Game’s essence

February 22, 2014 § 111 Comments

I’m an essentialist, which means that in my understanding things are what they are and can’t be changed into something else via language games, assertions of the will, analogies, or other rhetorical shenanigans.  All that those language games accomplish is to butcher our capacity to communicate with each other about reality: as the tower of babel is built toward the Heavens to try to be like little Gods, what actually happens is we just lose our ability to talk to each other. People can express varying loyalties to independently existent things like liberalism or game; but the thing remains what it is independent of their personal loyalties or limitations in their own understanding of the object of their loyalty.

So 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” and repurpose it toward good ends if it isn’t already a good thing. I have to observe what it is and make as objectively honest an assessment of it as I can, independent of whatever implications may follow from accepting reality as it actually is rather than as I might like it to be. I can’t change the reality of what game actually is by shuffling around labels: calling a duck a tiger doesn’t put a bill and webbed feet on Tony.

A good definition can’t capture everything about a thing, but it will point us toward the essence of a thing; a bad definition will obfuscate essential aspects of what it purports to define.

Given that background, I’ve concluded for myself that the following are good definitions:

game (n): the male behavioral expression of inchastity

sluttiness (n) : the female behavioral expression of inchastity

§ 111 Responses to Game’s essence

  • jf12 says:

    I can’t argue, so I’ll agree and amplify by way of making more correct. Game is the male expression of his ability to be unchaste. Sluttiness is the female expression of her willingness to be unchaste. Not vice versa.

  • shell says:

    Who’s Tony?

  • Zippy says:

    Tony the Tiger.

  • shell says:

    Ah. Tx.

  • Sigh, jf12, not all women have the ability to be unchaste explicitly, either, but there is no gender-lock on sinning in your heart.

  • shell says:

    “Game is the male expression of his ability to be unchaste.”

    Judging by that Penthouse confession letter you wrote, linked in Zippy’s last post, you are quite able, jf.

  • peppermint says:

    …which means that Chateau Heartiste isn’t merely about Game, but also has social commentary (of a kind that would not be heard anywhere else).

  • Zippy says:

    Christians should promote Playboy Magazine for the articles.

  • There’s social commentary on 4chan you can’t hear anywhere else. Is 4chan also the repository of sekrit speshul red pill infoz Christians desperately need to spend days at a time reading and studying?

  • jf12 says:

    @shell
    Yes, that was the point of that whole comment. I once was unable, but now I’ve found I’m able.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: gender-lock. A man willing to be unchaste doesn’t make him a player. In fact, he could easily be incel.

  • shell says:

    @jf12:

    Able, and all too willing to commit a major moral transgression, or, in your belief system, sin.

    Congratulations.

    This – willful participation in licentious behavior – is what game is about.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: incel happening to women. There is no evidence presented of any slutty woman not being able to get sex. What little evidence there is points to the women merely not being willing to have the sex that they could get. The genders are not symmetrical.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: gray divorces and women wanting sex. Essentially 100% of older women (post menopausal) claim the reason they aren’t as interested anymore in sex is because the older men suddenly got a lot a lot less attractive after menopause. But, the women claim, they would be willing to have more sex if the men were more attractive. But, the women claim, paradoxically the older men find more success with younger women because the older men are too stupid to realize the older women would be better if only the men woked harded at being more attractive.

    Essentially 100% of older men know the reason that older women aren’t as interested is 99.9999% biological. The men logically claim they would be more perfectly content to be with the older women if the older women were actually more interested in sex. But, the men logically claim, nonparadoxically the older men find more success with younger women because the older women are too stupid to realize the older men are already attractive enough.

    Reread Genesis 18:11-12 with this in mind: Even 90 yr old Sarah believes a large part of HER sexual problem is that Abraham is 100 yrs old. Even though Abraham has a lot of kids with Keturah four and five decades later.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Zippy, interesting going back a few years and reading Dal’s blog. Seemed like the commentators then were more open and even keeled. Now, most of them are the garden variety dead pillers, “hypergamy rules, so we need game to get teh women into our beds”

    Kinda sucks….

  • jf12 says:

    @Zippy, relating to your more general interest in essentialism. One philosphical direction that might be of interest to you is mereology, which is the “ontologically parsimonious alternative to set theory”.
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/
    Among its most appealing aspects is that when one wants to talk about all the things on a table when there is nothing on the table, one doesn’t have to be grammatically forced to say silly things amounting to claiming there *is* not-nothing, i.e. a null set, on the table.

    A completely different direction, probably not of interest, is quantum field theory. Roughly, each one of identical particles (identical has a formal meaning here) is actually quite literally the *same* particle. For example fhe familiar electrons and positrons are best understood as a single electron with a twisty worldline such that they are all connected at infinity (infinity has a formal meaning). Anyway, quantum particles’ quantum names are their quantum descriptions (no, I’m not just appending “quantum” everywhere); when you have fully described a particle you have named it. For example four quantum numbers (energy, angular momentum, magnetic moment, and spin) suffice to describe and therefore name a particular electron in a given atom.

  • sunshinemary says:

    Christians should promote Playboy Magazine for the articles.

    We can re-purpose it! Porn too. After all, porn is also a toolbox. How would we figure out what to do in bed with our spouses otherwise? My church sure isn’t teaching me that stuff! The church is really falling down on the job of teaching us the proper technique for…you know. I am sure that we Christians can separate the dross from the gold of hardcore pornography.

  • DENihilist says:

    Mary, that is why I only watch Japanese porn, they blur the interesting parts. Pure Gold!

  • Patrick says:

    Your analogy doesn’t hold because wearing skimpy clothes is in itself a sin against chastity, but using conversational gambits to fluster women or applying ideas like “your mission is your priority, not a woman” or “ignore women’s beauty” or “don’t fear losing your woman” aren’t sins against chastity. So if the “16 commandments” are a summation of game then sluttiness isn’t the female analogue. “Feminine wiles” probably is. “Feminine wiles” can be used by slutty or chaste women.

  • Skimpy clothes are not necessarily a sin against chastity because skimpiness has a strong cultural component. Immodest clothes are a sin against chastity, but that isn’t coequal with “skimpy”.

  • Zippy says:

    Patrick:
    If you think I am drawing an analogy, you haven’t yet understood me well enough to disagree with me. For example when I say that communism and libertarianism are both forms of liberalism I am not drawing an analogy between them.

  • Patrick says:

    I think my definition of game as “masculine wiles” is better than “the male behavioral expression of inchastity” because it includes the social reality of my use of it as well as Dalrock and Vox, and PUAs.

    What if a social reality changes? Is it just the reality of a thing when you first encounter it that determines its definition for you for the rest of your life?

  • Zippy says:

    “Masculine wiles” does sound pretty gay, I’ll give you that.

  • Patrick says:

    Ha. In any case, it’s true and isn’t essentially immoral.

  • Zippy says:

    “Soviet Russia was not my kind of Communism. The Communism I advocate isn’t corrupt.”

  • jf12 says:

    Re: feminine vs masculine wiles. The concept of feminine wiles arose because of the concept of the feminine operating from a position of weakness and therefore needing subtlety in her dealings in order to avoid provoking Dread game from her man. It *presupposes* the existence of Dread.

    Masculine wiles, therefore, does NOT have to be a symmetric analogy and does NOT have to operate from weakness or effeminacy. For example, masculine wiles could be Dread. See?

  • johnmcg says:

    My curiosity of Dread Game is limited, but the gist I’ve gotten is that it consists of threatening divorce to get your way.

    We established in another thread that threatening divorce is either lying (because you won’t follow through) or immoral (if you would follow through), and thus in either case sinful.

    So, you’ve essentially proven zippy’s point. If Game = “masculine wiles” which could include Dread Game, then Game is just another name for immoral activity.

    The term “useful idiot” is coming to mind.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Patrick,
    I note that you quote some of the so-called ’16 commandments’ but not others. Do you believe that:
    [note – everything is quotes is a direct cut and paste from roissy’s site]
    “. Make her jealous
    Flirt with other women in front of her. Do not dissuade other women from flirting with you. ”
    is morally neutral? Not sinful? Not immodest?

    Do you think,
    “Adhere to the golden ratio
    Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you.”
    is compatible with Christ’s call for us to be charitable?

    Do you disagree that this,
    “Keep her guessing
    True to their inscrutable natures, women ask questions they don’t really want direct answers to. Woe be the man who plays it straight — his fate is the suffering of the beta. Evade, tease, obfuscate.”
    is exhorting men to purposefully lie to others? Do you think lying is not a sin?

    Are you honestly expecting Christian men to,
    “Always keep two in the kitty
    Never allow yourself to be a “kept man”. A man with options is a man without need. It builds confidence and encourages boldness with women if there is another woman,”
    To toy with the affections of more than one woman at a time in order to NOT be attached and to purposefully make both of them insecure to essentially blackmail them into being controlled by you?

    And how does a chaste Christian man obey the order to,
    “F**k her good”
    ? This is explicitly NOT within the bounds of marriage.

    What is your opinion of roissy’s statement that,
    “P**sy is the holy grail.”
    ? Is that morally neutral?

    How about his repeated declaration that,
    “he CRUX of a man’s worth is measured by his desirability to women”
    Do you think this meshes well with Christian theology?

    Patrick, if you want to quote a PUA and claim he is somehow ‘morally neutral’ all I have to do is read the stuff you don’t quote to know better.

  • Zippy says:

    The function that “Christian Game” advocates perform in all this is the same as the function that right liberals (a.k.a. “conservatives”) perform in the political realm. They try to construct a ‘good’ form of Game by incorporating lots of unprincipled exceptions. Every time AD or someone else points out something evil in Game, they nominalistically redefine their “Game” as something different. When objections are raised they recount just-so stories to cover the objection. They reject any attempt to define game that doesn’t beg the question of its moral goodness.

    The list goes on, but the errors are a perfect mirror of the errors of right liberals in the political domain, and again this is no accident. Like right-liberals in the political domain they are forming up the ‘rear guard’ of the leftist march through history in the sociosexual domain, insuring that modernity’s errors are cemented into place and not corrected.

    This is no accident. It stems from the same fundamental problems in world view and modes of thought. Frankly, if it weren’t for the ‘teaching moment’ this represents I would have bored of Game as a subject in itself long ago.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Zippy,
    You wrote,
    “…if it weren’t for the ‘teaching moment’ this represents I would have bored of Game as a subject in itself long ago.”
    This weekend my oldest said,
    ‘If you didn’t spend half yout time teaching others you would have dropped “game” as a topic after a week. Do you fear you are wasting your time?’
    Solid question. Like you say, though, it is such a handy proxy for how liberalism and modernism have seeped into everything….

  • Patrick says:

    @AD
    I didn’t say he was morally neutral. I said game was morally neutral, like feminine wiles, which can be used by slutty or chaste women. I don’t think flirting with other women in front of her is a sin. I don’t think saying “I love you” twice for every three times she says it or sending two texts for every three of hers is a sin. I don’t think having options is a sin. I don’t think “f*** her good” is explicitly not within the bounds of marriage, and I don’t think it’s a sin in a marriage. I don’t think “p**** is the holy grail” (sex is highly desirable) can be taken literally even in the context of Roissy, in which “your mission is your priority, not your woman,” so I do think it’s morally neutral. I think women can’t be snookered and can’t snooker themselves so they do measure accurately his worth in any social hierarchy.

    I don’t think I’m constructing a good form of game or Christian Game. I’m just saying the essence of game is neutral, like feminine wiles, which can be used by slutty or chaste women. I don’t think “the male behavioral expression of inchastity” is a good definition.

  • Zippy says:

    I’d be more inclined to accept that ‘feminine wiles’ are not morally neutral than that game is morally neutral.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Patrick,
    You wrote,
    “I didn’t say he was morally neutral. I said game was morally neutral…”
    And you quoted from a fraction of his writing in an attempt to back up your ludicrous claims. All I did was quote more “game” back at you.
    Or is this ‘the stuff I might be able to claim isn’t odious and foul is “game” and the rest isn’t’?
    And then you don’t directly answer direct questions.

  • Gavrila says:

    At the end of the Sixteen Commandments, Roissy writes: “The closer you follow the letter of these commandments, the easier you will find and keep real, true unconditional love and happiness in your life.”

    Since the Christian (Catholic only?) man can create only the illusion of options – since he can’t divorce (and can’t keep ‘two in the kitty’) – then it follows that he is running sub-par game.

  • Gavrila says:

    There’s an atheist blogger, GBFM – who is also a long-time commenter at Roissy’s blog – who mocks Dalrock and accuses him of being an unbeliever by borrowing game concepts from Roissy and substituting them for traditional Christian concepts.

    Here is an excerpt (don’t know how to link, sorry):

    A true Christian woman does not need to be gamed. A true Christian woman follows the Law of Moses which Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfill:

    16 Unto the woman he said , I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bringforth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. -Genesis

    Indeed women no longer follow God, Jesus, and Moses, but their [carnal desires]. And the hilarious thing is that rather than trying to resurrect the Christian Soul in the churches, schools, universities, and family court system and reform women, the “Christian men” such as Dalrock & Vox suggest that we all become slave to [women’s carnal desires] and learn how to serve them first and foremost, over the teachings of Christ and Moses, as serving [women’s carnal desires] over Christ and Moses is the heart and soul of game.

    When atheists see Christians turning to secular-materialist solutions it incites ridicule and the suspicion that they don’t even believe in their professed religion.

  • Gavrila says:

    Last night I was reading Cousin Bette by Honoré de Balzac and this passage jumped out at me:

    “He told me once, over supper, that when he was a young man he always had three mistresses so that he should never be caught unprovided for: one that he was on the verge of leaving, the reigning queen, and one that he was courting for the future. He must have kept some gay little shop-girl in reserve for his fish-pond! In his deer-park! He is very Louis XV, the rascal!”

    The phrase “Machiavellis in petticoats” is used to describe calculating women.

    Balzac was Catholic and disapproved of Parisian sexual mores. (Of which the French names “Roissy” and “Chateau Heartiste” are deliberately evocative.)

  • I think a major factor fueling this debate is not the essential nature of Game but those ideas that are incidentally associated with it. When some Christians refer positively to Game, I think they may really be talking about good things like Godly masculinity and Christian patriarchy, which can be tangentially related to game but are not among its essential characteristics.

  • Desiderius says:

    “I think a major factor fueling this debate”

    The major factor fueling this debate is the abandonment of the practice of genuine confession, the accurate self-searching that practice requires – the need for accuracy spurring a thirst for truth, the sense of humility and thus proper perspective regarding human nature itself, finally resulting in a decent prudence regarding knee-jerk condemnation towards one’s fellows that reveal themselves to be after a moment’s inspection the thinnest projection of one’s own fears about one’s own shortcomings.

    We are to be more than conquerors. Game is conquest. To transcend it requires mastering it. We have been less than conquerors with predictable results.

    “The function that “Christian Game” advocates perform in all this is the same as the function that right liberals (a.k.a. “conservatives”) perform in the political realm.”

    No, the function right liberals serve in the political realm is “I got mine, too bad for you”. Much like the function you’re serving in this debate. Projection.

  • Desiderius says:

    ” I have to observe what it is and make as objectively honest an assessment of it as I can, independent of whatever implications may follow from accepting reality as it actually is rather than as I might like it to be. I can’t change the reality of what game actually is by shuffling around labels: calling a duck a tiger doesn’t put a bill and webbed feet on Tony.”

    This is an outstanding starting point for the debate.

    My question for you – does Athol Kay count as Game? Dalrock’s practices with his wife? Reynolds with his?

    “Game is the male expression of his ability to be unchaste. Sluttiness is the female expression of her willingness to be unchaste. Not vice versa.”

    This is also an outstanding refinement of Zippy’s start. Still on the getting to conquerors piece, not yet to the more. But closer.

  • Peter Blood says:

    I’m looking for someone to compile a “16 Commandments of Christian Game” or whatever it would be. Anyone know anyone who’s done this?

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Peter.
    Thomas a Kempis. St. Francis Xavier. St. Thomas. a few others.

  • Desiderius says:

    As Zippy has accurately noted, the 16 commandments are game. It might be useful as well to note the the commandments themselves are intentionally formulated in a provocative manner, not unlike
    Luther’s fondness for the scatological. In both cases, powerful and valid arguments can be made that said manner falls short of the Glory of God. When it does so intentionally, it cannot fairly be called “Christian”.

    I’d argue that the responses to the original game concepts that have proven fruitful, including some solidly Christian ones that also claim the name, should also be able to claim the label “game”. I’d be curious for Zippy’s explanation of why they should not, especially since many, like Dalrock’s, are far better grounded in a scriptural understanding of God’s vocation to family life than what one hears coming from our pulpits.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Desiderius,
    You wrote,
    “…original game concepts that have proven fruitful, including some solidly Christian ones …”
    Such as?

  • Desiderius says:

    Neither Thomas a’ Kempis, who has been by my bedside since the age of sixteen – a long-cherished gift from a manly, honorable, humble pastor and great leader of men; nor St. Thomas, himself a giant and virile man, were Dads.

    Somewhat different skill set, as the Catholic Church recognizes in maintaining the celibacy of priests.

    “A man shall see the noblest works and foundations have proceeded from childless men; which have sought to express the images of their minds where those of their bodies have failed: so the care of posterity is most in them that have no posterity.”

    – Bacon

  • Desiderius says:

    Athol Kay and Dalrock to name two. There are several more. I would be remiss if I didn’t give credit to Susan Walsh as well.

    I’m now very happily married (and so is my wife) thanks to concepts I learned by reading about game, and later discovered were there all along in the Christian tradition but have been ruthlessly suppressed.

    Still are.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Desiderius,
    But the reiterate the ‘commandments’ for Christians and for men; the seven virtues.
    And you mistake me – I know who Dalrock and Athol Kay are. What are the
    “…original game concepts that have proven fruitful, including some solidly Christian ones …”
    When you mention,
    “…concepts I learned by reading about game, and later discovered were there all along in the Christian tradition but have been ruthlessly suppressed.”
    What specific practices are you referring to?

  • Zippy says:

    Desiderius:
    I have Kay’s book, but I haven’t managed to read through the whole thing without glazing over because of the farrago of materialism, evo-psych, etc. (That’s assuming I even remember correctly — I got it a couple of years ago and I’m not even sure where it is now.)

    Dalrock’s position – which I’ve clarified directly at the source – is that Game is superfluous if you have Christian headship. So his actual position is very close to mine, whether born out in all the rhetoric or no. He’s always welcome to clarify further.

    I think his labeling of Christian headship as Game (“headship Game” or whatever) is factually wrong and sows moral confusion. Masculinity, male headship, etc are not Game any more than feminine submission is sluttiness. To that extent my position is like GBFM’s.

    I am unmoved by anecdotes about successes attributed to Game, because the same thing can be said for sluttiness, torture, or any number of other moral wrongs. Sunshine Mary explained at one point that she landed her husband by fornicating. The fact that fornication sometimes successfully lands a husband doesn’t make it compatible with Christianity.

    [T]he function right liberals serve in the political realm is “I got mine, too bad for you”. Much like the function you’re serving in this debate. Projection.

    Even if we stipulated (rather ridiculously) that I am a natural apex alpha who has never had any trouble specifically with women (despite the fact that I don’t talk about my personal life on line), the ad hominem always strikes me as rather twistedly ironic. “Don’t learn from successful men, because they don’t know what it is like to be a loser; learn from loser perverts instead!”

  • Desiderius says:

    “Dalrock’s position – which I’ve clarified directly at the source – is that Game is superfluous if you have Christian headship.”

    I agree completely. The question is how one goes about playing the pretty lies that stand in the way of headship.

    “Even if we stipulated (rather ridiculously) that I am a natural apex alpha who has never had any trouble specifically with women”

    Oh, it’s entirely obvious that no one will mistake that for the case.

    “Don’t learn from successful men, because they don’t know what it is like to be a loser; learn from loser perverts instead!”

    Do you claim to be teaching anything? All I hear you doing is shouting down those with the temerity to make an attempt to do so. Again, Dalrock is far from a loser, and as far as I can tell, Roissy is making some headway slaying dragons that have consumed better men than you or I.

    Liberalism (as you call it – i find it far from liberal, but I recognize that to which you refer) is the infection. Roissy et. al. the fever. Christ, as ever, the cure.

  • Desiderius says:

    slaying, not playing

    No, not a Freudian slip, those lies come from the Lord of lies himself. He’s an utterly humorless bastard.

  • Desiderius says:

    I didn’t land my wife with game, per se. I landed my wife by understanding the truths (which I later discovered to be there all along in the Christian tradition, both scriptural and doctrinal!) that game exploits to gain an advantage over a culture built on lies.

    The blog is called “Where Pretty Lies Perish”. If the Church has lost interest in fighting them, men will go where there are men who have not.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Desiderius,
    I note that you are not answering my rather simple, direct questions.
    Why is that?
    You write,
    “The question is how one goes about playing the pretty lies that stand in the way of headship.”
    What do you mean by this?
    You write,
    “The blog is called “Where Pretty Lies Perish”. If the Church has lost interest in fighting them, men will go where there are men who have not.”
    Are you attempting to claim that the Church does not oppose evil but that *roissy DOES*?!

  • Desiderius says:

    Apologies for spamming the blog, last comment for awhile.

    The “mine” that you’ve obviously got, as do the older men in my church and many of my older relatives whom I love dearly, is a functional culture that had the good fortune of not having to take sin too seriously, letting the spiritual disciplines slide a bit to focus on the finer things in life – including some remarkable achievements in the secular sphere, of being confident that if one was an honorable man, there would be no shortage of women seeking that in a husband and in so seeking, willing to commit herself to a lifetime of partnership in creating and nurturing a healthy family.

    Outside of the UMC bubble who no longer preach (they instead preach what you call liberalism, whether they identify left or right) what they practice, that is simply no longer widely available. This is not some world-historical crisis. Through most of history, it wasn’t widely available either. It became available through a clear-eyed understanding of our base human nature guided by scripture and the teaching of the Church, and a vocation to raise our children, one another, and ultimately ourselves above that nature.

    Ignoring that base nature prevents that from happening. The pretty lies fester in the ignorance.

  • Desiderius says:

    “Are you attempting to claim that the Church does not oppose evil but that *roissy DOES*?!”

    In this matter, I not only claim it, I claim you are utterly blind to deny it.

  • Zippy says:

    Aquinas Dad:
    Can you not see that Roissy is the Great Man?

    Time and again supporters of “Christian Game” demonstrate my point with their commentary.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Desiderius,
    You wrote,
    “The “mine” that you’ve obviously got, as do the older men in my church and many of my older relatives whom I love dearly, is a functional culture that had the good fortune of not having to take sin too … etc.”
    I suspect that you know as much of me as you do of Zippy – i.e., very little if anything.
    I am ignoring your blanket statements about the Church because they are so broad as to be meaningless and if they concern the Catholic Church obviously false.
    As for your belief that
    ‘The Church does not oppose evil but roissy does, and you are utterly blind to deny it’ I conclude one of two things is true,
    1) You are a pro-game shill and have no idea what good and evil really are
    2) You simply have no idea what good and evil really are.
    And since you seem unwilling to answer simple, direct questions otherwise, good day.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Zippy,
    I must admit, it is approaching the point that getting a ‘Christian Game’ proponent to admit that he reject the Church and embraces sin is a parlor game.
    Pun intended.

  • Desiderius says:

    “What specific practices are you referring to?”

    ‘I. Never say ‘I Love You’ first’

    I let her say it, then say I do too, without fail. Works like a charm. I picked a woman who was giving clear signals of interest, then paid attention to what else she had to offer before exhibiting mine. Before I did, I made sure I had put my best foot forward in other ways, so that my actions didn’t back up my words, they preceded them.

    My former practice of making my interest very clear up front I believe was in fact an expression of pride on my part.

    Here’s Roissy:

    “Women want to feel like they have to overcome obstacles to win a man’s heart. They crave the challenge of capturing the interest of a man who has other women competing for his attention, and eventually prevailing over his grudging reluctance to award his committed exclusivity. The man who gives his emotional world away too easily robs women of the satisfaction of earning his love. Though you may be in love with her, don’t say it before she has said it. Show compassionate restraint for her need to struggle toward yin fulfillment. Inspire her to take the leap for you, and she’ll return the favor a thousandfold.”

    “II. Make her jealous”

    This is sinful. I prevent her jealousy by making sure she’s aware of what she offers that is head and shoulders above the competition. i often remind her why I married her.

    “Flirt with other women in front of her. Do not dissuade other women from flirting with you. Women will never admit this but jealousy excites them. The thought of you turning on another woman will arouse her sexually. No girl wants a man that no other woman wants. The partner who harnesses the gale storm of jealousy controls the direction of the relationship.”

    Preselection is real. I’ll do this in a friendly way while winking at my wife to let her know she’s in on the game. She enjoys this in small doses, as do I. Neither of us have much appetite for larger.

    BTW, I’ve often playfully flirted with older women in the church in throughout my life. They love it. I had always been careful not to do this around women I’d hope to court. Wrong move.

    “III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority”

    Again, Roissy pwns Churchianity wife-worship:

    “Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore.”

    “IV. Don’t play by her rules”

    Again, compare Roissy to biblical teaching and doctrinal tradition. Churchianity is again slaughtered:

    “If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire. The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man. Polarity is the core of a healthy loving relationship. She does not want the prerogative to walk all over you with her capricious demands and mercurial moods. Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable.”

    Shall I go on?

  • Zippy says:

    Desiderius:

    Oh, it’s entirely obvious that no one will mistake that for the case.

    Oh, I know. I somehow manage to be both an “apex alpha” dripping testoseterone all over my keyboard and a loser “omega” huddled in the basement at one and the same time, depending on just how distracting the image can be from the actual subject matter.

  • Desiderius says:

    “I must admit, it is approaching the point that getting a ‘Christian Game’ proponent to admit that he reject the Church and embraces sin is a parlor game.”

    Sorry, hotshot, you’ll need to find another strawman. This one’s living, breathing.

    Not surprised at the usual Churcian false bravado.

    A tree is judged by its fruit. The humble courage of the early martyrs caused the Word to spread like wildfire. The prideful cowardice of would-be leaders like AquinasDad leads to empty pews as far as the eye can see.

    Try something different.

  • Desiderius says:

    “Oh, I know. I somehow manage to be both an “apex alpha” dripping testoseterone all over my keyboard and a loser “omega” huddled in the basement at one and the same time, depending on just how distracting the image can be from the actual subject matter.”

    No, you’re simply the good solid beta we’d all like to get back to someday.

  • Zippy says:

    Desiderius:

    No, you’re simply the good solid beta we’d all like to get back to someday.

    You are really quite hilarious. Actually I’m a dwarf living in a volcanic island lair.

    Roissy, you see, is like the martyrs. Traditionalists like AD have been running the show. And “a tree is judged by its fruit” now means that “see, it works!” is a moral argument.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Ah. Finally!
    You quote,
    ‘Never say I love you first’
    That one has always cracked me up. Know why?
    Teachings of the Church from ancient times as reaffirmed by the Ven, Fulton Sheen is that until a man and woman are engaged they are not to say ‘I love you’ or its variations variations because it implies permanence.
    So this is far too soft a prohibition, IMO.
    Yeah, I hear this from the pulpit.

    You write,
    ““II. Make her jealous”
    This is sinful. ”
    Glad you caught that.Why, again, do you think a guy that advocates sinfulness is fighting evil?
    And being nice to old ladies is called being nice to old ladies.

    You quote,
    “III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority”
    OK, and? Is this a revelation?
    Q: ‘Why did God make you?’
    A: ‘To know, love and serve God’
    This is first week of catechism stuff.Yeah, it is true but it is about the other pole from ground breaking or earth shaking.

    You quote,
    “IV. Don’t play by her rules”
    Ummm, I think you may have heard of this,.
    Eph 5:: [22] Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: [23] Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. [24] Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.
    and also 1 Tim 2:[11] Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. [12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.

    So….. Not new, not surprising, not original, not serious enough for me.

    You wrote,
    “Again, compare Roissy to biblical teaching and doctrinal tradition”
    I just did. Roissy is a punk.

    And since like other commenters you LOVE to quote the same 2-4 things from that list of 16 let ME quote some ore of the guidelines you super-duper evil-fighting hero roissy expects all men who are not losers to follow,
    [Note: This is cut and pasted from a series of questions I posted FURTHER UP IN THIS THREAD.]
    –begin C&P–
    Do you think,
    “Adhere to the golden ratio
    Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you.”
    is compatible with Christ’s call for us to be charitable?

    Do you disagree that this,
    “Keep her guessing
    True to their inscrutable natures, women ask questions they don’t really want direct answers to. Woe be the man who plays it straight — his fate is the suffering of the beta. Evade, tease, obfuscate.”
    is exhorting men to purposefully lie to others? Do you think lying is not a sin?

    Are you honestly expecting Christian men to,
    “Always keep two in the kitty
    Never allow yourself to be a “kept man”. A man with options is a man without need. It builds confidence and encourages boldness with women if there is another woman,”
    To toy with the affections of more than one woman at a time in order to NOT be attached and to purposefully make both of them insecure to essentially blackmail them into being controlled by you?

    And how does a chaste Christian man obey the order to,
    “F**k her good”
    ? This is explicitly NOT within the bounds of marriage.

    What is your opinion of roissy’s statement that,
    “P**sy is the holy grail.”
    ? Is that morally neutral?

    How about his repeated declaration that,
    “he CRUX of a man’s worth is measured by his desirability to women”
    Do you think this meshes well with Christian theology?

    Patrick, if you want to quote a PUA and claim he is somehow ‘morally neutral’ all I have to do is read the stuff you don’t quote to know better.
    –end C&P–

    So, desiderius, how do YOU reconcile such obviously sinful instruction with your laughable contention that roissy is ‘fighting evil’?

  • Desiderius says:

    “I am ignoring your blanket statements about the Church because they are so broad as to be meaningless and if they concern the Catholic Church obviously false.”

    Last time I visited a Catholic Church (with my wife) in a vague hope of perhaps finally coming home (born and raised happily Presbyterian) I got lectured about being too homophobic by the most condescendingly foolish preaching its ever been my misfortune to be subjected to.

    This in the supposedly “conservative” flagship cathedral church.

    Tend your own house.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Desiderius,
    You wrote,
    “The prideful cowardice of would-be leaders like AquinasDad leads to empty pews as far as the eye can see.”
    Oh, this is about *me* now? Deti likes to do this, too.
    You see, I am talking about your claims, your references, the ‘commandments’ you cite.
    I am repeating your actual statements
    [you *did* reject the Church and embrace roissy, above]
    In other words, I am talking about concepts, ideas, quotes, and facts.
    Deti, Mike, patrick, and now you – it always comes down to calling me names, trying to define *me*, trying to anger *me*, trying to devalue *me*.
    The funny thing is, none of what I teach is mine. I am passing along the treasures of the Church, the One, True Church.
    As i have said many times – let us assume that I am stupid, ignorant, sinful, ugly, fat, a virgin, that I stutter, that I wear burlap, and that I am incontinent.
    Now that we can stop talking about me, let’s talk about sin, and truth, and morals, and virtue.

    Now, once again. How is it that you think that a man whose stated purpose is to seduce as many women as possible and teach others to seduce as many women as possible can possibly be moral, let alone be fighting evil?

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Desiderius,
    The plural of ‘personal anecdote’ is not ‘data’

  • I think a lot of confusion in the debates about the nature of Game comes from conflating Game with general self-improvement.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Beffy,
    Absolutely! A key part of my rejection of “game” is just that

  • Zippy says:

    Beefy Levinson:
    Game proponents are constantly telling me that anything a man does to improve himself is Game. I don’t remember where, but I recently read that every single time you interact with another person that is an instance of Game.

    It is beyond parody, really. To the extent Game is something definite, it is incompatible with Christianity. To the extent it is a farrago of postmodern undefinable nonsense that cannot be pinned down, that reflects back on the supporter not the critic.

  • Desiderius says:

    “Roissy, you see, is like the martyrs.”

    More akin to Juvenal and Ovid.

    You’re a run-of-the-mill Sadducee.

  • Desiderius says:

    “It is beyond parody, really. To the extent Game is something definite, it is incompatible with Christianity. To the extent it is a farrago of postmodern undefinable nonsense that cannot be pinned down, that reflects back on the supporter not the critic.”

    Compare what Roissy has to say about commandment 3 and 4 above to:

    (1) Biblical and traditional doctrinal teaching

    (2) The cowardly, effeminate, blatantly false dross offered from your pulpits on these matters

    Obviously Roissy is not a great man. What does it say when a pervert has enough courage to speak truth while the doctors of the church and their apologists fear to?

    Luther’s farts gave us Trent.

  • Desiderius says:

    [you *did* reject the Church and embrace roissy, above]

    No, I said that on these matters, the church has embraced evil.

    It has. feminism in its current incarnation is evil. the church has whole-heartedly embraced it and abandoned biblical teaching and doctrinal tradition, and in many cases the cure of souls altogether so as to obscure the former.

    And I said that Roissy is fighting it.

    He is.

    Is Roissy fighting Zippy’s “liberalism”, what Roissy calls feminism? Is that not evil?

    the question is not whether Roissy is evil, it’s whether he’s fighting it.

    Oft will evil will will evil mar.

  • Desiderius says:

    “The plural of ‘personal anecdote’ is not ‘data’’

    The singular of ‘data’ is not blind ignorance.

  • Desiderius says:

    meh, oft evil will shall evil mar

  • Cane Caldo says:

    “Roissy, you see, is like the martyrs.”

    More akin to Juvenal and Ovid.

    You’re a run-of-the-mill Sadducee.

    Those comparisons were the sad you see.

  • Desiderius says:

    “I think a lot of confusion in the debates about the nature of Game comes from conflating Game with general self-improvement.”

    Bullshit. You try to generally improve yourself according to the food-pyramid, you’ll end up fat and sluggish.

    Its about getting to truth.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    “Roissy, you see, is like the martyrs.”

    More akin to Juvenal and Ovid.

    You’re a run-of-the-mill Sadducee.

    No, seriously: Desiderius simply fell prey to Zippy’s Neuro-Linguistic Programming Game.

    No, seriously: That was more Agree and Amplify than NLP.

    No, seriously: That AnA was more of a neg.

    No, seriously: That was really actually more passive-aggression than neg.

    No, seriously: P-A is for girls.

    No, seriously: You have to think like a female to get one.

    No, seriously: etc.

    This is what analyzing extroversion becomes in the INTJ mind. That, and the idea that if it extortion and torture seem like your only options: Then reality is about extortion and torture.

  • Desiderius,

    You’ll get no argument from me on the effeminacy and cowardice of many corners of the Church establishment. But the correct answer to “To whom else shall we go?” is not fornicators who, I’m told on good authority, will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

  • Desiderius says:

    “It is beyond parody, really. To the extent Game is something definite, it is incompatible with Christianity. To the extent it is a farrago of postmodern undefinable nonsense that cannot be pinned down, that reflects back on the supporter not the critic.”

    Ipse Dixit.

    Here, you haven’t answered my question.

    Why doesn’t what Dalrock practices and advocates count as game?

  • Gavrila says:

    When the married-man-game blogging phenomenon first got going a few years ago – as a spin-off from the Roissysphere, as it was then called – there were various married-man gamers.

    The ones whose wives divorced them deleted their game blogs and were forgotten.

    The successes – such as Athol Kay and Dalrock – have benefited from survivorship bias.

    (And Dalrock may have benefited from the religious principle that divorce is against Christ’s preference – something that non-believers cannot appeal to.)

    ‘I. Never say ‘I Love You’ first’

    This is one of the gnostic cargo cult aspects of game. If you forgot this rule, it would make no difference.

    In fact, it used to be common sense among men that the way to get a girl to sleep with you was to say ‘I love you’ straight off. If anyone had thought to turn this piece of advice into a pseudo-scientific principle then it might still be with us.

  • Gavrila says:

    I somehow manage to be both an “apex alpha” dripping testoseterone all over my keyboard and a loser “omega” huddled in the basement at one and the same time

    So you are the Alpha and the Omega? Very Christ-like, Zip.

  • Gavrila says:

    “Adhere to the golden ratio Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you.”

    Terrible advice.

    This bizarre rationing system is an artificial way of inflating the man’s status relative to the woman’s. I presume this is for very young men who have zero achievements and find themselves devalued by the egalitarian culture.

    It’s noted by many that game create a simulacrum of status for men who otherwise can’t compete.

    When you consider all the strenuous effort that goes into game…you could put all that energy into realising real achievements and that would increase your status relative to most women. Your new-found status would also be more secure by being based on real accomplishments.

  • johnmcg says:

    Wasn’t it just in Sunday’s Gospel that we heard that if you are charged with taking something a mile, you should only go 2/3 of a mile instead?

  • Zippy says:

    Desiderius:

    Here, you haven’t answered my question.

    Why doesn’t what Dalrock practices and advocates count as game?

    This actually has been answered, many times. But I’ll answer it again: just because someone labels a modest, pretty dress “Christian sluttiness” it doesn’t follow that modest, pretty dresses actually are Christian sluttiness.

    More generally/abstractly, because nominalism is false.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: the extra mile. I’m thinking of having 27.2 engraved on my rear window.

  • Patrick says:

    AD,
    I did answer all your questions. If it isn’t a sin it would be compatible/would mesh with Christianity. There is no Christian Game, just like there’s no Christian feminine wiles.

  • johnmcg says:

    Mocking references to Christ’s actual words and actions is another Game apologist anti-pattern.

  • Desiderius says:

    “This actually has been answered, many times. But I’ll answer it again: just because someone labels a modest, pretty dress “Christian sluttiness” it doesn’t follow that modest, pretty dresses actually are Christian sluttiness.”

    Sluttiness makes a woman less attractive as a mate. Headship (whereever she can get it, Christian or otherwise) more attractive.

    Headship is good, sluttiness bad.

    Poor analogy and/or begging the question.

    “So understanding what game really is in essence involves observing it as a social reality.”

    Again, why does Roissy’s social reality count, while the social reality of Dalrock and many of my peers (including, belatedly, my long pussy-whipped father!) not count?

  • Desiderius says:

    “Mocking references to Christ’s actual words and actions is another Game apologist anti-pattern.”

    I apologize for nothing. I am directly attacking the apologies you and yours offer for a church whose teaching on these matters is (now) predicated on blatant lies and the abandonment of scriptural teaching and doctrinal tradition. As a side matter, its is also so ineffective, it directly undermines church authority on matters it still gets right.

    You can shoot all the messengers you like – it will not change that fact.

    Christ accurately characterized a generation of vipers and hypocrites as they were. You and yours lack the balls to do so, and so flail about ineffectually at those who do, evil or otherwise.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Patrick
    Different Patrick
    Sorry to confuse you

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    When I read Desiderius on roissy I am reminded of
    Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
    Man in Black: Yes.
    Vizzini: Morons.

  • Desiderius says:

    Desiderius,

    “You’ll get no argument from me on the effeminacy and cowardice of many corners of the Church establishment. But the correct answer to ‘to whom else shall we go?’ is not fornicators who, I’m told on good authority, will not inherit the Kingdom of God.”

    Don’t need to take that one on authority, pretty clear for all to see, including Roissy, hence the concern with literary posterity – they’ll be no other. Nor will clocks inherit the kingdom, but at least they can tell one what time it is without lying to one’s face. It is to the church’s great discredit that it falls to fornicators to carry on its teachings on this matter.

    Even the rocks will cry out, I guess.

    I haven’t gone anywhere, my life is still Christ’s and thus I continue to live within His church. In this thread, I’ve used second and third person plural where I should have used first There are a lost generation of men out there who were baptized into that church whose voices are unheard now within its walls, so perhaps there is some attempt to let those lost voices be heard by a church who has turned its back on them.

  • Patrick says:

    And you quoted from a fraction of his writing in an attempt to back up your ludicrous claims. All I did was quote more “game” back at you.
    Or is this ‘the stuff I might be able to claim isn’t odious and foul is “game” and the rest isn’t’?
    And then you don’t directly answer direct questions.

    I did answer all your questions. If it isn’t a sin it would be compatible/would mesh with Christianity. There is no Christian Game, just like there’s no Christian feminine wiles.

    Maybe you didn’t notice my response to your list of questions.

  • Silly Interloper says:

    As far as I can tell, a representative slogan for you gamers would be “Embrace TRUTH(!) through deception, manipulation, and shallow, insubstantive displays of feigned manhood.” And that will make you desperate men HAAAAP-PY.

  • Desiderius says:

    “I just did. Roissy is a punk.”

    Yep. A punk with the balls to teach what your church is afraid to, as you’ve confirmed with the passages above. Glad we’ve come to that agreement. Again, what does that say about the church?

    “Do you think,
    ‘Adhere to the golden ratio
    Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you.’
    is compatible with Christ’s call for us to be charitable?”

    It serves as a useful corrective to the 2/-1 ratio promoted by the culture and the roughly 10/1 promoted by the man-upping church. My wife’s not a charity case – is yours? As with most women nowadays, she does quite well for herself.

    It strikes me as charitable to take into account her attraction triggers, both the instinctive and those she’s been raised (above those instincts) to cherish, so in practice we end up shooting for 3/2 both directions. I make sure both not to stint but also not to overdo it, as I have noticed that makes her feel self-conscious, if not explicitly less attracted.

    Again, in my past, following the culture, and the church that whorishly follows it, I was inclined to overdo it on the gifts and pridefully see them as in some sense akin to charity, making the same error you do here.

    “Do you disagree that this,
    ‘Keep her guessing
    True to their inscrutable natures, women ask questions they don’t really want direct answers to. Woe be the man who plays it straight — his fate is the suffering of the beta. Evade, tease, obfuscate.’

    “is exhorting men to purposefully lie to others? Do you think lying is not a sin?”

    I will evade and tease my wife, but do not knowingly obfuscate.

    The church will tell bold-faced lies on these matters. But usually it settles for evasion and obfuscation of a different sort (cowardly), if not outright bullshit.

    “Are you honestly expecting Christian men to,
    “Always keep two in the kitty
    Never allow yourself to be a “kept man”. A man with options is a man without need. It builds confidence and encourages boldness with women if there is another woman,”
    To toy with the affections of more than one woman at a time in order to NOT be attached and to purposefully make both of them insecure to essentially blackmail them into being controlled by you?”

    Nope. Good old evil. The truth that does make this advice effective (that truth is rubbed in the faces of every man under 35 in this culture if you care to contend with it) is that preselection is a powerful attraction trigger for women, up to and including the most righteous, in a way that it is not for men.

    This fact is no more Christian than 2+2=4, but to deny it is still to build one’s house on a sandy foundation of falsehood.

    “And how does a chaste Christian man obey the order to,
    “F**k her good”
    ? This is explicitly NOT within the bounds of marriage.”

    Heh, maybe not yours. Mine goes much more smoothly when I make sure to carry out my manly duty with gusto. There was a time when Catholics were notorious for doing likewise. I’m a big fan of large families.

    “What is your opinion of roissy’s statement that,
    “P**sy is the holy grail.”
    ? Is that morally neutral?”

    Here, he’s both evil, wrong, and self-contradictory, given the previous commandment noted.

    I am under no burden to defend Roissy. My argument is that it does not reflect well on the church when an evil, perverted man somehow musters the courage to face truths the church can no longer bring itself to face.

    “So, desiderius, how do YOU reconcile such obviously sinful instruction with your laughable contention that roissy is ‘fighting evil’?”

    Your struggles with simple logic are not my problem. Evil fights, that’s what it does. Evil, good, all comers. Good fights when it must. If it shrinks from fighting evil, it loses its claim to goodness.

    The church embraces the evil of modern feminism and the lies that support it. Roissy fights both. That is all.

  • Zippy says:

    Desiderius:

    I am under no burden to defend Roissy.

    And yet you do. Not only do you defend him, you praise him, and compare him to Great Men of history.

  • Desiderius says:

    When I read Desiderius on roissy I am reminded of
    “Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
    Man in Black: Yes.
    Vizzini: Morons.”

    Except that I’m arguing that the church has abandoned the wisdom of the ancients on these matters. Given that wisdom, its the moderns who are the morons, and those who fail to stand up to them the cowards.

    Given Xantippe, however, perhaps you’ve got a point on Socrates.

  • Desiderius says:

    “And yet you do. Not only do you defend him, you praise him, and compare him to Great Men of history.”

    I granted you perhaps too much credit if you imagine Ovid and Juvenal to be models of Christian probity.

  • Zippy says:

    D:
    You’ve misunderstood me. Comparing Roissy to any great scoundrel of history — to anyone remembered for more than five minutes by someone other than his mommy — makes you look ridiculous.

  • Desiderius says:

    The false bravado no longer avails.

    The Pope will one day again have his columns, but none know yet the route they will take in coming.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Desiderius,
    You wrote,
    “A punk with the balls to teach what your church is afraid to,”
    Hmmmm. You had originally asked
    “compare Roissy to biblical teaching and doctrinal tradition”
    I did this showing that the biblical teaching i clear. And as someone who is called a horrible misogynist because my Church consistently teaches this doctrine I find the idea of proving that the Church has taught this for 2k+ years funny.
    And yet you seem to think that showing you wrong proves you right.

    You wrote,
    “”t serves as a useful corrective to the 2/-1 ratio promoted by the culture and the roughly 10/1 promoted by the man-upping church”
    This is a failure to answer a direct question. *EVEN IF* you demonstrated that all churches everywhere are as unbalanced as your claim this does NOT address my actual question. And as a Chrisitan we must admit that everyone is a ‘charity case’.

    You wrote,
    “I will evade and tease my wife, but do not knowingly obfuscate.”
    I will take this as a tacit admission that “game” calls on you to sin, that you know this is true, and that you avoid it.

    You wrote,
    “Nope. Good old evil.”
    A simple, direct admission that “game” is evil.

    You wrote,
    “There was a time when Catholics were notorious for doing likewise”
    Like other Christian “game” supporters you refuse to acknowledge that the ‘f**k her good’ directive is explicitly OUTSIDE of marriage – that it is a direct call for fornication.You are dodging the question.

    You wrote,
    “Here, he’s both evil, wrong, and self-contradictory”
    A clear admission that the man you compare favorably to the martyrs, Ovid, and prefer to the Church is evil, wrong, and contradictory.

    You wrote,
    “I am under no burden to defend Roissy.”
    Of course not – but you ARE under a burden to defend your promotion of the ‘evil, wrong, and contradictory’ teachings of a man whom you admit is ‘evil’ and ‘perverted’.
    Your repeated claim that the church” is never, anywhere, at all, ever confronting feminism or teaching the truth so is ludicrous. Maybe not within convenient driving distance of your house, pal, but such a blanket claim is just funny.

    Desiderius you are self-admittedly promoting evil, encouraging others to commit evil, and promoting adherence to an evil man all while moaning about ‘the church’ abandoning opposing evil and you think *I* have trouble with logic. At first I thought you were a troll. After this thread and your comment on your father, well.

    I pray that the wounds you suffer are healed in time for you to repent before your particular judgement

  • Peter Blood says:

    To put things in other jargon Nerds can understand, Game is Social Engineering of women. It’s a similar attack, just used on a different target, different context.

  • […] reconstructed by liberalism to be ever more androgynous this traditionally difficult area for women has become more difficult for men also, as one of the fruits of […]

  • […] I dunno, Zippy, but it sure seems like he’s talking about something more than just bedding […]

  • […] Reactivity Place objects to the idea that Game is inextricably bound up with unchaste male behavior toward women. He objects by quoting the Internet’s self-proclaimed master of slutsploitation as an […]

  • […] Game –  and not just the kind of Game that is proximately directed at fornication, but Game more generally – feels disempowering to nerdy or socially inept men because it actually is disempowering […]

  • […] After many months of (what I assumed to have been patient) observation, Zippy described what he believes to be the essence of game here: […]

  • […] myself have concluded, after a couple of years of experience with the subject, that the specific difference between […]

  • […] The specific things you won’t learn from sources other than pickup artists and sluts are the things specific to pickup artists and sluts: unchaste behaviors toward the opposite sex. […]

  • […] The specific difference between social competence generally and Game specifically, then, is male inchastity. […]

  • […] the acknowledgement that women are people too. By definition it has no connection to atrocity.  Christian Game, I mean feminism, is the good kind of feminism. By definition anything bad about feminism […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Game’s essence at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: