my understanding of the Catholic position here includes the idea that by choosing not to resist the effects of a losuy wife the man gains rewards like experience points (or heart points) because of his suffering.”
    Incorrect. While just suffering can be a conduit of mercy and grace and even merit, unjust suffering is not. For example, suffering from cancer with grace, poise and courage – potentially good. Suffering because you won’t get stitches – not so much.
    One of the spiritual acts of mercy is to admonish the sinner – when someone is sinning it is good for them to be told, clearly, that they are sinning. And it is good for the person telling them.
    *failing* to admonish a sinner is a failure of mercy, a failure of caritas, and can be a sin, especially if it is your duty to do so.
    Now – men are leaders of their wives. If your wife is in sin and you fail to admonish her and get her out of sin you are, yourself, sinning. She is to be submissive: if she is nagging you and you fail to silence her and teach her what she is doing is wrong you are actually committing *two* sins ((arguably three) – not leading and not admonishing (and not instructing her might be a third).
    Ever wonder why Original Sin is called ‘the sin of Adam’ by Catholics? After all, Eve was the first to eat and she talked Adam into it? Shouldn’t it be called the sin of Eve (as many Protestants seem to do) or the sin of Adam and Eve?
    Nope – because the Catholic position is that the falt is Adam’s because he failed to do as I mentioned. If, when Eve came and said ‘hey, I ate this and you should, too!’ Adam had said, ‘You fool! That is a sin! Put that down, spit that out, and beg God for forgiveness!’ it would have ended – Man would not have fallen.
    But instead Adam said ‘OK, honey, whatever’ and bam! Failed to lead, failed to admonish, and failed to teach.
    And here we are.
    Husbands are instructed by the writings, sayings, and preachings of the Church to lead their wives, to lead their children, to admonish their families when they stumble, to teach them to avoid sin, etc.
    tl;dr – nope

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:
    You say “correct me if I’m wrong,” but it is simpler to point out where you were right. It was the part when you said this:

    ” “

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @DeNihilist

    Interesting take on game and PUA’s –

    I did not find it so. There are not many paths up the mountain. If we accept that, then the rest is silly.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “suffering with a [lousy marriage] … can be a conduit of mercy and grace and even merit” Doncha luv it when someone says “Your rong! And here’s Y!” and then explains why you are right.

  • jf12 says:

    To be [a masochist] or not to be.

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:
    I get it that you don’t think that divorcing an unsubmissive wife is an evil action. But your attempt to reframe refusal to do evil as masochism is rather precious. Why not just leave the impasse where it objectively lies: you think threatening divorce and even following through with it when you are unhaaaaapy with your wife’s rebellion is morally acceptable. Others, including yours truly, don’t; and further believe that if you think that about “marriage,” you don’t know what marriage is.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Royal Edan

    It was a good try, but what jf12 has done is something akin to “burying the lede”; or reframing.

    His actual goal is try to demonstrate that the power to control others is in each of our hands, and that if we don’t use it then we are sinning.

    This is a religious teaching, but it is a teaching of Satanism.

  • Royal Edan says:

    Jf12,
    You did not accurately quote me. I wrote,
    “While just suffering can be a conduit of mercy and grace…”
    but you wrote,
    ” “suffering with a [lousy marriage] … can be a conduit of mercy and grace…”
    This was a dishonest edit as my point is obviously that a badly behaving wife is unjust.
    If you cannot make a point honestly you cannot make it at all. And a man of honor admits when he is wrong.

  • jf12 says:

    Zippy, mine is a more nuanced position, dancing on the pointy end of the pin. SINCE divorcing an unsubmissive wife is evil, and SINCE enabling her unsubmissiveness is also evil, then to avoid divorcing, all action should be directed to curing her unsubmissiveness.

  • jf12 says:

    Since abandonment is a perfectly Biblical “or else” (e.g. Proverbs 21:19), it cannot be rationally argued that the THREAT of abandonment “or else” is wrong.

  • Zippy says:

    Like I said jf12, from my perspective you don’t know what marriage is. When you use the label “marriage” you use it in a nominalist sense to mean something other than marriage, much like present day sodomites use it to refer to an imitation which is not true marriage. There are in true Christian marriage no “outs” for abandonment, adultery, etc. And that is the source of the disagreement.

  • Peter Blood says:

    jf12, your argument from Proverbs 21:19 is fitting of Pharisee / Talmud.

  • jf12 says:

    No True Christian marriage has the wife in rebellion, hee hee.

  • No True Christian marriage has the wife in rebellion, hee hee.

    No true Christian marriage believes that divorce is ever a viable option no matter how rebellious their wife is. And true Christian marriage believes lying about divorce is never a viable option either.

    If you go into marriage with that attitude there’s a good chance it wasn’t valid.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @MtC

    If you go into marriage with that attitude there’s a good chance it wasn’t valid.

    That’s not the way it works. If you ask to get married, you get rewarded with marriage. If you ask to get divorced, you get cursed with divorce.

    It works in reverse too: If you ask to get married, you get punished with marriage. If you ask to get divorced, you get rewarded with divorce.

    Adherents to Transubstantiation should understand this. When an unrepentant person receives the Eucharist, that does not invalidate the work of priest; his work doesn’t become “nothing”; it doesn’t lack purpose; it’s purpose does not even change. It is still an answer to the priest’s prayer–blessing or curse–and that work still plays a role in the instruction–the discipline, aka, the discipling–of the person who receives what he asked.

    27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.[g] 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:
    I understand your (Protestant) position to be that it is impossible to attempt marriage without completing the sacrament. I can’t make any sense of it, because there are plenty of conditions which can block the confection of a sacrament, including the Eucharist. But in any case MtC is just articulating the Catholic (that is, true, hah) understanding.

    One thing that may be of interest though is that although your view is an accretion to Christian marriage I don’t see that holding it would invalidate an otherwise valid marriage.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    I understand your (Protestant) position to be that it is impossible to attempt marriage without completing the sacrament.

    I would say it as: It is impossible to attempt marriage without receiving the consequences. This is the catholic ( 😀 ) answer to why extra-marital sex is a bad idea (bodies writing checks they can’t cash); for why being unhaaaaapy with the other person is not legitimate grounds for divorce; etc.

    I can’t make any sense of it, because there are plenty of conditions which can block the confection of a sacrament, including the Eucharist.

    I would say it as: …which can block the confection of a particular instance of a sacrament.

    There’s a bit of Uncertainty Principle, here. The Eucharist–even from the perspective of Transubstantiation–is not the whole of The Eucharist, but of The Eucharist. It has the same substance in the way the first Last Supper was of the same substance as the Crucifixion–offering His body as one sacrifice, for the whole world–but continuing along until Christ returns to remake the world through a physical baptism of fire, blood, and death. In turn, we are each to do this–as members of His body–imitating Christ by offering ourselves up as particular instances of sacrifice to God that those of the world might be redeemed. Yet we are not The Eucharist, but of It.

    To bring this back to marriage: Ecclesiastes 7 says: “A good name is better than precious ointment, and the day of death than the day of birth.” He’s talking about things that are settled; things that have been shown and approved by their history. We should take this view of marriage also. The sacrament of marriage is only the beginning of a marriage. When the thing is finished we can say whether it was good or bad, and not solely based upon whether the beginning was properly performed.

    If it were the case that only those with perfect knowledge (even of whatever specific bits of knowledge you or the RCC want to stipulate as essential) are to able to be actually be married, then no one ever has. Whoever had that perfect knowledge would not marry on this Earth. Like Jesus.

    Marriage is like medicine. You practice it. The marriage sacrament is an “amen”; which means “So be it.” While it marks the end of a service, it’s actually the beginning of service.

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:

    If it were the case that only those with perfect knowledge (even of whatever specific bits of knowledge you or the RCC want to stipulate as essential) are to able to be actually be married, then no one ever has.

    That’s a straw man. A twelve year old can understand and consent to nothing can end this marriage except death. The essentials of the sacrament are very easy to understand. The problem is that lots of modern Christians, when they pretend to get married, specifically withhold consent to the essentials of marriage – and thus do not marry in fact.

  • Mike T says:

    The core ideas of “game” ( the ‘alpha/beta/gamma/etc’ hierarchy, the telos of men, and the conceptualization of how women think and act) are obviously wrong and contrary to Christian morality

    So I guess this means Zippy is wrong about you and you do not in fact believe that there is a natural hierarchy among men. Free and equal supermen woot!

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    So I guess this means Zippy is wrong about you and you do not in fact believe that there is a natural hierarchy among men.

    That’s pithy but it doesn’t follow, and it is oddly related to my more recent post: if someone rejects Aristotle’s physics as wrong it doesn’t follow that he doesn’t believe in baseball.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    That’s a straw man. A twelve year old can understand and consent to nothing can end this marriage except death. The essentials of the sacrament are very easy to understand. The problem is that lots of modern Christians, when they pretend to get married, specifically withhold consent to the essentials of marriage – and thus do not marry in fact.

    It’s not a straw man. A twelve-year old does NOT understand what those words mean. You said so yourself in the comments on these last few posts! We think we know what it means to forsake all others, but you find out what you didn’t know when your spouse just up and leaves on you, or falls terribly ill, or goes insane…Then and only then does one know what it means to join yourself to another, and forsake all others.

    This is why we say we walk by faith. Not blind faith, but faith. It’s also why we must hold them to it. Marriage really is a community institution, as the RCC (among others) has always maintained.

    If my children say, “We want to go to Grandpa’s house”, and I say (as chauffeur-priest of my family) “All right: Get in the car.” that does not guarantee we get to Grandma’s house by driving our car; even though everyone understood that driving the car was “the way” to Grandma’s house, and even though we started driving that car. If we break down, we’re all going to get out and push, call a tow-truck, whathaveyou…Nor do we abandon our only method of transportation. I simply can’t afford another car.

    Marriage is, obviously, is much more important that a car.

  • jf12 says:

    I’m agreeing with Cane and his understanding of the correct Catholic teaching.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @MikeT

    So I guess this means Zippy is wrong about you and you do not in fact believe that there is a natural hierarchy among men. Free and equal supermen woot!

    There is a strain of “superman” in AD’s wording. He said above:

    Patrick,
    You wrote,
    “And the alpha beta gamma thing, whatever you call the order of men on the ladder, needs to be accepted”
    I refuse to accept something so blatantly wrong. Immoral buffoons with poor impulse control and the inability to form meaningful emotional attachments are ‘top of the heap’? Hardly!

    That refusal is the beginning of nihilism, of free and equal supermen, and it does have a Platonist pedigree.

    The fact is they ARE top of the world’s heap, and God works with that…right up until He sends them to Hell to meet their father of lies.

  • Zippy says:

    One thing is for sure, Cane: given your epistemology it is impossible to make even trivial commitments.

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:
    Note that your view fits what I have said about postmodernism perfectly: a twelve year old can’t have a definite understanding of “till death do us part” unless she knows completely and omnisciently what will or might happen.

    That place you find yourself epistemically is right smack in the middle of the postmodern catastrophe.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    One thing is for sure, Cane: given your epistemology it is impossible to make even trivial commitments.

    From Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount

    “33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.”

    I would say that is because it is impossible to know if we are committed until the thing is finished; until we die. Our job is to keep saying “yes”, remind everyone of their “yes”, and make no room for “no”. When others fail to keep their “yes”, but ask for forgiveness, then we give it and restore them to the hope of their “yes”. And if they don’t, then they reap the consequences of their “no” by casting them out for the destruction of their flesh that they might learn their error and be saved.

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:

    I would say that is because it is impossible to know if we are committed until the thing is finished; until we die.

    Now you are equivocating between whether or not we made a commitment and whether or not we kept it.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    Note that your view fits what I have said about postmodernism perfectly: a twelve year old can’t have a definite understanding of “till death do us part” unless she knows completely and omnisciently what will or might happen.

    What you are calling postmodernism has been known forever as “the human experience”. It is the state of things since the Fall. Recognizing that we live in a fallen state (Jesus, again: “Forgive them Father, they know not what they do.”) is not acceptance or promotion of falling.

    That place you find yourself epistemically is right smack in the middle of the postmodern catastrophe.

    According to your map. That’s because you’ve gerrymandered your moral map to match your personal conceptions instead of accepting what has been revealed to you. This sort of gerrymandering has been going on for a very long time now.

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:

    According to your map. That’s because you’ve gerrymandered your moral map to match your personal conceptions instead of accepting what has been revealed to you. This sort of gerrymandering has been going on for a very long time now.

    That’s all very … metaphorical … and makes a nice distraction from the fact that your epistemology renders it impossible to actually make a commitment.

  • Mike T says:

    That’s pithy but it doesn’t follow, and it is oddly related to my more recent post: if someone rejects Aristotle’s physics as wrong it doesn’t follow that he doesn’t believe in baseball.

    When you say a hierarchy of men that allows for a lot of nuance in how men are ranked is obviously wrong it puts the burden on you to assert that you do in fact believe that there is a hierarchy of men. That burden comes from the phrasing which implies to a reasonable person that you are not just objecting to the specific, but the idea.

    Though I will grant you this, AD has not concerned himself in the least with many details I take for granted that he does or should know. For example, when saying that that hierarchy is obviously wrong that he is objecting to a hierarchy that is much less based on success with women but also about success in life, God-given traits like one’s looks, etc. [Citation]

    It’s telling that he roasts that hierarchy while spouting Roissy this, Roissy that despite the fact that it’s not Roissy’s hierarchy and Roissy doesn’t even formally use it when writing (though has admitted it has merit).

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    That’s all very … metaphorical … and makes a nice distraction from the fact that your epistemology renders it impossible to actually make a commitment.

    My epistemology acknowledges that it is impossible to fulfill a commitment on my own. “There but for the grace of God go I…”,

  • Cane Caldo says:

    So can we use blockquotes now?

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:
    “On my own” is also both a straw man and a red herring. If “commitment” is something you can’t make until you die having kept it then there is no such thing as making (or breaking) commitments.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Cane,
    You wrote,
    “That refusal is the beginning of nihilism, of free and equal supermen, and it does have a Platonist pedigree.”
    False. I am not rejecting hierarchy (I am a monarchist!) I am rejecting “game’s” idiocy of thinking psychos are best.
    You continue,
    “The fact is they [Immoral buffoons with poor impulse control and the inability to form meaningful emotional attachments] ARE top of the world’s heap, and God works with that…right up until He sends them to Hell to meet their father of lies.”
    Hardly! Just the story of David proves this wrong – when he was virtuous he was king and ruled with God’s blessing; when he lost his virtue he lost God’s blessing and all of Israel suffered.
    The epitome of Christian masculinity is not “Immoral buffoons with poor impulse control and the inability to form meaningful emotional attachments” but rather virtuous men and virtuous men are not pushovers, are not passive-aggressive ‘nice guys’ and are not distracted by lust and envy.
    Remember – the “game” theorists *admit* that the ‘alphas’ they aspire to be have no male followers! These are not leaders or the best of men, they are narcissists who wish they were better and drown their dreams in hedonism

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    I have directly quoted and linked to VD’s attempt at a hierarchy, even for you.
    [as an aside I do chuckle when guys like you say ‘don’t be a beta’ when VD’s conceptualization of a beta is that they are much more successful than the average man]
    I mention roissy often because his 16 ‘commandments’ are often held up buy supporters of “game” and then promptly ignored when those same people say ‘but “game” can be Christian!’; that’s all.

  • jf12 says:

    One of Israel’s big mistakes and/or reasons for not submitting in the Bible was taking for granted that God would never get a better bride, and considering any such threats (Matthew 3:9-10) as empty.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    “On my own” is also both a straw man and a red herring. If “commitment” is something you can’t make until you die having kept it then there is no such thing as making (or breaking) commitments.

    Commitment as a thing that exists in a void, impersonal, which we sometimes evoke, is the straw man in this discussion.

    We can say to a twelve-year old in a way that he really understands: “This commitment is much more of a commitment than you know. Think hard before you answer: Do you really want the thing on the other side of this commitment?”

    The thinking that should be done is not on the consequences of the commitment, but on the desire. Whether a twelve-year old fully understand or not is besides the point. Forces outside him will hold him to it; God, family, natural consequences, etc.

    This is where AD goes wrong in his estimation of David. David’s virtue was not great, but his love of God was off the charts; his desire. He was, as the Bible describes David: A man after God’s own heart. That’s what made him good. To focus on his virtue is to miss that to which his virtue points.

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:

    Commitment as a thing that exists in a void, impersonal, which we sometimes evoke, is the straw man in this discussion.

    Who do you mean by “we”?

    It certainly is a straw man though.

  • Sub Rosa says:

    @Aquinas Dad

    I have appreciated your comments throughout the thread.

    You say, “-The general ‘skills’ associated with “game” [approach, ‘neg’, etc] are just overly-broad versions of what I call ‘BCAYCDI systems’ [‘Be Confident And You Can Do It’].
    -there are much better BCAYCDI systems than anything “game” has that have been around longer, are proven to work, and have no association with immoral activity, etc. “

    I agree with you in the main. There are far better sources to read. However, for the average person those sources are hidden, scarce, and need a “modern” translator. For a bookworm, such as myself, maybe not. But it will not fall on deaf ears at a blog such as this one that our current culture screams, nah megaphones a completely different message. I would go a step further and say that our culture, from birth to death, attempts to indoctrinate us with the exact opposite message found in those BCAYDI systems.

    A slight smile still breaks across my face when I think of the practitioners of “early game” unwittingly hitting upon “crime think”. Who would have thought, the loins of young men would be strong enough to push them up against a reality different from indoctrination?

    I do believe Christians can use that to teach a cogent, easily verifiable system of counter culture that does not offend faith nor outrage reason.

  • Mike T says:

    I have directly quoted and linked to VD’s attempt at a hierarchy, even for you.

    Citation, please because I just searched the HTML source for this and the Send in the Clowns post and couldn’t find anything backing this claim of linking to it.

    [as an aside I do chuckle when guys like you say ‘don’t be a beta’ when VD’s conceptualization of a beta is that they are much more successful than the average man]

    Except that I don’t say that sort of thing except when the person I’m talking to is talking to me in the context of Roissy. In fact, it is patently obvious to everyone here but you that I don’t agree with Roissy’s binary system.

  • Mike T says:

    I realized on my ride home what it is that bothers me so much about this “essentialist criticism” of game. It’s this insistence that if game means different things, it means nothing. Ok, so if that’s true then martial arts is problematic as well because there are schools of martial arts that are philosophically and technically diametrically opposed like Karate and Tae Kwon Do which are very aggressive, offensive, strike-based styles as opposed to Aikido which is purely defensive and almost passive.

    This insistence that Roissy’s school of thought must be the standard by which it is identified and criticized wouldn’t hold up in analyzing martial arts since you’d be more or less declaring that we must ignore all of the other major systems and prominent teachers of minor styles because one system dominates.

  • jf12 says:

    The essence of marriage is the woman submitting to physical union. To call indissolubility the essence is to commit nominalism.

  • jf12 says:

    Here are some other indissoluble relationships. Familial bonds, especially parental (Psalms 94:14 among many). Being baptized into the Church (right?). Permanent slave (Deut 15:17). Priesthood (right?). This is fun! Care to add to the list of indissoluble relationships that are not marriage?

  • Skeggy Thorson says:

    The idea that guys who act like apathetic psychopaths are more sexually attractive to women saturates western culture. The saying that nice guys finish last is still popular and there are tons of movies like Youth in Revolt that stress this. I have even had the misfortune of seeing many cartoon that presented the same view. So, in addition to be wrong about everything else the gamesters are also mistaken about their movement being counter-cultural. Also, I have found that when I started trying to act kind and be humble the people around me started to act the same way not only toward me but to others. Whereas when I was violent and thuggish, everything was always a game of escalation. Sorry if this comment adds nothing to the discussion.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    Who do you mean by “we”?

    I meant humans, but forget it.

    If “commitment” is something you can’t make until you die having kept it then there is no such thing as making (or breaking) commitments.

    A commitment is something you can’t have made until you die having kept it. Regardless, we’re getting off-track here.

    A commitment is made, but they must be kept for them to remain. A commitment can be broken. Divorce can happen to a real marriage.

    Imperfect knowledge of the full scope of the consequences of a commitment are no excuse from either keeping the commitment, or for suffering the consequences of breaking the commitment. Crossing your fingers behind your back (or in your mind) is not necessarily a bar to those, either. Bigamy happens.

    The consequences of a commitment can happen even if we don’t know what that means, or if “in our hearts” (as Protestants are too often wont to say) we don’t actually accept it, or refuse to fully consider it.

    This is a real pickle, and only forgiveness will sort it out. A better understanding of the law only provides a more complete picture of how much we would be damned if we didn’t have forgiveness.

    I don’t know how you justify the doctrine of Hell, mortal sin..lots of things; as commitments not to murder, not to steal, etc. compel everyone who reaches the age of accountability (whatever age that is), and no one chooses to be born, or even remembers it.

    @MikeT

    I realized on my ride home what it is that bothers me so much about this “essentialist criticism” of game. It’s this insistence that if game means different things, it means nothing.

    For me it’s the insistence by Vox and those like him that Game can mean anything and everything. Claims are made of it that are usually claims of a religion. This is especially troubling from a Christian perspective because Game is cobbled together like a superstition; like TENS, and psychotherapy. Those things are attacks at the root of Christianity. In fact, the start from the premise that Christianity is a lie.

    Ok, so if that’s true then martial arts is problematic as well because there are schools of martial arts that are philosophically and technically diametrically opposed like Karate and Tae Kwon Do which are very aggressive, offensive, strike-based styles as opposed to Aikido which is purely defensive and almost passive.

    If anyone within earshot of me was saying that Christians must learn marital arts to live an authentic Christian life, or that an appropriate and logical response to an argument in home is a roundhouse, then I’m going to say that they need to step away from martial arts.

    This insistence that Roissy’s school of thought must be the standard by which it is identified and criticized wouldn’t hold up in analyzing martial arts since you’d be more or less declaring that we must ignore all of the other major systems and prominent teachers of minor styles because one system dominates.

    Then why aren’t you over at AGP telling him that what he has linked as “Core Maxims” are not core maxims? That’s what I said on my blog; which largely kicked off this current edition of the argument.

    All of that aside: Marital arts aren’t like martial arts. Martial arts are ultimately about division. Marital arts are about union. If Game is about sexual relationships between a man and a woman, then it’s marriage we are talking about. Christians already have a marital arts program.

  • *Sits back, chews popcorn*

    Sometimes it’s nice to acknowledge when you’re out of your depth in a discussion.

    This has all taken a fascinating turn.

  • Donna Sposata diMaria says:

    “I don’t know how you justify the doctrine of Hell, mortal sin..lots of things; as commitments not to murder, not to steal, etc. compel everyone who reaches the age of accountability (whatever age that is), and no one chooses to be born, or even remembers it.”

    I guess you have to view life as either horrific injustice or unfathomable gift, and make your choices from there. Maybe forgiveness is the thumb God places on the scale to mitigate the “unfairness” part in an effort to emphasize the fact that it’s intended to be a gift.

    I’m not sure what to make of “game.” I’m not sure exactly how I even got here, or if perhaps this entire subject is an intellectual and emotional “bad neighborhood” I’d best back off from. Though I agree with malcolmthecynic, and if popcorn weren’t so darn high carb, I’d join him. I greatly appreciate the perspective being offered here, in any case, and the discussion is genuinely fascinating.

    I will say this, though. Whatever hopefulness inspires anyone to cheerfully go forth in life, into marriage, parenthood, or any other normal-but-probably-crazy endeavor: If you knew the pain ahead of time, no one would choose it. But if you knew the joy available to you, you’d hardly be able to refuse. My little sister’s eldest son committed suicide a little over a year ago. Talk about pain. Talk about life circumstances that leave you regularly gasping for air. She and her husband have handled this in a way I can only call heroic, but the reality is, the pain isn’t over, and who knows how this will affect their other children over time. As you say, Zippy, “tingles” don’t cut it. And life doesn’t care if you’re intellectually or emotionally prepared to deal with it. How do you justify the doctrine of Hell? You don’t. You hang on. You hope. You pray. You cry, a lot. And, if you just keep going, you find that life isn’t over, and joy is still available, at least sometimes. But you’re also never the same.

    It is what it is. So you latch on to what helps, for as long as it helps, and trust that the choices you’ve made so far have built some semblance of protection and hope that allow joy to come in.

    We’re all out of our depth, malcolmthecynic. We just are.

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:

    A commitment is something you can’t have made until you die having kept it.

    Then (as a consequence of that view) no living person ever makes a commitment and marriage – since marriage is a commitment – is impossible. That is a reductio ad absurdam of your postmodern view of marriage.

    Regardless, we’re getting off-track here.

    No we aren’t. This is precisely where we disagree, and other “tracks” are a distraction from the ludicrousness of your self-contradictory postmodern view of making commitments (and therefore of marriage).

  • Zippy says:

    Good comment Skeggy.

  • Mike T says:

    Then why aren’t you over at AGP telling him that what he has linked as “Core Maxims” are not core maxims? That’s what I said on my blog; which largely kicked off this current edition of the argument.

    All of that aside: Marital arts aren’t like martial arts. Martial arts are ultimately about division. Marital arts are about union. If Game is about sexual relationships between a man and a woman, then it’s marriage we are talking about. Christians already have a marital arts program.

    It’s not for me to say that Vox Day cannot have his own “school” that borrows from Roissy. That’s the martial arts analogy that you appear to have missed. There are a number of styles, such as Jeet Kune Do, that started as one man simply taking other authorities’ styles, mixing them and becoming his own teacher.

    If anyone within earshot of me was saying that Christians must learn marital arts to live an authentic Christian life,

    Not even remotely relevant to this comparison, Cane.

    or that an appropriate and logical response to an argument in home is a roundhouse, then I’m going to say that they need to step away from martial arts.

    But for a Christian man who find himself married to the sort of woman who thinks she can assault him like a man, using Aikido techniques on her would be a perfectly appropriate Christian response. She starts punching him in the face… respond to the second punch with an Aikido wrist twist or grab move. She’ll be on the ground screaming in agony without any injury, let alone even a bruise she can point to if the cops are called.

  • Mike T says:

    Reiterating that analogy one more time… there are many equally valid schools of martial arts that are varied, sometimes even diametrically opposed, in both their technique and philosophy of life and combat. You can go from Tai Chi all the way up to styles like Ninjitsu (which started out as a form dedicated primarily to assassination).

    They’re all still valid schools of martial arts despite the fact that with this variety you can only say that the essence of martial arts is that they are a system of combat training organized under a teacher.

  • Mike T says:

    And to preempt one of AD’s likely responses, like “game” systems not all martial arts systems are equally effective. Each one has strengths and weaknesses, masters of one often start learning a complementary style and there are times when one style will simply best another because its strength is another system’s weakness all other things being equal.

  • Zippy says:

    Game isn’t anything like martial arts. Psychological manipulation to push (putative) female sexual buttons isn’t a kind of self-defense. If Game is like martial arts then sluttiness is like martial arts: a reductio of the analogy as far as I am concerned.

    After a year or two of observing “Game culture” I am becoming convinced that Game isn’t just analogous to sluttiness; it actually is the male equivalent of sluttiness. Just like sluttiness it seduces men with the promise of validation by (some members of) the opposite sex. Just like sluttiness it tries to defend itself with appeals to the sorites paradox, nominalism, etc. Just like sluttiness it draws in the weak-minded and corrupts them; etc, etc. And Christian men who defend it are in the same position as Christian women who buy and pass around and actively promote Cosmo for the “beauty tips”.

  • Zippy says:

    And like sluttiness Game is ultimately self-defeating: slutty women seek out and get used by men who are bad for them.

  • Zippy says:

    Furthermore, sluttiness attempts to draw false equivalences between fornication and the marital bed. Women will come forth with true testimony about how sluttiness won them a husband. There will be true anecdotes of wives acting slutty to get their husbands’ attention and “save” their marriages. Sluttiness “works,” but not in the sense that its practitioners and promoters think it works.

    I could go on and on: whatever can be said about sluttiness can be said about Game. And that includes the fact that Christians have no business promoting it.

  • jf12 says:

    Because of their intrinsic biological libido, men do not require a woman to be slutty or “bad girl” to be aroused. If anything, her acting slutty is for her: to advertise her arousal or availability. Most men, I’m guessing correctly, would actually be much more aroused by a sweet virgin girl who submissively surrenders her body nonsluttily.

    In constrast, because of their lack of intrinsic biological libido, women require their men to be at minimum somewhat of a bad boy. Sorry. The genders are not symmetrical.

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:
    Most men, I’m guessing correctly, would actually be much more aroused by a sweet virgin girl…

    You actually made me laugh, at this picture of the sweet modestly dressed virgin getting all the attention while the mini-skirted sluts are stuck being wallflowers.

    Your commentary has been pretty helpful, demonstrating my points as I make them. The check is in the mail.

  • jf12 says:

    Who would you rather? Actual question, no further snark desired.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    Then (as a consequence of that view) no living person ever makes a commitment and marriage – since marriage is a commitment – is impossible. That is a reductio ad absurdam of your postmodern view of marriage.

    When God approaches Abraham He does not ask Abraham to make a commitment, but tells him what the commitment will be.

    Likewise, Christ said “What God hath joined together, let not man separate”.

    Again, Christ says, “34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.”

    And again, Christ at His crucifixion, and Stephen the first martyr at his death, “Forgive them, they know not what they do.”

    When Jesus explains marriage to the Apostles, they marvel that no man should get married, and Jesus does not rebuke them. When Paul discusses marriage, he urges them not to do it. Marriage is a type of forgiveness; a covering over the infirmity of the flesh.

    Further, when children are born they are bonded under a commitment through no decision of their own; no commitment they made. It is the commitment of the father that bonds children. (Here you can find the doctrine of Original Sin.)

    In a very real sense we do not make the commitments, but they are made among us. Now that we understand this, we should not take oaths, but only accept responsibility.

    We can explain this Uncertainty Principle of commitment in a way any twelve-year old can understand with the scenario of driving to Grandma’s house. If you are stopped along the way, the answer to the question, “Did you drive to Grandpa’s house?” is both yes and no; from the human perspective. Yes, you did drive, and yes it was towards Grandpa’s house. No you did not drive all the way to Grandpa’s house.” A person who wanted to ascertain the truth would then ask a different question: “Are you driving to Grandpa’s house?” Now that is a question we can really answer.

    This isn’t much harder to get people to understand than it is to teach the color red, but it presents the same problems to those who want a logical explanation for what red means; what red really “is”.

    The fault I have (repeatedly) made is not postmodernism, but my mental default to the position that you actually desire to grapple with what the Bible reveals, when what you’ve demonstrated is a desire to grapple only with what logic reveals.

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:

    The fault I have (repeatedly) made is not postmodernism, …

    Your error is exactly postmodern: because one cannot have complete knowledge of what keeping his commitment will ultimately require, you conclude that he cannot have definite knowledge of what commitment he is making. And in typical postmodern fashion you get lost in the weeds from there, notwithstanding your rather precious claims to moral superiority as arbiter of what the text of Scripture means.

  • Mike T says:

    Game isn’t anything like martial arts. Psychological manipulation to push (putative) female sexual buttons isn’t a kind of self-defense. If Game is like martial arts then sluttiness is like martial arts: a reductio of the analogy as far as I am concerned.

    Zippy, you’re missing the point by bringing in the self-defense red herring. The point, I’ve tried repeatedly to make here, is that martial arts is an incredibly diverse field with techniques and philosophies ranging from such that even many Christian pacifists could embrace (Tai Chi and Aikido) to ones that are anathema (forms of Ninjitsu). Yet they’re all martial arts despite the fact that some of them are as different as Islam and Christianity in characteristics. There’s also nothing stopping new teachers from forming their own system and putting it out there.

    So the point is that Athol Kay’s system is as legitimate as Roissy who is as legitimate as Vox Day’s etc. There is nothing “essential” about what game must mean. At its core it goes back to “he got game” so any system that attempts to teach men to be objectively better with women is a form of “game.”

    Say I’m wrong here and I’ll ask you to show me how Tai Chi and Karate can both be martial arts.

  • Donna Sposata diMaria says:

    “In constrast, because of their lack of intrinsic biological libido, women require their men to be at minimum somewhat of a bad boy. Sorry. The genders are not symmetrical.”

    I really tire of this line of thinking. It just isn’t so. What was that discussion about the guy who got something like 27 “successful” hits out of 1000? That’s 973 women who just didn’t buy it. 973! While I have found some aspects of the discussion of game from a Christian perspective interesting, and even compelling in some aspects, this one simply isn’t. Overt “game,” designed — as Zippy rightly points out — to identify the sluts, is repulsive.

    It’s *repulsive*, not attractive.

    To the degree it is successful is a reflection of the shallowness and sinfulness of the people involved.

    The thing that does ring true to me is the idea of the need for the man to take the lead, and not fall into patterns of weakness and supplication, especially in response to a woman who refuses to see the value of submission. And that applies to much, much more than merely the marital bed. (The discussion at Dalrock is offputting to me, not because of its coarseness — though it certainly is that — but because there’s something almost pruient about the way it is discussed, as if sexual activity is itself the highest good.) Again: Shallowness and sinfulness are at the heart of the problem, along with a culture that actively nurtures an erroneous and empty view of marriage, incentivizes divorce, and focuses on a misguided notion of female empowerment. And guidance from within the Church is very hard to come by: The topic of husbandly headship and wifely submission is treated with embarrassment, reframed, apologized for, or excused if it is addressed at all, even when the readings for the day are quite blunt. No one is more submissive on this topic than the average parish priest.

    The solution to this, rather than a focus on “game,” is perhaps best accessed via a targeted desire to behave in ways Christianity actually demands, by a couple actually agreeing to go in that direction, and actively seeking the grace of God to make it possible, come what may.

    How sad, for me, that I have been unable to find anyone discussing these issues in a meaningful way, outside of Christian Game World.

    Perhaps I need better search terms.

    This discussion is actually very illuminating. I appreciate it.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    Your error is exactly postmodern: because one cannot have complete knowledge of what keeping his commitment will ultimately require, you conclude that he cannot have definite knowledge of what commitment he is making.

    You keep calling postmodern things that been argued since before Plato; and implicit since the Garden of Eden. Whatever our disagreement: Your insistence on dubbing things postmodern when they are much older is indicative of your own Game.

    notwithstanding your rather precious claims to moral superiority as arbiter of what the text of Scripture means.

    On the contrary: My confidence in the meanings of some what the Scriptures I referenced mean stems from my having set aside preciousness and striving to understand what other men–including men Roman Catholics claim as their own–said it meant. Do not attribute to me what I have not claimed, as I have never claimed to understand the full meaning of Scripture as a whole, or even the full meaning of the particular passages I have referenced. It remains that I should have confidence in those bits which have been entrusted to me, and that you can test their spirits.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @MikeT

    Tai Chi

    Tai Chi isn’t just a martial art, but part of a larger system of thought…which is what I’ve been saying about Game since Cypher’s Problem. When I point this out, people start making references to Karate.

    I don’t have a problem with folks studying Tai Chi.

    I have a problem with them practicing moving magical energies around their bodies. I have a problem with them coming up with a Christian Tai Chi and saying it is essentially the same thing; just without the Chi. I have a problem with them saying that the problem in Christians’ lives is their lack of Tai Chi, and referring to those who don’t embrace Tai Chi as subhuman “Churchians”.

    When I see enough evidence that whatever benefit might come from Tai Chi is outweighed by the negatives I have outlined, then I have to say, “Look, it’s obvious that you now put your faith in Chi-Gung, rather than Christ. Cut it out.”

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:
    If you prefer to call your error something else or trace its pedigree differently that doesn’t make it any less an error.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    If you prefer to call your error something else or trace its pedigree differently that doesn’t make it any less an error.

    Yes, if I am in error that is true. That hasn’t been demonstrated yet; though I assure you that I will give you plenty of opportunity.

    But here, what we’ve established is that your desire to convict things as postmodern leads you to say things that aren’t actually true.

  • Mike T says:

    Cane,

    That may be true of Tai Chi but it isn’t true of other styles. Which is precisely the problem that some of y’all are having here with “game.” You can attack Roissy much like you attack Tai Chi for good reason and yet your take down of Tai Chi is not applicable to Karate and other styles. This is mainly why I find Aquinas Dad’s position so weak. He is akin to someone who is saying that he denies there is any other martial art than Tai Chi, proceeds to declare that Tai Chi is bad for reasons that are mainly specific to it and then proceeds to simply mock people who mention the existence of Tae Kwon Do, Karate, Wing Chun, Kungfu, Jiujitsu, etc. Then when someone finally says what about Krav Maga (a purely secular art created by the IDF for those that don’t know), he just blinks and says “but Tai Chi…”

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:
    I’ve already shown what your error is several times, and you’ve confirmed that you are making it explicitly. It is also clear that you are doing it to justify your rejection of the Catholic teaching that someone must freely commit to the essentials of marriage (which a teenager can understand) in order to marry: that attempts to marry absent free commitment to all of the straightforward and definite essentials of marriage fail to result in a valid marriage.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: preference for sweet virgin girl. It should arouse your interest that you choose to deny reality. In reality, the sweet virgin woman commands a much higher value from men, reflecting their much greater interest, in BOTH the bad marketplace (e.g. the current American sexual market) and the good marketplace (e.g. conservative Christian marriage market). In reality, the nice virgin man is very devalued by all women in all markets. The nicer and more virginal the man less interest women have.

  • jf12 says:

    The literally gross dollar value of a sweet virgin woman in the literally worst market, i.e. prostitute, is actually by far the highest, literally orders of magnitude higher than the whoriest woman.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    Comparing Game to martial arts is basically the same move as comparing it to “a box of tools”. Argumentatively it begs the question by assuming the value-neutrality of what it is compared to. If Game (and the thing compared) actually are value-neutral it is fine but unnecessary; if either one isn’t then it is just empty rhetoric.

    We have to determine what Game is, in essence, the same way we have to determine what other social phenomena (liberalism, porn, sluttiness, etc) are in essence. The essences of things aren’t determined by argument; they are determined by what those things actually are in reality. We don’t argue a tiger into its essentials, thus making it exist as a tiger; we see tigers and understand what they are by apperception.

    Now someone could counter that they think my apperception of the essence of Game is wrong: that Game does have an essence, this isn’t some nominalist word game that people can dance around to impasse by asserting definitions and counter-definitions, but that – given that we are all essentialists – I happen to be wrong in my assessment that the tiger is feline.

    I don’t think I am wrong though. I think Game is basically the male version of sluttiness, and that anywhere you can put “Game” into one of your own pro-Game arguments someone else could put “sluttiness” and leave you morally disarmed against sluttiness. This is born out by all sorts of things: the way many people argue in favor of Game, the way Game (like sluttiness) deceives its own practitioners, the way supporters of Game seem incapable of dissociating themselves from perverts and even set gratitude for perverts as ground rules for discussion, the way Game seems to always elude definiteness as folks dance around what the consequences would be if it were acknowledged to be a definite social phenomenon with an essence, the fact that sorites and nominalist arguments constantly spring up like whack-a-mole, etc.

    This is closely related to the “marriage” debate because things are even worse than bloggers like Dalrock propose. Christians have behaved even more badly than he proposes and the consequences of that bad behavior are even more dire than he suggests. Christians have so debased marriage that when many of them “marry”, the relationships they are establishing aren’t really even marriages, much like sodomites attempting “marriage” or that woman who “married” a bridge.

    “Christian Game” defenders are using the “tools” of the Enemy when they defend Game by proposing that “Game” is something it is not. And we can’t stand on the side of the angels without understanding that reality.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: essence of game. JoJ’s distilled version of the essence of game
    http://josephofjackson.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/inner-game-the-pedestal-part-2/
    is as the antidote to oneitis. In other words in this version of a definition, game is non-operationally defined nominally as the process by which a man knows that he could get other women. The operational definition would be in the details of the process, naturally.

  • Peter Blood says:

    It’s funny that JoJ’s cure for oneitis is to “go out and meet people.” There’s a certain kind of audience where that fits…

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    It is also clear that you are doing it to justify your rejection of the Catholic teaching that someone must freely commit to the essentials of marriage

    Likewise, your repeated assertions that knowledge of the clear language of the Bible is useless or worse to laymen and non-Catholics except as variously interpreted, ignored, or denied by the Roman Catholic church.

    The commitment is not totally freely made, but has boundaries by God’s will. God really is God of the gaps, too.

    3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

    10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

    I’m saying there is a mystery here, as the RCC sometimes does too. You’re saying there is a system here (hello Greece!): God does His part, and we do our part. That’s wrong, and that error is caused by the desire of Natural Law over the love of revelation. Christ is head of both, but Natural Law was of no use in discerning Christ because “we know not what we do”; even as we commit, and are committed to, things we do not yet know, but desire to know.

    From the book St. Paul wrote to the Romans, which I would recommend to you specifically, over all the others:

    30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written,

    “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
    and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

    I’ve long held that the disagreement about Game had a distinctly RCC vs. Prot. characteristic. I don’t understand why you are on the opposite ideological side of where you ought to be by rights (for Christianizing Game), but I’ve always liked it.

    @MikeT

    That may be true of Tai Chi but it isn’t true of other styles. Which is precisely the problem that some of y’all are having here with “game.” You can attack Roissy much like you attack Tai Chi for good reason and yet your take down of Tai Chi is not applicable to Karate and other styles.

    As far as I know, there is one art calling itself a version of Game which does not contain the errors of worldliness, idolatry, etc.: Dalrock’s Headship Game. I have not spoken out against it. Now, I think to honor God and the Church we ought to call that “Christian Marriage” because that’s where it came from, but Dalrock doesn’t seem to think so.

    This is mainly why I find Aquinas Dad’s position so weak.

    So do I. By rights, he ought to be more for Christianizing Game, and you ought to be more against, but there you go…

    He is akin to someone who is saying that he denies there is any other martial art than Tai Chi, proceeds to declare that Tai Chi is bad for reasons that are mainly specific to it and then proceeds to simply mock people who mention the existence of Tae Kwon Do, Karate, Wing Chun, Kungfu, Jiujitsu, etc. Then when someone finally says what about Krav Maga (a purely secular art created by the IDF for those that don’t know), he just blinks and says “but Tai Chi…”

    Show me the Krav Maga, and I’ll show you where I’ve held my tongue, or even praised it. I tried to separate the tactics of wisdom from the idolatry of eastern mysticism, but the more I did so, the more it seemed that people were clamoring for eastern mysticism; that no other tactic satisfied them like practicing Chi-Gung. I can’t continue that. Rather, I will hate their schools all day long, rob them of what good they have, and praise God for it.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    You wrote,
    “[Aquinas Dad] is akin to someone who is saying that he denies there is any other martial art than Tai Chi, proceeds to declare that Tai Chi is bad for reasons that are mainly specific to it and then proceeds to simply mock people who mention the existence of Tae Kwon Do, Karate, Wing Chun, Kungfu, Jiujitsu, etc. Then when someone finally says what about Krav Maga (a purely secular art created by the IDF for those that don’t know), he just blinks and says “but Tai Chi…””
    You have this almost exactly backwards.
    Not a surprise, but it bears clearing up.
    I keep saying that there are much better systems than “game”, many of them, all around us, so “game” isn’t worth the effort. Not because “game” doesn’t incorporate good elements here and there but because what is unique to “game” is obviously wrong.
    If you want to compare this to martial arts I am they guy telling the Backyard Wrestling Team teenagers who think they are learning how to win street fights to stop doing powerbombs onto mattresses and learn krav maga, kung fu, and boxing because what they are basing their efforts on isn’t about fighting, it is about entertainment. Sure, a clotheline can work but the origin of professional wrestling is entertainment, not street fighting.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Mind you, jf12, I am NOT against bringing socially dysfunctional men up to speed.

  • Peter Blood says:

    But JoJ is saying, “You just need to get out more.” True enough.

    (trying to talk around the Protestant-Catholic eruption…)

  • jf12 says:

    @Peter Blood. Good!

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Cane,
    You can’t ‘Christianize’ the core ideas of “game”.
    No, I am not talking about wearing clean clothes, or being prepared for small talk. There are hundreds of ways to learn that ranging from Dad to Dale Carnegie seminars.
    No I mean the metaphysics and pseudo-psychology of “game” is not redeemable because it is false.
    For example – the hierarchy of men associated with “game” is not based upon virtue, accomplishment, leadership, or even actual success but upon the perception of attractiveness assumed in certain women.
    This is completely incompatible with not just Christian theology but natural observation.
    Likewise the view that women have no true agency and are incapable for making personal decisions from the stance of virtue is incompatible with Christian theology and observation.
    Once you get rid of ‘alpha/beta/gamma/whatever’ and ‘tingles triumph over all’ what is left of “game”?
    Nothing that isn’t done better and more thoroughly by many others. So why bother?

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:

    You’re saying there is a system here…

    Not really. I’ve just said that anyone above the age of reason is capable of understanding the essentials of marriage and freely committing to them, and that if the parties aren’t freely committing to the essentials of marriage they aren’t marrying — no matter what labels folks try to attach to the pretense.

    You are the one who is arguing that it is so overwhelmingly complicated that … that whatever, but anyway the RC’s are Just Wrong, and Scripture is perspicuous to the extent that the RC’s are Just Wrong.

  • Mike T says:

    Zippy,

    The reason I am comparing game to martial arts is that martial arts are typically not a bag of tools to be used in a fight. They have tools, but they are a system with a formalized philosophy in many cases. Thus they are not just a list of techniques, but also contain guidance on what to do and how to do it. That is to say they are quite prescriptive. They also vary a lot in what that prescription is.

    Cane,

    I generally exclude you from the criticism here.

  • Zippy says:

    Peter Blood:

    Mind you, jf12, I am NOT against bringing socially dysfunctional men up to speed.

    Nobody is against that, as far as I can tell. The basic argument is over the nature of Game and its compatibility with Christianity in general and Christian marriage in particular. The Game culture has its own form of PC pieties, though, and if you don’t continually profess that you aren’t against men learning manliness you will be pigeonholed as anti-beta, the equivalent of a racist.

  • Mike T says:

    AD,

    Still waiting for you to show the citation of where you even linked to Vox Day’s hierarchy.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Cane,
    Matrimony is a vocation, or ‘an invitation from God to serve him in a special state’. Not all are *given* this call and some who are reject it because we are, yes, free to reject God’s calls. Of course God will ‘Let the one who is able to receive this receive it’.
    Having been given a call toward the vocation of marriage and by a free act of the will accepting that call the person is question has freely chosen marriage.
    But marriage is not only between a man and a woman but involves God; Christ himself participates in the marriage. Thus marriage is an ongoing liturgical act that grants grace to the couple and to the entire world; Christ makes the strength to be successful in marriage available and by free act of the will the husband and wife may take this offered strength, choosing to succeed or fail in the marriage.
    Since this visible state and ongoing act, marriage, is an outward sign of interior grace it is a sacrament.
    Now, since God is as much a partner in marriage as any man or woman and since marriage is an image of the love of God for Man and of Christ for His Church likewise marriage is for life – after all, God will not stop loving Man nor Christ His Church so how can a husband and wife, who are directly participating in those acts of love end marriage, that outward sign of those loves?
    Therefore, a reasonable person can understand that marriage is a life-long commitment that they may assent to by free act of will because of their faith that God will give them the strength and graces needed to meet this supernatural obligation.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    Don’t grow too old, waiting

  • Mike T says:

    In other words, we can safely call this likely a lie…

    I have directly quoted and linked to VD’s attempt at a hierarchy, even for you.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    Sure, call it likely whatever you want. What you call it changes nothing of the fact that I have referenced VD’s definitions, quoted them, linked them, and such. I mean, you keep telling me roissy doesn’t mean what he writes clearly, so I can call your statements likely all sorts of things, including self serving and (mostly) off point and distractions.
    But sure – I am probably an ignorant, ill-educated, fat, bald, ugly, lying loser virgin.
    Now that that is out of the way – about the specific points I am making. Can you reply directly to them?

  • Peter Blood says:

    Zippy, LOL, but methinks a lot of gamers have a certain … idiosyncratic .. profile, if you get what I mean.

    On a related note, I remembering my wife talking about some friend who was into yoga, and there was some talk about “Christian yoga” on Facebook[tm]. I intuited that there was something wrong with that.

    You should do a quick search for “Christian Yoga”, I reckon it’s a mirror of “Christian Game”.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    Peace.

    @Aquinas

    Generally, I can find agreement with what you wrote.

    Now, since God is as much a partner in marriage

    I think this statement undervalues God’s role. He made the man. He made the woman. He made marriage. He offers them to each other in that marriage. As you expressed, He offers sustenance in that marriage.

    Now, since God is as much a partner in marriage as any man or woman and since marriage is an image of the love of God for Man and of Christ for His Church likewise marriage is for life – after all, God will not stop loving Man nor Christ His Church so how can a husband and wife, who are directly participating in those acts of love end marriage, that outward sign of those loves?

    For the same reason that those of us who are joined with Christ as joint heirs in His eternal kingdom will die. Parts of us will die before that; especially if we cut them off. We will live again and be perfected, but we don’t hold that we don’t actually die.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Cane,
    You wrote,
    “For the same reason that those of us who are joined with Christ as joint heirs in His eternal kingdom will die….”
    So is murder or suicide acceptable to you, then? After all, if we will all die….
    *I* certainly don’t think I have the right to kill myself because I will, indeed, die someday. Such actions exceed my authority. After all, only God can give life, right?
    Likewise I lack the authority to end marriage. Interestingly enough, God tells me that, too, doesn’t He?

  • Zippy says:

    Peter Blood:
    I’ll consult my Christian Ouija Board for what it thinks of Christian Yoga.

  • jf12 says:

    We could consult our Thomas Merton about Christian Buddhism. Just saying.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @AD

    So is murder or suicide acceptable to you, then? After all, if we will all die….

    Where did I say a Christian has the right to do so? I haven’t made an argument that a Christian has a right to divorce, I said it can be done. Murder can be done. Theft can be done.

    Likewise I lack the authority to end marriage. Interestingly enough, God tells me that, too, doesn’t He?

    Yes, and we lack the authority to murder and commit suicide, but we can do those things too.

    If you want make the argument that doing these things are evidence that those people aren’t actually Christians, then perhaps we can argue over whether they lost their salvation or never had it, or what. It certainly points to one of those. My final answer to that is that it is not my place to say.

    Supposing we established that salvation was never gained (as evidenced by the pursuit of divorce) then perhaps we could reason that a divorce never occurs in a Christian marriage. Since I cannot pronounce on another’s salvation then I won’t be very helpful in that discussion.

    If you want to make the argument that the state has no jurisdiction to perform a divorce, then we can argue about the wisdom of capitulating to the state’s demands for a marriage license that proceeds from the state rather than from the Church. Good or bad: Making them a party gives them some power (as one might have power to abuse for murder, etc.) whether they have the legitimate authority or not. I think a strong case can be made for usurpation there, but I also think if we look closely at how that usurpation went down we’ll see that the Church was attempting to wield earthly power over heavenly things and didn’t know what it was getting itself in for.

    Where we can agree is that Christians should not divorce. Which is what the Bible says; in clear language.

  • Ephesians 5 says:

    Perhaps this is off topic, but it has been weighing on me whenever I read these comment threads. What exactly do you all mean by wifely submission? Though I’m a girl, I think I hate feminism nearly as much as Zippy, or at least I am trying to learn to hate it as it should be hated. I accept that a wife should submit to her husband as to the Lord, just as a husband must love his wife as Christ loved the Church, for whom He was crucified. But what should a wife do when her husband does not seem to think with the mind of the Church? Obviously, his wife owes him the marriage debt, assuming they are actually married. (A man who does not understand what marriage *is* is unlikely to have been capable of consenting to a sacramental marriage.) But several of Zippy’s commenters seem to think that she ought to obey him in everything, and above all avoid *nagging.*” I am happy to agree that nagging is annoying and ought to be avoided. She can take out the trash herself. But several of Zippy’s commenters seem to suggest that she can’t even argue with her husband. What if he is weak-minded, or wrong about something serious? Must she allow their children to be taught false doctrine, for example? Or must she cooperate in the immoral acts that he (wrongly, like several of Zippy’s commenters) associates with the marriage debt? When (if ever) does she obey her properly formed conscience rather than submit to her husband?

    “So where’s the alternative hammer?” God owes us nothing.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Ephesians 5: is this a real situation you are in, or is it hypothetical?

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:

    Yes, and we lack the authority to murder and commit suicide, but we can do those things too.

    It isn’t a question of authority; it is a question of having the capacity to do it at all.

    The key difference is that marriage is a sacrament. Nothing any human being can do can unmake a valid sacramental marriage prior to death. So “divorce” as something that actually ends a valid Christian marriage before the death of one of the spouses is – literally – not possible in the same sense that murder, etc are possible.

    It isn’t that validly married Christian spouses should not end their marriages but sometimes do; it is that they literally cannot, meaning they do not have the capacity at all to, end their marriages this side of death — no matter what they do.

    So it isn’t a question of doing something we don’t have the authority to do, or of successfully carrying out a morally wrong action. It is a question of pretending that we did the impossible and shifting labels around to support the pretense, even though it isn’t true. (Nominalism again).

    No human being can unmake the action of a sacrament. It is not merely immoral to attempt un-baptism; it is impossible to actually complete an un-baptism successfully. And it is no more possible to un-marry than it is to un-baptize.

    Furthermore, it is impossible – literally impossible – for someone who is validly married to marry someone else. “Christian polygamous marriage” is literally impossible: people may label it what they will, but it remains some combination of adultery and/or fornication, depending on the actual marital status of participants.

    In general, it is impossible to confect a sacrament when the conditions set by Christ and communicated through the Church are not met. It has to be His way or it is nothing at all, merely a pretense. And it is impossible for any human being to undo the action of a completed sacrament.

  • Zippy says:

    Also this seems to confuse entirely distinct things:

    Supposing we established that salvation was never gained (as evidenced by the pursuit of divorce) then perhaps we could reason that a divorce never occurs in a Christian marriage. Since I cannot pronounce on another’s salvation then I won’t be very helpful in that discussion.

    Salvation has nothing really to do with it. It is entirely possible for those who have been baptized, validly married Christians, Christians who receive the Eucharist, and priests who have been validly ordained to go to Hell. It is right to say that speculating on who that happens to in particular is not our place; but just because Johnny went to Hell it doesn’t follow that his marriage was invalid.

  • Mike T says:

    That’s a line of argument I hear often from other Protestants that annoys me. It’s just a fancy form of the No True Scotsman argument.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Cane,
    I misunderstood your post. I apologize.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: nominalism. No True Member of the church etc.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @AD

    I misunderstood your post. I apologize.

    As an all-conference Misunderstander, and former Rookie of the Year, I welcome you to the club.

  • johnmcg says:

    Regarding martial arts vs. game.

    I will state at the outset that my knowledge of martial arts and its various disciplines is quite cursory. I understand that “martial arts” is an umbrella term covering many methods of self-defense mainly of Asian descent, some of which stress defense, and are thus morally unproblematic, and others which stress attack, and are thus more controversial.

    What I see happening is an attempt to “re-frame” Game, which had previously understood as a set of techniques for PUAs to manipulate women into casual sexual encounters, as an umbrella term for psychological knowledge of women and men that can help men be more effective in their relationships with women, in any context. Therefore anyone calling himself anti-Game has declared himself as opposed to men learning anything that can help them in their relationships with women, and essentially sending them out helpless and unarmed.

    The analogy would be if there were a movement to replace the term “martial arts” with the name of one of the attack-based disciplines of it, such that any opposition to it is opposition to all martial arts and advocating that we all surrender ourselves to be victims.

    Of course, this reframing technique is not new.

    Opposition to some welfare program = hating the poor.
    Opposition to legalized abortion = hating women.
    Opposition to some military action = hating the country.
    Opposition to redefining marriage = hating gay people

    You’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists.

    That the Game proponents are so vigilant in defending this notion suggests, as I said way above, that something is going on beyond assuring credit where credit is due. That there was no pre-existing umbrella term similar to “martial arts” suggests that Game is operating in what was a vacuum, and that some of their criticism of existing guidelines for men have merit.

    But just because there’s an opening doesn’t mean we give the job to the first guy who applies for the job.

  • Mike T says:

    johnmcg,

    As I mentioned above, the term “game” refers to that old line “he’s got game.” PUAs may have been the first to formalize a system in the mainstream (or approximation thereof) but that doesn’t mean they hold a monopoly on the idea of formalizing a system to “get game.”

    Part of the problem here is that the cursory knowledge of martial arts here used against my analogy is wrong. Most martial arts are not in fact self-defense systems. Many of them were a form of combat training for warriors and Ninjitsu, for example, was created for training in espionage and assassination. That’s why I emphasized both the variety in technique and philosophy.

  • Zippy says:

    John:
    By buying into the idea that Game is like a martial art though you’ve already given away the store.

    If I am right that Game essentially just is sluttiness for men, then it isn’t the same kind of thing as a martial art at all. Sure, wearing a miniskirt and f*** me pumps and flirting with every man in sight could be compared to a “martial art” or called “applied psychology” or whatever; but that framing actually hides the moral essence of what is being defended, it doesn’t clarify understanding of what is being defended. Alfred Kinsey could talk about perverse sex all day with an air of scientific detachment. That faux-detachment doesn’t render pedophilia and sodomy into morally neutral ‘scientific’ phenomena, but it is an old positivist game (hah) by now to try to reframe moral choices as morally neutral clinical phenomena.

    It is perfectly understandable that modern nerdy guys would latch onto Game and defend it, would despise ‘naturals’ and presume that ‘naturals’ don’t understand the need for it, that Game would give them hope with the opposite sex where before they had despair, that they would defend it with nominalist and sorites appeals to language games, that they would attempt to frame it as morally neutral “tools”, that they would try to spin it as an ecumaniacal[*] cooption of ‘morally neutral tools’ to achieve masculinity from immoral sources etc.

    This is exactly what wearing skimpy clothes and slutting it up does for plain-to-ugly girls on the margins. Naturally beautiful women just don’t understand the need to slut it up and put out early, etc, because they are swimming in male attention, etc. Saying “he’s got Game” is like saying “damn she’s hawt” for a reason: because the essence of sluttiness and Game are the same, the one being the female expression and the other the male expression. They suffer from the same ambiguities of definition, etc etc etc.

    They are the same thing: Game is the behavioral male expression of inchastity, while sluttiness is the behavioral female expression of inchastity. That is what they are, in the order of Being. That isn’t something that is arguable; it is something observed in social reality, just as the essence of (e.g.) liberalism is something observed in social reality.

    Masculinity and femininity have been around forever. Modernity has for the most part successfully re-branded sluttiness as morally neutral ‘tools’ for girls, and the Game business is just a ‘balance of power’ attempt to mainstream the equivalent of sluttiness for nerdy men. Guys like Deti are right that Game and its appeal to nerds isn’t going to go away, any more than sluttiness and its appeal to plain girls is going to go away.

    But that doesn’t mean that Christians have any excuse to sing its praises.

    [*] HT to FideCogitActio for that awesome neologism.

  • […] understanding what game really is in essence involves observing it as a social reality.    I can’t just make it into what I want it to be by assertion of labels.  I can’t […]

  • shell says:

    Peter Blood

    “If we were to discover someday that the whole “Game” world was an Internet edifice built by frantically lifehacking techno-dorks, nerds, and spergs, would anyone be shocked?”

    You nailed it, Peter. This is what game is, a con where the blind (and deceitful) lead the blind (and deceivable).

    The main theme of all manosphere, Christian included, is,

    “Women are vile, terrible, no good. How do we make them have sex with us?”

    That the disconnect between the main premise (“we think women are awful”) and the quest pervading pretty much all manospheric efforts (“how do we have sex with them?”) is not only not obvious, but the manospherists merrily go on ignoring this enormous elephant in the bedroom, shows the extent of their pathology, which is a frightening lack of basic emotional intelligence.

    This impairment leads them to see women as objects, or subhuman beings, unlike themselves. The contempt for women such a view engenders conflicts with their desires for them–and loathing what one most desires is indeed a source of genuine torment; but unable to see that the faulty conceptualization of women (and life) is both wrong and a major turn-off for the very women they so fervently desire, and that changing it would be necessary to changing their lives, they prefer to believe that a further step down into the objectification rabbit hole, game, will provide a solution to their problem.

    Game is a con created by psychologically and morally impaired men to sell the snake oil of “seduction” to other psychologically impaired (and morally confused) men. It is wrong, on every level. You–Peter, Zippy, AD, and others–have correctly addressed its immorality from the Christian POV, IMO.

  • Mike T says:

    By buying into the idea that Game is like a martial art though you’ve already given away the store.

    Game is not like a martial art, but rather like the umbrella term “martial arts.” Where “martial arts” is a deliberately created umbrella term to describe formalized combat systems, “game” is approaching it from the other direction of being a more PUA-specific system rapidly transforming into an umbrella term that no one can authoritatively claim anymore.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    I do understand the analogy you are drawing. I just don’t agree that – as a social reality I’ve been observing for a couple of years now – “game” is comparable to martial arts any more-or-less than sluttiness is comparable to martial arts. Again, drop “sluttiness” into your own arguments in place of “game” and see how they strike you, if you want to get an idea of how they strike me.

    When a Christian man (e.g. Dalrock, of whom I am generally supportive and who often writes some devastatingly accurate critique) blogs using a term like “headship Game” to refer to the righteous biblical role of a husband, that is comparable to a Christian woman like (say) Sunshine Mary (hypothetically) using the term “submissive sluttiness” to refer to a wife’s biblically righteous submissive role. The choice of terminology muddies the moral waters and makes things less clear; and the person choosing that terminology can’t just will it into not muddying the moral waters — because game is something real in reality with an essence, and that can’t be avoided through choice of terminology and assertion of definitions (or, as often as not, assertion that definitions don’t matter).

  • Mike T says:

    The observation I have is a bit different due to the fact that I see people who often strongly disagree with Roissy on tactics and morals building their own following under the “game” banner. The best two there that I can think of are Dalrock and Athol Kay. Kay is an atheist, but most of his advice is focused on self-improvement over anything that could be considered “manipulation.” I believe I’ve seen Roissy even push him as a better authority on “marital/LTR game” than Roissy is himself. I know Kay is considered a force to be reckoned with in that part of the Internet. To me, this only muddies the waters further as more “game schools” with their own systems rise up and get recognition from the PUAs as peers if not masters above them in certain areas.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Zippy, the term game is sexy, brings people to the blog, etc.

    My favourite is the the Great Enabler, Tomassi. He spreads the spores of the dis ease, female imperative, hypergamy, then promises to show his followers how to counter act this very dis ease that he is spreading! He is a master of manipulation!

  • johnmcg says:

    So then Game is like “Coke” or “Kleenex” — a name for a specific member of the class that has come to be a shorthand for the class itself.

    But then here’s the problem for you — the reason “Coke” can be used to generically refer to cola is that Coca-Cola is the quintessential example of cola. It has everything that makes cola cola, and doesn’t contain anything more. It would be odd if, say, the name of a cola with cherry vanilla flavoring, or a caffeine free cola, became the general term for cola. The same is true for Kleenex.

    When you carry the Game name over to this general toolbox or psychological knowledge. what you are saying is that the quintessential use of these tools is by PUAs. That the way these tools are used by PUAs contains everything about these tools and nothing more, such that the terms can be used interchangeably.

    I’m not sure why one would want to do this, but one effect would be to make the PUA activities more morally acceptable in the culture. And I don’t think that’s something we should be doing.

  • Zippy says:

    DeNihilist:
    Tomassi on one level is exactly what he claims to be: a bartender with approximately a bartender’s grasp of reality regaling his drunken lonely-heart patrons with gin-addled “profundity”.

    Dalrock is excellent. There is a reason why he is kind of off on his own in that “dark enlightenment” map someone drew up. But his concerns aren’t the same as my concerns, and some folks inevitably end up associating him with losers and perverts just because of his ambivalence toward them. That’s not really fair to him because it presupposes that he could maintain his focus (unlike my blog, which is just about whatever I happen to be thinking about, his has a pretty clear focus) while fending them off — and that is not obvious.

  • Zippy says:

    John:
    The pervasive exaltation of perverts, gratitude toward them, and treatment of their “insights” as profundities that just cannot be gotten elsewhere[*] is an obvious tell that something is deeply wrong.

    [*] A big part of it is men who are unwilling to take responsibility for themselves. They don’t realize that this “no one will teach us to be men except PUA” attitude is exactly what keeps them from becoming men. But because it allows them to blame their effeminateness on others they cling to it: a very effeminate thing to do.

  • shell says:

    Zippy:
    “Dalrock is excellent.”

    Dalrock and his blog border (to say charitably) on sociopathic.

    It is interesting to see how you can provide such an incisive critique of game, from the Christian perspective, but not notice the obvious pathology of Dalrock.

    “some folks inevitably end up associating him with losers and perverts just because of his ambivalence toward them”

    Rightly or not, we are judged by the company we keep. The “ambivalence” (again, a charitable term at best) toward perverts and psychopaths suggests quite a bit about the person displaying it.

    I realize this may not be obvious to you, for various reasons, but it is immediately apparent to passersby.

  • Mike T says:

    [*] A big part of it is men who are unwilling to take responsibility for themselves. They don’t realize that this “no one will teach us to be men except PUA” attitude is exactly what keeps them from becoming men.

    There’s also the fact that the type of traditionalists represented by Aquinas Dad and TUW simply have no credibility. They may as individuals have balanced and proper masculinity/femininity, but the fact is that traditionalists are often no better than mainstream society. Much of this is due to the unwillingness of traditionalists to tell their sons to adapt their traditionalism to society. Case in point, all of the traditionalists who will acknowledge that chivalry is dead and train their sons to be chivalrous toward women who are decidedly not “chivalric ladies.” So when their sons get used and declare “this is bull#$%^” because it leads them to a lower social rank, to be used and see the PUAs and other scumbags cleaning up it’s only human for such young men to not care if there is a baby in the bath water.

    A few months ago, I posted a link to a W4 thread where Jeff Culbreath (the guy who comments as “blogmaster” here from time to time) all but said that a man, including a married man, should risk his life to not severely harm or kill a crazy, well-armed woman intending to maim or murder him. He should “protect her honor” as though such a person has any honor to protect in the first place. Sadly, while this may be a tad more extreme than most tradcons, it is well within the sphere of their general attitude of training young men.

    The tradcon masculinity program is quite defective in its own right, so let’s not kid ourselves. There is a strong element of “pick your poison” at work here.

    I’m personally under no illusion that PUAs are the only source or even the objectively best source. However, I would say that for young men as a group (a group that is primarily not Christian) they are one of the few groups that doesn’t do a bait and switch. Even the military will teach you to be a situational manly man only to suddenly adopt a stance on gender relations eerily similar to a hard-left campus life program. In mainstream society, it is probably the best that young men have.

    (I’ll also add in passing that if you, as a married man, have a disordered house, rebellious wife, etc. you are not in a legitimate position of teaching authority on how to have a married–as opposed to how not to have one. Even the Bible requires married Christian leaders to have their households in order and their #$%^ together before they’re allowed to have anything to say on such matters)

  • johnmcg says:

    Some of that crazy stuff was in yesterday’s Gospel reading coming from that mushy traditionalist teacher, Jesus.

    Turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, do good to those who hurt you, love your enemies, so on.

    I suppose this advice deprives Jesus of all credibility.

    Better leave Him behind and find some PUAs I can learn how to be a real man from.

  • johnmcg says:

    Though, I guess if Jeff Culbreath once posted something that could be interpreted as proscribing something that sounds absurd to our culture, I suppose all bets are off.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    You are getting funnier as time goes by.
    You wrote,
    “Much of this is due to the unwillingness of traditionalists to tell their sons to adapt their traditionalism to society.”
    Not the funniest thing I heard oin the last 3 days, but close.
    So the problem with traditionalists is that they don’t adapt to modernism? Do you know what ”Traditionalism’ *MEANS*?
    [‘The problem with Conservatives is that they aren’t Liberals’]
    “ll of the traditionalists who will acknowledge that chivalry is dead and train their sons to be chivalrous toward women who are decidedly not “chivalric ladies.””
    Are you confusing ‘chivalry’ with ‘courtesy’? It appears you are.
    ‘Courtesy = The showing of politeness in one’s attitude and behavior toward others.’
    ‘Chivalry = Bravery in war; warfare as an art; a body of knights’
    My kids know the difference, so should you.
    ‘Being polite’ != ‘being used by some girl’.
    You wrote,
    “…because it leads them to a lower social rank,”
    What ‘leads to lower social rank’? Being polite?
    You wrote,
    “…see the PUAs and other scumbags cleaning up it’s only human for such young men to not care if there is a baby in the bath water.”
    ‘cleaning up’?
    So you really measure your self-worth and the self-worth of other men by the apparent number of sluts they sleep around with?
    Guys like you – I don’t know whether to laugh at you or cry for you.
    It is like roissy on his definition page
    [paraphrase of roissy]
    ‘there is this guy’ says roissy, ‘rich, smart, handsome, funny, all the men liked him and all the women adored him. He married a hot blonde. AND HE WAS A LOOOOOOSSSEEEEERRRRR because he didn’t sleep with as many women as he could!!!! A poor, fat, ugly slob that sleeps with a bunch of hot women is MUCH BETTER than this handsome, rich, charismatic, guy with a hot wife that everyone likes!’
    Yes, really. I can cut and paste the actual page if you like.
    What a messed up worldview “game” gives you! And it starts with the ‘alpha/beta’etc’ BS because the PUAs are explicitly, openly demanding that men rank themselves according to their *subjective appeal to women who are interested in promiscuous sex*!
    Let me rephrase that – “game” is based upon the core assumption that the only way to evaluate the value of men is upon how men appeal to the desires of low moral women.
    Let me rephrase that again – “game” assumes that Feminism is correct in evaluating men solely on their perceived utility to liberal women!
    But, Patrick, it seems you find that much more attractive than the “TradCon” stance that men should be brave, just, prudent, temperate, charitable, faithful, and hopeful. That the value of a man is based upon his honesty, loyalty, honor, bravery, self-reliance, and dependability.
    [Note – “game” is *directly opposed* to everything in that last sentence except, tangentially, bravery. But “gamers” only speak of ‘confidence’, not ‘courage’].
    Let me put this yet another way. When I started researching “game” I bought a handful of ebooks, read them, and then looked up the authors. One of the first things I found on roosh was his post
    ’14 Things I Bet You Didn’t Know About Roosh’.
    The first line was
    “1. I was a spoiled momma’s boy.”
    And my honest first thought was ‘who didn’t assume?’

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    I have NO IDEA why I called Mike ‘Patrick’ other than a co-worker texted me a question in the middle and my proper names got all weird. Sorry about that

  • Zippy says:

    “Patrick” is also the name of another defender of the idea of “Christian Game” in these threads.

  • shell says:

    Aquinas Dad,
    my hat’s off to you.

    That, however, I will disagree with:

    ‘“game” assumes that Feminism is correct in evaluating men solely on their perceived utility to liberal women!”‘

    Feminism does no such thing. Furthermore, game is profoundly incompatible with the principles of feminism, which posit that women, just like men, are full human beings deserving full human rights (and not objects to be manipulated, which is what game is about).

  • Zippy says:

    shell:

    the principles of feminism, which posit that women, just like men, are full human beings deserving full human rights

    In my view feminism is just a form of liberalism with a particular focus on the ways in which men and women are unequal.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Shell,
    1- I am speaking of ‘Feminism’ as defined by “gamers”
    2- under your definition of ‘feminism’ then the Roman Catholic Church is officially feminist.

  • Zippy says:

    AD:

    under [shell’s] definition of ‘feminism’ then the Roman Catholic Church is officially feminist.

    And under the jabberwocky’s definition of donuts I’m a donut.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Zippy,
    At the threat of going waaaaay off topic, I love pointing out that the ‘nice’ definition of feminism includes Baptists and Catholics ebcause of the responses I tend to get

  • Zippy says:

    AD:
    I understand that as a rhetorical technique, but it isn’t in my temperament to grant nominalism even for the sake of argument. Feminism isn’t whatever the commenter ‘shell’ wants it to be any more than Game is whatever Patrick and Mike T and others want it to be. It is what it is, and it is more important (in my view) to oppose antiessentialist nominalism and other modern errors than it is to win an argument.

    Understanding and avoiding modern errors isn’t just an academic exercise: sometimes our lives and souls depend on it.

  • shell says:

    Zippy,
    it would take me more time than I have now to follow your reasoning on this and understand how you’ve arrived at this conclusion. I will try to do it later.

    For the purpose of stripping down things to their essences, however, feminism is a (radical for too many, still) notion that women too are human beings with inalienable rights. No more, no less.

    Anyone who doubts whether there is a need for feminism can look no further than Dalrock’s blog, which brims with virulent misogyny that ranges from such deranged statements like “women are not moral agents” to quasi(?)-criminal advocacy for sex with female children and sexual and physical violence against women (all presented with the tacit approval – since that’s what lack of disapproval is – of the blog’s owner). Apparently sociopathic misogyny is so casual and normal in the American society that even self-identified Christians revel in it.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Zippy,
    The rhetorical point is to attempt to engage the other into an escalation of nominalism until they reach reductio ad absurdum on their own, of course.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Shell,
    perhaps a different forum or location for this discussion would be best?

    [I’m fine with it. –Z]

  • Zippy says:

    shell:

    feminism is a (radical for too many, still) notion that women too are human beings with inalienable rights.

    If you said “equal rights” I would basically agree, with the usual caveats about definitions.

    And that is precisely why feminism has inevitably led to orders of magnitude more mass murder than (say) national socialism.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Zippy,
    Thanks for the clarity
    Shell,
    Let me quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
    “Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

    Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity

    On coming into the world, man is not equipped with everything he needs for developing his bodily and spiritual life. He needs others. Differences appear tied to age, physical abilities, intellectual or moral aptitudes, the benefits derived from social commerce, and the distribution of wealth. The “talents” are not distributed equally

    These differences belong to God’s plan, who wills that each receive what he needs from others, and that those endowed with particular “talents” share the benefits with those who need them. These differences encourage and often oblige persons to practice generosity, kindness, and sharing of goods; they foster the mutual enrichment of cultures”

    Right?

  • shell says:

    Right, AD.

    And notice, please, that the language refers to man ;). Which itself points to a problem, since it is no accident that for centuries a human person was by default male, in religion, philosophy, and other major areas of human endeavors. Feminism arose from the need, felt by the human beings of female gender, as well as men with a highly developed sense of justice, to be included as full human beings in debates about rights and responsibilities of full human beings.

    As you recall, historically women had responsibilities, but very few rights. The were not allowed to pursue full (or any) education, seek paid (decent) employment, own property, vote, or make decisions about their most personal matters (whether or not to marry, whom to marry, retain bodily autonomy and dignity in marriage – outlawing marital rape in the US is a relatively recent legal accomplishment, etc.) Thus feminism.

    Human beings of BOTH genders (if not mentally impaired) are endowed with a conscience, reflecting a hierarchy of universal human values. Justice, which demands equality, and respect for autonomy and dignity of a human person, which is rooted in equality, are among the highest human values; and they apply equally to all human beings, regardless of their gender, race, and other differences. This is what my conscience teaches me, and this also happens to be the essential message of feminism.

    It was not my intent to derail this discussion with a tangential debate, especially since I value (and agree with) your moral critique of game, in which you are entirely correct, the way I see it.

    I had to point out, however, that your basic premise on feminism as “evaluating men solely on their perceived utility to liberal women!’ was incorrect (actually nothing could be further from the truth, but I realize that this statement will probably awaken your debating spirit, which in turn will prompt me to respond, and the derailment of the thread will continue). An incorrect conceptualization of, well, anything will lead us to incorrect conclusions (such as that game is somehow in line with feminist principles – again, nothing could be further from the truth), so in the interest of truth (yes :)) I had to say what I did.

    But please do not let it take you away from continuing (or not, as the case may be at this late stage of discussion) to unpack the immorality of game. (I can only hope that a feminist’s endorsement of your efforts does not sour you on their usefulness. 😉 It is my life-long experience that decent people of all persuasions are often able to find a common ground, rooted in the universal human values I mention above, which supersede even relatively deep ideological differences.)

  • shell says:

    Sorry about hastiness; the following passage should have read:

    “Feminism arose from the need, felt by the human beings of female gender, as well as men with a highly developed sense of justice, to include women as full human beings in debates about rights and responsibilities of full human beings, as well as removing obstacles to their participation in all major areas of human life in accordance with universal human rights.”

    AD, you make a (provocative, in your intent) remark that, according to my definition, RCC should be considered feminist.

    I will say that, historically, RCC is not been known to support full human rights for women. This problem is what John Paul II sought to address, to some degree, in his 1995 “Letter to Women:”
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women_en.html

  • Zippy says:

    shell:
    I doubt we share enough common ground to even have a discussion. I think “Christian game” and “Christian feminism” are both contradictions in terms, but the latter is literally a form of holocaust denial since the abortion holocaust perpetrated by feminism has murdered orders of magnitude more innocents than (e.g.) national socialism.

  • shell says:

    I think you misread (mis-pegged) me, Zippy, as I’m not a Christian, nor an advocate of Christian feminism.

    But if you are not open to discussing ideas with people who do not share your exact views, then indeed you are right, we won’t have a discussion.

    I was under an (obviously erroneous, my bad) impression that having your blog open to the public, you’d welcome opinions from all kinds sources, and not just those that validate your POV. I apologize for any discomfort my misunderstanding has caused you.

  • Zippy says:

    shell:
    Don’t sweat it. I haven’t read anything new, interesting, or surprising by a feminist in decades. You are welcome to give it a shot, but all I am seeing so far is boilerplate.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Nothing exists like equality, only the equal right to express ones uniqueness.

  • Mike T says:

    Aquinas Dad,

    It seems lost on you that a man can notice that thugs, PUAs, etc. are cleaning up with women and not want to emulate them. But then, a lot here seems lost on you, so what else is new?

  • Mike T says:

    And yes, in terms of social standing a man who fails with women is a loser regardless of any other good qualities. I probably don’t like that any more than you do, but men who are on the losing side of female interest (no matter why) have always been considered inferior men. That is just human nature. It may not be how God sees it, but there is an element of truth to it (large element in many eras of human civilization) in that men are often losers with women because they are losers as men. What defines that is usually worldly, but even there are times when even in the eyes of God a man is a loser (case in point the apostles ridiculing effeminate men and saying they won’t inherit the kingdom of heaven).

  • Mike T says:

    Nothing exists like equality, only the equal right to express ones uniqueness.

    There is less evidence of equality among people than there is to assert a factual claim that Jesus rose from the dead and transformed into a pegasus-unicorn hybrid who flew Mary to heaven.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    You wrote,
    “It seems lost on you that a man can notice that thugs, PUAs, etc. are cleaning up with women and not want to emulate them. But then, a lot here seems lost on you, so what else is new?”
    I did, indeed, laugh out loud. Heartily.
    In your version of reality lying, cheating, faking, emotional manipulation, fornication, and the rest are not just OK they’re a great idea if you can ‘clean up with women’?
    Excuse me, I had to pause to laugh again.
    OK, let’s go ahead and assume the PUAs actually *do* ‘clean up with women’ [for certain values of women and cleaning up] , which is quite the stretch as I will explain later.
    Who cares?
    Let me repeat that clearly.
    EVEN IF we accept that every single positive-towards-“gae” word uttered by roisssy, roosh, blah, blah, blah is absolutely true – so what?
    As Christian men we are not here to sleep with a lot of women, are we? We aren’t to lie, cheat, deceive, fornicate, etc. no matter what so, again,
    Who cares?
    BUT we know that in actuality PUAs like roosh and roissy don’t actually do very well. When they maximize their chances and put a ton of effort into their “game” they ‘strike out’ 10 times for every success *at best*. If they were MLB players their batting average would be so poor that reaching the Mendoza line would more than double their success rate.
    That’s laughable.
    AND we also know for a fact that their cores ideas of ‘alpha/beta/etc’ are wrong and that their ideas about women’s psychology are both narrowly focused and untrue.
    Let’s look at Krauser, the ‘player’ who has written a book about his great success in approaching 1,000 women in a yer and sleeping with 27 of them. Sure, sure – he is trying something ‘tough and hard and blah’ but he is held up as some paragon for ‘cleaning up’ with 2.7% of the women he targeted (and a lot of what he writes about is targeting for best chances).
    Let’s say he averages 15 minutes of effort per woman and 10 minutes per woman for sizing her up, etc and spread his transit and prep times around so he is spending 30 minutes per woman, average, to approach. That’s 30,000 minutes, that’s 500 hours, that is more than nine and a half hours a week.If he is making about average money for an American then at $20/hour he invested time equivalent to $10,000 to have sex with 27 women.
    That’s $370 per woman *not counting* the extra time he spent with each of them in fornication. AND assuming he didn’t have to use texts, calls, emails, etc to actually succeed *ever* AND assuming that there was no other prep time involved. And we *know* he invested a lot more time because he speaks of dates, etc. Plus he traveled to third-world nations so this guy spent money on airfare (repeatedly), hotels, etc.
    In short, this guy’s life revolves around sleeping with women from Brazil, Latvia, etc. and he spends a great deal of time and money doing so – tens of thousands of dollars in both opportunity and actual costs and even if we assume he is actually getting those numbers he is probably spending a total of real and opportunity costs of $1,000+ per girl.
    Let me repeat that – a guy who has set up his entire life around doing nothing but pursuing women and spends the equivalent of $1,000 or more per girl reached his goal of having sex an average of
    – once every 13.5 days
    Color me unimpressed. Especially since Krauser is about 38 – married couples in their mid- to late- thirties average sex 85 times a year.
    That’s right – if Krauser was married and stayed home even if he had sex at 1/2 the average for couples his age his frequency of ‘cleaning up’ would go UP over 60%.

    Is that what you mean by ‘cleaning up’?
    [more in a mo]

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    You wrote,
    “And yes, in terms of social standing a man who fails with women is a loser regardless of any other good qualities. I probably don’t like that any more than you do, but men who are on the losing side of female interest (no matter why) have always been considered inferior men.”
    Yeah, sure. You know, the Latin culture is all about machismo. Bold, strong men; beautiful, alluring women. That is why Spain, Mexico, etc. have that strong machismo culture where men must be brave, strong, and good with women.
    And that is why they hold priests in such low….
    Wait, that isn’t true, is it? The highly macho cultures of Latin America and Spain reserve very high regard for celibate priests, monks, and nuns.
    Well, OK, let’s look at French culture. They adore a good ladies man! They are sleek, sexual, and about masculinity and femininity. Surely they don’t…
    Yup. They also have high status for priests and nuns.
    Well, what about knights? Dashing, brave warriors that dominated the battlefield and crushes their foes. Surely…?
    Nope. Knights have ‘chastity’ as part of their code. Indeed, Lancelot is the example of how martial prowess can’t save a knight from being a failure because he *has sex with the most desirable woman in the nation* which made him an outcast and cost him his status.
    On the other hand the chaste Galahad was he who saved the kingdom….
    And of course the Templars, etc. were largely celibate, too.
    You know, Mike, it is almost as if you are confusing the low culture of lower-middle class America and the promiscuity of the club scene as infused into “game” as reality.
    Let us repeat roissy’s clear warning ONE MORE TIME
    The rich, successful, handsome business man who was admired by men and desired by women; the man who married a hot wife is a LOSER because he was not promiscuous. On the other hand a fat, poor, ugly slob that men dislike that sleeps with more than average the number of women is a ‘higher status’ man than the business man just mentioned.
    Let me clue you in, Mike – actual men don’t evaluate each other on the number of notches on their bedpost. Often quite the opposite. You are confusing ‘being facile in social situations’ with ‘lots of promiscuity’. Of course men with better social skills are held in higher esteem by their peers – but frequent promiscuous sex is not the measuring stick for social skills.

  • Mike T says:

    Aquinas Dad,

    I can only assume you are trying this hard to make yourself look like an ass because you hope that Jesus will ride you into Jerusalem during the second coming. If your reading comprehension here on this blog is any indication of how you engage others, I pity those whom your instruct. It would probably be a kinder fate to let them be raised by feral dogs.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    Sure – I am stupid, fat, ugly, ignorant, smelly, a virgin, and whatever else.
    Now that that is out of the way.
    You wrote,
    “…in terms of social standing a man who fails with women is a loser regardless of any other good qualities”
    How do you explain the high social status of celibates priests, etc in the ‘macho’ culutres of Spanish-speaking nations and the open-minded French? Also, we only know for certain that Bill Gates has had sex with his wife (and I cannot personally confirm even that) – do you consider him of ‘low social status’?
    Tim Tebow is proudly and publicly a virgin – do you believe that the general public holds him to be of lower status than an unemployed man living in Estonia who spends 15 hours a week in bars hitting on girls and another 10 blogging about “game”?
    Since “game” is explicitly about appealing to women and judging all men solely on how they appeal to women who do you think you should emulate, Krause or Justin Bieber?
    Do you have a direct answer lurking about or are you gonna’ call me more names?

  • johnmcg says:

    *Even if* it is true in fact that promiscuous men have higher social status, it does not follow that we should do the same.

    Throughout history, there have been many times that Christians have been held in low social status. That does not mean that we should have stopped following Christ.

    And, back to the original point, the cultural esteem is established by a series of individual choices. Your statement that PUAs are held in high esteem into a self-fulfilling prophesy. Zippy’s original plea was to stop doing that.

    We are the salt of the earth, the light of the world, not blind followers of the current fashions.

  • Mike T says:

    How do you explain the high social status of celibates priests, etc in the ‘macho’ culutres of Spanish-speaking nations and the open-minded French?

    For the same reason that a sports-obsessed America can respect spindly geeks who make a billion dollars using their minds and talents. That is to say, a man who plays the game and fails is not the same thing as a man who chooses to not play that game and do something else.

    *Even if* it is true in fact that promiscuous men have higher social status, it does not follow that we should do the same.

    Indeed, it doesn’t. Aquinas Dad is, however, denying the observable reality that natural man considers a man who is a loser with women to be a loser in general as a man. Natural man, or unregenerated man if you prefer, is different in outlook from Christians and also the normal state of man outside of a relationship with God through His Church.

    That said, it is also true that most men who are losers with women are also losers in general. By that I mean that their being a loser with women in no small part a function of them simply sucking as a man. Even today, that is true. Thugs and PUAs are more masculine than the average Western male which is what should truly have people like Aquinas Dad enraged. Of course every man who isn’t a liberal’s liberal thinks he’s a masculine man regardless of the facts so objectivity isn’t strong here.

    The fact is that “being good with women” means many things. It can just as easily mean that a celibate man is good enough with women to walk right up to the woman he wants and get her to be his wife as a PUA bedding dozens of beautiful sluts. Another way of saying it is that such a man is simply good at getting what he wants from women most of the time. What that is, varies from man to man.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    denying the observable reality that natural man considers a man who is a loser with women to be a loser in general as a man.

    I think AD’s point – and it is a sound one – is that it is a conceit of post-sexual-revolution narcissism that a man’s value and rank is determined by what women think.

  • Mike T says:

    I also think it’s a severe problem to think that that attitude is a modern one, except in degree. A man who is rather poor with women would not have held a high rank in any pagan society either. Christianity mitigates that in many respects, but cannot remove it. A man’s rank is always determined in part by the sort of women he attracts. The equivalent is true of women to an even larger degree.

    Of course, value and rank are two very separate things. The value of a private’s life is no less to God than a general, but one clearly well outranks the other.

  • Mike T says:

    I’ll also add that I think there is a high degree of correlation, especially in pre-sexual revolution times between “loser as a man” and “loser with women.” (And in that order). Much of that had to do with the fact that women were forced to be more sensible in what they valued in a man due to marriage being the norm, birth control being illegal and other factors. So valuing the tingles versus valuing the whole man was not just costly but could be outright ruinous for a woman.

    There is a lot of “chicken versus egg” here with regard to which comes first, the perception of rank or the things that lead to the perception. To that end, being observably masculine, dominant, respected and in the company of very attractive women are all visual cues that a man has higher status where he goes.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    I think this is probably just an impasse we won’t resolve. I think you dramatically overestimate the extent to which traditional, patriarchal men give a crap what women think — especially when it comes to setting the hierarchy among men. The ambivalence may not be complete — especially among younger and lower-status men who themselves don’t have much influence — but it is somewhere just shy of complete, especially among higher status men who actually influence the male hierarchy.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    You wrote,
    “For the same reason that a sports-obsessed America can respect spindly geeks who make a billion dollars using their minds and talents. ”
    In other words, the coremessage of “game” that men are *ONLY* evaluated on their attractiveness to women is obviously false; thus, the ‘alpha/beta/etc’ hierarchy is obviously false.
    Thank you.

    You write,
    “Aquinas Dad is, however, denying the observable reality that natural man considers a man who is a loser with women to be a loser in general as a man.”
    This is a rather broad statement that cannot be supported. Several stone-age tribes have no such expectation and demand no affection between men and women who are not married, etc.
    Stop conflating ‘lower class, amoral modern Americans from certain backgrounds’ with ‘all of reality’.

    You wrote,
    “Thugs and PUAs are more masculine than the average Western male which is what should truly have people like Aquinas Dad enraged.”
    This statement actually amuses me. Let me tell you why.
    I associate with men who work steady jobs, have stay-at-home wives, and are raising a passel of home schooled children. Many are self-employed. Their family depends upon them completely and they view it as an honor.
    Their wives and daughters dress modestly and act courteously. their sons are well-groomed, well-spoken, and healthy. They are prudent, just, courageous, and temperate. they are hopeful, charitable, and faithful. They are honorable.
    And you think a thug or a PUA is ‘more masculine’!
    To me, that is hilarious.
    PUAs and people who use “game” are fakes; they strike me as immature, soft men who are so frightened of talking to women that they come up with elaborate codes of dress, pre-planned, oft-rehearsed scripts, blah, blah, blah in the hopes that these things will let them finally have sex! With a woman!
    Well, with a slut, at least.
    There is no comparison.
    What encourages me is the fact that year after year I see the ranks of good, decent, virtuous men and women growing.

  • Gavrila says:

    “Thugs and PUAs are more masculine than the average Western male which is what should truly have people like Aquinas Dad enraged.”

    The hyper-masculinity of ghetto thug life has disadvantages: poverty, early death. The stressors involved in things like gunfights and drug deals leads to a greater release of adrenaline and testosterone.

    PUAs are typically shut-in dweebs. The comments section of game blogs often include discussions of sci-fi, IT and other nerdy topics. This is about what one would except. I mean, what sort of person turns to an intellectual system for a solution to their woman problems?

  • Mike T says:

    I think you dramatically overestimate the extent to which traditional, patriarchal men give a crap what women think — especially when it comes to setting the hierarchy among men.

    What I’m arguing is not that female opinion matters a lot so much as results with women plays a role in how other men respect other men. You probably wouldn’t find many leading men of Rome with ugly rather than beautiful wives and most of them could probably easily get a woman as attractive as their wife for a mistress. A man who had an ugly wife and was “lucky to have her” would not likely be among the high status men.

    As I said, there is a strong element of the chicken versus the egg here. Which comes first. The perception of high status or the things that cause people to perceive you as higher status? Even in traditional patriarchies status is primarily a matter of how others perceive you. A perceived weak man would not be perceived as high status even if he held a formal rank that was high.

    The hyper-masculinity of ghetto thug life has disadvantages: poverty, early death. The stressors involved in things like gunfights and drug deals leads to a greater release of adrenaline and testosterone.

    True, but what are the advantages of being a typical Western male?

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “especially among higher status men who actually influence the male hierarchy.” Ask anyone how enraged Bill Gates got because he could not influence females.

  • jf12 says:

    No True Higher Status Man etc

  • […] understanding what game really is in essence involves observing it as a social reality. I can’t just make it into what I want it to be by assertion of labels. I can’t “steal it” […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading The Good Shepherd of Fire at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: