Biblical vs Churchian Sex in Marriage (and why Christians need Game)

Rollo from Rational Male found the youtube series by Pastor Craig Groeschel of LifeChurch.tv and was kind enough to bring it to my attention.  I haven’t looked at the whole series, but I found the one below especially interesting.  While his style is distracting, when he is sticking to the script (the Bible) his description of sex in marriage is very good.  As he points out, biblical sex in marriage is described using powerful animal imagery.  He doesn’t suffer from Mohler’s disease of believing that marital sex is made moral by the wife assuming control and making it “romantic”.  His translation of the original Hebrew of Proverbs 5:18-19 at 2 min 9 seconds makes this clear.  But then he goes off (biblical) script, and gives truly painful but standard bad advice for husbands on how to seduce their wives straight from the Book of Oprah:

Let me give you some advice about this, because I believe that one of the best things you can do for your marriage is have some physical and intimate fun.  So let me give some advice to the men and to the women.

Men, first of all, work on your approach.  Vary your approach.  Get creative in your approach.  Be tender in your approach.  Quit just doing the same approach every day:

Hey!  You want some of this don’t you!  I know you do!  Check this out!

Don’t get out of the shower walking around like [strutting].  Wooork on your approaaaach!  Romance, conversation, bring a gift home, listen, rub her feet…

He then chastises husbands for sexualizing ordinary situations:

Wife:  Can you make me a bowl of cereal?

Husband:  Sure thing I’ll make you a bowl of cereal!  Give me a spoon and I’ll stir you up!

Wife:  We’ve got to get the oil changed.

Husband:  I’ll change your oil!

The poor husbands don’t stand a chance, and the pastor has no idea what he is doing to them.

Related:

About these ads
This entry was posted in Book of Oprah, Feminine Imperative, Foolishness, Game, Marriage. Bookmark the permalink.

379 Responses to Biblical vs Churchian Sex in Marriage (and why Christians need Game)

  1. TLM says:

    The 11th Commandment should be to do the exact opposite of what every “modern” pastor has to say about women and sexuality.

  2. Cane Caldo says:

    Why is what the pastor said wrong? I certainly think he is, but in an effort to honestly re-assess my assessment of Game, it would help me to understand why you think he’s wrong, and how Game helps.

  3. Dalrock says:

    @Cane

    Why is what the pastor said wrong? I certainly think he is, but in an effort to honestly re-assess my assessment of Game, it would help me to understand why you think he’s wrong, and how Game helps.

    Everything he is advising is to generate comfort, not attraction. It is entirely backwards. He has the husbands supplicating to their wives, being careful not to sexualize, etc. He even tells them to rub their wives’ feet! In the right frame a foot rub might not be a bad thing, but he is transmitting the worst beta frame which reinforces where the husbands are already being lead astray. Beta husbands who follow this will be repulsive to their wives.

  4. Lovekraft says:

    For lack of a better term, the shit test is what we are talking about: how a man’s independence and authority is tested for the most trivial of matters. How our society fails to recognize his right to maintain his integrity is up there with Great Modern Injustices.

    In other words, nothing in society is chastising the woman for being indignant and quarrelsome, and everything is being done to ensure man must be tame and submissive.

  5. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    So what would be the proper Game to run, and why?

  6. 3rd Millenium Men says:

    Bang. Spot on Dalrock. Interesting hearing that the whole comfort v attraction frame is just as (or more!) important in marriage than picking up girls!

  7. Danger says:

    @Cane….

    Because it involves being fearful of your masculinity.

    Never fear your masculinity. God made you that way for a reason…..one of them being that it is a complement to femininity.

    Do not fear being cocky, that is masculine.
    Do not fear being aggressive, that is masculine.
    Do not fear talking sexual and desiring a woman, that is masculine.

    The real issue at hand, is that somehow people are accepting the notion that it is ok for a woman to define what is acceptable behavior for men.

  8. Cane Caldo says:

    @Danger

    So that’s it? Game is not being fearful? It takes dozens of new definitions, hundreds of blogs, and perhaps millions of comments for a few thousand men to work out that Game is courage?

  9. Rico says:

    Men, first of all, work on your approach. Vary your approach. Get creative in your approach. Be tender in your approach. Quit just doing the same approach every day:

    I do agree with being creative and varying your approach part. It’s the “be tender” (i.e. only soft slow lovemaking please!) part that rankles.

  10. Some Guy says:

    If a woman wants to show a supreme amount of disrespect to her husband, withholding sex is the best way to make the point.

    Christian men don’t need a supplicating approach. Christian women need to be taught to say yes regardless of the approach. Anything less than that turns sex into a reward for good behavior. Newlyweds should be taught to keep sex separate from the usual conflicts and power struggles of married life.

    I think women enjoy the power they get from being the gatekeepers of sex. What they don’t realize is that maintaining that attitude after marriage is a really good way undermine the relationship they have with their husband. It’s also inherently slutty.

  11. Jimbo says:

    Wouldn’t game tell you that you should be strutting? Don’t bring gifts except when it is unexpected and cocky and signals an alpha. You could at least state what is meant by game in a Christian marriage.

    I do cringe when pastors are giving sex advice. This is certainly advice that men should be giving to one another in private and not in a service.

  12. Dalrock says:

    Cane,

    You are asking for more than I have time to offer. But there are two ways to look at this. If the couple were practicing headship and submission (which they almost certainly aren’t), game tips probably wouldn’t be needed. The right frame would naturally be in place. Note that his tips all work against the biblical frame, putting the husband in a submissive position to his wife. So if he was true to the Bible, and stayed away from the Book of Oprah, problem solved.

    As for a clinic on how to game your wife, context and nuance matter. This is a matter of fine tuning, not absolutes. But in broad strokes where he says rub her feet, instead give her a playful spank. Instead of being tender, be strong. Be cocky funny. Don’t supplicate by giving her gifts; while the wife thinks she wants this, if the beta husbands do this it will actually feel like “A creepy man is trying to coerce me into having sex with him!” Do sexualize (from an appropriate frame). If she isn’t feeling the tingle, being a bit more aloof will probably help where his advice to listen more intently will only make it worse.

  13. deti says:

    “Game is not being fearful? It takes dozens of new definitions, hundreds of blogs, and perhaps millions of comments for a few thousand men to work out that Game is courage?”

    After sixty years of being absolutely pounded over the head with feminism every single day of our lives, being raised by women (and men) who subscribe fully to feminism, with every teacher, pastor, civic leader and authority telling us feminism is the new and dominant paradigm and YOU WILL BOW to the feminist gods or you will be kicked out of school, fired from your job and prevented from getting a new one, removed from your church, lose all your friends, litigated and sued into pariah status and bankruptcy, and be generally ostracized from any and all polite society?

    Yes.

  14. Dalrock says:

    @Cane

    So that’s it? Game is not being fearful? It takes dozens of new definitions, hundreds of blogs, and perhaps millions of comments for a few thousand men to work out that Game is courage?

    You are attacking a straw man here. Beyond this, you are mocking those who figured out what you say is obvious without instructions, while those who had the instructions (Christians) fail to see the need to follow them. This is only a small thing in a hypothetical world where Christians haven’t subverted biblical roles of men and women. In other words, it isn’t a small thing at all. You are dismissing as trivially obvious what hundreds of millions of Christian and non Christian men and women get completely wrong. It would be trivially obvious, except for the fact that it isn’t. Don’t criticize those who point out the error for merely pointing out the obvious.

  15. dawn says:

    Do not fear being cocky, that is masculine.
    Do not fear being aggressive, that is masculine.
    Do not fear talking sexual and desiring a woman, that is masculine.
    Yes this is sexy! I want a man not a woman with a penis.
    Christian men don’t need a supplicating approach. Christian women need to be taught to say yes regardless of the approach. Anything less than that turns sex into a reward for good behavior. Newlyweds should be taught to keep sex separate from the usual conflicts and power struggles of married life.
    And I agree totally!
    I have only told my husband no when I didn’t feel good and that was I think only about three times in the 15 years we have been married. He also knows that I am his.
    So often pastors are afraid of speaking truth for fear of offending someone (feminist), so really they should stay out of the bedroom. I would love to hear a pastor talk about sex using game though, I think it would be the best sermon on marriage ever.

  16. Cane Caldo says:

    @Deti

    Well, let me save everyone a lot of time, and say: “Stop being a pussy.” We can all go home now.

    If you don’t like that answer, then answer my question from the end of Cypher’s Problem:

    “Finally, I want to ask the readers a question. Let’s assume that I have Game wrong, and that it can be separated from the PUA culture, and its tricks. Let’s assume it’s simply about breaking through the Feminist frame, understanding hypergamy, and adopting a masculine frame. Considering that the Christian man is called to marriage alone for sexual release, and that the world is full of sluts (there aren’t nearly enough virgins to go around), how is Game anything but a round-about method of telling Christian men to Man-Up and Marry These Sluts?”

  17. sunshinemary says:

    Rub her feet? Hey, men, why not wax the floor, too! Surely that will get her absolutely sopping wet. After all, her love language is “acts of service.”

  18. how is Game anything but a round-about method of telling Christian men to Man-Up and Marry These Sluts?”

    1) Game has application outside of sex.
    2) If a Christian man is bent on marriage and doesn’t have me around to hit him in the head with a brick, game gives him clearer vision about what type of woman he is marrying and what to expect from her after they are married.

  19. Hey, baby, I just scoured the tub and my hands smell like bleach. Do you wan… [tackled like Hobbes tackles Calvin when he arrives home from school]

  20. Game is like liberalism: if you don’t take it seriously it can be good lightweight advice for everyday circumstances. If liberalism means platitudes like “be tolerant and neighborly”, “mind your own business”, and suchlike, it can be perfectly helpful advice. We could formulate a “lightweight” feminism with similar scope and value.

    The problem with platitudes though is that when things really start to matter, where the metal meets the meat, you have to drop them for a more serious philosophy. Modern people don’t know how to do that, for the most part. And it seems that in the manosphere the same sort of “turn the platitude into an ideology” mistake is being made with Game.

  21. Dalrock says:

    @sunshinemary

    Rub her feet? Hey, men, why not wax the floor, too! Surely that will get her absolutely sopping wet. After all, her love language is “acts of service.”

    Well put. The wife can then reinforce this by practicing what Sheila Gregoire explains in her book is biblical submission; she can give him a list of chores.

  22. deti says:

    Cane:

    Leaving aside your flippant answer, I agree. The answer is not to be a pussy. Fine. That’s a great answer. What you’re ignoring is that everyone–including the church — was teaching that supplication, pedestalization, giving her whatever she wants, and letting her set the frame was the way to a successful marriage. There is almost no one saying what you’re saying. Sure, feminists say they want men who are real men, but they only want the ATTRACTIVE men to be those “real men”. If a so-called “unattractive” man acts like a real man, he’s a “creep” who “doesn’t know his place” or “needs to be more attractive”.

    And men were taught that if they acted masculine, did their own thing, took on an “I don’t give a shit” attitude, then they were troublemakers, problem children, thugs, sociopaths, potential criminals, and rapists in training.

    In the employment or education milieus, such boys were “not team players” or “too independent” or “not getting with the program” or “socially retarded” or labeled “doesn’t play well with others” or “insubordinate”. Such boys were sent home with notes from a principal or teacher strongly recommending a medical evaluation and then diagnosed with ADD or ADHD or hyperactivity. They would then be force-fed Ritalin or Adderall or Lithium or zoloft.

  23. Bob Wallace says:

    @ Cane Caldo

    “that Game is courage?”

    The Four Cardinal Virtues:

    Prudence
    Justice
    Self-Restraint (not being impulsive)
    Courage

    Many of the Manosphere blogs need a history lesson.

  24. okrahead says:

    Cane said, “how is Game anything but a round-about method of telling Christian men to Man-Up and Marry These Sluts?”
    1) Men with game DON’T marry sluts.
    2) Men with game have wives who put out more than sluts, but only with their own husbands.
    3) Men with game DON’T supplicate and then sleep on the couch.
    Questions?

  25. deti says:

    And in the employment milieu, men who act like “real men” and are dominant, or just men of middling attractiveness and social skill, who are clumsy or awkward, are routinely accused of “sexual harassment” and sent to the gulag for “diversity training” and “sensitivity training (i.e. feminist reeducation and brainwashing). They receive pretextual poor work evaluations for the purpose of forcing out such men or denying them promotions and raises. They are given the most demanding or distasteful work to do. That’s if they are allowed to keep their jobs. The worst “offenders” are simply fired — if they are unattractive. If they are attractive, they receive no such work upbraids or dressings-down. The exclusively female HR department keeps these men around because they are attractive.

  26. Dalrock says:

    @Bob Wallace

    Many of the Manosphere blogs need a history lesson.

    Christians have abandoned the biblical frame of marriage, and this is your takeaway?

  27. deti says:

    So, Cane, your unattractive man who wants to “not be a pussy” 30 years ago? He’s an uneducated, unemployed, broke loner who everybody hates.

    Oh wait — he’s the kind of guy the sluts LOVE!!

  28. Danger says:

    @Cane

    Your flippant reply aside…..

    Being masculine,
    Being confident in your masculinity,
    ….and not following feminism, or fem-centric church teaching on what masculinity is….is EXACTLY what game is.

    Every tenet of game comes back to being a confident, masculine man with options. Every component mimics that frame which has been slowly demolished by feminism and a Politically Correct society run amuck.

    That is *NOT* “manning up and marrying those sluts”….that is Manning Up, period.

  29. sunshinemary says:

    OK, anti-gamers, riddle me this. If game is so bad, why do so many people, so many Christians that is, find it so helpful? Why is MMSL filled with stories of couples who were at the end of their ropes with each other, and when he turned on a little bit of game, things turned around? I get that it might not be the ideal, but we’re living in a flippin’ marital war zone here. Seriously, I don’t want to troll for hits on my blog, but I really want people to read this story and then tell me what the heck this guy is supposed to do? Are you really going to tell him, don’t be a p^ssy and that will solve all your problems?

    I’m tired of the endless semantics discussions. What behaviors are going to save people’s marriages? Let’s do those.

  30. Cane Caldo says:

    You are attacking a straw man here. Beyond this, you are mocking those who figured out what you say is obvious without instructions, while those who had the instructions (Christians) fail to see the need to follow them

    To which straw man are you referring? And whose fault is it that it’s all I have to attack? II WANT to attack the real man, but he won’t show up. This is what I’m stating is the fundamental problem with Game: it IS a straw man. Every time I try to say it is more than that, I get criticized for saying its not that hard a concept. When I knock down the simplified concept, I’m accused of attacking a straw man.

    Maybe it’s just a straw man!

    You should know that I do not trivialize the horror-show men (and women) are enduring and perpetrating on each other. The way before them is not hard, but it is narrow and undesired.

    The reason that a man can’t just “stop being a pussy”–the reason for the hundred blogs and dozen definitions–is because it is fundamentally the wrong approach.

    The right approach is to love your neighbor as yourself. Who is your neighbor, and what does it mean to love them?

  31. sunshinemary says:

    The wife can then reinforce this by practicing what Sheila Gregoire explains in her book is biblical submission; she can give him a list of chores.

    Man, do you mean to tell me that my husband’s been gettin’ it for free all this time when I could have been charging him for it in chores?! j/k

  32. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock and Bob

    Christians have abandoned the biblical frame of marriage, and this is your takeaway?

    Quite right.

    Bob: to Hell with Marcus Aurelius, and Socrates, and all of Greco-Roman culture, and all the other barbarians. This world will be burned away, but Jerusalem will be built anew. You confuse the issue.

  33. endwatcher says:

    No question most of the stuff offered for advice is pure garbage. That doesn’t mean Christians need game. We need to read the Bible and stop worrying about the relationship garbage that is nothing but a weight in our life.

  34. deti says:

    Bob W.

    Yes, men need to learn prudence, justice, self-restraint, and courage. IOW, headship. And this was done with the full backing of the church, at least in prefeminism days. How it worked was something like this: Woman is a shrew and mistreats her husband, refuses to submit to his headship. He confronts her. This fails. He takes her to the pastor. this fails. He publicizes this to the entire church. Pressure is brought to bear on her to comply with the biblical injunction of wifely submission. This is done because wife is a member of a larger church community and she has obligations to submit to her husband. If they let her get away with this kind of shrewish behavior, other wives will think they can do so too. Wife either complies or not. If she complies, all is well and she is in right relationship with husband and community. If not, he is free to divorce her, she leaves the house with little more than the clothes on her back (the children stay with him), and she is ostracized and shunned from the church as an unbeliever.

    Husband is a drunk layabout asshole who beats wife. Wife confronts him with help of pastor. This fails. Men of the church hold a sit down meeting with husband, in which he is read the riot act, told to straighten up and get his shit together, lead his wife, quit drinking, get a job, and stop beating on his wife. If he doesn’t, he will have any number of men beating on him and will then be hauled off to the county jail for the weekend. This is done because husband has biblical responsibilities to be the head of his family and he can’t do that if he’s an unemployed broke drunk who takes out his frustrations on his wife. Husband is also part of a larger church community and if they let husband get away with this, others will think they can too. Plus, we’ll look bad to the larger community and our testimony will have no positive effect.

    So husband either complies or not. If he complies, all is well and he is brought back into right relationship with wife and community. If not, church men tune husband up, give him a shiner, and set him in an 8 by 10 cell and let him think about it until Monday morning.

  35. Danger says:

    @ Cane

    Having game (or supreme confidence in oneself, their masculinity, and their role in life and relationships), is ABSOLUTELY the right approach. Why on Earth would it be wrong?

    To you, it is only the *wrong approach* because you are too ego-invested to recognize that what you have been fed the last several decades is completely wrong and perverted against Nature (God’s creation).

    PUA is different from game in that it helps you mimic the man who has confidence and options and such. Mimicking such behaviors actually creates them in the long run. When you appear to be confident, you start to generate options….which in turn generates true confidence.

  36. Cane Caldo says:

    Man, do you mean to tell me that my husband’s been gettin’ it for free all this time when I could have been charging him for it in chores?! j/k

    Are you? I wish you’d just shut the fuck up and let the men talk. You spew all sorts of shit-tests and commands to men on your blog, in your comments, and everywhere you go. You have acquired a collection of the most discouraged and disaffected men in the manosohere. You encourage them to sniff around by hanging your foul undergarments in the breeze. You are Jezebel, not Rahab. You’re exactly the sort of woman that afflict my people.

    [D: Sunshinemary is welcome here.]

  37. Mark says:

    I wonder when guys say game is about being confident. I’ve been looking at all the game blogs for awhile and it seems that guys spend huge amounts of time thinking up strategies to use on women. If you are spending huge amounts of time trying to think of ways to get inside some female’s pants,
    aren’t you kind of over valuing women? Aren’t you measuring your self-value by how much women like you and doesn’t that show a lack of self-confidence that you need that constant approval from women to try to boost your ego up a little bit? I find it slightly amusing that we are probably about
    to enter a serious economic crisis where many people may have trouble finding enough to eat and and instead of preparing for that so many of the game guys are plotting ways to get some female dimwit to have sex with them.

  38. Danger says:

    The Bible teaches game, for those who have the vision to see it. But men are too whipped to take on the role of a man. Whether it is due to their fear of no sex, fear of being ostracized, or fear of divorce…..it doesn’t matter. Because the big picture is one of fear.

    Men are supposed to lead, women are supposed to submit. Why is the church not teaching this? Why would you think this is not game? Of course it is game. To lead is to have a form of game. To not have fear of your wife is a form of game. To understand that her role is to be submissive is a form of game. Act according to the Bibles instructions, and you find that you will have game.

    Read Titus, Timothy or Ephesians.

  39. Cane Caldo says:

    @Watcher

    We need to read the Bible and stop worrying about the relationship garbage that is nothing but a weight in our life.

    More nonsense from Christians. Being a human is nothing but relationships.

    Who is you neighbor, and what does it mean to love them?

  40. Opus says:

    I had to check the beginning of the Video, for I assumed he was some sort of stand-up comic. I don’t want you all to take this as a piece of anti-americanism, but I found the video excruciatingly embarrassing – enough to almost make me want to attend the CofE next Sunday for a, shall we say, more conventional sermon.

    I may also add, that were I to use such lines on any woman, married to her or not, I would expect the retort: ‘creep’!

  41. Cane Caldo says:

    @Danger

    The Bible teaches game, for those who have the vision to see it.

    Which is it? Do I believe in a fairy tale, or the Truth? If it is the Truth, then it is Christ, and faith in Christ is the light that lets all see, who wish to see.

    And if that is so, then what faith REVEALS is “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your soul, and you’re might; and love your neighbor as yourself. Game is NOT love.

    Who is your neighbor, and what does it mean to love them?

  42. Danger says:

    @Cane

    Who says game and love are mutually exclusive? Why must one be at the expense of the other?

    You have somehow gotten it into your head that Game is anti-thesis of Christ. Why is that?

  43. With apologies:

    Jules: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa… stop right there. Eatin’ a bitch out, and givin’ a bitch a foot massage ain’t even the same fuckin’ thing.
    Vincent: It’s not. It’s the same ballpark.
    Jules: Ain’t no fuckin’ ballpark neither. Now look, maybe your method of massage differs from mine, but, you know, touchin’ his wife’s feet, and stickin’ your tongue in her Holiest of Holies, ain’t the same fuckin’ ballpark, it ain’t the same league, it ain’t even the same fuckin’ sport. Look, foot massages don’t mean shit.
    Vincent: Have you ever given a foot massage?
    Jules: [scoffs] Don’t be tellin’ me about foot massages. I’m the foot fuckin’ master.
    Vincent: Given a lot of ‘em?
    Jules: Shit yeah. I got my technique down and everything, I don’t be ticklin’ or nothin’.
    Vincent: Would you give a guy a foot massage?
    [Jules gives Vincent a long look, realizing he's been set up]
    Jules: Fuck you.
    Vincent: You give them a lot?
    Jules: Fuck you.
    Vincent: You know, I’m getting kinda tired. I could use a foot massage myself.
    Jules: Man, you best back off, I’m gittin’ a little pissed here.

    Heheh,..sorry.

  44. ybm says:

    Yea you got to that one before I did Rollo. A chick who wants a foot rub is basically saying: I’m in heat, put in a token effort and then strap in for a wild ride.

  45. Some Guy says:

    But a guy that offers his wife a foot massage as part of his “approach”? Instant creep-factor! (See also women that complain about “nice guys” that offer back rubs but that obviously have ulterior motives. Creeeeepy!)

  46. ybm says:

    Wow, your experience is way different from mine, but then again I’m not married.

    Night out at the club, girl in her stripper heels, get home, kick back on the couch, foot rub.

    This process, both with pickups and with girls I’ve “dated” have never ended without the girl servicing me within 5 minutes.

    Where is the difference? is it in the women?

    [D: The difference is in the frame. Consider the frame the pastor is projecting, and what these men have already learned. Compare that to your frame after a night in the club.]

  47. deti says:

    Cane:

    What’s your beef with “inner game” or what the manosphere generally calls masculine frame, confidence, dominance and competence? There are a lot of manosphere sites focused on self-improvement, i.e. masculinity, weight loss, getting in shape, good work habits, etc.

    Or do you have a beef with “inner game”?

  48. Some Guy says:

    @ymb — I think the difference is that “nice guys” wanting sex are inherently creepy. If I recall correctly, you are that “hot Italian professor”? Guys like you can do no wrong….

  49. an observer says:

    Contemporary church couples:

    Wife is a shrew. Sex once a month if husband is lucky. Divorces husband, claims cash and prizes. Church supports her and the state redistributes wealth. Husband blamed for divorce.

    Husband portrayed as sex obsessed, porn using layabout. Wife initiates divorce, claims cash and prizes. Church evicts man, supports woman, state redistributes wealth. Life ruined through large and ongoing alimony and child support payments.

    Contemporary church singles:

    Girl is self obsessed slut. Church says she is born again virgin, every sunday, begins support group when she falls pregnant and has child out of wedlock.

    Guy cannot get a job or gf. Church criticises, tells to man up, extra supplication and pedestalisation required. Told to try harder to win girls heart, or marry the used up slut once the carousel spits her off.

    Male sexuality: dangerous, in need of controlling, repressing, only safe when coupled to a truckload of responsibility.

    Female sexuality; pure, honest, naturally evolves goodness, inspiring, leads to righteousness.

    Did i miss anything?

  50. Vincent: I ain’t saying it’s right. But you’re saying a foot massage don’t mean nothing, and I’m saying it does. Now look, I’ve given a million ladies a million foot massages, and they all meant something. We act like they don’t, but they do, and that’s what’s so fucking cool about them. There’s a sensuous thing going on where you don’t talk about it, but you know it, she knows it, fucking Marsellus knew it, and Antwone should have fucking better known better. I mean, that’s his fucking wife, man. He can’t be expected to have a sense of humor about that shit. You know what I’m saying?

  51. ybm says:

    deti says:
    September 26, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    “Inner game” is self-help buzz word bullshit, usually to sell you a book, by amateur self-help gurus.

    The problem with your ‘manosphere’ is that in its kneejerk reaction to ‘mainstream society’ is tries to reinvent the wheel 10,000 times. Dale Carneigie did a better job of teaching people how to relate to one another than a billion roissy’s ever could HOPE to.

    Got a self-esteem problem? Lack self-respect? Talk to a health care professional. Not a douchebag with a wordpress.

  52. ybm says:

    Some Guy says:
    September 26, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    Not when its the wife man! You used the word wife! If you got the word wrong, I don’t think anyone could open on a stranger with ‘want a foot rub?’

    But I guarantee at least one girl in heels at the nightclub will laugh if you did, and there you go, instant opener!

  53. Bob Wallace says:

    @ Dalrock

    Many of the Manosphere blogs need a history lesson.

    “Christians have abandoned the biblical frame of marriage, and this is your takeaway?”

    I know guys who can quote exactly what an Alpha, Beta, Sigma, Delta, Omega are, and those Commandments of Poon. When i ask them to name the Four Cardinal Virtues and the Seven Deadly Sins, they can’t do it.

    People imitate each other all the time. “When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other.’ – H.L. Mencken. That doesn’t mean they imitate good things.

  54. Danger says:

    @ Deti

    I am becoming convinced that Cane is a troll. When asked relevant questions….he gives nonsensical answers and flees.

    Game is all about confidence, a strong masculine frame (not as defined by the church, society or feminism), and the courage to stand fast in that frame…..basically what you call “inner game”.

    What Cane does not understand is that the Bible teaches this. It teaches men to have game, and that women love it.

    Timothy 2:12 – I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

    Ephesians 5:23 – For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

    Titus 2:3-5 – Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

    These passages teach game. Man’s place as leader of the household and women’s place to be submissive. This is a subset of confidence. Instead feminism, the church, a PC diseased nation and even the likes of Cane himself are working against men, denying them from learning Inner Game. They are in fact teaching against the Bible and Christ, all under the guise of working towards it. Is it no wonder they flee when presented with the TRUTH?

    Cane? Where did you go? Why did you flee?

  55. Cane Caldo says:

    Vincent: I ain’t saying it’s right. But you’re saying a foot massage don’t mean nothing, and I’m saying it does. Now look…that’s his fucking wife, man. He can’t be expected to have a sense of humor about that shit. You know what I’m saying?

    Which sounds a Hell of a lot like SSM’s blog; except Marsellus ain’t showing up. Why? If my wife wrote a blog like that, and carried on with men the way she does…

    30 When Jehu came to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it. And she painted her eyes

    half whore

    and adorned her head

    half good Christian woman

    and looked out of the window. 31 And as Jehu entered the gate, she said, “Is it peace, you Zimri, murderer of your master?” 32 And he lifted up his face to the window and said, “Who is on my side? Who?” Two or three eunuchs looked out at him. 33 He said, “Throw her down.” So they threw her down.

    You surround yourself with eunuchs and Antwones at your peril, SSM. Jehu is coming. To answer the unspoken question: Hell yes, I’m angry at her.

    @Deti

    Or do you have a beef with “inner game”?

    Yes. Inner Game is the only Game that works–and I will repeat again that it does work for getting laid. It is predicated on self-esteem and self-respect. Self respect is garbage. Not only does scripture never talk about it, it declaims it as pride. It is judging the performer, and not the performance. In the case of Inner Game it is judging the performer as “totally awesome” before he even tries to secure a mate.

    For example, it is stupid to say you are strong, if you can bench 300 lbs. Now, this is surely stronger than most men, but it is nothing compared to NFL backbenchers, or an elephant; if an elephant could bench. To say: “I am strong” is to compare yourself to other men; that is: to put yourself at odds with them. Men ought not put ourselves at odds with each other. Yet, this is what Game does. It’s like a bunch of ghetto-fabulous rappers standing around talking about how they are each THE MAN. That’s stupid, isn’t it? They can’t each be the man. No surprise that Game fits well with the ghetto/rapper paradigm. It’s based on ignorance, and undeserved accolades–it’s based on irrational confidence.

    Stupidity is the way to death. However; respecting others, and their positions–their real positions as revealed in the light–is the way to life.

    YBM’s remarks on Carnegie over Roissy are spot on. No doubt Roissy has split more slut tail than Carnegie, though. Choose your path.

  56. Danger says:

    @Cane

    Several passages would disagree with you regarding self-esteem (confidence).

    Hebrews 1:35-36 – Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised.

    Psalm 27:3 – Though an army encamp against me, my heart shall not fear; though war arise against me, yet I will be confident.

    John 4:18 – There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.

    Joshua 1:9 – Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.”

    Hebrews 4:16 – Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

  57. Opus says:

    Maybe it is just cultural difference: you americans are just toooooooooooooo nice, the men I mean. Too kind, too nice, too obliging. American attitude ‘you have a problem, can I help?': English attitude ‘I see you have a problem, well good luck – wire me how you get on’ (walks off).

    I don’t understand Game because when you are born with a stiff-upper-lip, you just have natural game and exude aloof superiority.

    Is that it?

    Or maybe it is because no one goes to church.

  58. deti says:

    Opus:

    A couple of reasons for that in the US:

    1. Remnants and vestiges of a former culture of tight knit community, forged by common religious bonds which required each to love and help his fellow man
    2. A current culture which elevates and exalts women and which requires men to help them

  59. Cane Caldo says:

    @Danger

    Yes, a post two minutes after you is flight, indeed.

    You are ignorant of scripture because you live in the dark, so the book that contains the map of right and wrong is still dark to you. Has it ever occurred to you that, had not man fallen, the Bible never would have been written; would not need to have been written? The Bible is the response to the Red Pill. It is a grace extended to us though we did not deserve it.

    What this means is that scripture (not Game) says that God has empowered the man to be the authority over the wife no matter what anyone says. You would take that power from God and give it to man, himself–you call it self-respect. Sound familiar? It should, because that is what happened in Genesis 3. It’s inherently womanly to do so. Let me repeat that:

    It is inherently womanly to practice self-respect. You do not have to believe me. Watch Oprah.

    If somebody like Some Guy (I swear I am not picking on you; this is true of every man) tries to practice self-respect on his wife, she is going to chew him up and spit him out. She has already destroyed his self-respect by not sleeping with him; by nagging; by setting boundaries for him. At whatever point he tries to re-establish self-respect, she can out perform his self-respect because she’s given encouragement and a pass with everyone from her father, to Oprah, to the courts. His ONLY recourse is to believe that there is a God, and that He is just, that He loves Some Guy, and that He is watching what his shrew of a wife is doing to him.

    This knowledge–this respect of God as Lord, and therefore respect of his position as a vassal of the Lord God Almighty–does empower him, and even requires that he demand she, too respect his authority, and her position under him. If she does not, she can get the Hell out. She shall be treated as an unbeliever to us, that her flesh may be given over to Satan (and his players) for the destruction of the the flesh, that her soul might be saved.

    Some Guy’s neighbor is his wife, and to love her is to do his duty to God, and demanding that she do her duty to God by serving Some Guy. If she does not like it, then she is dead to him, so that she might live again in eternity. It is ultimate love; willing to even sacrifice himself, her, and even his children if need be, for her salvation. Just like Abraham and Isaac. Just like God and Jesus.

    It is not hard, but it hurts like Hell because it is not what we desire. What we desire is to love ourselves, and to make others love us.

    Like a solipsistic woman.

  60. deti says:

    Cane:

    9/26/12 at 3:23 pm

    Agreed. (Is this is “don’t be a pussy” thing you were talking about?)

    A couple of questions:

    Why should I sacrifice myself for my wife’s eternal salvation when Christ already did that? How does the concept of headship require sacrifice of my own life when Christ already sacrificed His for exactly that purpose? In fact, isn’t that impossible? My life cannot be sacrificed for another’s eternal salvation, not even my own, because I am not anywhere near good enough for that. Right?

    How does the concept of biblical headship require me to throw myself on the gears of society and give her half my income if she decides to EPL me, when at the same time you say that if the wife does exactly that, she is supposed to be “dead to me” and my people?

  61. Danger says:

    @ Cane

    Man fell from the temptation of a woman, telling a man what to do. Not unlike the teachings of your precious church today.

    And yes, you still flee from the obvious passages which teach men to lead their wives, to be the head of the household, to have confidence…….in short, to have “inner game”. That which you hate oh so much.

    The Bible teaches men to have inner game. You just have a perverted understanding of what Inner Game is all about.

    Tell me, if I am misunderstanding the passages so badly, then why do the actions of inner game bear out the truth?

    If God is infalliable,…

    ….and I practice his word of leading the woman, and having confidence
    ….and such practices work in attracting the Christian woman, keeping her from straying
    ….whilst your teachings against inner game develop into women divorcing and cheating (due to lack of leadership and confidence)

    ……..Then isn’t it I who has the better understanding and implementation of God’s word?

  62. Some Guy says:

    >> She has already destroyed his self-respect by not sleeping with him…

    No, it is so humiliating to have to put out financially, be completely faithful to her, and then… to be treated that way. I tried to explain it once what it was like when we were having sex…. It was the first time in my life… and… there is the cliched phrase: “it made me feel like a man.” I mean we’d have sex when I needed to be out the door in ten minutes or so… and I just felt so… completed. I was never so… well… happy. (Not quite the right word there.)

    Okay, sure, explaining that to a woman that is sliding further and further into open rebellion… that’s not good game and it’s not even “vulnerability game.” My wife’s response was one of pity and contempt. Something like, “if sex is that important to you then you’re a really shallow person.” But it was the one period of time that our marriage was in order…. It was the one time that she would freely pay me the highest form of respect that a wife can give.

  63. Cane Caldo says:

    @Danger

    Hebrews 1:35-36 – Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised.

    Confidence in Christ’s salvation, and His justice.

    Psalm 27:3 – Though an army encamp against me, my heart shall not fear; though war arise against me, yet I will be confident.

    Confident in God, that He will save whom He loves.

    John 4:18 – There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.

    God is love. Man is the beloved of God; as John was the Beloved of Christ; as the woman is the beloved of the man. Further, most modern women

    Joshua 1:9 – Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.”

    Confidence in God. Courageous for the sake of God, because of our faith in His saving and ultimate power.

    Hebrews 4:16 – Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

    Again, it is from our nearness to the throne, and receiving His grace, that we receive confidence, and authority. It is not about self-respect, or practicing good Game. It is in fact the case that we do not deserve respect, of ourselves, except as we accept God’s grace, to be His vassals; His knights; made white by Him.

    You would pervert that.

  64. unger says:

    @deti:

    Why should I sacrifice myself for my wife’s eternal salvation when Christ already did that?

    Missionaries die at the hands of heathens all the time. I wonder how many of them ask such silly questions – ‘why isn’t Jesus here talking to these savages himself?’

  65. Ok so Cane says “game is just being courageous”

    One response to him is that he is mocking it as simple but he shouldn’t because, though it is simple (Im inferring that tacit agreement) no one has been listening,

    therefore,

    Don’t mock game

    Question is though, and in a sense, I repeat, if it is that simple why the thousands of blogs and articles and definitions and pontifications and all that? Its a legitimate question, and to say it is mocking is a little bit off focus. Whether it is mocking or not is really not even important. The QUESTION is important, because within the answer to the question there resides some stuff that is not good. Within the answer to “why if its simple is it made so complex?” is a look into those aspects of mankind that makes us want to feel exclusive and special, like we have something and its so clever few will grasp it. There is no possible other answer.

    So then, if it is so clever and exclusive, how can it simultaneously be so simple? Then we read game sellers saying how no no no its NOT clever nor inaccessible to men, its basic nature, its masculinity….its…….courage (or something)…..[starts back around the circle]….so then why is it truly still being worked out….even as I write this, somewhere there are some men wrangling starting sentences with things like

    Game theory says…..

    But that depends how you define game…..

    I disagree because (fill in game guru here) says in his umpteen rules of game that _______

    No thats not exactly correct, but you are partially correct, while game is X….its also Y and a little bit Z….

    Si, its not simple? Or it is simple? To point this circle out is mockery?

  66. deti says:

    unger:

    It’s one thing to have a calling as a missionary and a biblical requirement to die for Christ if you’re so called.

    It’s quite another to say the Bible requires a man to become a wage slave and pay half his income to a woman who hates him for the offenses of (1) not being as attractive as he once was, or (2) not being as attractive as Harley McBadboy or Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer.

  67. Sharrukin says:

    With regards to ‘Game’, I don’t know what the inside baseball definition is, but I have seen a lot of guys who are low life, no prospect, not terribly attractive creeps with attractive women on their arms. They have all sorts of confidence and attitude but that’s where it ends. There is nothing else to them. Obviously these women are not looking for a husband because that is when the wallet shopping comes in. I assume these guys have what is called ‘Game’

    We are told what women want by those who talk about ‘nice guys’ and that nonsense, and it doesn’t ring true. We are told they want men of substance but that often boils down to just having enough cash more often than not. They certainly don’t show any loyalty to such men. The peacock element (Game) seems to be the most important element in attraction.

  68. Cane Caldo says:

    @Deti

    Why should I sacrifice myself for my wife’s eternal salvation when Christ already did that?

    Because Christ has set the example, and explicitly said Take up your cross, and follow me. What did you think that cross was for? Because you are a part of Christ, and are already dead, buried, and risen in Him. Because she is your wife, man! The two have become one. So if you are in Christ, then she is in Christ. If she is not in Christ of her own accord, then she is a harlot, and you are guilty of joining Christ’s body (your body) with a harlot. Because she is your sister in Christ, and He has said she is worthy of any and even the ultimate sacrifice.

    How does the concept of headship require sacrifice of my own life when Christ already sacrificed His for exactly that purpose? In fact, isn’t that impossible? My life cannot be sacrificed for another’s eternal salvation, not even my own, because I am not anywhere near good enough for that. Right?

    Because you are the body, and Christ is the head. The Brain has caused the Whole Body to submit to the powers of this world for destruction; that we might be saved for eternity. We must take our place with Him on the cross.

    Again, this does not–cannot!–square with self-respect, but it does with the mysteries of the Trinity, and of marriage.

    How does the concept of biblical headship require me to throw myself on the gears of society and give her half my income if she decides to EPL me, when at the same time you say that if the wife does exactly that, she is supposed to be “dead to me” and my people?

    You don’t have to throw yourself on the gears: the gears will come looking for you. They’ve already been set in motion. You. Will. Die. Our wives will die. Our children will die. Our grandchildren will die…this is not about saving society: society is literally going to Hell. This is about saving our souls.

    It is the case of all mankind that we are all harlots and idolators, and so we all must die. The mystery of Christ’s crucifixion is that: what is good for the goose is good for the gander. When Christ–who was utterly sinless and blameless–died on the cross, he was executed for crimes He did not commit. This breaks justice; as CS Lewis demonstrated so well in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, with the breaking of the table of Deep Magic…justice. Then only solution then, is to correct the problem by bringing Christ back from the dead. So God did. But, at this point, Christ has already made Himself one with any in mankind who will accept it–He married them–so when God brought back Jesus from the dead, Christ dragged His bride of mankind back with Him.

    Now, justice is justice, so we all still have to die as Jesus did, but for those of us connected to Him, we will be brought back as well.

    As I said a long time ago: Game doesn’t mean to tinker with some little sideshow of humanity. It is playing on the very organs of mankind and God’s plan. This isn’t about spanking your wife–this is about her eternal salvation. To the extent we are not on-board with that, we are not in Christ, and risk not being resurrected with Him.

  69. ybm says:

    Sharrukin says:
    September 26, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    In order to answer this question I quote the manosphere Voldemort himself, that hated man, he who shall not be named, AlekNovy:

    “-> Jane overvalues dating confidence, social skills, assertiveness and a bold ability to show and display interest

    -> Jane meets Bob And Charlie, two men who are equally attractive to her on a physical level

    -> Bob and Charlie are equally interested in Jane

    -> Bob cheats, lies and and doesn’t believe in egalitarianism. He’s known to insult and berate his girlfriends and he believes women should do all of the houswork

    -> Charlie is a genuinely kind and altruistic progressive man who has never cheated or lied in his life. He also believes in doing half of the houswork.

    -> Bob confindently and smugly flirts with Jane while assertively displaying his interest in her. He makes great eye-contact and has a hollywood-like smile. He persists past any indecision on Jane’s part and smoothly persists past her insecurities and indecision. When Jane shows a neutral or (what might or might not be) disinterest, he smoothly and comfortably proceeds to make moves with charm and optimism.

    -> Charlie is shy and is worried about not offending Jane. He waits for her to show the first sign because he wants to make sure he’s not like one of “those guys” women complain about being. Yes, those guys who offend by moving too fast. He shows interest in her as a person, and waits for her to show sexual interest first (lest he not be deemed a creep). He has been taught by feminists that its “better to err on the side of caution” – so he is cautious and he waits for a clear signal, but the signal never comes… In fact, Jane hooks up with and later marries Bob.

    Now, I AM NOT SAYING Bob And Charlie are realistic examples of men

    Most men are not such extreme example. I’m just using these extreme character to prove a point, which is that women place dating skill above character.

    And also, while the men in my example are extreme charicatures, Jane is not. The typical woman is actually very much so like Jane. The typical woman would respond to a Bob and Charlie just like Jane did. In general women over-value assertiveness and dating confidence as the criteria SO MUCH that it overrides other qualities they claim to favor in men.

    If you were to put a woman in a situation with a shy waiting-for-permission good man* and an assertive bad man*, most women would end up dating the bad man.”

  70. Sharrukin says:

    I’m just using these extreme character to prove a point, which is that women place dating skill above character.

    The typical woman would respond to a Bob and Charlie just like Jane did. In general women over-value assertiveness and dating confidence as the criteria SO MUCH that it overrides other qualities they claim to favor in men.
    ——————————————
    When does that end, if ever?

    I ask because marrying someone like that given the current laws would be madness. It’s one thing if the laws and culture restricted that sort of behavior, but in their absence, trusting Jane makes no sense at all.

  71. deti says:

    Cane:

    “Because Christ has set the example, and explicitly said Take up your cross, and follow me. What did you think that cross was for? Because you are a part of Christ, and are already dead, buried, and risen in Him. Because she is your wife, man!”

    We’re talking about two different things. If Mrs. deti decides to EPL me, the society selling me into wage slavery for the benefit of my wife so she can have sex with other more attractive men has no spiritual or eternal or salvatory significance. In other words, if Mrs. deti does that, it’s on her, not me.

    Ultimately, mrs. deti’s eternal salvation is betwen Christ and Mrs. deti. Ultimately, it will be she, not I, who stands before Christ to be judged for her life.

  72. ybm says:

    Indeed it is madness.

    AlekNovy, myself, others are first and foremost concerned about Judicial Reform. This is advice for dating, which has nothing to do with Men’s rights.

    Our view? Don’t get married.

    CaneCaldo, a passionate Christian who I have begun to respect a great deal for his convictions that the christian must either be in sin by involving in the current dynamic of fornication or go without, may have a different take on it.

    I am an MRA, not a game guru, I simply accept Jane for what she is, and because I have a different cultural background than most English speakers, acting the way Charlie does in the example above is quite foreign to me.

    For you? Work within the current dynamic and simply be a busy jerk and learn to ignore being called a creep, or ghost and be comfortable in your faith.

  73. ybm says:

    I feel I should expand, the three things that signal a mans quality:

    1. Physical
    2. Achievements
    3. Personality

    1. is self evident, are you in good shape? What is your shoulder to waist ratio (1.6 is considered a perfect should to waist ratio)? Your BMI (24 is ideal)? Your body-fat percentage (10-12% signals the best fitness and virility). I cannot see you so this is only something you can answer yourself, and above all be honest.

    2. I know nothing about you so I do not know your background, are you educated? Employed? Do you have hobbies? I assume you do.

    So these two are easily solved for the average guy: get into shape, and do things that interest you and achieve things for yourself. The problem is 3. And the above example sets out the problem, and the solution.

    Be a pushy jerk if you want to get laid, and learn to ignore being called a jerk, creep, loser. No PUA gets a better than 4/10 number to bang ratio, and nobody gets a better than 1/10 approach to phone number ratio, even a Harvard educated male model like Paul Janka does not get better than those numbers. Don’t believe the hype.

  74. deti says:

    Cane:

    You’re saying that a married Christian man is responsible for his wife’s eternal salvation. In other words, the only way she can be saved is for me to sacrifice my life? How is this not blasphemy? How does this not contradict Christ’s admonitions?

    Christ did not say “I and a married woman’s husband are the Way, the Truth and the Life. A married women cannot come to the Father except through Me (and her husband).” He didn’t say that.

    Christ said “I am the Way, the Truth and the LIfe. No one comes to the Father except through Me?

    I just do not understand how you can support this theologically. Help a brother out here.

    Moreover, this is white knighting and pedestalization to the extreme, is it not?

  75. Cane Caldo says:

    @Deti

    We’re talking about two different things. If Mrs. deti decides to EPL me, the society selling me into wage slavery for the benefit of my wife so she can have sex with other more attractive men has no spiritual or eternal or salvatory significance. In other words, if Mrs. deti does that, it’s on her, not me.

    No, we’re not. That’s like saying, “Well, the part where they whipped Jesus is different than the crucifixion itself.” Ok…, but no. It is all part of the process of death. What? You want a bullet in the head because it’s cleaner? Me too. That is the basis of my remark a few weeks ago, “I would kill to die on the battlefield.” You’re trying to shame the evil into not treating you unfairly.

    They are unfair. Un-fair. Fair means beautiful, or good. They are un-good, and un-beautiful. They mean to destroy, and make it painful and ugly in the process. Who is they? The world; everyone who is not of God.

    Ultimately, mrs. deti’s eternal salvation is betwen Christ and Mrs. deti. Ultimately, it will be she, not I, who stands before Christ to be judged for her life.

    Of course, but you simply aren’t understanding or accepting the mechanism God has chosen to do that. God made the material world for a reason. He keeps it around for a reason. How we treat each other in the material world has eternal consequences. This isn’t some numinous spiritualism where what matters are feelings. This is Christianity: the marriage of the Divine to the Material; of Man to God. This is the sum of all things.

  76. Sharrukin says:

    Our view? Don’t get married.

    Be a pushy jerk if you want to get laid, and learn to ignore being called a jerk, creep, loser.
    ————————–
    I am not really following the logic here. If getting laid rather than a relationship is the point, well…there are solutions that are cheaper, more dependable, and less hassle than putting up with all that garbage. Call an escort agency.

    I don’t want to have to become a jerk so I can sleep with some women I hold in contempt.

  77. ybm says:

    I got those numbers backwards, Paul Janka has a 4/10 phone number to approach rate and a 1/10 phone number to bang rate. Even lower than what I said above. A harvard educated male model PUA has sex with 5% of women he approaches, and it is essentially a full time job for him to do so.

    Still thing its worth buying that game book you’ve been looking at?

  78. ybm says:

    Sharrukin says:
    September 26, 2012 at 4:50 pm

    Yes, whores are the cheapest and lowest time/value way of having sex, always has been, always will be. In my culture visiting whores is socially acceptable so I have no criticism for that lifestyle.

    “I don’t want to have to become a jerk so I can sleep with some women I hold in contempt.”

    Such is the way of the world, it is now, and probably always shall be, the most contemptuous women are those who can be gamed. If I knew where to find attractive, low partner count women of quality in the English-speaking world, I would move there. And I’d tell you where it is.

  79. Wow, I had no idea it was getting this bad in Christianity. No wonder more and more men are leaving Christian churches.

  80. FFY says:

    Wife: Can you make me a bowl of cereal?

    Husband: Sure thing I’ll make you a bowl of cereal! Give me a spoon and I’ll stir you up!

    Wife: We’ve got to get the oil changed.

    Husband: I’ll change your oil!

    Those are actually excellent cocky-funny style lines, and they do the trick when you’re flashing that smirk. Spank her to add some garnish. See you in the bedroom in 15

  81. tbc says:

    Cane would you kindly lay out your own philosophy rather than simply kicking up dust and criticizing others

  82. Cane Caldo says:

    Moreover, this is white knighting…to the extreme, is it not?

    Not only extreme, but utter. They’ve lied to you about white knighting. The question is: Who do I mean when I say “they”?

    Most Christians. Players and sluts have taken us at our word.

    It is not pedestalization because we, ourselves, do not choose who is recognized. God does this. and He says (the following is a gross over-simplification), “Men, you stand over here. Wives, you stand right behind them. You are one unit now. Men, you advance with the army; follow Christ wherever He goes. Wives, you follow your husbands wherever he goes. Watch his back, and care for him. Christ, your leader, will be overseeing and spot-checking all of you; men and wives alike. Be prepared at all times.”

  83. Cane Caldo says:

    @tbc

    Cane would you kindly lay out your own philosophy rather than simply kicking up dust and criticizing others

    What?

  84. Ah. Now I’m becoming keen to your sophistry, boy Caldo. Curse that it took me more than a couple posts.

    Well, let me save everyone a lot of time, and say: “Stop being a pussy.” We can all go home now.

    Har har har, chump. You want to cleverly mock and belittle the project of making men into men, you twisted little hipster? Out of my fucking sight.

    If you don’t like that answer….

    As a matter of fact, we all “like that answer” above yours. Copybook headings are brief, universal, and true. There is power in blunt directive that a hundred, well-crafted, baroque paragraphs of fine exegesis can never equal. This is how men speak.

    To quote the best film of the past half-decade, “Shut up, pussy.” We are at work.

    Matt

  85. whatever says:

    First, Cane is an annoying punk.

    Second, you want the best advice a 30 year old man can receive?

    Date 18-21 year old women. Why is the age bracket so small between when women and men marry? Cause your mamma said don’t marry younger women. Cause your sister and men working for Team Woman agree. Well, I have to tell you, your mamma and the rest don’t have your best interests at heart. Just because the 28 year old woman “needs a beta” doesn’t mean you “need to be a chump”. Date as younger a you can get. If that means a lot of approaches, so be it. At 30, a person with his life together has insanely more money and experience than an 18-20 year old, that is your alpha.

    Also, you don’t need to marry a “college educated woman” either.

    You can call that game, you can call it what you want.

  86. whatever says:

    “Fireproof” Cane Caldo:

    Because Christ has set the example, and explicitly said Take up your cross, and follow me. What did you think that cross was for? Because you are a part of Christ, and are already dead, buried, and risen in Him. Because she is your wife, man! The two have become one. So if you are in Christ, then she is in Christ. If she is not in Christ of her own accord, then she is a harlot, and you are guilty of joining Christ’s body (your body) with a harlot. Because she is your sister in Christ, and He has said she is worthy of any and even the ultimate sacrifice.

    He has watched Fireproof 451 times and loved it more every time.

  87. Add to it blasphemy. Caldo wrote:

    The reason that a man can’t just “stop being a pussy”–the reason for the hundred blogs and dozen definitions–is because it is fundamentally the wrong approach.

    The right approach is to love your neighbor as yourself. Who is your neighbor, and what does it mean to love them?

    Don’t be baited by this feminized understanding of Christianity. To love one’s enemies is the most courageous act possible. It is not in contradiction with fortitude.

    You want to infuse the soul of Christ with cowardice. No wonder there are no takers either for your feminized Christianity or your interpretation of game. Here we are trying to restore the manly virtues back to the Christian project, and you come sniveling along to bleat it’s not possible! it’s not possible! with nothing to back up your feminist sentiment but obfuscating repetition.

    You have exposed yourself. Your misinterpretation of game is no longer mysterious. As a man, you should be ashamed of your superficial sentimentality, but instead of the simple corrective of embarrassment and amendment, you seek to redefine both the church and the sexual marketplace according to your own timorous notions of manhood. Ambitious, neurotic, and viscerally repulsive.

    Matt

  88. Cane Caldo says:

    @Sharrukin

    I ask because marrying someone like that given the current laws would be madness. It’s one thing if the laws and culture restricted that sort of behavior, but in their absence, trusting Jane makes no sense at all.

    It is madness, but it is not new. When Jesus told the disciples about the laws and spirit of divorce, they responded similarly.

    9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

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

    Paul talks about how he wishes all Christians would stay single, but if they burn with passion, they should marry. “Burning with passion” is a sort of madness.

    7 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

    6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.[a] 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

    8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

    This speaks to Dalrock’s tenet that you should only marry if you’re really in love. He’s right.

    What is asinine is that we Christians don’t really hear this until it’s too late; until either we’re already married (to possibly the wrong sort of person), or we’re beyond the age of doing so relatively easily, or before we’ve corrupted ourselves in a way that makes it hard to marry, or we’ve set bad relationship patterns for ourselves and our spouses. We have all the information right there in scripture, and it’s very plain, and we ignore it.

    I may be wrong in some or even many particulars, but it is not the particulars that will save us, correct our marriages, or find us the perfect spouse (if such a thing there be). It is walking in faith, and being mindful of the scriptures themselves in our processes. If we seek, He will answer.

  89. Cane Caldo says:

    @Matt

    You want to infuse the soul of Christ with cowardice. No wonder there are no takers either for your feminized Christianity or your interpretation of game. Here we are trying to restore the manly virtues back to the Christian project, and you come sniveling along to bleat it’s not possible! it’s not possible! with nothing to back up your feminist sentiment but obfuscating repetition.

    It is not possible to restore the manly virtues without Christ–which is what i have said; not once; not twice; but many many times. What religion is this that you offer that is not predicated on the idea that it is the manliness and godliness of Christ that undergirds the whole manly institution of marriage, and life itself?

    You are either not reading what I’ve written, or you’re willfully ignoring my clear distinctions. There is the empty philosophy of self-respect based on uninformed desire, and there is the acceptance of authority and responsibility no matter what our feelings may be. Which side are you on?

    Remove the concept of undeserved self-esteem, or irrational self-confidence from Game. What is left?

  90. Are you? I wish you’d just shut the fuck up and let the men talk. You spew all sorts of shit-tests and commands to men on your blog, in your comments, and everywhere you go. You have acquired a collection of the most discouraged and disaffected men in the manosohere. You encourage them to sniff around by hanging your foul undergarments in the breeze. You are Jezebel, not Rahab. You’re exactly the sort of woman that afflict my people.

    Linger on this paragraph of Caldo’s a moment and marvel. Total omega-male meltdown. Men who regularly interact with women simply do not hyperventilate like this in reaction to women, any more than a nurse would punch an infant for crying.

    Men aren’t threatened by female challenge; they are aroused. Men aren’t intimidated by female anger, they find it cute. Let’s stipulate that sunshinemary is a whore as claimed above. Who loses his shit over a woman playing her cards, unless he is utterly unfamiliar with the female of the species? No wonder why this twerp is so publicly baffled by game.

    Matt

  91. Sharrukin says:

    sunshinemary says:

    Seriously, I don’t want to troll for hits on my blog, but I really want people to read this story and then tell me what the heck this guy is supposed to do? Are you really going to tell him, don’t be a p^ssy and that will solve all your problems?
    ————————-
    That guy is being played by his wife. She is using the her own slutty behavior and the church’s response to that behavior, as a means to get prestige, cash and prizes. This isn’t the first affair she has had, in my opinion, nor will it be the last. This is the one she got caught in. She seems to revel in her description of what she did. It seems more like bragging than confession.

    The guy needs to walk away.

  92. Dalrock says:

    @Empath

    So then, if it is so clever and exclusive, how can it simultaneously be so simple?

    There is no contradiction here. When the whole world is getting it wrong, one can be clever and exclusive by getting something simple right. With that said, while the basics of game are fairly simple they require a fair degree of social intelligence to put them in practice at a basic level, and an exceptional amount of social intelligence to master. I would offer the analogy of humor. At one level humor is basic. The easy metric is does it make us laugh. Yet even if you understand the basic mechanics of humor it doesn’t mean you are good at making people laugh. It also doesn’t mean you are equipped to coach others to do so.

    If the whole world started believing (and teaching) that the best way to make people laugh was tell the saddest story you can think of, one doesn’t have to have mastered humor to understand the foolishness of this.

  93. TFH says:

    SunshineMary,

    What behaviors are going to save people’s marriages? Let’s do those.

    Ahh….

    Note that the CORE belief of anti-game zealots is to misdefine Game into something that has no use in LTRs/marriages, when in fact Game indeed does have immense use in LTRs/marriages (there are many well-known blogs on the subject).

    Their entire strawman is entirely dependent on mischaracterizing Game as ‘funny hats’ rather than grasp the material, which obviously is of immense value in LTRs.

  94. TFH says:

    Another maxim I have said for a long time :

    80% of men (and 99% of women) just cannot ever, ever, ever comprehend Game. It is just too far outside their worldview, above their level in Maslow’s Hierarchy, and what they consider to be the boundaries of reality.

    No amount of explaining it in punctilious detail will get through to them.

  95. Cane Caldo says:

    Men aren’t threatened by female challenge; they are aroused.

    Guilty. I’d be tempted to bang her; provided her looks were up to her “cards”. I considered it. She suffers from a bit of projection on my part, too. I knew a woman just like her.

    Total omega-male meltdown.

    Perhaps. It’s preferable to the alternative. I’m not rich, or educated, or good. I’m just the guy who’s willing to be wrong publicly so that I might learn, and who gives a damn about the other men.

  96. imnobody says:

    Don’t get out of the shower walking around like [strutting]. Wooork on your approaaaach! Romance, conversation, bring a gift home, listen, rub her feet…

    Disgusting. I feel like puking.

  97. greyghost says:

    King Matt
    Did Cane really post that to a comment from SunShine?

  98. farm boy says:

    Their entire strawman is entirely dependent on mischaracterizing Game as ‘funny hats’ rather than grasp the material, which obviously is of immense value in LTRs.

    Yes, this characterizes the situation well. Why do these threads arguing these questions go on and on? Game when used morally is good. Futhermore, it is very good in its predictive power, which is awesome.

  99. ybm says:

    farm boy says:
    September 26, 2012 at 6:56 pm

    I’ll tell you why, and its what I’ve told The Fifth Horseman a dozen times now: Because nobody has actually figured out what the hell the actual definition of game is. And every single one of your so-called ‘manosphere’ blogs has a different definition of it. This ignores that every commentor on those blogs has an additional definition, and none agree.

    TFH simply responds that I don’t understand game. And around we go.

  100. Cane Caldo says:

    @Sunshinemary

    I ask for your forgiveness for what I wrote. It was out of line.

  101. Danger says:

    @Cane

    You speak bull$hit.

    God does not want confidence only in himself, he wants his followers to have confidence. He demands the men who follow him be Leaders and have Confidence, and scripture says it is so.

    Again I posit the notion…..

    If God is infalliable…..

    Then why would he give his followers instructions that do not generate attraction from his wife? Why would he give instructions that make his wife repulsed by him?

    Why is it then, that my interpretation delivers a wife who is attracted to her mate? Whereas your interpretation delivers a wife who is nothing more than a harlot that divorces on a whim?

    Your interpretation is perverted, and reality proves it so, unless you think God wishes you to fail.

    In short Cane, you are lost, and you would take all Christians with you down upon the same path which holds you hostage. Your curse is that you will remain lost so long as the pride in your own interpretation keeps you blind to the path of Truth.

  102. endwatcher says:

    People who say the Bible teaches game should be aware that communists used to say that the Bible teaches communism. I am not attaching the two groups together in deeds, but the mentality is the same in the quest to legitimatize their philosophy. While perhaps some bullet points from game and the Bible somewhat match up, the Spirit(Holy, thank you) behind the Bible is not the same as the one behind game(Satan). These posts that attempt to reconcile Christianity with game are just attempts of having a flawed man made system ride the coattails of the Divine.

    None of this of course matters to the heathen, for them game might be the best they can hope for as a system in the here and now. For Christians however gluing game to our beliefs looks like an art project done by a 4 year old. It is a mess, confusion, and leads us to follow what we consider good rather than what Jesus considers good. It is about Jesus right? Jesus did not say on the mount that we need game. Paul didn’t write game your wife. I read the gospel, it doesn’t remotely say use game to get and or keep women for your edification! Cherry picking Scripture to match your desires is the way of destruction.

    Finally this is the grossest waste of time for believers. I think the best way to sum up the reason for the Bible’s commands on family and women (besides loving your neighbor) is to reduce the drama they can produce so that we can be productive for the Lord. We are all gabbing about how to save families, and marriages, and how to find wives(or worse, whores) when none of these things are even supported in the Bible. Jesus said families will be divided by His name. That wife that won’t submit as commanded may be better off going. The children that with her around, or taken by her are still going to be poisoned spiritually. Human wreckage is our fate as a whole in this life. This hurts but it is true. We must see the big picture and deliver the message given to us to give to this cursed world. The great commission is our duty. All have sinned, all sins lead to death in this world and the next(cosmic fryer). Jesus paid with His life for our sins, was buried, and raised on the third day. All who place their faith on Him for their salvation shall be saved.

    Stop trying to be yoked with groups like the manosphere who are part of the world, and instead be true to what you identified yourselves as, Christians.

  103. Sharrukin says:

    endwatcher says:

    to reduce the drama they can produce so that we can be productive for the Lord.
    ———————–
    And being productive for the lord means what?

    Human wreckage is our fate as a whole in this life.
    ————————
    That really sounds like a tempting offer with the human wreckage and sackcloth and all, but are you really arguing that Christianity has nothing to offer but misery? Some message you have there.

  104. BC says:

    King Matt: Total omega-male meltdown.

    Cane Caldo: Perhaps. It’s preferable to the alternative.

    No, it’s not, you pompous, self-righteous little prick.
    Man, you are annoying as hell.

  105. endwatcher says:

    Sharrukin says:
    September 26, 2012 at 7:53 pm
    endwatcher says:

    to reduce the drama they can produce so that we can be productive for the Lord.
    ———————–
    And being productive for the lord means what?

    The great commission is our duty. Already in the original post.

    Human wreckage is our fate as a whole in this life.
    ————————
    That really sounds like a tempting offer with the human wreckage and sackcloth and all, but are you really arguing that Christianity has nothing to offer but misery? Some message you have there.

    Life offers much misery, Christianity offers the hope of eternal life through Jesus Christ. There is nothing to sell that carnal people want. True Christianity is hated for a reason.

  106. Cail Corishev says:

    This isn’t that complicated, despite Cane’s attempts to turn every discussion into an endless game of whack-a-mole, as he shifts his arguments to dodge every response. The footrub was one of my go-to moves in my busy dating days, and it never didn’t lead to sex. But that’s because the frame was that we both knew it was foreplay, so it only served to build anticipation. By the time I’d start working up her legs, she’d be pulling me that direction by the hair.

    That’s very different from a guy who gives his wife a footrub hoping it’ll get her in the mood for sex — or even worse, hoping she’ll give him some out of obligation. That may work now and then in the sense that he’ll get some, but it’ll become less and less effective over time, and he’ll have to keep upping the ante to get results. Eventually he’s doing the dishes and the laundry and then giving her a footrub, and hoping she’ll respond.

    This pastor seems like he might almost slightly get it — he does say it’s about having fun, which isn’t too far off the mark — but as Dalrock said, he’s way to focused on comfort and doing something nice for her. (One of the most important things I learned from David DeAngelo’s work (yes, kids, there were Game gurus before Roissy!) was that you’ll never get anywhere trying to buy or earn things from women — give them rewards instead. Don’t give her roses because you’re trying to get her to sleep with you; give her roses because she blew your mind in bed last night.) Way too much supplication, not enough seduction, and no leadership.

    I am becoming convinced that Cane is a troll.

    Becoming? He may be the finest troll I’ve ever encountered, and I’ve argued Kirk vs. Picard on Usenet. I’m in awe of his talents, honestly. (The correct answer, by the way, is Sisko.)

  107. Danger says:

    @Endwatcher.

    You equate game to Satan, yet you do not know why. You are also lost.

    Again, I posit the notion, why would God the infalliable tell his Christian men to deny game when that is what keeps women attracted and submissive?

    Why does my interpretation result in a Christian women who is loyal to her Christan husband? Whilst your interpretation results in divorce and an army of harlots?

  108. endwatcher says:

    Danger says:
    September 26, 2012 at 8:24 pm
    @Endwatcher.

    You equate game to Satan, yet you do not know why. You are also lost.

    Again, I posit the notion, why would God the infallible tell his Christian men to deny game when that is what keeps women attracted and submissive?

    Not adhering to your god “game” hardly makes a man lost Danger. God is infallible, man is not. If we did not have a sin nature, it would not appeal to either sex. You are merely pleasing a womankinds sin nature, which may keep them attracted and submissive….until someone does it better than you. Better it would be if she read and took to heart being pure, true, and submissive based on the Word of God, not because you charmed her into it (and which may not hold for as long as you might think).

    Game is of Satan, because that is how fallen men and women relate to one another, not righteous ones. Considering the new testament places virtually no importance on having a spouse except if needed, I don’t think attracting women is that important to Jesus.

  109. Cane Caldo says:

    @Danger

    I’ve answered a lot of your questions.

    Which verse tells us that proper Game–and you can pick the definition, but please explain it–guarantees, or even implies a really good chance, that a wife will stay faithful, sexually available, industrious, and in all others ways generally a good wife?

  110. Sharrukin says:

    Considering the new testament places virtually no importance on having a spouse except if needed, I don’t think attracting women is that important to Jesus.
    —————————
    Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.

  111. Sharrukin says:

    And in the New Testament there is Titus, Peter, Ephesians, Colossians and others.

  112. The Game that can be defined and criticized is not the true Game. How Zen. The sound of one hand … clapping.

  113. endwatcher says:

    Sharrukin says:
    September 26, 2012 at 8:48 pm
    Considering the new testament places virtually no importance on having a spouse except if needed, I don’t think attracting women is that important to Jesus.
    —————————
    Genesis 2:18 And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.
    __________________________

    A good point, but that is Old Testament, and :

    1 Corinthians 7:33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife

    “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. . . .” (1Corinthians 7:27-28, NKJV throughout)

    “But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” (1Corinthians 7:8-9)

    Again, not important to the Christian life, but yes marry if you burn with lust.(Controlling this is better though) Also Christians are not alone, the Holy Spirit dwells in us. Thus Old Testament stands as well as the New.

    I stand by my statement.

  114. greyghost says:

    this drill is why dalrock has brought this subject up about game in christianity. It is amazing to see these guys pretend to be spiritual. Look you are married all of that christian shit is churchian bullshit. you are mPut your dick in your wife and both enjoy it and do it again later. And give worship and thanks to god. Damn Cane you have been a real disappointment. And now we have this endwater fella that is churchian insane. It is no wonder the christian church is in the shape it is is today. So we have our work cut out for us. These are historical times remember these moments fellas all of you. You are truely doing the lords work. The history of the western world is changing with our conversation and exchange of ideas that has never happened out in puplic as this.

  115. endwatcher says:

    greyghost says:
    September 26, 2012 at 9:04 pm
    this drill is why dalrock has brought this subject up about game in christianity. It is amazing to see these guys pretend to be spiritual. Look you are married all of that christian shit is churchian bullshit. you are mPut your dick in your wife and both enjoy it and do it again later. And give worship and thanks to god. Damn Cane you have been a real disappointment. And now we have this endwater fella that is churchian insane. It is no wonder the christian church is in the shape it is is today. So we have our work cut out for us. These are historical times remember these moments fellas all of you. You are truely doing the lords work. The history of the western world is changing with our conversation and exchange of ideas that has never happened out in puplic as this.

    —————————–

    Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

  116. Sharrukin says:

    endwatcher says:

    So your argument is that Christians should not marry, should not have children, and should not touch those icky girls?

    You sound like a Cathar. Are you striving to be one of the Perfecti?

  117. CedarFever says:

    @Cane

    After reading about half way through this comment thread, I can sincerely say to you: fuck-off, you obtuse, tiresome troll. From now on, I will scroll past any post you make. You are a waste of my time.

    At one time, I was very sympathetic to the tradcon/evangelical cause. No more. In the last two years, my eyes have been opened. the more I read of Dalrock, Rollo, Deti, and others, the more things make sense – gentlemen, you have no idea how much your experience and wisdom mean to me and I am in your debt.

  118. TFH says:

    ybm,

    Because nobody has actually figured out what the hell the actual definition of game is.

    Of course they have. Many times over.

    My own definition, which is in The Misandry Bubble (almost 3 years ago) in red text for all to see :

    The traits that make a man attractive to women are learnable skills, that improve with practice. Once a man learns these skills, he is indistinguishable from a man who had natural talents in this area. Whether a man then chooses to use these skills to secure one solid relationship or multiple brief ones, is entirely up to him.

    There. A definition.

    Now, Ferdinand Bardamu also defined it (but his archives are deleted). Roissy defined it, and has a famous article detailing the 16 most important commandments of it.

    But go ahead…. pretend it has not been defined, and insist the same tomorrow, or otherwise fixate of some other definition that is 1% different and 99% similar.

  119. endwatcher says:

    Sharrukin says:
    September 26, 2012 at 9:13 pm
    endwatcher says:

    So your argument is that Christians should not marry, should not have children, and should not touch those icky girls?

    You sound like a Cathar. Are you striving to be one of the Perfecti?

    You are trying to place my posts in that box for sure. I am not saying to not marry or have kids. I am stating that women, wives, children, everything really is not your mission in life as a Christian. They are to be tended to well if you have them, but if all that goes away you don’t need them to follow Christ. They are secondary in truth.

    I have a question for all of you now. Define churchian, and then tell me what a real Christian does instead?

  120. TFH says:

    Now, the next anti-Game zealot will say in response to my definition that has been up since 1/1/2010 :

    “That is not Game! This other thing that I can more easily turn into a strawman to shoot down, and that is not useful in LTRs, is Game!! Waaaaahhhh !!!! “…

    Counting down 5..4..3..2..1..

  121. Highwasp says:

    deti – (or should I call you Deity?) I noticed if we add one more letter to your name, you are diety! That’s close to being a god yourself – wow – you really are superior!

    Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer: This douchebag (ad hominem – “objection your honor” – errr I mean God.)

    is an attractive alpha and swims in pu**y because he is a musician — (fallacy)

    beit a shitty garage band musician. (oh well ok then – if he can’t play – he ain’t getting pussy – female hypergamy – what’s new?)

    Has delusions of grandeur that someday he’ll get a recording contract and make it big. (delusional – hopeful – optimistic – whatever – ego is not art)

    For now he plies his musical trade with his buddies. (obviously, based on his garage band status and his inability to play, his ‘buddies’ are not an assortment of professionals, teachers, accountants, technorati, computer geeks, electricians, audio/video/lighting producers… yes even booking and fashion agents.)

    Sings or plays with his band, girls tingle. (Sings OR plays – yeah – see that’s an indication of a inferior musician right there – Singing AND playing is more like it – but maybe the girls tingle – that means he’s doing SOMETHING right… right?)

    Gets the occasional local bar gig and works odd jobs here and there to make ends meet, but is otherwise unemployed and impoverished. (any redeeming qualities what so ever? does he get laid? can you use your descriptive prowess to give us the sex scene? oh no wait – please don’t start with the predictable Small Dick and then talk about his mother…)

    Has no marketable skills other than singing or playing a guitar, keys or drums. (an artist then… just with no talent = a lost cause – but still the gurrls tingle…)

    Lives by mooching off family, friends and GFs. (parasitic! – or – do looks deceive? does he cook and clean and repair the house and car and make his GF cum every time? – hey just saying – that could be very valuable to some career women… who work all day and come home to a fully prepared meal, sprinkler system is fixed, porch is repaired, kids are taxied around, homework is done… even the bathroom gets cleaned once a week – PLUS He’s possibly entertaining too… AND he’s smart enough not to risk marriage to the State)

    Examples: every guy (generalization) you know in every small town to large city who ever joined a band. (well that’s ALL of them – uh – another generalization)

    (off)

    Well Ok Diety I find holes in your argument (ad hominem, non sequitur, generalization, fallacy…) and am not as eager as you to pass judgement and condemn the fuckbuddy rockbanddrummer or any of the “alpha cast of characters”. But then, I presume you’re Christian, which by extension means you believe someone is going to hell and it sure as shit aint gonna be you! There is no middle ground – it’s either black or white – right? Simple. Heaven OR Hell – either you OR him – So there, you create fictitious characters in your mind and project those out into the world thereby finding suitable candidates, both male and female, who qualify for condemnation. Now you are superior by comparison – easy peezy ))

    You are most certainly superior the fuckbuddy rockbanddrummer… Unless you have a description of yourself that you’d like share which might clarify your equality or dare I write your jealousy, envy, guilt and shame.

    I just hope you realize you made him up – he is not real – deti – ‘Diety’ – you generalize, create a fallacy and consider it fact, simplify (just like a cop), cynical, sarcastic, simple minded, condemning and ‘hateful’ – there I said it – but remember rockboifuckbodii is your delusion, your fantasy, don’t forget. This sort of ‘profiliing’ is usually generated by a fearful, paranoid, obsessed, superstitious mind – Are you a Feminist in Christian drag? A misandrist female posing as a Christian man – maybe.

    As a test I’m going to apply your descriptions of ‘men’ to you and see how they fit:

    You are Alpha McGorgeous: The good looking, smooth player/cad. Suave, urbane, well-spoken, exudes confidence, very skilled, very tight game. Usually employed, has a good job and earns good money. Better than average in physical appearance. He might or might not be a douchebag. Examples: Roissy, Professor Mentu, Roosh.

    And your father was Harley McBadboy: The brooding, tattooed, silent man. Edgy, dangerous, shady, mysterious. Usually rides a motorcycle, but not always. Seems to show up out of nowhere. Has few friends or associates. No one seems to know much about his past. Examples: Wolverine. The character Clint Eastwood plays in all his Westerns.

    Frank Fratboy is your brother: The good looking college student or recent college graduate. Might be good looking, but doesn’t have to be. Has good game but not as tight as Alpha McGorgeous. Gets most girls through high status (athletics, fraternity membership, good looks, good job or some other status-builder). Usually in a fraternity but not always. Examples: The football team captain. The fraternity president. The basketball player. The student government president.

    I wish you well in Heaven. When you get there remember to avoid the Muslims. If they find out that you Christians are sharing their Heavenly space they’ll explode – they think they are the only ones there… each man with 70 virgins no less!! You mess up that Muslim Virgin thing and they’ll kick you out of heaven… then what? Reincarnation? I predict you’d be reincarnated as a man-hating, female whore… given your attitude about men, as you have detailed above, being a female prostitute in your next life would be – simply karmatic.

    deti – you have attitudes towards men that read as though you are a Christian Feminist Troll Queen. Tell your mother hello for me…

  122. TFH says:

    endwatcher,

    I have a question for all of you now. Define churchian, and then tell me what a real Christian does instead?

    Read Dalrock’s blog for the next 30 days, and then come back. A Churchian is someone who does not practice Biblical Christianity, but rather is merely a feminist with a thin cosmetic veneer of Christianity.

    And wasn’t it just last week that an article from Dalrock identified that people demanding that things be meticulously defined, with no leeway, are just trying to stall the statement of points they don’t like.

  123. Sharrukin says:

    Highwasp says:
    ———————–
    I have rarely seen such a flood of words totally devoid of meaning. You aren’t by chance a politician are you?

  124. farm boy says:

    @highwasp

    Was there an argument there?

  125. endwatcher says:

    TFH says:
    September 26, 2012 at 9:25 pm
    endwatcher,

    I have a question for all of you now. Define churchian, and then tell me what a real Christian does instead?

    Read Dalrock’s blog for the next 30 days, and then come back. A Churchian is someone who does not practice Biblical Christianity, but rather is merely a feminist with a thin cosmetic veneer of Christianity.

    And wasn’t it just last week that an article from Dalrock identified that people demanding that things be meticulously defined, with no leeway, are just trying to stall the statement of points they don’t like.

    ______________________

    Oh I know the definition. I just posted that women aren’t that important in a Christian man’s sanctification and was called a churchian. A gamer internalizes thoughts and behaviors that in turn attracts women. He became what she wanted to get what he wanted, but is her servant in the process. She didnt submit to you because it is written in the Bible, but because you framed yourself in the way she wanted. That ISNT a biblical marriage, or biblical Christianity. It is a feminist with a thin cosmetic veneer of fail philosophy.

  126. greyghost says:

    1 Corinthians 7:33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife

    Well there it is. run some game on that bitch and hit that ass, and praise god

  127. whatever says:


    While perhaps some bullet points from game and the Bible somewhat match up, the Spirit(Holy, thank you) behind the Bible is not the same as the one behind game(Satan). These posts that attempt to reconcile Christianity with game are just attempts of having a flawed man made system ride the coattails of the Divine.

    Look, Mystery may be an idiot. He may be an evil idiot. Styles may be an evil idiot.

    But that doesn’t change the fact that some things turn women on and some things don’t. You can say it’s basic, or it’s not, but whatever. Maybe the best “game”(that actually works) can do is stop people from failing miserably relating to women. Well, there are plenty of men out there failing miserably.


    Oh I know the definition. I just posted that women aren’t that important in a Christian man’s sanctification and was called a churchian. A gamer internalizes thoughts and behaviors that in turn attracts women. He became what she wanted to get what he wanted, but is her servant in the process. She didnt submit to you because it is written in the Bible, but because you framed yourself in the way she wanted. That ISNT a biblical marriage, or biblical Christianity. It is a feminist with a thin cosmetic veneer of fail philosophy.

    So your problem is that men are begging for approval from women. And that some use “game” to get that more effectively from women. Of course, without “game” they are still beggars, just really bad ones. Is there something great about doing it badly?

    Is there something noble about the preacher in the above post telling men how to beg attention from women BADLY? Is this somehow better because it fails?

  128. Sharrukin says:

    Is there something noble about the preacher in the above post telling men how to beg attention from women BADLY? Is this somehow better because it fails?
    ————————
    Yes, I think that is exactly his point. He connects marriage with the carnal and with sin, and like the Cathar heresy believes it is better not to… indulge.

    endwatcher – yes marry if you burn with lust.(Controlling this is better though)

  129. @endwatcher

    “She didnt submit to you because it is written in the Bible, but because you framed yourself in the way she wanted.”

    So true. You are only appealing to her sinful nature, that’s why it “works”. Same reason why being a douchebag “works”.

    Godly women CAN overcome their sinful nature just as anyone else. The problem is that they DON’T WANT to, or don’t even realize it is part of their nature. The biblical solution is for her to grow closer to God. Simply using game (and some of it may not even be wrong) and appealing to her sinful nature doesn’t solve the problem at its core.

    If there are concepts in “game” that are aligned with biblical principles (and I think there are some), then we should just refer to those biblical teachings. There is no need to refer to worldly wisdom for guidance on spiritual matters. I’m all for recovering true manhood and masculinity, and I despise feminism and what men and women have become today. But I know the answers for believers are all in the Bible, more people need to see that. Just because the majority of pastors have some deluded feminist interpretation of the scriptures doesn’t mean the Bible is wrong or insufficient.

    I have noticed there are also many here that lean on the authority of the Word of God for their own self-interests (not necessarily wrong), yet its obvious they care about nothing else of God outside of that.

  130. unger says:

    @Sharrukin: It’s more the connection of Game with ‘irrational self-confidence’, and more generally, Dark Triad traits. It is hardly heresy to suggest that those should not be indulged, even ‘for a good purpose’.

  131. Sharrukin says:

    @Sharrukin: It’s more the connection of Game with ‘irrational self-confidence’, and more generally, Dark Triad traits. It is hardly heresy to suggest that those should not be indulged, even ‘for a good purpose’.
    ————————-
    That’s a reasonable argument, but he seems to be arguing that marriage itself is a sinful state and should only be indulged when you cannot do otherwise. Saving families and marriages is dismissed by him as unimportant regardless of the means employed.

  132. FuriousFerret says:

    I would just like to wave up to Cane Caldo in that ivory tower of his.

    ‘Hi’!!!!!!

  133. unger says:

    I can categorically assure you that nobody here is arguing that marriage is a sinful state, or that saving marriages and families is unimportant. The most anyone says is that those who can handle singleness would, as Jesus and Paul said, do well to remain single, and that saving marriages and families is not so important as to justify any and every means that might succeed, be they Game (however defined) or ‘beta supplication’ (however defined). It’s worth noting that every commenter here who’s objected to Game has also objected with equal force to beta dhimmitude, and that the comparative frequency of objections to the former relative to the latter most likely stems from the fact that the latter is (quite rightly) out of favor here.

  134. Dalrock says:

    @whatever

    Is there something noble about the preacher in the above post telling men how to beg attention from women BADLY? Is this somehow better because it fails?

    This is it. The point of the post is that the pastor gives out profoundly bad advice once he stops specifically quoting the Bible and neither he nor his audience is even aware of what he is doing. While his style is especially painful, his message on how husbands should act toward their wives is all but universal coming from the pulpit today. The plain reality is Christians en masse have chosen to adopt non biblical and often anti biblical nonsense as if it were legitimate Christian teaching, and nearly no one recognizes this. Until this stops, Christians need Game to spot the nonsense. But for many it is more satisfying to merely pretend that Christians aren’t really doing what they are doing and instead cluck about Game. So be it.

  135. FuriousFerret says:

    It just seems to me the people that reject Game do so from an almost instinctive reaction to be critical of anything that has to do with human sexuality that is pushed on us by churchanity.

    It’s like they link Game with pre-martial sex (strike that they react negatively to any kind of sex really), porn and any type of sexual sin.

    In areas of sexuality it appears that Christians just can’t grasp nuance in sexual matters and it’s simply easier to just paint everything as bad and just let maritial sex be ok as long if it’s on the wife’s terms.

    They are so afraid of the things that aren’t even sin like Game and dating that they simply mess everything up. The way you guys look down on Game is the equivalent of Joshua Harris’ opinions on dating. Dude was an idiot. He book probably ruined more people’s young lifes than any piece of modern literature I can think of.

    Anything that even hints of sexuality and the process it must take it supposed to be not talked about and hidden. God’s perfect timing is a cop out by parents that don’t want to recognize Johnny Jr’s sexuality. Johnny Jr is to remain a child until he has a house and alot of money and then he is to become an adult.

    The Cane Caldos of this world are the young Christian man’s worst enemy. He has no skin the game. He wants you to things according to how he wants them to be, not the reality that they are. Good is the enemy of Perfect to Caldo.

  136. Sharrukin says:

    I can categorically assure you that nobody here is arguing that marriage is a sinful state, or that saving marriages and families is unimportant.
    ———————————
    I don’t read his posts as you do. You are arguing that, and I have said that I have no wish to become a jerk to bed those types of women. His point seems to be something very different.

    the reason for the Bible’s commands on family and women (besides loving your neighbor) is to reduce the drama they can produce so that we can be productive for the Lord.

    gabbing about how to save families, and marriages, and how to find wives

    The children that with her around, or taken by her are still going to be poisoned spiritually.

    the new testament places virtually no importance on having a spouse except if needed, I don’t think attracting women is that important to Jesus.

    Again, not important to the Christian life
    ————————
    This strikes me as a pretty casual dismissal of family and children. It isn’t the means that he thinks is unimportant, but the end.

  137. Dalrock says:

    @endwatcher

    I think the best way to sum up the reason for the Bible’s commands on family and women (besides loving your neighbor) is to reduce the drama they can produce so that we can be productive for the Lord.

    and

    You are trying to place my posts in that box for sure. I am not saying to not marry or have kids. I am stating that women, wives, children, everything really is not your mission in life as a Christian. They are to be tended to well if you have them, but if all that goes away you don’t need them to follow Christ. They are secondary in truth.

    You minimize the importance of biblical marriage without considering how critical it is to both sexual morality and the rearing of children. There is great elegance in how the Bible defines the family. Unfortunately we have chosen to learn that lesson the hard way, leading to incredible and unnecessary misery. Yes there will always be misery, but this doesn’t justify what Christians are doing to marriage. You can minimize Christian marriage all you want, but this doesn’t mean you are biblically sound in doing so. Paul says if one has the gift of not wanting a wife and family he is better off. But he doesn’t deny that this gift is rare. He is clear that those without the gift should marry and is also clear as to how marriages are to be conducted.

    Moreover, the context of the sermon I referenced is instructions to Christian husbands and wives. This isn’t about marry/don’t marry, but specifically how husbands should act. The repeated side tracking of the discussion to the question of whether one should marry or not is tedious.

  138. Desiderius says:

    Cane,

    “Remove the concept of undeserved self-esteem, or irrational self-confidence from Game. What is left?”

    Self-esteem* is utterly destructive, and deserve ain’t got nothing to do with it. But game isn’t ultimately about self-confidence (as meaningless a concept as self-esteem), it’s about confidence in the connection between man and woman, and one can fill in the blanks as to the nature of that connection from there. That’s where Christianity comes in, or doesn’t. No connection, and it doesn’t matter anyway,

    * – esteem is about deciding how much of one’s life to invest in another, and life boils down to time. You’re stuck with yourself 24/7, so self-esteem is beside the point. It’s a category error. See the Ian Ironwood post on solipsism for how the preoccupation with oneself leads to unmanliness.

  139. Cane Caldo says:

    @Sharrukin and Unger

    Who are you two talking about? I have said some very different things than endwatcher.

    @Dalrock

    Until this stops, Christians need Game to spot the nonsense. But for many it is more satisfying to merely pretend that Christians aren’t really doing what they are doing and instead cluck about Game. So be it.

    Is Game different from virtuous manliness, and if so, how is it different?

  140. unger says:

    Dalrock: The people clucking about Game are not the people in pulpits telling their churches that women’s attraction triggers are something other than what they are. (How many of the Mohler types have even heard the term ‘Game’, much less addressed it from the pulpit? Can you name even one?)

    The people clucking about Game are saying that there’s a difference between Christian masculinity and what women, left to their own devices, really like, and are addressing another group of people who ‘have chosen to adopt non-biblical and often anti-biblical nonsense as if it were legitimate Christian teaching’ – namely, the people who think there’s a perfect reconciliation between feminine desires and Christian masculinity.

  141. Sharrukin says:

    @Sharrukin and Unger

    Who are you two talking about? I have said some very different things than endwatcher.
    ———————–
    I was only speaking of Endwatcher. I didn’t mean to include you in that criticism.

  142. Cane Caldo says:

    @Desiderius

    Self-esteem* is utterly destructive, and deserve ain’t got nothing to do with it. But game isn’t ultimately about self-confidence (as meaningless a concept as self-esteem), it’s about confidence in the connection between man and woman, and one can fill in the blanks as to the nature of that connection from there. That’s where Christianity comes in, or doesn’t. No connection, and it doesn’t matter anyway,

    This makes perfect sense to me (except that last sentence fragment, which I assume is just an editing error).

    But I’m putting myself in the shoes of the man who has never had success, or only rather spotty success, and I wonder how he’s going to make that first leap.

    I look at what Roissy says about irrational confidence–and it makes sense. A lot of sense. I have gone to far as to say it absolutely works. It doesn’t work absolutely, but it will do work. The problem is that it is the self-esteem trap. Not only that, the work it seems to do is on the self-esteem in other women.

    Now, I’m not terribly concerned about those women, so let’s not get off-track.

    I’m worried about the guy who successfully Games himself into a bad woman, and then has to live with the consequences. This isn’t a big deal for the player. He just moves on. For the Christian who gets married this could be catastrophic. His options are:

    1) Up his Game, that is keep pumping his self-esteem. (Which, we should note, is having a deleterious effect on players. Roissy is gone. David DeAngelo is all sorts of weird. Mystery is a paternity headcase. Neil Strauss has moved into mysticism. Krauser had started to go sort of “transcendant”, but has gone back to focusing on Street Game.)

    2) Divorce and/or affairs

    3) Try to turn his bad choice into a good wife.

    While the prescriptions of Paul, Peter, and the OT are good, they are meant to work in tandem. The woman has to do her part. I realize many here do not think I have said this, but I have many, many times)

    Dalrock keeps saying that Christians have abandoned the truth, and insofar as he is talking about them abandoning the teachings of marital conduct from Paul, Peter, and the OT I fully agree. What is less clear to me–not clear at all, in fact–is the existence of a Christian tradition of seduction, wooing, or attraction. Attraction is something that happened. It just does. Yes, we can do things to modify our appearance, and we can build up our accomplishments, but either the girl likes you, or she doesn’t.

    If she’s in the middle, as most girls are to most boys–since most boys are invisible–then courtship and arranged marriages make sense. The parents make the boy appear. In a dating paradigm: irrational confidence/self-esteem makes sense because his swagger makes him appear.

    What am I missing?

  143. All_Bidness says:

    FYI, I attend LifeChurch regularly. Craig isn’t really game-aware, but he is a natural alpha – married with 6 kids, beautiful wife, etc. If you watch the sermon before this in the series, he actually comments that a quality guy won’t want a woman who’s been with eighteen guys…and didn’t pair that with a man-shaming comment afterward. Not a “man up and marry those sluts” guy – totally the opposite of Mark Driscoll.

    Services are out of the traditional church mode – loud worship band, and the sermons simulcast to 17 locations. I’ve generally been impressed – he generally pushes for male leadership, but in a seeker-friendly way.

  144. Danger says:

    @ EndWatcher and Cane

    You are lost because you do not understand what you are saying. You are lost because your pride in an incorrect interpretation of what Christ wants of you is keeping you from going down the path of success.

    Not having confidence is one of the major reasons that women stray from their men. Women want masculine men, they want confident men, they want leaders, they want to submit, that is how God built them.

    This is all known to PUA’s or men with game.

    What you fail to see is that Titus, Timothy and Ephesians all tell men to be the Leader of their wife, the house-hold, and that the wife should submit. One MUST HAVE CONFIDENCE if one is to be a leader, One MUST HAVE CONFIDENCE to have the weaker vessel submit to him.

    Tell me, why would Christ have his followers employ a strategy (lack of confidence) that ends in failure (straying wife)? The answer is that he Would Not. Christ WANTS you to succeed, he WANTS you to have a loyal wife, we WANTS you to lead, and he WANTS you to have confidence.

    As long as you demonize confidence (and what Christ desires), simply because it is a synonym for game to the PUA’s, you are dooming your flock to a strategy of failure.

  145. Random Angeleno says:

    @Cane: Virtuous manliness should include understanding the true nature of women. Game helps tremendously as a means of learning about that nature. The virtuous man isn’t obligated to act on Game the way other men might, but he needs to know how women are. Otherwise how is he going to properly vet women for marriage? Only by understanding how Game works can he truly distinguish between the virtuous woman he wants and the sluts he doesn’t want.

    @Cane again: Is “Song of Solomon” still in your Bible?

  146. Cane Caldo says:

    @Danger

    What we differ on is what we place our confidence in. You want men to place it in themselves because they’re inherently worthy. The truth is that my inherent worth is meaningless, and unknowable by me. What we must have confidence in is that God thinks we’re worthy. These are two very different frames of reference.

    It’s also not clear at all that Jesus “wants” us to be married. In fact, in some instances, it seems like He is warning us off marriage. Players do this too, and I understand why both of them say this. Their reasons aren’t very different.

    But, hey, I’m lost. Fine. Please answer my question to you above which I will paste here:

    Which verse tells us that proper Game–and you can pick the definition, but please explain it–guarantees, or even implies a really good chance, that a wife will stay faithful, sexually available, industrious, and in all others ways generally a good wife?

    @Random Angeleno

    Virtuous manliness should include understanding the true nature of women. Game helps tremendously as a means of learning about that nature. The virtuous man isn’t obligated to act on Game the way other men might, but he needs to know how women are. Otherwise how is he going to properly vet women for marriage? Only by understanding how Game works can he truly distinguish between the virtuous woman he wants and the sluts he doesn’t want.

    I understand this. The other day I said that, as far as I can tell, the only good reason to learn Game is to learn how to distinguish between a virtuous woman, and sluts. That was roundly pooh-poohed.

    On the other hand, just above us, TFH says this is Game:

    The traits that make a man attractive to women are learnable skills, that improve with practice. Once a man learns these skills, he is indistinguishable from a man who had natural talents in this area. Whether a man then chooses to use these skills to secure one solid relationship or multiple brief ones, is entirely up to him.

    Now that Game is an amoral Game. That is: it does not discriminate. But here you and I are saying the usefulness of Game IS it’s discriminatory powers. TFH is very clear that for us to say this makes us anti-Game zealots.

    At another point, YBM says NO ONE has defined Game sufficiently, and so does Opus. Actually, Opus goes a step further and says Game is snake oil. He brought up a great reading suggestion about this very subject from the 60s.

    None of these men are stupid, and yet they all have different opinions. I have tried very hard to take the best Game writers in good faith, and at their word, and I come up with: “Game is good for attracting sluts. So the only use for the Christian man is as a threshing tool. If she doesn’t respond to it by giving herself to me, then she’s a prospect worth further investigation for marriage.”

    One can see how such testing might lead a man into dangerous waters; some of the least of which would be simple pre-marital sex. He might marry her. After all: we’re not talking about true Dark Triad men. They will fall in love. Sex is supposed to do that.

  147. Random Angeleno says:

    @Cane: the only good reason to learn Game is to learn how to distinguish between a virtuous woman, and sluts.
    —-
    The use of the word “only” is why you were pooh-poohed. Because another excellent reason to learn Game is to be able to employ it as needed within the context of marriage. Even the most virtuous woman is still not a perfect person; at her core, she is still just a woman with all that entails. While part of her virtuous nature is her willingness to submit as in Ephesians 5, it’s still incumbent on the man to act in ways that help her maintain her attraction and respect for him, which in turn make it easy for her to submit to him. Then they truly become “one flesh” as God intended. But that might be TMI for you.

    @Cane: It’s also not clear at all that Jesus “wants” us to be married. In fact, in some instances, it seems like He is warning us off marriage.
    —-
    You are reading far too much into this: Marriage is absolutely necessary to the propagation of the Faith. What the fricking heck do you think that Jesus (and Paul) actually expected all of us to aspire to the celibate life? Jesus does actually have some things to say about marriage that are not about “warning us off” of it. Or maybe you forgot that marriage is one of the sacraments. Get off your high horse.

  148. Cane Caldo says:

    @Random Angeleno

    Forgot the Song of Solomon question.

    Yes, of course. It operates from the paradigm of courtship, or arranged marriages. Once a man has achieved such security, then it all makes sense. But the purpose of teaching men Game is to make the invisible man apparent. Solomon is already apparent to the princess. She is, in fact, his betrothed at the beginning. Even if she weren’t, she starts out in love.

    This is what the pastor in the video misses–or is possibly purposefully undermining. He does not have what we might call a “solomonic” frame. He is not claiming what is his, and treating her as if she belongs to him, and is for him. I not only understand but accept this point of view.

    It’s the application in our dating paradigm that throws me off. Furthermore, it’s the paradigm that someone like Some Guy has to deal with. His situation is some combination of a bad choice, being railroaded, and convenience. Can Game help someone like him? If so, why do we call it Game instead of marital arts or (as theprivateman calls it) charisma, or leadership? And why are players the preferred teachers since they’re teaching Dark Triad/nihilistic methods?

    Somewhere above, Dalrock compares Game to humor. I get humor. I get confidence. I get charisma. I get leadership. No one had to “teach” me these things, nor do they have to be “taught” to other normal men; in the sense that they know when to laugh when something is funny, or feel motivated to follow. They don’t even have to be taught how to tell a joke, though they certainly learned. Can you teach funny from a blog? We can talk about timing and context, and all the things that go into cracking a joke, but at the end of the day: is it taught, or is it intuited? If it’s intuited, there is no substitute for just being around it. It would be better for them to hang out with someone like me, than to read another word online.

    This is Sommers territory here: Just stop stopping boys from being boys. That means what we’re really talking about is taking them out of school, taking them out of, or changing your church, and taking them off mother’s apron-strings. How to help the grown men? That’s what Game purports to teach, so I’ll let someone else answer it.

    To go back to YBM’s excellent question: How is Roissy better than Carnegie’s book, and why are are Dark Triad traits considered better? If he’s not better, why aren’t we all in a sales meeting taking about going from good to influencing cheese…a bit of title conflation there to prove a point.

    I am concerned about these guys and my son and daughters, but this is just a huge puzzle to me. I’m actually, ah, efficient with women, so why do I see things so differently than what seems to be apparent to many here?

    At what point should I just decide many of them are lying?

  149. TFH says:

    Random Angeleno,

    ecause another excellent reason to learn Game is to be able to employ it as needed within the context of marriage.

    Yes.

    But note that the core foundation of anti-game trolls is a complete denial that Game has any use in a marriage, and a need to mischaracterize Game into something that is of no value in marriage.

    Despite you stating the sentence above, they will ignore it entirely, as though you never said it at all.

  150. Cane Caldo says:

    @Random Angeleno

    First of all, I’m married. I’m not an MRA (don’t care for it), or an MGTOW (see it as perfectly reasonable, but not for me). I’m fully aware of the truth of one flesh. I have a lot about that on my blog. I also have four kids, and perhaps another on the way.

    So, with that in mind, what verses talk about seducing your wife? i’m not arguing we shouldn’t. I’m asking for: What is it that Dalrock is accusing Christians of misplacing?

  151. Ybm says:

    Tfh
    September 26, 2012 at 9:17 pm

    Do I really need to remind you of French fry game?

    You’ll also notice, or maybe you won’t, that other then “attraction trigger”s (which are undefined usually as “inner game” or copy pasta from pua and rsd manuals from snake oil salesman with no credentials) none of your sources agree on anything. So game is the 16 commandments or only part of it? What else is in this soup?

    Guess what attraction triggers are? Social skills. Ones better learned from real books not some assholes blogspot.

    And every time it becomes another whinefest about anti-gamers as if we are cramping your style.

    You can invite me to draw whatever conclusions your little heart desires, but alek, Paul Elam and blackpill have been right all along. Game is the tautology of the Internet male.

    Game attraction,

    what is attraction.

    It’s game,

    around and around again and again until I stop replying because evidently gamers have more time to defend game on the Internet than I do to not care about it.

  152. Opus says:

    I am sitting on the fence, actually, because, and I am sure we all occasionally meet such people, there really are men, who have only to walk in a room and the women are literally and metaphorically ripping off their knickers, and it is not just a question of good looks, – one of the most hopeless – with women – men I know is tall, good looking, strong, masculine; in fact exactly the sort of guy you would think women would want to jump into bed with yet he is simply hopeless – and women treat him as a kindly uncle! It is as if he is a still a thirteen year old boy – and he white-knights mercilessly. Even so, we know from speed-dating that it only takes a few minutes for sparks to fly as between men and women. One should not however envy the Casanova’s of this world, for they are driven by desire which controls them and to which they are enslaved – they suffer too. The possibility of meeting the right person, even if for years one remains celibate, is surely a prize worth waiting for.

    What always puzzles me, is this; given that so many american women are apparently sluts, then why are american men finding it so hard to get laid?

  153. Opus says:

    ps

    You are probably wondering, what, when I lived in America, was the secret of my success with your women. Was it my ‘Tight Game’? my use of Devastating Negs? or my Handy Wingman? I can now reveal, in fact, that – so I am told – it was my ” cute British Accent” and so for all you losers out there I recommend that you acquire one of those quickly. It is like Cat-Nip for American women – trust me.

  154. greyghost says:

    Opus
    I am not PUA by far. And to attract a woman to me is work. I hated having to do it but if you enjoy heteral sex it is something you do. I had to practice up to feel for it.( Go out and meet and greet). And what I found out is the best time to have sex with a woman is right when you first meet them. It sounds really strange but you can get a sense for that.
    The reason for american men I believe are finding it hard to get laid is that the average man is not a “slut” so to speak and is looking to have sex with his “wife” by way of the preacher in the article Dalrock originally posted up as the topic

  155. Opus says:

    @greyghost

    I am very much inclined to agree with you.

    Firstly: for all the nonsense women talk, I certainly find that if you are likely to have sex with a woman it will be very quickly after first meeting them – or not atall.

    Secondly: most women will reject most of the time – some women even resist the allure of the Casanovas – and so, the likelihood that most approaches fail is inevitable. It does not of course mean that there is anything wrong with you or that your Game is defective.

    I imagine that endless women instantly falling into bed with one, would become very bring very quickly. Seduction is like a Game of Billiards in that, one needs to position the cue ball so as to move on to the next colour – and not merely pot – in other words the seducer must plan his exit strategy in advance. What does Game have to say about that.

    I assumed you were in America, but obviously (given the hour) not.

  156. infowarrior1 says:

    What is game?
    A manifestation of dominant male behavior which turns women on. And also lens by which a woman’s nature is perceived. Otherwise although a christian man rejects the philosophy of PUAism. Game is a tool that that is, nothing sinful about it any more that owning a gun is to murder.

  157. infowarrior1 says:

    Another name for game if you want to redefine it could be called. The art of dominance(over women).

  158. infowarrior1 says:

    @Cane

    Game is necessary to undo the years of the indoctrination of men in the ocean of feminism. Game is what opened my eyes to the letters of Paul which was previously disregarded as chauvinism and sexism as well as cultural specific. It is a pathway to the red pill so to speak.

  159. Danger says:

    @Cane

    You pick and choose what to read and respond to in my posts. Christ wants your wife to be LOYAL (assuming you marry). Christ wants you to lead, he wants you to be the head of your wife and the household.

    Again, how does one lead without confidence? How does one head a house-hold without confidence? How does a wife submit to their husband when he has no confidence?

    Below are the passages I speak of. You are too busy looking for an explicit definition in Christ that you overlook the SPIRIT of what is being said here.

    Leadership, confidence, knowing one’s role and requiring women to submit to you. These are all tenets of game. They are pivotal in the wife being attracted and remaining loyal to her husband.

    In your assertation that men are not to be confident, you are an unwitting agent of feminism and satan. Without confidence there can be no leadership, or submission, or a man as the head of the wife. She will seize power in that vaccuum. Which is exactly what has happened all around us. Since the church has been co-opted, it condones this seizure of power and has the man submit to the wife in a perversion of Christ’s word. Man must regain this confidence, overthrow the shackles on the church, and take his rightful place as leader and head of the household. But he will never be able to do so without the confidence required for these traits.

    Timothy 2:12 – I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

    Ephesians 5:23 – For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

    Titus 2:3-5 – Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled
    .

  160. greyghost says:

    Well all
    taking bets on how cane if he response at all will manke out will some kind of sinners in darkness will only see light that thouest chosen his wife to piss on and seeith the semen on the floor before the cat gets. In other words I’m of truth faith in Jesus and light of the darkness.
    BTW I’m american in the state of texas

  161. Cane Caldo says:

    @greyghost

    You’re a Texan? We should meet! You can tell me where I’m wrong, and I’ll buy the beer. Win-win.

  162. First, I think it does no good to call Cane or others, “trolls.” He has a different opinion and argues it. He doesn’t lob a grenade into a room and run away. He doesn’t talk past people’s posts. He is trying to have a debate. Whether I agree with him or not, it’s important to recognize that a troll tries to take discussions off track. He isn’t trying to do that. He’s just arguing against many here and not giving in immediately.

    @unger
    It’s worth noting that every commenter here who’s objected to Game has also objected with equal force to beta dhimmitude,

    I think this is another important consideration. Nowhere are Cane and endwatcher suggesting anything close to this.

    @ Dalrock
    The plain reality is Christians en masse have chosen to adopt non biblical and often anti biblical nonsense as if it were legitimate Christian teaching, and nearly no one recognizes this. Until this stops, Christians need Game to spot the nonsense.

    This is why I see tremendous value in learning game for the Christian man.

    @ Furious Ferret
    Good is the enemy of Perfect to Caldo.

    I’ve come to a similar conclusion.

    @Cane
    Is Game different from virtuous manliness, and if so, how is it different?

    Because it also teaches the man the mindset of the woman. Virtuous manliness does not.
    Learning game and other studies in the manosphere help a modern man better relate the sinfulness to the modern woman. A modern woman, being shown Testament from thousands of years ago, will rationalize away her activity (NAWALT). A man versed in game makes modern associations to Biblical truths and illustrates how the modern woman is deceived, especially by those things society prizes most (equalism, female “liberation,” you go grrrrl, etc).

    @ Cane
    I’m worried about the guy who successfully Games himself into a bad woman, and then has to live with the consequences.

    But isn’t it reasonable to think that a Christian man exploying elements of game, grounded in Scripture, will be far less likely to marry a bad woman? Isn’t it also likely that a Christian who eschews learning about game can be led astray by Churchians, thinking he is “doing it the right way” because he follows the advice of the professional pastors in his world ?

  163. “exploying” employing.

  164. Dalrock says:

    @unger

    Dalrock: The people clucking about Game are not the people in pulpits telling their churches that women’s attraction triggers are something other than what they are. (How many of the Mohler types have even heard the term ‘Game’, much less addressed it from the pulpit? Can you name even one?)

    I would agree, and Game isn’t the only way the problem can be addressed. Yet I also don’t see any movement by the non Game aware to address the problem. What is frustrating to me is we can’t discuss the problem with the church without getting sidelined into “But look what those non Christian men are doing!”. It seems to be a compulsive response, and as I have stated previously is also the very crutch which Christians have used for decades to allow themselves to feel superior while turning their backs on biblical sexual morality. I’m not saying those arguing against Game are for the problem, but they do seem to be blocking any and every proposed solution without offering a solution of their own.

    The people clucking about Game are saying that there’s a difference between Christian masculinity and what women, left to their own devices, really like, and are addressing another group of people who ‘have chosen to adopt non-biblical and often anti-biblical nonsense as if it were legitimate Christian teaching’ – namely, the people who think there’s a perfect reconciliation between feminine desires and Christian masculinity.

    I don’t see the argument being made that there is this perfect reconciliation, however to the extent that this argument is being made it is clearly wrong. I’m guessing you and I are in agreement here as well that Game can’t and must not be the bedrock of a marriage (Christian or otherwise). The wife is responsible for honoring her own vows, which for Christians includes submission to her husband and not denying sex.

  165. unger says:

    @Dalrock: The reason it’s important to keep that ‘But look what those non-Christian men are doing!’ response is that even Christianized Game is, or at least is quite capable of being, something like a Ring of Power. Can a Christian man be ‘irrationally self-confident’, or dominant not just over his own household, but over other men (which is, as I understand Game, what kindles attraction), and long remain recognizably Christian in deed, much less thought? Can he celebrate the, ah, accomplishments, of those who are those things, without desiring – consciously or unconsciously – to be more like them?

    You’re right, of course, about having no solution. I don’t. Not so far as this world goes, anyway. But suppose you were trying to escape a burning building, and knew that a reddish light in the smoke could mean either fire or an exit. If someone said ‘I don’t know where the exit is, but the fire seems to be that way’, would you consider your time wholly wasted?

  166. deti says:

    Highwasp:

    You missed the point of my reply to unger, and my invocation of alpha archetypes, which you seem to object to. The post — and my description of the alpha archetypes — are an attempt to describe what we see and have seen in our sex lives but were previously unable to articulate.

    The point of my reference to “alpha archetypes” is that they are caricatures of alphas which exist in women’s minds. I did not create them — women did. I merely give descriptions to them as women see them. They have exaggerated alpha characteristics which are all that women in general see. This generates a lot of attraction.

    Every man knows — or at one time in his life was or is — a Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer, a Harley McBadboy, a Frank Fratboy, or an Alpha McGorgeous. Do I have a little envy? Sure. Who wouldn’t? Men who show these characteristics get more women than they know what to do with. But here are the points: (1) these men (or their exaggerated types) are sexy as hell but would make poor husbands or do not want to be husbands; and (2) these archetypes are figments of women’s imaginations, constructions of their own making. She sees the characteristics that attract her, and then projects her own wants and needs onto him, expecting him to meet them. Moreover, she thinks the alpha archetypes are good husband material because they turn her on. The modern woman thinks hot + sexy + tingle = husband. The real world usually doesn’t work that way.

    The woman’s ultimate fantasy is to marry Fuckbuddy because he sexes her just the way she likes it; and so she can make him into a good husband. She wants to marry and thus tame and subdue Harley the wild beast. She wants to claim for her very own Alpha or Frank’s hot body and charming ways. She wants to make him her very own loveable asshole so he’ll be an asshole to everyone but her.

    That’s the point of the so-called alpha archetypes.

  167. deti says:

    @ Dalrock, unger:

    If there is to be focus on “look at what the nonChristian men are doing!” then there must also be focus on “look at what the women are doing, both Christian and nonChristian alike”. The current SMP certainly isn’t entirely the fault of men, whether Christian or no.

    Part of the problem here as well is that Christian men used to be attractive in the previous SMP, the one that used to exist before about 1965. They held jobs, they were the kings of their castles. Many times, their incomes alone were sufficient to support a family. People were not only individuals but were also part of a larger community to which they owed loyalty. There were rules of conduct, enforced by government, business, church, schools, law, and culture. A man had full backing from his church, employer and government to either (1) expecting a wife to live up to her marital obligations, or failing that, (2) divorce an unfaithful spouse or one unwilling to meet those obligations. All these things increased the average man’s status.

    We don’t live in that world anymore, mostly because of women’s demands. These men can’t even get good advice from a church, much less get a church’s support if the wife decides to go EPL. So if a Christian man is to marry, he must have something to help him along the way and to develop his frame. He can point to Eph. 5 all he wants, but if she isn’t willing to follow it, the marriage is doomed unless he has strong dominant frame.

  168. Danger says:

    Exactly Deti.

    Having “game” or confidence or a dominant frame is the bedrock of masculinity. Not the bedrock of marriage.

    Marriage is the combining of the masculine and the feminine, exactly how God wanted it. Complements to eachother. How can a marriage occur between the feminine and the feminine? it cannot and will not hold. When you dismantle the definition of masculine (confident, dominant, leader), and remove it from man, you in turn dismantle marriage.

    God made men to be men, for a reason.
    God made women to be women, for a reason.

    They are two parts of the whole. When you let men become women, and women become men, whether physically, or spiritually, marriage cannot hold. This does not mean that confidence (game) is the bedrock of marriage, it means it is the bedrock of the man.

  169. deti says:

    @ Danger:

    “This does not mean that confidence (game) is the bedrock of marriage, it means it is the bedrock of the man.”

    Brilliant.

    @ Dalrock:

    “I also don’t see any movement by the non Game aware to address the problem. What is frustrating to me is we can’t discuss the problem with the church without getting sidelined into “But look what those non Christian men are doing!”.”

    What church can a man attend where Eph. 5 is taught faithfully and correctly? What church teaches and exhorts women to submit to their husbands not because their husbands are worthy of it, but because God put him in that position? What church will back him no matter what if he is in the right in his marriage? What church will not automatically point accusatory fingers at him whenever Cupcake is unhaaaaaappy? What church, what community, what authors, who, espouse what Cane advocates here? (Still not sure about God using me to ensure my wife’s eternal salvation. Scripture says I can’t do that and even if I could it’s not necessary because Christ already took care of that and whether that salvation exists for her is between Mrs. deti and God, but…..)

  170. Cane Caldo says:

    @Danger

    Do you agree with this statement:

    “God expects each man to do his duty.
    He has matched us with this hour and therefore believes we are capable of greatness. (Even though we may not believe it ourselves.)”

    @RTP

    You make a lot of good points. I think, ultimately, I’ve given the manosphere’s denizens far too much credit. There’s this conspiracy aspect to it that I’ve taken too seriously. This is, ironically, probably because I lack empathy. Because I’m aware of this failing, I try to take people seriously.

    When I first came here, to the manosphere, I said, essentially, “Stop being such a pussy.” That did not go over well. Not only did it not go over well: the reaction was vitriolic.

    “NO NO NO NO! You don’t understand the nature of the problem facing men today! It’s not men who are the problem, but women! They’re everywhere!”

    They are everywhere. They don’t seem to ever shut up, sit down, or even stay out of the the locker-room–literally or figuratively. (I long for a bar with no TV, and women but perhaps the wenches…but I repeat myself.) Well, I thought, I can relate. I’ve had a lot of problems with women. Namely: that in the past my wife had not wanted to have sex with me anymore, but many other women did. I was skeptical, though, that women were the problem because I believe what scripture says about men being the leaders. Not only that it can be true, or should be true, but that it IS true; that while God’s design can be corrupted, it cannot be destroyed. We get the leaders we deserve, so to speak. Not only deserve, but need.

    Now I’m confronted with this conspiracy theory of Ultimate Feminism that is oppressing men–even good ones–and it’s upheld by some very smart and well-spoken people. It has to be a conspiracy because it is circumventing the natural order, as I understand it. That is some serious shit. We MUST be talking about the ultimate conspiracy–the one that goes back to the Garden of Eden.

    And there’s this guy Roissy who sounds like he’s been living in my head. The only difference is that he embraces his nature, while I’m trying to shun it. I can feel what little empathy I have left seeping away. The Dark Side feels good. That’s partially how I know it’s dark. Pain is the hallmark of the teacher.

    So, what do I do? “If you’re going to be stupid, you’ve gotta be tough.” Dive into the pain. You can see this in my writing. I want to get pummeled here, and I want to pummel, as well; otherwise no one learns anything. This is why some think I’m a troll. They can’t understand why in the world I would spend my time writing thousands and thousands of words, unless I’m either trying to sidetrack the conversation, or because I just want to berate people. No, no. When someone like Dalrock, or Matt King, or Desiderius, or Vox focuses their efforts on destroying what I’ve said, I genuinely think, “Oh thank God.”, and “Oh shit” at the same time. Because while I’ll be damned if I’m going to give up my position without a fight, I am well aware that I have had to unlearn, and relearn many many things, and it’s almost always for the better. Almost. My experiences as Roissy (long before I’d ever heard of him) were the exception.Those were maiming wounds.

    Now, one of these epicenters where the conspiracy is propagated from is church. It certainly is in a lot of sermons across all denominations. I’ve witnessed them myself in MANY churches; nearly all of them, in fact. My solution? Well, men need to start going to church. We need to re-capture it. The problem with a groundwar in Asia is that you can’t hold ground without men, and there simply aren’t enough men to cover Asia. The church is hardly Asia, is it? Or is it? Again: this is the Ultimate Conspiracy. So, I think in terms of the ultimate conspiracy of scripture–the attempted overthrow of Heaven. There is no other conspiracy worth spending time on, if we believe what we say we believe.

    But going to church is the ultimate folly, according to the manosphere. In the way that I believe men are corrupted by, say, going to a strip club, denizens of the manosphere think going to church corrupts men. It is only acceptable to either

    1. Quit church altogether (what is the point, and how can disbanding make us stronger?)
    2. Go only to home-based churches (which seems very dubious to me, as our problem is lack of authority; not a surfeit of it.)
    3. Go to a strip-club, because those women at least know how to treat men, and for only a dollar.

    Now, I’m getting the sense that these men really HAVE been wholly corrupted. Their pain is such that they would choose what is obviously very stupid. Paradoxically, this lends weight to the Ultimate Conspiracy theory, so I inquire more fervently, more ardently. I try to fit the pieces of the puzzle into the only Ultimate Conspiracy I know and believe to be true.

    Backlash. Sure, I got some of it wrong; maybe a lot of it, but it didn’t merit the whipsaw words that it garnered. What do I do? What you always do under fire: Go to cover; which means scripture. I go back to the very beginning, and, yes, I can see some of this ultimate conspiracy, but I’m so invested now in the words of the manosphere that the legitimate conspiracy I find can only be reconciled if we understand that if we’d simply trusted God to sort things out, and continue His revelation of the world–we’d not be in this mess. That makes sense. It makes total sense. It is the paradox of knowledge and faith.

    That culminates in my blog, and my comments here over the past few weeks; which has been something of a maelstrom, at least for me. Heavy-hitters have been discussing and dissing my words for weeks now.

    To come back to this post: I try to take the opportunity to start again. What. Is. Game? What I don’t realize is that somewhere along the way, my priorities changed. I’m no longer trying to discern truth: I’m trying to be in solidarity with the manosphere, but I’m still telling myself that I’m looking for truth. Danger says:

    Because it involves being fearful of your masculinity.

    Never fear your masculinity. God made you that way for a reason…..one of them being that it is a complement to femininity.

    Do not fear being cocky, that is masculine.
    Do not fear being aggressive, that is masculine.
    Do not fear talking sexual and desiring a woman, that is masculine.

    The real issue at hand, is that somehow people are accepting the notion that it is ok for a woman to define what is acceptable behavior for men.

    I am gobsmacked. THIS WAS MY STARTING POSITION! My retort:

    So that’s it? Game is not being fearful? It takes dozens of new definitions, hundreds of blogs, and perhaps millions of comments for a few thousand men to work out that Game is courage?

    was not born of flippancy at the problems of men, but at what felt like (there’s my mistake) the unmitigated GALL to say that everything I had been working for is pointless; that I had the proper attitude from the start. It is the worst sort of farce because it is a farce I perpetrated on myself. I should have seen it coming: I had the faith in men’s ability to lead, but I did not continue in that faith, and so investigated the “knowledge” of the manosphere.

    Danger is right. Matt King is right. It is commonly known here, and derided, but it is the only solution: White Knighting for a slut. Yes, this is required of the Christian, for the family, and for a stable and prosperous society.

    What I should have done is taken a step back, seen the group engaged in the sexual confusion that it is, and said:

    “Men, what are you doing? Stop being pussies, and start that by stopping the circle-jerk. Then go to your church, and reclaim her.”

  171. Some Guy says:

    @Deti — I would say many Old Order Amish communities are fairly strong on Eph. 5. However, even there… counseling type books slip in such as the 5 Love Languages and so forth. However, the family structure with the husband as the head is strong, there are no women ministers (though the wives of deacons and bishops do a great deal behind the scenes,) and old maid school teachers are (while accepted as a member of the community) are looked down on somewhat as having been passed over or else as being not quite a “real” woman.

    I’d say that with women forced to work only in their husband’s business… with “real work” held in esteem and only being the domain of men… and with shaming and discipline structures in place ready to come down on (especially) errant women… and (even worse/better) a community consciousness that never forgets anything– indeed, talking about each other is about all there is to do when there is no TV– then people are quite careful about what they do. Hypergamy does not have a chance to rear its head– the girls compete with each other to be chosen by the Bishop’s son, and the rest quickly settle. Marrying or dating an outsider is unthinkable and will likely result in expulsion from the church.

  172. Danger says:

    @Cane

    Yes I generally do believe that statement. And I do think you had the right definition from the start.

    I am unsure on the white-knighting for sluts though. From my experiences with slutty Christian women, they are of the mind that they will be forgiven when they repent and marry, so they happily slut it up and sin continuously in the here-and-now. These women are no proper Christians, as such are the beliefs of a paper Christian.

  173. Pingback: Rebuke | Things that We have Heard and Known

  174. Cane Caldo says:

    @Danger

    I was speaking of particular sluts: the churches. We can’t know if women have reformed without first reforming the reformers.

    Thanks for being a good combatant.

  175. Cane Caldo says:

    @Danger

    Btw, that statement was from Social Pathologist/Slumlord, in a comment he made in his latest post. It is good stuff.

  176. Danger says:

    @Cane

    Thanks for sticking with it. And apologies for any and all personal attacks on you.

  177. Cane Caldo says:

    @Danger

    We are friends. Nothing to forgive: I genuinely asked for it!

  178. Danger is right. Matt King is right. It is commonly known here, and derided, but it is the only solution: White Knighting for a slut.

    I don’t see sacrifice (agape) as white knighting.

    I think about Christ’s works. Here are two examples:

    First public miracle, the wedding in Canaan. Mary approaches Christ and tells him that they are almost out of wine. Not a request and really more of a test. She wasn’t asking her son. She was making a passive-aggressive call to her God.

    His response was a subtle rebuke. He reminded her that she has a place and she is out of line. He provided wine (service or “sacrifice” in a sense), but not without ensuring that the order of rank will be maintained and His mission starts when He starts it.

    Next, the stoning of the adulterer. Does he “white-knight?” Someone reading it quickly may see it that way, but he doesn’t. In fact, He handles it perfectly (duh). From Red Pill Reformation:

    The scribes and Pharisees had set a rhetorical trap for Jesus, as John [MacArthur] explains, because they wanted to charge Jesus with heresy for preaching contrary to Moses’ law. They brought a woman before Him, charged with a hefty crime. The situation was tense and emotion filled. I’m sure the men were yelling for justice and the woman was likely hysterical and weeping, or angry at false charges (though it seems pretty clear she was guilty). Both sides were on edge. How did Jesus respond? He seemed unmoved by the emotion of both parties. Christ bent down and wrote with His finger on the ground! Can you imagine controlling emotion so well that a screaming mob has as much affect as a sun setting?
    Left unknown is what Jesus wrote on the ground. Was it a subtle admonishment to the Pharisees? Did He write the relevant passages from the Testament? Did He write the names of the Pharisees’ mistresses? We don’t know. All we know is that He exercised perfect love (agape) by not deflecting back to the woman or washing His hands. Instead, He took it as a moment to instruct the church about the primacy of love in God’s path for Man. It was godly love. It was the love God has for us. So, when He said asked for those without sin to throw a stone, they knew they were undeniably rebuked and rebuked with love. What an unshakable “frame” He shows. When immediately questioned, He didn’t immediately respond. It’s as if He waited until the initial hot-headedness could cool. In one moment, He showed integrity (never deviated from God’s Word), rationality (impervious to emotion and asked a rational question), self-awareness (did not qualify Himself to the crowd), confidence (agitated bloodthirsty mob didn’t change His actions), communication (perfect illustration to quiet the crowd), and assertiveness (no one questioned Him). Of course, the greatest act of being was the love He demonstrated.
    Now, where the Blue and Red world split is in the final words said to the woman. The Blue Pill world views this as God not judging you. The Red Pill world notes that Christ most definitely knew the woman was an adulterer and that was a clear sin. He didn’t want to hear equivocation or rationalization. However, He did say, “Go and, from now on, sin no more.” He didn’t say, “It is fine if you continue to sin, I will still not condemn you.” He ordered her to sin no more.

    White-knight? No. He didn’t counter-attack. He didn’t tell her the men were wrong to accuse her. He didn’t tell the men they were wrong, only to examine their own lives.
    Maybe “white-knighting,” of all things, needs further scrutiny to separate it from agape. White-knighting is Churchian. Agape is Christian.

  179. Jimbo says:

    “I was speaking of particular sluts: the churches. We can’t know if women have reformed without first reforming the reformers.”

    Huh? Let me rephrase this. Unless you get the church reformed, you won’t know if women make good wives?

    With the first, the church is a work in progress. It won’t get reformed unless you start the church yourselves and run it the way you please. Yet it will have a narrow agenda because the mission is harranging women. Perhaps you should broaden your definition of a church.

    With the second, is there a marriage strike? I thought we already have one. It is women that is complaining about the lack of willing men to marry.

    As for sluts marrying, I am all for assortive marriages. I would not be in position to prevent a slutty woman from marrying a slutty man. What would be the point? I would more likely caution less experienced men from marrying an experience woman. Is this the problem?

  180. One more thing. I really don’t know if I would’ve come away with the same reading of the Adultress if I hadn’t studied Scripture and game/Red Pill works. In fact, I’m fairly certain I would’ve seen it as tacit approval of white-knighting and I know the pastor of the church I recently left would put heavier emphasis on the forgiveness than on “sin no more.”

  181. farm boy says:

    it was my ” cute British Accent” and so for all you losers out there I recommend that you acquire one of those quickly. It is like Cat-Nip for American women – trust me.

    Indeed it is very effective. But does one want an American woman?

  182. Cane Caldo says:

    @RTP

    My suggestion is that you aren’t appreciating the differences between a knight, a knight errant, a brawler, and a mere defender. Defending is certainly a knightly thing to do, but the knight restricts himself to defending what is his, and what is his is under his authority. The woman sought Jesus’ protection; rather was cast into his protection by the pharisees. Knighthood has the component of boundaries and discipline. That is: discipleship.

    I left the Baptist church because I don’t want to do outreach anymore. It has it’s place, but my place is not there.

    @Jimbo

    I have nothing to say to you. See you on the field, if you show up.

  183. Jimbo says:

    “See you on the field, if you show up.”

    Otherwise you wouldn’t see me? (Waving)

  184. Joseph says:

    @Cane

    I am going to attempt to make this simple for you. You are obviously a devout Christian, as am I. I spend many hours a day in my Bible and in prayer. There is however one tendency of Christians like yourself that is detrimental. You are an idealist. One day, we will be in a perfect place and this will indeed no longer matter. But for right now, we are stuck here in a fallen world and it is our time to show God’s love and light.

    Confidence (Biblical):

    Hebrews 4:16
    “Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.”

    You are commanded in Hebrews to approach his throne with confidence. You are a saint now Cane. You (of all people) have a right to be confident. Not in anything special about you, but in Christ who lives in you. He made you righteous once again and that should show to the world. It is indeed Biblical to be confident.

    Frame (Biblical):

    2 Samuel 6:20 Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!

    6:21 And David said unto Michal, It was before the LORD, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel: therefore will I play before the LORD.

    6:22 And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour.

    6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

    David was challenged in his frame by a woman who wished to challenge his authority. She did not like what he was doing and wished to shame him into acting in a way that pleased her. David on the other hand decided that what he did to please God was more important that what his wife wanted and he told her where the door was. He established a frame of leadership and she had no choice but to accept.

    Hypergamy (Biblical):

    Genesis 3

    Eve wanted a higher status than she currently had. She was attracted to it. She was the perfect woman and she was attracted to something of higher status than her husband. She wanted to be a god. Adam stepped up to the plate and took her sin upon himself.

    1 Timothy 2:13-14

    13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

    Adam was not deceived. He also knew that she had sinned. Death did not enter the world through Eve, but through Adam. He took her sin upon himself, just as Christ took our sins upon himself and became the last Adam.

    1 Cor 15:45:

    “The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”

    Most of human suffering on this planet has occurred because Satan took advantage of women’s hypergamous nature. She wasn’t a sinner and didn’t have a sinful nature, but her nature was hypergamous. If it caused that much trouble unhindered in a perfect world, how much more damage is being done by it in this fallen world now.

    Game (Biblical):

    Ephesians 5:25

    Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

    As a husband, it is your duty to provide for your wife. Period. That does not just mean her physical needs. She is an emotional creature with base instincts that our society encourages to be borderline feral. However, women respond instinctively to a confident man. It is proven, over and over and over and over again in every blog on the manosphere. To love your wife, you must lead your wife away from these base instincts and into a Godly worldview (which even a godly woman will stray from if left too long to her own devices in this emotionally driven world). Satan will find a way to deceive her just as he deceived the perfect woman. Through the Spirit, she may indeed overcome, but she has you and she is your responsibility. Therefore you should be intelligent enough to use all the tools available to get this job done.

    I will give you a parable. There once was a man who wished to build a house. He knew nothing of the trade, but knew many men who had built houses before. He went to the first man and asked him how to build a house. The man told him that you must use stone that has been chiseled to precise measurements and place it in the shape that you need. He then went to the next man he knew and asked him the same question. This man told him you must use wood to build a frame first and then you must cover it with different materials that will be resistant to the weather. He then left this man and went and saw the last he knew. The man told him that you must build it out of steel and buttress it in a way hold the structure together. The man left confused, but was determined to build his house. He had wood on hand and began building the frame of the house with that, but soon the wood was gone. He then asked his friend if he could borrow some leftover steel. He then used the steel to build a roof like his friend had. But the steel would be too loud against the wind on the walls, so he then began to shape stones and placed them around the wood of the houses structure and built the walls up one brick at a time. His friends came by and marveled at how well his house had turned out. How did you do this? The man replied, I used what I had to work with and borrowed what I didn’t. It took time and effort, but the end result a a house that was better than all those that preceded it.

    Game is an idea that must be given form. A mission that men create. It can be a house to build, a business to grow, or a woman to tame. How you get there is up to you and what you have within you to do. What you lack, go find. What you don’t understand you ask. We gather like this not to supplicate to women but to understand more efficient ways to build the life and world we desire. So that the final product is better than what we could have made individually.

    Best in Christ,
    Joe

  185. Phil says:

    Isn’t it time to ban Cane Caldo? And why do people feel the need to continually respond to this guy? Just ignore his nonsense.

  186. Joseph says:

    I don’t think Cane is a troll or what he is saying is nonsense. He doesn’t see the benefit of anything we offer. The reason Cane is so annoying to everyone is that because he doesn’t see the benefit, he doesn’t believe anyone else should either. So now he is trying to proselytize away from men using game at all. We all know it’s nonsense because game works. Cane just keeps holding on hoping that some of us will wake up and see it his way and we do the same for Cane.

  187. deti says:

    “Isn’t it time to ban Cane Caldo?”

    Absolutely not. He is bringing up things we need to discuss, as Christians, as men, and as human beings who see how broken and dysfunctional male-female relationships are. He is holding up a mirror to the manosphere, and checking everything said here against Scripture, just as a Berean would do. The discussion he and Matt King are spurring on — about the intersection of Christianity and Game, or the synthesis and incorporation of the two — is one we must have. We’ll have it now, and a little might be resolved; and we’ll have it again.

    “And why do people feel the need to continually respond to this guy?”

    Because he’s right about at least one thing: a lot of men in the manosphere/androsphere are whining and complaining. I’m one of the worst offenders. And it’s true: we’ve found some sympathetic voices and personalities here and at times wallow in a “woe is me” attitude. Christianity truly exhorts us to “man up” and stand firm like the Roissyan “oak tree”. While her storms swirl all around us, we stand; and when she has finally gusted her last, we are still there.

  188. deti says:

    And it’s a discussion we must have because Christian men and refugees from the tradcon movement and its treatment of intergender relationships are likely to be staunch androsphere allies, if they can be persuaded that aspects of Game are compatible with or already part of or synthesized with our understanding of Scripture.

  189. Cane Caldo says:

    @Joseph

    Thanks for taking the time. I don’t disagree with anything you said; especially before the parable. These things are in my bones. However, as best I can tell this:

    Game is an idea that must be given form. A mission that men create. It can be a house to build, a business to grow, or a woman to tame. How you get there is up to you and what you have within you to do. What you lack, go find. What you don’t understand you ask. We gather like this not to supplicate to women but to understand more efficient ways to build the life and world we desire. So that the final product is better than what we could have made individually.

    is much more than what Danger (who makes good sense) says above. What you’re describing sounds much more like church–bigger, even–community. That is much larger than learning women’s proclivities, attractions, and weaknesses. You may be right, but I don’t see how it is reconciled. But I don’t have to. It’s like humor–most of us don’t learn it from books.

    Working through Dalrock’s comparison to humor was most helpful to me; thinking about how we learn what to laugh at, and how to tell jokes. I know how to do these things. I know Danger’s definition of Game. What I don’t know is whether you two can come to a real agreement. You’ll just politely ignore each other’s implications…and I don’t see a problem with that. That’s how society doesn’t kill each itself. My combativeness is disturbing to the sleepers, like Phil.

    Like Dalrock said: So be it.

  190. Joseph says:

    @Cane

    The differences between me and Danger are in the parable. How he builds his house and how I build mine are two different things. The tools we use and the resources we have are different. How we approach the project is different and can be for different purposes. We don’t have to agree on what game is.

    To me, Game is life. Games are a challenge to build character. That can be anything. What Danger describes as Game are the tools necessary to get what he desires out of interactions with women. It’s not an either/or. My definition is just as valid as his and vice/versa.

  191. Danger says:

    @Joseph,

    i consider game to be general masculine traits, it just so happens that this is what girls find attractive. I would, however, not suggest that is all what game is. Game is the path for a man through life. His courage, confidence, leadership, etc,….are all necessary for him to attract the right woman, build and protect his family, develop his life and fulfill his potential.

    I think our definitions overlap very well. Above I was only speaking of game in terms to how it applies to men (their bedrock) and in turn how that affects our relationships with women.

  192. freebird says:

    The Bible says man has inherent authority due to his soul,and the wife must submit and remain faithful.That means she ‘games’ herself by showing some agency over her own actions,because she is more than a cunt,she also has a soul.
    Game says a man has not inherent authority and must earn it by way of continual aggression, the woman has no agency or soul,is a mindless cunt who must be led at all times by further aggression.
    Man exhibits aggression, gets laid,she gets bored (contentious) and demands more and more.
    Show not enough aggression=not laid,too much= jail.
    Men are now controlled like animals by aggression manipulation in the pursuit of animal desires.Totally ignoring the eternal soul that was created at the beginning of the world.
    Secular society places the standards upon the transient reward of sex.Biblical society starts with respect and works from there.One says civilized behavior is good,the other says anything goes because we are soulless animals.
    I’ve come over to cane’s side,he put in the proper work to do that.
    Either stay in the church and work for the soul,or play games to get that animal fix.
    Mixing the two is serving two masters.
    Also, game cannot be defined past certain characteristics that may or may not be native to the Christian,what game proponents fail to see is the meek and mild Christian man is entitled by God to a submissive woman.That job is HERS.Game keeps trying to give it him.
    Enough with the free pass for feral women on the alter of sacrificing the less aggressive men.
    If might makes right, you have a go at that,it’s not a long term solution.
    The proper solution is for women to start carrying their own water on agency,and quit demanding men “lead’ them,when they damn well ought to be leading themselves.It’s the cowards way out,and wymyn are very good at it.(even those so-called xians.)

    That’s right gals-take responsibility for your own damn crotch,and don’t be surprised when if you will not (like a rebellious child) we have no desire for your constant tribulations and unjust trials.
    Grow up already,you are supposed to be an eternal child of God-for pete’s sake.

    Women as perpetual animal infants claiming to be soulfull.My ass.

  193. Bob Wallace says:

    @ Cane Caldo,

    “appreciating the differences between a knight, a knight errant, a brawler, and a mere defender. ”

    I believe you mentioned to me once that only a return to Christianity would save us. I have mentioned before that chivalry (the code of the knights) came only from Christianity. It based on the better warrior virtues (like not killing innocent men, women and children and calling it “collateral damage”): defending the weak, helpless and powerless and meting out justice. A return to Christianity means that there has to be a return to true chivalry. At the minimum, the Four Cardinal Virtues of which I spoke: prudence, courage, justice, self-control (St. Paul added “faith, hope and charity,” – the Three Theological Virtues). All of them are such a part of Christianity I can’t imagine any version of Christianity without them. And if you want to destroy Christianity, overthow those virtues…or make then optional.

  194. numnut says:

    Your wife wanted to have sex with me,so I gamed her into it,it’s your fault for not gaming her better.Certainly is,because she has no agency.

    [D: I'm not sure who you are responding to, but I have addressed this here, here and here.]

  195. numnut says:

    Looks like the freebird handle gets routed to moderation or the circular bin.No idea why,as that fellow as always biblical and mostly polite.I guess Orthodoxy is too tight of a game.

    [D: Askimet is flagging good comments as spam periodically, but it is a very small percent of the spam it catches. I just let that one out. Please pick one handle and stick with it. Switching handles is a form of trolling, but in this case I'll assume it wasn't intended that way.]

  196. Danger says:

    @numnut

    I could not have painted a better picture of why Men need to take back the church now. So they can again begin holding women accountable for breaking their marriage vows.

  197. While I have no doubt that Cane Caldo is a concern troll, I think I understand why he, and others like him, are reluctant to endorse a christianized form of Game. They feel as though by employing Game they are wresting control away from God in matters of how they deal with women.

    If we are to trust God in all things, then why would Game ever be necessary? Prayer in earnest faith should be more than enough to solve any inter-gender issue, any marital dispute, any problems with attraction or arousal, and any question about God providing us with the perfect mate reserved especially for us.

    In fact, for them, learning and employing Game is like telling God you know better than He does, and you’ll take matters into your own hands – ergo, you are faithless (at least in this respect). I don’t know the exact scripture so I’m paraphrasing, but we are told “not to rely on our own understanding, but to trust God with all our hearts.”

    The Holy Spirit is more than sufficient to correct any personal or social ill that feminization has instilled in the church or society at large. If you’re not receiving the desires of your heart, it’s probably because your faith is imperfect that God ignores your prayers to turn your wife into the insatiable sexual tiger you thought she’d be when you did the right thing and waited to even kiss her before marriage.

    This is the rationale absolutists like Cane Caldo have. Pray the need for Game away.

  198. Martian Bachelor says:

    Reality check: Remind Me Again Why a Man Needs a Woman.

    The basic biological economics of the matter are this: human females get more out of their males than any other animal in the history of the planet. So… Remind Me Again Why a Man, Rather Than a Woman, Needs “Game”.

  199. Cane Caldo says:

    @Rollo

    You don’t understand what prayer is. and I think I was pretty plain in my last, big, comment: Game is all things to all men. That’s not a rebuttal of it. I think it’s true. Sometimes we use these cliches, and never realize what they actually say.

    @The Men-agerie

    There’s another bit that I cut out of my larger response, but some of my confusing thoughts were the result of trying too hard to not insult the guys who’ve really lost out–whether from excess or diminishment. Sometimes, I spent more time trying to word things so as not to really drive home what losers they are.

    That didn’t help at all. There was confusion, it came through anyways, and–most importantly–it was arrogant of me to think that whatever I might say on a blog could be more painful than the lives they are already living.

  200. Danger says:

    @freebird

    You are right, that women must be held accountable for not holding up their end of the bargin, for not following Christ, if you will.

    You are equating game (confidence) to something outside of the intention of God. I highly disagree. God in his wisdom made men to have confidence, leadership and aggression. These are masculine traits just like nurturing and submissiveness is a female trait. The two go hand in hand and fit like a glove. Your assertation is that owning and understanding that confidence somehow negates that it is a “gift from God”.

    Basically, your logic is that if you understand what God did, then somehow it is no longer the work of God, but of man.

  201. Danger says:

    @freebird continued…..

    You could not be further off-base. Understanding of God does not negate the fact it is still God’s work.

    Do not forget, those “weak Christian men” have been programmed that way. They have been led down the path of satan by a co-opted church. It is your duty to help them see the light, not to leave them in darkness by way of ignoring their God given gifts of confidence, leadership and strength.

  202. Desiderius says:

    “If she’s in the middle, as most girls are to most boys–since most boys are invisible–then courtship and arranged marriages make sense. The parents make the boy appear. In a dating paradigm: irrational confidence/self-esteem makes sense because his swagger makes him appear.

    What am I missing?”

    The former is about child-raising; the latter about what to do about adults already raised. Again, if its self-confidence or self-esteem, it will ultimately fail to fulfill, which is why one does not see long-term success among PUA’s who retain that frame. Confidence in the connection – that can play out several different ways, but the connection itself is necessary for anything to happen. Even getting shot down has its value in building courage (the coward dies a thousand deaths, et. al.) and honing one’s social acumen/discerning one’s ultimate values.

    You’re in the position somewhat here of the British generals in the Revolutionary War trying to fight set piece battles with Minutemen. The rules of engagement have changed. By necessity. Adapt or die.

  203. Joseph says:

    @Danger

    I agree with you. Our definitions do overlap well. I’m attempting to drive home to Cain that while the Bible doesn’t specifically dedicate a book to dealing with female hysterics, the Bible was written in a time when those men would have laughed in our faces for allowing this non-sense to continue. They knew through basic observation that if women were let free and left to their own devices, that they destroy everything institution that they get their hands on. I know for a fact that you understand game to be anything a man does that brings order into his life ( this can be in any endeavor ). But a lot of guys are hung up on the attracting girls part which is only a small part of what Game is and can achieve for men.

    So no, I do not in fact disagree with your position, but Cane believed we did and I played through that with a rhetorical synopsis as Vox suggests.

  204. Joseph says:

    @Danger and Cane

    The only reason that we men here in the “sphere” talk about women so much is that they are the last great frontier to men. We have ventured into space, have huge cities, we are currently experimenting with slowing down light, and have built a worldwide system of banking to enslave all men as has never been done before. Women however, don’t respond like any of that stuff. I create a certain acidic chemical reaction, then I can draw electricity from it. It’s formulative and repeatable.

    Women on the other hand are much more resistant to formulation than anything else we touch. they are the most resistant creature to our ability to create order. To conquer them is to bring a level of order into our lives that few men have ever had without the backing of the entire legal system on their side. It’s an incredible feat of intelligence and manliness. If you can conquer your fear of women that has been instilled in you by every institution since your birth, then the rest is just gravy. Getting past this block for me isn’t about getting laid, it’s about conquering fear. So yes Cane, “don’t be a pussy”.

  205. Joseph says:

    Oh my God Rollo, every time I think this shit can’t get worse, the world produces a better version of the idiot to prove me wrong.

  206. Cane Caldo wrote:

    Perhaps. [Total omega-male meltdown is] preferable to the alternative. I’m not rich, or educated, or good. I’m just the guy who’s willing to be wrong publicly so that I might learn, and who gives a damn about the other men.

    Don’t spin this false narrative, it only further demeans and distracts you. The courage to be wrong is noble, but stop kidding yourself: nobility had little to do with your sissy reaction to a woman. The proof of that is in the gratuitousness of your vulgar language. Men in their teenage years should learn to calibrate their swear-words and lewd imagery for effect. Those who haven’t made such a progression are stunted by the partial immaturity of their social organs.

    I ask for your forgiveness for what I wrote. It was out of line.

    This is base supplication masquerading as proper Christian sorrow. The schizophrenia is digging your hole deeper. Modern Christian groveling is a false promise when not tempered by a forthrightness with regard to a man’s prerogatives. (Another reason why the church needs an infusion of game.) Apology should be rare and not effusive, blunt (you got that right) but not diminishing, and public only when necessity warrants it. There is a reason why confessionals are private spaces. Otherwise the value of reconciliation is reduced. It becomes ordinary rather than momentous, tactical rather than sincere. You neutralize the conflict that you generate, true, but you do little to address the broader enmity precipitated by your rashness. The haste of your apology reinforces the haste of your initial invective.

    Good instincts though, to err on the side of the need for contrition.

    But your snap-apology is an excellent example where Christian men and game confuse themselves into opposition. The typical Christian man believes he must become womanly and weak in order to effect reconciliation, mostly because to maintain one’s strength in apology is a difficult needle to thread. Even harder: to demonstrate how the apology itself is not the appeasement the world thinks it is but rather an act of superior strength. To resolve this seeming paradox, recall St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians:

    Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

    For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

    Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

    Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one.

    And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

    A man’s ultimate strength is of God, using the divine armory, rather than the profane weapons of This World. Which is why our strength is commonly interpreted as weakness by agents of this kingdom! Do not be such an agent. There is no difference in power but rather a difference in the vehicle and ends toward which that power is wielded. The practical effects are plain. Taking an eye for an eye does not end the enmity, it exacerbates it. Turning the other cheek exhausts the enmity upon your person, which is strong and large and magnanimous and manly enough to endure it.

    This is a program men will sign up for. It does not ask men to think or act like women, but rather to understand how their manly strength might be applied to righteous ends. Right now dick-directed PUAs are cornering that market and applying it to their childish, self-defeating ends.

    You are coming off the heady experience of dominating the last thread, and in your spiritedness you tried to expand the experience to this post. You have overshot the mark. Dial it down, bring it back within yourself, have patience and humility, listen, and learn from your peers. Humility is the secret to managing our manliness, which would otherwise explode once like a supernova and then diminish forever into a black hole. That thrill keeps the peppy gameboys boasting about their minor accomplishments, but we Christians, who bear witness to the ultimate act of humility in God becoming man, know righteousness is found in the balance between manly aggression and self-restraint.

    Men are by nature martial. We are warlike. Didn’t you say you want to die on a battlefield or something? Insofar as we are still men, we all share that nature (which, incidentally, women cannot help but find horrific and inexplicable). War is not a sin. War for aggrandizement, for self-glory, for will to power, for gain is the old way, before Christ revaluated all values. There is an entire Christian tradition of just war. War is glorious, and “all glory and honor is Yours, Almighty Father, forever and ever. Amen.” But just like all false idols — the main ones in addition to glory being power, pleasure, and wealth, according to Aquinas — the sin is in the idolization, when we replace these goods for the Final Good.

    To take a single example, the sick moralizers of our era have declared all violence to be evil because women cringe from (and are woefully bad at effecting) violence. But a moment’s reflection reveals that the instrument of violence per se is not comparable to the ends toward which that instrument is directed. Nobody believes that violence in the cause of protecting an innocent from violence is the moral equivalent of the violence that threatens the innocent. But somehow we live in a world of dunderheaded “zero tolerance” policies and equal punishment for school bullies and defenders, because they were both caught fighting, and pussy administrators refuse to judge.

    Do not aid and abet this ongoing anti-manliness. Feminism redefined all particularly and exclusively male traits as evil. Our Lord and God defined sin as evil. Take care to follow the Lord’s definition, not the world’s, and certainly not the bitchworld’s.

    Is Game different from virtuous manliness, and if so, how is it different?

    No. They are synonymous. Interpreting ancient concepts into the modern idiom is the source of all confusion and contention. In that chaos opportunists inject themselves to steal pussy and convince chumps to follow their concupiscence straight to hell. We are not the opportunists. We are the redeemers, after the example of our Lord and our God.

    What am I missing?

    You are missing about 50% of Christianity and 95% of game.

    Matt

  207. Rollo Tomassi: Pure, risible sophistry. Back to square one with you. You will find no takers here among the faithful. Your misapprehension is fundamental. We dispense your brand of nonsense in catechism class.

    “If we are to trust God in all things, then why would Game ever be necessary?” To imagine us asking this question is to misunderstand Christianity so totally that everything that follows from your straw-man error must be considered invalidated. We Christian men will speak for ourselves. Your cringing interpretation of the faithful does us, our church, and game itself no favors.

    Matt

  208. Joseph says:

    @Matt

    What did Rollo do? He’s just sharing what’s going on out there.

  209. freebird says:

    Thanks for fixing the hold dalrock.
    Will stick with the one handle from here on out.The ” I got your wife” comment was not directed at anyone at all,just threw it out there.
    Those articles about the wymyns unjust power is handy to make my next point-that security breeds confidence more than anything else,I think it is the inherent social insecurity that makes the game proponents all the more excited,it is the man’s nature to attempt to fix broken things,and they often get quite aggressive when there is no handy answers.
    There are lots of times where more aggression fixes things,but the law is not one of those.
    Confidence can come from God,but I would call that a natural state and not lable it game.
    Not every masculine quality comes from game,why the word was unknown just a few years ago. There is lot more natural confidence self generated by success than by faking it till making it.Perhaps it is that lack of success that men need to address before lack of pussy is discussed.
    All comes down to Maslov’s hierarchy,if needs are not met things change.It’s not a total zero sum game,but it’s clear stiff necked contentious sexually incontinent women are a major factor in a man’s happiness which appears to be contingent upon her faithfulness.(trust)
    When you can’t trust your woman,you’re not a happy man.Don’t go seeking street fights out of that frustration.It’s counter productive,even if it does make you feel more a man.

    Let’s put the horse back before the cart,have the churches and women restrict the hypegamous lust instinct and THEN the men will have the confidence to go the rest of the way.Fix the law too,with the sword of Damocles hanging overhead men are full time a-covering up.
    (don’t have to live like a refugee!)
    In short,but the civil back in civilization.(Or else we get talk of scoring gash by *masculine* poaching)
    Women are the gate-keepers it’s not the man’s work to keep her legs shut for her.Women grow up and stand accounted for your actions.

  210. freebird says:

    ” Is Game different from virtuous manliness, and if so, how is it different?

    No. They are synonymous. ”

    Precisely.What has changed is that the feminists have usurped and overthrown the institutions that enforced faithfulness.
    When the church and
    secular law go back to recognizing men as legal equals with their responsibilities the confidence is transient.Playing a rigged game as a 2nd class citizen is wheel spinning.
    Let them change their own oil in the meantime.No justice,no penis for her.Boycott and non serviam.They need us more than we need them.I see women on the verge of approaching nice fellows,they are tired of being used by players, even if they are hopelessly attracted to them,they just that additional regulation to control their vagina-minds into harmony.

  211. TFH says:

    Ybm,

    You claim that Game has not been defined, and that was the core reason you have a problem with it. I gave you a definition.

    Next, you will say that ‘there are too many different definitions’ even though they are mostly similar.

    The ‘too many different definitions’ can also be said of social skills, salesmanship, quality of life, etc. So that is a dishonest construct to hide behind.

    As shown once again, most anti-game zealots just hem and haw about irrelevant side issues, because they either a) can’t comprehend Game, or b) misdefine Game into a strawman they can knock down.

    Game is Attraction, Comfort, and Seduction.

  212. TFH says:

    Ybm,

    but alek, Paul Elam and blackpill have been right all along.

    That’s a laugh. Black pill is an admitted unhappy virgin, yet he insists Roissy/Roosh are wrong about everything. This is who you consider to be a thought leader?

    Alek was outed by Ferdinand as a phony, who clearly has not run a Game business as he claims. And he is attempting, for 3 years now, to sell an alternative that has no merit.

    And Paul Elam…. he does great MRA work, for which we all should be grateful. But he knows too little about this subject, with his infamous ‘just shower and go out and you will get laid’ recommendation.

    As I often say :

    80% of men (and 99% of women) just can never, ever, ever grasp Game. This is being proven here.

  213. Joseph says:

    “They need us more than we need them.I see women on the verge of approaching nice fellows,they are tired of being used by players, even if they are hopelessly attracted to them,they just that additional regulation to control their vagina-minds into harmony.”

    Please don’t let this happen. They will be unhappy within the month and that guy is going to get bank raped.

  214. Cane Caldo says:

    @Matt King

    This is base supplication masquerading as proper Christian sorrow…The haste of your apology reinforces the haste of your initial invective.

    No. Public insults deserve a public apology. If it is a private thing, then the best thing for you to do is say nothing. I’m not a fan of PDA either, but when it’s necessary I don’t expect to hear commentary on my execution. Neither are your concern.

    @Joseph

    Oh my God Rollo, every time I think this shit can’t get worse, the world produces a better version of the idiot to prove me wrong.

    This is why I do not trust you, and therefore will not be concerned about bringing myself to a verbalized understanding of Game. As Danger said:

    Do not forget, those “weak Christian men” have been programmed that way. They have been led down the path of satan by a co-opted church. It is your duty to help them see the light, not to leave them in darkness by way of ignoring their God given gifts of confidence, leadership and strength.

    Our churches and families are gruesome processing plants, and you laugh at the entrails shown to you by their partners in grind, such as Rollo…but you don’t laugh at Rollo.

  215. greyghost says:

    Matt King
    I like this

    Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

    With christian me3n becoming churchian they no longer are standing with faith. That is why they fear becoming a PUA by knowing game. The most powerful man in the room is a christian man with game. Elspath left a series of comments discribing her relationship with her husband. It is spread out but it is a great example of the mechanics.
    Cane is going throungh emotional trauma and is getting an intellectual work out. When you compare his comments today with what was there when he first got here we see a slow shift.

  216. Cail Corishev says:

    [G]iven that so many american women are apparently sluts, then why are american men finding it so hard to get laid?

    Imagine that you’ve got 1000 men and 1000 women. All of them are sluts — willing to sleep with anyone they find attractive. However, only 10% of the men, or 100 men, are alphas. Each alpha sleeps with 100 different women. So now the alphas have an N of 100, the women all have an N of 10 (slutty in most guys’ books), and 900 men are beta orbiting virgins.

    Of course, in real life the numbers aren’t that stark, but hopefully that clears things up. A small number of men are sleeping with very large numbers of women, so even if most women are pretty slutty, they’re sharing those men, and non-alpha men don’t have any better a chance with them than if they were all good church-going virgin girls. Worse, actually, because now they’ll be holding out for a guy who can match the most alpha guy they met on the carousel.

  217. Rum says:

    It is often claimed that the phrase Game = Attraction triggers in the female brain = Game is a useless tautology. I beg to differ. I say it is a very useful first step out of living in a fog of illusion; because we are thereby led to the key fact that sexual attraction is what it is and is NOT something else we might want it to be – like being a decent person on the inside or being a good provider and/or father.
    Church people often have a lot of trouble with the idea that virtuousness in a mans soul does not attract women sexually and indeed is more likely to turn off their hind brain attraction. On the deepest level, that seems just wrong.
    But this is truth and it will exert itself in reality regardless of how any particular person feels about it.
    Hate the ones who lied to you; not the ones who tell the truth. That goes especially for the modern church vs the Patriarchs.

  218. MackPUA says:

    Rollo hits it out of the ballpark about Christian retards like Cane & imbeciles like YBM

    Not only are Christian Men & antigamers, pussywhipped by feminism, their pussywhipped by society, their pussywhipped by their religion

    All this humble, be pious, lick the ass of a fictional god, their whole concept of Chrisitanity is based on supplication & subserviancy & grovelling, which they ridiculously call worship …

    All Christianity does is teach masculine men, to approach life from a point of weakness, grovelling before a ficitonal creation, for forgiveness

    No wonder Christians dont get it, theyre too busy giving head to a fictional god like a backward luddite

    Christianity & the anti-the gaming cult the perfect religion for grovelling manginas …

    Christians lost the fight, when they chose to approach christianity from a point of supplication & grovelling, instead of male driven masculinity

    Go back to faking grovelling to a made up god, your hymns, & prayers are all acts of idiots out of touch with their masculinity & god given male domination

    The masculine man dominates, god serves the strong, the strong dont serve anyone

    If god created this world, god created this world for man to dominate

    Why pray when you can tap into your masculinity & practise being the dominating asshole

    Fuck praying, chicks can worship my cock & society bends to my will

    The masculine male, is the ultimate deity, god bends to my dominance & masulinity

  219. MackPUA says:

    @TFH

    Alek Novy & the black pill, including most anti-gamers are all conservatives … conservatives are in general anti everything …

    Also Paul Elam, while a great activist hasnt got a clue about the manosphere, his alienation of traditionalists & gamers just another attempt at reconciling his mainstream views, ie feminist views on his own masculinity

    Most guys have no idea how entrenched they are in feminism

    In much the same way, most men have no idea theyre in a terrible relationship, & rationalise the bitch & the shitty relatinship theyre in

  220. greyghost says:

    This is what a churchian chump looks like. It is the worst crime there is to the christian church is to think ignorance is godly. Keeping a christian man in the dark about female nature is a grave sin. It will destroy a civilization. A churchian needs blissful ignorance a christian can go any where with faith. Look at this good churchian jackass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_bride_case

  221. unger says:

    Confidence, leadership, and aggression, without further qualification, not only aren’t masculine, but warrant putting their possessor down like any other dangerous animal living too close to civilization. (This is, incidentally, why the term ‘feral female’ is so accurate. They wish to mate with dangerous animals because they have been allowed to return to being dangerous animals.) Confidence is attractive, but confidence without sound reason is idiocy – quite literally the sort of idiocy only a woman, in body or spirit, could appreciate. Leadership – claiming and exercising authority over others – is attractive, but leaders lead followers far more often towards hell than to heaven: while every man has a responsibility to lead his household, most men have no business at all leading other men, and ought to know it. And aggression? Aggression without just cause and due measure is simple bullying – and the way some of you talk – and I mean Christians, not avowed enemies like MackPUA – it sounds like longsuffering and mercy are for pussies like Jesus as he was outside of the few minutes of his life he spent clearing the Temple, perhaps in a bout of omega rage.

    Which is to say that some of you sound a hell of a lot like the people who expected their Messiah to be a military leader, and found the real one boring. Masculinity always looks boring next to Pride on steroids. Christianity always looks boring next to Pride in a cassock.

  222. Rum says:

    Unger
    OK. But what does this have to do with Game and Churchianity? Aside from the fact that you want things to be different than they are.

  223. @Cane Caldo

    “Our churches and families are gruesome processing plants, and you laugh at the entrails shown to you by their partners in grind, such as Rollo…but you don’t laugh at Rollo.”

    Dude WTF?

    What the hell does that even mean? Families aren’t gruesome processing plants. That is a poor analogy at best.

    I know you are a smart guy, and probably a well-meaning guy… but it might work better for you to ask questions instead of continually trying to assert your position. There’s a time to be a student, and a time to teach. You come in here trying to make authoritative declarations and its just bad form, the way you’re doing it. I don’t know if anyone here even has any idea where you stand, including yourself, perhaps. Rollo got a good whiff of your underlying premise, I think.

    I hope you are able to come to terms with the bottom line that Dominance and Christianity are perfectly congruent for a man. We are supposed to be like Jesus, and Jesus had dominion and wielded authority with flawless frame. You can call it game, you can spend your time in internet pissing matches over semantics, but in the end, we are dealing with “game” because our masculinity has been so hampered that we all suffer, and we strive as men to find answers.

    Isolating “game” from scripture is, in itself, a mistake. Patriarchy, masculinity, and all that good stuff is all over the bible. It’s right there. (and it was there long before any PUAs pre-empted the approach. Ever notice how anything truly legit in relational/self advice is a truth rooted and already found in scripture?)

    We just have to have a separate word for it because the church has glossed over it and/or snuffed it out. In the end, “game” is us striving to be the MEN God called us to be. You’re quite on-target with conclusions like game equating to courage or “don’t be a pussy.” Further, we have to wield this tool “game” more prominently then men of past generations because we face more female depravity than they ever did.

    Additionally, we have a word for it like “game” because the church failed. A Christian man today can learn far more about how to succeed functionally long-term with a woman more from PUAs and dating gurus and even the BDSM community than he can at church, and that’s a fact, whether you want it to be or not. It’s wrong. It’s backward. It’s disgusting.

    and it’s a fact.

    Doms in the dungeon are getting masculinity right a lot more than the wussbag preachers I keep seeing around here.

    Anyway, chill out, man. Seriously, a lot of your comments, if they were letters you wrote and slept on overnight, you would realize they shouldn’t be sent that next day. Take a little more time.

    Talk less, say more.

  224. unger says:

    Rum: This ‘But what about Churchianity?’ excuse is the mirror of the Churchian ‘But what about husbands watching porn/otherwise behaving less-than-ideally’ excuse Dalrock rightly criticizes everywhere it crops up. To hell with Churchianity. They’re wrong, but that doesn’t make every alternative to them right.

  225. GKChesterton says:

    @Dalrock,
    I’m not saying those arguing against Game are for the problem, but they do seem to be blocking any and every proposed solution without offering a solution of their own.

    My biggest problem’s with “Game” is that it formally includes adultery via the Rules of Poon. That bugs me. Minus that it is a lot less objectionable. I’m also, in conjunction with what slumlord has written recently, frustrated with the general stance against “man up” (though as I wrote there I think he goes a few steps too far in the other direction). Also, I see the solution as the Pauline corpus. When you hear people sneer at it you should generally turn around and run the other way.

    The wife is responsible for honoring her own vows, which for Christians includes submission to her husband and not denying sex.

    And the husband is required to provide her children which is also biblically mandated. Leaving out that part drives me batty. Now note, many women reject their need of children, but they do usually need it (see: breast cancer and the effects of child bearing).

    @Unger,
    response is that even Christianized Game is, or at least is quite capable of being, something like a Ring of Power

    The above should be inscribed in burning letters. I’ve upped game recently and I’ve discovered that women in general respond. This is _dangerous_. We all like hedonism. I’d rather not fall into it.

    @Rollo,

    They feel as though by employing Game they are wresting control away from God in matters of how they deal with women.

    This sounds like the village atheist lecturing the Aquinas on theology. Did you not read Cane’s comments on material concerns? God created human agency and the material universe and he expects both to be used. You can’t “pray” them away. Saying otherwise is essentially “wealth gospel” and a heresy. Matt, who I don’t in whole agree with, is right for calling out the banality of the comment.

  226. unger says:

    @Sam Solomon: What evidence do you have that Game will make better women from the only perspective that matters in the end, which is concerned with saving their souls? What reason do we have to believe that all this work you put into attracting women will do anything but harden them in their feral state, reward them for rewarding Pride?

  227. Random Angeleno says:

    @Cane: Our churches and families are gruesome processing plants, and you laugh at the entrails shown to you by their partners in grind, such as Rollo…but you don’t laugh at Rollo.
    —-
    The truth was never promised to be fair, good, nice; it could be bad, ugly, angering, etc. But it will set you free. If you let it. Rollo is telling the truth; the fact that it’s gruesome to you doesn’t detract from that. Which is why we’re not laughing at him. Rollo’s blog is pretty ugly reading at times, that is true, but he has been on the mark so often regarding the nature of women that I think it’s one of the best blogs out there discussing that. But with you, there is an enormous resistance on your part around certain truths because they don’t fit well with your version of Christianity. But it’s been shown to you how some of the things you espouse are not what you think they are in scripture. Confidence being an example where you are way off and your way would lead to certain disaster in marriage. There’s a real conflict there in you and you will have to reconcile that. One aspect of your resistance: just because some truth-tellers are non-Christians, what they have to say can’t possibly be the truth as far as you’re concerned.

  228. Danger says:

    @Unger

    Naturally Confidence, leadership and aggression need to be channeled appropriate. But they most certainly are features of the masculine.

    Be careful on your definition of aggression, it is dangerously close to feminism. Aggression is a good thing, not to be confused with “bullying”. Bullying is aggression, but aggression is not necessarily bullying. So similar to the first paragraph I wrote, it also needs to be channeled, and often it is in the form of building things.

    Aggression is a gift from God to be used appropriately, much like the other facets he granted the masculine. Sometimes it can be used for evil, but that does not mean aggression is evil any more than a gun is evil. It is a tool granted to us and nothing more.

  229. Cane Caldo says:

    @Samuel

    What the hell does that even mean? Families aren’t gruesome processing plants.

    1) Is the pastor in the video setting his flock up for marital failure, or not?
    2) Is not marital failure of divorce and adultery gruesome?
    3) Did you, Samuel, or your wife, come from a family and/or church?
    4) Did you, Samuel, have a family at one time?
    5) Did you, Samuel, find the process you underwent gruesome?

  230. Cail Corishev says:

    My biggest problem’s with “Game” is that it formally includes adultery via the Rules of Poon.

    Except there’s no such thing as “formal” rules of Game. Game was around long before Roissy, and it’ll be around long after him. He’s helped to popularize it, with an engaging, direct style that draws a lot of attention and gets his points across well. But he’s not the boss of us. He doesn’t get to decide what Game does and doesn’t mean, anymore than Dalrock does, or you or I do.

    It’s true that the PUA types have been doing the lion’s share of the work of understanding female nature in recent years, while Christians and other men sat on the sidelines White Knighting and wondering why they couldn’t get a date, so a lot of Game discussion has been tainted by their immorality and amorality. But that’s doesn’t mean we should abandon it to them. We should take it back from them, and put it back on the biblical foundation on which it belongs. As I see it, that’s what Dalrock and others like him are trying to get started.

  231. greyghost says:

    Knowing woman. The only christian woman there is is one with a christian man’s dick in her mouth. A woman will behave virtuously it is impossible for her to be virtuous.
    Unger
    You must look at the post from elspeth is is very telly how sexual attraction in a christian man will make a woman behave. She was and is married to the childrens father (I belive 5) and is still devotedto the man and it could be seen in the way she was writing about her relationship.

  232. unger says:

    @Danger: But what are the appropriate channels? The PUAs surely don’t exemplify them for us…? And if Christ does, we have it on sound PUA authority, alongside first-century Jewish popular authority, that Christ is a boring beta, if not an omega.

  233. Sharrukin says:

    Christ is a boring beta, if not an omega.
    ———————–
    And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.

    WHAT a wimp.

  234. greyghost says:

    @Unger,
    response is that even Christianized Game is, or at least is quite capable of being, something like a Ring of Power

    The above should be inscribed in burning letters. I’ve upped game recently and I’ve discovered that women in general respond. This is _dangerous_. We all like hedonism. I’d rather not fall into it.

    Why is this something to be feared. Are you men of faith or are you men of churchian nice. Any fear of the gods gift of knowlege is sinful bigtime. For you are telling all here that a christian man is a blessfully ignorant fool.

  235. unger says:

    Sharrukin: You’ll note that hasn’t happened yet.

  236. Sharrukin says:

    Sharrukin: You’ll note that hasn’t happened yet.
    ——————————–
    Still the same guy. As I recall he also took a whip to some folks.

  237. unger says:

    @greyghost: I draw a distinction between knowing the truth about women’s nature and acting so as to cater to, reward, and in turn be rewarded by, the worst in it.

  238. Cane Caldo says:

    @Randem Angeleno

    You’re missing the point, which is everything after the ellipsis. Yes, the truth is ugly. Joseph laughed at the ugly. This may be the only rational response to insanity, for the sane man.

    Did you follow the link? It’s a link to Sunshinemary’s blog where a bunch of Christians gathered to point and laugh at a guy whose wife carried on an affair with another man, and then writes about it; some of it salaciously. This man is so neutered and shell-shocked and unprotected by his family and church, that she parades him around talking about how she loved fucking this other guy so much, but her husband forgives her. (That, Samuel, is gruesome.)

    Dalrock says I’m supposed to be ashamed that I have to learn Game from PUAs. Yet, what is the cause of this shame, if not the success of insanity and ugliness over Christian women’s desires; that there’s success in insanity and ugliness, and fucking women who do not belong to them? I think Dalrock’s right.

    Sure, there’s truth in Rollo’s blog. I don’t have a problem with the truth. I don’t have problem with laughing at the truth; even when it’s ugly. I have a problem that Joseph laughs at the schmuck with the guy selling ugly; when he would never stand with the schmuck, and laugh at the seller.

    We laugh at the women. We laugh at the losers. Very few laugh at the PUAs.

  239. unger says:

    @Sharrukin: Yes, he took a whip to some folks. Nobody in his right mind disputes that violent anger, channeled towards proper ends, is a good thing. But the fact remains that Jesus was rejected in large part because he did not ‘look the part’ of a Messiah, did not act as the Jews expected a Messiah must. They expected Power, but he came humbly. They expected him to defeat their worldly enemies; at most, he raised his hand against some people who turned his father’s house into a den of hucksters. Boring beta.

  240. Danger says:

    @Unger

    Anything that creates positive in your life is an appropriate channel. The PUA’s know game, but that does not make them Christians, neither does a Christian knowing game make them a PUA.

    I’m not convinced that Christ was a Beta or an Omega. Betas and Omegas are incapable of leading on that kind of level.

  241. Cane Caldo says:

    @greyghost

    Why is this something to be feared. Are you men of faith or are you men of churchian nice. Any fear of the gods gift of knowlege is sinful

    This was actually a very good response, greyghost. Unger and I have more of the same spirit, but that was good.

  242. Sharrukin says:

    Boring beta.
    ———————
    Matthew 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
    13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
    14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

    He didn’t really seem to care who he offended, so boring isn’t how I would describe him. He was also obviously a leader, hence the disciples and all. I don’t think he really belongs in any of the Alpha-Beta-Omega categories, but if forced to put a square peg in a round hole, I would say Alpha.

  243. Cane Caldo says:

    @Danger

    Anything that creates positive in your life is an appropriate channel. The PUA’s know game, but that does not make them Christians, neither does a Christian knowing game make them a PUA.

    Creates positive? The measure is: Does it advance the kingdom of God, or not? This is the problem with doing the logic of Game as Joseph stated it, and Ulysses, too (truth is a tool, he said). Christ describes Himself as the truth.

    So, Christ = truth = Game

    Didn’t someone ask me why I kept positing that Game is versus not pro-Christ. It’s because people keep saying things like this. Stop saying Game is truth, and I’ll stop saying you’re advocating idolatry.

    I’m willing to accept many different definitions, and synthesize them, but I don’t have to wait for three comments before Game becomes the truth, again. We don’t talk about engineering this way. DO YOU HEAR ME, BRIDGE? ENGINEERING IS THE TRUTH?

    It just sounds silly. We know how women are, but that woman over there, the one sitting in the coffeeshop window could change tomorrow, and the truth of what is good game goes up in a puff of logic. Christ doesn’t.

  244. unger says:

    @Danger: 1: What constitutes ‘positive’? This, for instance? Sometimes real positives look like ‘going nowhere’ to the world, and vice versa.

    2: How much was leadership and how much was giving out free stuff? Isaiah 53 does not lend itself to the view that Christ possessed any exceptional charisma, and the crowd of followers around the Cross was pretty thin. Is leadership merely getting people to follow you? Is the measure of leadership how many follow you? Do the world’s answers to those questions line up with the Christian answers?

  245. Cane Caldo says:

    @Sharrukin

    He didn’t really seem to care who he offended, so boring isn’t how I would describe him. He was also obviously a leader, hence the disciples and all. I don’t think he really belongs in any of the Alpha-Beta-Omega categories, but if forced to put a square peg in a round hole, I would say Alpha.

    Never forget that your SMP rank is situational. It’s a shame He wasn’t as Alpha as Barrabas.

  246. Ybm says:

    MackPUA says:
    September 27, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    That’s an awful lot of words to say you have a crush on me. You’re following me around the Internet trying to get my attention now? It’s cute, and I’m flattered, but its really…..beta behaviour to cyberstalk.

  247. Sharrukin says:

    the view that Christ possessed any exceptional charisma, and the crowd of followers around the Cross was pretty thin.
    ———————————
    Matthew 8:1 When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.

    Matthew 4:24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

    25 And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.

    Is leadership merely getting people to follow you?
    ——————————–
    Pretty much. What sort of leadership is a separate question.

  248. unger says:

    Sharrukin: …like I said, how much of that was charisma and how much was giving out free stuff? I’m pretty sure that if I stood on a street corner magicking up bread, curing cancer, and straightening out schizos, I’d have a following too – until I quit, at which point I’d find out how few really liked me for me.

  249. unger says:

    …and, more importantly, followed me for me.

  250. Cane Caldo says:

    @Sharrukin

    You’re painting the picture of a very skilled beta. As long as Jesus is working miracles, they love him–it’s the miracles they love. They like the work, like they like the IT guy, and the rest of civilization that betas provide. But the minute the miracles stop, and Jesus gets AMOG’d by Roman troops, the party is over.

  251. Sharrukin says:

    Sharrukin: …like I said, how much of that was charisma and how much was giving out free stuff?
    ———————————-
    I think there was a little more involved to his message than free goodies. People went to the lions for it and they weren’t getting any discounts at the Coliseum concession stands.

  252. Dear Lord, please let the geniuses who invented the internet invent a a new html tag to indicate sarcasm so your disciples can appreciate when their own jingoism is being used to illustrate a point, amen.

    Your humble servant Rollo.

  253. Joseph says:

    @Cane

    “This is why I do not trust you, and therefore will not be concerned about bringing myself to a verbalized understanding of Game. ”

    Sorry to hear that. The woman and man in that article are indeed both idiots who have destroyed their family. I do not condone Rollo’s lifestyle and myself am 29 and have never had sex. I however choose my battle a little more carefully than you. I do not attack sin flippantly, but where it will do the most good. Rollo would not respond to me if I did call him out and it certainly wouldn’t change his mind. Rollo is not an ally to Christians, but in this case, he’s not an enemy either. His sin is his own business and he will stand before God just as you and I will. I’ll leave it to God to decide the rest. As for you, you can do what you want. You aren’t looking for allies, or understanding, or anything that I can tell. You ask questions, but reflexively run from the answers you are given. Someone takes a humorous look at how badly deranged we have let the human condition become (because the phase of abject rage has already passed for me) and you write them off as an enemy in disguise because of an arbitrary rule of conduct you have in your head of how Christians should respond to all posts made on blogs. I do not consider you a troll, but you have done nothing to help the cause of true Christians who wish to lead Godly lives and marriages by building men up in the skills they will need to succeed. That makes you an ignorant fool (I don’t use the term lightly) and no friend to the cause of Christ and the working of His Spirit who uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Go slay imaginary dragon on blog rolls and we will spend our time building up the mentality and skill set to take this near hopeless fight to the gates of hell itself. I hope I see you in the sky when this is all over. Maybe then you will finally understand that everyone is not your enemy.

  254. Joe, you wound me. I would love to respond to you about anything, and I sincerely doubt I would be allowed to contribute to Dalrocks blog, or even bother contributing, if I didn’t think I might be able to enlighten a christian readership.

  255. Crank says:

    Out of curiosity, do any of these pastors that you highlight from time to time ever respond (putting aside Sheila’s initial attempt to respond)?

  256. Joseph says:

    Rollo, I am not attempting to insult you. From what I can tell you have a lifestyle that I cannot condone. That does not mean that I do not respect you for your knowledge nor that I do not value your input. Christians are called to be in the world but not of it. Your insights into the female mind have been extremely valuable to me and with all sincerity I thank you for them. When I speak of you not being an ally it’s in regards to a Christian lifestyle and nothing else. I seriously doubt I could dissuade you from the current direction that you take your life in. But rest assured, (and I mean this in a literal sense) you have been in my prayers. I hope to see you where I hope to go when Jesus returns.

  257. Cane Caldo says:

    @Joseph

    You’re not married? Aw, crap. See? This is the conspiracy thing I was talking about. Danger, are you married?

    Look, here’s my perspective on proper Game, for a wife, from one hypothetical man to another:

    “Dude, it is ok to slap your wife on the ass. She’s YOUR wife.”

    “What if she gets mad?”

    “Are you going to slug her?”

    “No.”

    “Then she won’t get mad.”

    “But what if she does? She gets pissy”

    “She’s a girl. She likes to play games. Play a game of slap her ass, and tickle.”

    That will get a husband sex. It will not build houses.

  258. Danger says:

    @Cane and Unger

    Everyone has a different definition of “positive”. That does not detract from the fact that the Bible teaches men to have game and advises them in some of the methods of game.

    You are reading too much into it. Whatever advances Christ is what Christians consider positive. Game can be used to advance many things, some not so Christian. But again, that does not mean that Game is not Christian.

    Game (confidence, leadership, aggression, dominance, etc,…) is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. How you choose to channel that is up to you. Even Christians have different ideas on what is positive for Christianity. That is the point you are actually arguing, you do not need the definition of “game” clouding up that argument for you.

  259. Danger says:

    @Cane

    No I am not married. I do have an ex-wife and that ended about six years ago.

  260. Cane Caldo says:

    @Danger

    Are you married?

  261. Joseph says:

    @Cane

    So he uses a different set of tools to build a house…. after he’s had sex. I don’t see the problem. I have used principles from Game on every relationship with women that I have in my life. It has made a drastic difference for me in every way for the better. The women in my life have respect for me that they have never shown before. My opinion counts. And many of those ideas came from Rollo. He may not know it or agree with me, but God is using him to help us Christian men who have no idea how to escape the trap that is modern Churchianity.

  262. Mark Minter says:

    There is a Trojan Vibrator commercial that starts with a wife talking on the phone saying “I mentioned that tonight just might be a Trojan Vibrations night and my husband kicked into “please me” mode” And the rest of the commercial has the hubby ironing, vacuuming, saying things like “Tell me more stories about your father’s Aunt Millie” and “Heck no, I don’t want to watch a football game. Lets watch one of romantic movies you like so much”. While he’s mopping or something she shows him the Vibrator and he goes a running.

    So men should kiss the wife’s butt to be afforded the opportunity to use a vibrator on her.

  263. Cane Caldo says:

    @Danger

    I am honestly sorry to hear that. Though I am not divorced, my parents are. Sometimes, women are just bitches and sluts; like my mother and my sister. There is no truth that can save a man from them in this world, and Christ doesn’t purport to. Neither, then, should we ask it of Game.

    @Dalrock

    I just watched the video. Here’s my take.

    First three minutes are talking about how sex is good and biblical, and we should enjoy even the carnality of it. Which, of course he feels like he has to do because even Christians think Christians don’t like sex.

    The next one minute is telling guys to work on their approach–which is a fundamental concentration of Game. Yes, he makes fun of guys for a few seconds, but it’s clearly projection. He’s making fun of himself, but in the process, he does undermine men a bit. That’s not great.

    The next FOUR MINUTES are directions telling wives to spread their legs for their husbands, regardless. As bad as the men got in jest; wives get much worse: He implies that they are frigid. Then he says that by doing this, they are causing a crisis, and a spiritual problem; which he emphasizes is the wives’ fault, and he makes it clear they owe men sex, and that if she wants to be happy she needs to do this whether she “wants” to or not.

    Then the last minute is tying it back to the holiness and goodness of marital sex.

    Let me say that again: Out of nine minutes of preaching: He spent four minutes total saying sex in a marriage is good, and right, and fun. He spent four minutes berating the women for refusing their husbands at both their perils. He joked for one minute about guys being goofy–with bad delivery.

    This isn’t bad advice. It’s good mixed-company advice on sex. How many times have we read or said the same things here, and in about similar proportions?

    The worst thing I can say about the video is that the guy is goofy. Big deal.

  264. Cane Caldo says:

    @Joseph

    So he uses a different set of tools to build a house…. after he’s had sex. I don’t see the problem

    Yes. A different set of tools; all to be operated with virtue. Under such an understanding, there is no problem.

  265. freebird says:

    First off mad props to Dalrock for holding the best conversation on the net.
    Christ is the alpha and omega- we can do it his way,the civilized way,or he’s gonna come back and burn it all down scorched earth style.Now that’s alpha!
    @greybeard_ I gotta lotta respect for you bro,you’ve said some really smart stuff.Will toss a bone by saying the argument appears to be over the definition of the word “game.” A christian man under a christian nation has the ultimate authority that could be called ‘frame.’ Once he’s married she cannot divorce,no one can lay claim to his woman,things are stabilized nicely.
    So what christians used to have via the mutual ownership system was the ultimate commitment ‘game,’pre-packaged,turnkey,fully supported,with real and clearly defined parameters.
    Where the argument comes in is the perception (rightfully so?) that “game” is pandering to wanton female hypergamy on female terms.(matriarchal) This is what is so offensive to myself and patriarchal christians.
    @mackpua-hey man I would rather go bare chested knuckles man to man and winner grabs the gal by the hair and drags her back to cave than have the whole police force against a well manner innocent man.It would be more honest,and it will be what the gals get if they keep pursuing non-christian rebellion.
    The christian way is fair, he owns her and his children,she owns him and her children,till death due them part.
    Now the rad-fems spout words like chattel-I would ask them,does the State own you?Because that is whom you are asking to take possession!
    We can do this thing the christian civilized way,or we can do this the hard way,the onus is on the women to either submit to the civilized way,or face the consequences of the alternate paths.
    Stand and show yourselves accounted for!

    Note:The wymyns have gone eerily quiet!

  266. Joseph says:

    @Cane

    That is the problem with you…………there’s always a problem. I never recommended using game without virtue, but you seem to think that I did. I guess this is just your conversation style, assume the other guy is wrong until he proves himself blameless before God Almighty………or Cane whichever comes first. Probably God. We know what he wants.

  267. freebird says:

    Additional comments on the patriarchal nature of God:
    He made our souls,he owns them all.Sent a shepherd to guide the (chattel) sheep that they may live.If the sheep deny the shepherd and the owner,they are lost in the ditch and will surely perish.
    No one can rightfully call themselves christians w/o buying into the concept of ownership.The fact is we are all owned,the question is whom do you serve? The owner/master of this material flesh body world, or the owner that made your soul and is charged with keeping it for eternity?
    Make your choice,no man serves two masters w/o hating one of them.
    Gals-stand and be accounted for!

  268. FuriousFerret says:

    Look Cane has no skin the game.

    He is simply of clone of every older adult leader at my youth group growing up. He wants people to do it his way, by his ideology. Who cares if that leads to your agony. Your life isn’t important, it’s all about following his way. He is the same type that ideological castrates the churchian beta male while the natural alpha will be defiant leading to amplication of the churchian sexuality problem.

    According to Cane Caldo, all you should do is sit in your room and pray for ‘God’s Perfect Timing’. Game = bad.

    As I’ve said before Caldo and his ilk are the enemy. He is the enemy because he is a ‘frienemy’ and you’re too damn young and stupid to realize they don’t give a fuck about you. He is only out for himself and his beliefs. Your interest be damned.

    What if we called ‘Game’, ‘Christian Man Purity Courting Techniques’. Kind of how Cartman replaced all the references to ‘baby’ in a secular song with ‘Jesus’ making it a Christian one. Would that be acceptable.

  269. Joseph says:

    @FuriousFerret

    I’m not sure Cane can see past his own nose. He’s not here to listen. If ever there was a true case of male solipsism it’s him.

  270. FuriousFerret says:

    Actually I was incorrect, Caldo has daughters that might be his angle.

    That’s always been a theory of mine. That elders castrates the young churchian guy because if they don’t he might have sex with his good girl daughter. This is the ultimate fear. These guys with their hormones raging will go on a good ole sex romp with all nubile nymphs in the the church so their balls must be ideologically cut off.

    This plan backfires because it only works on the betas and the testerone alphas will not back down to such a shitty paradigm. So the guys that need it most are stomped down by the system.

  271. freebird says:

    We can lay most of these arguments to rest by referring to
    virtuous masculinity with the old term ‘patriarchal christian’ and the lessor matriarchal arts as “game.”
    The bible is quite clear that a husband is not required to keep seducing his bride. It is her job to stay content once committed.It is the satanic rebellion against Godly commitment that is making the women crave the seducing spirits.
    A godly patriarchal man had society’s support in stomping/suppressing spirits of seduction.(Not the anarchy of the free-seduction movement)

    It is folly to oppose a well thought out patriarchal system thousands of years that that has stood the test to time,until the sodomites started playing Gomorrah to destroy the family for cash and prizes.
    We know what to do with them,also.(destruction)
    This whole dealy bob has been played out again and again,the results are predicable,for believer and non-believers,it is the SAME SYSTEM.
    (natural order)

  272. Joseph says:

    @FF

    I think you are right. He probably does have daughters and thinks he is actually going to be able to keep an Alpha out of their pants. It’s kind of sad. I know he wants what’s best for his family, but damn. Listening is part of being human. He hears you and responds, he’s just not listening.

  273. freebird says:

    @ff-“Christian Man Purity Courting Techniques” would be acceptable if you agreed to abide by the terms set in the book.
    No one is trying to stiff you out of a gal,we’re trying to make her keep you by sanction.This is about woman control,not man control.Well,ok,a bit of both,for the better good of all.

  274. FuriousFerret says:

    Seriously, it’s like when some people become a Christian, common sense is just thrown out the window. Actual, I believe that’s one of the devil’s biggest plays. It all this gooey wooey touchy feely intellectual syrup that gets poured over everything we say and do until your not a good Christian unitl you are choking on sarcchine.

    Making your wife want you is not matriarchal or a sin. Yes technically she should submit and not be a good wife but this is the real world man. Your doing your wife a disservice in putting all that burden on her. I mean if your wife became a land whale, the bible still commands that you screw her. Would you like your wife to gain 50 pounds right after the wedding? Don’t you know you shouldn’t care. Lust is a sin after all. All sexual desire is visual form is bad. Thus saeth Freebird and Caldo.

  275. freebird says:

    Or we can go the Godless lesbian driven feminist bonobo way,it’s a lot easier for man to know his wife is not going to fall for the next player due to the wrong system.Hard way or easy way,it is the woman’s choice at this juncture.Stability or instability.
    I have no real dog in the fight,other than a wish to live in a civilized society.

  276. freebird says:

    “Your doing your wife a disservice in putting all that burden on her”

    Burdens like self respect,self agency,and a stable home life?Terrible! Great woe!
    Look if ya wanna bang freely Bohemian style,just say so.But pick one side,any side.
    If it’s a free-for-all ya want,just say so.You will likely get it,because the wymyn have gone Godless.Full stop.

  277. FuriousFerret says:

    Look man it’s not hard. Women like to be gamed. It’s fun and exciting for them. Even to their husband of say 20 years they still like it.

    It’s akin to a woman going to gym and eating right and maintaing a sexy figure for her husband.

    I would not be ok with a land whale wife. I don’t think it’s fair to her to not want to play the sexual attraction game because it doesn’t sit right with your little belief system.

    Why the hell would you want your wife to not be turned on?

  278. freebird says:

    Heavy sigh.
    Basics 101-desire and sex inside the christian marriage is not a sin.It is very comforting to have the stabilty=attraction+comfort+stabilty=closure.
    The open market-continual competition by seduction from outside.Much easier.

    Which game has the stronger frame?

  279. Cane Caldo says:

    @Joseph

    I never recommended using game without virtue, but you seem to think that I did. I guess this is just your conversation style, assume the other guy is wrong

    No, you said Game WAS virtue. That’s a very different thing. Now you’re discriminating between various sets of tools Game being but one of many. Before you held for that every different tool was Game. You were going to make it simple for me by building a house with Game bricks, and Game stone, and Game wood..built with Game hammers.

    And, yes, when the other guy says something that sounds wrong to me, I’m going to say, “That sounds wrong to me.” What’s ironic is that you get upset with me when we finally agree. When I say, “Yes, you’re right.” You throw up your hands in despair. Buck up, brother!

    @FuriousFerret

    Stop being such a drama queen. You’re not even remotely right. I’ve been married 18 years, AND my wife and I are relatively young. We have four kids. The chances are: I have more skin in this game than you ever will. If I’m wrong, and you’re right, then my marriage is a goner, isn’t it? If you want to marry, and you can’t: that sucks, but there is always tomorrow. If you are married 18 years and your wife leaves you and takes the kids because your Game sucks–that is crushing. You don’t even understand the stakes of the game I’m playing.

    You can call Game whatever you want, but I’m fine with Game as long as it doesn’t carry the baggage of being the truth. It is a collection of facts. Facts are not truth, in the sense that it is the answer to every question, and can build everything.

    This is why Danger could not find a bible verse directly related to seducing a woman, or a wife. The Bible is NOT just a collection of facts; though it is a historical document. To approach the Bible as a series of datapoints is to miss the mark. This is psychologizing scripture. It doesn’t work that way. The way it works is that you hide its words in your heart, and it does the work in there; while you’re sleeping.

    Most men lack virtue AND Game. Work on the virtue. There’s even less of that than Game. The problem with Christians isn’t that they lack Game–though they do–they lack virtue. Virtue is not praying in your room all day. The reason that’s what you hear me saying is because you had terrible youth ministers; just like a lot of us. You’re so far off that you’re talking to a guy who doesn’t even believe in adolescence. Youth time is over.

    Personally, I think the youth minister is a joke position. Worse: it’s a hideout for peter-pans, wannabe preachers, and pedophiles.

  280. freebird says:

    “Women like to be gamed. It’s fun and exciting for them”

    It’s not about whats exciting for her, all kinds of sin are exciting.What up to question is what’s best for the both of yall.
    She’s under an obligation to keep it shut except for you,that frees you up to do honest work and avoid continual pandering (supplication/submission)
    That is anti-game to submit to unjust power struggles.

  281. Cane Caldo says:

    @Joseph

    He probably does have daughters and thinks he is actually going to be able to keep an Alpha out of their pants.

    I have both, and my solution is to marry them off as fast as I can. I don’t want to keep men out, you see; I want them to continue my civilization process.

  282. freebird says:

    “Making your wife want you is not matriarchal or a sin”

    No one can “make” anyone else want them.She’s already agreed to want you for life at the altar.If it’s seduction she’s looking for,it’s seduction outside of marriage,and that’s her problem for not doing it right.
    Seriously,men don’t need some outside force driving what should be a totally natural action/relationship.
    The one system is stable,the other is not.Of course women want to be seduced by other men.The question is: will she?
    If a guy is so good at continual seduction with his wife,shouldn’t he ply that leverage outside and get some strange?
    Works both ways,we call it equality.

  283. freebird says:

    It’s after midnight here and I’m fixin to retire,just one more comment before leaving the podium.
    This is the danger of secular rebellion,once the women turn away from God’s ideal model,the men follow!
    Some obviously young men here have no desire to submit to God’s plan anymore than the wymyn.
    Anarchy breeds anarchy,what we are seeing is the suspension of anarchy of one side by a police state,instead of Godly leadership of both parties.
    Good night all.
    Yours in Christ

  284. Opus says:

    This is a Christian blog, and so it ill behoves a gleefully unrepentant heretic such as myself to raise the following: but is there anything in the New Testament which addresses the subject of Game? Is there anything in either Augustine or Aquinas?

    There are those who think that gaming women is exactly the wrong way to go about charming a woman into your bed – depends on the guy I suppose.

  285. greyghost says:

    there is more to the idea of game than that. a man or church with game can spot an unworthy woman,they can identify a repentant woman, they will know how to handle a slut. will never refer to a single mom as heroic, notice how not one of these points involves bedding some woman. But most importantly a church or man with game can allow a young 18 to 19 year old to gina tingle to marriage and for go the cock carousel. Have children young and go to college or learn skill to prepare for when the children become self propelled she can work out side of the family for the benefit of the whole. All done on the part of the female out of wicked self interesat. And that is the best you are going to do. BTW once you learn game you will come to the real conclusion of tyhe folly of churchianity. You will also understand why God told your stupid ass not listen to some bitch. There is no virtue in women. If there is gina tingle and social status in appearing virtuous and chase you will have a woman selfishly behaving with virtue. She may even go as far as saying she things women should have the right to choose but I would never be able to kill my baby. But you can bet churchian ass she will waste that child for social status and lie to everybody up to including picking the nearest man and claiming her pregnancy was due to rape. A good man is a man that has the power to do evil and chooses not to. A woman with any kind of power will use it to her own selfish interest and that is natural and nornal just the way god made them. You have to be like that to be an effective helper.

  286. Opus says:

    @greyghost

    It seems to me therefore that when Jesus admonished that slut: ‘neither do I condemn you. Go ye and sin no more’ [King James revised and from the top of my head version] he must have been using some form of Game. If only I were a Vicar I would use that text as the basis for my sermon next sunday – followed by a suitable hymn.

  287. He is the same type that ideological castrates the churchian beta male while the natural alpha will be defiant leading to amplication of the churchian sexuality problem.</I.

    I just don't see that.

    I see him reject game and all that comes with it.

    I see him tell men to not be beta/submissive.

    He argues for the perfect – A Christian male who is strong and masculine and who is sexually moral.

    Now, I don't have a problem with his stated end goal. I just advocate a different path to get there. Specifically, I advocate for Christian men to learn game, maintain a moral mindset, and go forth and live life.

    Cane isn't a Churchian. He's more a MGTOW than any other type of descriptor in the manosphere, except he hasn't written off marriage as unsalvagable.

    Cane, feel free to tell me if I've misinterpretted your philosophy/viewpoints.

  288. freebird says:

    ” a man or church with game can spot an unworthy woman,they can identify a repentant woman”

    It appears cane was correct that some folks have replaced God with Game.
    Only God knows the inside of a persons heart.
    That statement has slipped past the bounds of discretion and into heresy land.
    If yall want to reject one God for another,come right out with it.

    Women are a lot like horses,full of wild energy that must be broken,tamed,and harnessed.
    It’s one thing to poach a horse with a rifle to eat for a day,another to bring it into the corral and train it to be useful and keep it for life.

    IF might makes right,there are a lot of guys ready to go that route as they will win flat out.There is a time and place for whispering,and a time for the whip,God laid out the plan long ago were the help-meet *could* be preserved.
    The horsey has not enough mind to know what’s best for it,or the farmer.
    The farmer is gonna make something out of the deal,either tame the horse,or eat it so his cattle have more grazing land.
    Even if one does not believe in God,one can make a solid case that the methods outlined are %100 effective.

    If two farmers live close by and the one wishes to harness horses,and the other wishes to eat horse steak everyday,there will be a conflict there.
    Which is why “society” must come to mutual terms.
    This is why it’s so heinous when “society” enforced runaway horses.They are a band of poachers, keeping both farmers from keeping any horses,and need to be overthrown.

  289. Danger says:

    @Freebird,

    I agree with you on the power struggles.

    But if in your heart you follow Christ, and you are the confident, dominant, masculine leader of the household……then game comes more naturally.

    It only feels like work right now because you have been conditioned by the co-opted church and media.

    When you do as God wishes, when you confidently lead your wife and know that she must submit to you, you will naturally have game.

  290. freebird says:

    That’s an excellent metaphor,and this blog is fond of metaphors.Run with it.Both horses and women were created to help men.To my mind,game gets the horses into the corral,and enables the rider to get on,but he lacks the bit and bride to keep that horse tamed to keep for life.The horse needs a saddle,however much she may fight against that.A smart horse show some appreciation when she hears the coyotes howl outside her barn.Yep, she loves to run free,but it’s as short as it is wild.Cops the guys that damned up the river that waters the horses,nothing lives what used to be down water of that damn.Those cops have made a side stream to water their own horses,but none for you.Both horses and farmers suffer from lack of the living water.
    I’m guessing you guys can run a very long distance with those metaphors,will be interesting reading later tonight,hopefully.
    Now it’s time to scout territory for deer,they cannot be tamed nor ridden,so you know how that’s gonna end.

  291. freebird says:

    @danger 291.
    I feel ya bro.You mean well,but it is hubris to think man can go it alone w/o co-operation of women and God.(not in that order)
    A man loves to think he has to solve every problem by himself,that is not always possible as he’s not living in a vacuum.The woman needs to have enough of a *mind* to know to keep her heart/vagina closed,and the church is set up to keep drumming those concepts in.Ok, it used to be setup for that,until the sodomites took it over.

  292. Danger says:

    @freebird

    I agree with you. I am only trying to adjust the masculine side of the problem. Society as a whole must address the feminine side, particularly with hypergamy being unleashed.

    My point is that Christian men must utilize the tools that God gifted them with (confidence, dominance, strength, leadership, etc,…). Without that, it will not matter how successful society is in putting the hypergamy genie back in the bottle. Because the Christian women will still want the man that attracts them, as God intended it to be.

    Our first duty is to become what God intended us to be. Confident, masculine, successful leaders of men in the ways of Christ.

    Once that is accompished, the Christian women will naturally gravitate towards the Christian men because they are now following God’s word and not the co-opted church’s perversion of it.

  293. @unger- “Sam Solomon: What evidence do you have that Game will make better women from the only perspective that matters in the end, which is concerned with saving their souls? What reason do we have to believe that all this work you put into attracting women will do anything but harden them in their feral state, reward them for rewarding Pride?

    The problem with answering that question is the absence of a clear definition of “game”. One guy here called it ‘Attract, Comfort, Seduction”. Roissy calls it something similar. Many PUAs define it with an absence of morality. Others call it confidence or courage, and insist it can be used for good instead of evil. As for me, I’m not going to let PUAs define my terms. “Game”, as it serves me subjectively, is a positive part of my frame. For those who wish to use game not only to help themselves succeed in relationships but also to help the women they interact with to be better women, for them to understand more and be wiser, and even be trained into a less destructive state, its invaluable. My gosh, is it such a bad thing to try and help some women?

    Is it so impossible to imagine that a red-pill man could help a woman legitimately?

    A man can’t help a woman until he has influence with her. He can’t have influence with her unless he exhibits leadership in general. In that line of thinking, a man can’t even help a woman at all WITHOUT Game. (white-knight beta enabler save-a-ho’s don’t ‘help’)

    Women cannot repent unless someone has the guts to point out their sin.

    For those who use it in other ways, I’m not responsible for their interpretations or implementation, just as they are not responsible for how I operate.

    Game, just like sex itself, has the potential for the creative or the destructive.

    _____________

    @Cane- the problem with your analogy is that you made no distinction for what KIND of family. Today’s nuclear family? An Amish family? A Brazilian family? The meat-grinders are the state and the churches who spew lies. The family is the victim of it, even from within. Some families, however, are not meat-grinders because they are insulated from those attacks in some form or another, including places where tradition still holds and media barrages are absent, or when the leaders of the family are red-pill leaders, and eschew feminism.

    I knew what you meant, but it read very poorly. That’s why I encouraged you to take more time with your comments, so they are more productive and less ambiguous.

  294. Joseph says:

    @Cane

    Good luck with that. Women have far too much freedom and they will rebel if they taste the open air. Especially from the type of gridlock Christianity you speak of. The type you preach has emasculated the men and leaves the women completely vulnerable to the machinations of unrighteous men and devils appearing as angels of light.

  295. Legion says:

    Joseph says:
    September 27, 2012 at 10:33 pm
    @FuriousFerret
    “I’m not sure Cane can see past his own nose.”

    That’s because it always dark where his nose is.

  296. Martian Bachelor says:

    That’s good freebird: “Game” is training for the tentative and unpaid internship position of Bimbo Wrangler.

    No wonder the sales pitches always spin out into the truly hyperbolic.

  297. Danger says:

    @Christians who deride game

    Make fun of it all you want, it is ruining you.

    Or to be more clear……Your turning away from the gifts that God gave you (confidence, etc,….) is what is ruining you. He made the feminine attracted to the masculine for a reason. When you deride the masculine strengths God gave you, you turned your back on God.

  298. Dalrock says:

    @unger

    @Sam Solomon: What evidence do you have that Game will make better women from the only perspective that matters in the end, which is concerned with saving their souls?

    This is a fundamental problem I see. Whenever we discuss defeminizing Christian marriage and moving towards biblical marriage, the list of obstructions to any change to the status quo includes this incredibly high bar. If your church’s sanctuary were on fire would you tackle the firefighters, demanding:

    What evidence do you have that putting water on that fire will save any souls! This is all that matters in the end!

    And of course I assume if the ladies of the church are putting on a pot luck to feed the congregation, you would knock all of the tables of food over demanding:

    What evidence do you have that feeding the congregation will save any souls! This is all that matters in the end!

    Marriage matters.

    It is essential in the lives of the entire family. Paul has also explained how it fits with salvation, but there is still the question of practical reality. Hundreds of millions of children and innocent adults are going through the meat grinder, and the church is ground zero. Yet you demand we only take actions we can prove will save the soul of the unhaaaaapy wife. BS. This is just another one in the litany of roadblocks put in place to ensure we don’t have meaningful change. You may not intend it that way, but it doesn’t change the fact. You are standing on the side of the obstructionists pointing out how everyone trying to fix the problem is doing it all wrong. Best just leave it as it is.

    If you have a better solution to limit the very real carnage which is occurring today, by all means share it. If you can help others who are proposing solutions craft more effective and/or biblical ones, why not do so? Otherwise, why are you acting as an enforcer of feminism?

  299. Danger says:

    Well said Dalrock.

  300. Cane Caldo says:

    @Joseph

    The type you preach has emasculated the men and leaves the women completely vulnerable to the machinations of unrighteous men and devils appearing as angels of light.

    Sounds like Roissy to me. Understand: I say that with respect to him. The mistake I made that caused me to sink into the Game blogs Ultimate Conspiracy miasma is that I assumed you had actually read, and understood what the best Game writers had to say. You haven’t. You can’t distinguish between the tool set and the tools within the set. So, all the tools become Game itself, and it’s as unwieldy as this:

    http://www.hammacher.com/Product/74670?cm_cat=ProductSEM&cm_pla=AdWordsPLA&source=PRODSEM

    Pare it down. Break the tools into wieldable parts, and then you can see their use. As you look at them, you’ll see where Roissy’s perspective is wrong for the Christian, but you can then understand what the tool you need for marriage is; which is the Christian sexual vehicle.

    For example: Hand. Hand is the concept that, in a relationship, whomever likes the other less is the one with the power. This is absolutely true. Women use this all the time to get men to do things for them. Roissy’s suggestion is to flip the script on them (and you can) and get them to like you, and then remove your like-ing them from the equation. Now, they have more emotional investment than you do. You have Hand, and can influence them greatly; get them to bend over on command It’s useful for sluts, or people you have no love for…provided you can get them attracted in the first place. (Another tool for another time.)

    In Christ, this is all wrong. You are to love, not like. Secondly, men LIKE to love. We want to. Not only do we recognize this, we go so far as to say that the man is the lover, and the woman the object of love. This is Christ from the top of Heaven all the way down to us. The Christian man presents himself as good for her because of his love for her. She can either take it, or leave it. Parents and Church are supposed to support this process, but we’ve all excused ourselves in the name of independence. If He does love her, and he is competent enough for her, and courageous–she is a FOOL to refuse; though many women do because they have no sense of their value, up or down. Through love of her–he can win her heart, instead of pulling at the strings of her id and super-ego. Then she will relish bending over for her man in a way Roissy has only glimpsed, but never known.

    The Christian offers union, where the Player offers good sport.

  301. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    This is a fundamental problem I see. Whenever we discuss defeminizing Christian marriage and moving towards biblical marriage, the list of obstructions to any change to the status quo includes this incredibly high bar. If your church’s sanctuary were on fire would you tackle the firefighters…

    Marriage matters.

    It is essential in the lives of the entire family. Paul has also explained how it fits with salvation, but there is still the question of practical reality. Hundreds of millions of children and innocent adults are going through the meat grinder, and the church is ground zero. Yet you demand we only take actions we can prove will save the soul of the unhaaaaapy wife. BS. This is just another one in the litany of roadblocks put in place to ensure we don’t have meaningful change.

    There is a lot of truth in this, and I have been guilty of it. It is also true that the pastors handed the matches to the women in the first place, and told them how to strike them. Meanwhile the men sat around, and then just left.

    We need some firemen, no question. The question is: how do we separate the firemen of the NYFD from the firemen of 454, because the future is now.

  302. whatever says:


    but we’ve all excused ourselves in the name of independence

    Look Cady, we all know that the people giving the woman “independence” have a long and ever changing list of demands for men. You can try to pawn off favoring women as some sort of “abstract principle” of “independence” but it isn’t and you know it. We know it. Everyone knows it.

    So quit lying.

  303. Danger says:

    @Cane

    The first step towards any sort of fix, is to become Men again. Be the Leader, be confident, be masculine, dominant, etc,…

    How can one expect the women or the Church to follow scripture when we cannot do it ourselves first?

    By following the passages we discussed earlier, you will be better positioned to stop the disease and begin pushing it back.

  304. Danger says:

    I am going to take it one step farther, just to be sure that my message is understood.

    The problem with going after the women, or attacking feminism, is that you will lose. Feminism is too strong and too entrenched. Too few people see the problem with it and you will be shut down quickly, both in and out of Church.

    Do not set out to raze all of feminism, you will frighten the women. Enshrine masculinity and feminism is razed.

  305. FuriousFerret says:

    ‘The Christian man presents himself as good for her because of his love for her. She can either take it, or leave it. Parents and Church are supposed to support this process, but we’ve all excused ourselves in the name of independence. If He does love her, and he is competent enough for her, and courageous–she is a FOOL to refuse; though many women do because they have no sense of their value, up or down. ‘

    That is all you need to know about Caldo. It’s like he took all the bad advice on women ever made and condensed into a few sentences.

    You know ‘what should be, IS’ is a really shitty paradigm.

  306. Thorvald The Lesser says:

    LOL, cane is such an obvious troll.

    I can sum up canes argument in one sentence “your wife being attracted to you is bad” LOLZOLZLZZZLZOLZ

  307. Cane Caldo says:

    @Danger

    We agree! That’s why I used the phrase “The Christian man presents himself as good for her because of his love for her.” “Present yourself as”; to actually be and appear virtuous, and his love is the source of his virtue. His love; not hers. He will be virtuous whatever she says. Part of that is physical, as men are physical. I’m not just talking about emotions, or whether she says her catechism right (those are important too), but the physical matters. If he loves her, and she is worthy of a well-dressed and well-groomed husband, then he needs to be that if he is going to present himself as competent enough for her. It’s not a matter of meeting her demands, but of the man rightly assessing the situation, and then taking action appropriate to the challenge. Her demands may change. The man should not just change because her demands have, but only after he has re-assessed the situation.

    Said another way: “How can one expect the women or the Church to follow scripture when we cannot do it ourselves first?” Which is what Unger is getting at, too. We are not very different, at all…provided no one tries to assert that Game is the truth instead of a collection of facts. You learn from facts, you don’t re-inact them.

  308. You are standing on the side of the obstructionists pointing out how everyone trying to fix the problem is doing it all wrong. Best just leave it as it is.
    ——————————————————
    Dalrock, I agree 100% w/ your comments to the poster. This kind of Christian utopianism pops up in all aspects of life, it breeds everything from ridiculous optimism (God’s gonna take care of that) to absurd humility (Im just a sinner saved by grace) to what you are pointing out….all that matters is if what yer doin’ is savin’ souls.
    Then euthanize 1 year olds, and per most Protestant American groups (I am in said group) that would usher all to heaven. Ok I know there is a difference, and the part about killing is wrong….but the point is then, what about just helping others? We do benevolence do we not? We even spread resources to the poor and tell ourselves maybe we can share the gospel to the folks. If we could not share the gospel, should we help?
    The kids yet to be ruined by these frivorces , what about them? What about the man who maybe kills hilself during a divorce where he was skinned of everything….and he truly never did have the chance to hear the gospel yet in his life….is it even a little bit important to try and change the status quo, life in general, and does it not all rejoin efforts to evangelize at some point?

    However, using any of this to argue game one way of the other I cannot agree with. Just reading this thread I found, quickly, the following remarks on game:

    ————————-
    there is more to the idea of game than that

    The problem with answering that question is the absence of a clear definition of “game”.

    Game, just like sex itself, has the potential for the creative or the destructive.

    Game (confidence, leadership, aggression, dominance, etc,…) is a tool, nothing more, nothing less.

    Except there’s no such thing as “formal” rules of Game.

    It is often claimed that the phrase Game = Attraction triggers in the female brain = Game is a useless tautology. I beg to differ
    ————————–

    I barely looked, and this thread isn’t even about game.
    Whatever the hell game is (above and beyond something that seemingly lots of very smart men LOVE to intellectually peacock about; oh and wink to the person who would respond by saying my views are “just because I don’t understand game…..too funny) it is crowding God out of Christian discourse in certain circles. Its irrelevant really whether game is or isn’t compatible with Christianity. Here, and other similar places, you have a certain sample of men. Among us are self professed Christians, whatever that may mean individually, prima facia we have a group of Christians here among the larger group.

    Aside from a very small number of those Christian men, who are indeed the exception to this, what topic, God, or Game, gets the place more animated INCLUDING the Christian participants? What is more pontificated, the wonders of God…..or the mysteries of game?

    No, it isn’t because game IS the topic and God isnt….thats the case in threads about game and things OF game. This thread is a good example of my point. Its about a preacher and how he treats sex in a sermon. It is not deniable that in a very simplistic way, game is proffered as the answer.

    Its either THE answer…..for PUA’s and what I will call married PUA’s (lacking better term.

    Or its an add on feature to God and His words about sex.

    Or some come close to saying that you can read game right there in the bible so game IS in that sense featuring God’s word

    Or its a tool to add to one’s faith basket, I guess sort of like taking a seminar on how to witness to people, “”Three Easy Steps to use to Approach the the Unbeliever”” sort of thing (which also bugs me for not dissimilar reasons)

    Whether it IS a tool to use to manage per Gods word, or it is actually to be found in the Bible, or whatever is a question for another time…..my question is, what seems to be the most FUN? What is brand of relationship soap that lathers largest on the Christian men here?
    Game, or God……or are they particularly enthusiastic to talk about God (as pertains to relationships) and relationships when Game is included (hint: when game is the REAL topic)

  309. Cane Caldo says:

    @Danger

    The problem with going after the women, or attacking feminism, is that you will lose. Feminism is too strong and too entrenched. Too few people see the problem with it and you will be shut down quickly, both in and out of Church.

    Feminism doesn’t really exist. When we fight feminism, we’re really fighting other men for the women.

    Imagine that an alien man showed up here about 7am tomorrow. He comes from a really manly place, and so is distraught by the feral women on our planet. So he uses his ray-gun of mind control to make every man subjugate every woman. It would be done by nightfall.

    What we’re up against, as Dalrock takes pains to show, is the men who perpetrate this charade. Men run the courts. Men write the laws. Men put the force in police force. Men run the churches. Men run the prisons. Men run the universities (Donors run schools; men are the donors). Men run the media companies. Men expand socialism.

    These men are successful, wealthy, and shrewd. They do not think you deserve a woman, so they have made them very hard to handle on purpose; to demonstrate your perceived unworthiness, and flatter their own.

    We’re fighting men.

  310. Cane,
    You can’t believe what you wrote. Feminism doens’t exist? We’re only fighting other men?

    Is this some type of rope-a-dope? If so, I think guys on this blog deserve straight discussions.

  311. They do not think you deserve a woman, so they have made them very hard to handle on purpose; to demonstrate your perceived unworthiness, and flatter their own.
    ———————————————————————————
    Don’t think so

  312. I get the part about men’s fault, men run this and that….I get that.

    It gets dangerous thereafter

    Cane has a conspiracy theory
    Others use that to make a circular firing squad of men

    Neither is a good way to go

  313. Cane Caldo says:

    @RTP

    Sorry. Too theoretical. Yes, Feminism exists, but females are not the power behind it. Feminism is de jure rule by women, but it is de facto rule by some men over others.

    It’t not a conspiracy; it’s a concoction of each of them thinking they’re better than other men. “My daughter won’t be pent up with a…” You all know this. I’m not saying anything new; just reminding you of what we already know.

    Who beheaded John the Baptist: the dancing girl, or the king? The king and his men, of course.

  314. tbc says:

    This conversation seems to be a tiresome exercise in words. Of course words have meaning, but there seems to be far more energy given to the clarification and debate over words than to the reality towards which the words point.

  315. Dalrock says:

    @Cane

    There is a lot of truth in this, and I have been guilty of it. It is also true that the pastors handed the matches to the women in the first place, and told them how to strike them. Meanwhile the men sat around, and then just left.

    We need some firemen, no question. The question is: how do we separate the firemen of the NYFD from the firemen of 454, because the future is now.

    The parts of Game advice which are off limits for a Christian man are very obvious. It would be ideal if Christians had repackaged it in biblically sound format. There is much work to do here. No one of us can do it all, and whatever work we do should really be worked yet again by a pastor. But to do this work will take an excellent understanding of both Game and biblical marriage. The men who know the most about Game are the ones we will have to learn that part from. Fortunately for us they are generally very sympathetic to what we want to do (even though it is different than their own goal). Unfortunately their willingness to help is viewed with outsized suspicion and many would prefer to take their help while pretending we thought it all up ourselves.

    Pare it down. Break the tools into wieldable parts, and then you can see their use. As you look at them, you’ll see where Roissy’s perspective is wrong for the Christian, but you can then understand what the tool you need for marriage is; which is the Christian sexual vehicle.

    Yes, you have it right here.

    In another comment you also wrote:

    For example: Hand. Hand is the concept that, in a relationship, whomever likes the other less is the one with the power. This is absolutely true. Women use this all the time to get men to do things for them. Roissy’s suggestion is to flip the script on them (and you can) and get them to like you, and then remove your like-ing them from the equation. Now, they have more emotional investment than you do. You have Hand, and can influence them greatly; get them to bend over on command It’s useful for sluts, or people you have no love for…provided you can get them attracted in the first place. (Another tool for another time.)

    In Christ, this is all wrong. You are to love, not like. Secondly, men LIKE to love. We want to.

    I may be misreading you here, but Roissy’s concept of hand is extremely applicable to biblical marriage. It is his method which doesn’t apply. Still, as you noted in the previous quote, his is a valuable starting place. Now we have the concept, we can use it appropriately for biblical marriage. Hand is very much a problem for men in marriage across the board. This is what the threatpoint is all about. Part of hand in this case is an unshakable frame, as I addressed in Hostage negotiator for life. Ok, she has the detonator. God says I’m the rightful leader of this family and she is to submit to me. If she rebells, that is her choice. The church is of course abdicating it’s crucial role here, as a community of Christians enforcing biblical marriage and shunning frivorce and rebellion would go a very long way here. Unfortunately as it stands Christians are doing the opposite out of fear of the husband having hand (irrational fear of biblical headship). Also, the other problem betas (Christian or otherwise) have with hand is they tend to go overboard in their emotion for their wives. Roissy says temper your emotions by keeping your options with other women open. God says temper your emotions by keeping Him as your priority.

  316. Cane Caldo says:

    I may be misreading you here, but Roissy’s concept of hand is extremely applicable to biblical marriage.

    Hand is applicable, as is lots of Game. When I say “love”, I’m not talking about emotions, but the actions, and the bend of our minds, our intentions–our spirit. So, your last two sentences are right, but they will look like much different things.

    Also: Roissy’s Hand is MUCH more effective our world. It just is. This is a dangerous thing for a beta to attempt with a wife who does not love God like he does. Roissy can parade the spectre of another woman around, and the out-of-line woman will rev up the hamster, and let the generation of indefinite jealousy do the work. That’s what Roissy wants; rev up the hamster, and let it go to work.

    Unless the wife loves God the way the beta does, the hamster will sleep, which is bad. She simply can’t get jealous of God. Even if she is an equally moral, or God-loving Christian, jealousy could not enter the picture. How would it? Eventually, she’ll find something to rev the hamster, and it won’t be the beta. If he’s lucky it will be 50 Shades of Grey, or some other romance novel.

    We find again that want we need is her dependence on him. She has to believe that her world will be much worse if she strays. It will be worse, regardless–the movies lie–but most women don’t see that. It looks so glamorous on TV.

    Paradoxically, the answer to Hand, is to have her depend on him financially, turn off the damned TV, and take her on fun vacations; among other things.

  317. PA says:

    On obtuse anti-game commenters: does he seem to reasonably discuss the subject, only to suddenly say something absurd or spergy? Chances are you’ve got yourself “Tokyo Jesus Fist” from Roissy’s three years who and “Jesus Christ Supercop” from OneSTDV’s now-defunct blog. Same guy. Will get very defensive when you disparage Asian girls.

    Dalrock: do you ever make an effort to reach those preachers and try to get him to see the error of his teachings?

  318. Danger says:

    @Cane

    I agree we are fighting other men, but many of those men are just pawns and have no idea what they are fighting for and how they got that way.

    This is why I say that to deter them, you must lead them. To lead them, you must find Christ by using the tools he gave you (confidence, leadership, dominance, head of household, frame, etc,…).

    You do not do this by fighting them directly, you do this by enshrining masculinity and men leading as shown in the Bible.

    Look at it this way……

    The rough-draft blueprint for saving Christianity and the Church.

    A thousand Christian Men doing as the Bible instructs…..leading confidently, strong in their frame, aggressivly confident in how they handle the problems that are thrown at them, with knowledge that Christ is with them as they follow scripture in how to handle women and life around them…..

    Women will be attracted to such men, as they are attracted to the PUA’s you see around you. Men will see your example, and now you will be in a position to help other men, men who are ready to unplug from the co-opted church (and there will not be many, so chose wisely who you first unplug). More importantly, this will put you in a position to lead the Church out of the mire it has found itself in. This is a vitaly important first step.

    Once you have enough Christian Men doing this, you now have a basis for pulling the Church out of the darkness and back to the light. A thousand confident Christian Men….respected Christian leaders……then put pressure where it counts. On the 22 Cardinals in the United States. Working like a Union, simultaneously pushing the Cardinals to rebrand the Church towards positive masculinity. With an average of fifty men per Cardinal, the message cannot be ignored.

  319. deti says:

    “Ok, she has the detonator. God says I’m the rightful leader of this family and she is to submit to me. If she rebells, that is her choice.”

    Yes. For the Christian wife, simply add to it:

    “Wife, you have the power to blow this family all to hell. If you choose to do so, I will not be the only one who has to live with the consequences. You also will live with them. And so will your children. It will not destroy me; but it might destroy your children. And you will answer to God for it.

  320. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    One more thing while I’m waiting for some data to transfer: Hand is a better tool before the marriage. The dating/courting period is when you establish your frame. This is especially true if you’re not having sex, because sex and the associated emotions cause reactions that are inappropriate for what the Christian is trying to accomplish: marriage. It’s mixing up the epoxy before the boards are ready to be set, or worse.

    So, during the dating/courting period don’t commit yourself to one woman. RTP has a great story about his son going to a school dance, and getting shot down for asking her to dance. What he probably did was ask the wrong girl to dance first. Ask the girl who will believe will respond, not who you want to respond. There’s nothing without risk, so if she’s a total outcast, then this may lower other girl’s opinions. But the chances are she’s just a normal girl; not hot; not ugly; just plain. This has three benefits:

    1) Preselection: Suddenly the plain girl is the dancing girl, and pretty girls think THEY should be the dancing girl, so later on, if he asks the pretty girl, she will be more likely to say yes. Careful, though, she’s dancing with you for her, not you. You’ll actually only won the chance to win her over; not won her over already.

    2) Options: You want the girl who will bear your children, or at least your member. Yes, at 6th grade, this is what you’re being propelled towards; even if you don’t know it. This is why we marry. (Marriage is what we do to make the venture of pairing up successful.) The plain girl may actually be really cool! We’re not talking about fat, just not the “not-as-hot” girls. A well-fit personality, and willingness in a girl can go a long way. She may also actually be your equivalent status. Most people over-value themselves. The sooner he learns his relative value, the better decisions he can make, and know where to make changes. He should still ask the hot girls to dance. They may be really cool too.

    3) Dominance: He’ll be the guy who is not afraid to dance with girls, and when the girls are talking about guys, his name will come up. For five minutes, at some sleep-over (GNO for adult women), he’ll be the topic of conversation. This pays off in the long-run, because you’re suddenly not invisible.

  321. Cail Corishev says:

    Is this some type of rope-a-dope?

    Rollo nailed it; look up “concern troll.”

  322. greyghost says:

    It appears cane was correct that some folks have replaced God with Game.

    Freebird I hope you aren’t one of those stupid asses that thinks god is going to reach down and tickle your ass when ever you feel need. Your statement reminds me of a joke i heard when I was real young and it rings with a lot of truth. A religious man is in a flood and climbs on the roof of his house and prays for god to save him. So he is sure in his faith god is going to spare him for he is good. A neigher in a lifted K5 blazer comes by an offers him a ride out the water is already 2 and half feet deep. He tells the man no thanks god is going to save me. Later as the water is flowing into the upstairs windows a guy and his wife come by in a boat and offer to take him with them. No thank you he says to them. Because he knows with pray god with get him off of there. Later still the water is up omn the lower parts of the roof and a coast guard helicopter approaches to rescue the man of faith. He refuses help from the coast guard due to their lack of faith in god to hold that helicopter in the air with out fuel they have to leave the man on the roof of his house. Well eventually the water rises over the roof washing the man away to death by drowning. Well he gets to meet one of gods angels and ask why god let him die. The angel tells sent you a Blazer, a boat and a helicopter and each time you refused. what were you expecting some bright lights from the sky to reach down and lift you off that roof.

  323. Cane Caldo says:

    @Danger

    You do not do this by fighting them directly, you do this by enshrining masculinity and men leading as shown in the Bible.

    I’m not sure what you mean by enshrining masculinity, but what’s in front of us is that most people here don’t know what Game is, how it works, or how it all works together. I had no idea how fundamentally misunderstood Game is by the commenters here. Assuming they did understand led me to say some things that must have seemed truly strange. They’ve had some success getting women to choose to spend time with them, or even sleep with them, but they mistake correlations with causations; never understanding what the actual relationships are.

    This is to be expected since this is why a lot of guys are here, and so many men have not stuck around to teach other men. Nevertheless, because they’re in darkness, they confuse their gropings with goodness. One guy says, “This is the way it is! I can tell, because I’ve got masculinity right here!” Another guys pipes up, “Yeah, he’s right, “I’ve found it too!”

    Guys, you’re holding each other’s dicks.

    Plus, there’s a far from complete understanding of the Christian faith and traditions (which I share some of too; particularly Roman Catholic since I’ve never been one.); mixed with fundamentally amateur opinion on Christianity from non-Christians whose only viewpoint is based on the bad churches that need to be put out. They think burning sanctuaries are a feature of Christianity, so anytime someone says something that smacks of Christianity, they start thinking that he’s trying to torch the place.

    Meanwhile: here’s me, flailing around trying to show how the common thread you’re looking for is sin, and how we cope with it. Few people here even know what sin is. They think “to sin” means “to do wrong”. This is important because they think mistakes are sin, instead of the result–the fruit–of sin. When we view mistakes in this way, we start to dismiss them as relatively harmless, because they’re so common that if we don’t dismiss them with a perfunctory, “We all make mistakes, but…” we’ll hate ourselves and each other, or go crazy. The truth is that this dismissiveness is what brought us to this point. The 60s and 70s and 80s were nothing but dismissive.

    I think the army of men is a great idea, but this is not battlefield, or even the training field. In your analogy, blogs are–at best–recruiting posts. We have to get me together in real life. That’s why I’m constantly offering to meet up with other men. I don’t even care if we agree, or if guys think I’m nutty as a squirrel turd. You learn how to tell jokes from listening and telling them; not from reading books, or blogs. Very rarely, anyway.

  324. Cane Caldo says:

    That should be: “We have to get meN together in real life.”, in the last paragraph.

  325. Rum says:

    I think it is pretty clear that Caldo has way too much free time on his hands.
    If the question was “what can a female do to increase her sexual attractive-ness to men with options?” there would not be all this religious puzzle-ment or angst. Someone would say just loose the lard flesh and stop being a bitch. Only a feminist retard would respond that that is acting dishonestly or that it impugns the Gospels.

  326. greyghost says:

    I think the army of men is a great idea, but this is not battlefield, or even the training field. In your analogy, blogs are–at best–recruiting posts.

    Don’t be sour puss Cane, he was making my dick hard.

  327. greyghost says:

    We think we need to find another churchian champian to make into a christian man with game. Yeah dalrock Cane isn’t working out man.

  328. Danger says:

    @Cane

    The process is not done overnight. To be perfectly honest, I see no other way to turn the Church and Christianity around.

    When I say enshrine masculinity, this is what I mean…..

    Right now, Churches, feminism, and society are attacking men and masculinity. You can see this by how the Churches and Pastors blame men for the woes, and try to make them supplicate even farther. Everyone here should know this is wrong. Not only is it wrong by scripture, but it is wrong for controlling women. God knew this, and this is why he instructed men to lead, have confidence, and be masculine.

    This is the first battle. Start leading, be confident, do as the Bible instructs you to do.
    The second battle, after you have won the first and you have your own personal following from your particular religious circle, is where the army of “masculinized Christian Men” bombard the Cardinals with the message of “teach the congress masculinity as per the Bible”. In short, stop poisoning the congress with the feminist bullshit. It goes against scripture and point out *WHY* it goes against scripture, much like we have shown in this thread. Then you exert pressure on the Church to start teaching the proper scripture, and turn the Church instruction around. Teach the congress to be Men again.

  329. Random Angeleno says:

    freebird does a lot of projecting man logic on what women should be thinking and feeling. Does. Not. Work. Some of that projection language has slipped into Cane’s postings as well. Understanding women is to know that one can’t simply push man logic on them and expect them to comply just like that in the absence of hand, frame, dominance, masculinity, etc.

  330. greyghost says:

    Random Angeleno
    No kidding man. That kind of projecting is mangina supplication. It is irresponsible for a man to do that. It is deadly for a society to do that. when a christian church does that they become a cowardly churchian organization.

  331. unger says:

    @Dalrock: The difference is that everyone who’s passed kindergarten knows that water generally puts out fires and eating food is generally a good thing, while it’s not at all obvious why encouraging men to be narcissistic, overconfident pricks, and thereby encouraging women’s natural tendencies to chase them, should be free of bad long-term repercussions. You breed John Meriwethers and you have no right to expect LTCMs won’t follow.

    If pointing that out really constitutes ‘enforcing feminism’ – how observing that well-intentioned people are encouraging men to become the jackasses for whom feminists leave snail tracks is ‘enforcing feminism’, I leave as an exercise for the reader – then I plead guilty as charged.

  332. Sharrukin says:

    it’s not at all obvious why encouraging men to be narcissistic, overconfident pricks, and thereby encouraging women’s natural tendencies to chase them, should be free of bad long-term repercussions.
    ————————-
    You posit that as if it’s a choice. Society already is encouraging a select group of men to be narcissistic, overconfident pricks (Alpha’s), and is actively encouraging women’s worst tendencies. The bad long-term repercussions are already upon us. Do you think closing the barn door now will accomplish anything?

    What is being suggested is to equip the more decent men with the tools to effect some positive change in their lives. Some of them will obviously use it for immoral purposes, but I think that’s called Thursday in the modern world.

    Why exactly should the most decent be forced into being the cleanup crew for the very worst in society? They are expected to spend years contributing to society, make themselves a good mate, keep it all running, and when the time comes marry the cast-offs of some jerk, all without a word of protest.

  333. unger says:

    Society is. The Church doesn’t need to follow, and if it’d pull its collective head out of its ass and speak some truth to power – power being, in this case, the ones filling the collection plates – it would come away poorer, but purer.

  334. Sharrukin says:

    Society is. The Church doesn’t need to follow…
    —————————
    Society is where people live and the Church is as much a part of that society as anyone else. The Church isn’t going to suddenly stop doing what they have been doing for the last 40 years or more. They make a good living at it as you indicate, and the Beta’s aren’t going to do anything about it, so why should they change?

  335. unger says:

    They won’t change.

    And that’s why there’ll be a great apostasy, wherein the love of most will grow cold. Soon, from the looks of things. Then the AMOG of AMOGs will show up, and the one whose irrational self-confidence knows no equal – and who, incidentally, will have some textbook Aloof Game – will have a few years of spectacular leadership success, because he’s just what everyone wants, if not exactly what they need.

  336. freebird says:

    “freebird does a lot of projecting man logic on what women should be thinking and feeling. Does. Not. Work. Some of that projection language has slipped into Cane’s postings as well. Understanding women is to know that one can’t simply push man logic on them and expect them to comply just like that in the absence of hand, frame, dominance, masculinity, etc.”

    Yes,this is rapidly coming to my attention.I have seriously underestimated their need to manipulate the frame,and overestimated their *willingness* to be logical,reasonable,and true to their marriage vows.
    Considering that their arrogance is now encouraged by law and the church it would be best to never marry nor engage the so-called christian women.They are incapable of acting in nay manner other than the most self serving the surroundings allow for.
    Best to remain single,use dark game,and turn that manipulation back upon them.Since they refuse to accept agency or accountability they are to be treated outside what would be considered traditional christian good will.
    It’s entirely one sided,high maintenance,burdensome,and very tiring.

    Pump and dump.
    rinse and repeat.
    If they refuse to look heavenward,to hell with them.

  337. unger says:

    Sharrukin: One more thing. ‘The betas in church aren’t going to do anything’ is not a valid objection – or if it is, it is lethal to your position, too. Your position depends on them doing something: namely, learning game, in rebellion against their women-are-naturally-sinless-and-you-must-submit-to-their-wise-authority pastors. Why, then – beyond the obvious fact that it’s easier and more pleasant to be an overconfident, narcissistic, belligerent little hamster entertainer in need of some strychnine, than to do the difficult work of returning to Scripture, laying down the law, and letting the chips fall where they may, in the manner of an Ezra or a Phineas – should men content themselves with the former?

    If they’re capable of the sort of rebellion you advocate, are they not equally capable of throwing the whores and politicians out of their churches and, if need be, homes?

  338. greyghost says:

    If they’re capable of the sort of rebellion you advocate, are they not equally capable of throwing the whores and politicians out of their churches and, if need be, homes?

    the answer is yes and they still need to do just that. Call it any negative connotation that pleases you but them beta men need to know the truth about the nature of women and what it looks and feels like in practice. A solid preacher with faith in christ has nothing to fear. A churchian fool is terrified of the thought for their church is founded on helplessness.

  339. Sharrukin says:

    ‘The betas in church aren’t going to do anything’ is not a valid objection – or if it is, it is lethal to your position, too. Your position depends on them doing something: namely, learning game, in rebellion against their women…
    ——————-
    There is a significant difference between someone who even acknowledges the existence of game, regardless of their learning to utilize it, and those who don’t. That is a knowledge of the nature of women that feminism, contemporary culture, and the Church strive to keep hidden. You cannot acknowledge that game works without also facing the nature of female behavior. That knowledge alters the way that one sees the world, and those institutions that push the feminist line. The more who see that, the greater chance of change. Beta’s who do so are not going to buy the “women-are-naturally-sinless-and-you-must-submit-to-their-wise-authority pastors”.

    Today they sit in Church and blame themselves for the behavior of women and are berated by pastors who push the same silly nonsense. You have to be able to see the problem before you can fix the problem.

  340. greyghost says:

    Dalrock
    check this out. http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/04/19/vatican-to-purge-feminists-from-us-convents/ Think we could get this converstion going with the vatican? The pope looks to be saying he is ready to clean house. maybe we can give him and his boys hand.

  341. unger says:

    I agree unreservedly with that. I just question the leap from that to the assertion that moar alpha, at least as it’s almost invariably described by the authorities, will cleanse the church.

  342. Cail Corishev says:

    “Moar alpha” is just part of the solution (not that I think anyone has ever said it would “cleanse the church,” so nice diversion). Or to put it the other way, we have a lot more problems in society today than men being wusses. But men learning to be men again would be a good start, and is probably essential before we can make progress in other areas. We could sit around waiting for women to become loyal and feminine again, to give men something to live up to, but that’s a non-starter. Men are going to have to lead the way, as always.

    To forestall an obvious objection: that doesn’t mean manning-up and marrying broken women. It means getting our acts together as men, and giving women a chance to join us in that. A frame I came up with the other day: I’m standing on top of a hill, looking out with clear eyes over my domain (my life and my future). I can see where I’m going, and I hold my hand out to a woman who’s able to climb that hill and stand with me. I don’t go down into the swamp and carry her out, but if she wants to follow me and starts climbing, I’ll call down to tell her where the toeholds are.

    And for another objection: no, we can’t make a society in this fallen world perfect, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make it better. It’s been better. And we’re not supposed to sit on our butts and pray for it to get better, though we certainly must pray. When we know there’s work to be done, we’re supposed to do it.

  343. Danger says:

    When the world burns around you, and you stand strong knowing Christ is with you…..is that not viewed as irrational confidence?

    Nobody is saying that the followers of Christ need to act like asshats. I am saying they need to grow a spine. The rest will fall into place.

  344. Opus says:

    I am coming to the conclusion that Game, is only necessary for american women. Less than half an hour ago, I was in a queue and a young lady asked me a question. Within a few minutes I have a her name and where she hangs out. A few minutes later I am touching her arm, and we are kissing on the cheek. I suggested we have a coffee, unfortunately she was in a little rush but was endlessly pleasant (she is Spanish). Was I gaming her? I don’t know, but it was effortless – very slim, perhaps not quite my type. I believe this is called day game, but I wasn’t (unlike Krauser or that guy in the video presently up at Roissy’s) going out looking for it on purpose. American women however seem to be a permanent pain (I speak from experience) – you have my sympathy.

  345. greenlander says:

    American women however seem to be a permanent pain (I speak from experience) – you have my sympathy.

    I couldn’t agree with this more. I moved to Russia earlier this year, and it just amazes me how pleasant women are here. You can just be a normal, upstanding guy and have a normal conversation and get somewhere. Being an “upper beta” is an actual, legitimate strategy to attract a mate here, as opposed to back home where the same strategy only gives you your hand until you’re thirty-five, at which point you have an option to wife up a ho via Marriage 2.0.

  346. Opus says:

    @greenlander

    I think that’s right, and if a woman is not sufficiently interested, she can make that clear but without going for the nuclear rejection; neither is an approach – that is to say courtship – treated as sexual harrassement.

  347. imnobody says:

    @Opus

    Here in Latin America women reject men in a polite way. For example, if you invite a woman to a date, she says “thanks, it would be great but I am really busy”. When the man insists, she gives him another excuse.

    The man gets the message but it is not humiliated. The friendship between man and woman is not affected and there are no awkward moments. I have never understood why Western women cannot do it this way.

  348. tbc says:
    This conversation seems to be a tiresome exercise in words. Of course words have meaning, but there seems to be far more energy given to the clarification and debate over words than to the reality towards which the words point.
    ——————————————————————————————————
    Anyone from a very large and close family is likely to relate to what I write. I am not, but I have a large extended family on my wife’s side. Over the years when we have gotten together we’ve played board games, games that large groups can play. In the course of a couple of hours, the game generates some conflict and it looks a bit like this.

    PA asked
    Dalrock: do you ever make an effort to reach those preachers and try to get him to see the error of his teachings?
    ————————————————————————————————————
    PA, I have no idea if Dalrock does or doesnt. I’d guardedly make the bet that I have done more of that than most if not all the folks who post here, as far as directly going to pastors with these issues. I do not care if I am correct, I hope everyone is doing or will do it.
    I do not have nor am I likely to have a place/site/blog where somehow outreach to churches and pastors becomes a rally point. In fact I do not believe its a suitable launching pad for such activism. Dalrock has a huge readership, of that there are a large number of Christian men who would be well suited to approach the church, institutionally.
    I have never changed a church, nor a pastor……or course. The change that may have happened or may yet happen is that a man I find/found will take on board some of what I say. He will then see as we do the institutional rot even in his own place. He can make small steps only if he wants to stay as pastor or to continue having a church with members (here is the problem). But, in one case I can say the man has changed his narrative when he does pre-marriage counseling, and later, marriage counseling. (assuming he is telling me the truth as he shares anecdotes of what he has done since he and I started talking)
    Point is, in my opinion its not something obvious that because someone has a large readership, and who through good reasoning, good writing, good research, and topic choice has the potential to change a man at a time that that same man can therefore have a larger effect on churches and pastors. The dynamic of church change, if there ever is such a thing, will come from one leader or man in that church convincing another man or leader and so on.

  349. Cail Corishev says:

    It appears to be true that American women in general are more infected with feminism than most. [Obligatory NAAWALT.] For a young man willing to travel, moving elsewhere may be a good idea, especially seeing where America is heading economically and politically. If it’s still the Land of Opportunity, it may not be for much longer. When I was 18, I moved 300 miles from home; if I had it to do over, I’d go about 6000.

    Still, that leaves many men who aren’t willing to emigrate. Our ties to family, friends, a business, or even geography are too strong, or we simply can’t afford to. And our government makes it very difficult to find a foreign wife without a large expense — attractive single women are the only immigrants they actually work hard to keep out. So we’re mostly left doing our best with what’s available here.

    That doesn’t mean we should give in to feminism and supplication or abandon our standards to “man up and marry.” There are women who are doing their best to resist corruption; I know some in both the Amish and traditional Catholic communities. When they get together with traditional masculine men, things seem to work out quite well. And there are more who would be drawn to traditional masculinity and femininity, if they were introduced to those concepts. It seems like finding a needle in a haystack sometimes, but not as impossible as some of the MGTOW crowd insist it is.

  350. whatever says:


    I am coming to the conclusion that Game, is only necessary for american women. Less than half an hour ago, I was in a queue and a young lady asked me a question. Within a few minutes I have a her name and where she hangs out. A few minutes later I am touching her arm, and we are kissing on the cheek. I suggested we have a coffee, unfortunately she was in a little rush but was endlessly pleasant (she is Spanish). Was I gaming her? I don’t know, but it was effortless – very slim, perhaps not quite my type. I believe this is called day game, but I wasn’t (unlike Krauser or that guy in the video presently up at Roissy’s) going out looking for it on purpose. American women however seem to be a permanent pain (I speak from experience) – you have my sympathy.

    Foreign men attract some of the women from any country more. Oh sure, ALL women in that country aren’t attracted more, but then again it is hardly possible to marry or sleep with ALL of them, so a better response from a significant fraction is quite helpful.

  351. Logos says:

    I dislike game because it’s just another way of blaming the man if the marriage fails. “Too bad she left, sucker, but you should have gamed her better.” If a woman abandons a good man simply because he didn’t game her sufficiently, that is HER moral failing, not his. To argue that a man should learn better game to avoid a woman’s perfidy represents total surrender. It replaces Christian patriarchy with pagan matriarchy.

  352. TheMan says:

    Oddly enough, I agree with Logos as well (post right above this one).

  353. Pingback: Christian denial and institutional resistance to change. | Dalrock

  354. Martian Bachelor says:

    > …Roissy’s concept of hand (Dalrock)

    I hope you don’t think this is the great and powerful Roissy’s concept. It goes back at least to the Seinfeld Dictionary, specifically “The Pez Dispenser” episode (1992; Season 3, Episode 14), where George gets all worked up over never having the upper hand in relationships, which later gets shortened to just “hand”.

  355. Cail Corishev says:

    I dislike game because it’s just another way of blaming the man if the marriage fails.

    No it’s not. If a woman doesn’t work to keep herself attractive to her man, staying fit, wearing feminine clothes and hair styles, using makeup well, and being enthusiastic in bed with him, he may leave. Does that mean his leaving was her fault? No. Could she have done something about it? Quite likely.

    Game is exactly the same thing for men. If you refuse to Game your wife and she leaves, whose fault is it? Hers. So now you’re sitting there alone and faultless. Congratulations.

  356. If there is a single scripture / commandment by Jesus or the apostles on “game” – please provide.

    Allow me to suggest doing what Jesus says regarding discipleship of denying oneself (pleasures), picking up ones cross (remaining in a uncomfortable situation), following Jesus (His will for your life).

    Hebrews mentions we are to “labor to enter into His rest” (this is a oxymoron) not our rest or “game”.
    One can go ahead and jump ahead/ take matters into their own hands and find out the hard way they jumped from the frying pan into the fire ( Deti has alluded to this) and purchased a life long instructor.

    Concentrate on holiness, stern righteousness, and obedience to Jesus ( ie knowing Him) and He will direct your path.

    Shalom

  357. Sharrukin says:

    If there is a single scripture / commandment by Jesus or the apostles on “game” – please provide.
    ———————–
    If God had wanted man to fly he would have given them wings. Is there a single scripture on psychology, or the smallpox vaccine? – please provide.

  358. @Sharrukin I’ll be your huckleberry – I can easily oblige and pony up OT & NT for your questions.
    But you please first answer my question otherwise, your reply is ex- facie.
    Shalom

  359. Sharrukin says:

    I can easily oblige and pony up OT & NT for your questions.
    ———————–
    I doubt it, and the point is that the demand made by you is nonsensical. There are a great number of things that are not dealt with in scriptural quotations, and that has nothing to do with their utility, nor their morality.

  360. What is missing from the pulpit is teaching from G_dly men and women directed at women to obey / submit / fear Jesus and their husbands. Living examples of submission and sacrifice are a powerful witness and testimony. The scriptures have plenty of examples and commandments for women that powerfully attack the overly educated American feminine coda.
    Any “Christian” women who needs a guy to “game” her is not a Christian. She is and wont obey the Scriptures nor the Holy Spirit nor Jesus nor you. Though she professes Christ – she is not a “disciple” and if one is not a disciple then one is not a Christian.
    Jesus doesn’t use game on Christian women to follow/obey Him and the commandments of the apostles and nor should the man.
    Shalom

  361. @ Sharrukin – yes I can. I am a Jewish Disciple of Jesus – I don’t lie nor do I bluff.
    Again – you first. Dont blame me for your lack of knowledge of the scriptures.
    If you cant pony up then your premise and statements are ex-facie.
    Further, you are using argument by meaningless questions and red herring attempts.
    If you can provide scriptures on “game” from Jesus or the Apostles – please pony up.

    The OT/NT are very very clear on behavior for both men and women in for all areas of life especially relationships and marriage.
    Keep in the mind- be fruitful and multiply was the first commandment given by G_D in the garden.
    Your reply and remarks are non scriptural, nonsensical and sub-standard secular.
    Shalom

  362. It should be obvious to any observer of “Game” that it has some self-serving elements to it. If we take a true observation about the fallen nature of women and we do nothing more with it than become cruel manipulators (which we should see the potential for) what have we really won out of that understanding? I understand Game, I win?

    On the other hand, if I love my wife, daughter, sister or even girlfriend (or sister in Christ) which is what I am supposed to do as a believer The clear eyed observations of the fallen female nature can be put to great use. Like any other thing I can use it selfishly or selflessly.

    Like any other thing we do motive matters. If I maintain a strong and honest masculine Christian frame out of love for the women in my life to model Godly masculinity and bring Him glory that is good, yes? If I project that frame with the motive to manipulate and dominate women as some divine right I have slipped off the track. In the end it isn’t whether or not we please women, it is whether or not we please the Father. He’s the only one that can issue a “man-up” message. He’s the only one who can give us the grace to “man-up” anyway and the only one who is asking it for our own good and not for some selfish motive.

  363. That should read “He’s the only one who can issues an honest “man-up” message.

  364. Opus wrote:

    A few minutes later I am touching her arm, and we are kissing on the cheek. I suggested we have a coffee, unfortunately she was in a little rush but was endlessly pleasant (she is Spanish). Was I gaming her? I don’t know, but it was effortless….

    Yes, that is “game.” You are describing what happens when it becomes sublimated into a second nature, which enables you to deploy the skill set without conscious effort. PUAs are teachers who show non-naturals the conscious ways of developing access to the same power. Some of us did not need the core training, but rather just refinement. Others require the entire makeover.

    The view of liberty which has shaped our culture is what we might call the freedom of indifference. On this reading, freedom is the capacity to say “yes” or “no” simply on the basis of one’s own inclinations and according to one’s own decision. Here, personal choice is paramount. We can clearly see this privileging of choice in the contemporary economic, political, and cultural arenas.

    But there is a more classical understanding of liberty, which might be characterized as the freedom for excellence. Freedom is the disciplining of desire so as to make the achievement of the good, first possible, then effortless.Fr. Robert Barron (emph. added)

    You are onto something, noticing the less feminine character of American women. But every woman needs to be gamed to greater and lesser degrees. Some of them overtly, they enjoy the playfulness. Some covertly, their conscious ideology has been trained to deny instinct.

    Matt

  365. Rum says:

    A fathers strong alpha frame is like a life-line being thrown to his daughters., It is gives them a zone of safety that protects them from being attracted to the beta males that would cause her heart-pain.

  366. Ad Fortitudo says:

    @King A:

    In your view, what are the purposes of game?

    -Is it just a means of exerting dominance and command over women (and lesser men)?
    -Is it just a way of getting laid – and laid by prettier women (as PUAs advocate, and you seem to have criticized at RationalMale)
    -Or, is game just one piece of becoming a “great man?” Perhaps even a “great souled man” as Aristotle would have said.

    Also, what is the source of game?
    -Strength and manly (Roman?) virtues?

    I ask this because on one hand, your thoughts seem steeped in philosophy, but on the other, you seem to advocate gaming women.

    Quite frankly, I haven’t completely figured out the relationship you’ve made between these two things.

  367. Ad Fortitudo says:

    Perhaps more to the point:

    What is the relationship between game and being a “good man” (http://goo.gl/UIowF)?

  368. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Creative Anachronism Edition « Patriactionary

  369. Ab Fortutitudo:

    Go at these questions from a different way. “Game” is merely the latest word for the ancient, long-recognized, difficult-to-inculcate virtues of manliness. PUAs imitate the outward signs of that manliness to attract and pick up women. How to create and maintain the manly virtues in children has been the question of civilization: everything hinges on the vir.

    I do advocate “gaming women” because that is the only way to get the sexual revolution back under control and avoiding sexual apocalypse. All of the cultural cues have been stripped away. We have to communicate primitively with feral females if we are to communicate with them at all.

    The analogy is to the just war. We would not fight civilized men; we would only take arms against aggressors and barbarians at the gate, to bring them into compliance with the social contract. Similarly, we would not seduce civilized women either; we only take game against sluts and uppity feminists, to bring them back into compliance with the sexual contract. We happen to have been born in such a promiscuous era that demands the employment of savage means in the name of civilization, an era where 13-year-old girls dress like hookers to the mall, and the sexual animals have free rein. The Hobbesian state of nature has been invited back inside the city ramparts. It is everywhere.

    Now there are plenty of areas for confusion, which is why we are forever arguing over the meaning of “game” in fora like these. Those who insist game is only good for vaginal friction, or that it is in contradiction with Christ, are importing assumptions to the discussion, which skew their application of manliness to the situation at hand, making it out to be much smaller than it is.

    What does it mean to be “a good man”? Well, that is the question of our lives, unanswerable in a word or a phrase, to be constantly studied and acted upon until our last breath. It is impossible without the grace of God, which is impossible to receive without the Christian virtues of fides, spes, and caritas.

    By your screen name I will assume you are familiar with the other four, the classical virtues of courage, wisdom, temperance, and justice. And so I suspect you are at least familiar with the challenge of living the life of the good man.

    I do advocate gaming women, and gaming them hard. Not just because it is useful for reclaiming the culture, but because it is sexual justice: both men and women want to interact under the aegis of manly righteousness (or “game”). At the same time — like every action I take in my life — none of this is performed independent of the larger, virtuous purpose of bringing forth the kingdom. Many men have difficulty imagining that mission possible in this postmodern age, which is why an education in the prior eras is essential to freeing ourselves of the invisible yoke that unconsciously stunts the well-intentioned but untutored man. Hence their religious attraction to the PUA lifestyle, which eventually must fail them like all false idols.

    Matt

  370. Ad Fortitudo says:

    King A:

    Thanks for your response.

    And so I suspect you are at least familiar with the challenge of living the life of the good man.

    Absolutely. In fact, the primary project of my life in the last few years has been trying to understand the concept of ‘eudaimonia’ and how I can integrate it into my own modern life.

    At the same time, I’ve had some difficulty trying to reconcile my interest in “living well” and being a good man, with a desire to learn Game. There have been days where I’ve started a day reading Aristotle, ended with Neil Strauss, and felt considerable discord. What’s a guy to do? Get laid, or be noble?

    Your response helps, by at least suggesting that they are compatible. I’m starting to see a vision where true game is just a consequence of having developed the right virtues. Want to be more “Alpha”? Develop some courage and find that golden mean in conversation that is “wittiness.” Want to be less “Beta”? Stop being obsequious. “Cocky funny.” “Don’t be a ‘nice guy.'” “Be an asshole” (but a “caring asshole”). Mix the means of classical virtues properly and one is not too far off.

    The questions that I still have are as follows:
    1) What virtues do you count as “manly virtues”? (I mention Aristotelian ones because I am familiar with them. And I add fortitude from a reading of the Stoics.) Are there more that you would suggest developing?

    2) Absent the civilization wide system for educating a man in these virtues, how does one “self study?” I’ve heard martial arts and learning how to “approach;” certainly these would help develop courage (if not the “equanimity” of the stoics.) What else? What should a man be reading? Doing? Thinking and saying?

    3) You encouraged taking up “weapons”, one of which being game. Anything else? Clearly rhetoric is one of your weapons.

    As you noted, these are grand questions. Still, even a sketch of a map might help me find my way.

    With gratitude,

    Ad Fortitudo

  371. Ad Fortitudo writes:

    I’ve had some difficulty trying to reconcile my interest in “living well” and being a good man, with a desire to learn Game. There have been days where I’ve started a day reading Aristotle, ended with Neil Strauss, and felt considerable discord. What’s a guy to do? Get laid, or be noble?

    I detect facetiousness in your question, but the answer is obvious when we are “sober and alert,” and temptation is not proximate.

    Understand this about Neil Strauss. He has uncovered some wisdom, but it is exceedingly partial wisdom. Until his product survives 2,500 years of testing, go with Aristotle, who has uncovered more wisdom by several orders of magnitude. While Strauss has the charm of applying that wisdom to present circumstances, Aristotle is timeless. It is up to you to do the work of translating the latter into today’s idiom. It is rewarding work.

    There is nothing to be reconciled between being a good man and learning game. Become the good man, and all else will follow. Every other consideration pales into infinitesimal insignificance compared to the good life. Except in those moments when a pretty face will tempt you to chase after shadows in a moment of inconstancy.

    The temptations don’t go away. But the longer you live, the more you will experience their false promise, and the better able you will be to reject them preemptively — if you are paying attention, and if you have trained your conscience like an athlete trains for the Olympics.

    The good life is not the austere life. It does not reject pleasure. But it does require ordered pleasure. When we are tempted to sacrifice that order for pleasure, we must always resist, and allow it on our own terms. Otherwise, the pathogen has been introduced, and it will not stop until it consumes you.

    My problem with game as presented today is its disdain for self-discipline. Undisciplined passion-mongering always ends in failure. Your classical training will avail you, and you at least have the right architectural blueprints to build a proper defense and offense. Just intuiting that the classics are where you will find these answers is a protective buffer that most men these days will never enjoy. “Freedom is the disciplining of desire so as to make the achievement of the good, first possible, then effortless” (Fr. Robert Barron). That is the summa of my classical education.

    Like you, I learned how to think like a proper man through the classics, but I found out later that it was only half the story. The other half is theology, the “queen of the sciences,” and the place where man truly grapples with the profoundest questions, a tradition which picked up where Plato and Aristotle left off, and has been going strong for twenty centuries of fruitful study.

    Bottom line is, go forth and game! But know it is just the start of something, just a peek at something much larger. Don’t fashion it into an idol; it can only disappoint in that regard. Translate its terms back into classical virtù and allow it to germinate into something well beyond Neil Strauss’s wildest understanding. Harvey Mansfield’s Manliness and James Bowman’s Honor: A History are excellent gateways back to the wisdom of the ancients.

    1) What virtues do you count as “manly virtues”? (I mention Aristotelian ones because I am familiar with them. And I add fortitude from a reading of the Stoics.) Are there more that you would suggest developing?

    The cardinal virtues in my book are the four classical (Courage, Wisdom, Temperance, Justice) and the three theological (Faith, Hope, Love). The man in full requires all of them. Any one of them lacking, it all falls apart, albeit in very different ways. Round off the seven with the divine virtue, Mercy, and you are world-class in every respect. Eudaimonia is great, but it has nothing on megalopsychia. We are not made to be happy or content. We are made to be great and good.

    When I wrote of manly virtues above, it was in contrast with the feminine virtues. Men are direct and forthright, exhibiting the qualities of leadership (a synonym for “alpha”); women are indirect and modest, exhibiting the qualities of service.

    2) Absent the civilization wide system for educating a man in these virtues, how does one “self study?” I’ve heard martial arts and learning how to “approach;” certainly these would help develop courage (if not the “equanimity” of the stoics.) What else? What should a man be reading? Doing? Thinking and saying?

    You don’t self study! You seek men of like mind, and above all, you seek a mentor. You cannot live the virtues vicariously or on the page. They must be refined through practice. And there is no practice quite like team practice, not just with regard to mutual encouragement, but also with regard to adopting the dynamics of mutual effort. No great achievements are accomplished alone.

    Martial arts training is fantastic. Inferior to, say, USMC Boot Camp in terms of inculcating manliness, but without the stark commitment.

    “What else” a man “should … be reading … doing … thinking and saying” would constitute a lengthy treatise. “The Art of Manliness” website is superficial, but it is a good mood setter. Again, there is no substitute for a mentor, who can gauge your progress and recommend specifics. If that is not possible, at least find a like-minded peer or group of peers with your enthusiasm and challenge each other into becoming mentors to each other — loyal brothers who will hold your feet to the fire, who will “trial and error” faithfully by your side. See commenter Joseph’s model as an example of living the creed through a group.

    And of course: women. Locate an unburnished diamond and polish her with game tactics into a proper lady. “A good wife who can find? / She is far more precious than jewels” (Prov 31:10). No, you cannot simply “find” her in this day and age; but you can create her, if you find her young enough, and you are older enough to be authoritative. You will inspire each other to be more complimentary, more what your respective sexes are meant to be.

    3) You encouraged taking up “weapons”, one of which being game. Anything else? Clearly rhetoric is one of your weapons.

    The weapons are the trivium of the liberal arts: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. They are the basic craftsman tools that allow you to fashion weapons out of what your environment affords. Rhetoric, seduction, persuasion. (Aristotle’s Rhetoric is the ur text here, along with a couple of Plato’s dialogues.) The ability to sell is a key trait of any leader. We are tasked with selling an entire sex back into compliance with their nature. It is a generational effort, but the most effective method of persuasion is through example. Like I say above, become the good man, have patience, and all else will follow. Including followers.

    Godspeed, brother.

    Matt

  372. Ad Fortitudo says:

    Excellent. Thank you for these suggestions.

  373. Pingback: A Woman Wants A King, Not A Peasant | The Society of Phineas

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