Don’t hit me, I’m a beta

February 28, 2014 § 214 Comments

That’s the message that comes through loud and clear from all of the ad hominem defenses of Game, e.g.

  • You are just a “natural alpha” so you don’t understand, therefore Game is morally neutral ‘tools’ and unproblemmatic
  • You have no empathy, therefore Game is morally neutral ‘tools’ and unproblemmatic
  • You got yours and you are just trying to stop me from getting mine, therefore Game is morally neutral ‘tools’ and unproblemmatic
  • You are too old to understand, therefore Game is morally neutral ‘tools’ and unproblemmatic
  • You aren’t out there teaching men how to attract women,  therefore Game is morally neutral ‘tools’ and unproblemmatic
  • You wouldn’t act like a simpering wimp toward your own wife,  therefore Game is morally neutral ‘tools’ and unproblemmatic

etc, etc.

That this is emotive and not rational is obvious.  But that it comes from men who insist that learning Game has made them more manly  — now that is irony.

§ 214 Responses to Don’t hit me, I’m a beta

  • Mike T says:

    Obvious fallacies, but there is certainly some truth to the claim that most critics of game are in fact functionally unsympathetic to what has happened to most men regardless of what those same people formally claim. Like most good fallacies, it’s built on a foundation of partial truth.

    I will still maintain that I think much of your criticism, that you defend as essentialism, is fundamentally flawed due to your refusal to acknowledge that men like Athol Kay are extremely influential in their own right. That refusal to acknowledge that there are different formal systems and philosophies culturally accepted to be “game” puts your argument on a house of sand. You can defend it quite eloquently, but ultimately eloquence will not prove an essentialist argument that purposefully ignores the influence of guys like Kay and Dalrock because they prove that “game” has a very limited essential nature.

    In fact, most of what Kay teaches is stuff that would be considered perfectly acceptable and even good by the standards of the average tradcon who isn’t a gelding. Christian men can learn a lot from him, and if they cannot discern the obvious disagreements like divorce then frankly I’m inclined to say the flock was likely to be culled one way or another anyway at some point…

  • Gavrila says:

    Are we still talking about this? Lol. I liked how the last discussion slowly wound down, culiminating in expressions of empathy after all the bitter verbal sparring that had gone on. Once more into the breach my friends?

    I’m always interested in new intellectual movements and when I first came across game, I must admit I thought the way that economic and scientific modes of thought were applied metaphorically to purely human problems was novel and exciting. That is why I have read so much game stuff, though I could never take it too seriously.

    (It was immediately clear to me that gaming was of an anti-Christian tendency. I had a feeling of great uneasiness the first time I looked at Roissy’s blog.)

    It soon became clear to me that the “scientific” aspect of game is taken quite seriously by these people, and they were talking non-metaphorically all along. As I attempted to demonstrate in my earlier comments, this approach often leads to wrong conclusions.

    From reading through a Dalrock thread last night with hundreds of comments, I see that life-as-rational-calculation is the primary way that many people think about existence.

    A GBFM comment saying that the dozens of commenters are obviously followers of Heidegger-Freud-Marcuse rather than followers of Jesus-Moses, though harsh, ought to give pause for thought. It seemed to me the only sensible comment on the thread.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    Like most good fallacies, it’s built on a foundation of partial truth.

    That’s a universal way to short circuit criticism. I have plenty of sympathy for men who fight Mohammedan terrorism but it doesn’t follow that I need to wrap every single statement I make about torture in that disclaimer.

    men like Athol Kay are extremely influential in their own right

    I don’t think Kay provides a counter. Whether his stuff is essentially Game or not, the bit I read from his book was so riddled with evo-psych materialism as to be quite problematic in its own right.

    Dalrock is more of a ‘hard case’, but I think it is just straightforwardly true that what he advocates is Biblical headship not Game. PUA make a nice rhetorical foil for him because internet PUA (like sodomite marriage, as another example) are the camel’s ass not the camel’s nose: the camel’s nose came from respectable people including most Christians.

    That doesn’t make Christian chumminess with sodomites a good idea though.

  • Zippy says:

    Gavrila:

    Are we still talking about this? Lol.

    When I started blogging I had already been a commenter-about-town for, well, a very long time. I had already used the handle “Zippy” for a couple of years, and was motivated to blog primarily by laziness: I got tired of repeating myself in different discussions. I blog for other reasons too, but that laziness is still one of them.

    And the next seven hundred times I get the “Don’t hit me, I’m a beta” routine from someone I’ll be able to just link back to this.

  • jf12 says:

    Shorter: No True Beta should bother upping his game.

  • Peter Blood says:

    …but it doesn’t follow that I need to wrap every single statement I make about torture in that disclaimer.

    It’s an old story…a lot of people need those disclaimers. Things are even worse on Twitter.

  • Gavrila says:

    In my favourite film this year, American Hustle (which I’ve been to see twice), the Christian Bale character is very sad and lonely. He falls in love with a woman played by Amy Adams (beautiful red-head). This is what he says in a voice over monologue:

    I felt like we had a secret, just the two of us. You know, like that thing when you just wanna be with the one person the whole time and you feel like the two of you understands something that nobody else gets. I could just tell her everything about myself. And I’d never had anybody like that in my life before. It felt like finally I could truly be myself, without being ashamed, without being embarrassed.

    Who hasn’t either felt like this or wanted to feel like this? You want a woman to fall in love with you, not your simulated persona.

    Through the inauthenticity of game, you’re possibly robbing yourself of something valuable even if you do get the woman you desire.

    That’s why my advice on the other threads, which may have seemed rather shallow (recommending exercise, fine clothing etc.), was focused on changing the external/visual aspects of oneself. It seems to me fine to mess around with the superficial details.

    But trying to alter your inner self (“inner game”) with cut-from-whole-cloth theories, psycho-baggage, word games etc.? What negative effects does this contrivance have on your own heart?

  • Peter Blood says:

    Gavrila, the problem is, I believe, for a lot of young men today the “real me” is a socially-dysfunctional, broken, totally defeated person. I would suggest that the desire to change is a sign of life…like the instinct in the liberal nihilist to embrace realist or vitalist nihilism.

    A full divine reconstruction is needed (and as many notice, churchianity is not a full divine reconstruction).

  • Peter Blood says:

    To be clearer, the instinct in the liberal nihilist, if it leads him only to embrace realist nihilism or vitalist nihilism, leaves a man no better off than he was before.

    I also believe that a lot of young men are coming to grips with what the “real me” is because failed interaction with women. That’s the flash point. They may even think that’s the only real problem.

  • Gavrila says:

    Hi Peter,

    socially-dysfunctional, broken, totally defeated person

    In talking about being being oneself, I guess I mean the part of your heart that other people never (or rarely) see. Not all the pain under which it has been buried.

    I sense that people who start from brokenness find “game” edifying, and it seems to them that the naysayers like me are trying to take away this source of edification.

    So the tug-of-war contention becomes whether or not it constitutes genuine improvement.

    I suppose “game” constitutes realist nihilism, being (according to itself) a kind of realpolitik of sexual relations.

    and as many notice, churchianity is not a full divine reconstruction

    The adrift man discovers the scriptures somehow or remembers his childhood faith, joins a church…and then finds he is still adrift.

    I once listened to a Mass where the priest gave a rationalist explanation of the miracle of the loaves and fishes. It can be hard to believe when the priests don’t believe.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Gavrila

    I felt like we had a secret, just the two of us. You know, like that thing when you just wanna be with the one person the whole time and you feel like the two of you understands something that nobody else gets. I could just tell her everything about myself. And I’d never had anybody like that in my life before. It felt like finally I could truly be myself, without being ashamed, without being embarrassed.

    Who hasn’t either felt like this or wanted to feel like this? You want a woman to fall in love with you, not your simulated persona.

    Guilty.

    BUT: We get to claim this after years of marriage; after births and deaths; conjoined triumphs and inseparable failures. To give any merit or accomplishment to this feeling–this secret shared life that has gathered no secrets and shared very little life–is to be immature; stunted perhaps.

  • Elspeth says:

    We get to claim this after years of marriage; after births and deaths; conjoined triumphs and inseparable failures. To give any merit or accomplishment to this feeling–this secret shared life that has gathered no secrets and shared very little life–is to be immature; stunted perhaps.

    Very well said.

  • jf12 says:

    @Gavrila “I sense that people who start from brokenness find “game” edifying, and it seems to them that the naysayers like me are trying to take away this source of edification.” Yes, because that is reality. I sense you have a problem with broken men becoming edified this way.

    “I suppose “game” constitutes realist nihilism, being (according to itself) a kind of realpolitik of sexual relations.” Surely. The only way for defeated men to claw back to some kind of gender détente is to massively buildup their own nuclear capabilities in the face of their slaughter in the dating market and the divorce market.

  • I for one am deeply, deeply offended that a stranger on the internet named Zippy is not granting his explicit approval to my favored ideas.

    A good definition of heresy is grabbing hold of a truth and running it off of a cliff while leaving the rest of the Truth behind. I do sympathize with the young man who has been immersed in liberalism from birth and is left empty and broken by it. I discovered Jim Kalb through Zippy, and his writings were like the “Red Pill” for me, ha.

    Many manosphere writers are right when they say that liberalism is false and inhuman. They’re wrong when they say that you should exploit liberalism for casual sex, or personal gain, or to relax and cheer on the fall. The only long term solution is rejection of liberalism.

  • Pilgrim of the East says:

    You are just beating a dead horse here (and this time it seems that you just want to have last word, because others have ceased this discussion)… It’s again falling down to definition of “game”. Most people, who have defended it in past discussions view it, unlike you, as something more than just as a way how to have sex with sluts based on evo-psychology.
    That’s why you claim, that Dalrock isn’t pro-game but pro-biblical headship, while he himself supported (what he calls) game multiple times in past.

  • Zippy says:

    Pilgrim:
    I may or may not be beating a dead horse, but if you (still) think this comes down to arbitrary semantics then you haven’t taken the ‘red pill’ in this discussion; you’ve taken the ‘blue pill’ and gone back to comfortably antiessentialist thinking.

  • Whatever game is, zippy’s correct that it doesn’t lend a manly air to the males promoting it. They sound like whiny teenagers, not grown men. Perhaps some of them are, age is a mystery on the old internets.

  • Gavrila says:

    Hi jf12,

    Yes, because that is reality. I sense you have a problem with broken men becoming edified this way.

    If you think it’s true, you don’t have to take on board what I say. I’m only trying to get at the truth. I do want you and others to succeed in matters of the heart. We only disagree on the best way this can be achieved.

    If you’ve found anything I said useful, I hope you can at least refine your ideas about game.

    I may start my own alternative-to-game blog later this year. I’ll post the link here if I do.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “We only disagree on the best way this can be achieved.” I don’t think we disagree much. If my experiences have taught me anything, it is that in our present postmodern West, Just Man Up And Be A Good Man is the ticket to complete failure in matters of the heart for the vast majority of men. It can only be portrayed as some pie-in-the-sky success if you believe that those men, and NOT the cads, benefit from their dying daily in this vale of tears.

  • Mike T says:

    Zippy,

    That’s a universal way to short circuit criticism.

    The observation that a good fallacy or fallacious argument begins with a healthy dose of truth was actually directed at some of your pro-game interlocutors, not you. Though I do stand by my claim that there is in fact a lot of truth that most Christian game critics are functionally not sympathetic to men. When young men have PUAs showing them a twisted form of how to actually man up and tradcons and mainline Protestants/cultural Catholics shrieking “man up” without any guidance to that effect, the latter cannot be called sympathetic no matter what they may formally claim or even believe about themselves.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    I just re-read your comment that prompted my response, and it reads pretty clearly the way I took it. It is problematic either way though even if directed at my critics.

  • Mike T says:

    I think you are reading too much into it.

  • Mike T says:

    t is that in our present postmodern West, Just Man Up And Be A Good Man is the ticket to complete failure in matters of the heart for the vast majority of men.

    In fairness, most of the problem here is that their definition of a man is more less synonymous with “hard-working, productive prole who never tells a woman where to go and what to do when she gets there.” If they told men to stop caring so much about a woman’s feelings except when they actually correspond to something real and hurtful in her life, a lot of this would go away.

    Ironically, that’s one lesson I took away from Roissy that no one ever taught me nor did I ever hear anyone discuss. That is, most of the time if you are moved by a woman’s emotional state you are doing her a disservice not being a good boyfriend or husband.

  • Ok, one of the reasons this horse is so zombie-like is that it’s simply not true that men can’t hear that they shouldn’t be enslaved to a woman’s emotional firestorms anywhere but game blogs. That’s just flatout wrong.

    But of course as soon as people mention those other options, cue the screeching and dismissal and insistence that teh game blawgz are the One True Understandin’s of Teh Wimminz.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    TUW,
    You wrote,
    “…as soon as people mention those other options, cue the screeching and dismissal …”
    This made me laugh. I think my defining experience of interacting with pro-“game” types was the same person denying that there is any alternative to “game” and when I disagreed demanding examples – 5 different times.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Game is sexy. It sells books and videos and seminars. It is easy, you just have to treat woman like a dog. ssst! It has the answer to hypergamy, and female imperatives.

    Toastmasters is crusty, besides, you actually have to invest time and energy, AND stand before a crowd and try to wow them.

    Doing a martial art is so seventies, and it makes you sweaty.

    Joining a group of like minded people is so gay! besides, there may be women in the group, and they all have coodies!

    And you wonder why I have no empathy for our poor wittle broken men?

  • DeNihilist says:

    a bit more research into games ability to seduce woman from heartiste –

    “Kind of a cheesy line, but if you drop it on fifty girls a week you’re bound to hit pay dirt on a couple.” – 4%, and your gaming why?

  • Mike T says:

    Ok, one of the reasons this horse is so zombie-like is that it’s simply not true that men can’t hear that they shouldn’t be enslaved to a woman’s emotional firestorms anywhere but game blogs. That’s just flatout wrong.

    It’s not like there was a plethora of tradcons talking about these issues and then suddenly the PUAs came along and usurped their place in the spotlight. There was a vacuum, and as nature abhors a vacuum something filled it.

    The problem isn’t that men can’t hear this anywhere else. Rather, it’s that the tradcons who actually would teach that cannot be heard over the raucous created by those who would instead teach a man uber-sensitivity.

  • Mike T says:

    So your church is different? That’s great! Guess what… the number of churches that are in alignment with groups like Focus on the Family and its functional feminist organs like Boundless is significantly greater than the influence of your individual church. You may have some impact in your area, but on the greater culture it’s next to nil.

  • Zippy says:

    One of the oddities I’ve noticed is that things like instinctively testing leaders for fitness are generally thought to be an almost exclusively female behavior. That isn’t my experience at all.

    I’ve pointed out that men aren’t natural leaders, they are naturally hierarchical — which means that most of them will be in the middle of the hierarchy, with other men both above and below depending on context. In my own experience I’ve been ‘fitness tested’ by far more men than women.

    This is one of many problems with the current state of analytical (a.k.a. “red pill”) doctrine in the manosphere, the part with which I am generally sympathetic (let alone its much more problematic prescriptive doctrine a.k.a. Game). It relates back to the polestar of getting sex as opposed to understanding the truth, and it reflects the fact that many have not recognized the liberalism in themselves and rejected it.

    The manosphere seems to be mainly composed of libertarians and those very recently apostate from libertarianism, who for the most part have not apprehended and purged the liberal modernity from their systems. So the anthropology under which they function basically sees a bunch of free and equal men and the subordinate[*] women who follow them, and they don’t understand that liberal simulcra of hierarchy are not real hierarchies.

    Folks may make fun of the idea that understanding what liberalism is and purging it from your system is far more important – even just as a practical matter in their own lives – than learning to “keep two in the kitty”. But it is more important. Game without repentance from liberalism is a recipe for personal disaster. And given true and unequivocal repentance from liberalism, Game is not just unnecessary but is an impediment.

    [*] The women aren’t really subordinate though, because in the manosphere anthropology it is still the women who determined the male hierarchy.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    t’s not like there was a plethora of tradcons talking about these issues and then suddenly the PUAs came along and usurped their place in the spotlight.

    No, you are wrong. That is exactly what happened, and I’ve explained why. Tradcons like Jim Kalb have been around promoting male headship and pouring cold water on feminism since forever — since before the HTTP protocol was a twinkle in Tim Berners-Lee’s eye — as I demonstrated with a couple of examples two posts ago.

    The reason Internet PUA became such a big deal is because they were selling a (putative) system to help nerdy guys get sexual attention from sluts. PUA are more popular than antifeminst tradcons – who have been around longer and whose message is actually compatible with Christianity – for the same reason the Kardashians are more popular than tradcons.

    Because sexy.

    The “Christian Game” cult needs to take a good hard look in the mirror.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    You wrote,
    “It’s not like there was a plethora of tradcons talking about these issues and then suddenly the PUAs came along and usurped their place in the spotlight.”
    Actually, I have spent most of my time debunking this ridiculous claim. I am old enough to remember when Promise Keepers was a leading news story for months because it was instructing men to tell their wives ‘I am in charge, you aren’t’. It is focused on building men up and teaching them to take the headship of their family. It has been around for 25 years and has groups in most places.
    What was it Deti said about PK?
    ‘I went to three and I didn’t hear about women’s submission’.
    Uh-huh. A group with a prepared script that you are to memorize where you tell you wife that you are the head of the family, etc. doesn’t teach female submission. Sure.
    There are dozens of groups like this, and other resources. I have my notes from a men’s retreat at a parish with hundreds of single and married men where one hour of the 6 was on men as head of the family; women as subordinate to men. The women’s retreat had the mirror on how to submit. Both were well attended; both were promoted by the diocese.
    Yet I keep getting told ‘no one but game is teaching this’.
    The Surrendered Wife and the associated books, audio, video, deminars, etc that teaches women directly that they are to submite sells millions of dollars worth of stuff every year and has dedicated seminars all the time.
    But I keep being told ‘no one else is teaching this stuff but [fill in with roissy, roosh, dalrock, etc.]’
    You know what the eskimo said to the snow cone salesman?
    I ain’t buying it

  • Zippy says:

    Aquinas Dad:
    I think it was TUW who pointed out that the Red Pill / Game community is itself small. I know more people IRL who know who Jim Kalb is than know who Roissy is, though that might be because I hand out the former’s books like halloween candy.

    This complaint that perverts must be attended and treated like heroes because they have better marketing reach than antifeminist tradcons wouldn’t carry any water even if it were true that the perverts have better marketing reach. But it isn’t actually clear that they do: in manosphere terms, the men who first encountered a taste of antifeminism at the knee of a pervert may be engaged in what they rather inaptly call solipsism.

  • nickbsteves says:

    But that it comes from men who insist that learning Game has made them more manly – now that is irony.

    …or maybe manly men agree on the principles and just disagree with your fallible (and suspicious) definition of terms and move on. If so, this would no doubt bias your sample.

  • Zippy says:

    nickbsteves:

    If so, this would no doubt bias your sample.

    Sure. It is always possible that only men who have attempted and failed to become more manly at Roissy’s knee can’t quit me.

  • jf12 says:

    The same techniques for catching trash fish out of polluted waters work for catching game fish from clean water. You could call it practice. Naturally it would be great if there were more unpolluted waters that weren’t overfished, but then beggars would ride.

  • deti says:

    “You aren’t out there teaching men how to attract women, therefore Game is morally neutral ‘tools’ and unproblematic”

    No. The argument actually is:

    “Neither you nor anyone else (I know, I know, except Aquinas Dad) is teaching masculinity; instead you are sitting on the sidelines making catcalls and throwing peanuts. Therefore you are irrelevant to this discussion because you aren’t saying anything we haven’t already heard a thousand times (Man up! Just Don’t Be Liberal! Just Get it! Just figure it out for yourself!)”

  • deti says:

    I’d be interested to know how many people outside of esoteric, cloistered Catholic circles have actually heard of James Kalb, his beliefs, his writings, or anything else he has to say or offer.

    The question is quite relevant because I’m given to understand, and it’s pretty clear from today’s society, that most North American Catholics have rejected wholesale most Catholic teachings on premarital sex, birth control, abortion, divorce, remarriage, traditional sex roles, patriarchy, and pretty much every other Catholic teaching on sexual morality.

  • Zippy says:

    I know more people who know of Kalb than Roissy; despite the fact that Roissy is selling the most popular product on Earth – consequence-free sex – to the constituency most desperate for it.

  • Zippy says:

    (Oddly enough I first heard of Roissy through Kalb. And I heard of Dalrock through another tradcon who has been writing against feminism for decades, Mark Richardson who now blogs at Oz Conservative).

  • Zippy says:

    In other words, welcome aboard. Ditch the perverts and the idiotic materialism and we can be allies.

  • deti says:

    I actually think Mike T has the better argument here, Zippy. Perhaps Kalb et al have been out there talking about antifeminism longer than the PUAs. The fact of the matter is that Kalb et al aren’t getting through. And it’s not because Kalb wasn’t selling ways for nerds to sleep with sluts. It’s because most men aren’t learning masculinity, or are having their natural masculinity trained out of them, or aren’t being encouraged or cultivated in natural masculinity.

    Most men don’t want to become PUAs. Most men don’t have the stuff to become PUAs even if they wanted to. Most men simply want to be able to marry one woman and keep her for life without going bankrupt or crazy or frivorced or all three in the process. While I understand your arguments against Game, I don’t agree with them because I think that most (Christian) men understand what’s moral and what isn’t; what’s correct and what isn’t; what’s permissible and what isn’t; and what’s profitable and what isn’t. I suppose I just have more faith in the discernment of the average Christian guy than you do. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that. Cue Kumbaya.

  • Zippy says:

    Anything to avoid threatening a well-established solidarity with perverts.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “welcome aboard”. Aye aye capn. Is there ever going to be anything more than swabbing decks? When does the character building cease and the “girls are just naturally attracted to swabbers” commence to start to actually be seen to begin happening?

  • Deti is so hilarious. Somehow the same people who reject traditional teachings and embrace liberalism can in this one narrow instance exercise an astonishing level of discernment that would astound Christian philosophers of yore.

    Interesting how that works.

    So, uh, y’all feeling pretty manful now? All masculined up? Do other men look to you pro-game fellas as male authority figures fit to mentor their own sons and nephews and grandsons?

    We are talking about actual masculinity, right? Because (some) chicks will bed down with girlymen and that doesn’t mean those guys are masculine just because they can pull the occasional dame.

  • Zippy says:

    TUW:

    Somehow the same people who reject traditional teachings and embrace liberalism can in this one narrow instance exercise an astonishing level of discernment that would astound Christian philosophers of yore.

    Right. The very people who are completely lost without the help of PUA are totally, totally fit to exercise ‘discernment’. Just like the children on the playground are fit to exercise ‘discernment’ to figure out which of the pieces of candy being passed out by the pedophile are drugged.

  • Gavrila says:

    deti wrote:

    Most men simply want to be able to marry one woman and keep her for life without going bankrupt or crazy or frivorced or all three in the process.

    What has going bankrupt got to do with it? Is Roissy going to teach you how to manage your finances next?

    Divorce is caused by the availability of divorce – not embodying the wrong letter of the Greek alphabet.

    An internet cargo cult can’t be relied upon to save marriages. What do you do when your wife divorces you anyway? If you’re a PUA, you slink away – delete your blog/stop commenting at game blogs.

    A better protection against frivorce would be marrying a girl who is a sincere religious fanatic (from an esoteric, cloistered, Kalb-reading circle perhaps?) – one who is genuinely against divorce and not a phony. (Dalrock’s blog is quite good at exposing many of these phonies, I must admit.)

    Question: Is it possible to get a religious union without entering into a civil marriage contract? This is what Laura Wood recommends, I believe. Is this feasible?

  • DeNihilist says:

    And again Deti, if it isn’t game, it isn’t sexy. Man, take your blinders off! Toastmasters, How to influence people and win friends, Martial arts, clubs,, etc. But you know all of this, but unfortunately for you, there is no money to be made from these things personaly, oh and they take commitment and time, and “manning up”

    I know, hard work is so seventies, when all a dork has to do is read some shit from some loser who has a 4% closing rate, but lives in foreign lands off of his book sales. Must look good to you eh buddy?

    Game is nothing but a con job. Admit it and jump in head first boy!

  • Patrick says:

    Most men are pussy-whipped, even the masculine, manly ones who are considered fit to mentor sons, nephews and grandsons. They believe in equality. Respectable men who have achieved all the marks of true manhood in the TRUE hierarchy. I’ve known some of them. They went to Promise Keepers rallies and later started wearing purple suits to church and their sons converted to Mormonism, got girls pregnant, got married/divorced, converted back, and joined barbershop quartets (did pull some gigs at the farmers market). Others got divorced unwillingly and started taking sad fraternal hikes and talking about being men. Kind of like in Fight Club, “We’re still men!” Some others had a dad who ended up working doubly hard in life caring for a paralyzed mom: of his sons one got frivorced, the other went into investment banking and womanizing, the other married a submissive girl, grew dreadlocks and started DJing at dance clubs in the Pacific Northwest.

    It’s interesting to see the same failed arguments filter in and out, such as Chaucer-done-it-better and Christian Game. It’s gratifying to see that game-only-works-on-sluts and male-sluttiness have been abandoned, though.

    I don’t care about game as such anymore. Mainly because the terminology is owned by sociopath pornographers and “If you use their words, you’ll end up thinking their thoughts.” But I’ve already gleaned the useful information. Does Kalb teach agree and amplify?

  • Zippy says:

    Gavrila:

    Question: Is it possible to get a religious union without entering into a civil marriage contract? This is what Laura Wood recommends, I believe. Is this feasible?

    We discussed the idea of “the state getting out of the marriage business” a while back. The bottom line from my standpoint is that while it is understandable that Christians under a dysfunctional state would want it, it literally cannot happen; because in order for it to obtain the state would have to abdicate its role in arbitrating disputes between private parties, that is, it would have to cease governing. The state already arbitrates disputes between parties it does not label “married”, and that isn’t going to change, so the state’s substantive view of these contracts will continue to drive how they are enforced no matter what labels are applied.

    Basically some Christians seem to want to have contracts without labeling them ‘marriage’ as far as the state is concerned; but they are still contracts, and will still be enforced or not under whatever substantive view liberalism has of such contracts.

    You might notice that once again we are dealing with a situation where people think that official nominalism can solve problems created by modernity: that throwing gas on the fire can put it out.

  • Gavrila says:

    I see. Good answer, thanks.

  • deti says:

    TUW:

    I’m neither interested nor impressed in lectures on masculinity from women, especially ones who employ shaming language. Been there, done that. Didn’t work out too well. A bit of advice: Stick to advising women.

    Gavrila: When I was referring to bankruptcy I was talking about the usual financial problems for men that accompany divorce. But rest assured, I won’t trouble you further with issues you’re not interested in.

  • Zippy says:

    Shorter Deti to TUW: don’t hit me, I’m a beta.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Deti,
    You wrote,
    “Neither you nor anyone else (I know, I know, except Aquinas Dad) is teaching masculinity”
    So you are making the same tired, refuted claim AGAIN. No matter how many times I or anyone else points out the Promise Keepers, Traditional Catholics, Evangelicals. etc., etc. you keep repeating the same lie.
    Oh, and trying to make it about me or someone else rather than about ideas.
    Here is a hint, Deti – pretending they don’t exist only affects your credibility, not reality.
    You wrote,
    “I’d be interested to know how many people outside of esoteric, cloistered Catholic circles have actually heard of James Kalb”
    Well, his most recent book is #12 on the paid Kindle for social policy, so it seems a fair amount of people. Plus he wrtes for a popular Catholic blog, so….
    You wrote,
    “…most men aren’t learning masculinity, or are having their natural masculinity trained out of them, or aren’t being encouraged or cultivated in natural masculinity…”
    I need a citation for this, please. No, saying ‘just look around!’ isn’t proof, anymore than ‘no one *I* know voted for Nixon’ is proof of anything but the samll, narrow relationships of the speaker.
    Sure, maybe it is my background in the military, security, sales, and business but when I look around I don’t see a lot of simpering man-children who can’t speak to girls without staring at their shoes and spilling spaghetti from their pockets. Sure, there are large problems in large segments of society and men need help – never doubt that I know that! But the repeated claim that ‘no one but PUAs are teaching masculinity’ is risible two ways; first, where are the manly men that roosh and roissy are teaching you to compete with *coming from* if no one else is teaching masculinity! You know, the ‘10% of men who bang 90% of the women’ that PUAs swear you will join if you just.Buy. The. Book.
    Those guys. Do they all spring from holes in the ground like me and Zippy?
    The second reason it is a joke – what “game” teaches *isn’t masculinity*. Talking to girls != masculinity. Having sex != masculinity.
    Like I said elsewhere, when roosh wrote ‘I bet you didn’t know I was a mama’s boy’ I laughed because I assumed *everyone* knew it from his posturing.
    And I must say – the allergy of “gamers” to ‘shaming language’ is HILARIOUS!
    ‘Don’t you dare shame me!’ they cry out, ‘shaming language is judgmental! It is an attempt to force us to do things we don’t like’
    Yeah, I know ‘slut shaming’ is terrible, isn’t it?
    Now, tell me again how “game” is nothing like feminism?

  • deti says:

    TUW, zippy, AD:

    Yes, yes, I know. “Just get it! Just figure it out for yourself!”

  • Zippy says:

    “Just don’t get it” is a popular approach too.

  • Gavrila says:

    deti wrote:

    When I was referring to bankruptcy I was talking about the usual financial problems for men that accompany divorce.

    I see. When you wrote ‘bankrupty or frivorce’ it threw me.

  • Gavrila says:

    It’s interesting to see the same failed arguments filter in and out, such as Chaucer-done-it-better

    Yes, yes, I know. “Just get it! Just figure it out for yourself!”

    I think I understand things a little better now. The followers/commenters of game blogs lack the faculty to draw out lessons from personal experience or narratives and the social intuition to make their own observations anew.

    The younger they are, the longer they’ve been directly steeped in the nihilist culture.

    So while for instance while some people observe stoicism in their own father, Mike T. (claims to have) discovered it through reading the ‘sixteen commandments’.

    And they don’t trust tradcons since, where many of them are concerned, their traditions change with the weather.

  • Gavrila says:

    Patrick wrote:

    Does Kalb teach agree and amplify?

    No but examples of masculine men who don’t roll over for others abound.

    In the gospels, when Jesus Christ is being tested by the Pharisees he often responds to questions with stony silence or dismissive scorn. (‘Agree and amplify’ is responding to a question with sarcastic scorn.)

    and later started wearing purple suits to church

    Why did they wear purple suits?

  • Zippy says:

    Gavrila:

    And they don’t trust tradcons since, where many of them are concerned, their traditions change with the weather.

    It is hard to blame them for that, since “traditional conservative” as a string of letters more often than not is used to refer to right-liberal fusionists like the National Review types.

    The irony is that “game fusionists” are attempting the same sort of thing in the sociosexual domain. They just don’t, don’t, don’t, don’t want to repudiate Game because they think it is good, much like the right liberal (“conservative”) conviction that political freedom and equal rights are fundamental to good governance.

  • deti says:

    “The followers/commenters of game blogs lack the faculty to draw out lessons from personal experience or narratives and the social intuition to make their own observations anew.”

    Yes, that’s part of it. The other part of it is the gaslighting that many received as part of their upbringing – being told that your personal experiences are false, or not being viewed correctly, or that your intuitions are faulty. “You’re not really seeing what you are clearly seeing.”

    Example: Those girls aren’t really attracted to those badboys they’re having sex with. Those girls are just stupid. You just keep being nice nice nice and those girls will eventually see what a great guy you are.

    Example 2: Those nice church girls aren’t really attracted to or responding to those those attractive jerks. Those nice church girls aren’t going to sleep with them, either. You’re just making up things in your head. Those nice church girls are more moral, more spiritual, and of better character than all other girls.

    “And they don’t trust tradcons since, where many of them are concerned, their traditions change with the weather.”

    No. The general distrust of tradcons arises not from changing traditions; but from their inability to understand the society in which they live and adapt to it; and their refusal to see the clear signs of intersexual dysfunction and determine appropriate responses to it and education for it.

  • Zippy says:

    Deti writes:

    The general distrust of tradcons arises not from changing traditions; but from their inability to understand the society in which they live and adapt to it;

    So capitulation to liberalism is the advice: Just Get With The Times, Already.

    Never heard that before.

  • deti says:

    Hen. The calls for Kumbaya were premature.

  • deti says:

    No, not “Just Get With The Times, Already”.

    More like “Remove Your Heads from the Sand and Open Your Eyes, Already”.

  • Or maybe the girls pursuing badboys aren’t worth your time to chase after. Maybe the ‘nice’ church girls aren’t worth wifing up. (I am not the first to make these suggestions.)

  • deti says:

    TUW:

    You completely missed the point of that comment you responded to. Completely. Flew right over your head.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: purple suits. In our Pentecostal circles there are exactly three groups of males who wear purple suits to church.
    1. Little boys who look sad in their purple suits that their mothers foist upon them as an alternative to the sailor suits they foist upon them otherwise.
    2. Young men in the 16.6-17.6 age range who bought a shiny purple suit as a dare.
    3. Borat. I was there when he visited the Pentecostal camp meeting service in Mississippi during his movie-making. He had been there several days, first wearing a bum’s outfit, then a queer ruffledy baby-blue prom tux, then a pimp-looking purple suit (w/purple hat) that others have told me he filmed himself shopping for at an urban store, causing a ruckus. I don’t know if that made it into the movie as I have no intention of seeing it.

  • jf12 says:

    No True Man.
    No True Nice Church Girls.
    The drum goes on, but nobody is marching to it.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Words have meaning, as Deti is so fond of saying.

    Anyone know of a survey about the word “game”? Betting dollars to donuts that the majority of men would answer that it infers a system of tactics to get women into their bed for sex.

    I doubt anyone but the proto-game salesmen would list it as a word that infers masculinity.

  • Eh, there’s lots of Godly church girls not chasing after naughty lads. Some of them are even conventionally attractive and youthful. But the kind of guy who only looks at badboys himself tends to miss those girls, who sometimes fail to marry and sometimes simply marry the guys who were looking right at them rather than the guys who were ogling the badboys instead.

    Marriage in this age has a lot of problems and Godly marriage is especially challenging, but marriage has always had a lot of problems and Godly marriage has always had special challenges from the external cultures around it. Good wives are always going to be precious things, as are good husbands. Not everyone is worth marrying, not even all of the people who really really really really feel entitled to marriage.

    “Seek Christ, be renewed in Him” is the answer for Christians, as far as I can tell. It won’t necessarily guarantee you secular rewards though.

  • deti says:

    TUW:

    You’re still not getting it.

  • Kathy says:

    Neither are you, Deti.

    Wasn’t it you who said that men desire sex with as many women as they can get it from?..

    This from a Christian man..

    Your focus has been completely on sex.. That’s all you ever talk about.

    As if that is all there is to marriage..

    Not only that. Even when the wife comes across, she should always be enthusiastic and happy to comply..

    Unicorns and rainbows stuff. o-O

    Zippy has you pegged !

    ..

  • deti says:

    Aquinas Dad:

    I don’t think we’re going to change each others’ minds, so let me just say this and be done with it.

    You keep mentioning PromiseKeepers. If you want an example of Protestant teaching male headship, PK is not it. PK is feminized churchianity. It teaches a male headship which is subject to female approval and veto, which is not male headship at all.

    I might put more stock in writers like kalb if I saw more evidence that it was influencing the Catgolic faithful. The North American catholic divorce rate is. 25%. There’s rampant premarital sex, abortion, birth control use, and divorce even among Catholics. So from where I sit, most catholic thinkers and writers aren’t stemming the tide much either. You might see it as casting aspersions; I see it simply as an observable set of facts.

  • Patrick says:

    I think the main thing game elucidates is sexual dimorphism and a power differential in the man’s favor. And that’s about it. Once those concepts are internalized or even just begin to be internalized, the average man can figure it all out on his own without much difficulty. The game blogs are mostly just illustrations and examples of those concepts in moral and immoral situations: that men and women really are different and want different things, and try to keep the power position. The problem is both of those are sins against the modern milieu. It’s practically taboo. Which is why it mostly comes out in pornography like on the game blogs or in books like 50 Shades of Grey.

    I shouldn’t have said “they” started wearing purple suits. That was one example of one promise keepers guy who had met all the mile markers of manhood and was esteemed in the hierarchy and had a successful marriage and was a medical doctor and everything but still. He was a little eccentric.

  • Zippy says:

    deti:

    I might put more stock in writers like kalb if I saw more evidence that it was influencing the Catgolic faithful.

    So the measure of truth is successful marketing to modern hedonists. And successful marketing to modern hedonists has noooooooothing to do with the fact that Roissy is selling the promise of sexual attention from sluts to desperate nerds.

    Even if we stipulate for the sake of argument that Internet Game/PUA has greater marketing reach than the (admittedly fringe) traditional Christianity it mistakenly lumps with right-liberalism, that is effervescently stupid.

  • Zippy says:

    Patrick:

    I think the main thing game elucidates is sexual dimorphism and a power differential in the man’s favor. And that’s about it. Once those concepts are internalized or even just begin to be internalized, the average man can figure it all out on his own without much difficulty.

    That’s about right, though that is more the “red pill” analytical side than the prescriptive “Game” side. Once you truly reject liberalism and understand that you have to take the initiative yourself, figuring it out isn’t hard (despite Deti’s constant advice that you should not just figure it out, that you need to sit at Roissy’s knee to be a good Christian).

    Sexual dimorphism and power differential has been conventional wisdom in antifeminist thought since … well, antifeminist thought has always been around, actually, since the truth was never completely successfully purged. And antifeminism is no more or less “fringe” than PUA/Game — it is just that PUA/Game uses antifeminism to sell a prescriptive ‘system’ that libertarian-leaning nerds can (putatively) hedonistically leverage for sexual attention from sluts. It sells a prescriptive ‘system’ that is no more effective than placebo (“once you have rejected liberalism, just figure it out”) according to its own most famousest of practitioners.

    So the very thing that folks like Deti trumpet as the virtue of Game – its market appeal resting on the specific techniques it teaches above and beyond rejection of feminism – is exactly what is wrong with it.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Deti,
    You wrote,
    “So from where I sit, most catholic thinkers and writers aren’t stemming the tide much either….”
    ‘Where you sit’ – Where is that, exactly?
    I mention PK because it has millions of members and hosts meetings around the nation and beyond all the time. And their instructions are pretty clear [quote from their seminars to husbands],
    ” “The first thing you do is sit down with your wife and say : ‘Honey, I’ve made a terrible mistake. I’ve given you my role. I gave up leading the family, and I forced you to take my place. Now I must reclaim that role.’ Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here. I’m not suggesting that you ask for your role back, I’m telling you to take it back.”
    Is that what you mean by ‘feminized churchianity’?
    And I do love your quotes on statistics that prove Catholics have
    [wait for it]
    the *lowest* rates of divorce, abortion, etc.
    I mean, your point seems to be ‘Catholics oppose divorce and abortion and the fact that Catholics have the lowest rates of divorce and abortion proves they do a poor job’
    If I didn’t know better I would think you are a poor troll.
    Now, if you were narrow that study (like Pew and the GSS have done) so that it only includes Catholics who actually *attend Mass* the numbers get even lower.Which means, of course, that actual Catholics who actually listen to the leaders of the Church are, yes, much, much less likely to divorce, have abortions, etc.
    So tell me, again, how this proves that the Church is NOT effective in reducing abortion, divorce, etc?

    Deti, you don’t seem to actually understand the meaning and implications of the words and numbers you cite. You keep repeating claims
    [‘No one but PUAs are teaching these things’, ‘only “game” teaches masculinity’, etc]
    that have been proven false many times by many people.
    This is so egregious that I know at least one guy has suggested you *are* one of the PUAs flogging his own books and works with the sockpuppet ID Deti!
    I have *no idea* what your personal situation is, although I admit I assume it is pretty bleak emotionally. And you obviously won’t change your mind, even as you undermine your position with your own statements and quotes.
    I am just making sure people know that you are not telling the truth about there being no alternative, that no one else is doing anything, etc.

  • deti says:

    @kathy:

    Men do desire sex. Reduced to their flesh and nothing more, yes. Reduced to their flesh, a woman desires the best man she can get at any given time; and when freed to do so, will trade him in for a better model. Including Christian women.

    Christian men and Christian women are. , after all, men and women.

    I have never said sex is all there is to marriage. You must have me confused with someone else.

    Sex is important to a Christian man. Because he is a man. It’s not everything. But it is important, particularly when it’s one of the things he is supposed to receive in marriage.

    Perhaps a side isn’t always enthusiastic or happy about sex. If she is it will help both of them with marital satisfaction. But she should at least be willing. If she doesn’t want to have sex with him then she shouldn’t have married him. Of course having married him it’s now incumbent on her to pay the marital debt.

    “Zippy has you pegged!”

    Eh. Not so much. But we’ll let him believe so.

  • Zippy says:

    The evolution of the pervertosphere that many Christians shower with such affection is pretty clear by now.

    Antifeminism has always been around, though over the last century or so it has been pushed further and further into the fringes. It has been around on the Internet since at least the late 1980’s, certainly well before things like web browsers and web servers even existed.

    In any case, at some point some nerd (call him “Typhoid Larry”) read Tarnsman of Gor and realized that by rejecting feminism he would actually be more attractive to women.

    This worked, because women actually are attracted to manly men who reject feminism.

    Being nerdy, the PUA ‘community’ tried to develop a system of programmable techniques around this. Despite that system (“Game,” adopting the nomenclature used in black communities to refer to players who bed lots of women) being no more effective than placebo (and possibly less once you consider that the proper comparison is between antifeminist men who use Game and antifeminist men who don’t), Game/PUA is now touted by some ostensible Christians as THE ONLY THING EVER TO TEACH MANLINESS.

  • katmandutu says:

    Heh. I must have missed the part where you said that there was more to marriage(for men) than sex .:-P

  • jf12 says:

    No True Catholic
    No True PUA
    No True Tradcon
    No True Antifeminist
    No True Marriage

    Do y’all even read what you write?

  • jf12 says:

    Steps to success.
    1. Hear about victims developing some ideas about becoming less victimized.
    2. Make fun of them, both for being victims and for trying not be victims.
    3. Declare self victor.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Deti,
    You wrote,
    “Reduced to their flesh, a woman desires the best man she can get at any given time; and when freed to do so, will trade him in for a better model. Including Christian women.”
    Hmmmm. So why do women cheat less?
    http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/07/wives-cheating-vs-men/66800/
    If women were driven to go after the ‘best man’ to that degree shouldn’t the rates of infidelity be higher?
    Also, if the ‘alpha/beta’/etc’ BS was true why is it that women who do cheat tend to cheat with men they find less attractive than and make less money than their spouse? Why is the number one reason cheating women state they are having the affair is because their affair partner listens and talks more? [The Ohio University study; also backed up by Ashley Madison and Victoria Milan wed sites].
    Sure, sure, most divorces are initiated by women, that isn’t the point – Less than 30 out of every 1,000 divorcees ever remarry (that is men AND women)
    Dalrock points out in a series of posts that women who divorce aren’t as likely to *date* as men after divorce, so post-divorce women are MORE likely to be without a boyfriend, live-in partner, or spouse than men after divorce.
    Is there an epidemic of divorce? Compared to the past, sure.
    Are most divorces initiated by women? Sure, although the full reasons may be obscure.
    Are women divorcing their husbands to hook up with ‘more exciting’ men? According to the data, *no*.
    So something pathological is happening, but it isn’t women ‘dumping ‘betas’ for ‘alphas”

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    jf12,
    Where does this feeling of persecution come from? I am certainly not making fun of anyone. Pointing out mistakes and errors? Sure. Pointing out people repeating things they know are false? Yeah.
    Listen, I get that men who struggle to talk to women or such see “game” as something that has allowed them to do things they felt they otherwise couldn’t do. Like I have said probably 50 times – BCAYCDI systems are better than nothing, which is why they are so popular. I have lost track of how many times I have suggested people read books on and attend classes on public speaking, conversation, time management, etc Heck, Donal is hosting a list of mostly-secular recommendations I have on these very ideas.
    I explicitly reject the idea of a ‘natural conversationalist/whatever’ because I believe that *everyone* has to learn that stuff..
    And as a Catholic I advocate that *EVERYONE* change to become virtuous.
    So I never say ‘just be yourself’, I advocate positive, moral change.
    I never say ‘just get it’, I actively give resources, religious and secular, to learn and grow with the help of others through proven methods that are not immoral.
    So why do guys like you, Desiderius, and Deti so *personally threatened* when I say all that and finish with ‘and I oppose “game” because its core ideas [which I define based upon what I mean] are wrong [and explain why I think so]’?
    My current theory is because guys like you, Desiderius and Deti actually are NOT about personal growth, moral improvement, and learning from proven methods – you are rather about feeling superior because of your access to ‘secret knowledge’. I think that hard-core supporters of “game” are just a type of modern, secular Gnostics.

  • Silly Interloper says:

    Steps to success.

    I believe you just recapitulated the title: “Don’t hit me, I’m a beta!”

    Leave aside the fact that playing the victim is a standard far left tactic.

  • deti says:

    AD:

    So to find out why married women cheat, we are going to ask them why?

    We are going to ask liars and cheaters why they lied and cheated; and then assign credibility to what the liars and cheaters said about why they lied and cheated? We are going to believe them?

    Are you serious?

    *shakes head*

  • Patrick says:

    I don’t really see a system in game. It has a general principle, control the frame, and then a bunch of anecdotes and examples of ways to keep power and to respond when challenged. I read that essay on feminism here, that section that suggests the “right” way to respond to accusations of sexism, etc. That’s similar to game. I already used it almost word for word when someone said that an individual Christian might not be a sexist but Chrisitanity is a sexist ideology. Worked like a charm. That doesn’t constitute a system.

    AD, what you’re saying is divorce is men’s fault basically for not earning their primacy. Which is what all the promise keepers and I kissed dating goodbye types say, in my experience, as well as women trying to rationalize their divorces. The only real alternative to game (or whatever) is legal inequality and female subjection. The fact that principles in game can be seen in literature, self-help books and even being used by Jesus isn’t evidence that game is false. It’s the opposite.

    Accepting a place as a beta in the game hierarchy is self-defeating, too, because the only way to top out that hierarchy is by being an amoral psychopath. A practicing Christian is doomed forever to be a beta. That’s a function of psychopath pornographers controlling the terminology. A beta type reading the game blogs is also reminded constantly of his beta status by anecdotes that point out and mock beta behavior in others.

  • deti says:

    AD:

    “Feeling superior because of access to secret knowledge”? What are you talking about? There’s nothing secret about anything about Game. It’s all over the internet.

    You’re being silly. I guess it makes you feel better to discredit game with shaming language directed at certain commenters (“Emotionally bleak”, “secret knowledge” ). Heh.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Deti,
    That’s it? That’s all you have? I post references and even a link to actual studies (whose methodology you remain ignorant of, obviously) and all you have is ‘are you really going to trust liars and cheats?’?
    And what do you do, yourself, other than follow self-proclaimed lairs and cheats?

    I also notice you don’t address the point that facts refute the entire ‘leave a ‘beta’ for an ‘alpha” BS, nor the fact that women, supposedly in the grips of hypergamy, cheat *less* than their supposedly-all-never-taught-to-be-masculine-and-enslaved-by-feminist-churchianity husbands.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Patrick,
    You wrote,
    “AD, what you’re saying is divorce is men’s fault basically for not earning their primacy.”
    Nope. Never said that anywhere. Not did I imply it. You are reading stuff that isn’t there.
    What I *did* say is that divorce is higher than it was in the far past, that women initiate most of it, and men are more likely to find a partner after divorce than women.
    You wrote,
    “The only real alternative to game (or whatever) is legal inequality and female subjection.”
    I have no clear idea what you are trying to say here – could you expand this, please?

  • Zippy says:

    AD:
    It is a typical maneuver in these discussions to suggest that without more legal support “betas” simply must turn to Game.

  • Patrick says:

    “Are most divorces initiated by women? Sure, although the full reasons may be obscure.”

    Is that not what you’re implying right here?

    I mean that the power differential is maintained by an individual man, an individual woman or a legal system that gives men power. The third option doesn’t exist, and the second option barely exists. The best option is “game” for lack of a better word.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Everyone, please read the following as a direct demonstration of “lack of self-awareness”
    Deti wrote,
    “[Aquinas] You’re being silly”
    This is meant to be shaming language directed at a particular commentor.
    Next sentence from Deti,
    “I guess it makes you feel better to discredit game with shaming language directed at certain commenters”
    Uh-huh.
    Deti, let me repeat this – I have discredited “game” by critiquing “game” itself – the ‘alpha/beta/etc’ is demonstrably false and the pseudo-psychology of women is demonstrably false; I strive to not make this about me nor about any person in particular.
    As for secret knowledge, the entire ‘red pill’ concept and language is *explicitly* Gnostic – People who have ‘taken the red pill’ understand reality, people taking the ‘blue pill’ do not; ‘”gamers” understand reality, ‘churchianity’ does not; etc. Regardless of the ubiquity of the message the core concept is no different than conspiracy theorists talking about ‘sheeple’ – neo-reactionaries or “game” types talking about ‘the red pill’ and similar adherents believe that they have access to special knowledge that gives them an inherent advantage, makes them ‘better’. This is neither approving nor mocking, just descriptive.
    And ’emotionally bleak’ is not shaming language, just speculative and empathetic.

  • jf12 says:

    @AD “Where does this feeling of persecution come from?” The titular histrionics for one, “Don’t hit me, I’m a beta.”
    “I explicitly reject the idea of a ‘natural conversationalist/whatever’” ok, but I am one, although it never helped me with women. One could claim Steve Urkel was a natural conversationalist too.
    I agree with you that game as such is based upon techniques designed for the pursuit of immoral sexual success with women. Where we part company is on the question of whether those same techniques can be lawfully employed for more moral ends; to which Zippy quoted Aquinas “yet it is lawful to make use of another’s sin for a good end”.

  • jf12 says:

    Re: “what you’re saying is divorce is men’s fault basically for not earning their primacy. Which is what all the promise keepers and I kissed dating goodbye types say, in my experience, as well as women trying to rationalize their divorces. The only real alternative to game (or whatever) is legal inequality and female subjection.”
    Correct. For example, in more-cloistered communities, etc.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Patrick,
    You wrote [and quaoted me]
    ““Are most divorces initiated by women? Sure, although the full reasons may be obscure.”
    Is that not what you’re implying right here?”
    No, or I would have said this
    ‘Sure, although it is the man’s fault blah, blah’
    Which I didn’t.
    I said the full reasons are obscure because they are obscure. I don’t know. Can some of it be because of poor leadership by some men? Sure, maybe. Some of it could be because the husbands are too patriarchal and the Feminist Amazon Brigade convinces some women to divorce. Maybe, beats me.
    What I *do* know from analysis of data available is that moving on to another boyfriend or spouse is not even *close* to the main reason and I doubt ‘financial security’ is as far up the list as PUAs declare because the chronic, wide-spread poverty of divorced mothers is well documented and well known.
    If you want me own theory it is this – modern secular society has replaced a proper understanding of marriage as a sacramental bond between two people for life with the idea that it is a sort of ‘personal happiness and fulfillment contract’ while at the same time modern secular society has forgotten that love is an act of the will and conflated it with infatuation which is a variety of particular attraction. Combined we hear statements like ‘I fell out of love and divorced him because I am no longer happy’. In reality that sentence has almost no meaning but low culture has replaced understanding.
    Women are being taught more heavily that life is about ‘fulfillment and happiness’ while at some level men just know better. Thus, the disparity.
    I can’t prove that, but it is my theory.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Patrick,
    You wrote,
    “The best option is “game” for lack of a better word.”
    What does this even mean? “Game” keeps getting morphed into all sorts of meanings.
    Do you mean that having sex with as many women as possible while avoiding any sort of emotional, financial, or personal commitment is the answer to current divorce laws?

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    jf12,
    You wrote,
    ” I am one [a natural conversationalist], although it never helped me with women.”
    What does one say?

  • johnmcg says:

    AD,

    To play Devil’s Advocate again, that divorces do not *in fact* end up with better men does not prove that they hope they could, anymore than the fact that most men don’t end up dating supermodels is proof that they would like to given the chance.

    One of Dalrock’s themes is that women are being sold a false divorce fantasy in which they can ditch their loser husbands and marry a hunky handyman millionaire, when the reality is that they mostly end up as spinsters because they are past their attractiveness peak and have demonstrated that they are less than reliable partners.

    I also think deti has a point that surveying them for their reasons is not likely to give reliable data — people will tend to give the most self-serving justifications for their behavior — and “my husband wouldn’t listen to me” is as self-serving as they get. And I too detected a subtext that women only divorce because their husbands are such losers that echoes some of the failed advice from earlier.

    While I’m playing Devil’s Advocate, I’ll add a note on zippy’s observation that men apply fitness tests more often that women. That may be true, but men are taught to expect to be challenged for their place in male or male-dominated hierarchies.

    That women engage in similar tests with their romantic partners was, at least for me, a novel observation from the manosphere. That a woman’s emotional request may not be for men to fulfill but a test was not something I had considered. This may have been a failure on my part to make use of resources that were out there, but it was new to me.

    Now, I don’t think that this means that I owe a debt of gratitude such that I should consider any actions I take based on this observation to be “game,” but it is something.

  • jf12 says:

    @AD “What does [a natural conversationalist] say?” Anything and everything. I am most comfortable holding forth in the midst of a mixed multitude. If the intended audience is someone I know then I already have some grasp of their worldview and reasoning ability, and the conversation will tend towards items of recent interest to me that I believe will interest them. If I do not already know them then the conversation will tend towards relationship-building including inquiring and feeling after their worldview, intelligence, and humor.

  • Deti, I totally get it. Some men claim to be Christian, but want to be liberal and impress liberal hedonists more than they want to be Christian and serve Christ.

  • Zippy says:

    John:
    One thing about fitness tests (from both men and women) is that the challenger usually really does want to get his way in the particular matter. But a leader who gives in to those kinds of challenges too frequently will lose respect.

    My criticisms of Game specifically should definitely not be taken as some blanket dismissal of the manosphere. It should be expected that people who pretend not to know what Game is might think I am criticizing a bunch of things I am not. Dalrock’s take on divorce porn and the reasons why women initiate most divorces is an example of something I am not criticizing.

  • deti says:

    TUW:

    Since you still don’t get it; I’ll explain it to you. The point of yesterday’s comment from me which started this exchange between me and you was that most men are not taught anything about masculinity and this don’t understand which girls might be worthy and which aren’t ; and which girls might be good fits and which aren’t.

  • Ok, but PUAs can’t give the Christian ones the information on which women are worth entering into a Christian marriage with and which are not.

    It’s impossible to prove or conclusively demonstrate that ‘most’ men are taught *nothing* about masculinity. That’s probably not true, it is likely more accurate to say they are taught less than they might have been in the past, which does seem to mesh with observed reality. Less isn’t none.

    Separate from that, it’s difficult to see how game is teaching masculinity at all. Pro-game men don’t really behave in a masculine fashion, from what I’ve seen.

    Is Mystery masculine to you? Roosh?

  • deti says:

    TUW:

    Since you’re not a man, I hardly see how you could know anything useful or relevant about what men are taught about masculinity, or to assess it’s adequacy or accuracy.

  • Zippy says:

    It may be worth noting that things like masculinity are naturally learned by example and imitation, not through classrooms and books; and that the personas projected by PUA Game teachers on the Internet are anything but masculine.

  • Zippy says:

    Deti:
    I’m a man, and I know plenty about femininity. The “shut up, woman” thing is just another transparent ad hominem that discredits the manosphere claim to be uniquely rational.

  • Patrick says:

    The only one morphing the meaning is you, AD. Sometimes its meaning is such that it can be replaced with Promisekeepers, Toastmasters, karate and I Kissed Dating Goodbye. At other times it’s synonymous with womanizing. My definition has always been basically “masculine wiles” which is morally neutral.

  • Patrick says:

    You guys keep trying to isolate “game” from the truths it contains, but that can’t be done. As if the assumption of sexual dimorphism isn’t part of game because Roissy didn’t invent it. Or “agree and amplify” isn’t part of “game” because you can see it in For Whom the Bell Tolls. “Anything true isn’t game.” Why? “Because game is false.” Why? “Because it was codified by perverts.” Well, sorry, but that doesn’t make it false.

  • Mike T says:

    Are women divorcing their husbands to hook up with ‘more exciting’ men? According to the data, *no*.

    YMMV but most of the wife-initiated divorces I’ve seen among women I know were actually for that reason or for the prospect of it happening. Of course the problem with statistics here is that you are unlikely to get anything usable and accurate on the motivations. People are notoriously dishonest on surveys about sex and relationships.

    Separate from that, it’s difficult to see how game is teaching masculinity at all. Pro-game men don’t really behave in a masculine fashion, from what I’ve seen.

    Masculinity is not the same thing as “good at dealing with women.” There are plenty of very masculine men who are otherwise terrible with women. You can teach a boy how to be a man without teaching him the first thing about making a woman attracted to her and maintaining it.

  • Mike T says:

    Why? “Because it was codified by perverts.” Well, sorry, but that doesn’t make it false.

    Greek philosophy was given to the Catholic Church by godless heathens, yet we don’t see Right Thinking Catholics rushing to throw the baby out with the bath water there.

  • Zippy says:

    Patrick:
    I am no more isolating game from the truths it contains than sluttiness or liberalism from the truths they contain. Everything contains truth. That game (or sluttiness) is or can possibly be morally neutral is the canonical assumption that I find tendentious and highly implausible after observing Game as a social phenomenon (like liberalism, pornography, torture, etc) for a couple of years.

  • Gavrila says:

    Patrick wrote:

    The only real alternative to game (or whatever) is legal inequality and female subjection.

    I still don’t agree that game is a real alternative to divorce.

    The once-popular game writer Mark Minter said that masculine ‘game’ behaviour is as likely as anything else to trigger a divorce since many women like having a passive, compliant hubby they can boss around. Is he wrong?

    Divorce legislation empowers capricious women. Game doesn’t check that power.

    Traditional Christianity can convince some women that divorce is morally wrong. Though it may perhaps be advisable to go ‘Desiderius contra mundum’ and denounce pastors who are sneaky apologists for divorce.

  • Gavrila says:

    Aquinas Dad,

    The Wachowski brothers originally coined the term ‘red pill’ in the Matrix movies. One of them went on have a sex change and they’re now referred to as the Wachowski sibilings in the media. So they really do believe that ordinary reality is a kind of prison.

    john,

    I figured out that girls ‘test’ boys when I was 15 years old.

    However when a woman looks up to a man she will not constantly test him.

    In game mythology, ‘fitness tests’ are a permanent feature of life. Why is this?

    Two reasons. The gamers are focused on short-term dalliances – having to begin anew each time. Also, women doubt them. Maybe because they sense deception, or they don’t trust the simulacrum of masculinity displayed by unmasculine game followers.

  • jf12 says:

    @Gavrila “However when a woman looks up to a man she will not constantly test him.” Correct. Hence all testing done by a wife should be considered by the man as direct evidence of her contempt, and she should be punished as much as possible for it.

  • deti says:

    “It may be worth noting that things like masculinity are naturally learned by example and imitation, not through classrooms and books”

    Perhaps you should alert Aquinas Dad to this. He firmly believes otherwise.

  • deti says:

    “ I’m a man, and I know plenty about femininity.”

    That might very well be true. Even if true, that does not translate to your knowing whether a woman has been trained sufficiently in femininity. Just as a woman knowing plenty about masculinity does not translate to her knowing whether a male has been trained sufficiently in masculinity. I would contend that women believing they know whether a male is sufficiently trained in masculinity is a big part of the problem we face today. If a woman cannot teach a male how to be masculine, she cannot assess whether he’s sufficiently masculine.

    “ The “shut up, woman” thing is just another transparent ad hominem that discredits the manosphere claim to be uniquely rational.”

    Heh. If she doesn’t know whether a man is sufficiently trained in masculinity, then her opinion is not worth the breath used to utter it.

  • deti says:

    If masculinity is naturally (heh, there’s that word) learned by example and imitation, and not by classrooms and books, then how are men to learn masculinity if their fathers have been snatched from them by selfish mothers who frivorce their sons’ fathers?

    Through Aquinas Dad’s classrooms? Through the books he suggests?

  • Max from aust says:

    Let’s take women and sex out of the equation.

    Who has more and better male friendships?
    The computer programmer who is 100% straight and polite in all social interactions who respects all women even those who have divorced men and aborted babies? Or

    The manual labour guy with the motorbike who’s fit dresses sharp. Calls a spade a spade. Pranks his buddies and vice versa. And who knows how women operate?(especially those who’ve spent a lifetime praying to the grumsome image of a young man in his prime nailed to a crucifix ?)

    Who would you as a man rather spend time with.

  • Zippy says:

    Deti:
    I can easily tell if a woman is feminine, and a woman asserting the ad hominem that I can’t say anything about femininity because I’m not a woman would be (correctly) dismissed as irrational. That’s exactly what you are doing in your response to TUW, and it isn’t somehow magically valid when a man does it.

    And no, you can’t assume that my thinking is in lock-step with any other commenter, even when I defend particular statements of theirs from your silliness.

  • Gavrila says:

    Speaking of Greek philosophy.

    Aristotle said that if human happiness were nothing more than pleasure then our chief good — our purpose in life — would be no different from that of lower animals.

    Is it surprising then that hedonists classify human beings using labels they lifted from animal anthropology? (The ‘alpha male’ is the most powerful gorilla in a tribe of gorillas.)

  • deti says:

    I didn’t say TUW can’t say anything about masculinity. I said she can’t assess whether a man is sufficiently trained in masculinity. Female arrogance in assuming they can determine whether a man is sufficiently trained in masculinity is one of the reasons we’re in the mess we’re in today.

  • Zippy says:

    Deti:
    I can easily tell if a woman is “sufficiently trained in femininity”, that is, is feminine; though your wording does reveal the technocratic bias which is one small part of what distorts your world view. Dance around it all you want, but unlike some other places your ad hominems don’t cut any ice here.

  • Deti, I asked you if you considered two PUAs masculine. That’s not me making a claim of sufficient masculinity. It is me asking a dude whether he views some other dudes as masculine.

    At most, I said that it is likely that men have less opportunity to learn about masculinity, which is not a statement about sufficient levels of masculinity at all.

    Talking about sufficient levels of masculinity is shifting the terrain.

  • deti says:

    SO you’re saying a woman can easily tell if a man is “sufficiently trained in masculinity”, i.e. is masculine.

    I see. That doesn’t explain why so many women are either attracted to or sleeping with the “unmasculine” specimens you deride on this blog.

    And if you were correct, then a woman ought be able to teach a male how to be a man. But we know that’s not correct, because if it were, then men would be formed up just fine despite the absence of positive role models, as many males are coming up today and have in the past 50 years or so.

  • Patrick says:

    All those other things you list are fundamentally evil. I don’t see how game could be seen that way. I can see how sluttiness or promiscuity would be, or torture or pornography or stealing or liberalism, but not simply keeping the power differential tilted in your favor, which seems to me to be the fundamental idea of game whether you go on to fornicate or not.

  • Zippy says:

    Deti:
    Whenever you use the words “so you are saying…”, it is a virtual certainty that what follows is actually just what you, Deti, are saying.

  • Zippy says:

    Patrick:
    We’ve been ’round that racetrack already.

  • jf12 says:

    @deti re: “SO you’re saying a woman can easily tell if a man is “sufficiently trained in masculinity”, i.e. is masculine.

    I see. That doesn’t explain why so many women are either attracted to or sleeping with the “unmasculine” specimens you deride on this blog.

    And if you were correct, then a woman ought be able to teach a male how to be a man. But we know that’s not correct”

    The ignorance with which they here deny having said what they said is breathtaking. And besides No True Man 24/7, the tradcon way here evidently comprises plowing the sand with the head.

  • deti says:

    Zippy:

    Heh. Nice dodge. That is, in fact, what you are saying — that a woman can tell if a man is sufficiently trained in masculinity; since you’ve asserted the opposite (that a man , or at least you, can tell if a woman is sufficiently feminine) and you’ve asserted that to disagree with you on that point is an “ad hominem”.

    But by all means, continue having it both ways.

  • deti says:

    “ Deti, I asked you if you considered two PUAs masculine. That’s not me making a claim of sufficient masculinity. It is me asking a dude whether he views some other dudes as masculine.”

    The masculinity or lack thereof, of a couple of internet PUAs is completely irrelevant to any claims or arguments I’ve made here. It’s irrelevant to anything I’ve said here. It’s really just taking two extreme examples of something you don’t like, attempting to attach them to me, and demanding that I defend them. You’re doing so in an attempt to discredit me because you don’t like me or my arguments.

    It’s a bit like demanding that Pope Emeritus Joe Ratzinger defend Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church because they’re both Christians.

  • sunshinemary says:

    I think if everyone stopped for a moment and wrote out their definition of “masculine,” we’d probably see why no agreement will be reached here. I think many men in the manosphere probably have a very different definition of “masculine” than men in the traditionalist/Christian-sphere.

    the personas projected by PUA Game teachers on the Internet are anything but masculine.

    Go look at a typical PUA comment thread (crass site warning). I haven’t seen that many emoti-GIFs since I was trolled by the feminists at Get Off My Internets. With that kind of masculinity, who needs f@gs?

  • Zippy says:

    Sunshine:
    You are a woman, therefore your arguments and observations are wrong.

  • deti says:

    “You are a woman, therefore your arguments and observations are wrong.”

    Those are YOUR words, Zippy, not mine. You’re not going to tar me with that brush.

    It would be more accurate to say “SSM is a woman, therefore, she cannot determine whether a man has been sufficiently trained in masculinity” or “SSM is a woman; therefore, she cannot teach a male how to be a man”.

  • deti says:

    So…. emoti-GIFs equals girly girls?

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Johnmcg,
    I appreciate the feedback, but I am more directly responding to the various claims of hypergamy and ‘well, women can’t help it – they see an alpha and off they go’.
    This isn’t supported by data.
    And while I appreciate the narrative of dalrock and others [‘women leave men for a fantasy that they get a great guy’] what support for that does he have other than the vary narrative? I tend to believe the very many studies that all say the same thing – women leave for dissatisfaction rather than attraction to other men, etc., because there is no reason to really doubt it and it still fits the narrative of a misunderstanding of the role, nature, and purpose of marriage.
    It just doesn’t match the ‘just so story’ of “game”.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    jf12,
    You completely missed the point of my comment.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Patrick,
    I have always clearly explained what I mean when I refer to “game”. The stuff you list isn’t part of what I am talking about.
    My point is when you say ‘to me “game” is ‘wiles’ the definition is so broad that cologne is “game”; ironing your shirt is “game”, proper grammar is “game”.
    In short, you are saying ‘anything good is “game”‘

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Deti,
    You wrote [while quoting]
    “It may be worth noting that things like masculinity are naturally learned by example and imitation, not through classrooms and books”
    Perhaps you should alert Aquinas Dad to this. He firmly believes otherwise.”
    *sigh*
    You should know this isn’t true. Just like you have commented in threads where I say ‘everyone must learn conversational skills, etc.’ you have also commented in threads where I have explained that this is usually done within the context of family through example.
    Of course, you keep repeating that I say ‘just be yourself’ no matter how many times I correct you so perhaps you have a deficient memory. Perhaps you don’t understand clear language. Perhaps you say things that aren’t true.
    Hard to say.
    But do try to remember; I don’t think what you said, and I never have.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Deti,
    You wrote,
    “…how are men to learn masculinity if their fathers have been snatched from them by selfish mothers who frivorce their sons’ fathers?”
    How did men learn masculinity from their fathers if their fathers were snatched away by death in battle? Plague? I mean, it isn’t as if no boy ever lost a father before, nor like this is the first generation to have lost many fathers. Perhaps major social institutions would have addressed this issue in the past, using habitual practices to maintain the knowledge and habits required for boys to become masculine and girls to become feminine even in the face of loss, upheaval, cultural stressors, and other such tragedies.
    You could, I suppose, call this accumulated habitual practice ‘tradition’ and since the people who maintain and promote it want to the preserve the core elements of a good, healthy society you might call them, oh, ‘social conservatives’, maybe.
    Weird.
    Anyway, since the core of masculinity is, really, accepting reality it sounds like masculinity would be grounded in Natural Law. Now, Natural Law is such that pagan or not as long is a person is intelligent and virtuous they can grasp them.
    The core elements of both masculinity and femininity would, therefore, be the cardinal and theological virtues since these 7 things are, ultimately, the acceptance of the reality of both human nature and moral law.
    So a young man denied the opportunity to learn within the precincts of the family could turn to the virtues and those groups and institutions that promote the virtues to discover how to be masculine.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Deti,
    Are you saying women *can’t* tell if a man is masculine/
    Really?
    But I thought the point of “game” was to be masculine so women would notice?
    No, *I* don’t think “game” is masculine nor that it teaches masculinity – but don’t you think that it is and that it does?
    If women can’t tell if a man is masculine, what is “game” doing?

  • DeNihilist says:

    Deti, those 20% of men sleeping with 80% of the women, is a bit off. The 80% is of women who sleep around, not the whole woman population. So it is really about 80% of 20% of all women

  • deti says:

    Denihilist:

    RE the 80/20 argument: First, the manner in which you’ve stated it makes no sense. Second, what does that have to do with anything I’ve said in this thread?

  • deti says:

    Aquinas Dad:

    “Are you saying women *can’t* tell if a man is masculine/
    Really?”

    *SIgh*

    No. Read my comment March 3, 2014 at 8:34 pm as many times as necessary so you can understand the argument I actually made, not the argument you tried to attribute to me above. It will help if you read what I actually wrote.

    Then ask me again.

  • deti says:

    “You are a woman, therefore your arguments and observations are wrong.”

    “Those are YOUR words, Zippy, not mine. You’re not going to tar me with that brush. ”

    A gentle reminder of something a wise person said once.

    “Bad paraphrase (“Bob said he wants to pitchfork children!”) is one of my pet peeves, though I know I’m not completely immune myself. I consider it a vicious form of calumny when it is done on purpose; so lets never do it on purpose and try hard not to do it on accident.”

    Would you like to know who said that?

    You did. At your “comment linearization” thread.

  • Mike T says:

    Is it surprising then that hedonists classify human beings using labels they lifted from animal anthropology? (The ‘alpha male’ is the most powerful gorilla in a tribe of gorillas.)

    The origin of the hierarchy doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not it’s a reasonably accurate description of how men tend to fit in a social hierarchy. All I see is a lot of winking and pithy little comments that amount to “oh come on you know this is false.” Why? We can’t say, but if you were possessed of our secret knowledge, you’d know. The inner mysteries are not for you.

    The 80% is of women who sleep around, not the whole woman population. So it is really about 80% of 20% of all women

    You’d like to think that, but there are plenty of women who “aren’t sluts” but nevertheless have no problem having sex with a boyfriend they’ll never marry. The difference between such a woman and a slut is smaller than between her and a woman who is actually chaste. As I’ve said here countless times, slut is both a spectrum and an end point. An objectively not chaste woman is likely to be included at some point in the notch count of some player, especially in the cities.

  • Mike T says:

    It appears Hell’s temperature is dropping since I appear to be in full agreement with Aquinas Dad viz a viz Deti. A woman can tell within a few days of knowing a man much about his masculinity the way most people can gauge a coworker’s competence within a week. Sure, they may not know the extent in fine terms, but you’re not likely to know someone’s character that quickly anyway.

    You could, I suppose, call this accumulated habitual practice ‘tradition’ and since the people who maintain and promote it want to the preserve the core elements of a good, healthy society you might call them, oh, ‘social conservatives’, maybe.
    Weird.

    Well, today you have two major factors militating against young men:

    1. A lot of people teaching what could be called anti-tradition from that perspective.
    2. A culture that is generally averse to masculinity unless it is of a very particular type that tends to get women sexually excited. Football player who can strut around impregnating women? Ok. Patriarch who unapologetically defends tradition and female subjection to male authority? Build a pyre folks, we have a heretic to burn.

    Zippy’s perspective about most of us being liberals plays into this. I had conservative male relatives, but their views on gender roles was more or less liberal. This is a rather common experience among most Christian men I know. You can raise a boy to be responsible, virtuous, etc. but cripple him in dealing with his wife by not teaching him how to deal with her fitness tests, emotions, etc. It certainly doesn’t help things that in many cases, men are raised that way and then when they try to change into more authentic Christian men that the church will often circle the wagon around a rebellious wife who is complaining about her “dominant, abusive husband” or some other lame pejorative she uses on him to win sympathy for his insufficient liberalism toward her.

  • Gavrila says:

    Mike T:

    All I see is a lot of winking and pithy little comments that amount to “oh come on you know this is false.” Why? We can’t say

    I’ve given specific examples of game beliefs that are false and explained why – in this thread and in the last thread.

    But game blogs have years worth of material. It would take a lot of time to go through everything.

    I’m not sure it’d even be worth it because it’s not clear that a lot of Christians are taken in by this stuff. The ones who are are a niche within a niche.

    And anyway it seems to me that once a person has been sated by red pill ideology they don’t want to let go of any of it, so they’re not going to thank a person for coming up with detailed counter-arguments.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    You wrote,
    “The origin of the hierarchy doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not it’s a reasonably accurate description of how men tend to fit in a social hierarchy”
    True.
    But the problem with the social hierarchy theory of “game:” is that it is feminist and flawed.
    Yes, really!
    Let’s look at Vox Day’s extended hierarchy (which, BTW, paints Betas as winners). The first thing I noticed when I read this is that VD has no real discussion or description of actual success and that only real mention is very broad – no reference to actual money, actual power, actual leadership. Just ‘successful business executive’. All real discussion of success is in regards to women. His evaluation of hierarchy is about attractiveness towards and volume of sex with women.
    How about roissy? His ‘defining an alpha’ does mention actual success to *dismiss it*. Roissy states, very clearly and more than once, that being rich, being a leader, being powerful have NO BEARING on being alpha.Physically powerful, handsome man? If you aren’t sleeping with a lot of beautiful women = not an alpha. Rich, successful, well-educated man with a gorgeous wife? If he didn’t/isn’t sleeping with a lot of beautiful women = not an alpha. Like VD, roissy’s hierarchy is solely based on attractiveness toward and volume of sex with women.
    Indeed, here is a quote straight from roissy’s entry defining ‘alpha’,
    “…a man’s worth is measured by his desirability to women. … That is why the obese, socially maladroit nerdboy who manages to unlock the gate to the secret garden and bang a 10 regularly is an alpha male. And that is also why the rich, charming entrepreneur who because of an emotional deficiency or mental sickness lives mired in parched celibacy is not an alpha male.”
    Got that? Roosh agrees, too. The male hierarchy proposed by game has nothing to do with material, personal, or even biological success (indeed, roissy rather humorously claims that having a lot of kids as not alpha while claiming his hierarchy is based on *evolution*).
    No, the proposed hierarchy of “game” is based solely on WOMEN’S PERCEPTIONS OF MEN. Indeed, if you break down the statements of roosh, roissy, VD, etc. it is clear that “game” is focused on pleasing women until such a time as the person using “game” has sex.
    Sorry, but no.

  • Zippy says:

    deti:
    Your idiotic ad hominem is there for everyone to see; no paraphrase required.

    Not that that makes the paraphrase inaccurate.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    Zippy’s perspective about most of us being liberals plays into this. I had conservative male relatives, but their views on gender roles was more or less liberal. This is a rather common experience among most Christian men I know. You can raise a boy to be responsible, virtuous, etc. but cripple him in dealing with his wife by not teaching him how to deal with her fitness tests, emotions, etc. It certainly doesn’t help things that in many cases, men are raised that way and then when they try to change into more authentic Christian men that the church will often circle the wagon around a rebellious wife who is complaining about her “dominant, abusive husband” or some other lame pejorative she uses on him to win sympathy for his insufficient liberalism toward her.

    Thank you. The men-children of Game scream that you have to be taught Game, that unlearning liberalism is trivial, and that (e.g.) agree and amplify is morally neutral (though it isn’t). I got to where I am on the subject by attempting to look at the most innocuous of Game techniques with an eye toward finding some package of straightforwardly morally neutral ones.

    There aren’t any: they are all value-laden.

    So they have this backward. Unlearning liberalism is profoundly difficult and life-changing. Game is at best banal triviality all tangled up with skirt-chasing: the male form of sluttiness.

  • sunshinemary says:

    Deti:

    So…. emoti-GIFs equals girly girls?

    Did you srsly just ask that??

    Zippy, if I ever doubted what you’ve been saying, that men in the Christian manosphere lionize PUAs and use them as their standard for masculinity, no matter how fey, feminine, and faggy they may be, Deti has just put those doubts conclusively to rest for me.

    GIFs are feminine emotional histrionics writ large in comment threads. Until PDTT (PUAs Do That Too) of course; then GIFs become downright masculine.

  • Peter Blood says:

    There’s a parallel to all this in economics. There are a number of Christians who think economics is morally neutral, that it is a set of “laws” that are independent of man’s morality. They miss that economics is human activity, and anytime you have human activity, there is morality. For example, I think Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” is an attempt to de-moralize economics, shifting the burden off of people to some impersonal force making things happen.

    There are those who bristle at attempts by, for example, popes to speak about morality in economics; they assert he is not competent to speak about economics.

  • Zippy says:

    Peter Blood:

    There are a number of Christians who think economics is morally neutral, that it is a set of “laws” that are independent of man’s morality. They miss that economics is human activity, and anytime you have human activity, there is morality.

    Yes sir. Game-positive Christians really are quite similar in the social domain to right-liberals in the political and economic domains, attempting to force the “synthesize” step of the Hegelian Mambo. It is this very approach that produced ‘churchianity’ in the religious domain as well.

    But I’m sure it will work out great here, because boobies.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    SSM,
    Look at “game” – it is as much ‘social maladroitness + feminine’ as My Little Pony followers.
    Heck, look at the idea of ‘shit tests’ and ‘agree and amplify’. This is techno-jargon and common sense disguised as Keen Insight.
    You know what non-PUAs call ‘does this make me look fat?’?
    Indirect question. No, not in the formal meaning of English grammar but the question is indirectly a request for validation that the woman asking is found attractive. The proper response is a direct response to the actual question [i.e., ‘babe, I like you in anything’ or ‘you know I don’t like that color on you’, etc]. Why? it is not a challenge nor a ‘test’.
    On the other hand a question like ‘When are you going to grow up?’ is just a loaded question, it is a challenge, and the proper response is, again, a direct one [‘Explain the problem or not, but drop the silly questions’ or similar]. Why? it is a challenge.
    And a question like ‘If you love me you would already know what I want’ is just a double-bind. It may be a challenge, but sometimes it is just confusion (romance novels or some such). One more time, the best response is a direct one [like ‘You know that makes no sense. After all, you don’t know what I want right now, does that mean you don’t love me?’, etc]
    Yes, I understand that men with no real social skills find this totally opaque and think they are all some sort of ‘trick’ when really each question is a form of avoidance; a passive avoidance or passive-aggressive avoidance taken because the woman is seeking something from the man that she understands (consciously or not) she cannot demand. The first woman wants confirmation she is found desirable; the second woman wants to be strongly led; the third woman wants to be given a space where she is comfortable to speak of what she desires.
    The passivity/indirectness comes from the situation – in each case the woman feel vulnerable and of lesser power. Otherwise the questions would be ‘do you think I am pretty in this?’, ‘why aren’t you caring for me the way I need you too?’, and ‘can I tell you something that makes me scared to admit?’. In each case what the woman is actually seeking is the comfort of leadership and strength. A woman made secure by honest, direct answers will not feel the need to be passive in her avoidance or aggression and these rhetorical devices will be used less and less over time.
    ‘Agree and amplify’ also has a name – sarcasm. A rather narrow form, sure, but it is just sarcasm.
    The thing is, sarcasm isn’t direct, it isn’t a show of strength or leadership, and it doesn’t answer the question or deal with the issue. it is a passive-aggressive manner of *avoiding the issue* and *avoiding resolution*. It is, ultimately, a feminine manner of response.
    This sort of cobbled-together-by-autodidacts unique nomenclature for already-quantified or known ideas is pretty common and can lead to a cult-like atmosphere where the unique words act both as shibboleths and barriers to communication with people outside the group.
    Again: *I GET IT*
    — to a guy that previously thought that the answer to ‘does this make me look fat?’ was ‘yes’ or ‘no’ the idea of avoiding a question he didn’t really understand can be transformative. The issue is that the he is *avoiding* the actual issue by being passive-aggressive. This is no way to build a relationship, let alone lead a marriage. Also, the in-group terms may prevent people in the group from learning from other, better, sources other, better, ways of dealing with the issues.
    And, of course, the fact that all these various questions from women are lumped together and treated as if they were some soft of ‘test’ betrays a misunderstanding of the complexity of real male-female dynamics.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Peter,
    Very good analogy!

  • Zippy says:

    Sunshine:

    GIFs are feminine emotional histrionics writ large in comment threads. Until PDTT (PUAs Do That Too) of course; then GIFs become downright masculine.

    That also mirrors the Hegelian-synthesis dynamic of right-liberalism.

    John McCain and Mitt Romney both suddenly became good, staunch conservative pro-lifers upon being nominated, and flyers were passed out in Church parking lots that (e.g.) carefully avoided mentioning McCain’s support for medical cannibalism (embryonic stem cell research).

    Earlier, once a prominent supporter of fetal tissue research was elected as Republican president that issue completely dropped off of the moral radar of pro-lifers. When that same president adopted torture as an interrogation practice, suddenly supporting torture became a litmus test for the patriotism of all good Americans.

    Examples can be multiplied. It is always good and manly when Our Team[tm] does it. Our liberalism is the Good Liberalism.

    So now faggy manipulative skirt-chasing is “masculinity”.

  • Ita Scripta Est says:

    Peter Blood,

    I second Aquinas Dad above.

    The correlation between right-liberal/libertarianism and PUA degeneracy is more than an incidental correlation In fact they are more often than not synonymous (see Captain Capitalism, Vox Day ect).

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Ita, Peter,
    It does make plenty of sense that PUAs would be Libertarians and vice versa. Just look at the Nicomachean Ethics.
    If you claim that morality has nothing to do with economics (which is, as Peter pointed out, merely a rather narrow element of human interaction) then you rejecting virtue, meaning your character is at best Continent.
    But Libertarians tend to ‘actively export’ their economic and political ideals, which is really embracing the rejection of morals – thus, many (if not most) very dedicated Libertarians are Incontinent. We see how this influences their entire outlook. Soon a dedicated Libertarian is also advocating for the permissability of everything from will-impairing drugs to prostitution to outright child slavery and calling it ‘liberty’ and ‘good’ – fully Vicious attitudes.
    “Game” advocates that refuse to admit that the tools are inherently immoral are rejecting reality and also virtue claiming that using immoral methods is acceptable if it gets you laid/a spouse/self-confidence/etc., also making them Continent at best. Dedicated PUA/”game” types ‘actively export’ their social and sexual ideals which is really,
    Well, you see where I am going with this.

  • Zippy says:

    Also the whole “SMP/MMP” analysis is basically the reductive application of economics to intersexual dynamics, so it is no surprise that economic libertarians would see no concrete moral evil in the ‘tools’ but just in their use. “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one” etc.

  • Zippy says:

    Standing above it all with faux-neutrality on moral questions, the neutral public square, freedom and equal rights as substantively neutral conditions under which people can act morally or immorally, procedural and substantive equality in legal proceedings, consent of the governed, putative moral neutrality of property rights, the neutrality of behaviors question-beggingly characterized as ‘tools’, etc — this is all integral to the liberal delusion about reality, which rests on pushing out essences and ‘oughts’ as much as possible in a post-Humean fugue.

    That’s why I’ve suggested before that many of the pretensions to the ‘red pill’ are just setting up shop in a different part of the Matrix; one where an unprincipled exception has been made for equality between the sexes but where the bulk of the delusion continues to reign supreme.

  • Zippy says:

    Or, continuing the soliloquy, maybe inequality between the sexes isn’t an unprincipled exception in the more or less arbitrary sense of the usual packages of unprincipled exceptions. Perhaps it is just a proposed reversal: under feminism men are the oppressor-untermensch; in the views of some in the manosphere women are the oppressors (“feminine imperative” anyone?), and are less than human to the point of lacking moral agency.

    Liberalism always has to have its subhuman oppressors against whom to rage. Otherwise its failures lack an explanation that doesn’t require rejection of liberalism.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Zippy,
    You may be on to something – the desire appears to be to define things by their accidents while denying their essence – a man who speaks in a feminine manner; is obsessed with his physical appearance; judges himself on how attractive he is; judges men and women based upon their appearance and dress; is focused solely on sex; avoids all responsibility possible; who lies, cheats, and mocks; is indirect and passive; has no stable job, not fixed abode, no wife and no children? ‘Masculine, a high alpha!’ says the “gamers”.
    A man with a strong moral compass; a successful career; a direct, honest approach to life; who judges himself on meeting his obligations; who judges men and women on their observable character; who is focused on a balanced life; who meets his responsibilities; who is reliable; and who was chaste until marrying his wife and fathering many children? ‘Loser, a low beta!’ says the “gamers”.
    How can this be?
    They look at base lust and accidents instead of essence.
    Jut as with ‘fitness tests’, etc. to them it *looks* like a test so it must *be* a test. Avoiding it means it hurts them no longer, so *avoidance* is conflated with *solution*.
    On and on.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Zippy,
    Mind if I ask an off-topic question?

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    OK,
    Does anyone take rollo seriously?

  • Patrick says:

    As it pertains to game, “agree and amplify” is morally neutral. If we were talking about boxing and I said punching someone in the face is morally neutral, it would be incorrect to say that because running up to someone in the street and punching him in the face is morally wrong, it isn’t.

    Chaucer-done-it-better, we’ve been around that track.

    Elsewhere you say the male form of sluttiness is beta orbiting. If sluttiness has an essence, how could it comprise both using game and not using game?

    It’s probably true that I’m a man-child because you’re not the first to say that to me. I’m not that concerned with it, anymore, though, because I’ve met some objective markers of manhood, judging by AD’s comments, and it doesn’t make a difference. So I could run after more and I probably will, but I don’t really think it will change anything.

    I don’t see what liberalism has to do with that, either, as there are probably a lot of actual men by AD’s standards who are liberals. I know some of them. The people who invented liberalism were probably men by those standards. I also don’t know what unlearning liberalism would consist of in your view except apparently rejecting game, accepting an objectively low place in the social hierarchy of the Catholic Church, which I already do, and supporting monarchical government.

  • Mike T says:

    Zippy,

    Thank you. The men-children of Game scream that you have to be taught Game, that unlearning liberalism is trivial, and that (e.g.) agree and amplify is morally neutral (though it isn’t). I got to where I am on the subject by attempting to look at the most innocuous of Game techniques with an eye toward finding some package of straightforwardly morally neutral ones.

    One of the things I’ve harped on here is that most anti-liberals are not as non-liberal as they probably believe they are. I think you’ve mentioned this from time to time as well. This is certainly true of man who call themselves “conservatives.” I don’t want to come off as mocking anyone from W4, but one good example from them (as they are far less liberal than most “conservatives”) is how I was met with outrage from the contributors when I suggested the novel proposal that the government should take a legal stance of “when in doubt, side with the husband.” Wife cannot prove he’s a bad actor? Put the force of the state behind his decisions for the family. Husband says no, and it’s a reasonable thing to say “no” to? Side with the husband. Essentially, let’s start reinstating some formal patriarchal norms into the very law such that being “head of household” confers some actual legal authority on men. Too radical or something like that.

    But calling them “men-children” is not entirely fair in no small part because most “Christian men” are not men except in a formal, biological sense. It’s been said that the ancients wouldn’t accept PUAs as men, but I doubt they’d respect the average man in a church pew as a man either. If anything, his nearly obsequious attitude toward women would be considered a form of effeminacy. Most “gamers” are probably at least a few baby steps closer to men than the average Western male.

  • Peter Blood says:

    Since we’ve been pickled in liberalism since birth, yes it’s hard to go anti-liberal. But basically that’s a failure of fortitude. We don’t want to be called bigoted, hateful, racist, etc. But all “moral progress” under liberalism is a sham.

  • johnmcg says:

    If you’re definition of a man put a PUA closer to it than someone who has taken on the responsibility of having and raising a family and taking them to church, no matter how much he lets his wife boss him around, then I think that reveals a bigger problem with your conception of manhood than those men.

  • johnmcg says:

    Yes, it was fun to watch those Hollywood types congratulate themselves on having the moral sense to recognize that slavery is bad 150 years after the fact on the same night they applauded a man with a credible accusation of child rape.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    One of the things I’ve harped on here is that most anti-liberals are not as non-liberal as they probably believe they are. I think you’ve mentioned this from time to time as well.

    That’s true. Heck, I’m the guy who once upon a time gave Lawrence Auster grief for insufficient anti-liberalism, and my beef with folks like the paleolibertarians is the libertarian part. Part of the reason I don’t do group blogs anymore is because I don’t play well with others. I’m a freakshow-of-one not a movement.

    But I call things like I see them, and following players and PUA like the pied pipers of poon may lead to something; but that something surely isn’t manhood.

    “But confidence is Game, Zippy. And compassion is liberalism. Are you really saying that Christians should not be compassionate?”

    I call BS on the whole thing.

    The practical and spiritual problems most people have are not the result of failure to compromise enough with modernity. And Roissy is no Aristotle: the benefits of attempting a grand synthesis, even if St. Thomas was around to do it (which he isn’t), are nil.

  • DeNihilist says:

    AD – “OK,
    Does anyone take rollo seriously?”

    AD, I will admit, that on first blush, I thought the great enabler had something. But as I read more , I started to see the strawman he was building to sell his wares. The column where he jumped the shark was when he claimed that sperm banks were another secret Hypergamic device so women could get the best sperm. Didn’t matter that it was pointed out that most sperm banks were filled by low income, street peoples sperm, who needed money.

    Dufus in extreme, master minipulater and straw man builder extraordinaire!

  • DeNihilist says:

    Hmmm, just watched a little video of Rosh working some foreign girls. This guy is super beta, so to is mystery. Yet they were/are both “successful”. Oh-no’s! Betas can “do” sluts too!

  • Mike T says:

    If you’re definition of a man put a PUA closer to it than someone who has taken on the responsibility of having and raising a family and taking them to church, no matter how much he lets his wife boss him around, then I think that reveals a bigger problem with your conception of manhood than those men.

    A man who lets his wife, or even makes her, run the show has by definition not taken on that responsibility. It takes no manhood to impregnate a woman and then choose to not leave her. Inertia alone can keep many men from the latter. It’s easy to claim the responsibility on paper while actually having none of it.

  • DeNihilist says:

    Gotta agree whole heartdly with Mike T on this –

    “A man who lets his wife, or even makes her, run the show has by definition not taken on that responsibility. It takes no manhood to impregnate a woman and then choose to not leave her. Inertia alone can keep many men from the latter. It’s easy to claim the responsibility on paper while actually having none of it.”

    Especcially the inertia part.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    You wrote,
    “It takes no manhood to impregnate a woman and then choose to not leave her.”
    Interestingly, roissy, etc. claim that it DOES take manhood to NOT impregnate and to LEAVE her.
    Sticking around is an undervalued trait.

  • Zippy says:

    We are talking about who is more “masculine”, the faggy PUA or the henpecked househusband, right?

    Isn’t the right answer “who cares?”

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    DeNihilist,
    Here is something that puzzled me when I first read it, puzzles me now, and probably always will.
    Roosh, roissy, rollo, etc. seem to have all fallen in with VD’s hierarchy breakdown and agree with the following
    -the average guy is the ‘delta’.
    -the vast majority of men are ‘deltas’
    -A lot of the PUAs like roosh and strauss admit that they were/are below the ranking of ‘delta’ in social skills and such
    Here is where we get to the odd/weird/funny/ir proves they aren’t thinking about what they are saying/etc. part.

    The [*cough*] ‘official’ description of a ‘beta’ is
    [paraphrase from VD]
    ‘Betas are good looking guys who are attractive to women and do well with them; Betas are happy and secure. They tend to have 2 to 3 times the average number of sexual partners’
    Further, the description of ‘Alphas’ implies that they don’t really enjoy women, aren’t very happy, certainly aren’t secure, and only care about their status.
    But what is the refrain of these former ‘gammas’ or ‘omegas’?
    ‘Don’t act beta’
    Wha-? Don’t be good-looking, attractive, happy and secure? Fight instead to be isolated status-obsessed?
    So when I hear someone say ‘well, I am going to take what “game” teaches about being ‘alpha’, ‘Christianize’ it, and use it in my marriage’ all I can think is ‘aren’t you reading what they, themselves, wrote?’

  • johnmcg says:

    It takes no manhood to impregnate a woman and then choose to not leave her. Inertia alone can keep many men from the latter. It’s easy to claim the responsibility on paper while actually having none of it..

    Do you really think this accurately describes the degree to which most Christian men have discharged their duties as husbands and fathers?

    Or, perhaps, are you erecting a strawman?

  • johnmcg says:

    We are talking about who is more “masculine”, the faggy PUA or the henpecked househusband, right?

    Isn’t the right answer “who cares?

    Maybe, since we’re essentially comparing strawmen.

    But if the question is whether it is better to provide for a family (even if henpecked) or to be a pick-up artist (even a successful one), I think the answer does matter.

    Yes, I agree that Christian men have surrendered too much, and thus have not truly taken on their roles.

    But that doesn’t make them worse than those who haven’t even tried, and are instead applying themselves to using women.

    That is silly-talk, and leads to the lionizing of perverts, which is what this conversation was started to end.

  • Zippy says:

    John:
    Agreed that the family man is far more praiseworthy. But in terms of comparing masculinity I basically reject the framing as silly. Who is more masculine, Boy George or Urkel?

  • jf12 says:

    Urkel by far.

  • Patrick says:

    Roissy’s hierarchy was initially just alpha and beta. Vox Day created a more refined hierarchy.

    I don’t even care anymore. I stopped reading the game blogs when I realized their hierarchy is retarded. Christians bend themselves to fit the alpha/beta paradigm, even though there’s already a Christian word that means both alpha and beta simultaneously: husband. He’s the head of his wife and her provider/protector at the exact same time, all the time. The game hierarchy has men contorting themselves to fit the terminology, to bifurcate the meaning of “husband” and fine tune an “alpha/beta” balance relative to women’s menstrual cycles. It’s retarded. It has no meaning.

    The Christian hierarchy always has a spousal arrangement. Priests are at the top because they have a spousal relationship to the Church in persona Christi and then their own hierarchy from Jesus of pope>bishop>priest. Then there’s husband>wife>child, which is spousal. Then you have priest>husband>bachelor>boy, which spousal in that a priest has his spousal relationship to the Church, a husband to a wife, a bachelor can enter a spousal relationship, while a boy can’t until he’s older. By extension, men>women>children. Bachelors and married women seem to be basically at parity except bachelors get a little respect from married women because of the potential to be a husband; bachelor>single woman for the same reason.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Patrick FTW!

  • Mike T says:

    Do you really think this accurately describes the degree to which most Christian men have discharged their duties as husbands and fathers?

    According to a number of Christian women I’ve met, including my wife who is a very conservative woman, yes. Can’t say that I disagree with her based on much of what I’ve seen.

  • johnmcg says:

    Mike T,

    I think a lot of that talk, similar to the “nobody is teaching masculinity and standing up to feminism” is self-serving nonsense designed to justify misbehavior.

  • Mike T says:

    I think a lot of that talk, similar to the “nobody is teaching masculinity and standing up to feminism” is self-serving nonsense designed to justify misbehavior.

    No doubt, but it’s not hard to find women who are unhappy with the state of Christian men. The biggest complaint I hear is that they don’t have their #$%^ together yet want to be married and be heads of household.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    Name a 22 year old man OR woman who actually has their s%^t together.

  • Mike T says:

    AD,

    I’m almost 31, not 22.

  • Mike T says:

    And in their (the girls) defense, most Christian men I’ve met in their mid 20s to 30s don’t have careers or even a half-assed plan on how they’re going to get their $hit together. Rather, it seems most of them believe that prospects will magically appear by laboring at the same job irrespective of prospective remuneration or advancement opportunities–and that’s being charitable in many cases.

  • The question then is why do they believe that? They certainly don’t come up with such things all by themselves.

  • DeNihilist says:

    AD – exactly. They sell alphalpha to sell books, seminars, vids, etc. I mean when the Great Enabler says that sperm banks are another ploy by women to get alphalpha seed, you just gotta know that this is nothing but a scam.

    Sad that so many men are still so childlike, needing someone to tell them how to man up, then falling in with the con artists.

    So very sad…..

  • Patrick says:

    It’s hard to believe they believe that. It’s more likely they just don’t care that much about stuggling for advancement.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    There are two bombs I love to drop on the parents of teens
    1) Are you talking to your kids about being married at least as often and at least as serious as you are talking to them about college? College is 4 years, marriage is forever, so make sure your priorities are straight
    2) Your son’s focus is on a career that can support a family, not an education; and unless your daughter has a serious charism that your priest agrees with she shouldn’t go to college until later in life, if at all.

  • Aquinas Dad says:

    Mike,
    I wasn’t talking about you, of course.
    As I have said before about men and women complaining about each other – a pox on both houses

  • DeNihilist says:

    Haertiste is now doing a series on historical writings, of course they match up perfectly to his 16 rules.

    LOLZ!!!

    At least we are now getting a “star” pua admitting that the package they are selling is nothing but rehashed dictums that have been around forever.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    We are talking about who is more “masculine”, the faggy PUA or the henpecked househusband, right?

    Isn’t the right answer “who cares?”

    No. The husband has an honor and a burden that the PUA does not. If the henpecked is Christian, he has the added responsibility of representing the relationship of Christ to His church.

    You’ve trashed the uber-nerdy socio-sexual hierarchy, so you can put down the sigma sign, Zippy.

  • ChesterPoe says:

    Zippy,

    “The practical and spiritual problems most people have are not the result of failure to compromise enough with modernity.”

    I concur. The one aspect of modernity with which I frequently observe even self-proclaimed anti-modernists/anti-liberals/reactionaries/traditionalists/etc… make compromises is the sexual revolution. That’s the heart of the beast. It’s what divides the old left from the new left. All of us are guilty of indulging in it at some point, whether it was premarital sex or viewing pornography, but the difference is about rationalizing it. Those who seek compromise do so for the simple fact, not of the conviction that synthesis is best, but rather that they cannot muster the will power or moral fortitude to overcome their indulgence in sexual depravity. You can hear this in the words of gamers/puas or those sympathetic to them. They exclaim, “They’re just taking advantage of this bad situation. It’s not great, but what else is left for them?” That is cowardice and surrender. That’s saying, “I hate the depravity, believe me, but I need my little piece of it.” As Christians, sin is indefensible, unjustifiable. And to make compromises with it is the equivalent of compromising with the devil.

  • jf12 says:

    @Cane, burden, yes, responsibility, yes, real honor in the here-and-now, none. cf Zippy’s put-downs.

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:

    The husband has an honor and a burden that the PUA does not.

    Absolutely true, but also a red herring.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    red herring

    I don’t understand.

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:

    I don’t understand.

    Mike T postulated an (archetypical, hypothetical, cartoon) emasculated henpecked husband and contrasted “him” to a (hypothetical, archetypical, cartoon) PUA. Argument ensued over which of these fictional characters was more “masculine”. I pointed out that the argument over which cartoon herb is more “masculine” is silly — more or less by the design of the argument.

    I reject the frame of arguing over which cartoon hypothetical pathetic herb is “more masculine” than the other. That – my rejection of the relevance of the argument – was the point I was making, to which you responded. Since your response was completely beside the point I was making, it was a red herring.

    As for the real world, I have no doubt that there are some PUA who are more masculine than some henpecked husbands (in the same sense that there are some poor people who are wealthier than other poor people), and vice versa.

    But again, who cares?

  • Zippy says:

    ChesterPoe:

    …but the difference is about rationalizing it.

    Right, and not just at the “hard line” of intrinsically immoral acts. The slutty woman rationalizes the escalation of her hemline as just a kind of realpolitik adaptation to practical realities.

  • Scott W. says:

    I reject the frame

    I reject the word “frame” from my vocabulary. I only learned of it recently and it has already jumped the shark (oops, I’ve needed to scratch that phrase for years.) 🙂

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    Since your response was completely beside the point I was making, it was a red herring.

    Gotcha. I skipped too many comments.

  • Zippy says:

    Scott:
    Re “frame”, I’ve used the verb and gerund forms my whole life, so the nounification rolls off the tongue pretty naturally.

    Cane:
    No worries — taken in isolation my words were a tripwire.

  • […] So the fact that many moral questions do not have bright line boundaries that apply in all circumstances doesn’t mean that as long as we don’t crash upon the rocks we are free to do what we will.  In the comment thread below ChesterPoe says: […]

  • […] The one aspect of modernity with which I frequently observe even self-proclaimed anti-modernists/anti-liberals/reactionaries/traditionalists/etc… make compromises is the sexual revolution. That’s the heart of the beast. It’s what divides the old left from the new left. All of us are guilty of indulging in it at some point, whether it was premarital sex or viewing pornography, but the difference is about rationalizing it. Those who seek compromise do so for the simple fact, not of the conviction that synthesis is best, but rather that they cannot muster the will power or moral fortitude to overcome their indulgence in sexual depravity. You can hear this in the words of gamers/puas or those sympathetic to them. They exclaim, “They’re just taking advantage of this bad situation. It’s not great, but what else is left for them?” That is cowardice and surrender. That’s saying, “I hate the depravity, believe me, but I need my little piece of it.” As Christians, sin is indefensible, unjustifiable […]

  • Scott says:

    I think most guys who self-identify as “beta” and “really, really, really want to get married but I can’t find one” might be surprised to find out how messy marriage is, even with a wife who has vowed to be a submissive one.

  • @Scott:

    Indeed. The funny thing is, when a lot of those pick-up artists or manosphere types start saying things like, “I wonder why anybody would get married. It has so many problems attached”…they’re actually right, and in and of itself choosing not to get married is actually praiseworthy.

    Will there be temptation to fornicate then? Well, yeah, but honestly if your attitude is “I’m not going to get married in order to have sex with more women outside of marriage” then what happens within your marriage may very well not be moral anyway.

    If you don’t think marriage is necessarily a good thing, if all of the issues brought up make you wonder…then really, don’t get married. Try and be chaste like Paul, but there’s no reason to force yourself to be a part of an institution you don’t want to be.

    We shouldn’t “really, really, really” want to get married anyway. We should get married IF we find somebody who we are burning in lust for and who is burning in lust for us.

    I’m not even sure if specifically seeking out marriage is EVER the right way to go. We should be open to it, but marriage isn’t even the preferable option for a Christian.

  • […] candidates who stump for torture and unjust wars.  I’ve been mean and judgmental toward poor beta men on the peripheries of sexual life, by calling into question the practice of lying to get women to have sex with them.  And […]

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 Don’t hit me, I’m a beta at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: