Christian denial and institutional resistance to change.

Defiant Collaboration

There is a widely held belief among Christians, even in the manosphere, that Christians in general are standing up against feminism and the debasement of marriage but the culture isn’t responding.  The myth of Christians and the church “fighting the good fight” is one that won’t die no matter how many times I or others debunk it.

The United States is frequently pointed out as being as the most religiously conservative nation in the western world when it comes to sexual morality, and indeed there are stats to back this up.  If you ask the average American who are the most zealous Christians fighting against feminism and for the family as defined in the Bible?, they will almost undoubtedly respond with some combination of Focus on the Family, the Southern Baptists, and Pat Robertson’s CBN & The 700 Club.  These are the groups Americans, the religious fundamentalists of the western world, see as the most extreme defenders of the traditional family.  Yet as I’ve shown the Director for Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family calls unwed mothers heroic, explains that women deliberately having children out of wedlock is proof that men aren’t worthy, and tells parents that their daughters have an innate goodness which their sons lack.  More recently we’ve witnessed Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary teaching that God intends for husbands to be purified by submitting to their wives.  Elsewhere I’ve shown Pat Robertson’s 700 Club presenting an unwed mother as a Godly woman, plugging her book extolling the virtues of single motherhood:

CBN.com – Actress, single mother and author, Janine Turner was inspired to write Holding Her Head High: Inspirations from 12 Single Mothers Who Championed Their Children and Changed History. Her book describes the social implications for women and children from the Roman Empire through the Middle Ages to Pioneer days…

If you asked the average Christian to recommend a movie which presents biblical marriage or fatherhood, they are almost certain to suggest a Christian divorce fantasy or a movie which disparages Christian fathers and cuts Christian husbands off at the knees.

I could of course go on for some time on this.  I could talk about the fellow manosphere bloggers who had their marriages shot out from under them by the Catholic Church.  I could show conservative Christians rationalizing that the Bible calls for a meaningful symbol of women’s submission, so long as it doesn’t actually symbolize submission.  I could show how Christians have entirely reframed biblical marriage, and how even the most traditional Christians see the word slut as a slur against all women, defend the ever increasing age of marriage, and look down on women who marry and have children without first attaining a degree and having a career.  I could (and have) shown all of this and more, but it wouldn’t matter.  For most Christians nothing can pierce their credulity of the ultimate pretty lie, their unshakable belief that modern Christians are not actively and passively collaborating with feminism.

To believe otherwise would shatter one of their most cherished narratives, that their pastor and fellow congregants are part of the earthly team fighting the good fight.  This is why Christians everywhere cheer when Glenn Stanton boasts that the most devout Christians have a 38% divorce rate, and it is why they are far more interested in discussing what a handful of non Christian men like Roissy are doing wrong than the fact that hundreds of millions of Christians are defiling marriage in Christ’s name.  Focusing on Roissy’s sin makes them feel morally superior as a Christian, and this is the crutch which has allowed Christians to continue on this path for many decades.  The alternative would be to acknowledge the unfathomable betrayal of the Bible by this generation of Christians when it comes to sexual morality, men and women, and the family, which would (and should) be deeply humbling.

I recently challenged commenter GKChesterton on this very point:

Never forget that Christians are driving this mess. There is a myth that Christians in general are fighting the good fight but the culture is winning out. It is a lie. The most conservative Christian voices are leading the charge to stab biblical marriage in the back, and they are effectively doing so in Christ’s name. See Glen Stanton of FOTF and Dr. Mohler of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for just two examples.

He replied that Christians haven’t failed in their duty to uphold biblical marriage, and that what appears to be collaboration with feminism is merely Christians trying to be nice (emphasis mine):

I would submit that absent Christianity and the Christians that believe in it you wouldn’t even know a marriage problem existed. Therefore no, I disagree that this is specifically a Christian problem. I believe many alpha cads are making it such, but they are lying as they oft do. I think Stanton et al are making a classical Christian mistake in that they are elevating “nice” into a virtue. It is not. Nor is this problem new. The sexual abuse problem resulted from the same way of thinking.

This kind of denial is part of a larger Christian institutional resistance to change.  While the enthusiasm with which the modern church has collaborated with feminism is deeply shameful, the psychology involved isn’t surprising.  This is the same psychology business leaders and project managers face when attempting to change secular structures where individuals have become personally invested in the status quo.  Note that this doesn’t mean that at a logical level the individuals resisting change actually agree with feminism.  Many are simply reacting emotionally and psychologically out of fear of change.  Either way, the reflexive resistance to any effort to move back toward the biblical model of marriage is profound and relentless.  This takes on many forms, but the underlying theme is often that there either isn’t really a problem or that the problem can’t possibly be addressed.

One form of denial and resistance is the claim that biblical marriage really isn’t something Christians should concern themselves with.  A commenter named Jimmy on Vox’s Alpha Game blog was troubled that I spend so much energy pointing out that the Church is turning its back on biblical marriage:

After reading Dalrock for awhile, he is sort of not getting it either. There’s a whole population of available women who are no to low N count women so why are they insisting only slutty women exist? Also, the whole bit about the state of the Christian Church neglects their central mission of ministry. Dating is a side show.

Note his absurd claim that my focus is on dating in an effort to change the topic to something unimportant to the church.  Further down he complained:

The discussions about manning up is about men marrying slutty women. His various posts about the Church is about men marrying slutty women. That’s the whole basis of discussion. He doesn’t himself offer the alternative. He looks for evidence that the Church is not doing its job in shaming women. Is that the Church’s job?

A bit further down he reiterates to another commenter that what I have shown is trivial, and only distracts from important work of the church:

You might not like how churches function, but what you’re complaining about won’t get you where you need to go. Ministry is the primary function of Churches. It is should be the focus, not the side show of recommending who to date.

In what is very common form, when I pointed out that my focus is on marriage and challenged Jimmy to point out where I had ever chastised the church for not focusing on dating, he explained that he of course agrees with me.  He isn’t the one resisting a move toward biblical marriage:

I do get the complaint about not adhering to Biblical marriage. The church focuses on men sacrificing to their wives instead the wives making a sacrifice is well noted. I completely agree with you on this issue.

Another method of obstructing any attempt at change is to set the bar for evaluating change absurdly high.  Commenter Unger demonstrated this with a recent comment:

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?

Unger is saying that the millions of children who suffer the devastation of having their father kicked out of their homes isn’t sufficient reason for Christians to attempt to move towards a biblical model of marriage.  All that matters is whether the child’s unhaaapy mother’s soul is saved.  Don’t worry that Christians are providing the moral cover under which marriage is being destroyed. You must first prove that any action you take will save the rebellious wife’s soul.

The hallmark of the inhibitor of change is that they only offer criticism of the suggestions by others.  Very often they aren’t even aware of what they are doing.  They are standing up for biblical marriage in their heads, even if in practice all they can offer is resistance to change.  Note that this is different than mere disagreement on how to address the problem;  honest Christians can and will disagree about the best way to restore biblical marriage.  This can be discerned by how seriously the objector to any given idea is actually working to offer their own fixes or improve the ideas of others.

This congregation cares about families.The seriousness of the alternative is extremely important, because it is common for solutions to be offered which claim to address the problem but which present no real challenge to the feminised church.  For example, several years ago I proposed that churches might discourage frivolous divorce simply by measuring it.  Not surprisingly quite a bit of the response by Christians was that this wouldn’t be fair because it would hurt and embarrass women.  Others rejected the idea while claiming to agree with the goal, offering an unthreatening solution instead.  Christian blogger Bike Bubba explained that the problem with measuring divorce is it measures an outcome, and missed the real issue:

I’ve got two big reservations about using statistical methods in the church.  The general problem is that those who use them a lot in a corporate setting know very well that they tend to be applied in an impersonal, “hands off” way.  Management loves these in great part because it allows them to “do something” without really interacting with the people involved.  Disaster often ensues because the statisticians and managers don’t realize that what they’ve found only correlates to the real problem–but is not the real issue.

Ah, but what is the real issue, if it isn’t frivolous divorce given moral cover by the church and relentlessly sold by the culture as empowering to women?  I know that the millions of fatherless children are eager to know.  Fortunately Bike Bubba explains:

Regarding the proposal specifically, it falls into the problem of measuring outputs instead of inputs; a divorce is not a cause, but is rather the result of years of poor decisions by one or both spouses.  The husband decides he doesn’t need to be discipled, or to disciple his family.  The wife looks elsewhere for spiritual leadership.  Without discipleship, that wonderful part of marriage gets neglected.  One or the other looks elsewhere, and then things go rapidly downhill from there.  Church members who have said “hi” to them for years, or decades, are shocked.

The problem is not that Christian women are taking the feminist bait and rebelling, the problem is strictly a failing of Christian men.  Fortunately there is a glib answer to all of this, now that we know that 40+ years of feminism have nothing to do with the problem.  The solution is made even better by the fact that it won’t make feminists in the church uncomfortable:

Put simply, if you want a statistic that you can use to improve your church (and reduce the divorce rate), count the number of members who are actively discipling their families and each other, and have the pastor and deacons guide that effort.

Sometimes, it really is as simple as…..the Gospel.

Ironic Vichy battle ax coin image created and licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported by Prométhée33.

This entry was posted in Albert Mohler, Church Apathy About Divorce, Denial, Divorce, Feminists, Fireproof, Foolishness, Glenn Stanton, Marriage, Stantons Heroes, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

305 Responses to Christian denial and institutional resistance to change.

  1. okrahead says:

    Christ thought marriage was important enough to teach about it.
    Paul thought marriage was important enough to teach about it.
    Peter thought marriage was important enough to teach about it.
    The Old Testament prophets wrote extensively about marriage.
    Solomon devoted an entire book to marriage.
    The New Testament teaches that marriage is a figure of Christ and the Church.
    A church that does not teach the sanctity of marriage is not teaching the Gospel of Christ.
    A church that is not teaching the Gospel of Christ has no reason for existing.
    Attending a church that has no reason for existing is a waste of time.
    Dr. Mohler’s teaching on marriage is heresy (just had to get that one in there).

  2. I would LOVE to meet these women that Jimmy knows, however, he’s probably been tricked by women who’ve already been churned and burned and now need some money/babies. It is a good strategy for these girls, but a bad strategy for young men.

  3. Cail Corishev says:

    Actress, single mother and author, Janine Turner [....]

    Ya know, after watching one episode of Northern Exposure back in 1990, I would have crawled on broken glass to date her, let alone marry her. Good grief, more than 20 years later, I still remember those eyes. When a woman who looks like that ends up a single mother, something is seriously broken.

  4. Cail Corishev says:

    Addendum to what I said before: Janine Turner is even a conservative Republican from Texas, so she’s not a ball-busting, blue-state feminazi who had her daughter with a turkey baster because she never wanted a man. And yet….here she is, 50 years old, her hamster furiously telling her how wonderful single motherhood turned out. Which supports Dalrock’s point: even the people who should be on our side and think they’re on our side often end up carrying water for the other side. They’ve been so immersed in feminism that, except when it takes the extreme of pro-abortion politics or pushing lesbian marriage, they don’t even see it.

  5. Well, you’ve definitely got the right measuring stick here Dalrock.

    Lets take “Game” to mean morally neutral or good actions a man can take to raise his attractiveness to women, and to understand and manage the kinds of failings specific to women. The right measure, then, is not “will it help to save her”; it is “will it help to save the marriage”.

    If Game is not morally wrong in itself and it helps to save marriages, then (some) Christians certainly need it: specifically those in troubled marriages, including those who are in trouble but don’t know it (yet) because they don’t understand their wives, because they expect support from fellow Christians rather than a knife in the back, etc.

  6. I would suggest, though, at the risk of being considered MGTOW, that not only should a man never mary a non-virgin; he also should never, ever, ever marry a woman who needs to be “gamed”. If she isn’t head over heels for you exactly how you are, and also completely and explicitly aware of her tendency to fitness test and utterly committed to controlling that tendency, then don’t marry her, period.

    No rings for women who need to be “gamed”.

  7. Ezra says:

    I’m sure you’ve written a post about this already somewhere, but I’m so new to your blog that I haven’t yet found it: the women are the ones writing the big tithe checks in a lot of these churches. If the “church” is really going to denounce feminism, and support Biblical marriage in whole – not just part – including Titus II, for instance…

    What will happen to those big tithe checks? And the Building Fund for the new sanctuary? And the Committee on Committees? (I kid you not, this was the NAME of a committee of women in one of the churches of my past!) And what of the huge space we need for the twenty-five small study groups, including Christian Divorce Recovery???

    They’re man-pleasing hirelings in the pulpit rather than God-fearing, God-pleasing shepherds.

  8. JHJ says:

    “The alternative would be to acknowledge the unfathomable betrayal of the Bible by this generation of Christians when it comes to sexual morality, men and women, and the family, which would (and should) be deeply humbling.”

    I think one distinction needs to be made here: Christians have lapsed on sexual morality, no doubt. Quite a lot. But sexual morality is perhaps the part of the Christian message that has suffered the least. Few Churches are on record saying sleeping around is fine, after all, even if they are quite prone to turn a blind eye when women do it. The real betrayal is about the other – non-sexual – part of marriage: the willful disregard of husbandly authority and wifely submission, the insistence on feminism as an evaluator of marriage outcomes, to the tune of haaaapiness and sex denial extortion, the endless demands that men in marriage conform to essentially pagan feminist ideas, the happy support given to female divorcées.

  9. okrahead says:

    Oh yeah, Ezra, it’s been covered here LOTS of times. She who pays the piper calls the tune. There’s another aspect as well, which is that many PUAs have discovered “happy hunting grounds” inside churches. I have personally seen a congregation where some “alpha” deacons ran their game inside as well as outside, including poaching the wives of other church members. Having a preacher who praises single mothers, goes on man-up rants, and declines to teach the Gospel on the subjects of marriage and divorce plays right into the hands of these types of PUAs. You end up with a situation where anyone who takes being a Christian seriously is “beta” or “omega”, those who just like church membership for social status (including women) are the “alphas”. What this means, in a nutshell, is that the feminists (a majority of the women) and the alpha puas (who are, by nature, in positions of leadership) LOVE having a feminist gospel. Throw in the white knighters, who actually think they have a chance with an EAP if they suck up enough, and you can see what kind of mess a congregation can become over a very short time. Why do preachers preach false doctrine? Because their congregants have itching ears and pay top dollar for it.

  10. Ras Al Ghul says:

    Ministry is the primary focus . . .

    What was that about taking out the plank in one’s own eye before worrying about the mote in someone elses?

    The problem is that the whole idea of “all you need is belief in Jesus” to save you means that’s ALL they are selling.

    There were Roman’s that decried the falling away of the old moral, family ways of Rome and their religion, and we all know how many people follow the Roman gods now . . .

  11. okrahead says:

    Another aspect of this whole heresy (easy divorce, fem/dom marriage, adultery, EAPs with N counts higher than their IQs, “godly” single mothers, etc.) is the magical “get out of Hell free card” that evangelicals like to pull out (often called “once saved, always saved” in many denominations). The EAP, the PUA, the heretical preacher, etc. are all sure that since they have “accepted Jesus as their personal Savior” that they will be saved in the end, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO. NO behavior, NO injury to others (including spouse and children), NO heresy will cause them to lose their souls, because they have the magical “get out of Hell free” card. This card even exempts them from having to repent! No, no confession, no repentance, no restitution, no remorse…. just do whatever feels good…. because Jesus is your personal Savior and once you’re saved you’re always saved! So screw the hot alpha, take the poor beta schlubs money, and grab your cash and prizes!
    And they wonder why more and more men are turned off from religion. If this is true Christianity, why would we want it?

  12. Keoni Galt says:

    From what I can tell, Cane Caldo’s primary battle he’s been waging here and elsewhere has been to criticize the discussion and promotion of game as a tool to combat the corruption of biblical marriage as focusing on the wrong effort, and that REAL men must fight to retake the church from the feminist/progressive influence that has corrupted it.

    This post is showing precisely how the money changers have corrupted the temple…and “Game” is one of the most important tools AS A praxeology (not an ideology, nor a philosophy) to understanding just how feminism serves as the primary vehicle for achieving that corruption.

    Game offers us the observations of how fem-DOM destroys attraction and promotes the dissolution of marriage. This insight then gives us understanding as to how false prophets and teachers have been leading the masses astray by promoting fem-DOM.

    Who are these moneychangers, and how do we identify them? IMO, it starts with Ephesians 5:22.

    In my opinion, there is a key point of discernment in understanding which preachers and pastors are teaching the false doctrine of Feminism disguised as Christianity – any preacher or pastor that seeks to soften, change or redefine the verse of Ephesians 5:22 to mean something other than what was plainly written: Wives sumbit to your husbands as unto the Lord so as to shame men and appeal to women, is a false teacher.

    Denouncing game and going after the godless, sinning PUA is simply pointing at the sinners outside the temple and denouncing them, all the while ignoring the money changers within, continuing their corruption and defilement of the temples original teachings.

  13. Cail Corishev says:

    [H]e also should never, ever, ever marry a woman who needs to be “gamed”.

    That’s fine, as long as you add the corollary:

    If no woman ever acts head-over-heels for a man, he’s probably not being very manly.

    Now, we could waste yet another long thread arguing the semantics of whether a man who tries to fix that is employing Game or just improving himself, and whether he’s still supplicating because he’s doing it “for” women, or whether he’s doing it for himself to get something he wants. After a while, all that just starts to look like blahblahblahtrollcakes. The point is, if you give off a consistent, manly presence, women will make themselves available to you without any conscious “gaming” on your part needed.

  14. okrahead says:

    Keoni, you are quite correct, save for the fact that the PUA is no longer shamed nearly so much as the beta sitting in the pew. The man up rants are addressed to single Betas, and the faithful husband who attempts to lead his family according to Eph. 5:22 is denounced. By the time most preachers today are done with excoriating husbands, fathers, and faithful Christian men who are single they have no time left over to go after the PUA.

  15. sunshinemary says:

    What is the solution? I’ve heard slut-shaming proposed. So, I tried slut-shaming. Know what I got? Christians, and a few men from the manosphere no less, upset that Christians were slut shaming. Seriously, I got rebuked up the wazoo. I wanted to say, “Hey, this is what slut shaming looks like. This is what works.” But no. I was called judgmental and a leader of mob passions for pointing out that an adulterous woman whose husband takes responsibility for her sin and who turns her sin into a cottage industry is out of line.

    Zippy Catholic wrote:

    I would suggest, though, at the risk of being considered MGTOW, that not only should a man never mary a non-virgin; he also should never, ever, ever marry a woman who needs to be “gamed”. If she isn’t head over heels for you exactly how you are, and also completely and explicitly aware of her tendency to fitness test and utterly committed to controlling that tendency, then don’t marry her, period. No rings for women who need to be “gamed”.

    I want to agree with you about this,
    but I sort of don’t.

  16. Anonymous Reader says:

    zippycatholic
    I would suggest, though, at the risk of being considered MGTOW, that not only should a man never mary a non-virgin; he also should never, ever, ever marry a woman who needs to be “gamed”. If she isn’t head over heels for you exactly how you are, and also completely and explicitly aware of her tendency to fitness test and utterly committed to controlling that tendency, then don’t marry her, period.

    Dalrock agrees with you up to a point – he’s stated explicitly more than once that Game cannot be the foundation of a marriage, and in fact you are using his language head over heels in love. Where the above text probably goes too far is this:

    …also completely and explicitly aware of her tendency to fitness test and utterly committed to controlling that tendency…

    I can’t say how introspective people are, on average but it seems to me that most are not. Certainly I have not known very many women who were truly introspective – navel gazing, mirror-staring and other forms of hamsterbation do not count. So I frankly am skeptical that most women are capable of being completely and explicitly aware of this aspect of their hypergamy – because I dobut that most women are capable of being aware of their hypergamy.

    What can be controlled is behavior. People can learn to control themselves; a flash of anger can be controlled, a moment of jealously, creeping lust, these can all be controlled if a person has ever been taught any self control at all, beyond basic toilet training. Unhappily, that isn’t as common as it once was.

    But it must be remembered that fitness testing in women can be a result of her insecurity. It is not a conscious process, either. Some part of her unconscious mind is not sure that Og is up to defending the cave mouth anymore, and so she starts taunting him to see if that is true. Because if Og can’t stand up to Ogette, he likely can’t deal with a bear. So the fitness testing begins – that’s what “fitness testing” means, it’s “testing for fitness”. When a man gets more beta, whether from weariness, or sadness, or sickness, or overwork, it is possible his woman will become unconsciously anxious about his fitness to defend her from some unknown, murky threat.

    The problem for modern men is pretty simple: we have been taught to appease women when they are fitness testing, rather than just deal with it from a position of strength. That looks to her inner Oggette as failure, and the fitness tests will continue, and may well increase in number and/or intensity. it’s not a conscious process. She likely isn’t aware she’s doing it. When men were not taught to appease women, nobody had to teach Game. Now that virtually all men are taught to appease women, and the vast majority of churches cater to women, because we all swim in a feminist pond, all men need to learn some Game for self protection. Young women need to learn the truth about their nature, and I frankly have not given much thought to that side of the problem. But the fact remains, all women will fitness test. The more secure they are in their man, the fewer and milder the fitness tests. The more insecure, the more testing. Some women can, and will, fitness test a relationship or marriage to destruction.

    AWALT, in other words, because fitness testing is a result of hypergamy, and all women
    are hypergamous to some degree. It’s a feature. Not a bug.

    No rings for women who need to be “gamed”.

    Hm. I argue that many parts of Game – the masculine self control and control of frame, the recognition of some unsavory parts of women’s nature, properly dealing with fitness tests – is simply part of being a masculine family leader. It’s part of leadership. So I can rewrite this sentence.

    Rewritten that reads: no rings for women who have to be led. Is that what you mean to say?

  17. Keoni Galt says:

    No rings for women who need to be “gamed”.

    “Gaming” is the art of seduction. Why would you NOT want to “game” or seduce your wife? Do you simply approach your wife by reminding her it’s her biblical duty to get naked and it’s time to do her duty?

    Or does playful flirting, banter and behavior that inspires her to become an eager and willing participant make her unworthy of a ring?

    No wonder so many non-Christians buy into the idea that Christian sexuality is lame prudery.

  18. Anonymous Reader says:

    Keoni Galt
    From what I can tell, Cane Caldo’s primary battle he’s been waging here and elsewhere has been to criticize the discussion and promotion of game as a tool to combat the corruption of biblical marriage as focusing on the wrong effort, and that REAL men must fight to retake the church from the feminist/progressive influence that has corrupted it.

    Well, that is an interesting perspective. After going around and around with Cane Caldo and realizing that he doesn’t really read simple questions put to him, I’ve come to the conclusion that Cane Caldo’s primary battle is with – himself. He seems to see many other men as “just like him” when he cheated on his wife, and so he goes after them hard and fast. The problem with this is pretty simple: not every man is like he was, and most married men who learn the applied and evo psych of Game will use it only on their wives. So Cane’s “Ready, fire – fire -fire -fire -fire, aim” approach is annoying at the very least, and possibly discouraging to some men.

    “Just read the Bible” is a slogan that I can’t have any use for, at a time when millions of men – tens of millions – are doing just that every week. The trouble is, they are reading it under the direction of the likes of Dr. Mohler, or Mr. Gregoire, or other men who read through a feminist lens.

    This post is showing precisely how the money changers have corrupted the temple…and “Game” is one of the most important tools AS A praxeology (not an ideology, nor a philosophy) to understanding just how feminism serves as the primary vehicle for achieving that corruption.

    Yes, exactly so, as some have unsuccesfully attempted to explain. Putting on the glasses enables a man to see women as they are, not as unicorn-riding angels on the rainbow. Because Game demolishes the premise that “men and women are exactly the same, except women can have babies”, by revealing that most women think differently in some critical ways from men, Game enables a man to see feminization for what it is, and the more it is practiced, the easier this becomes. To denounce Game is to insist that men should not know the truth about women. That we should be blind to reality.

    Game offers us the observations of how fem-DOM destroys attraction and promotes the dissolution of marriage. This insight then gives us understanding as to how false prophets and teachers have been leading the masses astray by promoting fem-DOM.

    Exactly. One then begins to wonder, why some come here so eager to denounce it….

  19. okrahead says:

    Sunshine Mary,
    Please bring more slut shaming.
    Very sincerely,
    Okrahead

  20. No, fellas, I really mean it. No rings for women who need to be “gamed” by you in particular.

    If “game” simply means improving yourself as a man, that ought to be a finished task before you even think about geting married. No getting married first, expecting yourself or herself to change. No. Welcome to divorce court.

    If Game means “acting more manly than you do naturally”, then no, you should not marry a woman if you have to act more manly around her than you already do naturally to maintain the bond.

    If you have to improve your manliness to court a particular woman, do that first before you even consider courting that woman. If she doesn’t adore you for the man you are right now, before you give her the ring, then don’t giver her a ring.

    No rings for women who need to be gamed. Period.

  21. Cail Corishev says:

    JHJ, that’s a great point. When you say “morality in marriage,” most people think of the 6th and 9th commandments, and go right to adultery, abortion, maybe certain sex acts, and (for all Christians before 1930 and a handful of Catholics today) birth control. It doesn’t even occur to them that things like who wears the pants in the family — figuratively and literally — fall into that category.

  22. Cail Corishev says:

    I tried slut-shaming. Know what I got? Christians, and a few men from the manosphere no less, upset that Christians were slut shaming.

    That why I think GKC was at least partly correct in what Dalrock quoted: I think a lot of this starts with people wanting to be nice. No one wanted to shame the couple who had their first child 5 months after the wedding, and hey, at least they did the right thing. Then it was no one wanted to shame the couple who waited to get married after the birth, because hey, at least they got married eventually, and you wouldn’t want to drive them away from the church or the family. Then it became no one wanting to shame the single mom with no dad in the picture, because what if she doesn’t bring the kid around to see his grandparents? And so on.

    It starts with a combination of genuine, if misplaced, niceness, plus some cowardice, I think. Then, after people have put up with something for a while to be nice and avoid the yelling, it becomes the new normal.

    When my unmarried, teenage niece turned up pregnant, the family didn’t kick her out on the street. But I think (I wasn’t privy to all of it) there were some pretty hard conversations with her and the father, and it was made clear that, while the family would certainly support them and love the child, no one was happy with them. There were serious conversations about whether she should get a baby shower — what if it sent the wrong message to other young girls? In the end, they had a shower, because as a practical matter, a young couple having a baby needs things. But even so I think it was kind of subdued. And they got married and seem to be doing just fine with two children now.

    So I think there are ways to shame bad behavior (the old Catholic term is “fraternal correction”), but it’s tricky, and you need to have a strong foundation of family or church so there’s someone who can bring down the “tough love” hammer without simply driving the person further into the wilderness. Try to shame a person who doesn’t have any of that, and she’s likely just to go live with her latest boyfriend or find a less “judgmental” church.

  23. Anonymous Reader says:

    zippycatholic
    No, fellas, I really mean it. No rings for women who need to be “gamed” by you in particular.

    If “game” simply means improving yourself as a man, that ought to be a finished task before you even think about geting married. No getting married first, expecting yourself or herself to change. No. Welcome to divorce court.

    If Game means “acting more manly than you do naturally”, then no, you should not marry a woman if you have to act more manly around her than you already do naturally to maintain the bond.

    So when she’s getting close to ovulation in her monthly cycle, and starts fitness testing more because Ogette wants more alpha what do you suggest? On the other hand, when she’s premenstrual, and needing more comfort – provider beta, what do you suggest?

    When a close relative of yours dies suddenly at a time when your job’s workload has increased and your oldest child is requiring more disciplnary and corrective attention, and you’ve become more beta, leading your wife to unconsciously increase the fitness testing, what do you suggest?

    When your wife is getting over giving birth, isn’t losing weight as she wanted to, has emotional issues with her body that you have never seen before and is alternating between sadness and anger, what do you suggest?

    Here’s an observation: in all of the above situations, just reading selected quotes from the Bible to her in order to remind her of her duty may not work quite as intended.

    If you have to improve your manliness to court a particular woman, do that first before you even consider courting that woman. If she doesn’t adore you for the man you are right now, before you give her the ring, then don’t giver her a ring.

    What if she once adored you for the man you were, and a few years of real life has worn you down a bit, such that you are no longer the “man she married”? What do you suggest then?

    No rings for women who need to be gamed. Period.

    In my opinion, not very well informed, most married women need to be gamed at some point.
    I agree that a man should not marry a woman whom he has to game. But I also understand that a decade or more of time can change people, gradually, in some ways. Some are obvious, some are subtle. Game is one way to repair some of the damage of time and life, in a positive way.

  24. The One says:

    Why isn’t the solution to get married by the church and not the state. Even states in the bible do not submit yourself to non Christian authorizes. Seems like an open and shut case to me, those who get married by the state get kicked out of the Church.

  25. ukfred says:

    This is all very well on an individual level, but at the denominational level it all goes haywire. In Britain, I attend a Methodist Church which is in the process of prepatring a resource on cohabitation for young methodists, as shown in Section B Paragraph 2.4 on Page 5 of
    http://www.methodistconference.org.uk/media/41184/6-the-faith-and-order-committee-part-1-0511.pdf
    This is a church that finds that does not seem to be concerned that many younger members seem to think that cohabitation is both “right and sensible”.

    @sunshinemary, I am not surprised by what you found. Christians have forgotten that sometimes they need to “Be angry and sin not” because we do not get systematic expository preaching in church. In fact, I would expect that many churchians believe that we are called to be nice, rather than be good. At a recent church meeting where we were talking about the need for teaching, and I was arguing that we needed the ministers (pastors) to use their authority to tell the congregation that they should wherever possible be members of a Bible study group in the church, I was faced with a response, “But some people don’t want to do things like that” which left me speechless. I could not believe that anyone could be so selfish. It’s not like I’m suggesting marching little old ladies in their Zimmer frames from an old folks home to Bible study every week at gunpoint. But is this not what the letter to the church Sardis was all about, going through the motions without actually being genuine? Or what was written to Laodicea, “Those whom I love, I rebuke and discipline”

    I got so frustrated with it, I took an idea from the Christian Men’s Defense Network and reworked the letter to Sardis and posted it on my own blog because there is so much that the church should be doing and is ignoring. And one of the main things the church is ignoring is the demand on Christians to conform to Scripture.

  26. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cail
    It starts with a combination of genuine, if misplaced, niceness, plus some cowardice, I think. Then, after people have put up with something for a while to be nice and avoid the yelling, it becomes the new normal.

    + 1 on this. I’ll have to get around to going back to the conservative church with the babymomma, see what’s new.Because GKC’s “niceness” would explain how it happened.

    Which reminds me, a conservative church like that should have a very low divorce number. I’ll ask next time I’m in that city.

    Say, maybe this can be a new meme. Just as men should marry women with a low number of previous men who had sex with them – “Low N” – maybe families should search for churches that have a low number of divorces – “Low Church N”. So how should one refer to a church that is tolerant of divorce, or worse yet of frivolorce?

    Women with a high N can be called promiscuous, or slutty. What’s a church with a high N?

  27. Anonymous Reader says:

    UKFred
    In fact, I would expect that many churchians believe that we are called to be nice, rather than be good.

    Very succinct. So if a tea trolley covered in dung is rolled in, everyone has to pretend it’s chocolate pudding, because pointing out the truth would not be nice, would you say? Better to just eat dung, than not be nice…

  28. Cail Corishev says:

    No rings for women who need to be gamed.

    The more I think about it, the more I’d kind of like to take back my measured response to this earlier, and just say this is BS. But that leads to yet another discussion of semantics and what Game means, which I just can’t bear again so soon. So let me try this. Here are some random ways you can “game” your wife:

    Slap her playfully on the rear as she gets out of bed in the morning and say, “Make me some bacon, woman.”

    Keep your emotions to yourself most of the time. Don’t come home and whine about work. Make her draw you out and complain to her friends that you don’t talk enough.

    Make sure you give her compliments and “I love you”s less often then she gives them to you.

    Tell her no whenever you’re not sure what to answer. “Can I buy a new dress?” “No.”

    Be decisive. Never say, “I don’t know, what do you want to do?” Make a bad decision, or say you’ll think about it, but never waffle or try to pass decisions back to her.

    Be honest when you’re not happy with her. “Hmm, I’m not so sure about that dress.” Hug her, then: “I’m thinking maybe we should get a gym membership.”

    Get her a little gift for a nonsense occasion or just because you feel like it, but ignore the “obligatory” occasions like Valentine’s Day.

    —–

    What’s wrong with any of that? How is it supplicating? What’s so hard or tiring or emasculating about it? Heck, most of it’s fun!

    Now, if you’re such a manly man that you already do things like that automatically, then I salute you. You’re already gaming her without having to take the unseemly step of trying to. Bravo.

    Most of us aren’t that lucky. We had to learn this stuff (or re-learn it, depending on how you look at it). I don’t think it’s realistic to say that we must master it and have it internalized to the point where we’ll never slip before we go out and bag a woman. (For one thing, using it and seeing how well it works with real women is a great motivator and teaching tool, as you learn from their response to you.) There’s nothing wrong with getting started, and then finding a woman who can go along with you. After all, if you find a good one, she’s probably going to be on her own path out of the feminist swamp, so she can learn along with you.

    Maybe that’s riskier than waiting until you’re a 100% masculine man and you find a 100% feminine woman, but who wants to wait that long? Besides, as men, are we supposed to be that afraid of risk? You don’t want to be foolhardy, of course, so you should find the best woman possible, but I think the fear of risk gets overstated in these parts.

  29. Martian Bachelor says:

    Game demolishes the premise that “men and women are exactly the same, except women can have babies”, by revealing that most women think differently in some critical ways from men, Game enables a man to see feminization for what it is, and the more it is practiced, the easier this becomes. To denounce Game is to insist that men should not know the truth about women. (anon rdr)

    Wow, is there anything “Game” can’t do?
    (or hasn’t already done)

    It’s mythical superpowers are just never-ending, and get more fabulous with each retelling.

  30. “a man should never, ever, ever marry a woman who needs to be “gamed””

    Amen to that. I’m not about to spend all my time with “does she want me to be funny or aloof? should I return her call or not return it? am I being arrogant enough?” I have too many important, adult things to do.

  31. okrahead says:

    A church with a high divorce number is little, if any, different from a woman with a high partner number.
    Both will find a way to rationalize away the truth and insist they are “good brides”. Neither one will be faithful past the first serious temptation.

  32. greyghost says:

    Yes, exactly so, as some have unsuccesfully attempted to explain. Putting on the glasses enables a man to see women as they are, not as unicorn-riding angels on the rainbow. Because Game demolishes the premise that “men and women are exactly the same, except women can have babies”, by revealing that most women think differently in some critical ways from men, Game enables a man to see feminization for what it is, and the more it is practiced, the easier this becomes. To denounce Game is to insist that men should not know the truth about women. That we should be blind to reality.

    Anonymous Reader that is what needs to be common knowledge through out the christian community. We here have spent a lot of time commenting and argueing but I think we have learned an awful lot about why the resistance is there. I think they know game in the knowledge of female psychology. That is why when ever it is brought up they talk about bedding sluts. They are terrified of being seen for what they have become.

  33. “If no woman ever acts head-over-heels for a man, he’s probably not being very manly.”

    Yeah, because women today ONLY are attracted to good men!!!

  34. CL says:

    There’s nothing wrong with getting started, and then finding a woman who can go along with you. After all, if you find a good one, she’s probably going to be on her own path out of the feminist swamp, so she can learn along with you.

    That’s what 7man and I did. We’ve each learned a lot in the last year this way that we couldn’t have learned as two separate people.

    Maybe that’s riskier than waiting until you’re a 100% masculine man and you find a 100% feminine woman, but who wants to wait that long?

    People don’t come ready-made in boxes waiting to be opened. That is why men and women are complementary and incomplete alone (there are exceptions of course).

  35. adding: Game doens’t teach men to act manly, it teaches them to spend all their time worrying and fretting about what their woman wants at that particularmoment, and then to give exactly that to her, and nothing else.

  36. Anonymous Reader says:

    Game demolishes the premise that “men and women are exactly the same, except women can have babies”, by revealing that most women think differently in some critical ways from men, Game enables a man to see feminization for what it is, and the more it is practiced, the easier this becomes. To denounce Game is to insist that men should not know the truth about women. (anon rdr)

    Martian Bachelor
    Wow, is there anything “Game” can’t do?
    (or hasn’t already done)

    Sure. Game can’t create a perpetual motion machine, or otherwise reverse entropy. Glad to be of service to you.

    It’s mythical superpowers are just never-ending, and get more fabulous with each retelling.

    Getting rid of false premises, such as the total interchangeability of men and women, is not an easy task. If you did that all by yourself, I’m very impressed. Most men under the age of 70 grew up in a world where pretty lies about women and relationships were fed to them nearly from birth.

    I realize that by offering a serious answer to your flippant fallacy I may be just encouraging you to troll this thread further, but real men need to know that supplication and pedestalization of women doesn’t’ work, and there are better ways of thinking & living that do work.

    There’s your reply. Feel free to sneer some more.

  37. greyghost says:

    adding: Game doens’t teach men to act manly, it teaches them to spend all their time worrying and fretting about what their woman wants at that particularmoment, and then to give exactly that to her, and nothing else.

    That is not game that is what got us here in the first place.

  38. “How is it supplicating? ”

    Spending all your time trying to figure out what a person wants and giving it to them is supplication, no matter what the specifics are.

  39. Anonymous Reader says:

    The Real Peterman
    adding: Game doens’t teach men to act manly, it teaches them to spend all their time worrying and fretting about what their woman wants at that particularmoment, and then to give exactly that to her, and nothing else.

    Uh…no. That’s beta supplication, and pedestalization. That’s what most sitcoms on TV push. That’s what Dr. Mohler is teaching. That’s exactly wrong.

    A betaized man spends much time agonizing over fitness tests / shit tests, wondering how he has failed the woman, and how much more nice he will have to be to get her to be nice back to him. That is what you are describing. That’s “anti-game”.

  40. “That is not game that is what got us here in the first place”

    Of course it is. That’s what people like Roissy teach. “Don’t do what you were going to do, do what she wants you to do instead! You were going to compliment her but she wants you to be aloof, so do that instead. You were going to call her but she wants you to not call her so do that instead. etc.”

    I have a challenge: find a feminist who is opposed to Game. Chances are, you won’t–feminists don’t oppose systems for giving women whatever they want. You’ll find plenty of feminists who don’t like men who have to learn techniques to pick up women, but not feminists who are opposed to Roissy-esque “game”.

  41. Miserman says:

    Perhaps the church needs to reexamine what it teaches about men and women in the beginning. The traditional teaching (or the one I’ve always known) is that men and women (humanity) were created in the image of God and from that stance of equality male headship is added out of necessity and then accessorized with male guilt for the Fall.

    However, what if the church taught that man was made in the image of God but woman was made in the image of man? This whole idea of starting with men and women being equally made in the image of God seems to offer a theological path in which women can simply bypass men and go straight to God, all the while proclaiming her allegiance to Biblical marriage.

    Just my observation.

  42. “A betaized man spends much time agonizing over fitness tests / shit tests”

    Oh, and game doesn’t give endless lessons on what to do about shit tests? How to recognize them, how to “pass” them?

    “She gave me X shit test and I did Y in response–was that the right thing to do?” Have you never read a “game” blog?

    There’s a school of thought that if a woman constantly throws up shit tests, walk away. That school gets a lot of flak from gamers.

  43. I didn’t mean to hijack this thread, so I’ll step away for a while.

  44. Anonymous Reader says:

    okrahead
    A church with a high divorce number is little, if any, different from a woman with a high partner number.
    Both will find a way to rationalize away the truth and insist they are “good brides”. Neither one will be faithful past the first serious temptation.

    Ok. Various philosophers, such as the ancient Chinese sage Lao Tsu, have asserted that the first step to wisdom is to call things by their right names. We have names for women who voluntarily accumulate a high partner count, a high N: carousel rider, promiscuous, slut, and so forth.

    What term describes a church that has a high divorce count, a high N? What term describes a church that tolerates frivolous divorce, or frivilorce? Are there different degrees of this N? Or is it all the same? At the risk of incurring the wrath of the online language police, it seems to me a term is needed.

  45. Cat says:

    The LCMS, is also a great proponet of friviolous divorce and easy remarriage. 1) They have a deaconess program that allows divorced women to serve. 2) They have installed a single mother (a slut), Sandra Ostapowich as some big shot, who runs higher things. You can see her vain ego here: http://blog.higherthings.org/madre/

    Dalrock, this is the prime reason I don’t go to church anymore. Despite all the bible chatter, they really follow the spirit of the age.

    “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.”
    –Camille Paglia

  46. Dalrock says:

    @JHJ

    The alternative would be to acknowledge the unfathomable betrayal of the Bible by this generation of Christians when it comes to sexual morality, men and women, and the family, which would (and should) be deeply humbling.

    I think one distinction needs to be made here: Christians have lapsed on sexual morality, no doubt. Quite a lot. But sexual morality is perhaps the part of the Christian message that has suffered the least. Few Churches are on record saying sleeping around is fine, after all, even if they are quite prone to turn a blind eye when women do it. The real betrayal is about the other – non-sexual – part of marriage: the willful disregard of husbandly authority and wifely submission, the insistence on feminism as an evaluator of marriage outcomes, to the tune of haaaapiness and sex denial extortion, the endless demands that men in marriage conform to essentially pagan feminist ideas, the happy support given to female divorcées.

    I think you are using far too narrow a definition of sexual morality; I had a broader definition in mind in the quote you are responding to. Marriage is in fact the biblical moral safe harbor for sex, but it offers the safe harbor in exchange for accepting defined constraints. If you outright defy the constraints, can you really fully invoke the safe harbor? Suz had that funny line about the woman who “wasn’t a slut, because she married all 5 of the men she had sex with”. Christ spoke plainly to the woman at the well in a similar situation. Serial marriage is a breach of sexual morality, despite what Sheila Gregoire argues. I would argue so is a wife who marries and never submits to her husband. Likewise a man who marries and enjoys sex with his wife but outright fails to offer her love and protection. See the women at christianforums.com for an example of the mind frame I have in mind here. They see marriage as a way to morally practice feminism and serial monogamy. They have so much clout the moderators have banned judging any divorce as frivolous.

  47. Cat says:

    A wortwhile notion for Dalrock and others to investigate: Does promiscuity make women more masculine? A good friend, who is a devout Catholic, says yes. Cock hopping makes women mannish. I’d love someone to investigate this. I have not been able to find psychological studies that says so.

  48. okrahead says:

    “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Matthew 19:9, KJV
    A woman who is put away (divorced) by her husband and marries “another” is an adulteress. This is only difficult to understand because churchians do not like it. What to say about churchians? They have eyes but cannot see, they have ears yet cannot ear, and their worship is vain, for they teach as doctrines the commandments of womyn.

  49. Dalrock says:

    @zippycatholic

    I would suggest, though, at the risk of being considered MGTOW, that not only should a man never mary a non-virgin; he also should never, ever, ever marry a woman who needs to be “gamed”. If she isn’t head over heels for you exactly how you are, and also completely and explicitly aware of her tendency to fitness test and utterly committed to controlling that tendency, then don’t marry her, period.

    No rings for women who need to be “gamed”.

    I’m in general agreement, although as others have mentioned you go a bit farther than I would. But I suspect we are actually very close in our take on this issue. I think a certain amount of game as a baseline is to be expected, roughly as others have described. I’m guessing you wouldn’t object to that, but are instead referring to what I have called gaming a prospective wife into submission. More recently I’ve referred to what I consider the Hostage negotiator for life view, and I think we are in alignment there as well.

    I don’t have a hard and fast rule for men regarding marrying non virgins simply because the risks and rewards of modern marriage are something I think only the man himself can weigh. But I do agree that marrying a non virgin is no small matter and shouldn’t be dismissed lightly. The Social Pathologist has done an excellent job digging up the scientific confirmation of this. In the same spirit I would say No rings for sluts.

    As for a woman fully controlling her fitness tests, as Anon Reader pointed out most women aren’t this self aware. Interestingly my wife noticed this in herself long before I read the term, so it isn’t impossible. Either way I think the best biblical defenses here are to take the call to submit to her husband very seriously and not entertain the option of divorce. These along with not having a sexual history and at least starting off “head over heels” should keep the fitness tests manageable.

  50. whatever says:


    Quite a lot. But sexual morality is perhaps the part of the Christian message that has suffered the least. Few Churches are on record saying sleeping around is fine, after all, even if they are quite prone to turn a blind eye when women do it.

    This is not virtue. They are carrying water for feminists and all women. If they stopped, then women would be forced to try to convince men to marry then for the female’s sterling character instead of just to have sex. If you aren’t going to lock those sluts down in their 20s, you might as well let the males you insist on penning up for the slaughter out to. The women will cry as you have stopped doing something that directly benefits their chosen life path.

    And that’s really what would upset you, “Christian”. The tears of unhappy sluts and Team Woman.

  51. Anonymous Reader says:

    “A betaized man spends much time agonizing over fitness tests / shit tests”

    The Real Peterman
    Oh, and game doesn’t give endless lessons on what to do about shit tests?

    Hmm. No, I do not believe that it does. There are some basic principles, and some men spend a great deal of time arguing over and over about ever more minute details, though.

    How to recognize them, how to “pass” them?

    Not endless, no.

    “She gave me X shit test and I did Y in response–was that the right thing to do?” Have you never read a “game” blog?

    I’ve read game blogs. And what one often sees there are betaized men who are groping their way through the murk, trying to get clear in their minds certain principles. There are other men who have a partial grasp of those principles, arguing with each other over various details. There are trollers, looking for flames. There are naysayers, spoiling for a fight. And so forth. And so on. None of this supports what you are saying. Because teaching men Game requires them to realize that almost everything they “know” about women is wrong and that is contentious and difficult.

    Ever taught someone something, like how to hammer a nail, or ride a bicycle? Ever notice how you spend a lot of time going over all sorts of details that you had never really thought about, like how to hold the hammer properly, how to swing it so that the tool does the work rather than your arm, or how to keep the bicycle going forward in a straight line without tipping over? These are skills that, once acquired, can be done literally without thinking. If there was a blog for basic carpentry, and one section was devoted to teaching utter beginners how to nail safely and quickly, it would be chock full of endless threads about how to hold the hammer, what size nail to use, framing vs. finish work, different kinds of wood, and so forth. It would appear to an outsider that all those people ever do is fret about ever smaller details of fastening two pieces of wood together with a hunk of mild steel that’s pointy on one end and flat on the other – and what’s wrong with them, eh? Why don’t they just do it?

    There’s a school of thought that if a woman constantly throws up shit tests, walk away. That school gets a lot of flak from gamers.

    Yeah, right. If you don’t know anything about a topic, maybe you should not make definitive statements about it.

  52. TFH says:

    As others have said, a lot of Christian conservatives merely think feminism = abortion.

    Hence, by being against abortion, they think they are against feminism. They support the other 99% of feminism all the same.

    Furthermore, both sides of the abortion debate are misandric.

    Leftist position : ‘Pro-choice’ = The baby is expendable.
    Christian position : ‘Pro-life’ = The man is expendable.

    Neither side says the father should have any say whatsoever, nor does either side say that the woman is somehow responsible for her own actions. The ‘Pro-life’ position thinks that by making child support laws more and more punitive to men, that men will ‘stop abandoning the pregnant mother, which is the only reason abortion happens’. When making laws even more brutal towards men (i.e. the Bradley Amendment, which jails men as ‘deadbeat dads’ even if they never wanted to be excluded from their child’s lives) fails to lower the abortion rate, they proceed to think punishing men further is the answer.

    There are few debates in which both sides are utterly disgusting. This is one of them.

  53. unger says:

    @Dalrock: You didn’t see what I was trying to get at. This is partially my fault. Let me clarify with two things:

    1: I’ll give you another example to suggest what I mean with the soul-saving bit. Consider a lonely, pedestalizing beta/omega type. He imagines that if only he could get a woman, and keep her long enough – say, to a few hours after getting a ring on her finger – that his problems would largely go away. You know, as he does not, that getting him a woman as he is is not going to solve much, and least of all his real problem. It will scratch an itch – and if it does anything more than that, it will be to mask the problem temporarily. Another woman is not what he needs.

    Are you sure the unhaaaapy woman is not in a similar fix? She imagines that if only her husband were Harley McBadboy, who other women want and other men want to be, that her problems would largely go away. Would they, or would it just scratch her itch, all the while hardening her?

    2: This is much less my fault, I’m afraid: Who is this Christianized Harley McBadboy whom we should imitate? I don’t know if you’ve addressed it or not, but the closest thing to an answer I can get out of the other commenters is Jesus, but only Jesus as he cleared the temple and Jesus as he will be on the Last Day – which stinks to high heaven of what C.S. Lewis warned about in ‘The Abolition of Man’: taking one part of law or scripture, wrenching it from its context, inflating it, and holding it as the standard and measure of all other law and scripture. Do you have any coherent picture of a man, for our imitation, who conflicts neither with the Decalogue nor the Hexakaidecalogue?

  54. TFH says:

    Keoni Galt,

    You will continue to find that the anti-Game zealots, at there very core, are in deep denial that Game is of any value in LTRs/marriages. This is the most crucial pillar of the strawman they erect to remain in denial about Game.

    In fact, your existence is inconvenient for their worldview.

  55. TFH says:

    greyghost,

    That is not game that is what got us here in the first place.

    Yep. It is funny how the anti-Game people still just cannot ever, ever, ever comprehend what Game is.

    80% of men (and 99% of women), just lack the intellectual depth to comprehend Game.

  56. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cat
    A wortwhile notion for Dalrock and others to investigate: Does promiscuity make women more masculine? A good friend, who is a devout Catholic, says yes. Cock hopping makes women mannish. I’d love someone to investigate this. I have not been able to find psychological studies that says so.

    More likely the case is that women who have higher testosterone, which makes them look and act more masculine, are more likely to be promiscuous.The correlation is clear, but the causation is not what you propose. However, the brain is a lot more plastic than we thought years ago, so surely promiscuous women and men are “reprogramming” their attractors every time they hook up with a new partner. So there could possibly be some feedback loop at work that reinforces the innate tendency.

  57. Cail Corishev says:

    I’m not about to spend all my time with “does she want me to be funny or aloof? should I return her call or not return it? am I being arrogant enough?” I have too many important, adult things to do.

    You’re making it sound way more complicated, difficult, and demanding than it really is. Like I said earlier, a lot of the things a guy can do to game his wife are fun, and he should want to do them anyway. Heck, I play card games for fun that are more complicated. For most guys, it’s simple: stop supplicating, be unapologetically in charge of your life, tease her, and make your expectations clear. Yes, if every single decision throughout the day required Game properly applied or you’d lose her, it would be exhausting and ultimately hopeless. But that’s not the case. That’s missing the forest for the trees. Get your overall frame right, and it won’t matter if you’re not arrogant enough one day or call her twice in a row.

    Wow, is there anything “Game” can’t do?
    (or hasn’t already done)

    It’s mythical superpowers are just never-ending, and get more fabulous with each retelling.

    It can’t help you use apostrophes correctly. Sorry.

  58. endwatcher says:

    There is a widely held belief among Christians, even in the manosphere, that Christians in general are standing up against feminism and the debasement of marriage but the culture isn’t responding. The myth of Christians and the church “fighting the good fight” is one that won’t die no matter how many times I or others debunk it.

    The United States is frequently pointed out as being as the most religiously conservative nation in the western world when it comes to sexual morality, and indeed there are stats to back this up. If you ask the average American who are the most zealous Christians fighting against feminism and for the family as defined in the Bible?, they will almost undoubtedly respond with some combination of Focus on the Family, the Southern Baptists, and Pat Robertson’s CBN & The 700 Club.
    _______________________________________________________

    The problem is our definition of what is a Christian. The term is too broad, many people who we consider “Christian” are really just church cultured heathen, which means they cannot fight the good fight against the culture of the nation, since they are that heathen culture. They want the culture to be Christian flavored, but they aren’t interested in truly standing out and being biblical, they want a happy compromise(Lukewarm….at best).

    The leaders however who espouse heretical views I think are change agents, they are sold out to Satan and are actively attempting (and succeeding) at corrupting what remains of the true church. Churchgoers deserve them though for not rebuking and removing them.

    So your average churchgoer isn’t really interested in discernment, and you are right, the movies and other media that pass as kosher in church really aren’t acceptable at all. It is filth topped with church sauce.

    So it is no wonder the church as popularly defined marches lockstep with feminism. Feminism is American (and now western) culture, and church culture is really just American culture as well. We cannot turn the tide in the culture, unless of course God wills it. He doesn’t always bring revival though, sometimes judgement comes. Jeremiah warned Jerusalem for years that judgement was coming, but they did not listen then. Our role and success(none) may be similar.

    We can determine our choices in our lives though, and the way we choose correctly is that we read the Word, and then do it. We find our “alpha-ness” in doing. As stated in the last post I am against looking to game for this guidance, even if some of it may look similar to what the Word says. Why go to a secondary source for guidance which can be steered and corrupted when we can gain the true and pure guidance from the Bible instead? The source matters, one leads to true success in our walk with Jesus, the other is informed by seducing spirits that will lead us astray.

    If protecting marriage(and making them biblical) is as important as stated on this blog, then we should be less open to worldly doctrines, especially ones that appeal to the flesh and pride of womankind.

  59. sunshinemary says:

    Dalrock wrote:

    She said she would get into a mood where she felt absolutely compelled to piss me off. Every cell in her body was telling her she would feel better if only she provoked a fight.

    How does someone who believes game is morally wrong respond to fitness testing?

    Other ladies can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there is not a woman alive who hasn’t felt that exact same compulsion (it’s more than a feeling) to provoke a fight with her man. We discussed this once a while back on Patriactionary, and I mentioned there that when a woman sees her husband sitting and doing nothing (or something she deems to be nothing), she will feel compelled to jump on him about it, usually with a list in hand.

  60. greyghost says:

    The real Peterman
    A woman experiencing game get gina tingles what she wants doesn’t mean damn thing. A woman in gina tingle does what he wants be that bend over and spread that ass, do well in school, mow the front yard, or dress nice and be well behaved at the cowboys stadium.

  61. Dalrock says:

    @Sunshinemary

    How does someone who believes game is morally wrong respond to fitness testing?

    Other ladies can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there is not a woman alive who hasn’t felt that exact same compulsion (it’s more than a feeling) to provoke a fight with her man. We discussed this once a while back on Patriactionary, and I mentioned there that when a woman sees her husband sitting and doing nothing (or something she deems to be nothing), she will feel compelled to jump on him about it, usually with a list in hand.

    I am obviously not the target audience of this question, but I will offer a reply anyway. The repeated New Testament call to wives to submit to their husbands should be sufficient here. As you have said wives shouldn’t be robbed of the moral credit for doing this by attributing the responsibility to the man’s game. So I can see where one might eschew game and instead build a church culture which takes the parts of the Bible which offend feminists very seriously. This should also include an understanding by husbands that they need to be weary of overly following his wife as is warned in Genesis and in accordance with NT headship. My objection is not to those who are sincerely working toward this end, but to those who object to Game while only offering obstruction to change.

    With all of this said, I obviously agree with the general spirit of your question. If a husband knows he can help his wife by standing firm against her fitness tests, standing firm is not only biblical in and of itself but also loving.

  62. Dalrock says:

    @endwatcher

    Feminism is American (and now western) culture, and church culture is really just American culture as well. We cannot turn the tide in the culture, unless of course God wills it.

    Of course we can change church culture, no matter how many ways you try to talk us out of it. God didn’t spread cultural marxism, men did. There is nothing immutable about the last decades of social change. We absolutely can change church culture, or at the very least create new churches which do stand up to feminism. This is the point of the OP. You are not just decrying the use of Game as a tool, but offering this sort of defeatist attitude while explaining that everyone else is doing it wrong. Your rejection of the tool would be one thing if you were earnest about doing it the harder way without the tool. But you aren’t just eschewing the tools those who are trying to address the problem are trying to use, you are at the same time telling us it isn’t worth the trouble.

    If protecting marriage(and making them biblical) is as important as stated on this blog, then we should be less open to worldly doctrines, especially ones that appeal to the flesh and pride of womankind.

    Seriously? If it is important? You still have to ask? This is exactly the kind of denial and obstructionism I was pointing out in the OP. How could you possibly have missed this?

  63. greyghost says:

    TRP
    Just for the hell of it you see woman with glasses (now don’t be a dumb ass about it too ,some old woman with a lighted magnifying glass reading the label of a box of exlax at a walmart pharmacy doesn’t count) make a comment to the effect “Them glasses look thick enough to see into the future.” regardless of her reaction ask her if she has seen Office Space that had that guy with the thick glass that made his eyes look real huge or those funny glasses that do that. Reasure her that her glasses don’t do that as bad or even at all to her eyes. Do not complement her but make sure she knows you can see her beyond her mask. Have fun the women blush and giggle and smile I never go beyond superficial because i’m not in a position nor in desire to have another woman (oh god no) in my life(one is more than enough for greyghost) Have fun and role play to test reactions women give you. they love it, even if you come off as acreepy perv ha ha ha they will have something to talk about with their friends. Just don’t try that shit with a femi chick in an elevator.

  64. sunshinemary says:

    The repeated New Testament call to wives to submit to their husbands should be sufficient here. As you have said wives shouldn’t be robbed of the moral credit for doing this by attributing the responsibility to the man’s game.

    Yes, yes, this is totally right of course, and I don’t argue against it. By all means, let us do a better job of teaching women to submit. However, my question wasn’t exactly what should we do about women fitness testing ; it was more a question of how men ought to respond when it happens. The thing is, the compulsion to fitness test is intense at times. It’s easy to do it without thinking about it (though I fully agree that it is wrong). If a man is opposed to using any part of game, all he can do is remind her of the verses in the Bible that admonish her to respect him. I wonder how most women would respond to that in the heat of the moment. Wouldn’t a pat on the rump and an objectifying comment (“No, honey, I don’t need help finding something useful to do do. Do you need something useful to do with your mouth?”) work out better for him? And then later, when she is more under control, to point out her sin to her so that she can be aware of what she is doing? I might be thinking about this incorrectly.

  65. RICanuck says:

    Re. Unger’s previous comment, “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?”

    I do not believe that women, in general, bear much culpability for their sins. Their solipsism blinds them to the introspection required to consider, let alone repent of their own sins of commssion or omission. Every married man, or son of a woman has encountered a situation where a woman has done something, but it’s not her fault, and if it is her fault, it’s because of something someone else did.

    I will not play dueling Bible verses but it seems to me that there is biblical support for this position.

    Eve was deceived and ate of the fruit. Adam followed, and also ate. God knew that both ate of the fruit, but only demanded of Adam why he ate the fruit. It seems that woman’s limited culpable guilt preceded the fall.

    Bathsheba was seen bathing (perhaps deliberately) by David. David arranged for Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, to be killed in battle. In divine consequence David and Bathsheba’s child died. David was faced with rebellion and division within his own household. I do not recall any temporal consequences that Bathsheba faced for her adultery. (Correct me if I am wrong).

    It is a teaching of the Catholic church that salvation may be lost for unrepented, culpable mortal sin. To be culpable of a sin a man must do the sin, knowing it is a sin. It is the purpose of the consience to convict oneself of the need for repentance.

    Telling a woman that the Bible says that she is to submit to her husband will not convince a woman that she is sinning, unless the woman has started to develop a consience. But a consience does not seem to be factory equipment amongst women.

    I have held, and continue to hold a deep anger towards my wife for some of her behaviours that I find very wounding. She has claimed she is doing these things because she wants to be holy, and that it pleases God. I have felt a deep burning anger and hatred towards God for that. I am getting over it, but while I held this anger, I knew it was a sin, a mortal sin, and a culpable sin deserving of Hellfire. The anger I continue to hold for my wife is also a sin.

    My marriage has gotten less intolerable since reading Roissy. He has little use for Christians but was the first source of helpful advice I found.

    So, Unger, your concern should be for your salvation, providing a Godly example for your children and neighbours. If God does not instil in her a consience, she faces little risk of losing heaven.

  66. greyghost says:

    Sunshine
    I’m a sucker for shit test because I am a professional fixer. Ive always been an elctro mechanical technician and mechanic. One thing to is to just ignore her and stay on focus to what is going on. Keep speaking or react as if she never spoke a word. Sometimes I will speak back what she said as a kind of role play on how what she is thinking actually plays it is usually pretty silly in practice and kills dead right there. Sometimes with a wife especially if you have kids you enjoy yopu just bite the bullet. Girl friends are easy “get lost bitch and don’t fuckin call me” . They are just girlfriends so what. Women are sluts now days just go out and get another one that night if you want new pussy. It sounds bad but you can’t get too involved with women unless she is a wife and man needs to let her that. I say that all of the time watch tv shows or movies with my wife and daughters (12,9) “She is just a girlfriend get rid of her” ” I wouldn’t take any crap from a girl friend” I want my daughters to know girlfriends are useless and they are and wives are special because they are wives. (first things first they are not old enough to know about how worthless american women are in general.)

  67. Cane Caldo says:

    Bathsheba was seen bathing (perhaps deliberately) by David. David arranged for Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, to be killed in battle. In divine consequence David and Bathsheba’s child died. David was faced with rebellion and division within his own household. I do not recall any temporal consequences that Bathsheba faced for her adultery. (Correct me if I am wrong).

    Well, her baby died, and she was married to David, whose family was a chariot-wreck for the rest of his life.

    What was David’s sin?

  68. infowarrior1 says:

    No woman will ever tingle unless a man manifests dominant male behaviour. It does not apply to just sluts but to all attractive women generally. If you manage to get a wife without “Game” then you must have been doing it naturally without realizing it. Game is merely the conceptualization of dominant male behaviour or the behaviour of alpha man.

  69. Chris says:

    Well, so much for being calm and reflective today.
    Now, the natural history of the current American Princess is… if I understand everyone… to have a series of hookups followed by Boyfriends then in their late 20s with a N of >5. marry, have kids, and if he becomes tired and fat, dump him (even if she is fat), cut him off, and then get number two.
    This is contrasted with biblical teaching… Christian girls who get horny should marry younger, with an N of zero, and stay with him.. He will be stressed. You will both be tempted.
    The older women in the church can teach.
    —-
    Example. My mum could not have kids, and wanted them. I came along, and suddenly she went from being a teacher to looking after a babe. Her best friend was the (rural, three classroom) headmasters wife, who TAUGHT her how to change a nappy. Her mother taught her how to cook, and sew… and Mum now talks about how she came back with me to find Dad had been stung by a swarm of bees and she had to deal with a sick husband and a new babe.
    Women used to teach each other how to handle men.
    —-
    Now men are seen as changeable as cars. Or ballpoint pens.
    —-
    I’m pissed. In most churches, as a solo Father (of boys) and trying to be a godly man is shamed: if I was sleeping with one to three of the wimmenz I would fit in much better. But… I have two boys at high school. The dating situation for them is worse — I am not suprised that they prefer Xbox and Playstation to dealing with Kiwi Princesses.
    —-
    Now, God will preserve his church. There will be a remnant. But it may not be what is now popular: the truly heretical branches of the church will die over a generation and become fossilized, as the unitarians and quakers have.

    But you can no longer judge the calibre of the church by the label. Even our Roman friends, with the centralized magisterium monitoring for heresy, have branches that have become so feminized that they reject anybody with functioning testes. The Catholics are forced to function as Protestants and carefully weigh each word, each homily, against scripture and the creeds, for much is in error.

    The only thing that gives me hope is that… I see younger people falling in love, marrying. That there are 40 kids at Kirk most weeks. That the woman who has led the teenage girls ministry is married to a ministry intern (with a PhD) and has just had her 5th kid. That being a Mum is honored there.

    Because the wider culture — in particular the prosperity gospel driven, costless gospel. seeker friendly mega church — hates submission, hates fidelity, and does not honour those who seek the kingdom and righteousness.
    —–
    So what to do? The church is not going to change. The people, as UK Fred noted, in the committess are liberal and feminist to a man: we will not get much firm teaching on this. Well, I have some tactices that could help.

    1. Go really traditional. Find a reformed church that still does exegesis. Or an old liturgy. The older practices of the church are generally more biblical.
    2. Go local. (this is my practice). Find a church where you can get OK teaching, and then supplement it. Use a bible reading system — there is one folded within the daily prayers in the BCP — and influence the local people. Lead from below. Serve. By doing this, you can correct the local imbalance of power and correct teaching.
    3. Go big. Find a mega church that preaches faithfully, attend for the teaching, but do no tlet yourself be dragged into the “sunday morning niteclub”.

    Most churches are fallen. This is the nature of a decadent society. We need revival and repentance, or we will be reformed and made repentant: and when the Almighty does that it generally hurts. We need to remember that God does not play favourites. Being American (or a Brit, a Kiwi or Canuck) does not give you a free pass. We will reap what we are sowing.

  70. Cane Caldo says:

    @Chris

    Doesn’t number one strike you as new wine in old wineskins?

    Number two sounds like what Jesus did. He came local to Israel, and taught to the Israelites. Right up until the Old Wineskin burst and spilled Its Wine on the ground, and the New Wineskin held the new Wine…in God’s time.

    Number three is to not go to church at all, as you allude. The word AR was looking for for a church full of non-Christians is “Sunday Morning Social Club”; kissing cousin of TFH’s SMN. They may in fact be there to worship the same goddess.

  71. farm boy says:

    Wow, is there anything “Game” can’t do?

    It may be great, but it still can’t beat bacon

  72. Mark Minter says:

    Dalrock,

    You know that I have used this PostModern label before in commenting.

    I hold that we are into new era in history. For now we call it PostModern because we don’t know what else to call it yet. The definition of it is generally given using negatives to the Modern era. The general definition is that no longer is there a single cohesive narrative as to what constitutes the state, the church, history, race, economics, and social relationships.

    I have called you a PostModern Luther. You stand on the outside of the power structure and are hammering your sets of accusations of flaws that the church is going have to address. You use the internet as your means to spread your knowledge and no one can control you. You obviously find resonance with men and I am sure their number is growing.

    Do you think when Luther hammered his thesis to the door of the Salzburg cathedral that he even could have foreseen the changes he would bring about in the world? I am sure that there were people that dissented in what he did in the same ways as some of your comments that try to trivialize what you or rebut what you say.

    You are right in that the general consensus is that religious conservatives are at war with feminists because of the confrontation that they have over abortion. The reason the church leaders glorify those single mothers is that they opted to go ahead and have the child as opposed to aborting it. And Abortion is the primary political fight that the church wishes to push in to the public arena.

    You are the first writer to oppose that general consensus and point out that the church has legitimized divorce in the minds of women. And you use Red Pill mechanisms to do so. My sister is an evangelical and I hear her rationalize her justifications for her divorce by saying “Hey, I know the bible better than you and the bible doesn’t say that women are to obey men and that women need to stay in a bad marriage. She exposes those old tired things like ‘Those men are trading their wives in for younger models’”. Using your arguments and your data I can beat her into a corner and get this response from her “I don’t want to talk about this anymore.” Do you think that if she could rebut what I say that she would “not want to talk about it anymore”?

    I look at where things are in the fight against feminism in that we are fighting the Stalingrad battle right now. Feminism has swept through society as the Nazis swept through Europe but now men are starting to rise up and fight back. I promise in Nov, 1942 in Stalingrad, no one would have figured that battle to be the turning point of the war. But the Nazis were stopped and the Russians began to pour into the battle. And our battle is being fought house to house just as that battle was fought in Stalingrad. It may not look like we are winning, but we are not losing anymore.

    What you do is that you provide a moral legitimacy to the fight that counters that of feminists. It easy to poke at a PUA like Roissy. It is less easy to pick a fight with you. I am sure every Sunday, men tell other men “You should read Dalrock.”

    So, Martin Luther Dalrock, you keep hammering thesis on the door of those cathedrals. I am a data man. It is my job and profession for 25 years as a Database Engineer. I look for patterns in data. I argue my positions at work on the basis of the data and the process flow the data follows. I agree with your findings and I agree with your assertions about how the church has been co-opted by feminism.

    Like Roissy says “They scream the loudest when you get closest to the truth”.

    You are very very very close. And there is a need for another reformation.

  73. farm boy says:

    @SSM

    Keep up the slut shaming. Expand it to your home town. It needs it also.

  74. El Bastardo says:

    My church is one I rarely attend. I want to, but there are soo many hypergamous women there, and so many men clamoring for a “Godly woman” that fail to notice what is going on. It also seems to me that some of the love is growing cold; maybe I am wrong? However, the last 20-30 years of churchinaity has turned the focus of the church groups from going out to minister to the lost and homeless to pizza party socials where everyone “meets with the Lord” to discover themselves.

    I had to discover myself outside the fold, inside the fold was sometimes more hostile to me then unbelievers; and not in the challenging way in order to better my character. When I did have that, I responded, but many were there for other reasons.

    It seems what we need is a stark contrast between the world, and the flock.

    We don’t really have it I feel.

  75. farm boy says:

    Using your arguments and your data I can beat her into a corner and get this response from her “I don’t want to talk about this anymore.

    Come now, you almost gave her hamster a heart attack. You are supposed to be nice, that is what people earlier in the thread were talking about. So next time you see her, say, “Hamster, I am really sorry that I almost killed you”.

  76. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sunshinemary
    We discussed this once a while back on Patriactionary, and I mentioned there that when a woman sees her husband sitting and doing nothing (or something she deems to be nothing), she will feel compelled to jump on him about it, usually with a list in hand.

    Yes, and the standard response among beta men is to hop-to, yes-dear, and get with the program. It takes a bit of will power to take a deep breath, put aside whatever one is doing, and inquire “What is it you really want?” or some other leading question. I don’t doubt there are men who can deal with this stuff naturally, I just think they are a pretty small minority.

    “Every cell” is screaming for a fight. Yup. Seen it. There’s may ways to deal with it, and giving in just makes things worse in the long run.

  77. BC says:

    What term describes a church that has a high divorce count, a high N? What term describes a church that tolerates frivolous divorce, or frivilorce? Are there different degrees of this N? Or is it all the same? At the risk of incurring the wrath of the online language police, it seems to me a term is needed.

    Apostate.

  78. endwatcher says:

    Dalrock says:
    September 29, 2012 at 7:43 pm
    @endwatcher

    Feminism is American (and now western) culture, and church culture is really just American culture as well. We cannot turn the tide in the culture, unless of course God wills it.

    Of course we can change church culture, no matter how many ways you try to talk us out of it. God didn’t spread cultural marxism, men did. There is nothing immutable about the last decades of social change. We absolutely can change church culture, or at the very least create new churches which do stand up to feminism. This is the point of the OP. You are not just decrying the use of Game as a tool, but offering this sort of defeatist attitude while explaining that everyone else is doing it wrong. Your rejection of the tool would be one thing if you were earnest about doing it the harder way without the tool. But you aren’t just eschewing the tools those who are trying to address the problem are trying to use, you are at the same time telling us it isn’t worth the trouble.

    If protecting marriage(and making them biblical) is as important as stated on this blog, then we should be less open to worldly doctrines, especially ones that appeal to the flesh and pride of womankind.

    Seriously? If it is important? You still have to ask? This is exactly the kind of denial and obstructionism I was pointing out in the OP. How could you possibly have missed this?
    ______________________________________________________

    Never tried to talk you out of changing the church culture, just saying it probably won’t change at this stage of the game. I think starting new churches would be more successful at this point, long term who knows. You and I have a very different view of defeatist. I think it is defeatist to place game above the Word of God. It suggests that the Word is not sufficient. I believe in using the Word instead to go to bat. Am I to recall Scripture for my next action or 16 commandments of poon? (or any other game laws writ)

    You ridicule the statement at the end because it is true. I was not the only one to state it, it cuts to the heart of the problem. If all you can do is appeal to her flesh and pride then she isn’t truly submitting to her husband in a biblical manner, and the marriage isn’t biblical. Submission must be because she is submitting to what the Word says, not because you played her right for the moment or forced her hand.

    Gamers and the modern churchians both serve women and their masters. Both let her off the hook so she does not have to obey God.

  79. @endwatcher “Gamers and the modern churchians both serve women and their masters. Both let her off the hook so she does not have to obey God.”

    This is a excellent point. It is power struggle and is spiritually based that goes wwwwaaaayyyy back.
    The very first sin by man was disobedience by Eve and then Adam condoning the behavior.
    G_D placed a curse over Eve then Adam.
    Women are hypergamous and feral creatures who dont repsond well to obedience, submission, and authoritative headship very well despite given the honored place as the “covering” ( I dont wish to go to the deep end of the pool on this).
    But as pointed out the problem is spiritual in nature and it is displayed as a power struggle/battle in the spiritual realm as the physical realm as well.
    Game is not the solution – it is a deception tactic.

    Knowing Jesus who is the Alpha & Omega, Lamb / Lion and the OT / NT scriptures and leading a holy life in Spirit and serious discipleship is the only to prepare so one can overcome and be a brother and friend of Jesus. He bring along the right one at the right time and she will be a real help-mate (Hebrew = ezer) a support / buttress to a wall who will listen and obey the scriptures which is the furthest thing from the American Church pulpit despite having a church on every corner and every single creature comfort available and the highest standard of living recorded in history).
    To do otherwise will be a life long lesson of regret and a painful instructor- I am speaking from experience on this – YMMV.
    Shalom

  80. tbc says:

    @SSM

    We discussed this once a while back on Patriactionary, and I mentioned there that when a woman sees her husband sitting and doing nothing (or something she deems to be nothing), she will feel compelled to jump on him about it, usually with a list in hand.

    My wife did this recently and I simply told her, “Stop bothering me with this. I don’t want to talk about it, go away.”

    I said it without anger or annoyance, — just honestly stated the facts. BUT inside it almost felt as if I were doing something wrong. I think this is what a lot of men have failed to learn and that “game” helps them re-learn. It is okay to honestly say what you want and not immediately jump into supplicating beta-male mode — which is what is mostly taught these days: that men are children who need to be managed by women. But when that happens, women soon learn to despise their husbands. But I’m a grown ass man

  81. lavazza1891 says:

    Dalrock: “There is nothing immutable about the last decades of social change.”

    Not immutable, but very close to it. There is a very strong correlation between security/wealth and feminism/misandry. I have yet to see a country that has had a surge in security/wealth without becoming more feminist/misandric. It is quite difficult to make people behave wisely when they have no reason to fear any consequences of behaving unwisely. Doing the opposite is and will always be outlier behaviour.

  82. @tbs – “My wife did this recently and I simply told her, “Stop bothering me with this. I don’t want to talk about it, go away.”

    This is considered “game” ?
    When I was married and my wife was bothering me or in a bad mood or a temper tantrum _ I simply ignored her or ordered her away till she could communicate like a adult (ie we are not going to talk till you come down).
    Arguing with any emotional irrational person is waste of time and goes nowhere and quite often leads to hurtful words that can not be taken back.
    This is not game – This is behaving like a rational adult.
    Being a men and not accepting bad behavior is not game.

  83. tbc says:

    @Michael — i don’t consider it “game” and I’m not about to get into a long discussion about what game is. I was only responding to SSM’s question about how to handle the situation she described by giving a recent anecdotal example of a possible response. My mention of “game” was only to assert that some aspects of “game” are useful for teaching men what used to be common (male) sense but which has been relentlessly drummed out of men for decades.

    By the way my wife wasn’t being particularly irrational, ill-tempered or in a bad mood, and certainly wasn’t throwing a tantrum. It wasn’t anywhere close to being an argument.

  84. Ecclesiastes says:

    @Dalrock

    How long have you had this little blog? Has it been 5 years? How many people do you have visiting? Is it as many as 200?

    And you’re getting frustrated?

    Calm your ass down, son. You have run up against a BIG problem. It’s so big that *you* are not going to solve it. The very best you can hope for is to be a warning sign, like “bridge out”. You’re just going to have to wait until enough bodies pile up for a solution.

    Do you have daughters? I do. Mine are 24 and 21. Have you got sons? Mine are 29 and 27. No marriages amongst the lot. Got any grandchildren? I have a grandson by the 27 year old. The baby-mama is holding him hostage for support. The 29 year old had a child aborted because the ‘woman’ said it would get in the way of her career.

    I haven’t seen where you even have any skin in this game. You have no cause to be getting upset.

    You’re doing as good a job as can be done.

  85. greyghost says:

    This is a statement that makes christian men churchian and is the ultimate in pedistalization of female.
    Gamers and the modern churchians both serve women and their masters. Both let her off the hook so she does not have to obey God.

    Once you see the nature of women you realize they can’t do and never have been able to. God does doesn’t even expect from her. A woman’s path to god is through her husband. That is why she is to follow your lead. Feminism and Christianity are not compatable that is why it was made into churchianity so as to be compatable with feminism. Women have never been able to be with god on their own,man can, a godly woman is a woman with admiring submission to a godly man through thick and thin.If it done out of youthful gina tingle and blissful ignorance so be it. God has blessed females with a subtle wisdom when their sexual value is gone the manosphere calls it the wall. it is there but not a fixed time somewhat like when people gradually stop asking for your ID when buying cigarettes. They guide the younger women. and set the direction of the herd. To pedistalize women to point of thinking they will become godly is a the gravest sin that ever could be made. It is supplication on a biblical scale and is the foundation of churchianity. Knowledge of the nature of women fractures that foundation. And it doesn’t matter how big and popular 98% of all churches maybe churchian but that knowledge will fracture that foundation of sin. That foundation is the basis of even the religious schools. Gameis not to please a bitch, game is to help you see what women are. You churchians have projected maleness on to women for no other reason than to be fair. To look at plainly some PUA not a natural alpha I may add that can see women as they are as god made them is more likely closer to god without knowing it than the churchians here.
    Dalrock
    I have mentioned this before when people make a choice that becomes the esssence of who they are it is very traumatic for changes to be made. Some will find it more bearable to die with the comfort of the lie than have their worldly foundation and source of strength crumble. What is really sad is that these men have chosen to be seen as men of faith and not be men of faith. You Dalrock and many men here that have come to support you have more faith in god than they do. The churchians will resist this to the end. They have made a eligious commitment to being pleasing to man (wo-man) through feminism and dressed it up with crosses so as to get christian street cred. Stay at the course and have faith. When that foundation cracks it is going down fast and they are going to need men of faith to help them.

  86. @Michael Singer:
    Being a men and not accepting bad behavior is not game.

    I’ve never been very good at putting up with adolescent crap from anyone. I am willing to accept that the majority of modern men are willing to eat a shit sandwich as long as it was prepared by a woman, and I am even willing to call the realization that that is ludicrous “game”, if calling it “game” is helpful. But it isn’t something I can relate to viscerally: I’ve always been Omega-Sigma, if you will, on the Red Pill Meyers-Briggs.

    One thing men in the “manosphere” have to watch out for though is this tendency to treat women as if they are not moral agents. They are moral agents. I’ll repeat that if “game” means acting manly in a way outside of your personal comfort zone, don’t ever, ever, ever marry a woman who needs to be “gamed”. Hell, you might as well just put on makeup and heels yourself. I remember reading a Harvard case back in business school about how perfume companies doubled their market by convincing nancy-boys to start wearing cologne on a mass scale. PUA’s are nancy boys, spending all of their efforts catering to women. Don’t be a nancy boy.

  87. Hermit says:

    I love reading here, but the comment section fills up so fast. I guess it’s a good problem for Dalrock to have.

    I still haven’t gotten around top asking our congregation’s leadership whether we track divorce or not. I think congregations really need to start doing this; one of the over-arching problems with the modern Church is that nobody is accountable. This includes men and women, and has to do with much more than just sex and marriage. But Dalrock is right; I can’t say that I’ve seen him say it explicitly, but fixxing marriage and the churches relationship with their congregants IRT to it will go a lot further towards improving their chances of salvation than just about anything else they could possibly do. Marriage is the bedrock of a functional society, and of a functional life. It isn’t necessarily necessary for all Christians, but certainly for the vast majority of them.

  88. Pingback: Christian denial and institutional resistance to change. | Dalrock « God's Own Crunk

  89. sunshinemary says:

    @ Farm Boy

    Keep up the slut shaming. Expand it to your home town. It needs it also.

    You know this town, Farm Boy. Isn’t slut-shaming illegal here? Exhibit A – here is the course description for a class being offered this term from the local, uh, institution :

    We begin the course by reviewing the history of sexuality in eighteenth and nineteenth century America so as to examine the historical roots of contemporary discussions on a number of salient issues that we will examine and discuss in the second part of the course. These will include: sex, desire and body images; gender and sexual orientation; sexual violence and rape; sexual representations and pornography; commercialization of sex and prostitution; and solitary sex. In the last part of the course, we will explore emerging views on sexuality, gender and the body that could take us beyond the social boundaries of sexuality. This can provide us with an opportunity to construct new visions of ourselves, new relations based on the end of prejudice and sexual subordination, and to regain control of our bodies so as to develop our full erotic potentialities. My hope is that the manner in which we study and discuss these topics will not only enhance our understanding of sex and society in America but also enrich our own experience of sexuality as well as value and respect the sexual choices of others.

    While the men are busy doing their STEM stuff, this is what the womenfolk are up to. Your tax dollars at work, ladies and gentleman.

  90. freebird says:

    @greyghost,your comment here:
    ” Have fun and role play to test reactions women give you. they love it, even if you come off as acreepy perv ha ha ha they will have something to talk about with their friends. Just don’t try that shit with a femi chick in an elevator.”

    What is this?
    A situation where game and your natural masculinity
    has no option or recourse?

    Bad boys bad boys,whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do WHEN THEY COME FOR YOU.

  91. greyghost says:

    Stop taking women so seriously

    Freebird you don’t have to be so serious. Game is just the psychology of women. Practice making probing with out a goal other than just talking and let the rest flow. Relax and enjoy the life god gave you. The elevator thing comes from this story http://amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2011/07/08/when-women-confuse-being-asked-out-with-being-raped-at-knifepoint-in-an-elevator-2/ have fun and smile in the mirror at yourself at leaste twice a day.

  92. Dalrock says:

    @Ecclesiastes

    How long have you had this little blog? Has it been 5 years? How many people do you have visiting? Is it as many as 200?

    And you’re getting frustrated?

    Calm your ass down, son. You have run up against a BIG problem. It’s so big that *you* are not going to solve it. The very best you can hope for is to be a warning sign, like “bridge out”. You’re just going to have to wait until enough bodies pile up for a solution.

    I don’t have data on individual visitors (I wish I did). I’ve only been blogging for just over two years. Traffic is good for a blog this new, but your point is correct; I’m just one small voice in a small but growing movement, and the problem is incredibly big. As you say, I am not going to solve it, but I may be able to help map out some of the greatest dangers (as I see them) to a few individuals until there is a collective will to change. My hope from the beginning of the blog has been not to change individual minds, but to influence the conversation.

    As for numbers, weekends tend to average around 5k hits per day, weekdays around 7k. On a very busy day it sometimes hits 10k. Cumulatively since I started the blog in late June two years ago it has received a bit over three million hits (see the counter just below the blogroll/top posts).

    Do you have daughters? I do. Mine are 24 and 21. Have you got sons? Mine are 29 and 27. No marriages amongst the lot. Got any grandchildren? I have a grandson by the 27 year old. The baby-mama is holding him hostage for support. The 29 year old had a child aborted because the ‘woman’ said it would get in the way of her career.

    I haven’t seen where you even have any skin in this game. You have no cause to be getting upset.

    I’m sorry to hear about what your children are going through. I have a young son and a young daughter*. Even if I didn’t though, my wife and I have seen enough children and adults suffer that we would care either way. The human cost of our collective stupidity and rebellion is massive.

    *I decided fairly early on (after learning the hard way) that I would limit how much I reference my own children to keep them from becoming the subject of the discussion.

    You’re doing as good a job as can be done.

    Thank you.

  93. I didn’t realize Dalrock had written another post about Game.

    If Dalrock wrote instructions on how to program a 1990 4 head stereo VCR, it would end up with a few rabid anti gamers, some game nuance advocates, and the group that won’t stand still for any negativity around game, these when challenged will swerve (above the posted and recommended speed) into defensive redefinition of game.

    How many fit the “selective game tool user” moniker? These are the ones who openly admit that they would handle the wife waving a list in their face with a bit of game derived verbal slap back. (for example)

    This is the problem, game is an idol. Those Christians that are idolizing it defend it with more vigor than they do Christianity. I could sneak in here anonymously and make a remark about how I am accepting of a tenet or two of Christianity, and a few Christian men may point me to the fact that that is not all that important that I agree with a tenet of the religion (say “love one another) and that I need to embrace Christ per the gospel…etc etc. It would be FEW who found that a worthy distraction. How many times would I be told that what I was embracing was not Christianity, that this (gospel explained) is Christianity? If someone did take on explaining Christianity, the gospel, would that be a dominant theme for the remainder of a thread? Would it continue in new posts, new comments there, other blogs and their comments? Also, if I said I subscribe to a tenet or two of Christianity, would one of the common rebukes be the straw man (that is front line reflex defense of game) that says I am ANTI-Christianity.

    But when a man says that he will whip out a game tool to deal with a shit test, acknowledging strategic efficacy, he ends up embroiled in these battles with game purists (Who for Pete’s sake, lacking opponents are happy to argue with each other about it). If he adds anything Biblical to his reasoning as to how he tries to comport with his wife, he is ESPECIALLY targeted then. That man will also be called ANTI-game (all or nothing).

    Its Game or nothing. The Biblical admonishments about marriage are pretty simple. In fact that’s one of the appealing things about them. Attempts to nuance them or pick them apart, leaving what we like and jettisoning what we don’t, or the most ridiculous, drag them through a salad of original idiom and syntax and rewrite them, all lead to where?

    Generally: to chaos

    Bibically: this state is found in references to “a form of knowledge”,and to people
    “running to and fro” (arguing about a man made concept like game, its
    definitions, various peoples views, its genesis, all that)

    Specifically: is has led to feminism and other social pathologies

    Martian Bachelor makes great points. That what you do Dalrock is good, worthy, valuable, take your pick, none of that is in question. That you do it well is evident in the numbers and the quality of the participants. But I’m seeing that even your attempts to stay on the traditional conservative hound hunt (setting aside my agreement or disagreement on that) return to you and game debates.

    I will say with 100% certainty, game has become an idol for many. I don’t even think you, Dalrock, will disagree with that. Our faith in true Christianity and the true God, collectively as men(all men), is pathetically weak, a feint pulse if any is even detectable. Stratify that up the line and allow for differences in traditions and scripture understandings and you have, by degrees, and smaller and ever more focused group. At the top they are too focused to have utility in the matters we discuss. Somewhere across the big middle there are men like us here.

    And we are distracted by game.

    Here the defenders pipe in as if that is a remark that is to rebuke whole game, or to condemn it…whatever. Its not, its not a value judgement whatsoever. Its a fact. Whether game is real, good, value neutral, evil, made up, a fantasy….no matter, we are distracted by it as much as anything else, more than most. For that reason we ought to think very very carefully.

    At day zero, when the zombie apocalypse begins, as we rush to collect our families and survive, will we make sure we have our game in order? My argument here is not subject to your response about the firefighters and the burning church. I am not saying “all that matters is savin’ souls”, which represents one of Christianities most at once enabling and debilitating cliches. I am saying game is a hill no bodies will be found on after the (figurative) war.

    I see other topically similar men’s sites ready to pounce and stop fixations on Christianity, that they see it as a distraction for their central focus, whatever that may be. I dislike that because I’m a Christian and feel a little stung by the slap down of Christians, oh well, not my bat and ball. I still like whats left afterwards. They have similarly shut out game, and ostensibly political ideology. I read there maybe once a month. I rarely post. I prefer here. Why? Because the focus seems to be about marriage and divorce and where that intercepts feminism, evangelical and secular, the resultant destruction of the family, the social pathologies that feed on themselves and the end state of an even more evil chaotic un-Godly and (like it or not) satanic world.

    So many specific posters are obviously talking about very different things when they talk about game, celebratory in their brotherhood that even if the deck was cleared of all the wrangling over definition today, a layer or two deeper the death march futility of what would be perceived as progress would be revealed. Imagine Matt King, when he talks about game, as strident as he is….has he taken game as an idol? I don’t know, but I don’t really think so. That means his differences would eventually manifest into specific disagreements with specific people. They’d be about defining this and that all over again, just in more esoteric language. Whether the person is an idolator or not, the idol will bend discourse like gravity bends light.

    I find great value in (not necessarily in order) the statistics here and the talk around them, the efforts to glean cause and effect, the exposure of false prophets and idiotically misguided Christian leaders, the man on man correction here where iron sharpens iron in all ways, spiritual, intellectual, emotional….I haven’t found better especially when I include the whole package of links and followers.

    As above, because we have seen the air let out of all Biblical guidance that applies to marriage, if we even try and be so bold as to weave those scriptures into a conversation the fact that they have been trampled on and now they are rewritten as feminist defined narrative -male leadership approved-is used to dismiss the scriptures as what….

    not enough, insufficient,

    plain wrong because look where they got us

    quaint if we can wait until game has been employed enough to get women back where they are in a place that is more pliable and subject to Gods authority? Just……wow

    If someone writes “This isn’t a blog for evangelizing” that would be would be a specious defense given than it effectively does just that for Game. It does so at the expense of scripture even if inadvertently. Dalrock has not set up game blog nor does he have a mission to make game converts, I take his word on his intentions. This blog is also not for Christian evangelizing as a primary goal. Game has crowded into a space where scripture used to be. It is done so because Christian leaders and useful idiots abdicated that space. The tools of game didn’t do it, “game” did. the game that is the idol did. Game IS now sold as far more than the sum of its parts, to the absurd point where all-or-nothing is not near sufficient to describe the machinations of those who would refine and purify it.

    Game is an idol. Martin Bachelor talks of nailing the reformation to the door. I suggest that while you, Dalrock, are on the hilltop (in your office) writing the pages, come down into the crowd (among the comments) and see that a bizarre new idol has been molded out of badly ill fitted pieces,
    Some from shameless PUA’s,
    Some from self proclaimed philosophical geniuses,
    Some from women who are finding that talking about how cool and pure game is is giving them an innocent iteration of a tingly experience by putting them in proximity to so many accomplished gamesters.

    A few people are trying to paper over the chimera with pieces of scripture, mightily attempting to prove that it WILL plug in, puzzle piece like, to a game construct.

    Dalrock, you use the-perfect-as-enemy-of-good when you asked the guy about the foremen and the burning church. You have made that point a lot. You are not present at all phases of the building of the idol; you seem to not see it being built at all so you intentionally or unintentionally offer succor from time to time. In a brilliant flash of operative irony the thing that represents what its builders would call the ultimate weapon against feminism, now finally offense and not defense, is really the thing sucking all the clarity out of the atmosphere.

    The clarity is scripture. Case by case, very specific practical strategies from game indeed and of course are valuable…no, they are now essential. Why? Because finally like we talk about love and commitment etc not being feelings so much as steadfast actions, walking out relational admonishments from scripture are ACTIONS, game tools are ACTIONS. Add them up and write them down, they are still just a list of actions.

    Idolatry will inform the response that says this proves that anyone like me “just doesn’t understand game”. Idolatry will inform the response that says that I am anti-game.

    Can the idol be smashed? Can something new be rebuilt, where the scripture is the cornerstone and the applicable things OF game fitted in?

    Because if not, any claim that it is possible for something to congeal here and game not sucking the air from the room is wishful thinking.

  94. i don’t consider it “game” and I’m not about to get into a long discussion about what game is. I was only responding to SSM’s question about how to handle the situation she described by giving a recent anecdotal example of a possible response. My mention of “game” was only to assert that some aspects of “game” are useful for teaching men what used to be common (male) sense but which has been relentlessly drummed out of men for decades.
    _________________________________________________
    tbc

    I like your posts.

    “some aspects of game are useful”

    You can be excoriated for that, because you are ANTI-game.

    Yes male common sense now rots in piles at the foot of the statue of some woman or of women in general. The idolizing of game now actually joins the decades long drumming out of male common sense. Its an indirect synergistic, game as idol occupies space where common sense was once adequate.

    Look this is nothing new. Its making something out of nothing. Every week in the church we are fed a diet of similar things, “how to deal with anger, 3 steps”…..the government runs ads on the radio about how to handle hot weather….drink water, stay in shade…..whatever, all at the expense of having to think, to CHOOSE.

    Don’t use a tool from game, be OF game, become game.

    (Star Trek reference….”are you of the body?”)

  95. freebird says:

    @greyghost
    Since you did not answer my first question, let me ask another: how do you know the woman you’re talking to is not “the elevator woman” or WILL BE at a whim.

    The judge and prosecutor looked very serious to me,even though the assumption of guilt was asinine.

    There is laughing looking in the mirror,speak for yourself.
    Have you been drinking this morning?

  96. freebird says:

    @empathologicalism
    You are quite right most comments have been off topic.
    I agreed with everything dalrock wrote and have no comment other than that the law is the root cause of the subversion that lead the rest astray.

  97. Bob Wallace says:

    @ Anonymous Reader

    “if a person has ever been taught any self control at all,”

    This is why i have pointed out the importance of Four Cardinal Virtues of Prudence,
    Justice, Temperance or Restraint, and Courage. St. Augustine, discussing the morals of the church, described them:

    “For these four virtues (would that all felt their influence in their minds as they have their names in their mouths!), I should have no hesitation in defining them: that temperance is love giving itself entirely to that which is loved; fortitude is love readily bearing all things for the sake of the loved object; justice is love serving only the loved object, and therefore ruling rightly; prudence is love distinguishing with sagacity between what hinders it and what helps it.”

    In his words, courage is bearing all things for the sake of the beloved object. If people want to change the church, all burdens have to born for the sake of it.

    Those virtues originally came from the Greeks but Christianity picked them up and made them its own. Plato originally attributed courage to the warrior class, and in Christianity the ideal was chivalry (the Code of the Knights). Again, I point out chivalry is based on the better warrior virtues, and they include not only the Four Cardinal Virtues (and all are related; one cannot exist without the others) but also the Three Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity.

    By the way, since I put these qualities into effect in my life some years ago, I explain them to women and get along much better with them. For one thing, they realize they even though I listen to them, they know that ultimately I make the decisions and I do the leading.

  98. Cane Caldo says:

    @FB & SSM

    Have you noticed what slut shaming does? People post videos of them getting railed by losers–what should be the ultimate shaming–and they get reality TV shows. How are you going to out-shame that? You may say: well, those are the REAL committed sluts, like Kim K. and Paris H., of course they get off on shame. We’re targeting housewives who practice regular ol’ harlotry.

    It’s the same thing, and women like Kim, Paris, Katy Perry, Nicki Minaj, and The View are pushing the boundaries ever-further out. If you release a sextape of Mrs. Jones, at best, she’ll just find another church; singing an Adele song about bad men on the way. Initially, she’ll cry, and then she’ll watch some Dr. Phil episode about how women are exploited by men, and she’ll have a breakthrough: It’s his fault for taping it, and it’s some man’s fault for posting it. Sure, she made a “mistake”, but who’s really to blame here?

    She honestly has no idea, because she’s a woman, and she wasn’t built to answer such questions. What she knows is that it is painful to think of herself at fault. It has to be somebody else because right things feel good and wrong things feel bad. Her being wrong feels bad, so it ain’t must be someone. Anyways, Jesus forgives. The past part is important because she’s not claiming Jesus’ forgiveness for herself, she’s “benevolently” offering to the men who have offended her. And if Jesus can forgive them, then he certainly forgive her for being tricked.

    Shaming does not work. Shunning works. If we don’t want sluts in our home towns, then we need to shun them in our home towns. You can’t shun someone who isn’t in your circle. In the real world, with flesh and blood people, there are no alternatives but to get the sluts out of our lives. Until she’s cold and alone, she will never change. Players and emotional-slut betas exacerbate this problem by giving the suckers succor.

    Now, TV and the Internet are very big circles, so you start by shunning them there. Don’t let your wife or your kids listen to Katy Perry. Yes, they’re going to hear it, and yes, they’re going to like it. That’s not the point. What you want, is to establish this Circle, right here, my circle, is Man Zone. Trespass with any slut shit–real, audial, or celluloid–at your peril.

    The basic shit-test that husbands fail is to let their wives bring the wrong influences into their husbands’ domains. It’s very hard to get this concept if you don’t understand that the shit-test is based on her desire to sin, and not some cave-wife fitness exam. It’s not hypergamy itself, but dissatisfaction in general; and can be generated by her feeling that her man is not good enough, or that she is not good enough, or that their life is not good enough, or that she is just plain bored. Understanding that is the key to understanding what the right response to the shit-test should be: silence, bring the fight to her, give her something to do, play a game, neg, etc. There are as many answers as there are different sources to dissatisfaction.

    The causes can be convoluted and compound, too. Often multiple answers must be used in tandem. Silence, AND a stinging slap on the rump. Sometimes, if she asks you to clean the garage, you need to go do something else that you should have been doing instead of watching TV–but almost never what she complains about. If it is something you really should be doing, say: I can’t hear you up there in perfect land, while I’m down here on the couch. Come closer, and ask me again.

    She’s not looking to be protected from outsiders. She’s picking a fight, because she either needs or wants some action, and deep down she knows men are better at action. She’s looking for conflict, and resolution. Her hamster is tired, and she wants you to turn her wheel for awhile. It makes a lot more sense when we understand that shit-tests are the result of her desire to sin–she wants bad things–and not some errant genetic process.

  99. freebird says:

    Would like to add I’ve had women desire me so much they’ve physically blocked my path.Yet said nothing.Another gal stood 5 feet away and stared at me hopping up and down.

    No response from me except to leave the premises as soon as it was possible.
    Why? Because I have everything to lose and they have nothing but gain.

    Women are cowards about approaching because they cannot handle rejection or feel entitled to be pursued.
    They have no concept of rejection and intend to never learn it.
    They also have no concept of justice,fair play,equality under law,what constitutes abuse,or what it’s like to NOT have everything handed to them upon demand.

    Their response:to demand more,that men man-up and learn to approach despite the one sided nuclear option.
    The rest of you boys can go storm that machine gun nest,I’ve out fishing.Good day.See yall later in the PM

  100. @greyghost “Game is just the psychology of women. ”
    Game is the psychology of females who are emotionally, mentally, spiritually, sexually damaged goods. They may look good on the outside but the inside is not capable of union with a man to “become one”.’

    endwatcher made a very good point in “Gamers and the modern churchians both serve women and their masters. Both let her off the hook so she does not have to obey God.”

    Any woman who will obey G_D, she will obey Jesus, the scriptures, and her husband and not be a lukewarm feminized wanna be disciple who is posing as a Christian.

    The teaching of strict discipleship is the best training for any man or woman is professes to be a Christian. Unfortunately strict discipleship is rarely seen and has been replaced by heretical teaching of “accepting Jesus”, Antinomianism, rapture, grace as divine forgiveness alone and has exulted feminism by not holding women accountable, shaming men etc…

    If the current evangelical church taught discipleship or the authoritative sacrificial position of the husband and the submissive/obedient position of the wife – they would EASILY lose 1/2 the congregation if not more.
    Emasculation shown in the pulpit is a reflection of what is happening at the pastors home (ie women pastors are not scriptural and wasn’t seen in the early Christian church which was primarily Jewish – Paul was pretty clear in his writings on this).
    The real authority is spiritual and is obedient to Christ – this is the highest power in the universe.
    Get back to Jesus His teachings and one will have “game” – seek first the Kingdom and its righteousness and these things shall be added.

    Btw, I appreciate the insight ( the truth) from certain authors (Deti, Opus, Imnobody, and Endwatcher to name a few). Just dont get the cart in front of the horse.

    Shalom

  101. greyghost says:

    Freebird no drinks and you know the woman is not in an elevator if when you meet her you are not in an elevator. I hope that helped you out.

    Also I notice you seem to mentioned something about the law. You are getting warmer . But I wouldn’t worry a whole lot about what the cause was. Lets get game out of here you all have convinced greyghost game is just another form of female worship.This pedistalizing thing in the church still has to end. So lets work on that

  102. freebird says:

    @greyghost
    I dunno bro, I used to be in synch with ya %100,but now it’s like we’re speaking two different languages.
    Something happened to one of us,or both of us.
    Speaking for myself, I’ve been in the insane star chamber courts and see all wymyn as potential elevator wymyn and no expectation of truth in court.

    I’m not really off to fishing,I’m going for a nappy.
    tomorrow is the bow opener and this old man has got to be rested.
    Peace out

  103. greyghost says:

    Micheal Singer
    the psychology of females is females defective and virtuous. Women believe it or not are human beings. Also just because you pedistalize a woman doesn’t make her worthy. I only tells you she is worthy. And just because I can understand a womans nature doesn’t mean she is not worthy it just tells you she is not worthy. Understanding the psychology of your wife’s nature will not make her into a slut. It just makes one a knowledgable man and husband.

  104. Badger says:

    “The point is, if you give off a consistent, manly presence, women will make themselves available to you without any conscious “gaming” on your part needed.”

    Don’t want to derail the thread into game praxis but I see this attitude a lot around the Manosphere, “you don’t need game, you jsut have to be confident” and I think it has the potential to mislead a lot of guys.

    The idea of “passive masculinity” is a misnomer. Guys who think they aren’t doing anything conscious, the women are just coming to them, either have very high pre-eminent status or are naturals – they have internalized their behaviors and don’t notice, but the way they walk, dress, talk, subtly work around fitness tests and escalate interactions with women actively work in their favor.

    In fact game was originally conceived as a study and mimicry of natural behaviors of attractive men.

    http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/the-cliff-revisited-flirting-versus-being-flirted-with/

    I see this shtick particularly from women, who are turned off by the idea that a man would “learn” how to be attractive and so they are very tickled by the idea that a man could be successful without “trying.” HUS is a chorus of “don’t you dare use that awful game on these nice girls who are banging guys just to try to get a booyyyyyfriend, just don’t be a pushover and the right things will happen.” I’ll say again that it’s a big load of crap, filtered through the female perspective that experiences sexuality as a lot of emotional and hamsterized “it just happened,” not recognizing that it just “happened” because the man in question made it happen.

    (One piece of advice over there in particular is to be the “brooding loner.” This is horrible advice, but persists because a bunch of the gals over there were at some point in love with a starving artist or musician and got the idea in their heads that the thing that made him attractive was that he ignored her. It also persists b/c it’s the antithesis of the extroverted fratboy so many of them rail against. Ignoring women, in and of itself, is not going to make you attractive to women. Such is the reason Mystery developed ways to actively signal a lack of interest, so that you were on a woman’s radar screen but not looking like you were making any moves.)

    Just trying to keep the guys on the right track here.

  105. BC says:

    Wow, the game deniers and denigrators are really starting to get obnoxious.
    One would almost think they have actual studies and data backing up the assertions that biology doesn’t matter and many if not most women really are different, that is to say, unhuman.

  106. I do agree that understanding a womans psychology is important. The only chance for a woman to survive and make it through life is to understand / accept this themselves ( I have met a few women who come from good families/fathers-they are the exceptions who are “aware” and “get it”).

    The only hope a woman has is to kill her “rationalization” hamster through the teachings of Christ and the Apostles/Prophets through the Holy Spirit – this act has to be directed by her hand and it is her decision. In addition, this is a life long process and rationalization hamsters have been know to be revived or reincarnated. It take a person of integrity to recognize this.

    Shalom

  107. sunshinemary says:

    @ CC
    Thanks for your comment at 10:37. Slut-shunning makes perfect sense, and you are likely correct that it is more effective. I only want to add that the particular instance of slut-shaming I engaged in involved a woman (and her husband) who had set themselves up a nice little money-making “ministry”, preaching (yes, actual sermons in “churches”) on the topic of adultery, using her own affair and her husband’s taking responsibility of her affair as their platform, all described in lurid detail. Because they publicly set themselves up as an example for other believers (including on the Oprah show), I think public shaming is a reasonable response in this case.

    Also, the fitness testing response was valuable. And this:

    It makes a lot more sense when we understand that shit-tests are the result of her desire to sin–she wants bad things–and not some errant genetic process.

    is the first time I can recall hearing fitness testing unequivocally called sin. Well said.

  108. greenlander says:

    The idea of “passive masculinity” is a misnomer. Guys who think they aren’t doing anything conscious, the women are just coming to them, either have very high pre-eminent status or are naturals[...]

    +1 Badger

  109. greyghost says:

    Women will rationalize any thing to fit her needs real or emotional. It is natural. By accomidating feminism the hamster is used to rationalize rebellion. Lets say we didn’t accomidate feminism and put our faith in god and not female membership. A female christian would use her hamster to rationalize following christ in a sea of feminism. Social status of being known as a christian woman has weight. The church stepped on its crank going proggressive.
    Women do “get” a lot but they are guided by hypergamy,social status,fear of personal judgement, any and all responsibility, infact there is a complete lack of anysense of responsibility, and the never ending quest for more security and comfort. All with the maturity of a 12 year old child give or take e few years and fully sexully aware on top of that. A wickedly selfish woman with all of that going for her is fully capable of being a virtuous christian woman but she is not capable of changing those things about herself in order to be a virtuous christian woman.

  110. whatever says:

    Cano said:

    It makes a lot more sense when we understand that shit-tests are the result of her desire to sin–she wants bad things–and not some errant genetic process.

    Not so much. A woman shit-tests a man she is dating. He fails miserably because he is a spineless wimp and she doesn’t want a spineless wimp. She moves on.

    Yep, she definitely shit-tested out of a “desire to sin”. The problem is FOREVER COURTSHIP. Shouldn’t you know all about that Cano? After all, you watched Fireproof 451 times.

    Now, inside marriage, shit-tests are wholly inappropriate, because the brat has ALREADY MADE HER CHOICE. So yes, it is an errant genetic process. It serves a purpose in it’s place, but in marriage not so much.

  111. Ecclesiastes says:

    @sunshinemary

    Careful, careful. ‘Slut-shunning’ as you have coined it, won’t satisfy these thugs. This is exactly the issue that had me out of here. These, here, are entitled to their pound of a slut’s humiliation, and she is to be driven from all right-minded Christian congregations. Saying otherwise made me a mangina. I have a link to that thread around here somewhere.

    Maybe they’ll let you slide.

    I should un-subscribe to this thread before I embarrass somebody.

  112. @ greyghost -A wickedly selfish woman with all of that going for her is fully capable of being a virtuous christian woman but she is not capable of changing those things about herself in order to be a virtuous christian woman.”
    She can’t.
    There are spiritual consequences for every behavior.
    Remember Mary in Mark 16:9 whom Jesus cast out seven demons ? There is another case in the NT where a guy had a “legion” (up to 5000). She is spiritually bound and incapable of sustaining a meaningful relationship with any person. This is “hell” imo.

    Her actions have placed her in a bit of a situation despite having a education, career, and looks. She wants a man of integrity but can’t seem to find on. She keeps on running into men ‘just like her” without realizing it.

    Shalom

  113. Btw, Eve is the mother of the “fitness test” as seen in the garden of Eden because she thought she was missing out on “being wise & just like G_D” and really didn’t think G_D meant what He said.
    Hence the curse placed on her and all women. As is the curse through Adam on all men ( could you imagine the nagging by Eve after being kicked out of the garden and it being all his fault ? LOL !!!!)

  114. whatever says:

    empathologicalism says:

    Its an indirect synergistic, game as idol occupies space where common sense was once adequate.

    So a few dozen “Common Sense” rules could replace Game? Probably. A “Common Sense” rule is something an average person MIGHT figure out IF they think about it WHILE IGNORING all the feminist lies.

    That’s three conditionals per rule. And there are a few dozen rules. So the average man has a very incomplete list of “Common Sense” and a bunch of feminist lies mixed together.I remember people like you from my childhood. Couldn’t be bothered to teach anything because of your oh-so-precious-time and generally selfishness then said “Commen Sense, don’t ya know?” if things went wrong.

    While, things have gone wrong, and as the house burns down empathologicalism “solves” the problem by announcing “people is stupid, they should no let house burn down. Is common sense!”

    That’s swell, guy.

  115. greyghost says:

    Her actions have placed her in a bit of a situation despite having a education, career, and looks. She wants a man of integrity but can’t seem to find on. She keeps on running into men ‘just like her” without realizing it.

    This is where we come in she runs into us. Women are lead into christ by christian men period. When men adjust the church to accomidate femminism there is not a snowballs chance in hell of any woman knowing christ for she runs into churchians. It’s that leadership thing god was talking about.

  116. Nas says:

    Just brilliant!

  117. Dalrock says:

    @Empath

    I didn’t realize Dalrock had written another post about Game.

    If Dalrock wrote instructions on how to program a 1990 4 head stereo VCR, it would end up with a few rabid anti gamers, some game nuance advocates, and the group that won’t stand still for any negativity around game, these when challenged will swerve (above the posted and recommended speed) into defensive redefinition of game.

    Good observation. I’ve come to expect that I’ll write about what I’m interested in writing about, and the commenters will more or less comment about what they want. I think there can be no other way, and as you note elsewhere in your comment somehow it can make for some interesting and (even if accidentally) on topic discussions.

    As for who is to blame, I think in general it is the anti gamers waging what I see as mostly a war against an imaginary enemy. While there are valid concerns about how some Christian husbands wish or might choose to use game* much of this I think is an institutional fear of change**; opposing game when it isn’t even the topic of discussion is the plausible way to oppose change without admitting (to themselves or others) that they are resisting change because at some level they are comfortable with the status quo.

    The best evidence I see for this is the continued claims that I am elevating Game above Scripture, which I repeatedly take pains not to do. I would challenge anyone to show where I actually said these things which they claim to refute. Likewise the claim that I’m saying the foundation for the marriage should be game, that I’m absolving the wife of her moral obligations, encouraging men to marry sluts and make up the difference with game, etc. I don’t know how to be more forceful in making these same points I’m repeatedly accused of arguing against. Often times the claims are made while the proof of the opposite is still in the post lineup on the right.

    Note for example endwatcher above continuing to question the biblical importance of marriage while claiming that I’m putting Game above Scripture. You have to love a twofer like that (a threefer if you throw in his definitional complaint that I’m using “Christians” to describe those who see themselves as Christians, vs the very small fraction he believes actually are). But even here they either do or might have good points. There is arrogance in assuming they don’t have anything to offer. I’m hesitant to restrict them even though they tend to take us off track. In the end if they keep repeating themselves long enough without actually making a real point others will learn to ignore them. For the worst offenders there is always the ban bin, but I use that very sparingly.

    *Ironically the danger is that the real concerns will be overlooked by the constant and ultimately tedious use of game hysteria as a stumbling block. Just because they constantly cry wolf, doesn’t mean one day a wolf won’t appear.

    **Even in their derailment they prove the point of the OP.

  118. Cane Caldo says:

    @SSM

    Thanks for the kind comments.

    I want to clarify that one of the dangers of the scripted response to the shit-test is that sometimes a woman’s genuine complaints will look like shit-tests to the imperceptive. Jesus and Mother Mary at the wedding in Cana is a good example of this. Mary is certainly not testing Jesus, but it would look the same to the foolish husband judging everything through the paradigm of Game, instead of the paradigm of sin.

  119. Pingback: - Sunday Supplications: the efficacy of slut-shaming – a case study and a prayer | The Woman and the Dragon

  120. ybm says:

    Nas says:
    September 30, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    Barbarossa, always hitting the major points.

    I wonder why the Roissy/Ferdinand HBD gamer crowd hates him so much.

    Oh wait, no I don’t. lol.

  121. @Dalrock. I am not dismissing “game” – game “works”. It is a great way for any man to learn behavior to control a woman in pretty much any situation (not all). And there is where “the rub” is.

    By concentrating or learning “game” without having a solid foundation of morals, character, integrity, and testicular fortitude to “back it up” a lot of men will destroy them self in the process by jumping the gun to glandular urges and the wide availability to sin along with the WEAK wussied lukewarm pastors who pass as “G_dly men” and the grace/rapture/doctrine slop teaching.
    They will be a casualty before the know what hit them.
    If you think I am mistaken – consider the book of Proverbs is specifically written to young men on how to avoid certain women (Pro 9) and seek wisdom instead.
    Wisdom brings the fear of G_D, the fear of G_D brings knowledge, knowledge brings understanding.
    Here is a good one – 2 Peter 1 and for this same reason, and by applying all diligence, supply with your faith excellence of character, and with excellence of character, knowledge, and with knowledge, self-control, and with self-control, patient endurance, and with patient endurance, godliness, and with godliness, brotherly love, and with brotherly love, love.
    This is a proper foundation on how to understand and interact with all people and all situations and not to tolerate bad behavior and have the ability to back it up without saying a word.

    Game without obedience to Christ is death to oneself and those around – It will leave a bomb blast range for generations.
    As mentioned earlier – it is a spiritual battle and the weapons of our warfare are not carnal.

    The problem is giving too much proxy to wolves in sheep clothing and actually paying tithe for it – such as Mark Driscoll.
    Allow me to suggest following Jesus and real discipleship is much, much more demanding than Torah/Judaism – if anyone thinks otherwise -then the gospel of Jesus has NOT been presented to you clear/truthfull manner.

    G_D will give Spirit and authority is given to those who obey Jesus implicitly ( Acts 5:37).
    Allow me to suggest get back learning the Word, Jesus, and the advice from the brothers ( ie Deti)

    Paul warned about this in 2 Tim …having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions.

    I’ll mention this again – I don’t see a single verse on “game” mentioned by Jesus or the Apostles.
    What I do see is how to become a spiritually alive man by obeying Jesus and hopefully becoming a dwelling place for Him and the Father. This is testicular spiritual fortitude and it is good in any situation, with any person, with any woman, and will last in this life and the next. All other else is rubbish as Paul mentioned.

    G_D is saving the good wine for the end and there are many who are last that will be first.
    Dont be distracted by learning “secular game”. Learn and become friends with Jesus and trust me you will have “spiritual game” that will trump “secular game” and has a colorful history to back it up.

    Shalom

  122. Btw, please allow me to point something out.
    “The United States is frequently pointed out as being as the most religiously conservative nation in the western world when it comes to sexual morality, and indeed there are stats to back this up”

    The United States is also the largest producer of pornography in the world (89%) http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blog/tech/64531–u-s-leads-the-way-in-porn-production-but-falls-behind-in-profits
    That is not including the Hollyweird crap which is porn within it itself.
    The question is why this is and why do other countries refer to America as the “great satan” ?

    It is because the evangelical church has lost its moral light by perverting the teaching of Christ and the Apostles.
    What is taught in the pulpit is “50 Shades of Christianity” vs. black and white repentance discipleship.
    I am in agreement with endwatcher – there are very few disciples and a lot of fine people who church goers ( Rom 9-11 & Rev 3:4) – G_D always deals with remnants/firstfruits (That is why there are two resurrections). Church is not a physical building it is a “saint”, “holy one”, “called out” and it starts with the individual.

    As suggested at the end of your article -”Put simply, if you want a statistic that you can use to improve your church (and reduce the divorce rate), count the number of members who are actively discipling their families and each other, and have the pastor and deacons guide that effort.
    Sometimes, it really is as simple as…..the Gospel.”

    Yes the Gospel not “game”.
    Getting back to what the scriptures teach in light of the OT writings and actually taking Pauls writing head on ( ie 1 Cor 5) and expelling members.
    Solid older men teaching younger men and solid older women teaching younger women. This is the basis of discipleship and core to Christianity.
    It is sweet in the mouth and bitter in the stomach but it brings life.
    Thanks for putting up with me.

    Shalom

  123. As for who is to blame, I think in general it is the anti gamers waging what I see as mostly a war against an imaginary enemy.
    ——————————————————————
    Im not sure if your reply was to me or to the “anti-gamers” in general. I will point out that here again, anything that is not this thing, this endless loop of discussion about the nebulous and undefinable nature of game is then called ANTI-game. Textbook straw man, zero difference from when a woman, in responding to men decrying divorce, says “yea so you’d have abuse victims stay there”.

    The best evidence I see for this is the continued claims that I am elevating Game above Scripture
    ——————————————————————————
    You didn’t see me make that claim at all. If you did, please read my post again.

    I would challenge anyone to show where I actually said these things which they claim to refute
    ————————————————————————————
    “Show me where I literally said that” is a last resort defense, also, there is nothing of this sort in my post that you’d need to defend against. My contention is that an idle is forming, has formed from game. Idles can be made of good things, bad things, or HALF good/bad things.

    Ironically the danger is that the real concerns will be overlooked by the constant and ultimately tedious use of game hysteria as a stumbling block. Just because they constantly cry wolf, doesn’t mean one day a wolf won’t appear.
    **Even in their derailment they prove the point of the OP.
    ————————————————————————–
    How in the world can you suggest that (figuratively) all game all the time regardless the topic of the post you make is NOT derailment, and these “they” people are derailing? Especially after writing how neat it is to watch the threads go where they go? What is to derail?

    If I can be called anti-game based on my written words, it proves my point that there is some impenetrable force of undefined FAITH in game that rivals any major world religion, yet is even more dogged because it is not morally limiting to anyone in any way. They may self limit based on a religion, or not, but game is there waiting.
    I guess its time to stop repeating this stuff because, based on the comments from a good portion of the men, its like I said, similar to talking with women about slowing the rate of divorce, the tools of feminist rhetoric come out, not as tools…..those can be worked with…..but as reflexive reactions, which is what people do about idles.

  124. I also add thanks for putting up with these repetitious objections.

  125. sunshinemary wrote:

    What is the solution? I’ve heard slut-shaming proposed. So, I tried slut-shaming. Know what I got? Christians, and a few men from the manosphere no less, upset that Christians were slut shaming. Seriously, I got rebuked up the wazoo. I wanted to say, “Hey, this is what slut shaming looks like. This is what works.” But no. I was called judgmental and a leader of mob passions for pointing out that an adulterous woman whose husband takes responsibility for her sin and who turns her sin into a cottage industry is out of line.

    The problem wasn’t your intent. It was your execution. Your efforts should be more focused on bringing the general culture back to a place where “slut shaming” is effective, particularly in the next generation, rather than attempting to lead a one-woman charge against every instance of scandal you run across. Individual efforts are simply not operative, other than playing the role of prophetess before your time.

    To bring the general culture back, you don’t go berserk. You very quickly lapsed into self-righteousness, and your commenters were only too happy to pile on. The objects of your ire were in error. What to do?

    If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

    But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

    – Matthew 18:15-17

    A general campaign of shaming too easily turns into a vehicle for catharsis, a tempting moment of deliverance from frustration in this culture of ours. Each person strains to top the last in severity of condemnation. The purpose of the shaming is lost.

    This is why we go to church. This is what our Christian training is for. To navigate the Charybdis and Scylla of precipitate condemnation and easygoing relativism.

    Brothers, if a man is overtaken by any sin, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Look to yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

    – Galatians 6:1-2

    “Go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone”! You could have taken this very passage to the adulteress, to convince her that publicizing her sin, far from absolving her from the transgression, was giving it oxygen to flare up again. But instead you took the blunt approach — you were more concerned with making a general point than you were concerned with the state of her soul. You offered nothing but enmity against her and her husband. Your attempt at shaming added a quantum of despair to her already overloaded burden.

    Your instincts were correct, but you blundered by forgetting the killer close of any Christian sale’s pitch: do not fret about your sinful past, you are reborn in Christ, do not sin again, and this way to salvation. We are fragile egos, particularly women under spiritual attack like an adulteress seeking absolution in the wrong places. If alerting her to an unconscious sin* were at issue, then a controlled tsk-tsking might be in order. But she is patently aware of her sinfulness, which drove her to publicize it, and a shame campaign does nothing but raise the temperature on her hopelessness, prompting her to seek deliverance through the very things you warn her against! Her lurid publication (“I willingly became a whore”) is masochism, the perverse self-punishment that crowds out true salvation in Christ’s absolution.

    Do you follow me? Do you see the nuance? There simply is no alternative to a nuanced approach to sin in this, a time of universal scandal. Our culture provides too many dank places for the malignancies to hide and thrive. We must be nimble. We cannot stomp out the rot. We have to excise it carefully, like surgeons, taking care not to kill the insensate patient suffering underneath. Because we Christians know she suffers more than she thrives for her mistakes! There is no revenge we can foist upon her more cataclysmic than the wages of her sin itself.

    Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD:
    though your sins are like scarlet,
    they shall be as white as snow;
    though they are red like crimson,
    they shall become like wool. …

    They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

    Matt

    __________
    * From today’s Responsorial Psalm 19:12-13

    Though your servant is careful of them,
    very diligent in keeping them,
    Yet who can detect failings?
    Cleanse me from my unknown faults!

  126. AnonymousManosphereBlogger says:

    The United States is also the largest producer of pornography in the world (89%) http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blog/tech/64531–u-s-leads-the-way-in-porn-production-but-falls-behind-in-profits
    That is not including the Hollyweird crap which is porn within it itself.
    The question is why this is and why do other countries refer to America as the “great satan” ?

    Yeah, and just who is it that is in charge of these filth producing, marketing and distributing industries?

    Liberal, secular Jews who gleefully profit off of corrupting what was once a Christian nation.

    To be clear; not THE JEWS.

    Just those LIBERAL SECULAR Jews*** who are the very rich financiers, executives, producers and screen writers that make up the predominant elite of both the Porn industry and Hollywood’s degrading filth.

    ***Emphasis on the Liberal Secular Jews, because this is not an Anti-Semitic red herring.

  127. Cail Corishev says:

    Don’t want to derail the thread into game praxis but I see this attitude a lot around the Manosphere, “you don’t need game, you jsut have to be confident” and I think it has the potential to mislead a lot of guys.

    I see that as more looking at it from different levels than being a different thing from specific actions you have to take.

    That’s not clear, so I’ll use the analogy of a football game. Before the game, the coach talks to the team and the press about high-level strategy: emphasizing the passing game, taking care to hold onto the ball, putting pressure on the opposing quarterback, etc. But during the game and practices, he gets into details: on play blue-42 the wideout needs to turn in a yard sooner, practice the reverse several times this week because next week’s opponent tends to over-pursue. If you want to put pressure on the enemy quarterback, you practice specific plays that do that. High-level strategy and low-level tactics — no contradiction, just looking at the same thing from different levels.

    In terms of dealing with women, on a high level, yes, you just have to project manly confidence, outcome indifference, etc. If you already do that without knowing how, consider yourself lucky. Most guys don’t. The reason isn’t important right now. The important thing is they can learn to do so by learning specific plays: Game. Plays like, “When she asks where you want to eat, confidently state the first place that comes to mind, instead of waffling or abdicating the decision back to her.” “When she asks if her ass looks fat, say, ‘Well, I wasn’t going to say anything, but….’” Tactics that support your overall strategy.

    And the causality between tactics and strategy works both ways. If you have natural manly confidence, you’ll tend to “run the plays” that Game proponents recommend without thinking about it. If you learn to run the plays, you’ll gain confidence, especially as you start to have some success. It’s part of the same process, just different levels. So yes, “all you need” is manly confidence, but you’re right: you don’t just decide to have that one day and your problems are over. Game is how you get there.

  128. Cane Caldo says:

    Game is how you get there.

    Do others agree with this? I think virtue is how you get there. It seems to me that Game is rhetoric, itself. I don’t just mean the words, but the body language, the movements, the dress, perhaps the silence.

    This is different than virtue, though we should practice rhetoric with virtue.

    For example: well-chosen clothes are a rhetorical statement meant to convince a woman. Nice fitting clothes are good, but a good form underneath is what is important in the long run; which is gained by the virtue of diligence.

    So is learning how to pick good clothes.

  129. Sharrukin says:

    Do others agree with this? I think virtue is how you get there. It seems to me that Game is rhetoric, itself. I don’t just mean the words, but the body language, the movements, the dress, perhaps the silence.
    ——————————
    What land do you reside in? Most of us reside in a land where the worst are generally favored and the most decent are passed over year after year. It is only after years of favoring the worst that women ‘settle’ for those with any virtue or decency, largely from lack of an alternative.

  130. Ecclesiastes wrote:

    Calm your ass down, son. You have run up against a BIG problem. It’s so big that *you* are not going to solve it. The very best you can hope for is to be a warning sign, like “bridge out”. You’re just going to have to wait until enough bodies pile up for a solution.

    Apt and well said. Consider petty conflicts and developments always in the proper perspective — in the only real perspective: sub specie aeternitatis. Historical and psychological context might “calm” some “ass[es] down” long enough to discern a pragmatic approach to what seems like, when taken altogether, an overwhelming, infinitely complex, larger-than-life enormity. Small bites. Baby steps. The constant bitching does very little, other than bringing false comfort to the choir in a misery-loves-company way. Our job is to turn our persuasion skills outward, speak the opposition’s language, and capture their souls for Christ.

    Dalrock criticizes Christian marriage as not biblical enough while marriage is speeding in the opposite direction, through legal, cultural, and slothful redefinition, and through an outright rejection of the institution itself as even necessary (hello, PUAs!). This criticism is little better than pissing into the wind. For those few who are even able to hear the critique, it sets up a purity test that only the most special cases might pass. For those vast many others, he is speaking Greek. Ancient Greek. They have no idea why Dalrock would be so upset over a moribund ritual and obsolete relationship classification (it’s called “LTR” now). It is hard enough to get them into the pews, much less condemn their ad hoc relationships as being imperfect, and therefore the enemy of the good. Christianity becomes a harangue.

    There has to be room for the transition back, and it will take more than a few generations. Start with that cold reality. Not only is the preaching ineffective, we are so ill-disposed to the idea of preaching itself that we end up driving them even further into the bachelor bacchanal.

    The way back is not through these men and women, these last products of late feminism. The way back is through their children’s children. Do not concern yourself with the destinies of your peers except insofar as you might influence their children to avoid the mistake of their parents. This is achievable because, what’s done is done for the used up sluts of the generation (Gen X) now leaving the prime-birthing age, and because there is a such thing as human nature. We must encourage the has-beens to reinterpret the meaning of their experience as they pass it down through Generation Y (Millennials, for whom it may be too late, as they are in their middle 20s) to Generation Z (who are about to enter the consequential decade) and their children (who, I believe, are our future). Taking the long view is imperative.

    What aged slut does not have regrets? The key is to “make straight the paths” to a reinterpretation that takes responsibility for their mistakes, rather than the culture that encourages them to rationalize them as “adventures” and “liberty.” The 38-year-old mother knows in her soul that she shouldn’t have rubbed up against dozens of cocks, but our culture lets her off the hook by pretending that it is a young woman’s birthright to spread her cunt to the ends of the earth (cf. Hanna Rosin’s repulsive new book of lies, The End of Men, crystallizing this attitude perfectly just as it is about to depart from the world). Our job is to make Gen X slightly more aware of the true costs of the sexual revolution so that Gen Y is even more aware, so that Gen Z might be aware enough to consciously train their children in a tradition counter to the one that befouled their parents and grandparents.

    Do you have daughters? I do. Mine are 24 and 21. Have you got sons? Mine are 29 and 27. No marriages amongst the lot. Got any grandchildren? I have a grandson by the 27 year old. The baby-mama is holding him hostage for support. The 29 year old had a child aborted because the ‘woman’ said it would get in the way of her career.

    I haven’t seen where you even have any skin in this game.

    The wisdom of experience and age teams up with a mature understanding of our sexual nature to reverse the generational momentum toward decadence, debauchery, decline, and death. It is too late for the kids to get it right, just as it is too late for Gen X. But it is not too late for the grandkids, not yet. They must become familiar with the consequences of libertinism before they meet it first hand. The preeminent generation (X) must become again the trusted authority youth can turn back to when faced with the life-altering temptations of hypergamy and the beta indulgence of the beast. Amid the cultural uproar, our parents and our parents’ parents (the “greatest” generation) abdicated this responsibility, and the catastrophic cult of youth commenced.

    Following this abdication, the Divorce Generation raised itself, to predictable results. Youthful rebellion is not inevitable. It is a quirk of pseudotheory to which an exhausted generation (the “Greatest” Generation) deferred, allowing their children (Baby Boomers) to embrace the nihilism into which all untutored Lord-of-the-Flies dynamics are bound to devolve in the absence of elder guidance. The young are soothed by righteous advice, eager for it, if not outright starved for it after three iterations of beasts raising beasts to be beastly. This vicious cycle must be interrupted. Children will listen if we train them to listen, but since one generation broke the virtuous chain, we have since come to regard them as wild and incorrigible.

    Such is the shitty hand Gen X has been dealt by the worst cohort of ingrates in the history of mankind, the Baby Boomers, who experimented on their children to the point of cultural vivisection, leaving internal damage everywhere. It will take generations to repair that damage, through deliberate effort, patience, subtlety, courage, and at times, righteous war.

    Matt

  131. Cane Caldo says:

    What land do you reside in? Most of us reside in a land where the worst are generally favored and the most decent are passed over year after year. It is only after years of favoring the worst that women ‘settle’ for those with any virtue or decency, largely from lack of an alternative.

    This gets back to me being too obtuse in most previous in an effort to protect the sad cases; many of whom are here.

    I live in the land without virtue; where PUAs are seen as a solution to the church’s problem. Most men overvalue their virtue like women overvalue their attraction. “I’m a good guy” is the resounding gong of men everywhere; low and meaningless without context. It accompanies the clanging cymbal of “Grrl power” which shatters the peace of all who hear it.

  132. Dalrock says:

    @Michael Singer

    @Dalrock. I am not dismissing “game” – game “works”. It is a great way for any man to learn behavior to control a woman in pretty much any situation (not all). And there is where “the rub” is.

    By concentrating or learning “game” without having a solid foundation of morals, character, integrity, and testicular fortitude to “back it up” a lot of men will destroy them self in the process by jumping the gun to glandular urges and the wide availability to sin along with the WEAK wussied lukewarm pastors who pass as “G_dly men” and the grace/rapture/doctrine slop teaching.
    They will be a casualty before the know what hit them.

    I must have been unclear in my response to Empath, because I think both of you came away with the impression that I was aiming at you. Disagreement isn’t derailment.

    I agree with you that there is much danger in the current situation. But I don’t see Game as the primary danger. We (as a society and as Christians collectively) have created a situation where marriage is a celebrated form of theft against men and the majority of women don’t want to marry until they have rode the carousel (unicorn or real) for a decade or more. Either one of these by themselves creates a void which marriage should fill, and together they are toxic. Paul’s explanation in 1 Cor 7 is extremely elegant. Marriage is the proper biblical solution to the temptation of sexual immorality. We need to restore marriage.

    @King A

    Dalrock criticizes Christian marriage as not biblical enough while marriage is speeding in the opposite direction, through legal, cultural, and slothful redefinition, and through an outright rejection of the institution itself as even necessary (hello, PUAs!). This criticism is little better than pissing into the wind.

    This is the exact denial that I was writing about in the OP. The pretense that Christians are holding it together despite the culture running away from them. It is a lie, and an extremely dangerous one. Christians are giving moral cover to the overall debasement of marriage. Christianity is the prevailing moral force in the west, the only force in a position to truly deny or offer moral cover for divorce. The only thing stopping divorce is the fear of moral judgment. I’ve shown repeatedly how Christians are the ones dispensing the moral pass. Without active Christian cover we would have a far lower divorce rate. Additionally if Christian leaders stopped teaching the opposite of biblical marriage we would have a far lower divorce rate. Christians aren’t just failing to fight the good fight, they are (as a whole) fighting on the wrong side.

  133. Rum says:

    When women have the multiple layers of support for themselves and their sprogs, despite any extent of their own bad behavior,- that exists in the modern world we live in, – the individual man has 2 choices: Ramp up your game to extreme levels or watch from the sidelines/drink the dregs.
    I just got home from the funeral of one of the elders of my clan. We sat around drinking and telling stories from his life. My favorite was about how he would tell his brothers he wanted them out of the only bathfoom in the house. He would throw in a string of fire-crackers.
    He died rich and with a virtually limitless string of female admirers.

  134. Anonymous _Guy says:

    Cane,

    I found your comments about shit-testing very insightful. Yes, seeing it as sin is right on. I think it would be a particularly fascinating thing to do a series of posts on – coming up with concrete examples from your experience of how what women do isn’t satisfactorily explained via a naturalistic viewpoint (and giving advice of course).

    The thing is, I think that learning about these – as well as having a more confident (cocky), aloof, and physically aggressive frame – is one of the things that helped me go from a marriage where sex was extremely infrequent (1X/month or every 2?) to much more regular (2-3/week). All throughout I was praying to God (while rowing towards shore you know). And I was someone who’s been reading his Bible regularly for 20-25 some years.

    Here, you speak of game and rhetoric, and that makes some sense to me. You made even more sense when you said that game was to woman as spanking was to children. The thing is, my wife should be submissive and obey me. If she isn’t, I can remind her of Scripture. Of course, how I do that is important as well – and also important, I think, is that just repeating those words of law from the Scriptures might get old real fast as well. I see game (Cane game, which should be compatible with what Christ wants to do in and through me) as me embodying that command for her in a way – and I can’t worry too much if that is appealing to her flesh (old Adam) or her spirit (new man) in the particular moment (we are both of these until we die). I *do* know that God has in all likelihood wired women to respond to strength and confidence such that this attracts them – this seems clear. God desires me to be confident around my wife in addition to her obeying me and both of us enjoying a healthy relationship, good intimacy included.

    Dalrock,

    I tend to agree with most everything you say on this thread. Thanks again for your good work.

  135. Rum says:

    Another thing about my departed elder: He liked to stop at green likes and drive thru red lights. His wife was utterly devoted to him. His other women and children were like “Flies on the Wedding Cake”.
    Try that as a Nice Guy and watch your tiny little mincy faggot balls get carved off.

  136. BC says:

    @Dalrock:

    The only thing stopping divorce is the fear of moral judgment.

    I’m going to disagree here and say that real-world consequences, that is to say financial (provisioning) incentives and disincentives, are more important. In societies where religion and moral judgment are not major factors, it all comes down to the money. Likewise, no matter how much moral approbation there may be, give enough cash and prizes for divorce, and it will happen.

    That said…

    I’ve shown repeatedly how Christians are the ones dispensing the moral pass. Without active Christian cover we would have a far lower divorce rate.

    Yes, given that Christians are still a majority in the U.S. and most other western countries, and that no serious efforts are being made to reform the broken system, it is logical to assume that Christians in general support the feminist status quo of cash and prizes for divorce.

  137. BC says:

    Expanding on my ‘cash and prizes’ comment above, I propose the following litmus test to determine whether someone is truly morally opposed to (frivolous) divorce:

    Ask them if they support a return to the property rights system of Marriage 1.0.

    - Children born in wedlock are the property of the man (paternal parental rights).
    - Children born out of wedlock are the property of the woman (maternal parental rights).
    - Financial obligation (child support) derives entirely from said property rights (parental rights). That is to say, absent parental rights, there is no obligation to support.
    - In the event of divorce, alimony/damages/compensation/etc. shall be assigned by an impartial court based on actual fault (adultery, fraud, abuse, etc.), with no other conditions (need, lifestyle, etc.) taken into account, except for properly executed prenuptial agreements, which shall be considered valid and supercede any such judgments.

    If they do not support the above, then no matter how much a Christian or anyone else may claim to be morally opposed to (frivolous) divorce, they really aren’t.

  138. infowarrior1 says:

    @Michael Singer
    “Game is the psychology of females who are emotionally, mentally, spiritually, sexually damaged goods.”

    Not so it works on all beautiful women. I give an anecdotal example and evidence. A christian girl I know who was raised in a wholesome stable marriage still pursued bad boys and had sex with one of them at Yr 9 Camp.

  139. infowarrior1 says:

    He took her virginity also.

  140. Cane Caldo says:

    I think it would be a particularly fascinating thing to do a series of posts on – coming up with concrete examples from your experience

    I have series of posts that are closing in on the first appearance of women’s behavior as we konw it. To be honest though: a former preacher I talked with about it thought I was very wrong, but he didn’t make any sense to me, and I’m sympathetic to their thinking, so I don’t believe he’s right. I should be the easiest to convince. The first one is <a href="http://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/a-series-of-negatives-on-inherent-unfairness-part-i/"<here.

    As far as giving examples from my experience…man…How do I advise on being raised as a poor white preacher’s kid in minority neighborhoods, while 3 standard deviations above my peers in both IQ and height? At some point, the “go big or go home” choice had mostly been made for me. Big was inescapable.

    That doesn’t mean it can’t be done, but I do want to try to be humble about it–in the sense of truthful, and not boastful. That means a lot of soul-searching. Soul-searching isn’t my strong-suit, as Anonymous Reader has intuited. I’m a “natural” alpha who has been subjected to heavy doses of correction by every level of authority: state; church; and parents. You don’t get either by navel-gazing. A few people have tried to figure out what keeps me from introspection. Anonymous Reader, among others, is wrong to interpret my motivating emotion as guilt. It’s anger.

  141. @infowarrior “A christian girl I know who was raised in a wholesome stable marriage still pursued bad boys and had sex with one of them at Yr 9 Camp.”

    That is a “Christian”???

  142. @AnonymousManosphereBlogger – yes the rich Jews are quite often the financer.
    However, it is quite often reported when there is a Christian convention at a hotel, all the X-rated movies are sold out ?
    Plenty of ministry and no testimony/moral light despite a church on literally every corner.
    No worries – “accepting Jesus in your heart” will forgive one including Christians players and Christian reformed sluts.
    The promises of the scriptures will spiritually protect their marriage and children with no bad consequences from their previous actions.
    Yes American Jesus wants to make “you” haaaaaapppppy” rather than holy.
    Shalom

  143. BC says:

    That is a “Christian”???

    You do know that the “No true Scotsman Christian” argument is classified as a fallacy, right? But if you are serious about it, then at least be honest enough to admit that if you insist on that standard, you are limiting to such a small percentage (low single digits) of the population that in terms of societal impact, your argument is moot.

  144. Logos says:

    I’m glad to see there is some push-back against game. The problem isn’t that game doesn’t work; the problem is that it DOES. Try to follow me here. The ideal Christian man is not someone for whom women feel natural attraction. Women do not lust for Jesus or for a man who tries his best to emulate Him. Women lust for the polar opposite, the Roman soldier holding the whip or the nail. By catering to women’s instincts, game subverts the entire goal of Christianity, which is to rise above our animal natures. Being a good Christian is not easy for men or for women. If a man must deny himself the pleasures of promiscuity with multiple women (concurrent polyamory), then a woman must deny herself the pleasure of ditching her husband for someone new (consecutive polyamory), no matter how tempting it might feel. Once you walk down that aisle and speak those words, you both must honor them absent extreme circumstances, and losing the “tingle” isn’t one of them.

    It is precisely when the tingle fades that a woman reveals whether she is a good Christian or not — this is the moment of truth, when her animal side or her spiritual side will prevail. Christianity must focus on what the woman’s duty is at this moment, i.e., to rise above her animal instincts and make the right choice of staying with her husband. Gamers, however, focus on postponing or avoiding the moment of truth at all costs, which is surrender.

  145. @BC – Lets stay in the scriptures. A Christian Disciple is someone who denies them self, takes up their cross, and follows Jesus. Not all Christians are disciples but all Disciples are Christians. Most “Christians” I have met are aware of that – they simply accepted Jesus in their heart and have taken the 4 steps of salvation ( all unscriptural).

    Kudos to Logos for framing the context of game in real life. It is simply putting it into correct framework where it isn’t a glandular driven decision but a rational one that carries enormous lifelong consequences. It is a putting the spiritual priority over the physical priority – as he mentioned it takes spiritual integrity to put to death the carnal nature (this is “a disciple”, “a overcomer”, and “a Christian” – anything less isn’t Christian discipleship – either one is part of the solution or part of the problem).

    In addition, I am quite sure there are real female disciples of Jesus that often pass a number of “Christian” men till a real Disciple is presented. The trial is one of patience and waiting.

    Shalom

  146. @BC – “you are limiting to such a small percentage (low single digits) of the population that in terms of societal impact”

    Yes, that is exactly what I am pointing out – G_D is not into numbers ( ie Gideon). Consider how 12 disciples changed the face of history. Better to have one Disciple(man, women, boy, or girl) who is sternly obedient to G_D than 10,000 luke/puke warm crossless “Christians”.
    One obedient Disciple to Jesus will put to flight legions of hell as well as flatten any earthly army(s) standing.

    Ez 23;20 I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found none.

    Shalom

  147. lavazza1891 says:

    Logos: Why would anybody put money on the table to get an answer to that question? Of course the animal side will prevail. Congratulations if you have seen (recent) examples of the opposite, push coming to shove.

  148. Without active Christian cover we would have a far lower divorce rate. Additionally if Christian leaders stopped teaching the opposite of biblical marriage we would have a far lower divorce rate. Christians aren’t just failing to fight the good fight, they are (as a whole) fighting on the wrong side.
    ——————————————————————————————-
    This is another near perfect statement of one problem, divorce. The moral authority of the church has a couple of major tools available. Stigma (rightly done), and discipline (Matt 18). There are other tools, teaching is one if pandering is eliminated from it.

    Another problem is the marriage relationship itself.

    Women file more frequently for frivorces. Frivorces is where the action is…..first. We may make the mistake of thinking that game will so impact the marriage relationship that it will impact the frivorce rate. Maybe. Maybe not.

    All of the above may. I will put aside whether it be YOUR game, or his game, or that guy’s over there, or someone using tactics from game but not awed by its existence, because we can hopefully agree if we try to merge those people and their varying views of game, well, forget forward motion.

    Matt King is mostly correct that attempts to fix the present problem in its tracks are mostly futile.
    Sweeping change , like reforming divorce laws, and more to present company scope, reforming the church and Christian men’s views on divorce are worthy things, fruit is generations away. If in the meantime some men start, in whatever configuration, using game tools or call it what you like to better their present marriages, or knowing them heading into marriage, sure, small real change in real time.

    But so much time is wasted arguing about all those things. All of the Christian men here can agree on the statement I pasted to start this comment. When the discussion ensues, it is morphs to gamers vs full blown anti-gamers and a few who shape shift to the point I can’t tell which they are if they are either, and that is the derail. Spread that across the sum of man, because it is a male proclivity, and even the brackets of stigma and reforming the churches stated positions on divorce never stand a chance of actually being more than another way to start talking about game.

  149. tbc says:
    The only thing stopping divorce is the fear of moral judgment.

    I’m going to disagree here and say that real-world consequences, that is to say financial (provisioning) incentives and disincentives, are more important. In societies where religion and moral judgment are not major factors, it all comes down to the money. Likewise, no matter how much moral approbation there may be, give enough cash and prizes for divorce, and it will happen.

    I disagree with your disagreement. The example is acceptance of homosexuality. There are few monetary incentives involved, but a great deal of “moral” pressure to accede to the normalization of homosexuality in society. A previous example is the widespread acceptance of artificial contraceptives. The moral argument was waged first (that married couples have a right to use artificial contraceptives) and was resisted by the church. In fact virtually all churches prohibited contraception in the early part of the 20th century. Once that argument was lost, the demand for economic benefits connected with it followed — the de-linking of sex and pro-creation laid the ground work for no-fault divorce, the feminist movement, abortion rights, and now gay rights. The economic penalty follows the moral system, not the other way around because economic expenditure flows towards that which is considered moral and is withheld from that which is seen as immoral in any given society.

  150. Anonymous _Guy says:

    Logos:

    “The ideal Christian man is not someone for whom women feel natural attraction. Women do not lust for Jesus or for a man who tries his best to emulate Him. Women lust for the polar opposite, the Roman soldier holding the whip or the nail. By catering to women’s instincts, game subverts the entire goal of Christianity, which is to rise above our animal natures.”

    I’m not sure if that is necessarily true even of non-Christian women. Perhaps some women would find what the Roman soldiers did a turn-on, but I doubt they would be many. I think of the way Jesus was portrayed in the Passion of the Christ. I tend to think that he was more like that than not. Strength, courage, and a willingness to oppose others in the face of potential opposition and even violence is a trait that both men and women admire. For a woman, she may find herself romantically drawn to such a man, and I think that is much in line with the way that God made us.

    Yes, the inner life is more important. At the same time, can we deny that in our outer lives, God created men to display strength (all manner of strength, physical and otherwise) courage, and a willingness to endure opposition with a steel frame? Strong, silent, in control because God is in control. As a natural “beta” this is what I did not understand for 12 years – now I realize the importance of these things far more than I did before.

    This is why, not long ago, I said the following here:

    “….we must acknowledge that our husband Christ is a Lover. This Lover is the attractive and strong provider whom the Church desires, and whom He exclusively desires in turn. In our Protector’s presence, all realize His dominance – He does not put up with our, or anyone else’s crap, and will not only freely criticize when necessary, but take drastic action. And He is not only a Lover, but a Fighter – a Champion Fighter. Our Champion is the mighty One who sarcastically taunts the enemies sin, death, and the devil, kicking sand in their faces with authority and confidence. Not only this, but He outwits His foe, turning the tables and wining the seemingly improbably victory via improbable means – an instrument of torture.

    Of course not all know this about Him, but faith perceives it (Heb. 2:8): our Man is simply like the millionaire who veils his wealth, choosing to live in simple fashion. And He became Man for no other reason than to win His bride and all she had (stewardship of creation) through His death and resurrection…”

    (here is more that puts this into a greater context: http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/regarding-jesus-wife-his-real-wife-that-is/)

    You can say that this is just me trying to make Jesus into Christian Grey but I think we can hardly deny this. Jesus exemplifies true masculinity, and all of us are attracted to that.

    Michael Singer,

    May I ask what denomination you are? It seems to me that you are denying that Christians can fall into sin. Many Christians practice confession and absolution for this reason.

  151. Anonymous _Guy says:

    Something else:

    I am reading “Battered Love: Marriage, Sex and Violence in the Hebrew Prophets” by Renita J. Weems, a feminist theologian. It is very interesting to see her take on the huge amount of passages from the prophets where God is definitely put in very strong and powerful masculine terms over and against his unfaithful wife, Israel.

  152. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_talbot

    This is a bit of a read, but it’s well worth the effort in understanding the contemporary wisdom evangelical / trad-cons have with approaching sex. Take off your party affiliation name tag before you read this and you’ll see how churchianity excuses (and tacitly encourages) out of wedlock pregnancies. As long as the mother decides against abortion, she’s welcomed with open arms into the church that women created.

    God bless Dalrock for being John the Baptist crying in the wilderness about the feminist social reengineering of the church, but how the fem-church has distorted marriage is only one aspect of a MUCH larger whole. The feminization of the church goes much deeper, and the extent to which it has undermined the church is only now being revealed. Even the vatican is trying to come to grips with the feminist influence in its convents.

    We have “Alpha Pastors” (Mark Driscoll, et. al.) trying to get guys to ‘man up’, go on Mighty-Men-of-God retreats and get into christianizing MMA fighting just to spur some interest for men in the church – and it’s just these lame attempts that reveal how pervasive the feminine imperative has been. Tacitly feminized christian guys teach uninterested, passive christian guys how shamefully inadequate they are in terms of a feminine acceptance that’s been co-opted as God’s acceptance. If Momma aint haaaaapy, God aint haaaaapy.

  153. Anonymous _Guy says:

    Logos:

    “By catering to women’s instincts, game subverts the entire goal of Christianity, which is to rise above our animal natures.”

    My position here is that women, like all Christians, are sinners and saints at the same time. Until our death our spirit (new nature, new man) does battle with our flesh (old nature, old man, old Adam). The power of sin is never far from us, and in fact, still dwells within (Rom. 7 and Gal. 5). The Christian must fight the fight of faith, and gets up when he falls down after Christ, who is only the friend of sinners, helps him up (that he may huddle close to His shepherd in the paths that are safe and true, paths of love, light and life). Because of the way that God has made us, a woman will respond favorably to masculine traits (confidence, strength, dominance, assertiveness) – and may even find herself romantically and even sexually attracted here – and this is all right and good, for sexual attraction and sex is a great gift from God. Here, a woman simply graciously receives all God has for her in her husband within the context of marriage, i.e. for all the right reasons (i.e. to be loved in this way by a man who is strong and not only desires his wife sexually, but desires to please her sexually). On the other hand, according to our fallen nature, a Christian woman will externally do the same thing but for all the wrong reasons (mainly to satisfy her lust). Of course since we are talking about women, these “reasons” are always largely subconscious and tend to have more to do with emotion than the intellect.

    What about the man? Well, insofar as I am in Adam, I desire this union for reasons entirely of the flesh. My desire is to consume and to possess – and to satiate my lust (even if I have success in limiting these twisted desires to my wife, both in my external behavior, and to a lesser degree, my inner thought-life). Eros. Insofar as I am a New Man, I desire this union – this conjugal union – that I may participate in one of the greatest and most powerful gifts that God has created – and to the full extent that I am able to do so – for by it, a husband and wife are made one flesh, and are bound together as one. Agape-driven eros.

    Where does the most powerful bonding take place between a man and his wife? In consummation of course. One blogger has said, “But it is one very special part of your marriage relationship that you cannot share with anyone else. God has designed it that way, just for the growth, joy, pleasure and benefit of your marriage.” How true. Upon serious reflection, we see that all roads in marriage lead to this most special and intimate of moments. At the very least – assuming that both a husband and wife share godly conversation, reflection and prayer – this “act of marriage” is the ultimate expression and strengthener of the shared love between a husband and wife (for conversation, reflection, and prayer can all accompany this).

    And this is why I thank God for those who talk about game, even as I cannot uphold much of what even the most mild of its practitioners, like Athol Kay (MMSL), say.

  154. Anonymous _Guy says:

    Rollo,

    From the article:

    “It might help, too, not to present virginity as the cornerstone of a virtuous life. In certain evangelical circles, the concept is so emphasized that a girl who regrets having been sexually active is encouraged to declare herself a “secondary” or “born-again” virgin. That’s not an idea, surely, that helps teen-agers postpone sex or have it responsibly.”

    Which idea does not help teen-agers postpone sex? Virginity as the cornerstone of a virtuous life? That’s what the article wants you to think. I think Dalrock, on the other hand, would say that “born-again” virgin motif (which squarely fails to deal with the consequences of this sin) is the problem.

    Well, also persons getting married so late. If our kids aren’t mature enough for that (because there is no reason that they should not be), for that to, we are culpable.

    I say the Church does need to forgive persons when they fall, but should say very loudly how wretched and undesirable these situations are. We should not necessarily stigmatize individual single mothers, but should certainly stigmatize single motherhood. We and our children reap the harvest of our behavior for this sin before God.

  155. Anonymous _Guy says:

    “We should not necessarily stigmatize individual single mothers”

    If she is unrepentant – yes – stigmatization.

  156. Paul says:

    @The Real Peterman:

    “Don’t do what you were going to do, do what she wants you to do instead! You were going to compliment her but she wants you to be aloof, so do that instead. You were going to call her but she wants you to not call her so do that instead. etc.”

    Actually, that is the opposite of what I took away from reading about game. My take-away was more along the lines of: “Do what you were going to do, don’t try and guess what she wants you to do and do that instead! She was fishing for a compliment, but you didn’t want to give one, so don’t. If you want to call her, don’t agonize over whether or not she may want you to.”

    And you know what? It works, wonders. Actually just being more independent (as opposed to co-dependent), especially in the context of a relationship, does wonders. And it’s not just about her perception of you as alpha, but also because you’re happier in the relationship, she senses your happiness and wants to share in it.

    I came into the Dalrockosphere shortly before meeting the woman of my life. She fell head over heels in love with me, and I didn’t screw it up by going into beta supplicant mode the minute I thought there was a chance of a relationship. It was reading here and in other places that I learned that about myself, how I had been self-destructing relationship wise ever since I was a kid. And because I was no longer so afraid to be myself, as opposed to the beta supplicant, she actually is head over heels in love with the “real me” TM, and not some false front me.

  157. imnobody says:

    We discussed this once a while back on Patriactionary, and I mentioned there that when a woman sees her husband sitting and doing nothing (or something she deems to be nothing), she will feel compelled to jump on him about it, usually with a list in hand.

    Yes, when I see the hot wife of my friend, every cell of my body is telling me “F*ck her”. I feel completely compelled to do it: she is so hot that I get a boner every time I think of her. But I don’t do it, I don’t even flirt with her, no exceptions.

    No excuses. No “I know that it was wrong but I couldn’t resist”. No “I try not to do it but occasionally this happens because I am irresistibly drawn by every cell of my body”. Not one exception.

    This is the basis of civilization: controlling one’s own instincts.

    I guess there are three options:

    - Women are deemed to be adults. They are given all rights and, coherently, they are demanded responsibility for their actions. They are asked to control their instincts the way men are asked to do. Full rights, full responsibility for women.

    - Women are deemed to be minors, as it was in Roman law. They have to be under the authority of a father or a husband. They are not responsible: the man is, but the man can have tools to enforce his authority. No rights, no responsibility for women.

    - The current situation. Women can do everything they want and have the same rights of men, but not the same responsibilities. So they can screw it up and somebody else has to foot the bill (through taxes, alimony, child support, etc.). Full rights, no responsibility.

    Of course, this is what women want: which human being would not want full rights and no responsibility? This was the goal of feminism: get women to become spoiled children. And it has been achieved completely.

    I guess Roman people had it right: women cannot be trusted to have enough self-control so they cannot be given the same rights as men. I think this is coherent with a biblical worldview. This is why women have to submit to husbands.

    Western civilization wanted to consider women as equal to men. You see how well this has ended.

  158. Jimbo says:

    Hey Dalrock: I found it interesting that you found my comments worthy of criticism. I would like to respond to your comments.

    “Note his absurd claim that my focus is on dating in an effort to change the topic to something unimportant to the church.”

    I don’t get this argument. I said your focus on marriage amounts to dating advice since much of it is about dating and marrying sluts. You admitted it with your response “My advice to men from the beginning has been to screen carefully to find a suitable wife. However, given what has happened in our culture this still means that very large numbers of men won’t be able to find suitable wives. Our mutual advice to men simply encourages the men reading to beat out another man for the very limited pool.” Which means they will still marry those unsuitable wives. Instead of saying “don’t do it”, it is a rather weak response to say maybe they should. The more proper way of dealing with the issue is people should date according to their experience level. An inexperienced man should not be dating experienced women, but certainly, experienced men can consider experienced women. Nonetheless, what leads to the marriage makes all the difference if it should be considered a Christian marriage with all the intents and responsibilties.

    To cover all the bases, I didn’t characterize any of these things as unimportant to the church. That’s a distortion. I said the church has an important job (ministry) to do and that should be its focus.

    “In what is very common form, when I pointed out that my focus is on marriage and challenged Jimmy to point out where I had ever chastised the church for not focusing on dating, he explained that he of course agrees with me.”

    Yes, I do agree with you. And I avoided doing a screening of all your posts to challenge you on the “focusing on dating” as that isn’t what I was trying to do (however, your response above does acknowledge that).

    I’m not sure if it could be considered an insult for me to agree with you. What’s up with “common form?”

    You cut off my last paragraph that I’ll repost again.

    “As for the complaint on dating, the discussions on “Manning Up” focuses on marrying sluts. You confirmed it above with “We also have pastors and other Christian leaders pushing men to make dumb choices.” The thing is everyone there pushes people to marry. People love a marriage ceremony. Hardly anyone tells someone to breakup. I strongly believe that people should break up when they are dating if it doesn’t work out. It doesn’t get better after marriage. The dating ritual is supposed to find these things out.”

    People are simply marrying without a strong Christian foundation. Trying to fix it after the fact will be difficult. Perhaps the whole issue of dating and marrying can be integrated into a Christian way of life that is missing from the scattershot discussion.

  159. Bob Wallace says:

    @ Logos

    “By catering to women’s instincts, game subverts the entire goal of Christianity, which is to rise above our animal natures.”

    The way I see i, the purpose of society – civilization – is either to repress, or better, yet, alter or use our animal natures in service of civilization. Civilization sits on top of our animal natures. For example, I’d rather see people engage in sports than start wars.

    “Game” is many ways does pander to men’s worst instincts, and therefore to women’s.

    I wonder what Jesus would think of Game/PUA? People might want to quote some of the Old Testament, but that has been supposedly been rendered obsolete by Christianity.

  160. freebird says:

    Until the misandrist VAWA lawz get repealed,and stiff penalties for false accusations get put into place women can be as belligerent,arrogant,obtuse,manipulative and aggressive as they desire, with not only no repercussions,but rewards.
    No amount of game or other behavior changes standing before the law.She has the upper hand with the nuclear option at a whim.
    It’s encouraged by the sexual grievance industry.
    There is no recourse,no equity or equity before “the law.”
    “The Law’ set out to destroy family’s,create a police state,ignore the presumption of innocence,and void the privacy laws.
    In short,”the law”has become renegade lawless.
    Everything else comes from that.
    This is why the govt funds NGO’s to pump the media full of false accusations,statistical lies,and general demonization of men,it pays well,it allows extra-Constitutional Police Powers.
    The fems will bring a totalitarian state.

  161. Pingback: A Fine Mess! « Complementarian Loners

  162. Anonymous _Guy says:

    BW: “People might want to quote some of the Old Testament, but that has been supposedly been rendered obsolete by Christianity.”

    Oh, hardly.

  163. imnobody says:

    The origins of Game: Jesus. Since the original post is not available, I am copying here.

    The attempt to trace the origins of Game are the most clear refutations of the pretentions of Game itself. Some have traced it to Jung, to Byron, to Shakespeare. Nope, way too shallow. Game was invented by Jesus. You think I’m joking? I’m not. Of course, it wasn’t Game that Jesus taught, he taught us how to be men (the principles of positive masculinity), and how to deal with women. Read on:

    Jesus, master of the neg (as recorded in Mark 7):
    Greek woman approaches Jesus, “Please heal my daughter.” Jesus replies, “You are not worthy, you little dog.” Jesus’s neg gets the proper response too, leading the woman to grovel further: “Even the dogs get a scrap of bread.” Happy with her full submission stated out loud, Jesus provides the requested healing.

    Jesus, master of the alpha demand and validation (as recorded in John 4):
    Coming upon a strange woman at a well, Jesus starts off by straight up ordering her to fetch him a drink. The woman gives him a shit test, throwing up some religious bullshit excuse not to do it for him. Jesus responds by elevating his own status: “If you knew who was asking this request, you would do that and more, because I give the living water.” The woman continues her shit test, asking him to prove it.

    Jesus then negs the girl, shifting the subject, demanding “Where is your husband?” This begins to break her down, shifting the ground to her uncomfortable zone, as she admits she has no husband. Jesus drives the woman down even harder: “Darn right you don’t have a husband, you are a little slut [five previous husbands, living with man currently].” The woman is totally owned by this, and sees to it that Jesus is fed and housed for the next couple days in her village.

    Jesus refuses any woman’s attempt to order him around, even his mother (recorded in John 2):
    Jesus is at a wedding party when his mother tells him, “We are out of wine.” Jesus replies, and I quote, “Don’t tell me what to do”. His mom, being put in her place, then turns to the servants, and validates Jesus, to them, “Do what he tells you.” Jesus then orders the servants about, and creates some high quality wine for the party.

    Jesus, encouraging female servitude, part 1 (recorded in Luke 10):
    Martha was doing chores, Mary sitting at Jesus’s feet hanging on his every word. Martha starts bitching about Mary not helping, and actually tells Jesus to tell Mary to get up and help. Jesus puts her in her place: “Martha, drop the negativity. Mary is doing the right thing.”

    Jesus, encouraging female servitude, part 2 (recorded in John 12):
    Martha was serving him supper, when Mary started cleaning Jesus’ feet WITH HER HAIR. Not just with her hair, but using some seriously expensive oil to do the job right, filling the whole house with the scent.

    His jealous beta Judas starts to object on religious grounds, so Jesus tells him to shut the F up, and he takes the opportunity for a high status display: “You will always have the poor with you, but you won’t always have me.”

    Do I need to mention when Jesus beat up the sleazy Jewish bankers in the Temple? He pulled out a WHIP, and literally WHIPPED THEM out, knocked over their chairs, and kicked over their tables. Jesus was not a pacifist, as I have analyzed before (here). The night before his crucifixion he commanded his followers to carry swords for self-defense.

    Jesus was a man’s man, and it showed in the absolute devotion he inspired his women. Jesus had a number of women taking care of his financial needs, some even married. Luke (in chapter 8) records: Mary Magdalene, Johanna, Suzanna, and “many others” who supported him out of their own means. Jesus’s women were broken down in hysterics seeing Jesus dying up on the cross, and they were the ones visiting him at his tomb after he died.

    Christian teachings are clear: the man is the head of the household, and the woman is required to submit to her husband. Adam, the first man, was guilty of letting his wife lead him. A Christian man who allows his woman to be negative or domineering is failing to be a faithful Christian, failing to follow God’s command and example.

    This is not the case of running Game on your wife. This is the attitude of leadership and responsibility that comes from God’s plan, rooted in human nature. To have a successful marriage, you don’t need to “learn Game”, you need to BE THE MAN.

    It is not a set of techniques, it is an attitude of command. The principles of positive masculinity are based in the reality of human nature. You don’t even have to be a Christian to see their validity, or understand how they were the foundation of our civilization.

    Not coincidentally, returning to the principles of the revealed religion that undergirded Western Civilization is the key to our contemporary problems, not resporting to manipulative tricks based on the poisonous gaming of the contemporary dying culture.

  164. Joseph says:

    @Rollo

    ” If Momma aint haaaaapy, God aint haaaaapy.”

    Rollo, I think you just summed up modern day church in one sentence.

  165. The irony is, I agree with Bubba Bike. Men need to answer God’s man-up message and kick the feminists square in the teeth, and out of the church with the rest of the secularists. If men actually did that we might still have something resembling a truly Christian church. In the meantime all the handwringing is getting nauseating.

    The feminists are in error and error is not going to inherit the kingdom. If Godly men truly understood this they’d be warning them and correcting them, not coddling them.

  166. Anonymous _Guy says:

    BW,

    In case you are interested in knowing more:

    Things like circumcision, food laws, Jewish festivals, and blood sacrifice were rendered unnecessary by God Himself and Jesus’ apostles speaking on his behalf (see Acts 10 and 15 for example). In short: Jesus is the building and these things were just scaffolding (NT: shadows) that has now fallen away. Other laws were specific to the time of the Jewish theocracy in the O.T. but fell out of use, even by Jesus’ day (also, keep in mind that there were always judges to administer the laws of the O.T. – though these were strict, even then, it seems some “pardons” or relaxation of the full punishments certainly occurred). The moral law however, embodied in the 10 commandments for example, was re-asserted by the New Testament writers themselves. In fact, it is now “the law of Christ”….

  167. Joe Blow says:

    “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?”

    Calvinism and the insistence that only faith matters, really bites a lot of you protestants in the butt. Try all you might to explain away James 2, it imposes a requirement for works. Sure, you may be saved by faith alone, but if faith without works is dead, then you are not faithful if you do not do the things that faith requires. There are some rules Jesus laid out in the gospel that get you partway there – loving one another (I don’t think He was referring to PUA activities here) which implies a whole range of duties-in-action, a really difficult challenge we reduce to “be nice to each other.” There were also specific acts spelled out that we are supposed to do (the works of mercy inherent in the beatitudes), various sins to be avoided, such as various perversions and casting judgment on sinners (a big one that a lot of Churchians suffer from).

    Radical predestinarianism – that you were called, and that you are saved by faith alone – denies the importance of free will. I mean, if you aren’t among the select, why bother unless youhear a clear calling? It also implies that if you think that you have some control over your own salvation, and act accordingly, that you are being unfaithful. But if that’s the case, what’s the purpose of free will? Aren’t you denying God’s plan for you, if you think you have to follow the rules, do (or abstain from ) particular things? Pardon me if I think this smells of the 17th Century’s answer to Joel frickin’ Osteen and his prosperity gospel.

    Feh. In the end it seems there are a number of ways to get to God, but the idea that what you do doesn’t matter is one that at some level afflicts a lot of Calvinists, just as the notion that “love one another” means “be nice and pick the easy rules to follow” afflicts us Catholics, and in our ecumenical age we are passing each others’ theological ailments on to each other. This results in the failing common to most of our churches right now, that it doesn’t matter what you do, as long as you are “nice,” with nice being defined I suppose by some abbreviated version of Miss Manners’ book, and the NY Times Op-Ed page – hopefully without input from Krugman. That churches are resistent to change bringing them back to orthodoxy reflects nothing more than the fact that they are bureaucratic in nature, they are afraid of pain, of loss of business, of getting the members upset. This is Clerisy, by the way; one of the reasons that Martin Luther justifiably was very angry with the Catholic Church. The effect of Christ and our churches should be revolutionary on us, not static, and when we start going to the rulebook to find justifications for being static and to get our own way, we lose the thread. Most of our churches have done so.

  168. unger says:

    @Joe_Blow: I’m not sure where you got Calvinism out of what I said, much less out of my clarification.

  169. @ imnobody – AWESOME !!!!!
    That is exactly the POINT !!!! Btw, Jesus was dirt poor, single, and died a criminals death
    Consider the disciples before the resurrection and after the resurrection. Big difference !!!!
    Acts 4:13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.
    Get Jesus and you will be more than any secular alpha could ever imagine.
    Teaching Jesus and having Him dwell in you will make one more a man than they ever imagined.

    @Anonymous _Guy- I am non denominational for all intensive purposes though I have attended baptist , pentecostal, 4 square churches – I look for fervent saints whether Jewish or Gentile by birth. To answer your question – yes Christians can fall into sin – its pretty darn easy ( 1 John 1:5-10 ) and the rewards are to the overcomers only (Rev 2&3) and one can pretty easily slay their own resurrection. Profession of Jesus doesnt mean a thing. Salvation / Deliverance is very much a process from the image of satan to the image of G_D. It is a change of what you are vs where you are and it is “right now” and continues on after the body is goes to “sleep/physical death”. G_D is after a harvest of firstfruits to be king/priests in this age – the goal is the first resurrection.

    Shalom

  170. Btw – it actually goes back further than Jesus. Take a gander @ Heb 11 for the heroes of faith. It is doing the right thing (righteousness) no matter what the situation is.
    Consider Daniel, Shadrach Meshach and Abednego – that is not “game”. That is men who know their G_D.
    Shalom

  171. Cail Corishev says:

    This is not the case of running Game on your wife. This is the attitude of leadership and responsibility that comes from God’s plan, rooted in human nature. To have a successful marriage, you don’t need to “learn Game”, you need to BE THE MAN.

    It is not a set of techniques, it is an attitude of command.

    I won’t repeat a long comment about this that I left on SunshineMary’s blog last night, so I’ll try to keep it short: When you have an attitude of command within a relationship, that leads you to engaging in certain practical techniques. You don’t just stand around looking commanding. You do things that flow from your attitude. Strategy dictates tactics, and those tactics can be called “running Game.” Likewise, learning and using certain tactics and seeing that they are successful can encourage an attitude of command within oneself. Tactics adding up to strategy.

    It’s not one or the other, and it just doesn’t make sense to say the attitude is good but the actions are bad. They’re different levels of the same thing, and each leads to the other. If you want to have an attitude of command but aren’t sure where to start because that’s foreign to you, you can start by adopting some of the tactics of “running Game” — only those that are acceptable to a Christian; no sleeping with 10 other women, for instance — and build the attitude you need.

  172. you can start by adopting some of the tactics of “running Game” — only those that are acceptable to a Christian; no sleeping with 10 other women, for instance — and build the attitude you need.
    ————————————————————————–
    Agreed 100%. I struggle to figure out how there are so many Christian men, men who would agree whole heatedly with “no sleeping with 10 other women”, who would say you are anti-game, or fall short and are a sell out, or don’t understand game, or whatever.

    The comments pretty much all day today are from this subset which I would consider the best subset of the group, of course that is subjective/my opinion….so be it. To me the Christian man growing into his rightful role, seeking God and God’s guidance through scripture, that man will be best served in this sweet spot, operational and definitional.

  173. Dalrock wrote:

    This is the exact denial that I was writing about in the OP. The pretense that Christians are holding it together despite the culture running away from them. It is a lie, and an extremely dangerous one. Christians are giving moral cover to the overall debasement of marriage.

    First of all, don’t throw around the word “lie” the way the left does. You presume malice without cause when you have evidence of none. For it to be a lie would mean you believe these establishment Christians actively desire to destroy marriage and want feminism to thrive. That assumption weakens your contention. Occam’s Razor tells us to never presume malice when incompetence or misunderstanding is available as an explanation.

    Second, Christians indeed are not “holding it together despite the culture running away from them.” No “denial” here. All marriage — secular, Christian, and otherwise — has been deteriorating for the last half-century. My point was, let’s concentrate on fixing the massive breach in the hull before bailing out the bilge water with teaspoons. You want to criticize the bonds of matrimony made in the sight of God for their imperfections, even as many more are rejecting the holiness of the vow as ipso-facto illegitimate, unnecessary, irrelevant — to the point of actively destroying the institution. Ease down on the persecution of the God-fearing who still yet sin, unless you simultaneously honor the fact that they began with the right idea. Otherwise you encourage them to relinquish that foundational idea, as they “go their own way” and follow the cue of “PUA” marriage hatred. One calamity at a time, shall we?

    Yes, Christians unwittingly aid and abet the destruction of the very institution they think they are assisting. You are very good at pointing this out and supporting the claim. But the key word is “unwittingly,” which you should concede. Because under those circumstances it becomes a matter of convincing them of their misapprehension, a much easier project than presuming to know their intention and then persuading them to reject it for a position 180-degrees opposite.

    Christianity is the prevailing moral force in the west, the only force in a position to truly deny or offer moral cover for divorce.

    Not at all, not anymore, and in some ways, not ever. Christianity is the permanent counterculture. The Kingdom of God over the kingdom of this world. Our faith began in the persecution of the cross, it was spread by martyrdom, and it is sustained by the rejection of all earthly things. That was a divine promise.

    Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and put you to death; and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake.

    And then many will fall away, and betray one another, and hate one another.

    And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.

    And because wickedness is multiplied, most men’s love will grow cold.

    – Matthew 24:9-12

    The “prevailing moral force in the west” is in fact “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism,” not Christianity. We are worse off than other eras because we have labeled this therapeutic deism “Christian,” thereby making its cunning insinuation all the more difficult to detect and eradicate.

    Make no mistake, you do yeoman’s work uncovering this deception, day in and day out. Keep fighting the good fight! Indeed, the name of Christianity is “in a position to truly deny or offer moral cover for divorce.” But to follow Christ is not to be a politically institutionalized force but rather an individual on the Way of the Cross. The more you go after the corruption of the institutions and the contradictory motives behind their crusades, the more you neglect the atomized soulcraft that constitutes true conversion and righteousness.

    This is why the PUAs are leaps and bounds ahead tactically, and must be imitated. Yes, they stray into matters of doctrine with silly “commandments” and imitations of clerical pronouncement. But from the start they converted souls one-to-one by reporting first-hand experience, leading by example, and evangelizing individual correspondents through personalized advice. They took the general principles that theologians argue about at 50,000 feet and brought them to the ground, delivering salvation to pilgrims seeking practical answers. It was a salvation they could see working in their own lives.

    The best evangelizers of the Gospel have always followed this tack, of course, but the notion of Christianity as a “prevailing moral force” tempts us to argue the forest rather than the trees. We cannot hope to triumph by overthrowing our institutions and retrofitting them to deliver a “red pill” message. This the error of Lucifer. Our institutions were established by Christ himself. “Upon this rock I build my church.” Rather, we re-infuse the Holy Spirit into the church from the ground up, man by man by man, woman by woman by woman, pick-up by pick-up by pick-up. For what is metanoia if not the fruit of the ultimate “pick up”?

    The truest Christians by temperament today are the “artists” who capture souls for game. They are fiercely countercultural, zealously faithful to their creed, urged to spread the word to all nations, steadfast in their proclamations, and courageous under persecution. It is not blasphemy to see the Christ in them. Yes, they are definitely promoting a false Gospel, but so are the Moralistic Therapeutic Deists who go by the name “Christianity” (or the feminists who go by the name “conservative”), as you so often point out! At least the PUAs don’t claim to speak for Christ. That leaves us an opening. Luckily, Christianity was built to encourage just this brand of periodic temple cleansing from the start.

    In other words, take your operation, at least mentally, to the street. Do not be tempted to argue with your brothers over the 5% differences when you already share 95% of their mission. Manliness is its own worst enemy by its tendency to excessive and obsessive abstractionism. While we argue about how many angels dance on the head of a pin, the devils are quoting scripture and capturing souls. “Whoever is not against us is for us.” Focus your efforts on alliance, not on scattering, which is the primary device of the evil one. “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” The objects of your persistent criticism are our brothers in Christ at least nominally, and that nominal brotherhood gives us latitude to forge bonds of mutual effort.

    Matt

  174. @Mark Singer

    Ah yes, pray the Game away. Yet another ‘faith trumps action’ argument. Maybe you didn’t read my response to Cane the other day:

    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.

  175. Jimbo says:

    To me, Game is a band-aid to the problem. Christians who have submissive wives are in no need of game. Christian men who seek Christian women don’t need game if they are submitting to Christ. However, since we are not living according to Biblical principles, some behavior counterbalancing is necessary, but to a certain extent. We must always remember that we live in a fallen world. The world has not dealt kindly to Christians. It doesn’t respect the Christian viewpoint, yet what is the Christian viewpoint? We do need another reformation. We have come so far on the opposite end that we need to go back.

    Unfortunately, relying on Church to send the message is the wrong approach and an incomplete one as well. The pushback from come from the originators of this new movement.

    As for game, I agree with others that say that game is not Christian. You can’t incorporate game into the discussion, yet the focus on game here defeats the purpose of a new Church. Game is what you discuss among men as a extracurricular topic. It is a Men’s topic of discussion that’s done on the side and away from women.

  176. Dalrock says:

    @King A

    First of all, don’t throw around the word “lie” the way the left does. You presume malice without cause when you have evidence of none. For it to be a lie would mean you believe these establishment Christians actively desire to destroy marriage and want feminism to thrive. That assumption weakens your contention. Occam’s Razor tells us to never presume malice when incompetence or misunderstanding is available as an explanation.

    I used the word in accordance of the accepted definition (#3). I didn’t call you a liar, I said the narrative you were laboring under is a lie. If you prefer, I could say fantasy instead. Either way, you are wiggling away from my point instead of addressing it. As I quoted above, you stated:

    Dalrock criticizes Christian marriage as not biblical enough while marriage is speeding in the opposite direction, through legal, cultural, and slothful redefinition, and through an outright rejection of the institution itself as even necessary (hello, PUAs!). This criticism is little better than pissing into the wind.

    I pointed out that this is the exact denial I wrote the post about, the narrative that Christians are fighting the good fight but the culture is running away from them. After chastising me for using the word lie, you acknowledge the reality of my statement while kicking up dust:

    Second, Christians indeed are not “holding it together despite the culture running away from them.” No “denial” here. All marriage — secular, Christian, and otherwise — has been deteriorating for the last half-century. My point was, let’s concentrate on fixing the massive breach in the hull before bailing out the bilge water with teaspoons. You want to criticize the bonds of matrimony made in the sight of God for their imperfections, even as many more are rejecting the holiness of the vow as ipso-facto illegitimate, unnecessary, irrelevant — to the point of actively destroying the institution. Ease down on the persecution of the God-fearing who still yet sin, unless you simultaneously honor the fact that they began with the right idea. Otherwise you encourage them to relinquish that foundational idea, as they “go their own way” and follow the cue of “PUA” marriage hatred. One calamity at a time, shall we?

    I’m not persecuting the God-fearing. I’m trying to burn through the rampant denial. Denial you yourself engaged in just a bit above until you switched from that to denying you were ever in denial. We can’t repent if we don’t acknowledge that the narrative simply isn’t true.

  177. Anonymous _Guy says:

    Rollo,

    Well the view you speak of here is very simplistic and I don’t think Cane is like that. I’m sure he uses modern medicine and watches the weather channel to. Part of the reason for the West’s success is that the belief that a loving God had created an ordered world – in which regularities (note: we don’t even need to use the phrase “laws of nature”) could be discovered, mapped, and harnessed – was so widespread. Prayer is just taken to the next level now.

    This is a move up from the ancient world’s common belief that all was governed by fate and that progress was impossible. History need not be seen only cyclically (the seasons) but can be seen as moving towards a goal.

  178. I’m going to make a prediction here: as the gender roles and gender ‘atmosphere’ in the church becomes more and more like a feminist gameshow (willfully, but unwittingly enabled by inveterate christian manginas) and reaches the tipping point where women redefine the popular religion wholesale in the terms of the feminine imperative – this is when you will see a systematic, codified embracing of a christianized form of Game in the church.

    Some enterprising writer with a firm background in the manosphere, and all of the truths that the red pill has enlightened him to for the past decade, will pair this wisdom with just enough scripture, just enough evangelical acculturation and just the right amount of christianese to write “The Game Driven Life”.

    Just like every other secular, humanist, pop-culture phenomenon churchianity covets for being cool and broad-reaching, they’ll wait 5 years, produce a watered down, half-assed imitation, slap a Jesus Fish, Christian Kosher® logo on it and christian males – ignorant of the original because they’re in the world not of the world – will eat up the repackaging and ask for a second helping. And they’ll proudly declare how they alone are getting back to God’s original plan for Man and Woman.

    Fortunately, I only use my superpowers for good,…

  179. Anonymous _Guy says:

    Hah! That’s great. Being a member of a traditional, confessional denomination I can second you on that prediction. You’ve got the evangelical Christian subculture down pretty good. That said, of course Dalrock is right to point out that the concept of manhood/headship in the Bible is something that churches need to recover – and that some of the principles PUAs tout can and should go hand in hand with this.

  180. Anonymous _Guy says:

    Of course not all Christians are so clueless, and sad to say, uneducated.

    Its not just Proverbs that can help us how to understand to live in God’s world. Here are some great Bible passages on the value of learning in general:

    “’In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For
    we are indeed his offspring.’”—The Apostle Paul in Athens, Acts 17:28

    “And as he was saying these things in his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind.”—Festus, in Acts 26:24

    “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure,
    whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything
    worthy of praise, think about these things. What you have learned and received and heard and
    seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.”—Philippians 4:8,9 1

    When Jesus told us to love God with all our mind, I am sure that first and foremost He was thinking of the oracles of God, which of course, lead to Himself – after all “in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col 2:3)”. He is the Truth we should seek! Still, as we see from the passages above, Paul knew more than just the Scriptures and His Lord – for example, he knew, or knew about, prominent pagan poets. Other biblical characters had this “secular” knowledge as well: Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts 7:22). Daniel, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego, as promising young Judean nobles, were chosen by their captives to learn “the literature and language of the Chaldeans”, and “God gave them learning and skill in all literature and wisdom”. (Daniel 1:17)

    I don’t like the way Aristotle synthesized, as he combined theology with pagan learning. Still, we can certainly learn much from those who, in other respects, are dead wrong.

    All truth is God’s truth, as Justin Martyr (2nd c.) said.

  181. Dalrock says:

    @Matt A
    I realized that I should have read further on your reply.

    The “prevailing moral force in the west” is in fact “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism,” not Christianity. We are worse off than other eras because we have labeled this therapeutic deism “Christian,” thereby making its cunning insinuation all the more difficult to detect and eradicate.

    I think we are saying much the same thing here. This strikes me as a similar description of what I’m trying to confront with this post.

    Make no mistake, you do yeoman’s work uncovering this deception, day in and day out. Keep fighting the good fight!

    Thank you.

    Indeed, the name of Christianity is “in a position to truly deny or offer moral cover for divorce.” But to follow Christ is not to be a politically institutionalized force but rather an individual on the Way of the Cross. The more you go after the corruption of the institutions and the contradictory motives behind their crusades, the more you neglect the atomized soulcraft that constitutes true conversion and righteousness.

    I don’t understand this. Going after the corruption isn’t at odds with individual salvation. Indeed, the exact opposite is true. Paul’s letters to the early churches would seem to make this perfectly clear. The corruption can only function as a massive stumbling block. That so few Christians even can spot the corruption only reinforces this.

  182. Fitz says:

    Yes…the Church has done a poor job of countering the sexual revolution and feminism. Authentic Christian men are seen as weak and undesirable. Authentic Christian women seem non-existant and only surface Christians.

    However, it still represents Gods will for humanity and the only effective resistance to the secularist and therefore feminist agenda of the state and international elites.

    Yes we need to take back the Church’s and stop the weakness they exhibit itn refusing to hold woman in particular accountable for the damage they cause themselves and the family.

  183. TFH says:

    Btw, Jesus was dirt poor, single, and died a criminals death

    Jesus looks like Roosh. Genetically, they are from similar geographies too.

    The similarities don’t end there.

  184. ybm says:

    TFH says:
    October 1, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    Interesting, I didn’t know Jesus was an international sex tourist who uses his privilege to have sex with impoverished women.

  185. Cane Caldo says:

    @Rollo

    Where does the Holy Spirit reside, and how does this undercut your assumptions about my prescription–and in fact is a repetition of my perspective on this blog?

    You, Rollo, are the one most likely to write that book, and it will be as insipid as you have predicted.

  186. BC says:

    I disagree with your disagreement. The example is acceptance of homosexuality. There are few monetary incentives involved, but a great deal of “moral” pressure to accede to the normalization of homosexuality in society.

    One, apples and oranges.
    Two, I did not say that (lack of) moral pressure is not a reason. I pointed out that there are also significant financial incentives, and that I believe those financial incentives to be a greater factor. That is to say, “Follow the money.” If there were no cash and prizes for divorce, then it doesn’t matter how much moral acceptance or pressure to normalize divorce there might be – if the little darlings can’t abuse the system to steal the means to support themselves, then it becomes a real-world impossibility for 90+% of them. If you want to rid society of the vast majority of divorce, just get rid of divorce-rape.

    “Follow the money.”

  187. an observer says:

    That is a brilliant book idea. Maybe twelve people could contribute a chapter each.

  188. the importance of marriage is that it is at the center and circumference of property rights–of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    just as moses stated “thou shalt not steal” he also proclaimed “thou shalt not commit adultery.” as within adultery, one man may inseminate a women, while another man is robbed of the child while simultaneously forced to pay for said child. this is a form of theft.

    the inflation tax is also a form of theft, and so, the central fiat bankers specialize in the creation of money alongside the deconstruction of marriage, both of which transfer wealth from the honest, rugged, hardworking man to the buttcockekekrlzolzozlzzlzlzzlzolz and to tucker max rhymes withgoldman slzozollzlzolozlzoz

  189. Random Angeleno says:

    @Logos, @Bob Wallace: you both assume the applicability of man logic to women’s thoughts and actions. As I said above and repeat myself here: Does. Not. Work. At. All.

  190. FuriousFerret says:

    About the Christian Game book.

    I think Joshua Harris is already writing this as we speak.

    Don’t worry he’ll fuck it up.

  191. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    When I wrote a “Christian game” book, it really turned into something closer to a MGTOW style. It was focused on self-development as a Christian, gave a full dose of what to expect from women (as seen in the Bible and in the world), and ultimately ended with the message that you can lead, but they can still flake on you. Therefore, keep the faith and what will be (in terms of women), will be. It’s a patriarch model.

  192. Bob Wallace says:

    @ Random Angeleno

    “you both assume the applicability of man logic to women’s thoughts and actions. As I said above and repeat myself here: Does. Not. Work. At. All.”

    Never said anything of the sort. I don’t particularly listen to what women say, but what they do. The movie “As Good as it Gets” got it right: to understand most women, think of a man and take away reason and accountablity.”

  193. Bob Wallace says:

    @ ImNoBody,

    “Adam, the first man, was guilty of letting his wife lead him. ”

    It’s worse than that. Adam refused to take responsibility for his actions and blamed them on Eve for misleading him. Then Eve refused to take responsibility for her actions and blamed them on the serpent, which is a symbol of envy.

    When people start blaming their problems on other people it’s almost always out of envy. Which is why it’s been pointed out feminism is based on the envy of men (which is why it puts men down) and in response a lot of the Manosphere is based on the envy of women, because it puts them down.

    It’s not a good thing all the way around.

  194. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, resistance to change is a human trait, provided we understand that the change in question is related to a fundamental premise, rather than novelty or fads. Humans like novelty and fads. There are fads in every field, and they feed off of groupthink. 15 to 20 years ago, many police agencies in the US were paying lecturers to come and tell them in detailed ways how to recognize Satanist cells in their community, because “everyone knew” there were Satanists practicing human sacrifice across the country. Someone made an adequate living peddling fear, for a while. I can give a lot more examples, but i chose this one because looking backwards it’s absurd to think that trained observers would sit through seminars of that sort, maybe while the Beanie Baby trader convention was going on in the same building. The absurdity should be both obvious, and amazing. Now ask yourself, what Deep Thoughts are people subscribing to now that resembles either the Satan-worshippers-in-every-park-after-dark, or “this Beanie Baby can only increase in value, forever”? Hmm…

    One can readily see fashions spread through churches, whether it be changing the name of a Bible study to “accountability group”, or stopping the service to have a moment of glad-handing/backslapping/who’s-bringing-the-hotdogs-to-the-picnic “Pass the Peace Pipe” moment. Ditto for music, in some places all one has to do is spend the hour driving from the airport to a hotel while tuned in to the local non-profit church radio station to predict what songs and chants a lot of churches will be doing the next Sunday.

    All of that is basically froth, like sticoms or the colors in the fall dress collection at Macy’s. People like novelty. People do not like to question their deeper held and sometimes unconsciously held assumptions. And that is what Dalrock keeps poking at. That’s why more and more pushback, and displacement, is showing up in the comments. Because it is one thing to say that well, ok, women aren’t quite the angelic creatures that neo-Victorianism teaches. It’s another thing to put that into practice, in lots of ways. It makes people uncomfortable, because it contradicts other things that they believe.

    It now appears to me that the never ending argument about Game is more or less displacement activity. It’s much easier to go on and on about what Game is, whether it is good or bad, whether it is proper for a church going man to even learn about it or not, etc. than to attempt to come to grips with the human behaviors involved. I see a lot of people, mostly men, saying that “Well, yes, of course women are not the same as men, and of course they are just as fallible as men and can behave badly” who then turn right around and discuss marriage in church terms as if women are the same as men in emotional and logical terms, and not as prone to bad behavior.

    It’s a pretty standard idea that in order to form a new habit, we have to do whatever it is every day for 21 days. Want to stop biting your nails? Got to keep those fingers out of your mouth every day for three weeks. Want to read serious books? Got to make a time, even only 30 minutes, to read preferably in the same day every day for three weeks. If we want to actively change some habit, mental or otherwise, we have to push at it every day for weeks, and it may take longer than 21 days.

    If we do not actively reject feminist dogma, then we passively accept it. If we do not tell ourselves day after day, “Women are not just men who can have babies” then that unconscious assumption will continue to color our thinking. This is what the original posting is referring to, in my opinion. First, there are a lot of people who just do not see any denial or foolish thinking in the church. Second, there are those who acknowledge it, but they can’t apply that fact – and so they fall back into the same old White Knighting, What Me, Worry, We’re All Right, Jack mode of reacting.

    It is human nature to resist change of premises, especially unspoken premises. It’s easier to argue about symptoms, than to look at the underlying disorder. That’s what Dalrock is doing. And that’s why some of you get so angry with him – you don’t like what he is shining a light on, and you’d be more comfortable if he’d just turn off the light, and drop the flat rock back down.

  195. platinum missus says:

    not to derail the topic, but please check out this blog post.

    http://gracefortheroad.com/2012/02/03/idontwait/

    Among other things, it shows how the abstinence message given in the church through True Love Waits etc, could be keeping people from marriage. ( Not that the author is against abstinence )

    I’d love to read your opinions on the post and comments :-)

  196. deti says:

    Dalrock, Anon reader:

    Part of the resistance to change is the fundamental realization that the church has bought into and subordinated itself to feminism. I suspect part of the resistance to Game and its intersection with Christianity is a refusal to believe or accept the Church’s complicit role in the destruction of the SMP and Western society. The Church is not the moral bulwark against decay that it used to be.

    A large part of the problem is that feminism and women have coopted the North American Church. Women are the church. They are the vast majority of volunteers, board members, lay leaders, Sunday school teachers, and even a growing number are “pastors”. In current society, women/wives decide where the family attends church and how much will be gifted/tithed. Hapless beta husbands just go along to get along. Most local church activity would absolutely grind to a halt if women withdrew their work and money.

    Pastors are scared to death to do anything to offend the women. I have attended Protestant churches for more than 30 years. I have never once — not ONCE — heard any sermon exegesis on Eph.5 and the command for wives to respect their husbands and submit to them.

    As a result of feminized Christianity, an entire false theology has cropped up which offers twisted Scriptural interpretations to suit the female imperative/mindset. Just an example: “Eph 5 and the command to submit is there, but it is conditional. The husband’s submission to Christ is presumed. If he is not submitted to Christ, I don’t have to submit to my husband. If I don’t believe he is being led by God, then I don’t have to follow him.”

    There are two problems:

    (1) There is a wide chasm between what the Church says is happening in the SMP and how attraction and relationships work; and what the Bible says about them.

    (2) There is a wide chasm betwen what the Church says is happening in the SMP and what is really happening. The Bible’s descriptions of male-female relationships and how they were designed to work is actually closer to what the manosphere says, than to what the Church says.

    From this grows the manifestation of the problems: The Church’s insists that the SMP looks nothing like it really does.

    “No! No! It’s not really like how you men are seeing it! Those women really want you! You just need to go to college and get great jobs and make lots of money and women will flock to you! You just need to pray and give your heart to Jesus and the nice Christian girls will find that really sexy and will want, want want to marry you!”

    “Game is a lie! All you need to do is be strong in the Lord and trust in Him! He will bring your wife to you! You don’t need to be wise like a serpent or gentle as a dove! You don’t need to use your sound mind and actually like, you know, EVALUATE or JUDGE these women, or actually like check them out to see if their stories line up with common sense! Besides, this Game stuff only works on sluts and barflies!”

    “Speaking of sluts, you need to man up and marry one! We have a wide selection in the Used Women Bible Study class! They are all 30+, smart, funny, educated, well employed, well-traveled, well-read, and tell a really good story! Most important, they all need husbands, and it’s your DUTY to pick one here because if you don’t , you’ll be unequally yoked and that’s BAD.”

    “We are Christians. We hate divorce. We hate abortion (and don’t you DARE suggest otherwise). We hate premarital sex and we frown on it. Our single women are told not to do any of those things, but if they do, we know it’s not their fault. So we’re not part of the problem.

  197. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    @platinum missus,
    That’s an interesting angle on this topic of single womanhood in the church. I think it’s worth considering. The failure of the message, as understood by the author, is typical of the modern church.

    God will do for me if I …

    It is the idea that God waits for us to do certain things and then He will reward. It’s a transaction relationship.

    My issue with the modern “church” (often termed Churchianity here and elsewhere) is that this is enormouslessly disrespectful to God. We should worship and live our life according to His commands because He has already blessed up and because He is holy.

    They sell good Christian men false transactions, as well. Do this, supplicate to your wife in this way, etc. and God will reward you.

    In both cases, pastors seem to think they need to “sell” our obedience to God for all sorts of other reasons than His holiness. I think they see declining membership and ask, “How can we convince them that God is good for them, so they sit in the pews.” They haven’t realized that the slow creep of consumerism, feminism, etc. into the sermons does more to turn away the flocks.

    Indeed, “waiting” to become full. You can be full without anything in this world and the angst of not seeing a (false) transaction fulfilled can damage a woman’s (or man’s) relationship with God.

  198. H899nj says:

    (I’m a woman btw)

    Dalrock you are minimizing your potential on these articles if you don’t give an example (particularly a real life woman). While the Church has been co-opted by feminism, many people keep assuming that it’s still in the same shape.

    Sarah Palin is a perfect illustration of Dalrock’s Churchian women. These type of women have made a strange, contradictory and creepy alliance between feminism and social conservatism. What a trojan horse. They’re trying to have it both ways (feminism and motherhood for example) and what does it lead?

    Feminism + “Motherhood” = Single Motherhood (think Bristol, her daughter)

    Rep. Todd Akin is crazy but his gaffe about “legitimate rape” is actually far more traditionally conservative. Conservatives in the past cared about the father, the mother and the child. About the entire unit. About whether this case was legitimate (true) or illegitimate (false). About frivolous abortions, about lack of accountability, about lack of consequences, etc. Abortion fell on the truthfulness of the case, about realism, about ethics, about the entire family.

    Now it’s all women, women, women, women, women, women and ad nauseaum.

    When Rep. Todd Akin talked about “legitimate rape” and earlier this year Barack Obama tried to force the contraception mandate on the RCC (plus did an ad called Julia, a single mother supported by the government) is when the scales from my eyes fell.

    Ironically, the RCC turned me away from feminism despite the fact that they have a couple of crazy feminists in there.

  199. Dalrock wrote:

    Going after the corruption isn’t at odds with individual salvation. Indeed, the exact opposite is true. Paul’s letters to the early churches would seem to make this perfectly clear.

    I imagine so. I am not criticizing your mission so much as your methodology. Ss. Paul of Tarsus and Francis of Assisi reformed corruptions not by intellectually dismantling the arguments for them so much as living their lives properly, and by example they persuaded. “Preach the Gospel always. Use words if necessary.” Paul’s letters to the early churches were not polemics, they were instructions. He had gained the authority to issue those instructions.

    You have no authority beyond the persuasiveness of your rhetoric, which is considerable. You would benefit from applying that persuasiveness to different targets, in the manner of the PUA. Instead of tilting at the windmills of corrupting bogeymen in faraway places, gather a Franciscan following to live the life you preach and thereby provide evidence of a positive alternative to speak your case silently.

    Your method risks intellectually alienating the men and women you are trying to serve before you give them a chance to hear your righteous reasoning. At the same time, you provide plenty of intellectual cover for the men who are struggling in individual parishes to reestablish (or enter into) their marriages with a better biblical foundation. You can achieve the latter without the former by focusing on what unites you rather than what divides you.

    My criticisms aren’t designed to correct your path or change your goals. I am making an argument for the efficiency in achieving those goals. Especially because we have those goals in common.

    Matt

  200. H899nj says:

    I’m thinking both the Protestant and RCC Churches have feminists. The biggest difference is the theology, the habits, the scriptures, the traditions. It’s pretty hard to pervert RCC theology (or Orthodox theology) to suit modern liberalism, modern sensibilities and still be able to feel life (meaning you know it’s a zombie at some level). I’ve always seen RCC/Orthodox feminists/modernists/liberals/etc as zombies at some level. They’re dead but still try to live. Like Nancy Pelosi for example. A zombie. The other types Churchian types, like Sarah Palin, pretend to be alive and they do an awful good job of imitating life.

  201. P.S. I know you weren’t calling me a liar. I just think the word is too much in common currency, all out of proportion with its proper definition (willful deception) and the history of the magnitude of the charge. It used to be called the mentito:

    If one man dared to say “thou liest” to another, he did so in the knowledge that he would have either to apologize at once or fight him to the death. That remnant of the old honor culture, together with a natural fear of poisoning the wells of discourse, must have lived on in the folk memory of the West well into the 20th century. But by the dawn of the 21st, unanswered and unresented (in the old sense of resenting something by issuing a challenge) charges of lying were on their way to becoming the common currency of politics, as they were by the end of the last Bush Administration. As I wrote about the barrage of such charges brought against President George W. Bush in 2004, “The more people accuse each other of lying, the easier it becomes to lie. So long as each side routinely makes such claims about the other anyway, what incentive does anyone have to be scrupulous about the truth?”

  202. Some Guy says:

    The church is in fact promulgating a lie.

    First, they are silent or they twist all the verses about submission, rendering due benevolence, and how to win unbelieving husbands to the Lord.

    Second… if the topic of marriage comes up… what they say is complete bunk.

    My church is currently running a seminar on using communication skills to improve your marriage. Communication…? Gee… that sounds like it’s just chock full of bible-based principles, eh? Other ones I’ve been to… they have someone stand up and say to go have a date night. Oh yeah… shelling out big bucks for a baby sitter and a restaurant… boy… that is just a sure thing, isn’t it? Every time I do that, I just come back feeling energize. My wife just glows for weeks. Date night! Yeah, why didn’t I think of that!?

    It’s a joke. It’d be funny if homes weren’t imploding and children ending up fatherless.

    If there is a problem between a man and his wife… they will sit you down and lay the fault and the responsibility for everything at the feet of the husband. The wife is accountable for NOTHING unless she feeeeeeels it. Every day, they set men lose to try to make their wife’s feeeeelings the foundation of the marriage. Do you realize what will happen if the wife is well down a path of losing attraction and then that happens?! It’s like taking a car that has stalled near cliff and then giving it a really good shove.

  203. platinum missus says:

    @Rock throwing peasant,

    that article speaks a whole lot of truth to a lot of people. even if it wasn’t through the abstinence message, people are told to do ABC and a “godly proverbs 31 wife” or “man after God’s own heart David ” will pop out of the geenie’s bottle!!

    so we have a whole section of the population who’s reason for being single is WAITING. not riding the carousel! just waiting.

    and from the comments, people are frustrated with waiting. one guy called Dustin says, “It’s philosophies like these that leave guys like me giving up on trying to find a good Christian girl. I don’t date Christians anymore because I have been “Jesus dumped” too many times”

    that’s pain right there!!!!

  204. Opus says:

    In the year of Our Lord O A.D. (1 B.C.) in the Roman Empire a most important event took place – yes, the publication at Rome of Ovid’s Art of Love books 1 and 2 in which he advises men to make women wait a bit, but not too much. Is this the first book of Game?

  205. Cail Corishev says:

    Ironically, the RCC turned me away from feminism despite the fact that they have a couple of crazy feminists in there.

    More than a couple, but the tide is starting to turn. The Vatican is finally investigating the women’s religious orders, which by and large went completely bonkers in the 60s and 70s. (Some of the men’s orders aren’t much better, but the women’s orders threw themselves wholeheartedly into all the pop psychology of the times, and lost themselves in a hurry.) They’re dying out anyway. The average age of the pant-suited nun is something like 75, while the few small traditional orders that still wear habits and do traditional nun things like teaching, nursing, and contemplative prayer have waiting lists of young women. It’s the same for men’s orders and the priesthood. Traditional groups that reject, or at least look askance at, Vatican II and its “fruits” are growing as fast as they can handle.

    Pope Benedict unleashed the Latin Mass in 2007, making it possible for lay people to ask for it and priests to say it without permission of their (mostly modernist) bishops. (Pope John Paul II first authorized it, but only as a halfway measure designed to placate some older folks who had never given up on it, while not offending the modernists who thought they had killed it off. Benedict’s decree offended them plenty.) So you can now go to hundreds of parishes in the US and hear Mass said in Latin the way it was for 1500 years.

    I go to one of those parishes, where most of the women wear veils in church and many of them refuse to wear pants in public. Women never go into the sanctuary, unless it’s to get the altar linens for the laundry or to put flowers on the altar — never during services. It’s the only place in real life that I’ve heard people — especially women — talk about the proper roles of male headship and female submission in the family. Families are large, and while we’re still a small group, the demographics are clear: our numbers are growing, while the modernist parishes, by birth control or the incorrect use of NFP as Catholic birth control, aren’t even replacing themselves, not to mention the members they lose due to being lukewarm.

    I don’t say all that to proselytize, but since there are a lot of non-Catholic traditionalists here, who probably get a pretty confusing picture of the Church from the outside, I thought you’d like to know that there are some good things happening there. Right now we’re dragging a heavy anchor in the form of the generation that gave us Vatican II, which kicks and screams against any attempt to roll back any of their innovations. As they retire or die off — and Pope Benedict’s bishop replacements have been very good — we’ll pick up speed.

    We’re still in the world (while trying not to be of it), so we still have to contend with the constant bombardment of feminist/modernist thought. It sure helps to have a sane group of people fighting the same battle alongside you, though.

  206. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    so we have a whole section of the population who’s reason for being single is WAITING. not riding the carousel! just waiting.

    While there’s a difference between riding the carousel and waiting, to the Christian man, it’s a distinction without a difference. As Dustin called it, “Jesus dumped.” Looking at it from my perspective, I can see women waiting for Alpha Preacher Rockstar (to roughly borrow from deti’s models) to kick down their door and the beta Christian men remain “invisible.” Hypergamy without the carousel or, “Yeah, he’s nice, but what if Alpha Preacher Rockstar is going to show up and I kick myself for ‘settling.’”

  207. Opus says:

    Cail Corishev puts me in kind of an experience I had whilst in your country. At some party I met a young pants-wearing Nun. I expressed surprise at her dress whilst simultaneously trying to flirt. I would never have made a pass at a properly dressed Nun – any more than I would at a married-woman. Women should not signify availability if they are not available – we call that ‘prick-teasing’.

  208. Don’t even think it guys,..agh,..too late, you struggle with lust and even conceptualizing it is tantamount to martial infidelity,…”I’m gonna play my ‘free divorce’ token Pat”,…aww so close,…thanks for playing,…

    Tell her what she’s won Johnny,..

  209. deti says:

    The Christian alpha models I’ve been able to identify are:

    1. Will Worship Leader: This alpha is musically talented. He is the spirit-filled, saved version of Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer. “So anointed”, the girls gush. He is high profile because he’s up in front of the congregation every Sunday, calling for clap offerings and displaying his talent and his Christian faith (double tingles). Parents often prod daughters to try to date Will. Bonus preselection points if he was in a secular band, then got saved as a young adult, ’cause he’s “rockin’ it out for Jesus now”. He still has long hair and tattoos. Triple tingles, because the girls all know he got laid like tile before he gave his life to Jesus.

    2. Alan Assistant Pastor: He is a situational alpha because of his position, his energy and his knowledge. He is usually fresh out of seminary, in charge of youth ministry, and full of energy and ideas. He isn’t close to being burned out yet (give him 5 to 7 years. He’ll get there.) He might or might not be good looking. If he is good looking, he’ll tingle most of the girls and some of the older married women. If not, only the homely, weird, misfit girls tingle for him. The married women especially gravitate to Alan.

  210. Anonymous Reader says:

    Imagine the scene if any of several men who have been involved in recent discussions here were to confront Dr. Mohler of the Southern Baptists. First of all, likely he would not want to talk off the cuff, it would have to be a formal discussion in his office, on his terms. And any man who challenged his reading of the Bible would likely be pointed to the Doctor of Divinity diploma on the wall – the challenge being, “I got that credential through years of hard study, serious study. What have you done?” and frankly, I don’t see anyone here with that particular level of credential. Then he’d invite the challenger to join him in study – “Sir, you need to read all these books, and be mentored in the Bible”.

    Because look at it from his point of view. We are challenging a piece of his world view. Likely we are challenging what he was taught, back in the 60′s, or 70′s, or 80′s, by men whom he looked up to. So we are not just going up against him, but against his mentors, and maybe their mentors. Two or three generations of professors, mentors, preachers, etc. and he’s really not going to be inclined to give more than a polite hearing to the views that contradict what he’s teaching.

    The same thing is likely to be true at the local level. Go up and argue with the local pastor / preacher / priest, he’ll play 20 Bible Question Quiz, and likely he’ll win if he picks the right questions. Once he’s established that he knows more about esoteric aspects of Bible quotes than you do, it’s trivial to dismiss any objections as “unschooled”, and encourage you to come to his special accountability Bible studyat 6 AM on Monday morning. This doesn’t’ have to be done in bad faith or as a form of church AMOGing, although it could be. All these men make their living by reading and teaching from the Bible, so claiming they are wrong is akin to telling the airline pilot he’s not flying the right way – at least from their perspective.

    And don’t underestimate group think. Preachers, pastors, priests, etc. often go to the same meetings, conventions, “concern groups”, etc. and share their mindset with each other. So they often are passing ideas around. How likely is it that the anti-feminist notion that “men and women are different in more ways than sexual plumbing” would spread very far, especially if some number of the preachers involved are women?

    There’s a cost to accepting some of the ideas that are now common in the androsphere, for men in leadership positions. A man who has been a pastor, preacher, teacher, professor, etc. in a denomination for his entire career may decided that women preaching is a bad idea, but if it has been accepted in his denomination for any length of time he can’t object without looking for a new job. That’s also going to generate resistance to change. It may be crass, but I believe it to be true.

  211. platinum missus says:

    @RTP

    whether its waiting or riding the carousel and not wanting to settle, I wonder if the world has gotten to this point by overemphasizing romantic love at the expense of important things like character.

    could that be the reason why people on both sides don’t want to “settle”? looking for the high/ tingle that had been sold to us (Mr/s right,prince/ess charming / the “one”), only to end up unhappy after 3 years?

    I’m thinking that the “abstain and God will give you a perfect spouse” may be the Christian version of the romantic tale.

    I’m just wondering aloud………

  212. tbc says:

    @Anon -

    Amen to all you have said. The “business/career” side of church keeps a lot of preacher/priests from speaking up. That and the social pressure to cave from their congregants. Group think is very strong PLUS there is a good bit of good old fashioned prideful arrogance that comes from having studied the Bible so much. They really do think they know more than anyone else.

    I myself have some theology training (shhhh don’t tell anyone) and have read A LOT on the issues around women in ministry, wifely submission and so on. I can tell you that from my reading most of their arguments are very poor from a scholarly perspective and the reason they get traction is because of social pressure (the same kind of pressure that led to homosexuality being changed from being listed as a mental disorder but I digress).

  213. Anonymous Reader says:

    platinum missus
    whether its waiting or riding the carousel and not wanting to settle, I wonder if the world has gotten to this point by overemphasizing romantic love at the expense of important things like character.

    No kidding. There are various forms of the mind set “There Is Only One Perfect Mate For Me”, also known as “Oneitis”. Men who have never been able to attract the attention of a woman are prone to fall into Oneitis when they finally get a gurl-friend. Massive betaization, followed by loss of ability to lead and thus attractiveness, all but certain to follow.

    Women all too often tend to create the Perfect Boyfriend in their mind, maybe out of their favorite r om-porn novel, and compare all the men around to him. Guess what? No real man ever can measure up. And as the years go by, the bullet-point list of “Must Have” qualities just gets longer, when logic would suggest it should be getting shorter.

    Too many churches teach young women that there is one perfect man for them, and when the time is right he’ll just pop up on their doorstep. They don’t have to do anything other than remain as close to sexually virgin (low N) as possible. So what does that imply about the imperfect men they meet? “He’s not The One”, eh?

    Oneitis. It’s just a bad idea, for anyone.

  214. tbc says:

    How likely is it that the anti-feminist notion that “men and women are different in more ways than sexual plumbing” would spread very far, especially if some number of the preachers involved are women?

    Actually this idea is spreading and gaining currency amongst many of the most feminist except not in the ways you would want. The idea is that women being more intuitive, emotional, and so on, are actually better at important spiritual things. It is not too many far steps from there to “mother/father God” talk and all that other weird new-agey crap that has crept into the church.

    So feminism wins again, because men and women are exactly the same except that women are better than men at all the things that matter, but anything she does wrong is the man’s fault somehow because he is keeping her down or not leading her well, but if he leads her too much then he’s a bully and the man is accountable for that too.

  215. Cane Caldo says:

    @tbc

    It is not too many far steps from there to “mother/father God” talk and all that other weird new-agey crap that has crept into the church.

    Too late, in one sense. Check out the new NIV. There are reactionaries though, and they’re gaining strength and numbers. In another sense, though: There are a good number of pastors declaiming specifically that translation. This creates space for more and better criticism of feminism in churches.

    @AR

    The same thing is likely to be true at the local level.

    I haven’t found this to be the case; at least not across the board. So far, I’m batting .667 success in getting at least a genuinely good verbal response. The other guy didn’t care about credentials, or anything like it. He simply is afraid of change, and said so. The good thing about his attitude is that since he’s not even interested in leading, if I can get a couple other guys on-board, he’ll turn.

    No doubt Mohler is as you say. We don’t have to worry about him. In the 80s and early 90s, the SBC leadership was actively liberal. They turned in the late 90s because of pastor revolt. This was about the time that the SBC released a statement that they believed in husbands leading the church and homes (good statement; lousy implementation) and the press went nuts…for no reason, really. To be honest, it was just more cover for women to do less. Split the kids and housework 50/50 (because we need to be faaair), and men should make more money for their wives.

    Sorry for the tangent: The point is that this isn’t as difficult as you might think. Most men are pussies, these days. Yes, the clergy too; in many cases especially so. We know this. We should not fear them. If we get our own houses in order, we can put out the fires at church relatively easily.

  216. Dalrock says:

    @King A

    You have no authority beyond the persuasiveness of your rhetoric, which is considerable. You would benefit from applying that persuasiveness to different targets, in the manner of the PUA. Instead of tilting at the windmills of corrupting bogeymen in faraway places, gather a Franciscan following to live the life you preach and thereby provide evidence of a positive alternative to speak your case silently.

    As for my authority, I would be delighted to have the leaders of the church be the ones addressing this. But how many decades must we wait for them to start? How much more destruction of biblical marriage must occur? How many millions more children separated from their fathers? How many more millions of men must learn to fear marriage because Christians couldn’t be bothered to follow the Bible over feminism?

    Beyond that, I’m not tilting at windmills; what I’m pointing out is all too real. I’ve been doing this for over two years now. When I started the responses were that yes, that other man’s church over there sure is misguided. I’m sure fortunate my church isn’t. No feminism or tolerance of divorce here. So I set out to either prove them right or dismantle the myth. The problem is no one will admit they are corrupt. It is in the nature of corruption. No matter how much corruption I point out, the claim is sure yeah that one too, but not mine.

    As I said, I’ve been looking for this mythical non corrupt church for over two years now. The examples I find are small enclaves which are bucking the trend within their own denomination, as Cail Corishev describes above. Even there, while it is very heartening to know that groups are fighting the trend I also see members of these same groups saying astounding things. Darwin Catholic is one example with his defense of delayed marriage and his disapproval of women who don’t first attain a degree and career before marriage. This woman is another example. Either way the exceptions prove the rule. To the extent that they exist and are bucking feminism, they are bucking their own leadership to do so. To the extent that they are already bucking the system, they know they are outnumbered. Those who fight the system every day should only welcome someone else calling it out. On the other hand, if they aren’t aware of the corruption around them, can they really be fighting it?

    Your method risks intellectually alienating the men and women you are trying to serve before you give them a chance to hear your righteous reasoning. At the same time, you provide plenty of intellectual cover for the men who are struggling in individual parishes to reestablish (or enter into) their marriages with a better biblical foundation. You can achieve the latter without the former by focusing on what unites you rather than what divides you.

    The problem is the comfortable way is the way of corruption. You want me to fight corruption without making anyone uncomfortable. I wish I could. It would make it much easier. Focusing on the sin of Roissy is safe and comfortable. It poses absolutely no risk to the feminists who have taken over the church. You won’t lose any Christian friends by doing so; the only risk is a sore back from receiving a swarm of vigorous pats of approval. It is also the very crutch that has allowed Christians to deny the reality of what we have done. Look at GKC’s quote in the OP. This is a serious Christian man, and a very learned one. Yet mention Roissy to him and he claims that Christians haven’t really failed on a colossal scale by abandoning biblical marriage, and Glenn Stanton is just trying to be nice.

  217. greyghost says:

    This has got to be the most amazing thing ever to witness. Dalrock you are violating the essence of who these people are even if it is based on a lie it is all they have. Because if the essence was founded in faith they would welcome the conversation. The only other time I have seen this is in the black community. Some black people buy into the geto hood black victim culture and would rather go to prison than give up keeping it real. It is bizarre.
    Dalrock you are right on this and I don’t know if you will ever see the day when the churchian church becomes of christian faith again. But you can bet this period in time will be remembered as a major event.

  218. Dalrock & Vox’s Christianity is not the Christianity of Jesus Christ. though neither is the modern feminisnst’s church’s lzozlzozozozol

    Posted this at Dalrock’s blog, who placed my comments in limbo, as the words of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount are considered to be “too disruptive” on a Christian blog. lzozlzozozlzo. & dat is why like d da heartsites as heartises never cesors da words of jesus christ as heartsites does not fear them zlzolzoozzlzoz for his soul is pure

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/losing-control-of-the-narrative/#comments

    Interesting that this post should be titled “losing the narrative.”

    Dalrock states that Christians need “Game,” and Vox writes, “I’m neither the first nor the only one to notice the intrinsic relationship between Biblical Christianity and the foundational concepts of Game: Women are fallen and women are inherently different than men. Being truth, Game is a subset of Christianity that happens to relate to an area of particular importance and interest to men.”

    Vox states that Game is Truth and that it is a subset of Christianity. The most-respected, most-read, and most-profound blogger on Game is Heartiste. His “Sixteen Commandments of Poon” summarize Game:

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/

    Heartiste makes no claims of being a Christian, but he may well be, as there are those who say they are not going, who go, just as there are those who say they are going, who do not go.

    Dalrock and Vox are stating that the teachings of Heartiste are the same as those of Christ, who, by all accounts, defines Christianity. Dalrock and Vox are thus submitting that the Sermon on the Mount actually goes something like this:

    The Beginning of the Sermon on the Mount
    1 And seeing the multitudes, Dalrock went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciple Vox came unto him:
    2 and he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

    The Beatitudes
    Lk. 6.20-23
    3 ¶ Blessed are those who fuck her good: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
    4 ¶ Blessed are they that ignore her beauty: for they shall be comforted. Is. 61.2
    5 ¶ Blessed are the irrationally self-confident: for they shall inherit the earth. Ps. 37.11
    6 ¶ Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after two women in the kitty: for they shall be filled. Is. 55.1, 2
    7 ¶ Blessed are the ones who never say “i love you” first: for they shall obtain mercy.
    8 ¶ Blessed are they that keep her guessing and never marry her: for they shall see God. Ps. 24.4, 5
    9 ¶ Blessed are they that make her jealous: for they shall be called the children of God.
    10 ¶ Blessed are they which are persecuted for too much boldness: 1 Pet. 3.14 for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
    11 ¶ Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for Game’s sake. 1 Pet. 4.14
    12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets 2 Chr. 36.16 · Acts 7.52 which were before you.

    Folks–if we are to regain Christianity, will it come from men acting less Christain and perverting the teachings of Christ, or will it come from men following the true teachings of Christ over Game?

    I leave you with the true teachings of Christ, and I fully understand that I may be censored/banned/persecuted for doing so:

    The Beginning of the Sermon on the Mount
    1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
    2 and he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

    The Beatitudes
    Lk. 6.20-23
    3 ¶ Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
    4 ¶ Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Is. 61.2
    5 ¶ Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Ps. 37.11
    6 ¶ Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Is. 55.1, 2
    7 ¶ Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
    8 ¶ Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Ps. 24.4, 5
    9 ¶ Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
    10 ¶ Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: 1 Pet. 3.14 for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
    11 ¶ Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 1 Pet. 4.14
    12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets 2 Chr. 36.16 · Acts 7.52 which were before you.

    The Salt of the Earth
    13 ¶ Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Mk. 9.50 · Lk. 14.34, 35

  219. BC says:

    I’ve been looking for this mythical non corrupt church for over two years now. The examples I find are small enclaves which are bucking the trend within their own denomination, [...] To the extent that they exist and are bucking feminism, they are bucking their own leadership to do so. To the extent that they are already bucking the system, they know they are outnumbered.

    Home schooling is a growing movement with support groups and increasing inter-connection and cooperation both within communities and long-distance via the internet. This is because a) it works, and b) there really is no hope of reforming the public school system (and even most private schools are just public school 2.0).

    Similarly, given that there is also little to no hope of reforming Churchianity, I think home churching becomes one of the few viable options remaining until and unless such reform takes place.

  220. sunshinemary says:

    @ King A
    Thanks for your response way up thread. At first I was hesitant to reply here in case it’s too OT, but actually I think it’s sort of related in a way. The thing is, this woman has a public ministry. She went on Oprah. On Oprah! It’s beyond belief.

    Despite all that, and despite some sassy words spoken about her on my blog, she wasn’t really shamed. Here’s the deal with slut-shaming. I’m not sure what guys here think it used to be, but here is what is wasn’t.

    It wasn’t some wise, grave Patriarch gently taking the woman aside and with solemn tenderness pointing out to her the folly and sin she had committed, to which she responded with grateful tears and went out with an angelic glow on her face and a hallelujah on her lips to sin no more. That has never been what slut-shaming looked like – in fact, I doubt if it’s ever been the realm of men.

    Slut shaming was carried about by other women. Slut shaming was when the slutty woman heard titters behind her back. It was a group of women chatting and giggling and going silent when she walked up. It was not getting the memo about the ladies’ bake sale and being the only lady not to bring something. She heard and saw all this, and just tried to walk by with her cheeks on fire. It was horrible and ugly and effective.

    I don’t think we should pretend like this was some lovely tradition the church has let fall by the wayside. I think people should really understand what it looks like in real life before they call for its reinstatement. A half-@ssed version of it would be entirely useless.

    Hebrews 12:11 – No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

  221. Pingback: Game is not biblical or a good solution for Christians in their relationships « witnessofthefall

  222. Nah, the Patriarch would just bang them:

    And she put her widow’s garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife. When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face. And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me? And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it?
    (Gen 38:14-17)

  223. tg moderator says:

    I have been expecting Mormonism to have an impact on mainstream Christian churches for some time now and it has not happened. Perhaps if we have an LDS president? The LDS church is highly patriarchal and grwoing in numbers. A lot of mainstream Christian congragations are aging and dying out literally. You would think they might notice what works and copy part of it–just leave out the stuff about golden plates.

  224. Cane Caldo says:

    @SSM

    I’ve said before that I think slut-shaming was a good idea, but I was really going for slut-shunning. I know you’ve addressed this already, but I think it helps to understand how the mechanism works.

    Shame is generated internally, not externally. Plenty of people are shamed that should not be, and even more are unabashed that should be mortified.

    Secondly, she’s not in your sphere. She doesn’t go to your church. She’s not among your friends. You simply don’t have any impact on her life. For either shaming or shunning to be effective, you have to first draw them in, and because we’re sons and daughters of God, that means we have to be earnest in these efforts. That means making honest friends before we can make them honest enemies so that they might be honest friends again. It’s a paradox, and one I would say even Matt King missed in a comment he made about seducing a woman only to backhand her, and turn her over to her husband. That struck me as demonic in the truest since–playing the role of the adversary.

    The bottom line is: Is your desire to bring her to the cross, or to raise her up on it? Because the second bit must be of her own if it is to be worthwhile. Shame is generated internally.

  225. platinum missus says:

    @ RTP, you are right on the money about Oneitis.

    another thing I noted about the effects of the “abstinence for David_type husband” deal is the anger,bitterness and disillusionment that comes as you get older and a spouse is not in sight. one person commenting said how a friend (or is it herself ) left the faith after being burnt as a result of this “theology” .

    the author says it too:

    You’re right, God,” they say. “We’re not satisfied in you yet. We will put you first and then you can bring us a husband in your timing.”

    But many of them – if they’re honest – will tell you that time has passed, and it’s wrecking their view of God.

    If this is who God’s supposed to be, then He’s tragically late.

    So some decide to chuck “Lady in Waiting” out the window … and possibly their virginity with it. Church goes next. God might go next, too. If He doesn’t answer these prayers after they’ve held up their end of the bargain, why would He answer any others?

    Whether it was the fault of the leaders, the fault of us girls, or both, a tragedy happened back then.”

    it’s one thing that people may remain perpetually single from these messages, but when people leave the church in anger and bitterness like that, I think it’s even harder for them to return. it might be easier to convert an atheist!

  226. @ Deti

    “Game is a lie! All you need to do is be strong in the Lord and trust in Him! He will bring your wife to you! You don’t need to be wise like a serpent or gentle as a dove! You don’t need to use your sound mind and actually like, you know, EVALUATE or JUDGE these women, or actually like check them out to see if their stories line up with common sense! Besides, this Game stuff only works on sluts and barflies!”

    This is a complete and disingenuous strawman.

    Abraham sent his servant out to look for a wife for his son. The servant went and looked, he wasn’t just sitting around on his thumbs. But he depended on and prayed to the Lord for help, and he provided. There was no game involved. Of course these were different times, but I ‘d like to know where you can find “game” in the Bible, and if you do, why do you re-label it into a worldly term such as “game”, when the scriptures not only precede “game”, but also supreme.

    Secondly, using your sound mind to evaluate and judge women doesn’t require “game”. I’m quite certain people did that before “Game” even came on the scene. In fact, you already mentioned it that the Bible says “be wise like a serpent”. So tell me, what does “game” offer that isn’t sinful that wasn’t already commanded in the Bible? And again, if you only “pick” the principles of “game” that are “biblical”, why do you need to refer to “game” at all, especially when you claim to be a Christian?

    Let’s suppose you and others only support certain aspects of “game” that are “biblical”. You would assume then, that there is no difference between them (both are the same). But that would be incorrect too. It has to do with your mindset. When a man uses game, he has a worldly mindset. He is using these “tools” in attempt to get a particular outcome. The whole focus is on his girlfriend/wife and what he needs to do to make sure she doesn’t betray him. This is just really another form of pedestalizing her. However, if one follows the Bible, it is because God commanded so, not in response to our own desires/will. As others have said before, in using “game”, you are not encouraging godly submission, instead, she submits because of the “tingles” you are providing. And what if you unknowingly drop your “game” during a period, what if someone with stronger “game” than you seduces her? You can only hope she will remain faithful – But what gives more assurance – that she has submitted because she was brought to fear God, or because of emotional attachment and tingles you’ve provided?

    I will say that “Game” gave me insight into female behavior and character. However, when I look back into scriptures, I see that it was already there, just that I overlooked it. But that is the extent that I will credit “game”, is that it can give you insight. There is no need to actively USE “game”. If it is biblical, then go about it with a biblical mindset. For example, game tells us that women like confident men. Now I’m not going to act/be more confident so I can get girls/my wife to stay attracted to me. I’m going to be brave and courageous because God commanded me to be. Seemingly the same apparent result, except in the second instance, I’ve placed God first, I’m following his commands (with the right motive), and I’m not pandering. The question is do you believe in the sufficiency of God’s word regarding spiritual matters?

  227. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2012/10/03 « Free Northerner

  228. Random Angeleno says:

    @YouHaveMyPermission: yes to your question. The problem, however, is that relationships between men and women also exist on the physical and mental level as well as on the spiritual level. And that no one is perfect. Even the best women can still sin.

    So the proper question for you is do you believe God’s word should be sufficient to command women’s respect? If yes, do you believe God’s word IS sufficient to command women’s respect?

  229. @ Random Angeleno

    I believe God’s word is sufficient to command respect from any genuine Christian.

    What I’ve noticed is that many people here don’t seem to realize or haven’t pointed out that many who say they are Christian aren’t truly regenerate or born-again. For example, I read one story of a women divorcing and marrying (and remarrying) 3 times over 5 years and has no problem with it? She calls herself a Christian, do we really believe that? Do we really believe a genuine Christian would be a feminist? It’s not impossible, but most likely not.

    We really need to make these distinctions before we talk about the power of the word of God. His sheep listen to his voice. Goats don’t listen to his voice, it is foolishness to them. Now a sheep can wander off too, but not indefinitely. And more often than not, I believe we are looking at goats, and I don’t believe lost sheep can hold such extreme views like feminists do especially when the word of God has been pointed out to them.

    Submission can be difficult. I understand that if a woman doesn’t submit, it doesn’t mean she isn’t regenerate because it may be a struggle for her (although she is still sinning). However, when someone has no qualms about divorce and disobeying God’s command, taking cash and prizes and all that, it’s likely we aren’t talking about a born-again Christian who is just weak in her sin. Is the solution “game”? No, the first step is for her to be saved!

    So when we are talking about false Christians, you are right to believe the word of God has no effect on them, I don’t disagree.

  230. FuriousFerret says:

    Deti

    You missed some Christian alphas:

    Rick Rebellious – Rick is the ‘bad boy’ of the Christian young adults circuit. Rick enjoys the pleasures of sex, drugs and rock n roll. Rick gives off the devil may care alpha attitude while employing the current trends of modern day style. Reason would dictate that amoung evangelicals that Rick would be a pariah within these religious circles. This is simply not the case especially with the women. He is simply a lost soul who needs to be shown the light. However, Rick either attends religious fuctions because he is still under his parents house and still somewhat follows their value system or he is seeking to suck up the talent at Sunday Morning Nightclub. Multiple women will ‘see the good’ in Rick and attempt to guide him on the path of the straight and narrow. This process involves a lot of blowjobs and doggy style sex.

    Personally, I don’t hate on Rick at all. When the church shovels bullshit down ones mouth, acting in the manner of Rick is actually an intelligent response. You want to stay as far away from the horrible teachings as possible and the world gives a better alternative to a youth than having your balls cut off.

    Scotty Sportsman – The male Adonis of Church. While he can acts like the biggest beta of Churchanity the world as ever seen, his physique does most of the heavy lifting. Often times the ones that actually accept beta programming will end up with a solid HB 5 while he is at least a solid 8 in physical terms. Most of the time this HB 5 will be the biggest entitled bitch that has graced the universe. Having this hunk on her arms validates her even more into a super EAP. Marriage will result in Scotty having his nuts in a vice and being a slave at home. His only release the pickup basketball games and sunday football (if she lets him watch).

  231. Cail Corishev says:

    I ‘d like to know where you can find “game” in the Bible

    Read this blog, and others it links to. People have documented the Scriptural basis for these concepts many times over.

    As for why we call it game when the Bible doesn’t use that word? The Bible doesn’t use a lot of words. It’s generally not a how-to book. It doesn’t give instructions on birthing babies; it tells us to be fruitful and multiply. It says to feed the poor, but doesn’t explain how to grow corn. Likewise, it tells us that men are to lead women, and even gives examples of that and examples of people failing in it, starting with Adam and Eve. It’s up to us to use our brains to apply the general to the particular in figuring out what practical actions that requires in a marriage or a dating situation.

    There’s also John 21. 25: “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” Perhaps Jesus did teach His disciples a few things about game, and those just weren’t among the few things that got written down later. (Yes, I’m being a little silly there, but I hope you get the point. The Bible itself points out that it doesn’t say everything about everything.)

  232. infowarrior1 says:

    @Cane Caldo
    “Too late, in one sense. Check out the new NIV”

    How dare they profane the word of god!!!!!

  233. @ Cail Corishev

    All of those are worldly matters. People and relationships are a whole different thing because they are spiritual beings.

    Like I said earlier, why the need to call something like confidence as part of “game”? Why not just be brave and courageous because the Bible says so? People think they have to turn to “game” because they aren’t familiar with the Bible. Lots of things are already in there including a woman’s nature, how men ought to be, and building character – you just need to find it.

    And as I have already said – for the “game” principles that are scripturally backed, why not just do what the Bible says instead? I already gave one critical difference between the two, which is the mindset. The other problem is that “game” is not exactly associated with Christianity, nor does it give good testimony. Like I said, “game” did give me some insight. I do agree there are parts that can be neutral, but do we really need to use that term? What happens when non-believers observe us? Yep, those Christian men and women are exactly like us, they advocate worldly philosophies used mainly by sleezebags. It doesn’t matter that you aren’t (or only choosing things that are scriptural), the point is you’ve already caused them to stumble, and Christians that would’ve otherwise be willing to learn more would probably be put off – that’s not very helpful.

    What does “game” mean to people here anyway? Everyone has a different definition. If you really want to help men, then at least have a scriptural version of it outlining some principles:

    E.g
    1. Confidence… (and then have the scriptures that say so)
    2. Men should be in leadership… (scripture)
    3. Women by nature, desire (unconsciously or otherwise) to control men… (scripture)
    4. Men need to love their wives like Christ loves the Church – how? Not by supplicating, but by… (scripture)

    etc etc.

    I mean it should be instructive and give the right mindset (because they can see they are doing God’s will, and not simply pandering – which makes a HUGE difference). Of course it’s going to require a lot of time and effort, but just saying “use game” isn’t helping the average Christian man. Now even with this, I’m not sure how many people it would really help, either way, its always worth pointing out the truth. What I really believe needs to happen is a change in the Church, but I really have no idea how to get it out of it’s pathetic state other than by praying.

    Another point I’d like to make is that we should start with ourselves. There are many other aspect of our lives that we need to improve on, not just marriage. We should be more Christ-like in every aspect, I do believe that would affect a Christian wife and also give you spiritual authority when others see how you live.

  234. FuriousFerret says:

    @YouHaveMyPermission

    ‘Do we really believe a genuine Christian would be a feminist? It’s not impossible, but most likely not. ‘

    The ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy gets tiring around here.

    Look, getting saved by Jesus is a very simple act. It’s a gift. Just because you become saved doesn’t mean the whole world is enlighted and illuminated. There are tons of people that are Christians that hold beliefs contrary to the bible that are saved, they are just not as strong as others.

    Feminism isn’t even seen to be incompatible with Christianity by the mainstream. Well, they might say they don’t believe in Feminism but when push comes to shove they embrace most of it. A tradcon would say I’m not a feminist at all. Ok you reply, so you think your daughter should forgo a career and get married early and have kids? The vast majority of tradcons would recoil in horror and say ‘NOOOOOOOO, she must be empowered and have income and blah blah blah’. ‘Oh and she will remain this chaste little angel until her mid-late 20s when she will marry Tim Tebow lite and be on her way to be Vice Prez of Human Resources’.

    Also most Trad Cons belive that men are evil buffons ( Feminism). That women are sweet little angels that are corrupted by men. So are all these people not Christians? Heaven’s going to be a lonely place with all these No True Scotsman Christian not making the cut.

  235. A Christian that is born again is a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17). “Getting saved” is not merely an intellectual assent to the gospel. It is a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit, and those that are saved are bound under the law of the Spirit of life. A born again Christian cannot be comfortable in rebellion against God as many of the women in these cases seem to be.

    Now I know sanctification is a long process, and some remain weak their whole lives – but that is not the issue. The issue is salvation – and the proof of regeneration can be seen by the bearing of fruit. But to ignore that many who say they are saved but aren’t, is simply ignoring the truth.

    “But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
    - Matthew 7:14

    ***MANY*** will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
    - Matthew 7:22-34

    According to Wikipedia, almost 80% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Boy the scriptures really got it wrong, it should read “wide is the gate and wide is the road that leads to life, and most find it”.

  236. FuriousFerret says:

    Most of those 80 percent just say so out of tradition.

    I was talking about the evangelicals. They are the ones that indirectly support feminism. Most Christians have it so wrong it’s not even funny. Basically from what I have seen, they co-opt everything that the secular world does in terms of mentality and culture but just Christianize it. ‘Buddy Jesus’ and ‘Jesus is my Boyfriend’ come to mind. Also see Cartman crossing out every word of baby and replacing with Jesus to describe all Christian pop music.

    There is nothing new under the sun. This is ageless practice. The high Christian holidays all have very demonic pagan roots. They were used by the catholic church to allow pagans to more readily adopt Christianity. Christmas and Easter are pagan holidays, they are the summer and winter solstice. Almost every single tradition for these holidays have pagan roots. For instance, the summer solstice is about life and fertility and the various gods are worshiped for it. What are the symbols for Easter, the bunny rabbit and an egg. What screws more in nature than bunny?

    Do celebrate Christmas and Easter, the high satanic holidays of the pagans? Well sir, are you a TRUE Christian then?

    This is the same as something like Feminism and the church. While the pure Feminism is rejected just as the pure meaning of Easter is rejected, the spirit lives on in a watered down format. I don’t think they are not true Christians because of this. I just think that snobs like to exclude people. See Puritians, Quakers, Amish.

  237. FuriousFerret says:

    Also,

    do you particate in any of the following entertainment options:

    Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter. Actually any fantasy to tell you the truth.

    All of these violate the clause about graven images, witchcraft and worshiping other gods.

    I discussed this with a very pious, SWPL, clean cut pastor’s son at work. I mentioned that according to the bible all these things are pagan and satanic. He whole hearted disagreed and gave me a bunch of shitty reasons why it wasn’t.

    I told him that I have no problems with him doing these things, I could care less, I just had a problem with hypocrisy. That you shouldn’t be lukewarm. If you’re going to sin, sin boldly. He replied that if he thought that they were sin it just couldn’t bare to have that on his conscience. Dude totally hamstered it away. All I wanted from him was say yeah it’s sin and I’m going to do it anyway. That I can respect but to be a pussy and say that this means something that it doesn’t.

    I mean is this guy a TRUE christian when he partakes in satanic stories and games? People were stoned for this stuff back in the day.

  238. Franklin says:

    I don’t understand why any moral person would stick with Christianity. Christianity was once a strong moral force, but no longer. Now it is weak and decadent. It didn’t even have the guts to stand up to the 3 sluts of Pussy Riot. Those seeking morality should look to Orthodox Judaism or Islam.

  239. JoeS says:

    “It wasn’t some wise, grave Patriarch gently taking the woman aside and with solemn tenderness pointing out to her the folly and sin she had committed, to which she responded with grateful tears and went out with an angelic glow on her face and a hallelujah on her lips to sin no more. That has never been what slut-shaming looked like – in fact, I doubt if it’s ever been the realm of men.”

    In the past loose women faced very severe, sometimes physical consequences for their immoral behavior. No man would marry a woman with such a reputation, and she could easily end up on the street. At the lowest social level.

    Today, loose behavior in women is tolerated by fathers and clergy and prospective husbands.

    In the past the pecking order of women was, in many communities, led by women who were under men who had no patience for slutty women, and reflected those values. Today the pecking order of women is led by women attached to married “alphas” and “white knights” who think no one is good enough for their slutty daughters.

  240. Some Guy says:

    @FuriousFerret — Okay, you don’t know anything about the Lord of the Rings.

    There are no references to any sort of pre-christian religion in it except for (maybe) two things: Faramir’s men have a moment of silence before they ate… and there is a reference to “heathen kings” burning themselves to death. That’s it.

    Going by Tolkien’s grave stone and biography, it appears that one of the underlying themes of the story is reconciling Catholicism with Protestantism– he was a Catholic that married a protestant and the tales reflect that in cases where immortal elves married mortal men. The story of the island of Numenor recapitulates the story of the fall from Genesis. Finally, the salvation of the “Free Peoples” in Middle Earth hinged on each major character showing mercy to someone that didn’t deserve it. Not the strength of Gondor. Not the “wisdom” of Saruman. The entire plot of the book can be summarized with 1 Cor 27: “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.”

    You get a far more inspiring Christian message from that book than you get going into most churches.

  241. Cane Caldo says:

    They were used by the catholic church to allow pagans to more readily adopt Christianity. Christmas and Easter are pagan holidays, they are the summer and winter solstice. Almost every single tradition for these holidays have pagan roots. For instance, the summer solstice is about life and fertility and the various gods are worshiped for it. What are the symbols for Easter, the bunny rabbit and an egg. What screws more in nature than bunny?

    Yule and Oester have been eaten by the church, and the waste of them eliminated. What comes out of the church’s mouth is Christmas and Easter, and they are good.

    I told him that I have no problems with him doing these things, I could care less, I just had a problem with hypocrisy. That you shouldn’t be lukewarm. If you’re going to sin, sin boldly. He replied that if he thought that they were sin it just couldn’t bare to have that on his conscience. Dude totally hamstered it away. All I wanted from him was say yeah it’s sin and I’m going to do it anyway. That I can respect but to be a pussy and say that this means something that it doesn’t.

    What is your point with this paragraph?

    I don’t think you understand what sin is. Sin is not “the act of doing, saying, or thinking something wrong.” It’s more akin to feeling something wrong; it’s desire of something that you should not desire. The act, word, or thought is the evil; the fruit of sin.

    “Be angry, and do not desire what you should not.”

  242. Do celebrate Christmas and Easter, the high satanic holidays of the pagans?

    Ahem. And ahem part two.

  243. FuriousFerret says:

    All three last post illustrate what I’m talking about.

    I don’t care if you do those things, I simply detest the hypocrisy. I wish people would just own up to it. I do sinful things and I don’t deny it.

    I looked at the zippy catholic posts and then did a google on christmas and easter. I still believe from these that they pagan in origin and that paganism still permates through the modern day celebration and rubs a big old pagan cock across Jesus’ face.

    http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/holidays2.htm
    http://www.hope-of-israel.org/cmas1.htm

    The Washington Redskins are my NFL team. When political correctness came of age, the term Redskins was examined and called out by some in the media and the Native Americans. You know what the Redskins did in response. They came up with some bullshit that the Redskins are named so because of the practice of the native tribes of DC putting red clay on their body before they went to war. That is utter bullshit. Redskins is totally a racial slur and has been used throughout American history to refer to Natives in a degatory name. It’s just that back in 1935 nobody cared about potically correct non-sense so it’s wasn’t a big deal. Hell the coach at the time was half native american.

    That’s you. You’re the Redskins. Your tradition is under attack and you come up with bullshit to hamster it away. It’s the same with Feminism and tradcons. They won’t give it up and will hamster it away even though the evidence is staring them in the face.

    Why is it so hard to say I know their pagan and it doesn’t honor God to stamp his name on other dieties holidays but I like it and am going to do it anyway? That’s respectable. You’re not being a coward.

    @Some Guy

    Any media with unicorn, magic, dragons, elfs it’s all idols and graven images along with sorcery. This is forbidden in the bible. Again just say you like it and that’s it’s biblically wrong and do it anyway. That’s what I do. I own up to stuff and don’t try to make myself look righteous.

  244. Cane Caldo says:

    @FF

    You’ve been raised in a culture that is not just surrounded by PC thinking, but submerged in it. So, you become conspiratorial in your thinking, because many people are trying to perpetrate a conspiracy.

    One sympathizes.

    However; you can’t stop thinking from this conspiracy paradigm, even though you’re trying to reject it. So, ironically, whenever someone says something that smacks of piercing a conspiracy, you swallow it whole.

  245. Some Guy says:

    Gandalf is neither a witch nor a sorcerer. He is some sort of angelic being in human flesh… on an errand from the creator.

    If you read it closely… you can see that the book is sort of a speculative history… one which starts with Christian views of nature and reality (as the devout Catholic Tolikien understood them)… but then provides an explanation of what could have been the “real” thing behind the stories told among non-Christian “Northern” peoples.

    “Any media with unicorn, magic, dragons, elfs it’s all idols and graven images along with sorcery.”

    So what about the dragons that are in the bible…?

    Good grief, man. People’s marriages are imploding and you’re continuing the crusade to protect our children from Dungeons and Dragons.

    I’m not going to hash this out with you. I rebuke you for being a useless inhibitor for change.

  246. FuriousFerret says:

    What????

    Simply because I can put simple facts together, it’s a conspiracy.

    Look, I have read and heard that these pagan holidays existed before Christianity. This makes sense. Christmas and Easter aren’t feasts in the bible so what makes them biblical? Nothing. They are pagan, plain and simple.

    With fantasy types of media. Why would it not fall under the prohibtions of witchcraft, idols and graven images? I have watched all the Lord of The Rings, Conan, all that jazz. I will probably see the Hobbit in theatres. Doesn’t mean I think that it’s a-ok in a biblical prospective. I just don’t really care. However, I don’t hamster away that it’s 100 percent God approved it obiviously isn’t just because I like it.

  247. FuriousFerret says:

    @Some Guy

    I was simply just trying to make a point about how TradCons react to shit and their hypocrisy. I wanted to use this to show how they won’t give up feminism and how a watered down version is engulfed in the church and they won’t give it up.

    You just illustrate the point.

    I DON”T CARE ABOUT FANTASY!!!!!!!!! I really don’t.

    I watch that shit myself.

  248. Justinian says:

    @Cail Corishev

    I go to one of those parishes, where most of the women wear veils in church and many of them refuse to wear pants in public. Women never go into the sanctuary, unless it’s to get the altar linens for the laundry or to put flowers on the altar — never during services. It’s the only place in real life that I’ve heard people — especially women — talk about the proper roles of male headship and female submission in the family. Families are large, and while we’re still a small group, the demographics are clear: our numbers are growing, while the modernist parishes, by birth control or the incorrect use of NFP as Catholic birth control, aren’t even replacing themselves, not to mention the members they lose due to being lukewarm.

    I grew up in a relatively conservative RCC parish in the 1980s.

    Although I was unaware of such things at the time, the one thing I realize now however is that most families were headed by what we would consider to be alpha men.

    Furthermore, none of the men of the church grew up in that parish. The men and their wives were from all over the country and moved to an upper middle class neighborhood after the men established their careers. Nobody was “rich”, but these men were all educated professionals earning at least 3x the national average income.

    In contrast to these families, my grandfather was a average guy who got married with a limited education. He had 8 children and had to work 2 blue collar jobs to support his family. An average man like him would be unlikely to even find a wife in one of these ultra conservative parishes today.

    This is why I’m skeptical of some great resurgence of conservative Christianity. Yes you can find individual conservative communities growing. However they seem to be limited to families with above average income who self-segregate from the wider culture. The lower classes have become completely heathen, and the middle income families are headed that way too. The Hispanic immigrants who are supposed to bolster the church’s roster in the United States have illegitimacy rates approaching 2/3.

    How many women are going to tolerate having 8 children on $45k/year which is about the national average income?

    Is that what Christianity is to become? Limited to the upper and upper-middle classes who have the money to keep a marriage together?

  249. Jesus crushed the pagans underfoot and stole their holidays. What was good in them He kept.

  250. Cane Caldo says:

    I will probably see the Hobbit in theatres. Doesn’t mean I think that it’s a-ok in a biblical prospective. I just don’t really care. However, I don’t hamster away that it’s 100 percent God approved it obiviously isn’t just because I like it.

    Now this is sin. Desiring to do what you think you should not is sin. For me: I think fantasy and myth are just like the “good dreams” of humanity that C.S. Lewis describes them as; so not only will I watch them and not sin, but I may even say they are good for me.

    Read Matthew 15
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2015:1-20&version=ESV

    1 Corinthians 8
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%208&version=ESV

    This actually relates to Game, because the dangers and consequences of eating food sacrificed to idols is often mentioned alongside the dangers of sexual immorality.

  251. FuriousFerret says:

    Is Jesus going to steal the pagan’s drunken orgies next? LOL.

    Anyways, who cares about the holidays and Lord of the Rings. I never meant for it to become some trival religious penis measuring contest.

    However, can’t you see how your guy’s responses to your pagan stuff is akin to the TradCons response to feminism? Despite any evidence to the contrary, they will blindly defend. They will fight tooth and nail to keep women empowered with careers and indirectly riding the carosuel. TradCons are the Matrix. They are integrated into it. The Church is finished. It’s as corrupt as the Catholic church was back in Martin Luther’s time.

    We need a new Martin Luther, some people thought it was Mark Driscoll but we all know he’s a Matrix chode as well. I nominate Dalrock.

  252. FuriousFerret says:

    I don’t even know how to respond to your logic Cane.

    Look there are commandents in the bible.

    If you break the commandments you sinned. It doesn’t matter that you though stealing that 100 dollar bill was ok, it’s still a sin. All of you know what you do is sin and you don’t admit and hamster it away. It’s hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is what I detest not really the sin itself, I could care less.

    I HATE HYPOCRITES. Is that clear enough for you?

  253. AJ Miller says:

    I read the post several times and have come with my own conclusions. Look at what is really being said by the Church and being portrayed in these movies: men are responsible for the moral failures of themeselves and their families especially their wives. To some degree this is right (not totally but somewhat). This implies that women do NOT have any intrisical understanding of right an wrong and thus NEED the leadership of a man. Of course this contradicts the Bible in that we are all responsible for our actions and our sins and thus only a perfect saviour can redeem us. Yet, if we follow this new Gospel to its logical conclusions, women should not be allowed to be by themselves, be in any sort of leadership position nor be allowed to speak in Church. This sort of matches Islam and sort of matches the Bible’s teaching. I say sort of because there are some huge theological holes here.

    The problem is the intellectual inconsistency of what is being pushed by the church. They want men to be responsible for the actions of their child-like wives without putting any limits on the wive’s themselves. Women can still teach in churches, serve as leaders inside and out and do whatever they please to do even while acknowledging that without the proper leadership of a man they will blow it. Huh?

  254. Cail Corishev says:

    The ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy gets tiring around here.

    Indeed it does. As does the “we can’t discuss this until we have a perfect consensus about its exact meaning” fallacy. Does that one have a shorter name? Maybe a cool-sounding Latin one?

    Like I said over at SunshineMary’s blog recently, if you spend a few hours reading blogs like this one and still don’t “get” in your gut what game is, you probably never will. Some have theorized that nearly all women and a large majority of men just can’t understand it. I’m coming around to that viewpoint after trying to explain it to various people and feeling like the conversation just keeps slipping away.

    I used to think maybe better terminology would help. Maybe we should have one term for the understanding part of game, and another for the practical application. And maybe we’d need separate terms for the game you use to attract a woman and get her number, the game you use to get her into bed, and the game you use to keep the upper hand in a relationship. But I’m no longer convinced that would help; the objections would just slip sideways to something else.

  255. FuriousFerret says:

    Just make sure to rename Game to ‘Christian Man Purity Courting Techniques’ for the TradCon crowd.

  256. Cane Caldo says:

    @FF

    Matthew 12

    1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless?

    And Furious Ferret answered him, saying:

    Look there are commandents in the bible.

    If you break the commandments you sinned. It doesn’t matter that you though stealing that 100 dollar bill was ok, it’s still a sin. All of you know what you do is sin and you don’t admit and hamster it away. It’s hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is what I detest not really the sin itself, I could care less.

    I HATE HYPOCRITES. Is that clear enough for you?

    Jesus responds:

    6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7 And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

    Satan hates hypocrisy too. That’s his bread and butter complaint. (Incidentally, it’s the go-to complaint of liberals, too.) It’s what he accuses all mankind, and he’s right.

    But God hates the sin itself; He hates the diversion of desire itself, from what He would have for us, to what we foolishly want for ourselves. It is Satan who pleads for us to be sacrificed for our iniquity–our dereliction of desires–iniquities testified to by our actions, which are evil. Jesus desires to give us mercy, and to correct our desires.

    You are standing on the wrong side, friend.

  257. Ybm says:

    Youre in an online cult, a literal Internet cult. If you are unable to look upon game in any skeptical way, you are engaging in cult groupthink. It will destroy you and your personal relationships.

    Be safe

  258. FuriousFerret says:

    Good news dude, I only checked off three boxes:

    The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
    (Dalrock – Fearless Leader).

    Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
    ( You don’t believe in Game, GTFO)

    The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
    ( Us vs Feminism – Fuck Yeah)

  259. Ybm says:

    The gamesphere is simply an outgrowth of the failures of rsd. It took all that nonsense that failed to help most low skilled men despite its enormous expense and combined it with a separatist dynamic inherent in the Internet and created this soup called “game.” the cult aspect has been there since the very beginning. That you do not seeit is unfortunate, but not permanent.

     rsd itself was a reaction to the failures of pua for the majority of men who were duped into separating themselves from their hard earned dollars.

    This stuff goes way back to the early days of usenet, alt.seduction.fast, and has morphed itself each time the money runs out on the current dynamic. This “new masculinity” is simply another stage in the failure->reform->profit->failure this garbage has been peddling to low skilled men for 20 years now on the Internet.

  260. Cail Corishev says:

    Every discussion has parameters. If some people are talking about the stock market and you walk up and say, “Hey, how about those Cardinals?” you probably won’t be welcome in their discussion. Not because they’re in a stock market cult, but because you’re derailing the topic they want to talk about.

    Some of us have already decided that we think game is real, that it works, and that the essence of it doesn’t conflict with Christian morality (though some of the methods of application might). So we’ve begun to congregate in various places to discuss how to move forward from there: how exactly do you use game in a Christian relationship, how do you keep it on a good Scriptural foundation so you don’t misuse it, and so on. The amoral and immoral game theorists got a big head-start on us, so we’re trying to catch up. But every time we get a good discussion started, some guy comes running up yelling about how game isn’t real, or it’s really a sneaky way to get men to serve women in a different manner, or you can’t be Christian and use game.

    It’s not that we’re unwilling to discuss those things; it’s just that we already have, and we’re fairly satisfied with the answers we’ve come up with. We wouldn’t mind revisiting them from time to time and refining our understanding of those objections, but if every discussion gets derailed by them, we can never move forward and talk about the aspects that really interest us.

    No cultishness required. Of course, here Dalrock sets the parameters — not because we’re a cult and he’s our leader, but because it’s his site.

  261. Cane Caldo says:

    @ybm October 3, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    Great comment.

  262. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    Regarding this “cult” B/S. You sound like someone who went to a seminar and now sees cults everywhere. Let’s go down that checklist:

    The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

    We constantly argue “the Law.”

    Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

    Have you been on these sites? It’s nothing but dissent and in-fighting.

    Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

    Healthy eating and exercise at your own pace, if you want.

    The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

    Is this the same leadership that still admits simple definitions haven’t been hammered out? To what extent, if any, Christianity and game can coexist? This rests on the infallibility of the “leadership” and I don’t see it being pushed.

    The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

    Not elitist, at all. In fact, the folks who seem to be establishing the guiding principles believe every man can learn the basics to protect himself and no further membership is needed.

    The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

    And that differentiates a movement of any kind…how?

    The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

    Other than God, we are unaccountable on the interwebz.

    The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

    Any example you’d like to provide is welcome.

    The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

    They, in fact, expose and encourage other men to learn the shaming tactics so that they aren’t discouraged.

    Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

    Nope.

    The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

    Pre-occupied? Hardly. Are they welcomed? Sure. There are no “drives” to increase membership.

    The group is preoccupied with making money.

    Individuals are interested in making personal fortunes. This is still America. No group dues or tithes, though.

    Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

    No requirement.

    Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

    Example would be helpful.

    The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

    There are no reprisals from folks within the group. Interesting, though, that the men need to use nom de plumes because radicals on the other side seek to destroy their lives.

    The Red Pill community is no more a cult than your typical NFL internet forum.

    Back to the drawing board, guys.

  263. Rock Throwing Peasant says:

    Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

    Have you been on these sites? It’s nothing but dissent and in-fighting.

    Oh, and let’s remember that a guy leading the fight for “game is evil” was just given full access to write his exposition without editorial oversight on this very site. He continues to post here and there’s not been a whisper of banning him or others. As long as respectful discourse continues, dissent flourishes.

    Some “cult.”

  264. Cane Caldo says:

    @RTP

    Whoa. A much as anyone holds forth that Game is the truth, then yes I say it is evil. If (and this is the case) it is a science; a collection of facts and theories, and hypotheses, then I don’t have a problem with it, and even write about it.

    As far as the cult aspect: I think there is a cultish aspect to dedicated Game sites–with the notable exception of a few; foremost among the non-cultish is Roissy/Heartiste. Dalrock’s blog does not even presume to be a Game site, per se, and he dispense very little Game insights, tips, etc. It’s clear to me that his focus is blasting through the Christo-Feminist narrative, and holding to account leaders who purport to be Christian. Along the way, he makes the case that Game can be helpful in this pursuit.

    Those are very different things.

  265. Rum says:

    YBM
    “Low skilled men” = men not attractive to women.
    Use of the word “skilled” creates that the impression that there some deep and authentic good quality being manifest and therefore your statement is somehow less tautological than “Game = the ability to make gina-tingles”.
    Assuming that game is nothing more than a set of skills relevant in regard to nothing more than how a man presents himself to the outer world (esp women) and not a reflexion of inner virtues 1 Why do you think that should be difficult to teach? and 2. Why would this be a bad thing?
    I suspect that WNs operate on the basis that women are really good at judging a mans inner qualities and virtues. Whatever.
    That would explain why the most popular bit of womens stories in decades is 50 Shades of Grey.

  266. whatever says:


    However; you can’t stop thinking from this conspiracy paradigm, even though you’re trying to reject it. So, ironically, whenever someone says something that smacks of piercing a conspiracy, you swallow it whole.

    Anyone who pays any attention at all and mouths off about people being “paranoid conspiracy theorists” is either straight up delusional or a liar. Conspiracy is the American national past-time. From the poor to the rich. 24/7 the scams are running. Maybe , I’m not supposed to call people meeting in secret to gain personal advantage a scam, I’m supposed to call it a “conspiracy”. Cause then Caldo can mouth off. And the personal advantage for the very powerful can include removing obstacles to themselves getting hundreds of billions of dollars in free money from the Fed. Nothing motivates like hundreds of billions of dollars.

  267. Ybm says:

    First to cane: Roissyite gamers are the fringe of the fringe of the fringe in game world. 99% of gamers have never heard of roissy and would find him detestable if they read his writings, and he isn’t even the worst one in their sphere.

    Rum: I have to be very careful with the words that I use, both because English is not my native language (it’s actually my third language which I didn’t learn until I was 12) so I deliberately chose the word skills.

    You ask why: because there are many men who do not have dating skills but in all other matters of life are extremely attractive men. The “skills” in the Anglosphere that are overvalued today are daing skills, and like it or not, game for 99% of people (those not stuck in the gamesphere/rsd cult) is about dating, pickup and sex.

    Answers to your specific questions:
    1. It is not difficult to teach in fact, perhaps 2 published self help books and 1 scientific study are all the “game” a man would ever need. One is by Dale Carnegie, the other by dr.Peter Anderson about how to read body language.

    The study, for free: You will love this research article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00570.x/full

    “For women, only two partner characteristics showed a statistically significant correlation with their attraction: physical attractiveness and sport activity, indicating that women are strongly drawn to men who are good-looking and athletic. [...]”

    This is real game, not the bs peddled by nuts on wordpress. Why I read dalrock is because of his marriage data studies, not for game advice. The problem ins that there is no money to be made by fraudsters when you spend one afternoon reading 3 short pieces of info, buying a gym pass and going to meet some girls to introduce yourself to.

    2. What is peddled in this sphere is a bad thing because it is poisonous to your selfesteem, and will rob you of your natural talents, all in order to conform to a discredited belief that you can “create attraction” where none exists.

    THAT is why I am “anti gamesphere”

  268. Rum says:

    Trying to create attraction where none exists is one thing; destroying attraction that is there by acting stupidlly beta is quite another.

  269. Ybm says:

    See, the problem is, that “beta” is a largely irrelevant term. It is only useful in theoretics, does anyone really care what works in theory on something as irrational as interpersonal relations? An example:

    When women “overvalue” dating confidence, social skills, assertiveness and a bold ability to show and display interest, this is a typical situation. Being “alpha” with dating skills and nothing else is not a realistic definition of the term unless you admit it too is a tautology: what’s alpha? Getting chicks, how do I get chicks? Being alpha. This is of no practical use.

    -> 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 bold confident savvy gentleman “beta male”* and a boring, moron alpha male, beta boy will win the day 9/10. Women aren’t lying per se when they say they like beta traits, but unless you are confident, shell never know about them and you’ll get passed over every time.

  270. Cane Caldo says:

    @ybm

    I don’t think I understand this statement:

    First to cane: Roissyite gamers are the fringe of the fringe of the fringe in game world. 99% of gamers have never heard of roissy and would find him detestable if they read his writings, and he isn’t even the worst one in their sphere.

    Are you saying you don’t like his assessments, or are you saying that most Gamers aren’t up to his intelligence, or are you saying that they don’t take his approach?

  271. Ybm says:

    Don’t really care, all of the above? He and his cult are only sitting around circle jerking about the same nonsense over and over again, even after it’s been discredited. Also most of his followers feel that he (James w.) hasn’t posted on that blog in close to a year now, from reading their posts.

  272. Rum says:

    So, you are implying the the real Roissy (aka J. Weidemann) is in fact a kind of authentic genius when he writes but that he has been absent for a year or so and his blog-presence has been taken over by some stumbling, 2nd rate understudies? I do not see this at all but maybe I am blind and cannot see.
    I am most interested in how we are to be assured that Roissy-ism has been discredited. Are his readers complaining bitterly that they have come to feel comprehensibly betrayed by his teachings to the extent of questioning the entire, deep theological foundations of the source of the advice they have been given re. women?
    No. That curse is coming down on the Church, not Roissy. Because the Church has transgressed by lie-ing deeply and for decades about some core issues of concern to the eager, naive, often hopefull young people who had a heart to trust what their christian elders were eager to teach them.

  273. freebird says:

    Game self identifies as the Venusian arts (gynocentric) whereas masculinity is more in keeping with the strong Christian man.(androcentric)
    When I hear “game” i think-pandering to the oppressor at other mens cost,with no regard to legal justice,whilst a strong masculist Christian man is concerned with social equity for egalitarianism.

    Just my 2 cents.
    One takes with no regard,the other does not.

  274. @FF

    I couldn’t care less if we Christians have coopted all sorts of things from pagans. We’ll take the truth wherever we find it, and we are generally very tolerant of customs and practices which are not set in opposition to the truth.

    The problem with your contention about Christmas and Easter isn’t what it suggests about Christianity. The problem with your contention about Christmas and Easter is that it is, you know, false and stuff. As in, contrary to reality.

  275. JoeS says:

    @Justinian – yes, it’s an upper middle income (with a few wealthy people) social club where a large percentage of the fathers are former jerks raising young jerks of their own.

    They don’t respect the Faith as much as they respect money. If they think you’re taking one of the pretty ones from their spoiled brat sons – watch out.

  276. ybm – Now you’re reiterating Alek Novy’s spiel….without THE CAPS and all the other UNHINGED HYSTERICS!!!!

    You admit you’re not American. That English is your 3rd language.

    Yet you proclaim to know what we Americans “don’t need game” yet you have NO FUCKING CLUE about what we have to deal with and the kind of social engineering and mainstream media influence that is our Cultural Zeitgeist.

    You’re Italian?

    Dude, you have no fucking idea just how bad our mainstream culture is….how emasculating an influence it is, nor how subversive and effective it is in making men believe that they “must be BETA” to be a “Good Guy” that all the ladies want.

    Your insistence that Game is not necessary or even a bad influence on Men who study it is an opinion that is utterly baseless because you simply have no real understanding of just how far masculinity has been beaten and suppressed in the average American male.

    Game is not ‘THE ONLY TRUE WAY.’ It is not a “panacea.” What it is, is a lense for which men who have been subversively and covertly programmed through years and years of a cultural zeitgeist of pro-feminist/anti-masculine values, can finally see that, NO our basic masculine values and virtues are not defective nor deviant! They normal and unfairly demonized by a cultural obssesed with promoting the female imperative.

    Until you recognize this, you have no fucking place trying to tell us that Game may actually “harm” us for studying it. You fucking European’s still have some remnants of a “machismo” culture that values masculinity to some degree.

    What we deal with hear is beyond your scope of experience. So please, quit telling us that we are a “cult.”

    You’re talking out of your ass about something you really have no clue about.

  277. @Rollo – Here is a writing from what I consider to be a “real man” and earnestly “covet” what he wrote about, lived, and died for – Jesus. If you see any self deception or “cheap talk” I suggest to take the time and look up Deitrich Bonhoeffer. I am pretty sure his wife was a happy and satisfied woman.

    Stations On The Way To Freedom…
    by Deitrich Bonhoeffer
    Self-discipline
    If you set out to seek freedom, you must learn before all things
    Mastery over sense and soul, lest your wayward desirings,
    Lest your undisciplined members lead you now this way, now that way.
    Chaste be your mind and your body, and subject to you and obedient,
    Serving solely to seek their appointed goal and objective.
    None learns the secret of freedom save only by way of control.
    Action

    Do and dare what is right, not swayed by the whim of the moment.
    Bravely take hold of the real, not dallying now with what might be.
    Not in the flight of ideas but only in action is freedom.
    Make up your mind and come out into the tempest of living.
    God’s command is enough and your faith in him to sustain you.
    Then at last freedom will welcome your spirit amid great rejoicing.
    Suffering

    See what a transformation! These hands so active and powerful
    Now are tied, and alone and fainting, you see where your work ends.
    Yet you are confident still, and gladly commit what is rightful
    Into a stronger hand, and say that you are contented.
    You were free from a moment of bliss, then you yielded your freedom
    Into the hand of God, that he might perfect it in glory.
    Death

    Come now, highest of feasts on the way to freedom eternal,
    Death, strike off the fetters, break down the walls that oppress us,
    Our bedazzled soul and our ephemeral body,
    That we may see at last the sight which here was not vouchsafed us.
    Freedom, we sought you long in discipline, action, suffering.
    Now as we die we see you and know you at last, face to face.

    Shalom

  278. FuriousFerret says:

    The thing with Game is that you don’t necessarily NEED ultra super aggresive sexual game to have a successful relationship with a woman.

    However, with American culture the way it is now that woman who is willingly to act properly with a man that doesn’t have to be gamed is a slim percentage. So basically you would be searching for the female equivalent of the manicorn, the perfect alpha/beta male. Those types to exists but they are super rare as is the even somewhat attractive American chick who responds to men without Game.

    I’m not Tim Tebow. I’m not a contextual and physical apex alpha who can afford to be a total beta and get away with it.

    If I don’t want to use Game then I will probably end up chained to a 300 pound harpy that has my balls in a vice and every day will be day of quiet desperation. This is true with most men not named Tim Tebow.

    Also, the thing about Game is there is no opting out of it. You use it when you interact with women in any kind of sexual way whether you like it or not. Whether it is beta or alpha or omega, whenever you try to win favor with the opposite sex you are using Game. It’s just like the people against having ambition and seeking power. Waaahhh, you shouldn’t do that, it’s wrong to want status, Waaahhhh. Well guess what you are in the power game whether you like or not, it’s called life. You want to be the guy getting his face stomped in by the system or do you want to protect yourself. It doesn’t mean be a total asshat.

    Be innocent as a dove and wise as a snake.

  279. FuriousFerret says:

    I think this my response to all the people that criticize Game or want ‘God’s Perfect Timing’ and tout all the TradCon bullshit, along with Naturals that deny Game

  280. Cane Caldo says:

    @ybm

    I’m sure the original Roissy is gone.

    As for the rest: His older stuff is excellent on the psychology of the slut.

    But in the overall assessment of the situation, you and I agree.

  281. Legion says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    October 3, 2012 at 2:01 pm
    “The ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy gets tiring around here.
    Indeed it does. As does the “we can’t discuss this until we have a perfect consensus about its exact meaning” fallacy. Does that one have a shorter name? Maybe a cool-sounding Latin one?”

    Yes there is a name for it. A long yet simple one-word name: Imanasshole.

  282. @FF
    … whenever you try to win favor with the opposite sex you are using Game.

    How is trying to “win favor with the opposite sex” not an inherently “beta/omega” frame?

  283. freebird says:

    FF is correct about the Christmas and Easter thing.
    Neither holiday corresponds with the proper time frame of the celebrated events,instead to correspond with the equinox’s or down times of year when more attendance is possible.
    It’s cold in Israel in Christmas,the shepherds have thew sheep indoors,not out in the fields.
    Certain bible scholars have been able to determine that Christ was conceived around late December,not born.Easter comes from Ishtar,hence the rolling of fertility eggs and “quick like a bunny.”
    Other than a fixation on defending ‘game’ as all things masculine,FF is pretty smart.

  284. ukfred says:

    To get back to the OP, I really do not know how bad it is the US, but her in the UK we have a mainstream church (The Methodist Church) where the Young Methodists, who according to a report from 2005 think that cohabitiation is both right and sensible, have asked the Faith and Order Committee to produce a resource on cohabitation. More amazingly, the Faith and Order committee are prodsucing such a resource. To respond to what AR asked be above, most people don’t know this, and those that do and are in a position to do something about it are more concerned with being nice than with putting right error. It would seem that the idea that the church was amongst other things a society where people helped each other to stay on the right path has gone by the board.

  285. FF is correct about the Christmas and Easter thing

    No he isn’t. It has been researched and debunked. I’m not Evangelical or any sort of Protestant, so it is no skin off my nose either way; but folks who propogate the myth might as well put on one of Bill Engval’s signs.

  286. Ybm says:

    AnonymousManosphereBlogger says:
    October 4, 2012 at 12:40 am

    I’ve lived in north America off an on since I was a child, I live here now for work reasons and I am a citizen of this country. Don’t assume I live in a European bubble, as I spend perhaps 75% of the year in north America.

    Indeed I quote novy, as his advice is something that is not only free, it is short, concise, and above all, nonjudgemental. A shy man is a good man, he isonly shy. He does not néed to change his “beta” traits, he only needs to stop being shy. The three sources above, combined with actually talking to women is more than enough “game” for any man. Game is an outgrowth of rsd, and rsd is considered a pua laughingstock because of it’s cult mentality. Game is, in psychological terms, magical thinking.

    Anglosphere men’s problems stem from the problems the mra works against, rape/child predator hysteria, divorce culture, game cannot change the laws nor the culture. I understand these things much better than you would credit me with, btw so does alek novy.

  287. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Creative Anachronism Edition « Patriactionary

  288. Prof. Woland says:

    This is a multi-front fight. Where the Feminist have been most successful is in re-writing the laws, marriage laws in particular, to their benefit and not the Church, men, or society as a whole. The Church WAS the law regarding marriage long before the State got involved. This site likes to joke about the marriage vows that many of us have taken, some more than once, and compare that to the sham that is today’s family court system and modern welfare state. The vows might still mean something spiritually but they don’t hold a candle to the when it comes to the test during a divorce or custody dispute. The State reigns supreme, and it is tilted in favor of the fairer sex.

    What is needed is to bring the marriage contract into the modern age. The cat is already out of the bag regarding birth control, service jobs, DNA, and the like so going backwards is not an option. But abolishing alimony past 5 years, establishing shared equal custody laws, mandating pre-nuptials, ensuring equal due process rights for men regarding domestic violence and all other laws, ending paternity fraud though mandatory testing and sanctions, changing the tax code and welfare laws so they benefit men and not just women, and so forth and we will go a long way towards actually strengthening the institution of marriage and men’s relationship with their children. Don’t expect feminists to do anything but drag their feet and piss and moan but that is their problem.

  289. St. Augustine says:

    Cail Corishev wrote:

    As a traditional Catholic, you have aroused my curiousity. You attend a traditional parish (SSPX, FSSP, or somesuch?) and on the same thread write this:

    “And maybe we’d need separate terms for the game you use to attract a woman and get her number, the game you use to get her into bed, and the game you use to keep the upper hand in a relationship. But I’m no longer convinced that would help; the objections would just slip sideways to something else.”

    I would be curious as to how you reconcile this viewpoint with the Church’s teachings on human sexuality, particularly with regard to the dignity of the human person which Karol Wojytola wrote about (and I speak of his writings, not the twisting of them by popularizers like Chris West). If you printed out the post which contained the above quote would you be proud to show it to your priest and fellow parishoners? Do you believe in the Church’s teachings about human sexuality and understand the reasons behind them? Do you have any views on how what you wrote might caught the sin of scandal? I am curious to know.

    +JMJ+

  290. Martian Bachelor says:

    Ybm (or anyone else who knows): what is “rsd”? Some new form of lsd?

    Other possibilities from my acronym decoder ring:
    Right of Self-Determination
    Remote Storage (or Sensing) Device (or Shut Down)
    Red Shoe Diaries
    Really Sucks Dicks
    Real Social Dynamics
    ????

    P.S. – Hey, thanks for the appreciation, empathologicalism. And backatchya.

  291. They Call Me Tom says:

    A lot of this (that’s written in this post) is the reason that I visit friend’s churches occasionally, but don’t have a regular Sunday church. It’s a little bit ‘Young Goodman Brown’, but it’s also that many many churches have disregarded one of the letters to the churches in Revelations, “Do not forget your first love.” (For non-christians, the first love referred to is Christ) I’m very much a Christian, but fail to find a church that preaches the Gospel and that encourages self improvement guided by the ideal set by Christ rather than teaching unlimited forgiveness without a peep of penetance from the sinner.

    Which is slightly off topic, but goes hand in hand with a discussion of one of the many ways that many Christian churches aim to please the audience, rather than tending to their flock.

  292. Pingback: Maximum Hedons | Spoos in August

  293. Pingback: Faith and the Feminist World | Sympathy For The Devil

  294. Pingback: What is the manosphere? | Dalrock

  295. Joe America says:

    I thought I was alone in noticing how the churches seemed to be asleep at the wheel when it came to the wholesale destruction of marriage, especially the reasons. I will never marry under the current terms, conditions and moral hazards of a modern marriage.

    I am not a believer so to be clear on that. This is just my opinion but it appears most churches are taking the path of least resistance when it comes to marriage and female whoring around. If you consider it from a memetics point of view, as long as women pump out kids, the father is irrelevant, and bring them to church its a self sustaining thing. As it appears its quantity verses quality.

  296. Pingback: Emotionally cheating with ex - Page 2

  297. Pingback: Mohler Reviews Men On Strike | The Society of Phineas

  298. Pingback: The church does not need feminism, but it very much wants it. | Sunshine Mary

  299. tz says:

    I could talk about the fellow manosphere bloggers who had their marriages shot out from under them by the Catholic Church.

    A particular Priest in a particular diocese, not the church. The church has lots of corrupt men, but lets not confuse the institution with those who happen to be in power.

    Isn’t even this and most other posts saying that Christ and Christianity is true, but the representatives are corrupt? That the Protestant church is as bad or worse?

  300. tz says:

    I think it was Leo XIII that wrote “Arcanum” on divorce saying it shoudl be banned entirely.

    But again, were the Protestant fathers, Pius XI, Paul VI, and John Paul II correct on condemning contraception as a lie and abomination (think “gay marriage”). My point is merely that if there can be various views accepted “in charity” about whether this is or is not part of the definition of a “Christian Marriage”, then Divorce (which dates back to the reformation) is not much different.

    The understanding of marriage either requires it to be “open to life” or that is merely something optional and the creation of a new soul is up to the couple, only when they want to try – and maybe use IVF or other techniques (spend the first 10 years desperately avoiding children, the next ten desperately trying to conceive).

    Either the Catholic and traditional Protestant view on contraception is right or wrong. There can be no charity in allowing error or refusing to discuss it, no more than on divorce.

  301. tz says:

    Another method of obstructing any attempt at change is to set the bar for evaluating change absurdly high. Commenter Unger demonstrated this with a recent comment:

    (comment) 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?

    Unger is saying that the millions of children who suffer the devastation of having their father kicked out of their homes isn’t sufficient reason for Christians to attempt to move towards a biblical model of marriage.

    Nowhere, either here or Vox, or anywhere else has anyone actually demonstrated that “Game” has ANYTHING to do with “Biblical Marriage”.

    “Game” as far as I can tell is the pagan default behavior between the sexes. Biblical Marriage – assuming there is sacramental grace or other holiness – ought to transcend such.

    “Game” seems to be what is referred to as “The Flesh”. I don’t think it can be baptized and Christianized. No more than the rationalization hamster.

    Christians ought to attempt to move toward a biblical model of marriage, but as I’ve pointed out, contraception might be forbidden in the definition and no one wants to discuss that, only the more obvious “divorce”. And even that, if Game makes you less holy but a more pleasant spouse, is it a gain (as in gain the world and lose your soul).

    There may be a point in cooperating with nature, so Game might come in, but that is very different than defining or interpreting the bible to shoehorn “marriage” into “Game”.

  302. DrTorch says:

    All I can say is that this is a GREAT post.

  303. Pingback: Links and Comments #16 | The Society of Phineas

  304. Pingback: Pastoral hypocrisy: only SOME of the sexually immoral will not inherit the kingdom of God; the rest can lead marriage ministries. | Sunshine Mary

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