How Christians can take credit for Game.

In a recent exchange at Zippy Catholic, Alte and Elspeth discussed the controversy over teaching Christian husbands “Game” (emphasis mine):

Elspeth:

When my husband “negs” me, or any of the other little pieces I’ve read here and there that are just part of the way he is, it’s fun. Fun should be a part of any healthy marital relationship.

Alte:

Seriously. Maybe it’s because I didn’t grow up over there, but a lot of the criticism about husbands using Game seems puritanical, based upon a sort of melancholy. Like, “Oh noes, a married couple is flirting! We must stop this or they might end up having sex for reasons other than the solemn duty of procreation. Doesn’t that wife have a toilet to scrub somewhere?”

There’s a sort of passion and excitement in some of our marriages that we enjoy, and that Game enhances. Sex starts in the kitchen, and all that jazz. Why so dour?

Elspeth:

The argument V, is that what you’re describing is not game. That it has always existed in loving marriages just as the neg has have been around since Hobbits tilled the soil of the Shire.

That giving Roissyites credit for something that enhances Christian marriage is just plain wrong, morally. Not only is it incompatible, but it gives them credit for something which they deserve no credit for.

I believe that the concern Elspeth describes is shared by many (but not necessarily all) of those who oppose teaching Christian husbands Game.  The problem is, the Roissyites do deserve credit for collating and codifying the concepts we refer to as “Game”, and this is assuming that there was absolutely no new understanding developed by the Roissyites in the process.  The Brothers Grimm didn’t write a single new tale, yet they rightly are credited with advancing our knowledge and understanding of folk tales.

This leaves Christians with a dilemma.  Some of the knowledge the Roissyites have described as Game could help Christian husbands be more effective when trying to lead their wives, and as both Alte and Elspeth point out if you are doing it right using Game in a marriage is very likely to be fun.  However, teaching Game has the problem of giving credit to men whose focus is to enjoy our present culture of sexual immorality.  One possible option would be to lie, and claim that not only is the basic knowledge old, but that we haven’t benefited at all from the experiences and efforts of a group of men engaged in a sinful pursuit.  

However, while Christians can’t claim credit for collating and codifying the information, we can take credit for creating the conditions required for such an activity to take place.  It is no accident that a formalization of the concepts we call Game only occurred recently and wasn’t completed some other time over the last several thousand years.  In the past such knowledge wasn’t generally required for the average man, because we were still practicing traditional marriage.  In addition, there wasn’t the concentration of experiences with multiple women to make it possible to hypothesize and test the kinds of patterns PUAs have seen.

As Christians we (collectively) can take credit for making all of this happen.  Christians have provided the moral cover for both the sexual revolution and the divorce revolution.  At the core of the Christian backing of the sexual/divorce revolution is the modern Christian rebellion against biblical headship.  A woman who marries as a young virgin is far more likely to be willing to submit to her husband, and (modern) Christian fathers everywhere are terrified of such a prospect.  For existing marriages Christians endorse the use of threats of divorce to ensure that a wife feels secure in her position of authority over her husband, and groups like FOTF make it a point to remind divorcing women not to forget to collect their cash and prizes.  Likewise the modern Christian rebellion against headship has lead Christians to endorse an entirely new and perverted sexual morality.  If you have ever wondered why the Protestant churches in the US have been so quiet on the divorce revolution taking place within their very congregations, or why the RCC responded to the explosion in divorces in the US by firing up the annulment mill, this is why.

So if you fear teaching Game to Christian husbands because Christians can’t take credit for the knowledge you are teaching, rest easy.  We can’t take credit for the Roissyites, but we can and must take credit for creating the conditions required for the Roissyites to thrive.

Pointing at Roissy and company’s sin is easy, as it allows us to confront the sin of others without acknowledging and repenting from our own collective culpability.  Acknowledging that Christians have collectively displayed shame and hostility for something so beautiful and wise as biblical marriage is much less comfortable.  However, we would do well to remember that Roissy wasn’t trusted to share the wisdom and beauty of Christian marriage and sexual morality with the world;  Christians were.

Moderator’s note:  Since the definition of Game has been a long term derailer of discussions I’m asking commenters to refrain from engaging in yet another debate on the true definition of Game.  This doesn’t mean you can’t state your own view so that others can understand how you are using the term.  In fact, defining how you use the term if different from others will add clarity to the discussion.  For example if you believe Christians shouldn’t use Game, you should clearly define what you include in the category you are prohibiting.  This also doesn’t mean you can’t ever discuss the proper definition of the term;  if you are interested in this I encourage you to do so, just not here, on this post.  If you wish to discuss the definition of Game on my blog, I invite you to do so on the post Cypher’s Problem where discussing the definition of the term has been occurring since August of 2012.  If you wish to discuss the definition of the terms used in the definition of Game, Cane Caldo has a post for this here.  If you wish to discuss the definition of the terms used in the definition of the terms used in the definition of Game, I’m not aware of a specific post addressing this yet but I have every confidence that someone will create one soon.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Church Apathy About Divorce, Denial, Game. Bookmark the permalink.

365 Responses to How Christians can take credit for Game.

  1. I wrote about why Christians are and should study game here:
    http://runsonmagic.com/2014/01/favorite-bible-verse/

    Studying game is a Biblical command in Matthew 10:16. Christians must know the ways of the world, even if they are not of it.

  2. MarcusD says:

    Sometimes you just have to give credit where credit is due…

    e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

  3. Cane Caldo says:

    If you wish to discuss the definition of Game on my blog, I invite you to do so on the post Cypher’s Problem where discussing the definition of the term has been occurring since August of 2012. If you wish to discuss the definition of the terms used in the definition of Game, Cane Caldo has a post for this here. If you wish to discuss the definition of the terms used in the definition of the terms used in the definition of Game, I’m not aware of a specific post addressing this yet but I have every confidence that someone will create one soon.

    Haha!

    …I’m working on it.

  4. donalgraeme says:

    …I’m working on it.

    Good. I’m not interested in making any more posts of my own trying to define Game related matters.

    So if you fear teaching Game to Christian husbands because Christians can’t take credit for the knowledge you are teaching, rest easy. We can’t take credit for the Roissyites, but we can and must take credit for creating the conditions required for the Roissyites to thrive.

    Interesting. Reading this, one could interpret it as stating that the reason why Christians can (and should) object to Game is because they were not responsible for its development. I’m not sure though that many of the opponents of “Christians learning Game” use that as their primary argument against it. The source of Game is certainly a factor, but some of the objections to it are subject matter oriented (the Dark Triad, for example).

    Of course, that isn’t really the point of the post now, is it? The real object of this post is to remind Christians that men like Roissy and Roosh only exist because they created them, or allowed them to exist. At least, that is what I think the real message here is. Along with the accompanying implication that if Christians actually fixed the culture then debates about Game would be moot. Do correct me if I’m wrong Dalrock.

  5. deti says:

    Doesn’t matter. Game is immoral, according to the tradcons among us.

    According to our tradcon friends, men just need to just figure it out for themselves.

    Sound familiar? It’s the typical feminine complaint.

    http://therationalmale.com/2012/08/22/just-get-it/

  6. Dalrock says:

    Well played Cane.

  7. deti says:

    Here’s how else Christians can and must take credit for Game and for Roissy/PUAs.

    “You have to be NICE! If you are losing out with women, it is obviously because you aren’t being nice enough.”

    “You have to love me like Christ loved the Church, and that means you have to die on that cross even when I’m a mean, nasty bitch. I, of course, do not have to submit to you unless I deem you worthy of submission and unless you are leading me where I want to go. Our pastor said so.”

    “Just be nice. Just be yourself. “

    “Just be handsome. Just be attractive. Just don’t be unattractive.”

    “God loves me and wants me to be happy. I am not happy being married to you. Therefore, you must not be The One. Therefore, I am free to divorce you and remarry. Our pastor said so.”

    “Marriage is for a woman’s happiness. Marriage is for men to be fathers and husbands, and to provide for a woman’s happiness.”

    Just don’t be a liberal, and then just figure it out for yourself. (See: http://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/game-in-hobbiton-or-bilbo-demonstrates-the-neg/#comment-17193)

  8. galloper6 says:

    YES!!! it says “wise as serpent not nieve as choir boys.
    The Holy Sap is not a biblical concept.

  9. A woman who marries as a young virgin is far more likely to be willing to submit to her husband, and (modern) Christian fathers everywhere are terrified of such a prospect.

    Terrified of which prospect: his daughter staying a virgin until her marriage, or his daughter submitting to her husband?

    [D: Yes.]

  10. Elspeth says:

    Dalrock, Seriously?

    Given my rather lengthy and verifiable track record preaching to women the virtues of chastity, the God-given requirement of wifely submission, the importance of wifely duty including sexually, and the evil of divorce, I can’t help but wonder why you decided to pick on me instead of Zippy.

    After all he started it, LOL.

  11. sunshinemary says:

    Dalrock, I don’t agree that Christians are responsible for the abandonment of traditional marriage that led to the sexual revolution. We followed along behind that and we are responsible for the abandonment of Biblical marriage (which is not synonymous with traditional marriage), but what evidence can you give that shows that Christians are the ones who caused our society to abandon traditional marriage in favor of sexual promiscuity?

  12. I find it helpful to look at this from the perspective of Paul. Paul prayed fervently for God to remove a blight from him (unmentioned whether physical or mental/spiritual, but it is generally acknowledged to be spiritual). Paul later came to believe the blemish was given to him for him to grow and better serve God.

    Quick quiz: Does knowing how to attract a good wife and cause her to be pleased with you subtract from God’s glory or add to it? It’s not a question of ends-justifying-means. It’s a question of God sanctifying all things, even things that we consider evil, for his own purposes.

    Let’s use game. Let’s equip young Christian men with every tool we can to help them combat the female imperative and surpass Adam where he failed. Let’s reforge men in the image of the heroes and the hardy men. Let’s make Esaus. Let’s make Shamgars. Let’s make Elijahs. Let’s make John the Baptists. And let’s make men in the image of Christ.

    It’s easy to dwell on the capacity for evil that game (or burly, manly, wild men) represent to society. What’s more difficult and more rewarding is seeing the plan God has ordained for them.

  13. sunshinemary says:

    If Game is required for men to understand how to pass fitness tests, then how is it that my husband figured out how to do this on his own? Roissy gets too much credit here.

  14. sunshinemary says:

    Deti,

    Just don’t be a liberal, and then just figure it out for yourself.

    That one is actually good advice. But you have to fully grasp what Zippy means when he says “Don’t be a liberal.” You need to understand that Republicans are liberals, too. In fact, all participants in a democracy are liberals.

    Democracy is the anti-thesis of the red pill in that it creates a completely unreal and unsustainable culture. Feminism thrives in such an environment.

  15. deti says:

    SSM:

    Because not all men are your husband. Not all men are equally susceptible to societal pressures. And not all men can rack up an N like your husband. Not all men are as attractive as he obviously is. And not all men are married to a woman who is strongly sexually attracted to them. In fact, most men are married to women who are NOT strongly sexually attracted to them.

  16. deti says:

    SSM:

    I fully understand that Zippy is not talking only about political liberalism. Political liberalism is only one part of the rot he’s talking about. But “just don’t be liberal” and “Just figure it out” is not good advice when it comes to understanding attraction.

  17. JDG says:

    One possible option would be to lie, and claim that not only is the basic knowledge old, but that we haven’t benefited at all from the experiences and efforts of a group of men engaged in a sinful pursuit.

    If I understand this correctly, I have to disagree. I believe the basic understanding of the nature of women to be very old and something we have only recently forgotten. I think this is partly why patriarchal societies place restrictions on women. My dad (whom I didn't grow up with) knew about this stuff before I was born and he's never even heard of the manoshere. I learned about maintaining a masculine frame from the Bible and through prayer years before I stumbled on the manosphere.

    I don't know if what I learned can be classified as game or not, but it sure sounds similar to what I read here. I am also considering Lyn87's view that game is a rip off of sōphroneō. It would be so like the devil to distort something that God has made.

    I will say that after I found this site that I found confirmation in what I knew to be true, yet rarely seen anywhere else outside of the Bible. Although I have seen some of the insights discussed here played out in old John Wayne movies. Is the manoshpere older than John Wayne?

    The problem is, the Roissyites do deserve credit for collating and codifying the concepts we refer to as “Game”, and this is assuming that there was absolutely no new understanding developed by the Roissyites in the process.

    This I can see in the sense that they reinvented the wheel or found pieces of it all over the place midst a rapidly becoming effeminate culture and put it back together.

  18. I grew up in a laboratory setting in which rule #1 was “Thou shalt read the data before writing the report.” I see absolutely no reason to abandon that standard.

    Let’s take more of a look at the data before writing the report, shall we? The Lord has the power to reveal to us various points of data, and He has given us a mind to perceive the nuances, has He not?

  19. sunshinemary says:

    Because not all men are your husband. Not all men are equally susceptible to societal pressures. And not all men can rack up an N like your husband. Not all men are as attractive as he obviously is. And not all men are married to a woman who is strongly sexually attracted to them. In fact, most men are married to women who are NOT strongly sexually attracted to them.

    No, that’s a cop out. He’s not this mutant freak bull alpha that you accuse him of being. And since we’re getting personal, let’s remember that you aren’t exactly sporting a single-digit N yourself, darlin’. So what’s your excuse for worshiping in the Temple of Roissy then?

  20. @SSM
    My advise is that less is more. The marital bed is not to be defiled, and you are not to cast your pearls before swine. Heed wisdom.

  21. Elspeth says:

    If Game is required for men to understand how to pass fitness tests, then how is it that my husband figured out how to do this on his own? Roissy gets too much credit here.

    Co-sign. My husband has not bed tens of women. He married far too young for that to even be possible.

    And he always has been the undisputed captain of this ship. No Game study required.

  22. Deti says:

    No it’s not a copout, SSM. I’m not getting personal. You held out your husband as an average guy, when he isn’t. I don’t say he’s a mutant freak ; but any man whose wife sings his praises the way you do with yours gets major, major props. I have accused your husband of NOTHING; if anything, he’s worthy of major compliments.

    Not every man can “just get it”. Some have to unlearn the bad and learn the good. Some men were fortunate not to have learned the bad.

  23. Deti says:

    Elspeth and SSM:

    Why do you hold your husbands out as examples of men who don’t need Game; and then squawk when your husbands are examined for the characteristics you have revealed they have which clearly indicate why they don’t need Game?

    Why do you think your husbands are ” just average guys”. When it’s been pointed out to you again and again that they are NOT average but are in fact way way above average by your own descriptions?

  24. Bradford says:

    @SSM and Elspeth

    Your argument seems to be that “because my husband is a natural dominant alpha type and doesn’t need to explicitly work to apply game techniques, therefore no Christian husband needs to.” Well, many Christian husbands do not have the natural dominance talent of your husbands. Furthermore their churches are telling them stuff that is actually counterproductive to improving their marriages. They are adrift. Those that lack this knowledge need to learn it. This is where I believe an understanding of game comes in handy for the Christian husband.

  25. JDG says:

    We can’t take credit for the Roissyites, but we can and must take credit for creating the conditions required for the Roissyites to thrive.

    I’m thinking only partial credit is due here. We did fail to stop the attack that the enemy launched against out families, motherhood, fatherhood and all that depended on these. And I think that is largely due to God’s precepts being on our lips but not in our hearts.

    However, I’m not sure that is the same as creating the conditions PUAs needed to thrive. I think the PUA types were right there with the feminists and other anti-Christians pushing for the removal of biblical boundaries and the destruction of the patriarchal family since at least the 60s.

    In short I think there was a war against all things Christian. It was a test if you will. A few faithful Christians fought and lost. Those that stood up against the feminist/leftist tidal wave lost their jobs. Those that challenged the new ‘morality’ lost their reputations. Most everyone else quickly fell in line (and failed the test).

    There were more than a few who held their ground and payed dearly for there faithfulness. But they were ignored or painted as ogres in the media. Now people don’t even remember that there was a fight at all.

  26. MarcusD says:

    what evidence can you give that shows that Christians are the ones who caused our society to abandon traditional marriage in favor of sexual promiscuity

    As several have stated at various points (Zippy, Slumlord), there are a few tendencies that have taken hold that have helped significantly in furthering the Sexual Revolution including the “forgiveness” misunderstanding (“you have to forgive them of their sexual past” + that there are no temporal consequences to premarital sex).

    The majority of the western world identified as Christian prior to the Sexual Revolution (to state the obvious). Religious advice from the 1950s undoubtedly contributed to the SE by undermining the importance of virginity. For example, from 1955:


    Should an Engaged Girl Reveal Her Past?
    PART I

    Problem: I am engaged and looking forward to a very happy marriage. But there is one doubt in my mind that seems to cast a shadow over my happiness. Long before I met my fiance, I fell into sin with another person. This has long since been confessed and deeply repented. The doubt in my mind is whether I should tell my husband-to-be about this previous fall]. Is such a confession necessary or even advisable for persons about to be married? I dread the thought of it; but do not want anything to stand in the way of our happiness.

    Solution: It is neither necessary nor advisable to make a confession of your past life to the man you are about to marry. You made your confession through the priest to God, and your sin was forgiven. The only lasting effect the sin should have on your life is to keep you humble, grateful for the forgiveness you received, and more and more dependent on God’s help to remain good. But there is no reason for your revealing the past to anyone.

    Sometimes a man who wants to marry a girl tries to insist that she tell him whether she had ever in her life lapsed from virtue. This is an unjust demand, an uncalled for probing into the secret and sacred conscience of another. A girl has no obligation of making a personal confession even in the face of such demands. Indeed, she may even recognize in such demands a danger sign: they may be motivated by an excessively jealous spirit that would cause her great sorrow after marriage. Even in the case that a boy or girl in love might suggest that they make mutual confessions to each other, the idea should be resisted and rejected. Lovers and engaged couples should be content to be able to say to each other that they cherish the grace of God and freedom from sin above all other goods, and that they will be loyal to each other for the whole of their lives. Moreover, it is more important that they help each other to avoid sin in their own pre-marriage association than that they worry about their own or their partner’s repented past.

    Should an Engaged Girl Reveal Her Past?

    PART II

    Problem: We are several girls in our late teens who would like to disagree with an opinion you expressed several months ago. You said that a man had no right to ask a girl whom he wanted to marry whether she had previously fallen from virtue, and that the girl had no obligation of admitting anything about her past to her fiance. We think that if a man wants to know what kind of girl he is marrying he should be allowed to ask her about her past, and that she should honestly tell him. After all, it is important to a man to know that he is marrying a good girl.

    Solution: We are in perfect agreement with the statement that it is important for a man to know that he is marrying a good girl. It is the purpose of the period of company-keeping to provide a man with assurance on this point, and equally so to provide the girl with assurance that he is a good man. By going together for several months, a man and woman can learn all they need to know about the ideals and moral characters of each other, if both are interested enough in this matter to look for and draw out from the other the spiritual and moral principles that are considered of greatest importance. A girl who lacks character and sound moral principles will not be able to hide her lack from a man who really considers such things necessary for a happy marriage. And a man who has not acquired solid virtue will clearly manifest his weakness to a girl who realizes that without it a happy marriage could not be hoped for.
    This testing of each other’s characters on the part of a boy and girl keeping company does not require open and complete revelations of each one’s past. We have set it down, and we repeat, that it is a general presumption that it is not wise for two people preparing for marriage to make full confessions to each other. It is not good for a man to demand of a girl whom he might ask to marry him that she tell him whether or how she ever fell into sin in the past. In our experience, we have found that most men who insist on being told such things have had rather chequered careers themselves, and have a leaning toward an unhealthy, not to say morbid, kind of jealousy. There are exceptions, of course, and our presumption, that in general it is best to leave the past buried, leaves room for them.

    It still remains possible, we believe, for a man to learn all he needs to know about a girl, even up to whether she has ever been a sinner or not, without asking direct questions or demanding revelations. And it is possible for a girl to learn through company-keeping whether the man she is going with hates sin, loves virtue, and is willing to face the sacrifices and responsibilities involved. The sad thing is that so many are not interested in these supremely important matters.

    From the book:
    Questions Young People Ask Before Marriage
    by Donald F. Miller, C.SS.R.
    Published by Liguorian Pamphlet Office
    Redemptorist Fathers – Liguori, Missouri
    Second Printing, 1955
    Reprinted from THE LIGUORIANA Catholic Monthly Magazine

    Published with Ecclesiastical Approval

    That type of advice started cropping up post-World War II, but really picked up speed in the mid-50s.

    Following the notion of pluralistic ignorance, if society looks to religious people as those who follow a higher standard, and those religious people are fornicating, then the observers will actually be more likely to fornicate.

    The people who get the angriest when someone insists on marrying a virgin are usually religious people (whether the person insisting is a virgin or not).

    The birth control pill was largely due to Dr. John Rock (practicing, but misguided, Catholic). Other forms of contraception were approved at the 1930 Lambeth Conference for many Christian denominations.

    Pius XI, in Casti Connubii, noted the outcome of contraception would be increased promiscuity (e.g. http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2013/10/double-standards-and-changing-standards.html), that is, he foretold all of the evil that would enter the world when the unitive and procreative aspects of sex were separated from one another.

    Paul VI noted the same in Humanae Vitae, and Roissy actually admits it: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/pope-paul-vi-on-birth-control-externalities/

    In the end, I do think that Christians played a large part in the SE, if for no other than they being the majority.

  27. Alex says:

    I am a Christian. I study and use game. The question for me is not whether it is moral or not. It is how well I do it. Probably not very well. But everything in me, around me and every interaction with my wife support game. My fortunes rise and fall to the degree that I use game. It is like the saying, lions one, Christians zero. You are going to lose the fight in the Coliseum of life without game.

  28. MarcusD says:

    Pius XI wasn’t afraid of feminists, either. On abortion: “[...] those wicked parents who seek to remain childless, and failing in this, are not ashamed to put their offspring to death.

    He’d have been shocked at where abortion has gone (in contrast with the quote, women generally exercise the decision alone).

  29. He married far too young for that to even be possible.

    Unless he was 11 or 12 this is a bit naive. Especially for a natural Alpha.

    Elspeth and SSM, it is unclear what you are disputing. Your husbands naturally do some of the things that have been taught as game, both men are successful with their wives. Other men observe what successful men do and emulate it (which happens to be some of the things your husbands naturally do). What does that tell you?

  30. Deti says:

    Bradford:

    Yeah I’m growing quite weary of the “this very attractive man I know doesn’t need game so therefore no one needs game” argument.

  31. Deti says:

    And the argument comes agaiin:

    Just Get It.

    Just figure it out for yourself.

    Just be yourself.

    Just be nice.

    RIIIIIIGHT.

  32. We’ve been seeing it around quite a bit lately, Deti. Furtherance of the lie, “just be yourselves guys, that’s all this guy does and he’s successful.”

  33. JDG says:

    MarcusD: Then there was John Dewey’s introducing socialism into school curriculum’s in the 1930s. Another bitter seed that has since sprouted into an anti-Christian monster in my opinion.

  34. Also amusing lately is that men *might* do something as dastardly as sin in the process of attracting a woman. For a moment imagine how sinful what they do in their failure is; the self condemnation, lust, coveting, etc etc. Or the married men might want a better relationship with their wives so that they get more sex. Pure, selfish, desire for SEX. And the natural alpha Christians who already enjoy a lot of sex, women married to natural alphas who have a lot of sex, and celibates get the vapors “Well that is not of the Lord!! He is being selfish, he is not putting God first, he’s putting his desire for sex first” blah, blah, blah.

  35. MarcusD says:

    @JDG

    Yes, that undoubtedly had consequences, as well (namely, disincentivizing marriage).

  36. “Just be yourself” may be useful advice for the kind of guy who is naturally cocky but has been taught to keep that part of himself well hidden around women. That’s the way I was, which is why the “Bratty Little Sister Frame” was very helpful to me: I instantly recognized that I knew how to be cocky and use negs and so on, because I picked on my little sister.

    But that only helps if you’re that kind of guy, with some alpha traits that have been stifled. And even then you have to be careful just to release the alpha traits. If I “be myself,” that means being more cocky which attracts women, but it also means being too chatty with a woman and doing too many things for her once we start spending time together, so I still have to hold back on those impulses.

    So “just be yourself” might be a useful part of game instruction, pointing out to men that they probably already know some of this stuff, and can benefit from relaxing some of the restrictions they’ve been taught to put on themselves. By itself, it’s pretty terrible advice, though.

  37. sunshinemary says:

    Sarah’s Daughter, I hope you aren’t referring to me because I have never said anything remotely like what you and Deti are saying here. I’ve never even come out strongly in favor of or against game. What I have said is that understanding reality does not necessitate a visit to the pick up artists.

  38. My apologies, SSM, if I misconstrued what you are saying. You are correct, understanding reality does not necessitate a visit to the pick up artists. There are men who will never need to read AG or CH. Good for them.

    Is your question sincere? “…how is it that my husband figured out how to do this on his own?” Do you still not know the answer to this?

    Your hyperbole – worshiping in the Temple of Roissy – might have been the reason for my reading you wrong.

  39. deti says:

    SSM:

    I know you’re not saying “just get it”, “just figure it out”. But you’re holding out men who don’t need Game and who have characteristics that show they don’t need Game as examples of why no one needs Game. Just because 2 men who are naturally confident, dominant men don’t need Game doesn’t mean that no men need Game. (I’m avoiding the “natural alpha” term since it’s a term that the natural alphas to whom it applies don’t like.)

  40. I suspect that women don’t like being told how alpha their husbands are because some people might infer that their faithfulness as wives is not a matter of choice, that they are at the mercy of their tingles rather than virtuously choosing to keep their vows. Sort of, “Well, it’s easy for you, because your husband is so dominant that you just can’t help submitting to him.”

    I think most of us know it’s not that simple, that women aren’t automatons, and considering the feminist/hypergamous air we’re all breathing, even a woman married to a super-alpha will have rebellious temptations to resist. I can understand why they resent the implication that they don’t.

  41. deti says:

    By itself, it’s pretty terrible advice, though.

    “By itself, it’s pretty terrible advice, though.”

    Yes it is. And that’s all that most men ever get. It’s all the tradcons offer up. “Just don’t be liberal” and “Just figure it out for yourself”. Don’t read anything. Don’t talk to anyone. Don’t ask anyone for anything. Don’t seek help. Don’t do this Don’t do that. Don’t. Don’t. Can’t. Shouldn’t. Mustn’t.

  42. deti says:

    Cail:

    I have implied nothing at all beyond exactly what has been said about those men by the very women who know them the best. They are men among men. They are leaders of men. Other men look to them for advice. They are captains of their ships. They are confident. They are dominant. They are extremely sexually attractive.

    We’re doing what the tradcons insist that we should do. We are looking up to them. We are emulating them. We are not looking up to bad boys. We are looking to good, Godly, confident, dominant men. (Because looking up to men who have competency with women is BAD BAD BAD.)

    In other words, these confident, dominant men “just get it”. They “figured it out for themselves”.

    The implication is “why can’t you average Joes ‘just get it’ like our husbands do?” Can’t you “just get it”? Can’t you just “figure it out for yourselves”?

    Well, no.

    When we did look around us, here’s what we were told:

    “those girls sleeping with badboys are stupid. You are a sweet, good, attractive, hawt Christian guy. Christian guys who pray and do dishes are SEXY and anyone who tells you anything different is WRONG WRONG WRONG. You just believe me and not your lying eyes. I’m right. Pastor says so. Bishop says so. Bible says so. Don’t worry. You’ll get yours…. someday. Just have faith. Just be nice. Just be yourself.”

  43. sunshinemary says:

    Thank you, Cail. That is definitely part of it. It’s circular logic.

    Them: “Well, you only (say nice things about your husband/didn’t divorce your husband/still like having sex with your husband/ etc) because he is so alpha.”

    Me: “Oh really? And what makes you conclude he is so alpha?”

    Them: “Why, because you (say nice things/didn’t divorce/still have sex/etc)!”

    That’s some impeccable logic right there.

  44. Robert in Arabia says:

    When the TV news readers and the newpapers announced that the first legal abortion was going to take place at Grant Hospital in Chicago, I went there that morning to join the protest I believed would take place. When I got there I was alone. None of the Christian clergy bothered to protest. It was then that I realized all of the Christian professionals were frauds.

  45. What I have said is that understanding reality does not necessitate a visit to the pick up artists. — SSM

    It doesn’t now, thanks to this blog and other “Christian game” or “married game” blogs. Ten or twenty years ago, that really wasn’t the case. All the game conversation then was in the context of pickup artistry: how to get girls’ numbers, how to keep them from flaking, how to deal with last-minute resistance, etc. There was a little attention paid to relationships — for instance, experience showed that waiting for the second meet-up to have sex made a future relationship more likely, so men could act accordingly — but mostly you were on your own. The info just wasn’t anywhere else.

    Technically, you could say the info is there in scripture and in old books and movies, but it was never laid out in clear how-to style, backed up with explanations of why it works. That’s necessary now because a man trying to swim upstream against the feminist river needs all the confidence he can get to fend off the constant messages that he’s wrong. He needs to know that game works and that he’s right to use it.

    That information was rediscovered, studied, and developed into useful instructions primarily by a bunch of atheistic, evolution-believing, hedonists. It’d be nice if that had been done by a bunch of virtuous, church-going men — and it could have been, but they were too busy trying to be nice guys like their mothers told them and getting shot down over and over. So the PUAs had the field to themselves for a while.

    It would hardly be the first time God used sinners to accomplish something good, though, so I don’t see that as much of a problem. Approach their offerings with care, of course, understanding that you’ll have to sort out the chaff, but there’s no need to discard the wheat too. And now that game is being discussed by non-PUAs, we can also confirm (or falsify) their claims against what we’re rediscovering from scripture and those older sources.

  46. deti says:

    Am I the only one who has noticed that men who are setting out to describe and come up with alternatives to Game are creating, expositing, writing? Creating graphs and pyramid charts? Coming up with detailed (gasp) PRAXIS??!! Detailed descriptions of what to do, how to do it, when and why? Theory? Practice? Practical application of biblical and theoretical concepts?

    Why are they doing this?

    Why is Deep Strength pounding out at least one high quality post EVERY DAY?

    Why is Chad Bianchi setting out to describe Godly masculinity?

    Why is donalgraeme showcasing their efforts at his blog?

    Why, when all we need to do is “Just don’t be liberal” and “Just figure it out for yourself?

    Hey, I’m just guessing here.

    Could it be they’re doing this because they, Oh, I don’t know…. see a NEED for it? See a need for it because men NEED it?

  47. I have implied nothing at all beyond exactly what has been said about those men by the very women who know them the best. They are men among men. — deti

    Agreed. I chuckle when a wife talks about how much she loves serving her husband and can’t get enough sex with him and goes to a lot of trouble to make her appearance the way he wants it — and then says he’s not alpha.

    But I guess my point was that it doesn’t have to be all one or the other. Yes, obviously these men are alpha — at least alpha enough for their wives, which does vary from one woman to another. But it can also be true that their wives sometimes feel less than totally tingly for them and have to work at being submissive.

  48. sunshinemary says:

    Deti, I think everyone here applauds what Donal, Chad, and DS are doing. Note that all three have concluded that going to PUAs to learn game is unwise. So how could they possibly be figuring this information out?? Could it be that it is possible to figure out how to pass a fitness test without going to an unmarried and sexually immoral man for advice?

  49. What is nice about what SSM and Elspeth write is their honesty about the struggle they do have occasionally with submission. Being a natural alpha or being very good at emulating the successful traits of one does not guarantee a wife who doesn’t have some rebellion going on. What they write corresponds well with what is also talked about on game sites regarding the nature of women. Their honesty and willingness to share is very helpful for other women who desire to root out rebellion (especially when they bring up areas of rebellion that aren’t even on our radar).

  50. deti says:

    SSM:

    Perhaps.

    Perhaps if someone — ANYONE — had done this 30 years ago, I wouldn’t have had to learn to pass a fitness test without reading Roissy.

    And maybe because of DS’ work, and that of Chad and donal, Christian men won’t have to read Roissy; they can instead read Deep Strength or Chad or donal.

    the point is, they don’t subscribe to the foolhardy notions of “just don’t be liberal” and “just figure it out for yourself”. They are setting out lengthy how-to’s, theory and practical advice.

    And they’re doing so clearly with Roissyan influence.

    They’re standing on Roissy’s shoulders. THey’re not building on his work; but their work and style is modeled after it — not in substance, but in style and presentation.

  51. M3 says:

    SSM
    “Deti, I think everyone here applauds what Donal, Chad, and DS are doing. Note that all three have concluded that going to PUAs to learn game is unwise. So how could they possibly be figuring this information out?? Could it be that it is possible to figure out how to pass a fitness test without going to an unmarried and sexually immoral man for advice?”

    I don’t know Donal or DS well enough and im not going to try to impune Chad in anyway shape or form by putting words in his mouth. Hopefully he’ll correct me if im wrong but i think it should suffice to say that he didn’t just up and start writing about Christian Masculinity out of the blue, but there was a natural progression between his first leaning about game and practicing the basics of the Roissy/Roosh’s, at least when it came to interacting with women, learning style, holding frame and occupying space.

    They may have concluded that it’s unwise, but i’m pretty sure they all recognized the value of what was being said by the PUA’s, even if they chose not to adopt the lifestyle.

    I find it funny that you are exhibiting the same sneer that i’ve seen women on dating sites give me when i told them i was reading the book ‘the game’. You all treat learning game as a means to trick women into getting into bed or some other nefarious means. That we read it before we apply it means it’s not legitimate because as Deti has continually referenced Rollo’s post, if you don’t ‘JUST GET IT’.. then you’re a faux puppet alpha and not the real deal. Hence something lesser and unworthy.

    Women need to start flushing that shit from their mind. GAME is a TOOL. It’s all depends on the ethics and the morality of the person who wields it that matters! Your hubby may have been a natural and ‘GOT IT’ all his life, so of course game would seem silly for him. He had is baked in. Others were not so lucky, by genetics or environment.

    I’d hold myself up as a prime example of one who did not ‘JUST GET IT’. You’ve all read my story.

    Don’t hate the game. Hate the ‘playah’. There are untold numbers of men who learn game and use it to craft and hold onto meaningful relationships, as i have done. Don’t tar us all with the Tucker Max/Roosh brush just because we first came to learn and understand about what really attracts females from them.. and not those who were supposed to guide us.

  52. galloper6 says:

    Christians did not invent the printing press and paper but we sure learned to use this powerful world changing tech. Why not “read Rommel’s book”?

  53. @sunshinemary

    Most alpha behaviors are the natural behaviors of men raised in loving households. If you were valued as a child, you’ll value yourself as an adult.
    http://runsonmagic.com/2014/01/game-reveals-your-true-self/

    Your husband likely has a strong self of self, as anyone around you all day would have to.

    The reason many, if not most men, have to learn game systematically rather than instinctively is because instilling value and self-worth in stable loving households is the exception for most men, rather than the rule.

    While parents have never been perfect, our society has accelerated this problem through misandry, shaming masculinity and the normal behavior of boys, single motherhood, and the destabilization of the family.

    You husband also likely grew up in a time where stable loving intact families were more common. Then men hitting their twenties now are the children of the divorce wars, if they even had a father. They went to schools post Title IX. They were told about how they were one wrong move away from sexual harassment or rape.

    Knowing what we think of as game is instinctual and natural, but most of our society has rejected the natural.

    Also, you’ll like my ROK article this week. It runs Thursday.

  54. donalgraeme says:

    @ MarcusD

    Thanks for reprinting that article, it was disgusting. That might as well have been written by a modern Christo-Feminist. For it instead to have come from a Catholic publication in the 50′s… no wonder the American Church is in a bad way.

  55. MarcusD says:

    “Ethical Pick-Up Artistry” might be a (re)starting point.

    —-

    Also, this:

    http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2013/08/the-absence-of-masculine-influence.html

    and this:

    http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2014/01/paternal-disengagement-and-female.html

    There’s a theme, I think, in the problems that the manosphere is responding to (and the ones the PUA community ‘benefited’ from).

  56. MarcusD says:

    @donalgraeme

    Happy to. I dealt with the general theme here, too: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2014/01/some-trends-worth-noting.html

    It’s worth noting that in the 1950s, promiscuity (that is, premarital sex) was properly understood as being undesirable (e.g. not a positive), but the effects on subsequent marital dissolution and marital satisfaction (etc) were not at all understood. Even then, it is not surprising in the least that outdated, inaccurate, and potentially harmful advice such as his should be as commonly supported as it is today (though, mostly in religious circles, which I think is due to a misconception of what forgiveness entails). Science is not stuck in the 1950s, and it is best that comments on that topic recognized, rather than denied that.

    Beyond that, I still find it fascinating that Br. Donald would actually stoop to the level of shaming language. There’s also the issue of the association fallacy (amongst other fallacies).

  57. MarcusD says:

    But yes, it is disgusting (and shocking) to find out about the existence of those publications back in the 50s. In fact, until I looked into it further, I thought it was fake (e.g. written by a modern Christian/Catholic crypto-feminist). It looks like it’s from a Catholic proto-crypto-feminist.

    The American Church is in a terrible state.

  58. MarcusD says:

    CAF again:

    Do women change after marriage? (…weight gain?)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=856580

    Sexless Marriage (…weight gain?)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=856722

  59. hoellenhund2 says:

    So that Alte broad is still around? Meh. And yes, tradcon women are lame. Some of the commenters here are exactly right about that. ’nuff said.

    At the end of the day, Christianity is just a tool, nothing more. It’s just one det of dogmas among others in this world. It can be used to manipulate men and women, but that manipulation can have various results. It can manipulate men into becoming alpha warriors or hopeless beta chumps. It can manipulate women into being virtuous, pleasant damsels or self-righteous, promiscuous whores. Game, however, cannot be used for such purposes. It cannot be harmful towards men, it cannot be a tool to betaize them. That doesn’t stop some people from trying, of course, as the emergence of Game 2.0 shows.

    Christianity’s only potential usefulness is to keep women, children and lesser men in line. If it fails to do that, it should be jettisoned for the benefit of sane men.

  60. donalgraeme says:

    @ Sunshine Mary

    There is a difference between learning from Game (and PUAs) and practicing Game. Deep Strength, Chad and myself all have learned things from Game, and will probably continue to learn things in the future from its practitioners. What we have decided not to do, however, is simply try and practice Game itself. All three of us have more or less come to the conclusion that it isn’t merely a set of tools, but something more. What that is exactly differs between us, as it isn’t easy to explain.

    Our aim is to create that alternative which Free Northerner asked for not too long ago. Of course, some men can and have been able to purloin tips and tricks from Game safely. Joseph of Jackson being one such example. I’ve used some of them myself to fair effect. But not every man has a solid moral core, and so simply handing them “the book” without that is dangerous. Our goal isn’t merely self-improvement at this point, but to help others as well.

    Oh, and SSM, your husband is clearly not “average” based on what you have said of him thus far. More than that I will leave for this who have met him. As for why he “got it”, some of it would have been genetics, some would have been upbringing (being raised by a masculine father, not being told to be nice to women, etc.), and some of it would have been flat out luck. Experience is the big thing- once you start to have some experience with women, you can figure out a lot of the tips and tricks yourself. This builds on itself, and then -viola!- you have a “natural”.

    @ Deti

    Chad, Deep Strength and I are not standing on Roissy’s shoulders. We are building an entirely different edifice. Actually, like Ezra and Nehemiah, we are rebuilding an old structure which was leveled over the course of the last few generations. In the process of rebuilding we are certainly looking over our shoulders at Roissy and his ilk, observing and reverse engineering what we think has value.

  61. The PUAs were simply shrewd and adaptations to the environment. They knew what they wanted and worked to get it. In other contexts, we’d praise that.

    But what they’ve codified has a wipe sweep of things, rightly, derided by Christians, but also many things that are Good, of God and important. This is why we have to sort and discern. And the major push-back we’ll see in a few years is going to down to this very issue: “Game” ended up incorporating parts of God that were rejected for selfish, sinful and foolish reasons. The mainline Christians are going to react in pain to the coals heaped upon their brows.

  62. @donal:

    Run with the Erza & Nehemiah theme, it’ll serve you well in the endeavor.

  63. chunling says:

    The essential core of what is analyzed as “Game” is the role of the man as the protector rather than the provider. Women need both from a husband, but only the role of protector is of any use from the man they select as a father of their children, if they separate the roles (which they have a marked incentive to do if husbands only provide, rather than protecting).

    The primary way that men can offer protection to women as a husband is by being ready to respond effectively to violence against their family. The traits that permit this are also genetically inheritable, so even a non-husband candidate father who is quick to respond to violence against himself can be useful in producing children with a higher chance of survival.

    “Game” ignores this core by making the behavior of the man (as husband or candidate father) towards the woman the focus. But the real issue for the woman is what she can discern of how the man is going to act towards potential dangers from the world at large, particularly aggressive males. Whether a man is seen as being able to prevail through strength, cunning, or some combination of the two, women don’t want those abilities demonstrated against themselves so much as they want to be reassured that they are available for use against external threats.

    If you are openly and obviously willing and able to respond to danger and aggression immediately and effectively, you won’t need to use “Game” to get women to see you as a potential protector. Really, the problem becomes politely managing their offers.

  64. Chris says:

    @Hollenhund: Don’t go to Bavaria: That “tradcon meh” teaches rhetoric for amusement and will argue you to a standstill. Who is not tradcon at all: the woman was wise enough to listen to her husband: to get out of the USA and raise her kids somewhere where the volk is still strong, and raising your children is collective, honoured, to the point where kids and have freedom with safety..

    I would not suggest any man comment on how wives react: instead learn from people like Elspeth and V, who at times have gtiven a fair amount of information about how their husbands are attractive. Yes, your mileage may vary, but Traditional Christianity is still up, and it is a useful resource, for women teach as much by example as by precept, and the Ladies gave plenty of them.

    On the issue of teaching: many fathers do not, and it is one of the duties of those of us in the church to teach men. I suggest they study both Proverbs (for who to avoid) and Song (for how to act when in love), and keep the harpies from the feminist family court well away by that ancient tactic of shunning.

  65. St. Gregory the Great was once asked (or so the legend goes) how dares he to use pagan music for worship, and he replied: why should the devil have all the good songs?

  66. Chris says:

    @DDJWP. Well, St Gregory, Luther and Wesley all said basically “why should the devil have all the good music”. On that there is a problem: the best music in the world was written by Bach, and he was a staunch Evangelical, and the best music of last century was written by Gorecki, who was staunchly Catholic.

    But the analogy misses the point. The idea of Game and the need for a Game toolkit is predicated on the button of destruction: no fault divorce, and the functional approval of this frivorce by the church “if your husband is not a Man of God”.

    The people who preach this forget that Peter said to Jesus that he should not be with him, because he was a sinner: that Paul considered himself the greatest of sinners, and these two men were open about their struggles and had at times controntation. There is no one perfect but Christ. They forget that women submit to their husbands for the sake of Christ, and husbands love their wives and lay down their lives for them… for the sake of Christ.

    For wives, submission is a spiritual discipline they choose to take when they say “I do”. And Paul told all believers that being married would increase your distress, and recommended the celibate life. So the first problem is that the church is not teaching wifely duty, and therefore the need for game exists.

    The second problem is that Game takes ideas that are very ancient about seducction. They were codified by Ovid in Amores , and probably predate this. But the goal there is to corrupt a the object of lust with half truths and desire, yo damage, to debase, and to gain pleasure from this. Christians are told to shun this.

    Instead, husbands are called to lead, to coach, to encourage, to see their wives move towards maturity in Christ. Which, in today’s world, and today’s church, is a matter of subverting the messages of both Churchians and secular authority.

    We need to be careful of what tools we use: like the ring in Tolkeins fantasy, the tools can warp us.

  67. Ras Al Ghul says:

    Tis a thing of beauty you have written, Dalrock

  68. hoellenhund2 says:

    Chris,

    I’ve been to Bavaria before. Nice place, but nevertheless part of an inexorably dying culture. As far as Alte is concerned, she’s mediocre at best. I’ve explained to her before that she’s simply too impulsive to be a blogger and a honored thinker. Hell, she has already created about four blogs and deleted them all. She just can’t think straight. Plus she’s very prone to react to men with shaming language and hates MRAs.

    Tradcons are valuable as serfs. That’s as much as one can say about them. That’s the reason why the Cathedral will never actually do any harm to them. It depends on the labor of clueless tradcon betas and their wives.

  69. Hugh says:

    “….and on this rock (petra) I will build my church….”

    Game is not Christian per se, but it helps Christian men to see how far they have strayed from the rock-like model of St. Peter.

  70. Bee says:

    @SSM, Deti,

    “SSM:

    Because not all men are your husband. Not all men are equally susceptible to societal pressures. And not all men can rack up an N like your husband. Not all men are as attractive as he obviously is.”

    I agree with Deti on this point. Some men are “natural born Alpha’s”. Most are not.

    I was a shy, unconfident, blue pill church guy. I studied the Bible, served at church, went on church mission trips and still did not learn this stuff from church, or from my Bible study, or from my father.

    Jesus never talked about algebra or soccer; does that mean we should avoid both?

  71. Opus says:

    I have no idea what Game is. I have no idea whether I have gamed anyone, but if I have, whether I achieved my desired result, if indeed I had any desired result. Was I gaming that attractive petite woman (last night) who offered me a lift home in her motor-car, and when I declined, offered again which offer I also declined, and then offered a third time with the same result. A real case of MgTow, I suppose.

    I suspect that Game (whatever it may be) would breach Kant’s categorical imperative.

  72. alcockell says:

    “But I’m always true to you darling in my fashion”? Riiiight. Fuck that. My response? “Complete disclosure, or get out of my life. Own your shit.”

  73. earl says:

    “A woman who marries as a young virgin is far more likely to be willing to submit to her husband, and (modern) Christian fathers everywhere are terrified of such a prospect.”

    Then those beta fathers have much deeper issues. They are beaten down by their wife so they want to make sure their daughter gives him the womanly submission he is looking for.

    I’ve also seen them get jealous that their wives display more love to their sons than him. It’s like they have no clue how the world works.

  74. Think of it this way. We know dark triad traits are attractive to women:

    1. Narcissism is characterized by grandiosity, pride, egotism, and a lack of empathy.[8]
    2. Machiavellianism is characterized by manipulation and exploitation of others, a cynical disregard for morality, and a focus on self-interest and deception.[9]
    3. Psychopathy is characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, impulsivity, selfishness, callousness, and remorselessness.[10]

    But we also know that truly developed masculine men that walk according to the Spirit are attractive — Jesus is a great example as He had tons of men and women literally following Him around — who displays the fruits of the Spirit and the virtues:

    22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. + Faith, hope, and love

    An action is either morally good or it’s morally bad. There really is no middle ground. That’s why God cares about the heart.

    Are you choosing to serve God with what you do or are you choosing to serve the flesh or self with what you do?

    I’ve always maintained that knowledge is not a bad thing. We are called to be wise to the knowledge of the world (in it and not of it and to be shrewd) as long as how we learn is not sinful itself.

    There’s a difference between just taking stuff from game and doing it (which is selfish), but seeing the knowledge or mechanics behind why it may work and doing it in love.

    I can see why this is a toolbox and why it’s not a toolbox as I explained in this post because of the top-down vs bottom-up views:

    http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/the-end-of-the-game-debate/

  75. earl says:

    Isn’t also a game when “Christian” leaders tell you to be nice, work hard, live moral…and you’ll get chicks? Isn’t it a game when they shame you because you are being a little boy and not manning up and marrying the sluts?

  76. jf12 says:

    @earl “Isn’t also a game when “Christian” leaders tell you to be nice, work hard, live moral…and you’ll get chicks? Isn’t it a game when they shame you because you are being a little boy and not manning up and marrying the sluts?” Yes, and yes. This adivce is pretty much what everyone knows everyone was taught. To the extent that some anti-Game Christian men are trying to say that they disavow this advice, they must pretended that it was not previously proffered as a viable alternative to Game. At the very least, Game awareness has caused them to back off this advice.

  77. jf12 says:

    @Deep Strength “we also know that truly developed masculine men that walk according to the Spirit are attractive”
    We know the opposite. Your advice is false and heretical, as Dalrock has made clear multiple times recently.

  78. jf12 says:

    @donalgraeme “once you start to have some experience with women” and your alternative to help nice men build experience with women is ???

  79. jf12 says:

    Re: definition of Game. It took me all of about a month of immersion in the manosphere to come up with my definition: Game is conspiring with a woman to pick her up. Applicable to Christian wives, for Christian husbands.

  80. jf12 says:

    @JDG “I think this is partly why patriarchal societies place restrictions on women.” I think this is ENTIRELY why: the fact that women are susceptible to Game.

  81. jf12 says:

    @deti
    It was this fact that you are harping on: that otherwise intelligent women cannot escape the apex fallacy, that prompted me to open the Pandora’s box of the feminine imperative courtesy of Rollo. I think I know why women HAVE to say “Just get it”, “Just be an alpha already, wouldja” and “Just be handsome, be attractive, and don’t be unattractive.” It must be the case that they know no what they, i.e. how badly they too like all women hurt so badly the majority of men. Otherwise they’d be too ashamed to say it.

  82. Deti says:

    Earl :

    The reddit thread is a good find.

    And that bit about “churchian” leaders gaming men? Good point. See exhibit a: Mark Driscoll.

  83. Novaseeker says:

    Ah, you finally weighed in on this. I was waiting for this post. Well done, I think.

    I’ve been observing these discussions over the past few weeks with some interest on the various blogs where they have been taking place without actually participating much in them (I did have some back and forth with Slumlord on a related issue, but really very much on the other end of the spectrum here and not directly a part of this specific discussion).

    As far as I can tell there are three main perspectives that are coming out of this discussion so far:

    1. Game is a tool which can be used for good or ill, and can be a practical help for men in pursuing Christian relationships (i.e., marriage). Joseph of Jackson, Hawaiian Libertarian, Deti, Dalrock (I think?), Slumlord (and me).

    2. Game is bad for Christians because it was developed by immoral people to further their immoral acts.. Further, it isn’t needed because the bible has all the information you need in order to learn how to attract a mate and maintain a healthy relationship with them. Cane, Donal, Northerner, Elspeth (1/2).

    3. Game is morally illegitimate in its provenance and also superfluous because it teaches nothing new. But neither is the Bible a manual of female sexual psychology and inter-sexual attraction. Rather, what you need to do is free yourself of the cultural assumptions arising from living in a liberal democracy, and then figure it out. It’s not hard to just figure it out — and if it’s hard for you, there’s really a lot more wrong with you than we can mention in a blog post. Zippy, SSM, Elspeth (1/2).

    ====

    Interesting. Not particularly new, of course, but interesting.

    In general, as I wrote at HL’s blog last week, I think this kind of discussion is a good thing, because personally I have always viewed Game and the rest of the wisdom of the manosphere as a kind of grab bag or clearinghouse, rather than as a “total systemic worldview” which must be adopted in toto, in contradistinction to other over-arching worldviews. So what I see is people who have taken this and that which they have found useful and discarding this and that which they have not found useful — or which they have found problematic for other reasons (immorality, provenance, superfluous). To me, this means things are working well.

    I think in the Christian part of the manosphere there has always been a tension, because Christianity is, in fact, a total worldview, and so at some stage there is going to be a tension where the person either seeks to integrate things into a Christian worldview, or instead decides that this can’t be done because the thing represents an incompatible “system” or worldview, which is perceived to be (or is, depending on the case) inimical to the Christian worldview. This tension is normal, I think, and occurs in other areas as well (e.g., politics). A lot of it has to do with personal disposition, I think (as does apparently one’s political perspectives), so none of this is really surprising. I suspect a lot of people are going to be agreeing to disagree about these things, just as many Christians have done with regard to politics as well.

  84. Deti says:

    What I find funny about “just get it” is that now it isn’t only women who are telling men this.

    Now tradcons are saying the exact same thing.

    How feminine and girlish of tradcons to adopt a female argumentation shaming technique.

  85. Tilikum says:

    ok. i gotta chime in. as a very strong natural sigma who is hard K selected with a preference for commitment because my DNA is incredibly valuable, its interesting to me to hear the machinations and the attempts to define. i don’t even use the word “game” because what we are talking about is ineffable. can’t be defined, only practiced.

    hold out your hands in front of you:

    in the left hand is the rules that men are taught to live by….(love, honor, sacrifice, blah blah) and the VAST majority of females say they live by, and by necessity, the females promulgate these rules in an attempt to ignore the biology of human choice that puts men in the reproductive drivers seat…

    http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/keeping-it-real/

    in the right hand, are the real rules that women LIVE, ACT, and RESPOND to (AFBB, Jerkboy Charisma, PUA stuff) and that some men have chosen to adapt to as a basic survival strategy to promote their reproductive agenda.

    respectfully, religion is a failed control mechanism that rightfully and necessarily attempts to smooth out the spikes in the signal above. and while Christianity is suffering the reality of American excess and its affect on American (and other Western) women, there is hope, just not here and in this time.

    it wont always be that way.

  86. jf12 says:

    @Sarah’s Daughter
    What is your take on this: Why do women deny that in their advice to men they are saying nothing else but “Just be one of the few alphas wouldja?”

  87. jf12 says:

    Real question to all the anti-Game proponents: how much of your aversion to sheep in wolves’ clothing is based on mere gut-feel squeamishness, and how much do you actually believe is doctrinal?

  88. earl says:

    Was Jesus gaming people during His time on Earth? Fasting for 40 days, prayer, speaking in parables, inviting himself into people’s homes, telling it like it is to sinners and Pharisees alike, whipping the bankers out of the Temple, telling fishermen that they would be fisher of men, curing people of illnesses, walking on water, turning water into wine, transforming in front of some of the apostles, having one of the most well known and painful deaths, coming back from it. The guys that followed him continued His church to this day despite getting beat up by the world and losing their lives.

    Or is that the way He is?

  89. The amazing thing about what Dalrock is saying, and this goes largely over the heads of most people, is that if you don’t teach or let Christian men learn game and the truth of its effectiveness, you are inviting only bad or non-Christian men to learn it and thus use it for evil and debauchery.

  90. jf12 says:

    Re: followers of Jesus. They gave up, and went back to their previous professions e.g. fishing as soon as possible.

  91. earl says:

    A great example of outcome independence is when people started to give up on Jesus…and He just kept on going. His closest followers included a betrayer, a denier, and a doubter.

    So was he playing a game…or was he being himself?

  92. jf12 says:

    Re: Jesus as a Natural. His friends, nonRomans, countrymen, from his home church, his neighbors, his peeps, the ones he spent His first thirty years with, they considered Him worthless in the extreme.
    Luke 4:29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.

  93. jf12 says:

    Cat the apex mountain out of your eye first, that ye might see clearly.

  94. Pingback: the Revision Division

  95. Sir_Chancealot says:

    I like Roissy’s definition of alpha the best, as it cuts through all the b.s. I am going to paraphrase it. “If hot women want to have sex with him, he is an alpha”. Full stop.

    SSM, Elspeth, and Sarah’s Daughter, pay attention. That is the ONLY qualifier. Since all 3 of you have said at times that hot women want to have sex with him, he is an alpha, no matter what you believe about him.

    Game is simply actions (or non-actions) that make a man more sexually attractive to women. Full stop. All this “inner game, outer game, text game, martian game”, etc., are just nuances and niche pockets of game.

    Draw a big circle, and label it “Game”. This will represent ANYTHING a man does that makes him more sexually attractive to women. Inside this big circle, put any other circles, and label them any way you want. “Game” encompasses (literally, in your drawing) ANY acItion/non-action a make takes to make himself sexually desirable to women.

    If a Christian man is opposed to being sexually desirable by women, then he has either never read, or NOT UNDERSTOOD, Song Of Solomon in the bible. It reads like an outright porno once you understand the metaphors.

    At my best friends wedding, when I got up to make a toast to the new couple (this was back in 2000 or so) for my speech, I said a few things, and called up the bride and groom to read some specially chosen parts from Song of Solomon. The bride and groom were outright blushing and getting embarrassed (in a good way), and the guests were cracking up. Let’s just say that in that context, EVERYONE in the room understood what was actually being said in those passages.

    Every parent with a daughter should read PUA sites, so that they can teach their daughters to watch for those signs in a guy. Every guy should read them (especially Roissy) because, ultimately, they give out the truth about how women react to certain things.

    I find it endlessly fascinating that a single avowed atheist is saving more Christian marriages than all the pastors, priests, and shepherds combined.

    His people perish from “lack of knowledge”, not because they know too much.

  96. Zippy says:

    Tilikum:
    If Game can’t be defined, only practiced, it is tantamount to “just get it”.

    If Game can be defined it is the Sixteen Commandments of Poon.

  97. @jf12
    @Sarah’s Daughter
    What is your take on this: Why do women deny that in their advice to men they are saying nothing else but “Just be one of the few alphas wouldja?”

    Best I can tell is they simply don’t know what they don’t know.

    They likely have not raised a son who despite his upbringing, example of his father, the discussion of the nature of women had around the home, still struggles with his natural tendencies. He is, at his very core, a kind, compassionate guy (normal guy – Natural Delta). A few years ago he sent a girlfriend a text that he couldn’t talk at the moment as he was hanging out with his family. She texted him back “I hate you” – he literally believed it and was hurt by it. His first thought was to excuse himself from hanging out with us so he could make things right with her.

    Still today he’d rather hang out with the girls he’s attracted to and wants to believe that his close proximity to them will eventually work out in his favor and they’ll show indicators of interest. It’s easier if this is true.

    Just last week he spoke up in class and asserted something that while true is not politically correct, the girls railed against him. It made him uncomfortable and he struggled with his desire to conform so that the girls wouldn’t be angry with him.

    In addition to the Bible, in addition to prayer, in addition to mentoring with his father, in addition to my testimony (being a woman with an understanding of women – which is also the least effective advice) his father has him read AG and CH. Then they talk about it. The lights come on and it is clear to him why the jerks are getting all the girls attention and where his thinking is off.

    If I were a single mother who knew nothing of game and what I understand of the nature of all women, I might be just like the “just be yourself” mother who sees this good looking kid who girls just want to be friends with, completely unaware that it’s frustrating him to no end that girls are not attracted to him. If I were the wife of a natural Alpha it might be the same. I don’t know what I don’t know as well. I’m not the wife of a natural Alpha, I’m the wife of a man who very successfully balances Alpha and Beta traits, knows why he does it, and knows why I respond the way I do. And is committed to teaching his son how to do the same so he’ll be successful as well, hopefully without having to go through what we did to get that way.

  98. Padre99 says:

    Until Christian men realize that dating/relationships outside of marriage is Old Testament, and the affairs of Marriage are the purview of the New Testament, the dissonance will continue to abound.

  99. earl says:

    “If hot women want to have sex with him, he is an alpha”

    So we are going off women’s judgement and standards here.

    Here’s my definition of alpha…he gets men to give up everything they’ve ever known and they follow him. You don’t think women will notice that?

  100. sunshinemary says:

    Christianity is just a tool, nothing more. It’s just one det of dogmas among others in this world.

    Since none of the other Christians here apparently care enough about your immortal soul to address this, I will do it. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He paid the blood price for your sin. If you reject His payment, you will spend eternity separated from God. The good news is the Christ rejects no one who accepts Him. I have prayed for you to know and accept the truth and forgiveness that can be found only in Christ.

    Game, however, cannot be used for such purposes. It cannot be harmful towards men, it cannot be a tool to betaize them. That doesn’t stop some people from trying, of course, as the emergence of Game 2.0 shows.

    Game cannot be harmful toward men? Under any scenario? One of the main goals of game as it is taught by its gurus is to engage in casual sex. Yet the most recent and comprehensive study on casual sex found a strong link with significantly increased suicidal ideation and the effect was stronger for men than for women:

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2013.821440#.Uu5uf_ldX9Q

    Is suicide not harmful?

    Christianity’s only potential usefulness is to keep women, children and lesser men in line. If it fails to do that, it should be jettisoned for the benefit of sane men.

    Christianity cannot be jettisoned anymore than death can be jettisoned.

  101. Elspeth says:

    Unless he was 11 or 12 this is a bit naive. Especially for a natural Alpha.

    I never said he was pure as the driven snow. Far from it.

    I’m just saying that the criteria for being an alpha seems often to include being a human dipstick, or the desire to be one if not for that pesky Bible, and my husband wasn’t like that.

    On this “natural” business: Not sure my husband qualifies.”Natural” implies that nothing needs to be taught. He was taught by example and sometimes in words, and not everything he was taught was acceptable or godly. His father may have been a “natural” though, and he raised his boys a certain way.

    Just like my MIL, most of my SIL’s would argue with the notion that their “alphaness” has been advantageous to their married life.

    My husband would say it comes down to being unapologetic for who you are, whomever that is. I am just not sure how Game accomplishes that end, but I assume you know better than I do.

    I heard it said this way once: “Game seeks to appeal to a woman’s lowest nature. A husbands job is to call her to a higher one.”

  102. sunshinemary says:

    [I forgot to put them in quotes, but the first two sentences in my comment above are quoting HH.)

  103. Pingback: Dalrock, feeling the Jealousy of Cain, disobeys God, Moses, and Jesus Christ, and tries to steal Game from the Great HEartistes!!! | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl

  104. deti says:

    SSM:

    “So how could they possibly be figuring this information out?? Could it be that it is possible to figure out how to pass a fitness test without going to an unmarried and sexually immoral man for advice?”

    I know you and I will just have to agree to disagree on much of this. But let me make the case again.

    Up until about three weeks or so ago, from whom were men supposed to learn about intersexual relationships? I’m told there are “nonPUA sources” for this information. What sources? From whom? The question is continually asked, but the response is “just don’t be a liberal” and “just figure it out for yourself”.

    Consider the 14 year old boy walking through this for the first time. He’s been marinated in liberalism from the time he was very small. His dad is a pussywhipped beta, his mom a ballbusting feminist. He’s supposed to “shed his liberalism” in this environment? He’s supposed to openly defy and rebel against his parents and say “nope, you’re full of shit; I’m going to “just not be a liberal” and “just figure it out for myself”?

    You say that men are supposed to learn from observing reality, and figure it out from that. Consider that it’s much more than that: objective reality is always, always filtered through a person’s worldviews, and a person receives those worldviews from the people around him. It isn’t just about observation, i.e. seeing what is going on around you and then analyzing it to determine what is actually happening. It’s primarily about what metrics to apply to the observations you make, from where you received the metrics, how and the metrics were calibrated, who calibrated the metrics, who is telling you about the observations, through what filters the observations are passing, and from whom you got those filters. It’s mostly about having older men tell you from their experience what to make of the observations you see. And when those older men are all infected with liberalism, or pussywhipped betas, or disabled, or henpecked, or not there because they’re dead, then you see the wreckage around you. There are men who are able to escape it for many reasons: genetics, perhaps; or because they were raised by strong men who are themselves confident and dominant; or because they are resistant to societal pressures and the pervasive liberalism all around us. But most aren’t, and that is what you and your tradcon allies consistently miss and do not understand. Because you and they “just get it” and “just figured it out”. Most men cannot do this; and need help to learn it systematically.

  105. “Game seeks to appeal to a woman’s lowest nature. A husbands job is to call her to a higher one.”

    One might need to be taught what a woman’s lowest nature is in order to do this.

    Husband: “Why is she not happy? She is a Christian, we go to a great church, she hangs out with her friends, I provide for her financially, I buy her flowers and tell her how much I appreciate her, I’m open with her about my feelings, I tell her how beautiful she is, what am I doing wrong? How can I fix this? From what I can tell, our life is a dream; kids, house, two cars, savings, good standing in the community. Is it just my wife? Is there just something wrong with her? Why is she so depressed, bored, and not content?”

    He can’t give her joy and contentment in the Lord. He can tell her that her feelings are rooted from rebellion, he can read her Scripture, he can pray for her – all things that would call her to a higher nature. A nice guy, a good Christian man, one who has never been a bad boy, one who could not even conceive of looking at his wife and saying, “quit your bitchin’ you ungrateful woman!” Yet that might be the very thing that he is being lead to do. He can’t reconcile it though, surely she’ll throw a fit and leave him. This urge to say these things has got to be stemming from his own sin, he’s not being patient enough, he’s not loving her enough like Christ loves the church. He goes to his pastor and the pastor confirms what he was thinking. These urges he has to tell her to STFU are not what a good Christian man ought to do. And the Proverbs go unread.

    So he withdraws, reads around online, finds a great blog talking about politics, religion and various other topics. Strewn in the comments and various posts, some things stand out. So starts his journey of reading things he’s never heard before – the lowest nature of women. Could it be that his good Christian wife possesses these traits as well? That she is illogical, her feelings are irrational, that what she says she wants isn’t actually what she responds positively to? How could it possibly be true that she would desire to have sex with her husband after he gets in her face and tells her to get over herself? There’s no way that would work! …would it? The husband begins to implement small changes and starts seeing a more content wife, a more sexually available wife, she is becoming…happy. He is welcome to now tell her what he’s learned should he choose to. In doing so, it will reveal to her that she is no different than any other woman. When she is no longer in control of the mood of the home, she is happy. NOW he can call her to her highest nature, or she may seek it on her own. Now she can see that her behavior was rebellion. She needs to repent.

  106. Badpainter says:

    “Game seeks to appeal to a woman’s lowest nature.”

    I think the first part of this is mistaken.

    Wouldn’t appealing to woman’s lowest nature be the essence of feminism, you-go-girl, promiscuous, have-it-all with no responsibility sort of enabling, and facilitation? In other words the sort of churchian advice that contravenes scripture?

  107. music, fashion shows, church, commerce! yes! Dalrock is right! Christians can take credit for the corruption of the words of Moses and JEsus!

    note how they quote christ as little as dalrock does–not at all. :)

  108. MarcusD says:

    @SSM

    Game cannot be harmful toward men? Under any scenario? One of the main goals of game as it is taught by its gurus is to engage in casual sex. Yet the most recent and comprehensive study on casual sex found a strong link with significantly increased suicidal ideation and the effect was stronger for men than for women: []

    Is suicide not harmful?

    Fallacy (and errors).

    Anyway, here are some key excerpts from the study you linked:

    http://pastebin.com/eC6QjEYG

  109. Donna Sposata diMaria says:

    I’m new to this kind of discussion, so I hope you’ll be patient with me if I’m not really getting to the heart of the question. But it reminds me of this: As a special ed teacher who worked with kids integrated into other teachers’ classrooms, I discovered that some teachers were naturally gifted, but unable to explain what it was that they were doing that “worked.” I always thought that was too bad, because so many sincere but less-successful teachers really could have benefited from their knowledge. Problem is, they really couldn’t articulate specifically what it is that they were doing “right;” they just “did” it.

    Just because you’re naturally good at something doesn’t mean it’s a trait everyone naturally has, if only they could tap into it (that’s actually the mistaken attitude of the inarticulate teachers mentioned above). Though, perhaps, if I *understood* what it was they are doing (in any skill area in which I have an interest), I may be able to improve whatever lesser skill I naturally have. Try though I may, I’ll never be “a natural,” though I may be able to become “good enough” if I work at it.

    If good, Christian men who are naturally good at this stuff care to share what it’s all about for the benefit of other, less naturally-talented good Christian men, that’d be great. They may not, however, have the insight or self-awareness or communication skills to do so. But to deprive those other men of what knowledge is out there, in the absence of that perhaps more morally-acceptable guidance, would seem to me unfair at best.

    Truth is truth, even if come upon by what may be considered “unworthy” sources. “Take what you like, and leave the rest,” as my friends who are recovering in AA like to say.

    Truth is just truth.

  110. Bob Wallace says:

    @SSM

    ” worshiping in the Temple of Roissy then?”

    Roissy is a “Beta” pretending to be an “Alpha.” I’ll bet he goes from one long-term relationship to another. A serial monogamist.

  111. sunshinemary says:

    @ Deti
    I don’t have a problem with men talking about these issues and advising one another, and I don’t understand why you seem to think I do. I’ve never said everyone just has to “get it” all on their own; women too have needed to have a lot of conversations about shedding our particular preferred form of liberalism (feminism). I’ve not really come out against or in favor of men using game (though I’ve cautioned wives about making it necessary for men to game them). What I have said is that pick up artists, though often intelligent and charming, are not good allies for Christians. I don’t think it’s necessary to get into the game debate because it’s easier just to say, “Christians probably shouldn’t be taking advice about sex/marriage/morality from people whose business is sexual immorality.” That doesn’t mean we can’t talk truthfully about these issues amongst ourselves.

    You say that men are supposed to learn from observing reality, and figure it out from that. Consider that it’s much more than that: objective reality is always, always filtered through a person’s worldviews, and a person receives those worldviews from the people around him.

    People like Jim Kalb (not to mention Zippy) have been writing about that since the 1990s, or so I’m told. But now that Chateau Heartise devotes around one out of every three or four of their essays to writing about secular reaction, I’ve no doubt the Christian manosphere will rush to proclaim that Roissy invented the alt right and neo-reaction.

    What sources? From whom?

    It frustrates me that both you and Dalrock can be told of such sources and then blithely go on claiming that no such sources exist. Consider Pastor Doug Wilson, Pastor Doug Phillips (oops, he had an affair recently – does that make it more or less likely that the Xtian Manosphere will look up to him? I’m guessing more.), Pastor Voddie Baucham, Love and Respect Ministries…yet you both still insist that no one has ever, ever pointed out any Christian sources for this kind of information and gosh darnit, ya’ll don’t want to but just have to go to pick up artists to learn how to…what do they call it again? Oh yes – slay pussy (nice phrase, that; probably this was what Christ meant when he told men to sell their cloaks to buy swords, right?).

    you and your tradcon allies

    My dear, you simply do not understand my political orientation. Let’s leave it like this:
    1. Tradcons are so far to the left of me that I can barely even see them way over there on the political spectrum.
    2. The American Revolution was a bad thing that Christians and other right-thinking people should have opposed.

  112. sunshinemary says:

    @ M3

    I find it funny that you are exhibiting the same sneer that i’ve seen women on dating sites give me when i told them i was reading the book ‘the game’. You all treat learning game as a means to trick women into getting into bed or some other nefarious means. That we read it before we apply it means it’s not legitimate because as Deti has continually referenced Rollo’s post, if you don’t ‘JUST GET IT’.. then you’re a faux puppet alpha and not the real deal. Hence something lesser and unworthy.

    I don’t think I’ve said anything remotely like this, sir. I take this issue seriously, so if you are detecting a sneer in my attitude, then I sincerely apologize for that. I don’t intend (nor do I feel) any disrespect for anyone who is grappling with these issues. I will try to be more careful if I comment here again to be sure that my words don’t come across as sassy or sneering.

  113. Pingback: Do not appease scum (what Lot did wrong). | Dark Brightness

  114. tweell says:

    My father was a natural alpha, a leader. My mother recently claimed she pursued him because of his gentle soul, I had to laugh at that. Dad was a WWII and Korea vet, who rode a motorcycle, wore leather and got in fights at bars for fun. He was what he was, and really couldn’t teach it; he did manage to teach me honor and some confidence in myself.

    After I married, I slowly lost my confidence as my wife wore me down. She loved me, so she wouldn’t tell me the opposite of what she wanted, right? The priests, the marriage counselors, all of society’s preaching had to be right. The problems we had were all my fault. I submitted to my wife, and she became more angry and unhappy as she demanded more.

    At that point I recalled my honor, and thereby saved our marriage. I stopped allowing my wife to blame me for everything, and started to lead again. It was… not easy, but necessary. My marital problems were incomprehensible to my father, he could not help me directly. Still, the first gleam of understanding was when my wife asked “Why can’t you be more like you used to be, like your father is?”

    I had no definitions, my concepts were too nebulous for words. Roissy had the words, he could explain how and why what I had seen happen did so. That has been a great advantage for me, I can now explain things to my son as my father could not. Alas, he has little ability to put the knowledge to use; his speech impediment and autism are great handicaps. It looks like he will opt out, but at least he knows how the dance of couples works if he decides to try it for himself.

    I believe Roissy has paid for his knowledge, and will pay again later. He himself admits that he has little chance of ‘settling down’. A high N count eventually does to guys what it quickly does to gals, the ability to bond is lost. Roissy is both educational and cautionary, in a way like Madame Curie, who quantified radioactivity and was badly damaged doing so.

    My wife has passed away, and I’m not looking for a replacement. My interest is to help my family out of the desert of personal relationship I wandered thirsty in for way too long. Thanks for helping fill my (metaphorical) pitcher, folks!

  115. Chris says:

    GBFM:
    It was not the Christians that set this in place. Before God we are all equaly damned, except for the saving work of Christ. In Christ we are told to live soberly, with good morals, to do good, and to remain faithful in our marriages — including ensuring that both husband and wife have adequate amounts of sex (to quote Paul “do not deprive one another”). And Christianity is quite comfortable with any form of government,. including High Toryism — which considers the glorious revolution and the Hanoverians bad, and wants the Stuart Kings back.

    The beginning of honouring our feralness and not considering children as beasts to be tamed was Rosseau, the original pussy and rake, who fathered multiple children by multiple women, insisting that they all be sent to orphanages. From that dissolute bastard and his mate de Sade, we get the ideas that lead to the Jacobins, the Marxists, and the feminists.

  116. Novaseeker says:

    I believe Roissy has paid for his knowledge, and will pay again later. He himself admits that he has little chance of ‘settling down’. A high N count eventually does to guys what it quickly does to gals, the ability to bond is lost. Roissy is both educational and cautionary, in a way like Madame Curie, who quantified radioactivity and was badly damaged doing so.

    Slumlord described it very well here:

    Finally, I want to say something about the Neoreactionary Canon. While I’m chuffed to have some of my posts there I think it was a grave error to leave Roissy out. The errors of Modernism are cross-cultural, affecting nearly every facet of life. Human sexual dynamics is one such area and the supreme Neo-reactionary warrior has been Roissy. Don’t get me wrong, there’s lots of things he says that I disagree with, but when it comes to the red pill reality as pertains to Eros, he is the prime expositor.

    Furthermore, any Neoreactionary neophyte is better starting off with his writings than those of Moldbug or myself. His turgid style and my shitty blogging are liable to put people off. At his best, he is an unbelievably good writer who is able to shove the red pill down your throat. Nothing hooks a man more to neoreaction than sexual success is the presence of what seems a never ending drought. Roissy is able to co-opt primal force in the pursuit of truth. It’s an unbeatable combination.

    Very well put. The “Devil’s Virtuoso” indeed.

  117. jf12 says:

    @Sarah’s Daughter Re: “One might need to be taught what a woman’s lowest nature is in order to do this.” Yes.

    Everyone should keep in mind that Jesus was dissed for rubbing shoulders with prostitutes and tax collectors, touching lepers, going to stinking graves, etc. He is God of the light and of the dark.

  118. jf12 says:

    Re: “He is, at his very core, a kind, compassionate guy (normal guy – Natural Delta).” as are most of us. The anti-Game crowd pretends that it is rare that women react so poorly to nice men, but most of us find out that to deal with women properly men need a lack of kindness, lack of compassion, lack of normalcy, lack of natural appeasing qualities. Yes, things ought not to be this way, but this is the way things are.

  119. So how could they possibly be figuring this information out?? Could it be that it is possible to figure out how to pass a fitness test without going to an unmarried and sexually immoral man for advice?

    Perhaps not, a high divorce rate and a failing society seem to point to men not be able to ‘naturally’ see shit tests and put them out and it also points towards no one teaching them at all.. certainly not those at Church.

    I would call your recent behaviour, expressed here and on your blog, a current ‘shit test’ though. I don’t know what to think of that really. Your recent ‘call’ to take up the ‘alpha male mantle’ was kind of off putting.

  120. Boxer says:

    Dear GBFM:

    That was a very interesting video. I think the supermodel-turned-mom is a good example of a woman who knows how to prioritize the eternal over the transient — your family is objectively meaningful, whereas your ability to show some skin to sell some product is just *so much ado about not much*. This woman suggests that women are moral agents, fully capable of controlling themselves. It’s too bad more people (men and women both) don’t follow her example; though this would require a bit of self-discipline, and we all know that most people in our society don’t have it in them.

    note how they quote christ as little as dalrock does–not at all. :)

    The Dalrock blog is not a religious service. It’s more like a digital newspaper. The newspaper’s target audience is probably religious people, but that is all the more reason not to cite scripture, as the Dalrock author is basically preaching to people who read the religious text anyway, and thus they’re already assumed to be familiar with the teachings of it.

    It’s useful to have a place to go to study the religious texts, but it is also useful to have another place to go to study the ways of the world, social trends, etc.. These two arenae do not conflict. If anything they are mutally supportive.

    Best, Boxer

  121. Dalrock says:

    @SSM

    It frustrates me that both you and Dalrock can be told of such sources and then blithely go on claiming that no such sources exist. Consider Pastor Doug Wilson, Pastor Doug Phillips (oops, he had an affair recently – does that make it more or less likely that the Xtian Manosphere will look up to him? I’m guessing more.), Pastor Voddie Baucham, Love and Respect Ministries…yet you both still insist that no one has ever, ever pointed out any Christian sources for this kind of information and gosh darnit, ya’ll don’t want to but just have to go to pick up artists to learn how to…what do they call it again? Oh yes – slay pussy (nice phrase, that; probably this was what Christ meant when he told men to sell their cloaks to buy swords, right?).

    You keep accusing me of not checking out Doug Phillips. I’ve pointed you back to this at least once before, but I already checked him out at your suggestion and shared my thoughts.

    As for Pastor Baucham, I have referenced his preaching at lest twice, once in a post and another time in a comments discussion (when Cane finally got me to look at one of his sermons). His preaching on headship/submission is outstanding, and (the part I have read) truly impresses me. However, I’m not aware that he is offering the kind of practical headship advice to husbands that we are discussing here. But perhaps you and Cane have been holding out on me here as you have yet to make this case. I believe you have seen the Stepping Up video series, and I know Baucham is part of that series (Correction: I don’t know that Baucham is part of Stepping Up, but I believe you said you saw him in another Rainey video, Art of Marriage). Perhaps he teaches the opposite of what Rainey teaches on how to be “Irresistible” to your wife (see the links in my previous post as well as links to Empath’s thoughts). Lastly, I haven’t spent much time reading Pastor Doug Wilson. What I read seemed fine, but nothing which would truly upset the churchian apple cart. If you want to share specific links with me that is fine.

  122. Elspeth says:

    I would like to add Dalrock that I believe you are wrong in your assertion that Christian men don’t want their daughters to be virgin brides or submissive wives. That’s a pretty inflammatory thing to throw out there.

    While I certainly agree that the church has dropped the ball regarding biblical headship/submission in marriage, throughout my life I have never heard any teaching that indicates the church has taken a soft stance on chastity.

  123. Dalrock says:

    @SSM

    Dalrock, I don’t agree that Christians are responsible for the abandonment of traditional marriage that led to the sexual revolution. We followed along behind that and we are responsible for the abandonment of Biblical marriage (which is not synonymous with traditional marriage), but what evidence can you give that shows that Christians are the ones who caused our society to abandon traditional marriage in favor of sexual promiscuity?

    To the extent that traditional marriage is different than biblical marriage in the West, traditional marriage is a somewhat degraded copy of biblical marriage. The West has well over a thousand years of Christian teaching on the topics of morality, including sexual morality/marriage. From this point alone, it was ours to lose, and lose it we did.

    The dangerous lie is that Christians in general did or even currently are fighting the good fight to promote biblical marriage, but that the society won’t listen. The truth is far more painful, that modern Christianity has collaborated with feminism in deeply embarrassing ways. As I have taken great pains to show, modern Christians are mortified at the concept of biblical headship. It repulses at least 90% of Christians in the West, unless it is presented in drag (at which point they love it). This deep revulsion to headship ties directly in to all of the other issues I have been discussing. Headship is presented as tantamount to domestic violence, if not outright abuse. Wifely threats of divorce are seen as a positive tool for wives to keep their husbands in check, lest they run amok. Even the group CBMW founded to support traditional roles invented a new sin in the process, that of a wife submitting to her husband being servile to her husband.

    To make this more clear, the modern Christian doesn’t celebrate divorce. It generally bothers them when one occurs, although almost never enough to say anything which would make the divorcing party at all uncomfortable. But modern Christians see the threat of divorce by wives as necessary and good. This is a deeply held and unquestioned (and therefore unexamined) belief. It is no accident that when modern Christians set out to make a movie teaching the world about Christian marriage, they made one about how a wife threatening divorce can bring her husband to Christ.

  124. fatmanjudo says:

    There is no other goddess than the gina-tingle and Roissy is her prophet

  125. That’s a pretty inflammatory thing to throw out there.

    Where is this coming from? What is motivating this unbelievable display of denying observable reality?

    throughout my life I have never heard any teaching that indicates the church has taken a soft stance on chastity.

    Except for yesterday when MarcusD posted some links you either didn’t read or don’t know what you read.

  126. deti says:

    “It frustrates me that both you and Dalrock can be told of such sources and then blithely go on claiming that no such sources exist. Consider Pastor Doug Wilson, Pastor Doug Phillips (oops, he had an affair recently – does that make it more or less likely that the Xtian Manosphere will look up to him? I’m guessing more.), Pastor Voddie Baucham, Love and Respect Ministries…yet you both still insist that no one has ever, ever pointed out any Christian sources for this kind of information”

    OK. Let’s look at these. I’ll leave the snark aside.

    Doug Wilson: This is the senior pastor of a church in Moscow, Idaho, has the blog called “Blog and Mablog”? Wrote a few books? I’ve skimmed his blog and site; looks like traditional patriarchalism. Not much of anything about marriage or intersexual relationships, or human nature. Nothing – not a word – about Godly masculinity or what that means.

    Doug Phillips: Resigned his post amid revelations of an “inappropriate relationship”. His ministry, Vision Forum, went defunct shortly thereafter. I can find no info about its positions on intersexual relationships, male headship or Godly masculinity.

    Voddie Baucham: Good sermon preaching, but seems mostly to be how women should conduct themselves. I can find nothing about Godly masculinity in any of his videos, writings or anything else at his blogs or sites after skimming them (admittedly not deeply).

    Love and Respect Ministries: This is Emerson Eggerichs’ ministry on women must respect to motivate husbands; men must love to motivate wives. Nothing about Godly masculinity or what it looks like. Most of it appears to be Churchian directions to men to man up and love your wife despite her disrespect and disobedience, without concomitant directions to wives to respect husbands despite their disobedience and failure to love.

    Interestingly: None of these sources tell us anything about Godly masculinity, what it looks like, or how a man can learn and implement Godly masculinity in his own life, with or without a woman.

    So, absent Deep Strength, donal and Chad, and up to about 3 weeks ago, we’re still at “just get it” and “just figure it out for yourself”.

    “ and gosh darnit, ya’ll don’t want to but just have to go to pick up artists to learn how to…what do they call it again? Oh yes – slay pussy”

    No. Really, the fearmongering about Christian men becoming little Roissys and Rooshes is silly. It’s not going to happen, not now and not ever. Most men couldn’t pull like that even if they wanted to. Most men just want to be attractive enough to attract and hold the interest of a wife.

  127. deti says:

    From MarcusD’s post yesterday on the position of some Catholic clergy , about a girl’s revelation of her sexual past:

    “We have set it down, and we repeat, that it is a general presumption that it is not wise for two people preparing for marriage to make full confessions to each other. It is not good for a man to demand of a girl whom he might ask to marry him that she tell him whether or how she ever fell into sin in the past.”

    Well now.

    By this logic, a girl has no right whatsoever to ask about a possible husband’s past. She cannot inquire about his family background, education, job history, financial assets, or criminal history. Those things are none of her business. He need not make a “full confession” to her; and in fact is justified in deceiving and defrauding her about them.

  128. sunshinemary says:

    @ Deti

    Doug Wilson, as I have pointed out both here and on my own blog, is a prolific author as well as pastor who drives Christo Feminists insane. He has written a great deal on this topic, but you keep ignoring it when I post quotes from him. Example:

    “Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence.
    When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.
    But we cannot make gravity disappear just because we dislike it, and in the same way we find that our banished authority and submission comes back to us in pathological forms. This is what lies behind sexual “bondage and submission games,” along with very common rape fantasies. Men dream of being rapists, and women find themselves wistfully reading novels in which someone ravishes the “soon to be made willing” heroine. Those who deny they have any need for water at all will soon find themselves lusting after polluted water, but water nonetheless.
    True authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity. When authority is honored according to the word of God it serves and protects — and gives enormous pleasure. When it is denied, the result is not “no authority,” but an authority which devours.”

    (From Fidelity: What it Means to be a One-Woman Man)

  129. Opus says:

    Well spotted Deti.

    I would however think that most women find great difficulty in not revealing sufficient of their past so as to enable a man to make an informed choice. Where there is silence there are usually gaps from which one should also draw the worst conclusions. I am thus reminded of one of my clients who had to tell her future husband who she really was (she used a false name) whereby he was appraised of her criminal past (murder). Perhaps it would have been better for him not to know.

  130. sunshinemary says:

    @ Dalrock
    I’m sorry, but I don’t see how you answered my question. You know that I agree with everything in your 1:44 comment. This only proves that Christians have now accepted the dominant cultural model, not that we created it.

    You wrote in the OP:

    However, while Christians can’t claim credit for collating and codifying the information, we can take credit for creating the conditions required for such an activity to take place.Christians have provided the moral cover for both the sexual revolution and the divorce revolution.

    I see how we have followed along behind the sexual revolution and allowed it to take it hold in the church. I don’t see how we caused it in the wider society in the first place. Our sin was allowing it to take hold in the church, not in causing it to occur in the West. It is helpful for us to take responsibility for what we did, but it is not helpful for us to take responsibility for what others did.

    Why is this important? Because I’ve had some fairly frank conversations with a number of pick up artists in the manosphere now. They are always very pleasant and friendly and willing to answer my questions. What they always start out wanting to tell me is that they surely wanted to have traditional lives, but evil feminists turned women into sluts, so now they just have to sleep with lots of women. They just have no choice. If I’ve been told this once, I’ve been told it fifty times. But when pressed, the more honest among them will admit that this isn’t true at all. Runsonmagic, for example, has been very gracious in discussing this with me and being very honest. He writes:

    Do you really want a solution if it means working hard for something other than yourself? What followed the Roman empire was the Catholic church. What a drag. I’d rather be a Viking.

    The internet has allowed men pursing self interest to form a tribe across continents. A tribe entirely of men seeking sex wouldn’t last more than a generation before integrating women and childrearing, but on the internet it can live forever.

    The manosphere hasn’t proposed clear solutions because we don’t want them. We don’t want to fix Rome, we want to loot it.

    It’s a convenient lie that Christians created the sexual revolution and PUAs are just innocently adapting to that, waiting patiently to lead Christians back to a traditional, healthy society. If Christian men decide that they wish to follow PUAs, okay. But be honest about where they are leading you. They fundamentally oppose marriage, and they mock you for your religion (as HH did without a single Christian man responding to him).

    We have serious problems to solve in the church. Everything Dalrock has written about that is true. But I don’t believe looking to secular pick up artists will be very helpful to us in solving those problems.

    The choice isn’t follow Dennis Rainey or follow Roissy, you know. It’s really discouraging to me – as a person who is actually in the trenches, in church several times a week trying to combat this kind of thing, trying to explain to women why they are out of line – to be told that people engaged in pick up artistry are the answer to what ails us.

  131. deti says:

    “A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.”

    Good stuff.

    That said, in order to penetrate, conquer, colonize and plant; a man must first find a woman willing to receive his penetration, surrender to him, and to be the fertile ground to accept his colonization and planting. What does Doug Wilson have to say about how a man should do that; how a man should find a woman willing to do and be those things? Doesn’t he have to, oh, I don’t know, I’m just guessing here – attract her and hold her interest? Be a man she is willing to follow and submit to? How does Wilson say a man should become such a man? What does Wilson have to say about Godly masculinity and how it manifests and expresses itself in the life of a man, with or without a woman?

    These are not inconsequential questions. How pastors like Wilson respond to them – or not – says much about what they believe Godly masculinity to be.

  132. sunshinemary says:

    I’m not sure if the call to point out sound Christian teaching on headship and submission is genuine or not at this point, but I’ll just act as if it is.

    More from Pastor Wilson, this time from his book “Reforming Marriage”:

    “The Bible says the “husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church” (Eph. 5:23). Paul most emphatically does not say that husbands ought to be the heads of their wives. He says that they are. In this verse, the apostle is not telling us how marriages ought to function (that comes in the verses following). Rather he is telling us what the marriage relationship between husband and wife is. Marriage is defined in part as the headship of a husband over a wife. In other words, without this headship, there is no marriage.

    Meditating on this is a very valuable thing for husbands to do. Because the husband is the head of the wife, he finds himself in a position of inescapable leadership. He cannot successfully refuse to lead. If he attempts to abdicate in some way, he may, through his rebellion, lead poorly. But no matter what he does, or where he goes, he does so as the head of his wife. This is how God designed marriage. He has created us as male and female in such a way as to ensure that men will always be dominant in marriage. If the husband is godly, then that dominance will not be harsh; it will be characterized by the same self-sacrificial love demonstrated by our Lord–Dominus–at the cross. If a husband tries to run away from his headship, that abdication will dominate the home. If he catches a plane to the other side of the country, and stays there, he will dominate in and by his absence. How many children have grown up in a home dominated by the empty chair at the table? If the marriage is one in which the wife “wears the pants,” the wimpiness of the husband is the most obvious thing about the marriage, creating a miserable marriage and home. His abdication dominates.

    These are difficult words. And even with the qualifications, it is probable that a number of readers have reacted negatively to the earlier use of the word dominance. The fact that this is so is simply another testimony to how much the Christian church is influenced by the propaganda of feminism–whether the man-hating secular variety or the sanitized, “evangelical” kind. Nevertheless, the dominance of the husband is a fact; the only choice we have in this regards concerns whether that dominance will be a loving and constructive dominion or hateful and destructive tyranny. Arguing with the fact of the husband’s headship in the home is like jumping off a cliff in order to quarrel with the law of gravity. Marshall the arguments on the way down however one likes, he will eventually find himself refuted in a messy way.”

  133. JDG says:

    Chris says:
    February 2, 2014 at 3:07 am

    Yes, thank you. this makes sense to me.

  134. sunshinemary says:

    I can keep posting stuff from Pastor Wilson all day, and later I can start quoting from Love and Respect ministries. Pastor Wilson again, on visible wifely submission:

    “If a husband were to ask his wife to put on her best red dress so that they could go out to a fancy restaurant, she would not say, ‘Honey . . . I submit.’ The place where submission is tested is always at the point of significant disagreement. When we think we have only two options — complete agreement or open defiance — we have left out the greenhouse where true humility grows. That greenhouse is a place of cheerful compliance with a legitimate authority that is believed to be mistaken” (A Primer on Worship and Reformation, p. 18).

  135. JDG says:

    But yes, it is disgusting (and shocking) to find out about the existence of those publications back in the 50s. In fact, until I looked into it further, I thought it was fake (e.g. written by a modern Christian/Catholic crypto-feminist). It looks like it’s from a Catholic proto-crypto-feminist.

    When I read this I was thinking that the leftist ideas (the social gospel) must have infiltrated the Catholic chruch sooner than I had previously thought.

  136. deti says:

    SSM:

    All good stuff on what a man is as a husband and his responsibilities as a husband – once he comes into the office of husband.

    That all has to do with HUSBANDS.

    What does Wilson have to say about what Godly masculinity looks like such that he can even BECOME a husband (which is what most Christian men want)?

    How is a man supposed to do and be all these things if he doesn’t have the Godly masculinity he needs BEFORE he becomes a husband? How, if at all, does Wilson address that?

    How is this any different from “Man up and step up and lead her where she wants you to lead her”?

  137. Love and Respect, the book, was given to me at the perfect time. I called the woman who suggested it to me to thank her for it. I said, “I got it! it’s not about what he does or doesn’t do, my respect for him comes from my obedience to God and has nothing to do with him, I must respect him all the time and submit to him in everything.” to which she replied, “well, I wouldn’t say everything.”

  138. deti says:

    “Pastor Wilson again, on visible wifely submission:”

    Objection, move to strike as nonresponsive.

    Dammit, I’m going to keep asking this until I get an answer.

    What does Wilson (or Baucham, or Eggerichs, or even Phillips) have to say about Godly masculinity and what it looks like such that a man can even BECOME a husband?

    Please answer the question asked.

  139. sunshinemary says:

    Let’s shake things up and add in Pastor Eggerich. One of his female readers writes:

    I am no longer in love with my husband. In fact, I don’t believe I ever loved him. Wouldn’t it be better for both of us if we get a divorce?

    And Pastor replies:

    Can I lovingly challenge you? You are hurting and are about to make a major and I believe a wrong decision. Pull back. I cannot justify a divorce based on your report here.

    I don’t know if you are a Christ-follower, but my view of marriage is based on Christ’s commands in the Bible. God hates divorce, and only allows for biblical divorce based on desertion or adultery. I assume from your letter that this is not the case for you. You are saying you do not love your husband and never did love him, therefore you want a divorce. But this is not biblical. In fact, marriages in biblical times were pre-arranged and “love” as we define it was not even considered. Half of the marriages around the world are assigned by parents. In these cases, two people learn to love one another.

    We know that a person can learn to love and that love does develop and deepen over time. In fact, even couples who are madly infatuated with one another on their wedding day will have to face this reality over time. The “feelings” of love disappear as the difficulties of life take over. Every couple experiences this. “Love” as they knew it on their wedding day fades. This is why the divorce rate is out of control. Couples no longer believe in commitment, so they divorce as soon as those feelings of love disappear. You may not have felt that love even on your wedding day, but today your situation is no different than countless others who “lose” the feeling of love.

    We live in a culture where feelings determine everything. You may have fallen victim to this and now feel overwhelmed by what appears as total darkness and despair.

    So, your greatest struggle is to trust and obey Jesus Christ during this time, and act in loving ways because of your faith in Him. Is this possible? I believe it is. In fact, this is what the Bible teaches. This is God’s design for marriage, that we love our spouse AS UNTO CHRIST and not because we FEEL love or because they DESERVE love. (For more understanding on this, read chapters 23 and 24 on The Rewarded Cycle in the book Love and Respect.)

    Do the love and respect principles “work” when we do not feel love or respect for our spouse? Absolutely! This is what it is all about – giving to someone else no matter what we feel! I know this sounds impossible and it may even sound harsh to you. But what if feelings of love for your husband develop after you act in obedience to Christ? I believe this is not only possible, it is quite likely. As you get outside of yourself and focus more on the other person, amazing things can happen.

    Husband or wife, to abandon your marriage because of your feelings is a grave mistake. The consequences for this will be serious, both in your soul and in your heart. Christ’s commands are there to protect us, not to punish us. He knows the consequences of divorce will be grave. He wants to spare you from this because He loves you deeply.

    So what should you do? Find a godly wise mentor who will come alongside you and support you in living out the Rewarded Cycle. Put your faith in Christ and trust Him with your marriage. Fulfill the commitment you made on your wedding day, as you made the vow to love in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, so long as you both shall live. As you focus on your relationship with Christ, He will strengthen you to stay the course and He will give you the desires of your heart!

    Are you allowing God to encourage you, or have you closed off to Him?”

    (http://emersonandsarah.blogspot.com/2012/03/faq-i-am-no-longer-in-love-with-my.html)

    There are more Q and As just like this one in which wives want to chuck their husbands and Pastor admonishes them. Easy to find if you actually care to look, though granted not nearly as lite-yet-sexy as Chateau Heartiste.

  140. jf12 says:

    Men don’t dream about being rapists. Wilson is wrong about that, anyway.

  141. Elspeth says:

    Except for yesterday when MarcusD posted some links you either didn’t read or don’t know what you read.

    Didn’t read them, SD. I hope to get around to it at some point. Time is limited, as I’m sure you can appreciate.

    This only proves that Christians have now accepted the dominant cultural model, not that we created it.

    That was my objection as well. That’s a serious accusation and one that should not be made lightly against the church. Accepting the dominant cultural model is certainly bad enough, given that we are to be salt and light. No need to add fuel by claiming that Christians created it.

  142. JDG says:

    Or is that the way He is?

    It’s the way He is. I am convinced that since we were created by God in His image, our attributes are from Him. Since we have fallen our nature has become self centered, so these attributes are often distorted.

    For me this is another reason to consider that game may be a distortion of something else that God has given us. It may also be that game is just a tool much like music, but if that is the case then one shouldn’t have to decieve in order to use it.

  143. jf12 says:

    @deti “How is this any different from “Man up and step up and lead her where she wants you to lead her”?” It isn’t any different.

  144. JDG says:

    Christianity cannot be jettisoned anymore than death can be jettisoned.

    People have been promising the end of Christianity for centuries. They are in their graves, but Christianity remains, because God is real and Jesus conquered the grave.

  145. sunshinemary says:

    What does Wilson have to say about what Godly masculinity looks like such that he can even BECOME a husband (which is what most Christian men want)?

    How is a man supposed to do and be all these things if he doesn’t have the Godly masculinity he needs BEFORE he becomes a husband? How, if at all, does Wilson address that?

    I haven’t read it, but I’ve heard good things about Doug Giles’ book, “Raising Boys Feminists Will Hate.”:

    Feminists would love nothing more than to take your son and eradicate his masculine uniqueness. They hate men, and therefore, they will hate your son. That is, of course, assuming that you, the parent, intend to raise your son to be a man instead of a rouged and lipsticked, male American Idol hopeful. Get it right, parental unit: in the coming days you will be facing female chauvinist pigs who have sick designs for your dear son in culture, in the classroom and in a lot of churches. These whacked women actually believe that masculinity, the male composition, and a guy’s hormones cause boys to become wicked oppressors, sexually abusive and brutal beasts; and they have the inflated stats, the re-written history books and the hysterical spin to prove it. Your daunting mission is to go against the grain, stand up to the radical feminists, and raise your little man into a lion, capable of leading the next generation into a moral culture of God, family and country.

    Again, I haven’t read this book, but I’ve read other books by him and they are very practical and “how-to” ish.

  146. deti says:

    SSM:

    Round 3.

    All good stuff on how a biblical wife is supposed to act.

    I know you understand the question. But, I’ll ask it one last time. Please provide a responsive answer. If you cannot do so, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you can’t because none of these sources address the question posed.

    One more time. The question is:

    What do any of these sources you pointed to have to say about Godly masculinity and what it looks like BEFORE marriage such that a man can even BECOME a husband?

  147. Cane Caldo says:

    @Deti

    Voddie Baucham: Good sermon preaching, but seems mostly to be how women should conduct themselves. I can find nothing about Godly masculinity in any of his videos, writings or anything else at his blogs or sites after skimming them (admittedly not deeply).

    You might try his books. “Family Shepherds”, or “Family Driven Faith”.

    It must be said: These are books, and not mere posts that are easily Googled. You won’t be able to just get a gist by searching for your favorite keywords. You will also hear keywords that you have learned to despise, but don’t let their abuse in the hands of others keep you from wisdom.

    @Dalrock

    However, I’m not aware that he is offering the kind of practical headship advice to husbands that we are discussing here. But perhaps you and Cane have been holding out on me here as you have yet to make this case.

    See what I wrote to Deti. In addition: I am disappointed to learn that I am not worthy of a little more trust, and that what I have shared is suspect; that possibly there could even be a conspiracy between myself and SSM to withhold information.

    Is this what you mean to express?

  148. deti says:

    OK, SSM. Fair enough. I’ll check out Giles’ book; and I’ve heard good stuff about him.

    But I think I’ve made my point: I don’t think Wilson, Eggerichs, Phillips or Baucham say much of anything about what Godly masculinity looks like in a man before marriage such that a man can even become a husband. You couldn’t answer the question because the info isn’t there. They either don’t address it at all, or they give it the churchian “man up and lead her where she wants to go” treatment.

  149. deti says:

    Cane: Thanks. I’ll check out Baucham’s books.

  150. That’s a serious accusation and one that should not be made lightly against the church.

    When you have the time to read it maybe you’ll retract comments like this.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/how-christians-can-take-credit-for-game/#comment-107185
    It is not good for a man to demand of a girl whom he might ask to marry him that she tell him whether or how she ever fell into sin in the past. In our experience, we have found that most men who insist on being told such things have had rather chequered careers themselves, and have a leaning toward an unhealthy, not to say morbid, kind of jealousy. There are exceptions, of course, and our presumption, that in general it is best to leave the past buried, leaves room for them. 1955

    Who needs feminists when you’ve got church leaders like this?

  151. Elspeth says:

    “Family Driven Faith”.

    Excellent book. I’ve red a couple of times myself.

  152. sunshinemary says:

    Objection, move to strike as nonresponsive.

    I’m on trial, Deti, and you are the opposing counsel? I was under the impression that we were supposedly on the same team, even if we happened not to agree on some certain issues.

    They either don’t address it at all, or they give it the churchian “man up and lead her where she wants to go” treatment.

    They write books, deti, not blog posts. You have to read. And since you haven’t read any of these books, what do you base your accusation on that they are telling men to man up and lead her where she wants to go?

  153. jf12 says:

    The situation is n’t at all symmetrical. A good wife can CHOOSE to submit and follow her husband. A good husband cannot choose for his wife to submit. It simply isn’t symmetrical. All of all Christian advice for men is to be a good man, and to hope his wife was raised right and/or has some later conviction about being a good wife. Given women’s feral rebelliousness, the possiblity of some later conviction has always been extremely unlikely (“rarer than rubies”). Hence, rightly, earlier society focused its efforts on creating a structure in which women’s choices were deliberately miniminized, and women were raised to value a good man being husband.

  154. @ jf12

    “@Deep Strength “we also know that truly developed masculine men that walk according to the Spirit are attractive”
    We know the opposite. Your advice is false and heretical, as Dalrock has made clear multiple times recently.”

    If you think that nice guys are truly masculine men of God then we will have to agree to disagree.

    There is nothing masculine about most Christian nice guys. They have good intentions, but they are not masculine. They are effeminate, cave to girls whims, and apologize for every little thing, they don’t stand up for themselves or others, they’re passive, etc.

  155. Elspeth says:

    Okay, SD. You offered one example of one teaching. And yes, I do recognize that the church has largely went along with the “don’t ask, don’t tell, it’s covered under the blood” approach to these things.

    I disagree with the views expressed there and certainly believe a man (or woman) has a right to know what kind of baggage they are signing up for.

    I still don’t see how this translates into: “The church at large has abandoned wholesale, preaching on sexual sin.”

    Or you know, perhaps it;s true. Maybe it’s just my pastor (and the pastors of the church I grew up in) who is bold enough to condemn fornication.

  156. hoellenhund2 says:

    “Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He paid the blood price for your sin. If you reject His payment, you will spend eternity separated from God.”

    Yup. That’s what you believe in.

    “Christianity cannot be jettisoned anymore than death can be jettisoned.”

    Religions losing appeal, disappearing from memory and getting replaced by other religions has been a regular occurence throughout history. Christianity as it exists today is gynocentric and corrupted heresy used to manipulate beta males, and as such it is a tool of destruction and the ballast of human civilization. Of course it can be jettisoned. Roman paganism was jettisoned. The religion of the Aztecs was jettisoned. Arab paganism was jettisoned. The same fate hopefully awaits Churchian misandrist dogma. Religions never get regenerated or reinvigorated, they either get adapted to changing times by religious leaders or they get replaced.

    “Yet the most recent and comprehensive study on casual sex found a strong link with significantly increased suicidal ideation and the effect was stronger for men than for women.”

    Whatever. I don’t have time to read that stuff now, nor do I particularly want to. Nobody can tell me with a straight face that casual sex is psychologically more harmful for men than for women. It’s nonsense. Having said that, it’s well-known that the alpha lifestyle is generally more self-destructive than beta lifestyle. But that has nothing to do with Game. Remember that your genes only care about reproducing, not about your personal happiness.

  157. To note, I am not blaming most Christian nice guys. They are fed lies from the pulpit and from Christian women and men all the time about how they need to be nice, stable, and be a provider to get a wife. They are not being taught masculinity either by fathers, the church, or any other source.

    There is utility in knowledge of game for Christians who need to learn about how to set proper boundaries, taken women off of the pedastal of idolatry, and other such things. But in my opinion, one must be very careful that it does not lead one to set themselves up with the false idol of self instead of God.

  158. sunshinemary says:

    Pastor Wilson, again…note how he doesn’t CALL the woman’s behavior a fitness test but explains the dynamic anyway, with neither the crude name (shit test) nor the need for a furry hat.
    (source: http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/bitterness-and-the-unsubmissive-wife.html)
    Bitterness and the Unsubmissive Wife

    A couple generations ago, all evangelicals believed certain things about headship and submission in marriage — because the New Testament taught them — but now if you simply repeat those things, you are routinely dismissed either as a deviant misogynist yourself, or at best, an unwittingly enabler and defender of the husband as jerk.

    So let me begin there. The aroma of what I am defending is altogether lovely, and has nothing to do with the abuses of the various domestic mussolinis that any of us may have met. Anyone who has followed my writing on marriage over the years knows that I do not cut any slack for blustering machismo. Abusive and angry husbands are not an example of what I am talking about. But, and this is our point this morning, neither are bitter and unsubmissive wives.

    When God assigns our roles to us, the men have to do what God tells them to do, and the women have to do what God tells them to do. The value of doing this is no way undone or refuted by those who refuse to do it. Perhaps a challenging and rewarding course is not best evaluated by the insubordinate students who flunked it.

    Say that a young man and woman marry, and their first year is a turbulent and epic battle. This battle is a battle for control, and let us say further the wife wins it. This marriage does not thereby become an “alternative” arrangement — it becomes a standing exasperation to the both of them. She won, but because she was not created to win in this way, she is bitter with him for losing, she is bitter against him for being the kind of man who would let her win, and she is in turmoil within herself because she insists on winning, and despises the fact that she has. Reality has lots of compelling arguments. The way things are has a lot going for it.

    “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Gen. 3:16).

    This is not referring to a woman’s desire for moonlit walks on the beach with her baby, but rather a desire for control or mastery. The only other time this phrase is used in the Bible (desire > rule) is in the next chapter, when God is warning Cain about what sin wants to do.

    “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him” (Gen. 4:7).

    This means that the Fall made the relations between the sexes kind of rough. The woman will want to wrest control of the relationship away from the man, and the man will react forcefully, and frequently disproportionately. There is a war between the sexes because the world is a screwed up place.

    The gospel transforms all this, but not by setting the issues of authority and submission aside. Rather, the gospel teaches us that submission does not equal inequality — for Christ in His equality with the Father nevertheless submitted to Him (Phil. 2:5-7). And the gospel also teaches that authority or rule must not be the kind of dominion that pursues ego-glory for the one in authority (Mark 10:42-43). Christian women are able to learn how not desire this control, and Christian men are able to learn what servant authority looks like. It looks like Jesus.

    There are many examples of this, but Titus 2:5 provides a good sample. Obedience and submission themselves are not set aside by the new covenant — although it is transformed. Titus was written decades after Paul had declared that in Christ there is neither male nor female (Gal. 3:28), and so it is plain that as Paul envisions headship and submission in the marital context, it is headship and submission conducted, like a glorious dance, between equals who love and respect one another.

    There is therefor a way to do this right — for the Scriptures require it. Those who do it wrong, no matter how many of them you may have seen, pose no argument whatever for those who are interested in doing it right — other than the obvious warning to not do it like they are doing it. But the feminist or quasi-feminist reaction to the abuses is to not do it at all. But this is just another abuse. This is simply another way of doing it wrong — and it is why the practitioners of this bad reaction are so unhappy and bitter.

    So one of the tell-tale signs of standing resentments of this nature will be the fact that when the biblical position is set forth, and with every necessary qualification made, a bitter opponent will be absolutely unable to represent and restate accurately what is being said. “You are enabling wife-beaters . . .”

    True moral equality means that we should be able to state what a husband’s sins are, frankly, and also be able to state what a wife’s sins might be, again frankly. Both men and women are true moral agents, responsible for their own behavior and misbehavior.

    But if every time we get to such a statement of what a wife’s fundamental lack of a submissive spirit might be doing in her relationship to her husband we get a histrionic reaction, then perhaps we are seeing a refusal on the part of certain women to see women as true moral agents. Feminists (including the professing evangelicals) are those who loudly demand to be treated the same way as the men, and then, if we do, retreat with indignation and tears behind their petticoats.

    So I am not at present talking about lousy marriages that are lousy because the husband is violent, or angry, or resentful, or lazy, or misogynistic, or unfaithful, and so on. I know that such exist, and I am unalterably opposed to every last one of them. I am especially opposed to them when the name of Jesus is invoked as an excuse for the sin.

    But let us also be opposed to marriages that are thoroughly unhappy because the wife has usurped control of the relationship, and is a catty, ungodly, controlling, insubordinate, unhappy, and unsubmissive woman. These exist also, correct? Shouldn’t we be against them also?

    [D: Excellent link/article.]

  159. deti says:

    SSM:

    I was just teasing you. A little something evil I learned from the Devil’s Virtuoso. Because my mom and dad told me that playful teasing of a girl isn’t nice, and that if I didn’t stop it, no one would ever love me and I’d die an incel.

    I have no further questions of you. You may step down. Lulz.

  160. Elspeth says:

    The situation is n’t at all symmetrical. A good wife can CHOOSE to submit and follow her husband. A good husband cannot choose for his wife to submit. It simply isn’t symmetrical.

    I agree.

    All of all Christian advice for men is to be a good man, and to hope his wife was raised right and/or has some later conviction about being a good wife.

    The problem is that they equate being a “good man” with being a “nice man”. Sometimes niceness is no more kind that feeding your kid candy for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

    Given women’s feral rebelliousness, the possibility of some later conviction has always been extremely unlikely (“rarer than rubies”).

    I believe in the transformational power of the gospel myself.

    Hence, rightly, earlier society focused its efforts on creating a structure in which women’s choices were deliberately minimized, and women were raised to value a good man being husband.

    I agree. When social structure was more tightly controlled for everyone, most everyone behaved better.

  161. jf12 says:

    Having not read Wilson, honest question, in Fidelity or elsewhere, is ANY of his advice for the man ANYTHING different than the false advice “Be a good enough man, and she will just naturally be a good wife?” ANYTHING at all in any way different?

  162. jf12 says:

    w/o the gospel we agree good women are rarer than rubies. Not even one in a thousand. So now within the gospel but also within our society, the odds of a good man with a good woman who treats him with the respect that she is supposed to is now … what? What do you say? One out of a hundred gospel-filled wives?

  163. sunshinemary says:

    This one is so long that I’ll only quote the excerpt, but read the whole thing:

    Debi Pearl
    Created for him?
    http://nogreaterjoy.org/articles/created-for-him/?topic_slug=mothers-marriage

    “..If you are a real believer in Christ, if you truly want to serve and honor God, and if you are in awe of God’s Word, then you will know that your marriage oath is indeed sacred. Regardless of your husband’s short comings; regardless of your drive to be God’s helper—ministering as you feel led; regardless of your lack of personal fulfillment in the direction he takes the family, God’s ultimate will for you, the very reason you were created and became part of a union of two, is so you can fill the role as helper to your husband. Your role is not to help by being his mother or his enforcer, or the Holy Spirit convicting him of his sin, but a helper to his vision of life regardless of how small or unfulfilling that vision may be.
    When you smile at him as he enters the room…your smile is an honor to God. If you are married to a worthless lump of selfish so and so, your smile may be a sacrifice but that makes it all the more a service to God. Your calling in life is to learn to listen with all joy to him; talk of his projects, plans, ideas, and hopes instead of directing the conversation to your interests and needs and visions. Your life should be dedicated to helping him realize his full potential, or limited potential, as it may be.

    …A help meet is not first a cook, cleaner, or even a mother. A help meet’s first ministry is to her husband, how she may PLEASE her man. If cooking healthy, being a super-neat housewife, or even being involved in a ministry (even if it is where people are REALLY getting saved) interferes in ANY way with your first, and foremost ministry of pleasing your man, then you are not pleasing God.”

    Also, read the entire book, “Created to Be His Help Meet”, a book which made evango-feminist heads everywhere explode with fury.

  164. sunshinemary says:

    I’m sure Cane is probably angry that I’m spilling the beans on our super-secret collection of Christian writing on headship and submission, but that’s a woman for you. You just can’t trust us to keep secrets.

  165. Dalrock says:

    @Cane

    @Dalrock

    However, I’m not aware that he is offering the kind of practical headship advice to husbands that we are discussing here. But perhaps you and Cane have been holding out on me here as you have yet to make this case.

    See what I wrote to Deti. In addition: I am disappointed to learn that I am not worthy of a little more trust, and that what I have shared is suspect; that possibly there could even be a conspiracy between myself and SSM to withhold information.

    Is this what you mean to express?

    I think you are misreading me here, or just as likely I was not communicating clearly. As I understand Baucham’s strengths they are preaching faithfully on the topic of headship/submission, etc. If this is all he does, there is no fault to find against him and in fact it is as I have previously stated a truly impressive thing given our current culture. But this doesn’t mean he offers the kinds of practical advice to husbands we are discussing on how to fulfill their role in a time when the law and the culture conspire to reverse the roles of husband and wife. If he does off such practical advice (as your comment above to Deti may suggest), I wasn’t aware of it. This is the point of my kidding that you and SSM were possibly holding out on me. If he has practical advice to offer above and beyond his faithful sermons, this would be of great value to Christian husbands.

  166. However SSM, if every single one of the quotes there is not any indication of where a man learns to lead and who teaches him. I suppose they think the fathers will…

  167. sunshinemary says:

    Are Christians doing a great job on these issues?

    No. We’re doing a horrible job, by and large. Guess who the online experts on these issues are?

    Well, if you google “mutual submission is unbiblical,” my blog is the #1 return.

    If you google “Christian headship,” Dalrock is the #3 return.

    So basically, if you’re not willing to read actual books, and you are Christian trying to learn about biblical marriage…you’ve got me and you’ve got Dalrock.

    This is why the church is in trouble.

  168. Actually Cane, SSM and others, pose the question to these men of how they mean for a husband to control an unruly and rebellious wife when she has gone nuclear and used the police and courts to get a divorce, alimony and child support and refuses you the ability to see your children and then moves across country. Oh, do they even deal with those problems?

    Not one teaches men how to lead, how to grapple with a rebellious wife, how to both manage a wife, who is supposed to be a helper but instead wants to usurp power and then ‘love her like Christ loves the Church’ and not be resentful or angry… I suppose they expect crippled men of war to fight their wives just to keep their rebellious nature in check.

  169. sunshinemary says:

    However SSM, if every single one of the quotes there is not any indication of where a man learns to lead and who teaches him. I suppose they think the fathers will…

    The book by Doug Giles is probably the place to start with that. Like I said, I haven’t read it, but his other stuff is pretty good.

    If you hit 18 and no father has raised you properly…yeah. That’s a serious problem. I am hopeful about what Free Northerner, Deep Strength, Donal Graeme and Chad are doing. They really are creating something important, which is why I have been linking to so many of their posts, so that I can shunt traffic from my site to theirs. The goal is for people outside the manosphere to be able to find this sort of stuff via a google search, so if those of us with busier blogs would link to those their posts, we could boost what they are writing up to a place where it could be found.

  170. MarcusD says:

    @SSM
    Re: Raising Boys Feminists Will Hate

    Here’s the review on Amazon.ca:

    While looking for books to help me raise a sensitive son who respects women, I came across this one instead. By title alone this is shameful and unbelievably disrespectful to humankind. This kind of thinking is what is wrong with the world. Everyone should be a feminist and no one should hate feminists or aim to hate them. Not being a feminists means you hate women. Hating feminists means you hate women. Aiming to have feminists hate you means you hate women and are a deliberate danger to them and all people. This title is not funny, nor cute, nor charming, it is dangerous and hateful.

    Seems feminists don’t like it, either – e.g.:

    http://www.xojane.com/issues/raising-boys-feminists-will-hate

    http://www.dailylife.com.au/life-and-love/parenting-and-families/raising-boys-that-feminists-hate-20121001-26ui1.html (republished multiple times)

    And… surprise, from The Stir:

    http://thestir.cafemom.com/big_kid/144445/finally_a_book_on_how

  171. MarcusD says:

    @SSM
    Re: Raising Boys Feminists Will Hate

    Here’s the review on Amazon.ca:

    While looking for books to help me raise a sensitive son who respects women, I came across this one instead. By title alone this is shameful and unbelievably disrespectful to humankind. This kind of thinking is what is wrong with the world. Everyone should be a feminist and no one should hate feminists or aim to hate them. Not being a feminists means you hate women. Hating feminists means you hate women. Aiming to have feminists hate you means you hate women and are a deliberate danger to them and all people. This title is not funny, nor cute, nor charming, it is dangerous and hateful.

  172. earl says:

    Why are Christians doing a terrible job?

    The rebellious woman…feminism has infected the churches, poisioned our minds, and extinguished our spirit. It has infected almost everything really.

    Nobody has had the stones to just tell it like it is because you might offend someone and lose out on your payday. Roissy is taking advantage of loose women…Christians are playing the reaction game and saying that since this is the way of the world now sweep those Bible verses about her submitting under the rug and just act like this.

    No one (outside of Aurini that I am aware of) has taken on that women need to get their virtues back. Women need to be told it’s not ok to rebel all sort of authority. It’s not okay to follow their tingles. It’s pretty damn far from ok. It’s not empowering at all. She actually gets her power from submitting to the correct men in her life (Jesus, father and then husband).

  173. John says:

    Why do you persist in calling him Roissy?

    He changed his name to Heartiste, a change for the better. The name Roissy was taken from the disgusting “Book of O”, written by a female in France in the late 1950s in imitation of the disgusting tales written by the Marquis de Sade.

    If a Christian insists that he has nothing to learn from the Marquis de Sade or his admirers in the New Left, that Christian is 100% correct. And if that Christian is leary of a man who goes around calling himself Roissy, that is understandable.

    Heartiste’s writing on non-game topics has greatly improved since the name change. Unlike some, he doesn’t treat feminism in isolation, but instead sees it as one aspect of the anti-White, anti-male, anti-morality ideology of PC/Cultural Marxism/New Left/The Frankfort School.

    Indeed, unlike most Dark Enlightenment bloggers, he is willing to tackle the most taboo of all taboo subjects, the ethnic identity and motivations of those who created and promote cultural marxism.

    So I drink a hearty toast to the health of Heartiste.

    But Roissy? Who is he?

  174. Keoni Galt says:

    On the topic of whether or not some women’s husbands are Alpha or not….it really is contextual to the environment.

    One thing that needs to be noted here – both Elspeth and SSM’s husbands (whether you want to call them “natural alphas” or not), came to God-fearing Christianity AFTER they were already married. Neither of them endured the emasculation programming during their formative teen years that is common in Western Churchianity today. Neither of them were instilled with the ideas that their basic, instinctual desire to have sex was sinful and dirty, while women are the pure and spiritually superior sex. I would guess the same goes for Cane and Zippy. You guys appear to have NO IDEA how subversive and emasculating it is to be brought up in that environment.

    Well, if you google “mutual submission is unbiblical,” my blog is the #1 return.

    If you google “Christian headship,” Dalrock is the #3 return.
    So basically, if you’re not willing to read actual books, and you are Christian trying to learn about biblical marriage…you’ve got me and you’ve got Dalrock.

    This is why the church is in trouble.

    And where it not for the cross section of interlinked blogs we are now calling the Neo-Reaction/Dark Enlightenment, neither of these results would now be possible….but they are, and that’s a good thing.

    As much as all the Christians have a great distaste and want to renounce Roissy et al., it took these fallen, debased and immoral sinners (“Let he without sin, cast the first stone…”) who dared to speak the ugly truth, that allowed others to cut through all the beautiful lies of Goddess Idolatry that have infected our troubled church.

    For this, I thank my fallen, sinful brethren for giving the insights that have opened up the eyes of those of us raised under the yolk of Idolatrous Churchianity and emasculated nice guy programming.

  175. Novaseeker says:

    But Roissy? Who is he?

    His real splash was before he switched the name and once he did, he still did “homage” to the original idea (i.e., the Chateau reference). The pictures in the blogmast are all to the Chateau Roissy a la Pauline Reage as well. May as well call the spade a spade. The name was changed mostly in the wake of a damaging doxxing that was done by a particularly disaffected female commenter — it didn’t really signify a change in thought.

  176. Edwin says:

    seriously, guys, PUA and BS?
    I’m surprised. Usually this site has great analytic insight in its articles.
    All that PUA shit it seems to me is a way for guys to talk big and convince themselves they’re getting women… when they’re not at all. My brothers keep doing this. They’ve told me to read it, but I’ve got better stuff to do.

    As far as I can tell, the enitre thing is based on picking up girls with self-esteem issues, and also reminding guys not to be a pussy. Having sex every once in a while with a drunk girl at a bar, when you get lucky enough that all the proper elements of human stupidity merge on that night, is totally stupid. And it doesn’t take a genius to understand the “women don’t want a pussy thing”, that by itself is all you need to know on that front.

  177. JDG says:

    Not one teaches men how to lead, how to grapple with a rebellious wife, how to both manage a wife, who is supposed to be a helper but instead wants to usurp power and then ‘love her like Christ loves the Church’ and not be resentful or angry

    Maybe they ones who are actually aware that there is a problem are still trying to figure it all out. I know we are. We are already teaching men to lead. And it starts with teaching them to master their own cravings. This actually makes them more likely not to give way when their women try to manipulate.

    But how do you stop a self destructive woman from nuking her family in a society like ours? It’s not easy when you have nearly everyone outside of your congregation (and probably some within) against you and the intrusive arm of the law only a phone call away.

    For starters you need an environment that discourages this type of behavior. Woman do tend to go with the flow. This takes time to cultivate when you’re working with new Christians. With every new convert, another wagon load of indoctrinated manure has to be filtered out. This takes wisdom, patience, and dedication.

    Still even with a Christlike mindset guiding the flock, that won’t guarantee the right behavior. It is best to start with the young and train them up in the way they should go. I think this is where the most damage has been done, and that as possibly the worst consequence for turning away from what God has instructed.

    Folks love the 1st part of the great commission as we should:
    And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”

    But so often I see the second part overlooked and neglected:
    “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

    I don’t know much, but I do know this: The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God (1 Corinthians 3:19). If ‘game’ is from the world and not from God, then what does that say about game? And if ‘game’ is from God, then what does that say about those who use it for carnal pleasures?

  178. earl says:

    Sure women don’t want a pussy. But you are supposed to “just get that” and realize the information presented by the churches, society, the media, the women in your family, and the ladies you talk to were all just giving you a bunch of lies to test you to make sure you don’t follow that and become a pussy.

    If you went ahead and decided to believe the lies because no other alternative was there…well that was your own fault for not getting it.

  179. MarcusD says:

    But you are supposed to “just get that” and realize the information presented by the churches, society, the media, the women in your family, and the ladies you talk to were all just giving you a bunch of lies to test you to make sure you don’t follow that and become a pussy.

    A society-level S*-test?

  180. alcockell says:

    Just listening to Premier Tonight – a slot on Premier Radio – and the amount of hamstering is SICKENING! There are blokes phoning in feeling guilty of masturbation – and being advised to quit and try to find a relationship – the guy calling in was way down on teh foot of the SMP (and I’m low down at the mo).

    Women, however, are being given passes left right and centre. One carousel rider who suffered near-death experiences, drug overdoses and fucking everything in sight – was told to find a “nice non-judgemental church” and basically got a free ride. “You deserve a gentle ride”… surely HELL is what we all deserve… Only by grace do we get anything else..

    Had one woman talking about “struggling” with a relationship with a guy “who believed in God” – an Alpha McBadBoy, surely..

    Lots of self-justification for women who have hit the Wall…

    All I can hear are hamsters spinning…

  181. jf12 says:

    Re: “And if ‘game’ is from God, then what does that say about those who use it for carnal pleasures?” And if ‘song’ is from God, then what does that say about those who use it for carnal pleasures? And if ‘wine’ is from God, then what does that say about those who use it for carnal pleasures?

  182. jf12 says:

    @MarcusD “A society-level S*-test?” yes.

  183. Anonymous age 71 says:

    feministhater says:
    February 2, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    >>Actually Cane, SSM and others, pose the question to these men of how they mean for a husband to control an unruly and rebellious wife when she has gone nuclear

    That is because there is no way to control an unruly and rebellious wife, period.

    In two places in the Bible, it refers to contentious wives. One says it is better to live on a roof. The other one says it is better to live in the desert.

    There is a third place, but not all versions of the Bible use the word contentious. But it says he who can control a contentious woman can control the wind.

    That is, though it discusses contentious wives, it does not tell how to control them, making it clear it cannot be done by Christian means.

    I have been reading this since 1984 when a Christian called me to tell me his pastor said it was his fault that his wife committed adultery. I went through the entire Bible over several weeks, and noted any reference to husband; wife; marriage; men; women; etc. No where does the Bible say that effective male leadership initiates effective female submission.

    Au contraire! If you read it thoroughly, starting with Genesis, you find it tells you effective female submission initiates effective male leadership. You gotta’ admire Satan who has managed to get millions of ‘Christians’ to believe the exact opposite of the truth.

    By far the most effective book is ME? OBEY HIM? by Elizabeth Handford, a Baptist minister’s wife, It is modestly priced from Amazon the last time I checked, It had been out of print for some time. She supplies the biblical basis for everything she says.

    So, how does a society fix itself after most women have become rebellious? If you go back and actually read the Bible again, you will find out it doesn’t. The society collapses, terrible things happen and it goes out of existence.

    As evil as the USA is today, I think it qualifies for “kill every living thing.”

  184. TFH says:

    MarcusD and SSM,

    The title of the book is misleading. The real title should be ‘Raising a Boy that Feminists Claim they would Hate’.

    In reality, women love red-pill, jerkboy types. You would be surprised how, after a few seconds of indignation, women get aroused when I say to them, in utter seriousness, that “Women don’t understand cause and effect very well”, or “You don’t fully understand how women think.”

    What they actually hate (as opposed to what they claim they hate) are mangina male feminists like Manboobz Futrelle….

  185. Edwin says:

    oh, no, earl, TAT part sure yeah you’ve got a point. It’s easy for men to get fooled earlier on in life. I may have been at one poitnt. But my point is, nobody needs a whole damned book, maybe just like a 5 minute talking-to to explain that it doesn’t make sense to expect women to like pussies.

  186. TFH says:

    Dalrock,

    The truth is far more painful, that modern Christianity has collaborated with feminism in deeply embarrassing ways. As I have taken great pains to show, modern Christians are mortified at the concept of biblical headship. It repulses at least 90% of Christians in the West, unless it is presented in drag (at which point they love it). This deep revulsion to headship ties directly in to all of the other issues I have been discussing. Headship is presented as tantamount to domestic violence, if not outright abuse. Wifely threats of divorce are seen as a positive tool for wives to keep their husbands in check, lest they run amok. Even the group CBMW founded to support traditional roles invented a new sin in the process, that of a wife submitting to her husband being servile to her husband.

    This is a superb paragraph, that should be within a main article itself.

    Furthermore, this just proves that ‘Social Conservatives’ are :
    i) Economic Leftists. They love state-backed wealth redistribution as long as it is a man being forced to pay a woman, regardless of fault.
    ii) Radical ‘gender-is-a-social-construct’ feminists. That they think headship can be easily switched from male to female makes them no better than the leftists who say ‘gender is a social construct’. The ease with which they reject the bible to become feminists blank-slatists, is stunning.

    It is for this reason that I have stopped voting for the Republican Party, and have persuaded many others to do the same…..

    Ooooh ! But it is important to prevent gays from entering a ridiculously lopsided legal contract that leaves everyone worse off except the divorce industry, rather than reform that said contract so that straight men stop edging away from it en masse…..

    I can’t vote for dumb…… so I just can’t vote for anyone at all anymore…..

  187. Donna Sposata diMaria says:

    @SSM — “So basically, if you’re not willing to read actual books, and you are Christian trying to learn about biblical marriage…you’ve got me and you’ve got Dalrock.

    This is why the church is in trouble.”

    Heh. Apparently, in my experience at least, you’re both much, much more helpful than you realize.

    I’m Catholic, and I love the Church. I grew up believing that the truth is there, but I also knew the Church, at least in practice, was pretty screwed up, and very little of what Dalrock is saying about the church’s responsibility in all this is shocking to me. But I still get depressed everytime I follow one of MarcusD’s links to CAF.

    I’ll tell you what hurts. Coming to realize that, despite genuinely wanting to be a faithful follower of Christ all my life, and having been raised by genuinely faithful parents who were intelligent, articulate about their faith, and in most cases clear about what it means to follow Christ, I still ended up with ideas that are absolutely contrary to having a healthy, Christ-centered marriage. (and I am very, very lucky to have the husband I do. I wish he were as lucky to have me … but then, well, that’s how I ended up here.) I don’t even know *how* to be submissive, and I’m not sure I could force myself to do it if I did. I’ve just started tentatively bringing up these issues with my husband, but … oh, that scares me, more than you may know. (Not because of him, but because of what it could mean for me and what I will have to change.) I don’t even have a circle of friends, or a pastor, I could trust to discuss these things, that wouldn’t end up with them reinforcing every wrong idea I’ve ever had.

    Keep earning that top spot, SSM & Dalrock. That’s all I can say.

  188. Rum says:

    Come on guys, this is not so complicated: Men and women are equally “fallen” from the Christian Spiritual Ideal.
    Guys seem shocked and disheartened to contemplate that women have the hind-brains of a rat.
    But if guys were to describe what they really want from their Christ-following, helpmate in holiness it would be this: For her to get skinny and drain his Christ-like balls into her orifices at least once before breakfast and twice at night.
    Amen.
    And that would do it for him better than any “Inner Goodness” she might come up with.
    Everybody here knows this and yet that knowledge does not seem to cause any crisis of belief – because it has already been factored in.
    Likewise, accepting and factoring in the truth of female nature should not be any more upsetting.
    Hypergamy is cruel. But so is endless male horniness. Without both of them running strong thru the ages we would not even having this conversation.

  189. infowarrior1 says:

    @Donna Sposata diMaria

    Most important thing is this:

  190. Deti says:

    Donna:

    Get thee to SSM’s.

  191. David J. says:

    Donna: Also to PeacefulWife.com.

  192. sunshinemary says:

    @ Donna
    I invite you to join us on my blog; also, my blogroll is a good source of other places to learn biblical marriage. If I can be of any help to you, feel free to email me. My email address is sunshinemary@ymail.com if you’d like to correspond about anything.

    @ Runsonmagic

    Your husband likely has a strong self of self, as anyone around you all day would have to.

    Wait a minute, what did you say there? lol, I missed that on the first read. Negging 101, demonstrated right here in the comment threads. And of course I’ll read your RoK article. Because I want to know what to warn my daughters to watch out for.

    @ Marcus
    Those review of Mr. Giles’ book are all I need to know; it must be worth the read if it upsets feminists that much.

    @ John

    Heartiste’s writing on non-game topics has greatly improved since the name change. Unlike some, he doesn’t treat feminism in isolation, but instead sees it as one aspect of the anti-White, anti-male, anti-morality ideology of PC/Cultural Marxism/New Left/The Frankfort School.

    Which is why CH is in my blogroll. I read all the political stuff there; I just don’t think it’s a good place for Christians to get advice on biblical marriage.

  193. sunshinemary says:

    @ deti
    I need to ask you a quick question by email.

  194. JDG says:

    jf12 it has not yet been established that game is interchangeable with song or wine, at least not in my mind. Although it may be a simple tool, it may yet be found to be more like cocaine or the one ring that poor Frodo had to bear.

  195. jf12 says:

    @JDG, more familiar to some is the argument about guns. No, not the “only criminals should have guns” argument. Although in some places we can buy guns in Walmart, in most place law-abiding people who want guns have to buy them from gun dealers, pawn shops, and other slightly shady people (or at least people who come into constant contact with shady people). Because there are any “Christian” gun shows, because No True Christian needs anything to repel home invaders besides one blow of their Bible or something.

  196. JDG says:

    Again apples to oranges. And you don’t have to come into contact with shady people to buy guns.

  197. theshadowedknight says:

    The greatest threat that the pickup artists pose is not drawing Christian men into sin. They risk exposing men to the reality of the women around them. The biggest threat is that the Good Christian Man will choose not to bother with Christian Women. When the choice of women is forced down to either bind herself unequally or remain unbound and alone. That is why the women fear it. Always with women–always–the ulterior motive.

    SD has a son, and he will need it. She will accept it, and RLB will teach him how to act with honor. SD can see the use in it, as much as the dangers, so she accepts it. SSM has only daughters, and HHG has set a high standard for any man who wants to court them. That is her fear, that her daughters not find their husbands. As I said, ulterior motives.

    The Shadowed Knight

  198. sunshinemary says:

    That is her fear, that her daughters not find their husbands.

    I don’t fear this, for two reasons. First, have you been in a church lately? Those boys are steeped in a pro-marriage culture. If there is a marriage strike, and so far there doesn’t seem to be one, it certainly hasn’t hit the churches yet. But second, I’ve already made my peace with the possibility that some or even all of them may not marry, as the Lord wills. I like my daughters and will be okay with them living with us if they don’t marry. But I suspect most of them will marry, and probably rather young at that.

    Still, TSK, it was rather unkind of you to be so dismissive and to make such an unfounded accusation. This is a subject I’ve been writing about and grappling with (trying to discern who are good allies for Christians in the battles we face) for quite awhile now. If you or any man wish to go to pick up artists for biblical marriage advice, I certainly can’t stop you and wouldn’t if I could. But I won’t say that this is a wise or moral thing to do.

  199. Rum says:

    Our forebearers were not made of wet tissue-paper. They DID understand human nature and that NO ones feral self could be allowed to entirely slip thru the the leash – and that cruel knowledge did not paralyze their spirits. No. Boys were deliberately toughened up and taught self control. Girls were harshly de-pedestalized and steered hard towards some submissiveness and some gratitude. And you know what? It mostly worked. Read some History. Our modern problem is ignorance based. That is the only “crisis” I see.
    I hate spending time with wilting pessimists.

  200. Rum says:

    My son will be OK because he is a Natural. My daughter will be OK because she been made really insightful about these matters – enough so that she has the good sense to 1. Like guys the way they are and 2.Make effective use of her massing winnings at the genetic lottery.
    You want morality? Then start by telling the truth of things. Also, while you are at it, get out of our minds that losing repeatedly is connected in any way with virtue or true religion.

  201. “Just don’t be a liberal, and then just figure it out for yourself.”

    Sunshinemary: “That one is actually good advice. But you have to fully grasp what Zippy means when he says “Don’t be a liberal.”

    Okay, did sunshine actually just go with the feminine doctrine of “just figure it out yourself, it’s bad to learn the Pick up artist trash?” Not only is that pure idiocy, but it’s incredibly cruel to actually advise that to men, especially Christian men.

    We’re taught the OPPOSITE of game, from our parents, from church, from tons of movies. We’re taught how to be UNATTRACTIVE to women, not how to get dates.

    Please tell me I misread that, and Sunshine doesn’t actually “don’t teach men game, let them figure out dating on their own.” I would like to keep thinking well of her.

  202. Rum says:

    “Make effective use of her Massive winnings (that she) collected via the genetic lottery.”
    Thats better.
    Remember, Americans do not like to lose. And nothing about the effect of religion will ever change that.

  203. theshadowedknight says:

    SSM, it is not at all unfounded. Nor am I dismissive for no particular reason. Do you know why? I will show you. After misusing unkind when you meant not nice, you write this:

    If you or any man wish to go to pick up artists for biblical marriage advice, I certainly can’t stop you and wouldn’t if I could. But I won’t say that this is a wise or moral thing to do.

    Go to the pickup artists to learn about marriage? Anyone saying that is one who never intended marriage. Go to the pickup artists to learn about women? Absolutely, because they did the work necessary to learn, while the church encouraged ignorance. I do not seek allies, but knowledge.

    You created a stupid opinion, falsely imputed it to me, then attacked that position. Your arguments and thoughts are dishonest. Whether intentionally or inadvertently, it matters little, although I give you the benefit of the doubt. You cannot be trusted to give useful advice to anyone other than women, so stick to what you do well. That is all.

    The Shadowed Knight

  204. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    I misread your jest, and took the sarcasm as criticism.

    But this doesn’t mean he [Baucham] offers the kinds of practical advice to husbands we are discussing on how to fulfill their role in a time when the law and the culture conspire to reverse the roles of husband and wife.

    It is not about techniques. It’s not. It. Is. Not. Sin in a wife is no different than sin in a friend: We confront the sin as unacceptable before God, we tell them that repentance is available for them, and then we pray for them. This is the Christian way whether we are about to be fed to lions, or we are about to collect an offering from 10,000. In this way, whether we are celebrated or killed, we bring glory to God.

    There’s a story in the OT about a king of Israel who is terrified of an attack by the Syrians (not to be confused by the Assyrians), and his concern is that the cisterns of Jerusalem will be attacked, and the people will die. It should be noted that “cisterns” is often linked to “women”, or “wives”.

    God says to him, (paraphrased) “Look: I will take care of your cisterns. Just pray to me, and make your sacrifices, and I will show you that the cisterns are under my care.” But the king was sure this was not a spiritual matter, but rather a resource management issue. He continued to worry about the task of getting water from the cisterns into Jerusalem. God grew angry with him, and despite all the efforts of the king: The cisterns and all of Jerusalem fell to gentiles. God told the king: “Ok, smart guy, here’s your sign: The Syrians will fall, but not to you, so that you will know I am the Lord. And then those people will swallow up Israel too.” Those other gentiles were the Assyrians.

    It’s not about techniques. it’s about being obedient; confronting disobedience; calling for repentance, and praying for others. If we are not heard, we talk to another Christian, and bring them in to help (Matthew 18; 1 Corinthians 5) confront the sinner. There’s no shame for the innocent in this, but the sinful nature of man is embarrassed to need help with his wife, and the sinful nature of too many men in the church is what you have written on well: “My wife doesn’t have that problem”, or “It would be better if I were your husband.”

    That’s because we believe it is a technological battle; a matter of technique, and psychology.

    This is NOT a psychological battle. It’s not biological. It’s not sociological. It’s not even theological.

    Don’t let the Christians who are disobedient and do not confront women to set the tone and frame of the argument with the idea that the “good” men get good wives. Don’t let the scientists who flail about with one theory this week, and another hypothesis that week decide how we should behave. Don’t grant the counselors the authority on what women need; who can neither live their own lives well nor instruct their own children.

  205. MarcusD says:

    @Donna Sposata diMaria
    But I still get depressed everytime I follow one of MarcusD’s links to CAF.

    I only read (and link to) the “Family Life” section of the forum – it’s usually where most of the damage occurs (and, in terms of the whole site, all that I can stomach).

    That reminds me:

    Child getting Married (Can you spot the assumption the posters make?)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=856790

  206. MarcusD says:

    So I just saw a trailer for a movie called “Endless Love,” which will surely annoy everyone here.

    Uggh.

  207. Gurney Halleck says:

    (off topic)

    Dalrock…you thoughts on this post would be appreciated. The author is a liberal explaining that the decrease of marriage among the working class is natural and expected because assortative mating has taken out the best marriageable people from the marriage market which makes marriage as not a good bet for everyone else.

    http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/4938.html

  208. MarcusD says:

    This couple could very easily get all the lefties to stop criticizing and even to admire them. All they have to do is keep the Biblical quotations to themselves and just tell people they’re really into BDSM, she’s the M and he’s the S, she really likes to be disciplined, he really enjoys disciplining her, and who are you to judge? They can be totally traditional in the privacy of their own home and totally transgressive in public. Win-win!” Or just say you’re Muslim. Multiculturalism FTW.

    Via: http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/182918/

  209. MarcusD says:

    Actually, I didn’t see it until now, but it’s coincidental that this is the video that the trailer was shown prior to:

  210. MarcusD says:

    @Gurney Halleck

    The comments are scarier than the post itself (e.g. the government should be paying single mothers to reproduce, essentially making it their occupation – i.e. government-employed breeders).

    Besides that, the author seems to be arguing against what marriage has degenerated to, not what it’s supposed to be (or even once was).

  211. LiveFearless says:

    @Dalrock we can and must take credit for creating conditions required for the Roissyites to thrive
    Enter Ekso Bionics™ graduate Dale Messenger. For this example, let’s say Dale is a ‘Christian’ male that reads your blog.

    Same logic: “we can and must take credit for creating conditions required for the Ekso-ites to thrive”

    He’s no Roissy-ite, he’s Better than that. This Ekso-ite is the BIONIC man! Women find that irresistibly HOT!

    What conditions should be created for Dale, the ‘Christian’ BIONIC-sex-object-of-a-man in our present culture of sexual immorality?

    ‘Christian’ men see his new strength and confidence and say, “That’s sooooo SELFISH! He’ll probably sleep with a lot of women just because he can. He’s not being himself anymore, he’s running BIONIC game. It’s a crutch.”

    Perhaps require this condition for Dale: Slow his Ekso Skeleton™ to move at half-speed? He’ll seem LESS SELFISH, and that’s not attractive to women.

  212. jf12 says:

    Shorter version: Many people wish Game didn’t work as well as it does, and also wish “Just Get It” could be justified Biblically.

  213. greyghost says:

    LiveFearless
    To add to your analogy, one of the things associated with Christianity is being nice. Also the old term for military hardware purchase NIH (not invented here) I see Christianity as based in faith. What brings problems is Christians become churchian when they try to be better people than very body else (nice, righteous, etc.) That makes Christians subject to churchianship which we have today. It causes the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal. It is the place where Driscol comes from. It is the essence of the topic of the article
    Ignore them and speak the truth right in front of them. The thing with game it is a learned thing that comes from necessity in a sane society it will be normal. And guess what the PUA will be the Cads will be the seen as the cads that they are. A beta with game, a Christian man with game, a man with game doesn’t sign off on misandry to please women. The original sin of man was to please his wife over pleasing God. What better way to please God than to get the red pill and a full understanding of game and what it is. Nothing has made the bible more clear and powerful than the time spent in the manosphere. A Christian man the rejects game and the red pill is a man with out faith and preacher that rejects game is relying on blissful ignorance of men and the pleasing of women to determine his churchianship. Pleasing a woman to earn her submission.

  214. Elspeth says:

    I really appreciate the Doug Wilson excerpts. Sunshine. It’s been a while since I read him. I should start again.

  215. jf12 says:

    @greyghost “The original sin of man was to please his wife over pleasing God.” Yes, but even then Adam sinned because of love for his wife and in full knowledge that he was choosing to die with her in order to remain in unity with her, as per his prophecy (Genesis 2:23-24). It was terribly romantic of him from his point of view. Eve’s sin was in being deceived by listening to some other guy and thinking it was more attractive to not remain in submission to the right guy. It was the opposite of romantic of her from her point of view.

  216. jf12 says:

    @Deep Strength. The very idea that YOU get to define problems away via the No True Masculine Man fallacy is extremely problematic. For one thing YOU are not given permission to define the problem of nice guys away. For another, the fallacy “No True Man has difficulties with women” is not only evil in content, being a lie, a falsehood, it is evil in intent, its purpose being deception, its purpose to excuse women for being attracted to the wrong men and not attracted to the right men.

  217. Elspeth says:

    That is her fear, that her daughters not find their husbands.

    Unlike Sunshine, this is something that I am concerned about, but not because of Game or men waking up to how horrible women are. I don’t think that’s ever going to be a significant problem in the church. That we gloss over the broader cultural, economic, and sanctification issues in the church which are undermining marriage always makes me curious if we really do *get it*, and that *it* is about things that are far deeper than attraction and whatnot.

    Don’t let the Christians who are disobedient and do not confront women to set the tone and frame of the argument with the idea that the “good” men get good wives. Don’t let the scientists who flail about with one theory this week, and another hypothesis that week decide how we should behave. Don’t grant the counselors the authority on what women need; who can neither live their own lives well nor instruct their own children.

    Amen, brother. I am often reminded of something my father says when reading these conversation. “Everyone is looking for the guarantee that if they do everything just right they will live life on flowery beds of ease.”

    But life isn’t like that. You can be not just a “good” man, but among the best of men and still get a dud for a wife. There are salt of the earth women who despite best efforts, end up with a bad husband. We human beings love formulas and guarantees.

    Oh, and loopholes. For ourselves at least.

  218. jf12 says:

    @Anonymous age 71 re: controlling the wind. The word the Bible uses means hide her away. The idea is that having a contentious wife is embarrassing to the husband, but her contempt blows away even his attempt to shield her from public judgement.

  219. Opus says:

    I observe that Zippy Catholic has taken Dalrock’s advice and begun his own blog – and very smart it looks too.

    I have therefore felt empowered and motivated to comment, and to the effect that Game does not exist. I see I am not the only one who is less than persuaded.

  220. Opus says:

    …or perhaps I have confused Zippy with Mathew King?

  221. LiveFearless says:

    Hell’s Kitchen has exploded.

    This has shaken many skyscrapers through many blocks. People have been forced indoors because of what appears to be ‘entities’ flying up through tubes coming out of the ground.

    Has your ‘pastor’ mentioned how many pigs there were when, as the Bible story goes, Jesus cast them out of one dude? How many demons inhabited one person? Thousands. These ‘Christian’ writers, leaders, teachers etc are mentored and controlled by low level leaders in another kind of church. The 501c3 structure has rules, and what you call ‘church’ is man-made, organized religion. In the Bible stories, Jesus was completely against that. YES @Earl, Jesus gamed people and Jesus gamed THOUSANDS of demons at a time in front of the people. News Flash: “Christians” do not believe they are surrounded by and likely inhabited by such entities.

    These blogs are wonderful, but do not count on the ‘church’ (by the changed definition of the original word) to fix any of it since the ‘church’ serves its own god.

  222. Zippy says:

    Opus:
    I’ve been blogging since 2005. And I’ve been involved in online forums, Usenet, etc for much longer; though the nom-de-plume Zippy only goes back to about 2002 or so.

  223. Zippy says:

    (And thanks for the kind words).

  224. theshadowedknight says:

    Elspeth, it is not the looking out for her daughters I dislike. It would be foolish of me to encourage SD to look after her son and abandon her daughters to the world, and nothing changes because SSM has no sons. She is trying to take care of her family, and that is admirable. Loyalty to one’s own is not something that I will go about criticizing. I am taking issue with her tactics, not her motives.

    Game is not the only way that Eros Shrugs. I have seen it in men that have no idea what Game is. It is not a choice made after looking through the pickup artists and the ghosts. Instead of searching online why women lie about nice guys, they wash their hands of them. They do not have Game; they are indifferent to women. They might have sex if it is thrust in their faces, but marriage? No, that is a fool’s bet.

    The Shadowed Knight

  225. jf12 says:

    @JDG, economic dealings with shady people is Biblical and of God’s will and blessing, both Old Testament (e.g. Deuteronomy 23:20, not to mention “Behold, I have heard that there is corn in Egypt …”) and New Testament (e.g. John 4:5-9).

  226. deti says:

    Something I’ve noticed here and elsewhere is that the Game detractors completely misrepresent and misunderstand the “natural alpha” position. It is NOT, repeat NOT, about pointing to something that naturals do or understand and saying “that’s Game!” And it is NOT about discounting the natural alpha’s results or knowledge. If anything, it’s about studying them and learning from them (though they are unwilling or unable to teach or even demonstrate). Natural alphas have women falling into their laps, so they don’t understand at all the struggle most men have with this issue. Keoni gets it, though:

    “One thing that needs to be noted here – both Elspeth and SSM’s husbands (whether you want to call them “natural alphas” or not), came to God-fearing Christianity AFTER they were already married. Neither of them endured the emasculation programming during their formative teen years that is common in Western Churchianity today. Neither of them were instilled with the ideas that their basic, instinctual desire to have sex was sinful and dirty, while women are the pure and spiritually superior sex. I would guess the same goes for Cane and Zippy. You guys appear to have NO IDEA how subversive and emasculating it is to be brought up in that environment.”

    HHG and SAM are quintessential naturals. I can tell from Cane’s writings that he is. I suspect Zippy is but it’s hard to tell. The point is the sneering, derision and insult from the Game detractors reserved for those who are less gifted. “Come on guys! What’s wrong with you! Don’t you just get it? Tell your parents, your pastors, your teachers, and everyone around you to go f**k themselves! Just don’t be a liberal! Just figure it out!”

  227. jf12 says:

    @deti, It ought to be unsurprising that women and alphas are on the same side against betas on the other side. It was however a revelation to me, when I first dipped my toes in the manosphere, that women always defend alphas so vociferously against the “calumny” of being alpha. “He’s just like any other ordinary guy, had lots of girlfriends who wanted to please him, etc.” Obviously it’s the apex fallacy, which means the women will not see it and will deny it.

  228. jf12 says:

    @deti, related question. What do you make of the constant misrepresentation by women, of men who argue strongly in the manosphere, that those men are *necessarily* not betas despite how the men describe women being difficult etc.? How can women fail so miserably in seeing the majority of men’s plight? Is it merely psychological self-protection, like trying to ignore street beggars in Tijuana or Bombay? Or is there something deeper?

  229. Game is not the only way that Eros Shrugs. I have seen it in men that have no idea what Game is….Instead of searching online why women lie about nice guys, they wash their hands of them.

    My son has been overcoming a frustrating point in his life. Thankfully he’s been wrestling and developing some serious skill that is feeding his mental strength. He’s won a few tough matches and is disappointed that the season is almost over. Prior to this though, I saw that he wasn’t wearing his contacts or his glasses. When I asked him about it he told me it’s just easier if he can’t see them (girls). RLB talked with him more about it. Because of his frustration (burning) and knowing that only in marriage is it not sinful to have sex, he’d rather girls just not exist. So he stopped wearing his contacts and glasses so as to not be tempted by being able to see them.

    Like I said, wrestling has helped tremendously by making him physically exhausted in addition to giving him more mental confidence. He can control his desires much better this way and he knows his temporary fix of the problem is not a long term solution. Meanwhile we continue to help him get the girls off the pedestal, encourage him to face his fear of approach, and help him to understand the nature of women. While some men might encourage him to continue walking around blind and live life without, this is not at all what he wants long term.

  230. deti says:

    jf12:

    It’s really that women aren’t sexually attracted to betas. Betas are simply invisible to most women.

    Where I came from, older men taught younger men about pretty much everything (except how to relate to women, of course). The men the generation ahead of me abandoned that task for reasons not relevant immediately.

    Women don’t understand the plight of most men because getting sex comes easily to most of them. In this SMP, it is the easiest thing in the world for a woman to get a man to have sex with her. From what I’ve seen, all but the most hopelessly physically unattractive women can get a man 2 or 3 SMV points above her to have sex with her.

    So much of the discussion here revolves around why men can’t get their wives to sleep with them. This is about wives, jf12 – these are not men looking to bang as many sluts as they can. This is about why women won’t sleep with men who those women PROMISED to love. This is about women who are morally and biblically (if not legally) obligated to have sex with their husbands, and who flat our refuse to do so, or will do so only grudgingly and with loud complaint. This is about men trying to get to the bottom of that question. But there are those who would deny men even the most basic of ways on how to do this.

  231. Novaseeker says:

    The author is a liberal explaining that the decrease of marriage among the working class is natural and expected because assortative mating has taken out the best marriageable people from the marriage market which makes marriage as not a good bet for everyone else

    That’s fairly close to my perspective as well — namely that marriage is now mostly a luxury good. The only people who bring enough “there” to the table to justify marriage, in the broader population at least, are people who can “bring it”. Once you get to the middle/middle and lower/middle it starts to get a lot shakier because the benefits are iffy while the risks are still there. And in the lower/working/poor segment, the benefits are nonexistent.

    There is always risk. The question is “what are the benefits”, and do they offset the risk. The higher value one’s mate is (I’m not talking SMVs here, or even traditional Christian MMVs, but rather something like “total mate value” which is how the UMCs look at this – there’s a strong economic component to it, in other words, but also the right educational pedigree, the right professional standing, the right social pedigree/network and so on ), the more benefits are brought to the table by the mate to counterbalance the risk. These benefits both entice people to get married (more benefit) and discourage people from divorcing (don’t want to lose the benefits). This is true even in the age of “cash and prizes” divorce, because leaving aside the economics that are transferred, many other benefits of being in an assortative UMC marriage (social status, standing in social networks, etc.) is lost in the case of a divorce. Now, of course, there’s a big economic buffer either way for these people (which is why the kids of divorce in this group also do better than in other groups – money helps blunt some of the issues), but also the overall risk is much lower that there will be a divorce to begin with because people don’t want to lose the benefits of being married to an assortative high value mate.

    When you get below that set, the benefits are much less – because the mates are objectively not high value mates. They may be mid-value or low-value. In either case, that means the “benefits” side of the equation is not high enough to outweigh the risk side of it (not just the “frivorce” risk for men, but also other “bad marriage” type risks like the ones he describes in the article), so people are acting rationally and not marrying (on a sliding scale downwards as the benefits side of the equation gets lower and lower). As a result, marriage is becoming increasingly a luxury good, because that’s where the benefits/risk equation pencils.

    This is why, by the way, highly educated women have no trouble marrying, generally, unless there is something odd going on. And it’s also why they have lower than average divorce rates, despite having the same benefits of cash and prizes frivorce law. It has to do with risk/benefits.

  232. jf12 says:

    @SD “I’ll only go blind until I do it.” I agree that trying not to see girls is not even a bandaid solution. I never had a fear of approach, but that too did not help either. 0-for-50 is an even worse record than 0-for-10, or whatever. The important thing to stave off mgtow in a son, I think, may be to help instill an abundance mentality in him. I know I failed in doing that for my son, with deep regret now.

  233. Novaseeker,

    That’s fairly close to my perspective as well — namely that marriage is now mostly a luxury good. The only people who bring enough “there” to the table to justify marriage, in the broader population at least, are people who can “bring it”. Once you get to the middle/middle and lower/middle it starts to get a lot shakier because the benefits are iffy while the risks are still there. And in the lower/working/poor segment, the benefits are nonexistent.

    Agree with all of this.

    Combine this with the fact that thelower-middle-class and the poor are increaingly secular (their collective loss of religiousity) and there is no marriage. None. It is a luxury good. If you don’t bring something to the table, no marriage for you.

  234. Novaseeker,

    This is why, by the way, highly educated women have no trouble marrying, generally, unless there is something odd going on. And it’s also why they have lower than average divorce rates, despite having the same benefits of cash and prizes frivorce law. It has to do with risk/benefits.

    This is why parents who want their daughter’s married, push them for higher education. They do NOT want them married at 19 or 20 the way some of you here do because they have less to offer a man in life, are more naive about the world, and are more likely to marry someone they don’t really want (more likely to divorce.) They want them married at age 25 to 29 because they have their educations, are more worldly, they know themselves a little better, and they are much less likely to divorce.

  235. jf12 says:

    @deti “So much of the discussion here revolves around why men can’t get their wives to sleep with them.” Not enough of the discussion, in my book!

    Evopsych-wise, there isn’t any reason for a woman to continue submitting to a man who has proven repeatedly he will be nice to her even without her submission. The man HAS to be perceived by the women as being potentially much more brutal than he acts, to include the distinct possibility of him abandoning her, for her to be likely to continue to submit.

    Earlier, society made women economically dependent and therefore submissive because of that. Game tools provide a way for a husband to induce uncertainty, if not outright fear, in his wife of his actions, helping her to be more easily submissive than non-Game tools. Since we cannot change society (the first solution for anti-Gamers: “First, go to the models of successful marriages in your church …”), and we cannot change women (“Second, find yourself a naturally submissive woman …”), the default giving up of anti-Gamers is rather angrily dismissive “Just be an alpha already, wouldja?” all the while complaining loudly about men trying to learn how to act like they are more alpha.

  236. @ jf12

    “@Deep Strength. The very idea that YOU get to define problems away via the No True Masculine Man fallacy is extremely problematic. For one thing YOU are not given permission to define the problem of nice guys away. For another, the fallacy “No True Man has difficulties with women” is not only evil in content, being a lie, a falsehood, it is evil in intent, its purpose being deception, its purpose to excuse women for being attracted to the wrong men and not attracted to the right men.”

    Sorry, but you’re trying to twist my words to something they don’t mean, but they actually prove my point.

    Christian nice guys learn a set of behaviors (falsely from the pulput and other Christians in today’s feminized society) that make them more effeminate. This is an immutable fact. As they actually learn masculine behaviors — some would say through game — they will become more attractive to women.

    So, yes, no true masculine man is unattractive to women. That’s another fact.

    The only debate we have here is what constitutes “game.” If you’re defining it as “game” as a composition of behaviors that attract women then I would agree with that.

    However, I would still assert that you can learn about masculine behavior without “game” from good fathers, good mentors, and through insight into the Word, etc. without learning the behaviors from PUAs.

    This is not to say you can’t and shouldn’t learn from the PUAs — I do think there is significant utility in knowing things from the PUAs. But I would be very, very, very wary about learning what to do from the PUAs especially utilizing things that are clearly based on the dark triad (as opposed to learning what you shouldn’t do form the PUAs).

  237. theshadowedknight says:

    SD, it is a hard thing to do. I have been trained my entire life to control myself and it still hurts. This is not a life I would have chosen for myself. It is not good for a man to be alone. I hope your son can find a good woman. It is a much better life than one led alone.

    The Shadowed Knight

  238. jf12 says:

    re: “no true masculine man is unattractive to women” Made you say it. No True Man is the fallacy, therefore evil, behind all of anti-Game.

  239. jf12 says:

    Re: dark triad. Given that the *problem* that Christian nice guys have is that they are not sufficiently dark triad, then for those men the MORE dark triad the behavior the better. There are no two ways about this.

  240. Novaseeker says:

    This is why parents who want their daughter’s married, push them for higher education. They do NOT want them married at 19 or 20 the way some of you here do because they have less to offer a man in life, are more naive about the world, and are more likely to marry someone they don’t really want (more likely to divorce.) They want them married at age 25 to 29 because they have their educations, are more worldly, they know themselves a little better, and they are much less likely to divorce.

    Of course from the secular point of view this makes perfect sense. The problem for Christians is the sex outside of marriage problem, because de facto it’s going to happen when people are marrying in the late 20s and early 30s.

    De facto, the church has effectively chucked its ideas about pre-marital sex. Not “officially”, of course – officially the talk is of chastity and so on. But de facto everyone in the church knows that most of the people who are getting married in most churches in the late 20s and early 30s have fornicated – if not with their soon to be spouse, then with someone else along the way. De facto this is accepted.

    This is also the case for most Christian parents. It’s generally either a “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy, or a de facto (and silent) acknowledgment that sex is probably happening, but as long as they don’t go crazy (i.e., as long as it is “in a relationship”), it’s not the worst thing in the world, and they are doing well in other areas and hopefully they will find a nice guy/girl to marry in the late 20s. Most Christian parents are thinking this way.

    What you see here and in places like it are the minority of Christian parents who are less interested in de facto endorsing fornication. That’s why you see the pushback here. But it really is a difficult issue, because the secular lines for success are being very starkly drawn up and one of them is marrying assortatively to another high value mate at the appropriate time. It’s a trade-off of sorts between that “prize” (which many parents want for their kids, whether they are Christian or not) and the desire to avoid fornication.

  241. Pingback: Dalrock tries to steal Game from the Great HEartistes by attempting to slide it into Jesus’s Bungholizlozzlzozozo. The Lying Dalrcok Bares False Witness Against the Great Heartiste, Lies, and Steals, while Accusing Heartiste of being a “Sinner

  242. What you see here and in places like it are the minority of Christian parents who are less interested in de facto endorsing fornication. That’s why you see the pushback here. But it really is a difficult issue, because the secular lines for success are being very starkly drawn up and one of them is marrying assortatively to another high value mate at the appropriate time. It’s a trade-off of sorts between that “prize” (which many parents want for their kids, whether they are Christian or not) and the desire to avoid fornication.

    Soooo…..

    …you want your 19 year old daughter marrying that medical doctor. Unless she meets him in college (where she is riding a cock carrosel?), she’ll never meet him. He’ll marry someone else someone he met at undergrad (or most likely, medical school), someone he already f-cked. And she (in preserving her virginity) will be stuck marrying the loser boy next door who goes to church every week but never moved out of his parents basement. And in 3 years they will have 2 kids and be divorced and she’ll move back home with you (with the two grandkids.)

  243. Novaseeker says:

    There’s no good answer, I think.

  244. QFT:

    The dangerous lie is that Christians in general did or even currently are fighting the good fight to promote biblical marriage, but that the society won’t listen. The truth is far more painful, that modern Christianity has collaborated with feminism in deeply embarrassing ways. As I have taken great pains to show, modern Christians are mortified at the concept of biblical headship. It repulses at least 90% of Christians in the West, unless it is presented in drag (at which point they love it). This deep revulsion to headship ties directly in to all of the other issues I have been discussing. Headship is presented as tantamount to domestic violence, if not outright abuse. Wifely threats of divorce are seen as a positive tool for wives to keep their husbands in check, lest they run amok. Even the group CBMW founded to support traditional roles invented a new sin in the process, that of a wife submitting to her husband being servile to her husband.

    The problem with Christo-red pillers is that they don’t want a solution, they want a time machine. I think red pill Christians resent the fact that it took the secular manosphere to make them painfully aware of how feminism had (and still is) infiltrated the religion so thoroughly. It’s gotten to the point that it was obvious to everyone but the faithful, so when the manosphere empirically showed them the obvious, and they couldn’t ignore the truth, the only response was “well, its da curz uv Eve!” or turning the uncomfortable truth back on the messengers, “if it weren’t for you PUA / libertine sorts this never woulda happened.”

    They should’ve known better thanks to their conduit to The Almighty and all the scripture pointing it out, but here were heathen PUAs pulling the curtain back on their own religion – most notably because Game worked equally well in religious circles with the good girls – but also because the same social dynamics they saw in the secular world were superimposed in a religious context.

  245. sunshinemary says:

    It’s Traditional Sex Roles Week at RoK:
    http://www.returnofkings.com/28534/traditional-sex-roles-week

    Meanwhile, evangelical women are calling for more egalitarian sex roles:
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2014/january/why-we-need-paternity-leave.html?start=1

    I don’t know, maybe my traditionalist read on the situation is wrong. Maybe it’s PUAs who should reject Christians as traditionalist allies rather than the other way around.

    And Roosh has started #BackToTheKitchen on Twitter.

  246. Pingback: Dalrock tries to steal Game from the Great HEartistes by attempting to slide it into Jesus’s Bungholizlozzlzozozo. The Lying Dalrcok Bares False Witness Against the Great Heartiste, Lies, and Steals, while Accusing Heartiste of being a “Sinner

  247. @ Rollo

    Yes, it would probably have been nice to be born in another time, but who really cares?

    I’m exceedingly grateful to God that He has allowed the PUAs to be an influence to help pull the wool back. There should be nothing shameful about this.

    1 Corinthians 1:27 (NASB)
    27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,

    To be honest, I find the debate about game to be tedious and boring. Christians seem to think that arguing about whether we should use money that was made off people going bankrupt to help the poor.

    Well, what’d done is done. The question should really be: What good can I do in this situation.

  248. Zippy says:

    Rollo Tomassi:

    I think red pill Christians resent the fact that it took the secular manosphere to make them painfully aware of how feminism had (and still is) infiltrated the religion so thoroughly.

    That’s pretty weak sauce, even as remote psychoanalysis of entire groups of people go. It is also entirely typical of moderns to see opposing views as driven by irrational resentment.

  249. Rollo,

    The problem with Christo-red pillers is that they don’t want a solution, they want a time machine. I think red pill Christians resent the fact that it took the secular manosphere to make them painfully aware of how feminism had (and still is) infiltrated the religion so thoroughly.

    That doesn’t even matter that much. It is less that feminism infiltrated Christianity. It is more that feminism infiltrated man’s secular laws regarding marriage. Even if a man found a woman who would submit to a more Christian centered marriage all of man’s secular laws protect her interests at the expense of her husband and his headship. She has options to be made whole at his expense, he does not. And because law enforcement agencies are paid for by secular government to enforce man’s secular laws, your desire for a Christian marriage in the secular West, it will never really materialize.

  250. deti says:

    Jf12:

    “It ought to be unsurprising that women and alphas are on the same side against betas on the other side. It was however a revelation to me, when I first dipped my toes in the manosphere, that women always defend alphas so vociferously against the “calumny” of being alpha.”

    Well, that’s not really what’s going on with the natural alphas. Most naturals don’t understand why most other men just aren’t like them. Most naturals don’t understand at all why most other men can’t just do what they did to get the girl or the casual sex. Most naturals simply see themselves the way they naturally are, and presume all other men have the same mindset and characteristics. It is an issue of lack of empathy, really. And, they are either unwilling or unable to model or demonstrate their behaviors. Their conduct and mannerisms come so naturally to them that they don’t understand why other men can’t just do or be whatever they are.

    That’s why a systematic way of studying “alpha” behavior arose to identify what worked and what didn’t in the areas of attraction and intersexual relationships – because most men couldn’t internalize it without seeing it modeled, demonstrated and/or explained.

  251. feeriker says:

    No one (outside of Aurini that I am aware of) has taken on that women need to get their virtues back. Women need to be told it’s not ok to rebel all sort of authority. It’s not okay to follow their tingles. It’s pretty damn far from ok. It’s not empowering at all. She actually gets her power from submitting to the correct men in her life (Jesus, father and then husband).

    If I were a wagering man, I would without hesitation wager a year’s salary, in cash and up front, that NO church[TM] pastor or even influential married church woman who submits to her husband’s will ever call any of this out to a congregation full of empowered churchian women. Not only would it be professional suicide to the pastorate and economic suicide to the corporation, but the stampede of women for the exits in the wake of such a message, most never to return, would sent a horrifying message that confirms what many of us “recovering churchians” have long known but that no one wants to admit: that most “Christian” (read: churchian) women reject the Word of God. Period. They simply WILL NOT hear it, let alone submit to it. Period. This “church thing” is fine as long as it makes them feel good and doesn’t call upon them to walk any kind of walk that makes them uncomfortable or have to give up any their grrrrrrlpower. But being asked to demonstrate any sort of works that would force them to prove that their faith is genuine is just asking too much and carrying things too far.

    I suspect that even the most sincere of “red pill” pastors and lay leaders know this, which is why they don’t dare even think of putting forth such messages. They simply have too much to lose and have adopted a decidedly un-Christian attitude of fatalism unfit for anyone in a leadership position.

  252. @ jf12

    re: “no true masculine man is unattractive to women” Made you say it. No True Man is the fallacy, therefore evil, behind all of anti-Game.

    Re: dark triad. Given that the *problem* that Christian nice guys have is that they are not sufficiently dark triad, then for those men the MORE dark triad the behavior the better. There are no two ways about this.

    1. It’s not a fallacy if it’s true.

    2. There is no way that the Bible espouses dark triad, and I’m unsure why you believe that “game” is all dark triad.

    Not even the proest-game Christians believe that game is dark triad but rather a toolbox.

    If it’s a toolbox then it’s clear that Christian nice guys aren’t masculine/attractive (which proves the truth of the no true masculine man “fallacy”) and they need the tools from game to become masculine/attractive.

    Your points don’t make any sense at all.

  253. jf12 says:

    No True Man is a fallacy because there are plenty of True Men that are markedly unsuccessful with women. You are not permitted to define things otherwise, and it is evil for you to both to cling to fallacy and to promote fallacy.

  254. jf12 says:

    I didn’t say the Bible said that men should be more dark triad. I said many Christian men were too anti-darktriad to get anywhere with any women at all (cf “made themselves eunuchs”).

  255. feeriker,

    Not only would it be professional suicide to the pastorate and economic suicide to the corporation, but the stampede of women for the exits in the wake of such a message, most never to return, would sent a horrifying message that confirms what many of us “recovering churchians” have long known but that no one wants to admit: that most “Christian” (read: churchian) women reject the Word of God. Period. They simply WILL NOT hear it, let alone submit to it. Period. This “church thing” is fine as long as it makes them feel good and doesn’t call upon them to walk any kind of walk that makes them uncomfortable or have to give up any their grrrrrrlpower.

    Don’t attend a church where the Pastor is paid by the church. Every Pastor should be a lay Pastor. If the Pastor derives his full income from his 40-50 hour a week profession (outside the church), then it shouldn’t matter to him (or his church) if the women bolt for the doors because he is preaching the truth. They should leave. Return when they stop being part of the problem.

    You serving God. When you work for income you are serving yourself and/or your family. Being a Pastor over people (who are not your family) is serving God. You should not be deriving income from that as that creates a conflict of interest.

  256. Actually, I think we’re both right.

    Let me point this out:

    ~You can be successful in business and lead tons of men and women, but also be unsuccessful in relationships.
    ~You can be the best athlete in the world, and be unsuccessful with women.
    ~You can be the president of the United States, and be unsuccessful with women. See: Obama.

    The point is that a man can be a successful, ambitious, leader (e.g. a masculine man) in other areas, BUT if he is unsuccessful in relationships with women that is because he is NOT a masculine man in those areas.

    You are correct that “true man” is not indicative of the all encompassing aspects of a man. However, aspects of a man can be masculine and they can be effeminate. This is because men can compartmentalize their lives.

    I am talking about solely being unsuccessful with relationships — if a man is unsuccessful with relationships then he is NOT masculine. In the area of relationships, a man that is unsuccessful is not truly masculine though he may be successful in other areas of life.

  257. MarcusD says:

    @SSM

    Meanwhile, evangelical women are calling for more egalitarian sex roles:
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2014/january/why-we-need-paternity-leave.html?start=1

    I posted an excerpt of a larger post series I’m working on, just to show how silly/naive those arguments are: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2014/02/parental-leave-differences-in.html

  258. Pingback: Marriage as consipicous consumption. | Dark Brightness

  259. jf12 says:

    @Deep Strength, yes we are both right to the extent that you agree with me! No True God ever has difficulties with people rebelling, so if His people rebel it MUST be because He is not godly enough, right?

  260. Deep Strength,

    You can be the president of the United States, and be unsuccessful with women. See: Obama.

    Point of order, the single ladies love Obama. They love this President. He makes them tingle. He is alpha (just not a Christian alpha in anyway, shape, or form.)

    Were it not for the single lady vote, he would not have been elected (twice.)

  261. jf12 says:

    Re: women and Biblical dark triad. Besides plenty (! very many) “the fear of the Lord” etc. one passage I had to look twice for is Isaiah 19: 16 In that day shall Egypt be like unto women: and it shall be afraid and fear because of the shaking of the hand of the LORD of hosts, which he shaketh over it.

    Very often, the ONLY way to get a woman (or people with womanly traits) to stop misbehaving is to go all dark triad on them.

  262. @Freeriker

    If I were a wagering man, I would without hesitation wager a year’s salary, in cash and up front, that NO church[TM] pastor or even influential married church woman who submits to her husband’s will ever call any of this out to a congregation full of empowered churchian women

    Bingo-boingo. Somebody buy this man a steak. I attend a denomination so conservative that most people don’t even know what it’s called, and those who do are either members or despise it. The congregation is made up mostly of older distinguished people who left liberal churches. Among the younger members, we meet once a week for a “Bible-study” which always ends up being more of a reactionary recap of what’s going on at Taki’s, Radish, and Theden (I haven’t gotten around to introducing them, especially the young married couple, to Dalrock or SSM, but that’s on the agenda). Our Pastor is an avowed Jacobite (as are most of us, varying from republicans [in the most philosophical of senses] to outright sovereign monarchists).

    The father was doing a nice, if a bit dry, lecture series on Ephesians. Eventually we arrived at the dreaded and despised Ephesians 5:21. I was rubbing my proverbial palms together in expectation of the line in the sand. For some reason the sermon instead was on Christian community and duty to one another. In fairness, an argument between two rather prominent clans in the church had been slowly simmering up to a boil, but I am not sure I buy the sudden shift-in-lecture-material. It seems a rampantly conservative pastor in a thoroughly conservative church was concerned enough about the act of potentially making women uncomfortable and angry enough to leave (there is something to be said as most of the congregation has abandoned at least one church, and that old saying about divorcees repeating the offense comes to mind).

    To me, the entire gender war has become just another front on the battle against order, wisdom, and purity. Western materialism keeps us tethered to jobs that, at best, won’t let us say nasty no-good shaming things about women, homosexuals or ill-behaved people of a skin tone less than off-white, and at worst force us to say nice and pleasant things about these groups through gritted teeth. One always had the ability to give an evil society the finger and head for the mountains, but, as Kaczynski found out, that’s not a reality today. Punished and purged is the default state of the heretic to pre-determined thought today. Priests aren’t really committed to their role of subverting degeneracy and the root of wickedness in the world anymore except for a handful.

  263. Dalrock says:

    @The Karamazov Idea

    One always had the ability to give an evil society the finger and head for the mountains, but, as Kaczynski found out, that’s not a reality today.

    Kaczynski is a wack job who murdered and maimed people with mail bombs. Why would you identify with him?

  264. jf12

    “@Deep Strength, yes we are both right to the extent that you agree with me! No True God ever has difficulties with people rebelling, so if His people rebel it MUST be because He is not godly enough, right?”

    Yes and no.

    Free will has always dictated that people will obey or not based on their own free will.

    However, also based on their own free will as God’s creation, they are able to act in a way that is either attractive or unattractive.

    It just so happens that men and women gravitate towards attractiveness, but it does not necessarily mean submission.

    Two different topics.

  265. Kaczynski is a wack job who murdered and maimed people with mail bombs. Why would you identify with him?

    Lets hope for Karamzov’s sake, just a moment of insanity.

  266. Novaseeker says:

    Obama also did fine with women before he was President or Senator. People then ask – why did he end up with Michelle?

    That was a power match – she comes from a politically well connected family in black politics in South Chicago, which is where he was making his political base. Once he was done with his serial monogamy phase, he picked her because she would be politically helpful (and she has been).

  267. jf12 says:

    Re: God’s godliness, vs Man’s manliness. God’s godliness CAUSES His people to respond positively, lovingly, obediently, just like a Man’s manliness CAUSES his women to respond positively, lovingly, obediently, etc. Wouldn’t it be so nice if the world you envision there, dude, actually was that way?

  268. hurting says:

    Donna Sposata diMaria says:
    February 2, 2014 at 6:23 pm

    Donna,

    As much as it pains me to day this (I am a cradle Catholic), I’d strongly counsel you to seek guidance from the Protestants in general as to how to submit. Unless you are uniquely situated in a very conservative parish and diocese, you are very unlikely to hear about anything that remotely resembles tradiional Catholic marriage that would have been practiced even a couple of generations ago. The rot is truly that deep in the modern RCC in the USA.

    Specifically, I’d look to SSM’s blog as a source to start. I do not believe her view of submission is at odds with any dogmatic or doctrinal precepts of the RCC.

  269. Context is important before saying someone relates to another person’s actions. I believe Karamov’s position is that the ideal ability of man to move away or live away from that which hurts him or destroys what he loves is no longer possible. This reality relates to Kaczynski solely because he tried to live out in the wild but soon discovered that the ability to live alone was not possible as civilisation followed him there.

  270. Elspeth says:

    People then ask – why did he end up with Michelle?

    What’s wrong with Michelle?

  271. Boxer says:

    What’s wrong with Michelle?

    Two or three years ago, there was an incident in which Michelle got upset at old Barry and left a dinner party early. Bear in mind that this was one of those white tie, diplomatic corps things that doesn’t ever make the news, but is very important.

    This was quite embarrassing, not just to the president, but to the whole country. The most powerful man on earth is seen as being too cowardly to tell his wife to stfu, when she is being a bitch. That sends a rather powerful message.

    Between that, and the more recent idiocy about selfies during funerals, we see a picture of a man who doesn’t have hand at home. I can feel sorry for young Barack Obama. He was a poor little boy who had the misfortune to be born to a trashy, disgusting, skank-ho single mom, who dragged him around the world (Indonesia, Hawaii, Washington) while she chased her tingles. I really don’t feel sorry for him now. He needs to lay down the law or get the first presidential divorce while in office.

    This doesn’t even begin to address his own little girls, and what they are learning… My guess is that they won’t really know what it is to be in a secure relationship with a man who has boundaries, unless they get very, very lucky later on.

    Best, Boxer

  272. deti says:

    Elspeth:

    “What’s wrong with Michelle [Obama]?”

    The First Lady is quite forward in her political views, and has staked out more than a few controversial positions. She is aggressive in her political views and stridently liberal and independent in her thinking. She strikes me as extraordinarily unsubmissive. She is a more physically imposing woman than most; and even in some ways than the president.

    To the manosphere population, she lacks most traits which would be universally seen as feminine and attractive, particularly when compared to the cohort of women who find the president sexually attractive.

  273. Elspeth says:

    Okay Boxer. I get it. I haven’t been following the Obama sagas very closely it seems. It has always been clear that she is a *strong independent woman* but other than that, I wasn’t aware of how disrespectful she is of him in public.

    That’s terrible.

  274. Theodore Logan says:

    @ Elspeth Mrs. Obama is a hair hatted hooligan:

  275. feeriker says:

    “What’s wrong with Michelle [Obama]?”

    The First Lady is quite forward in her political views, and has staked out more than a few controversial positions. She is aggressive in her political views and stridently liberal and independent in her thinking. She strikes me as extraordinarily unsubmissive. She is a more physically imposing woman than most; and even in some ways than the president.

    To the manosphere population, she lacks most traits which would be universally seen as feminine and attractive, particularly when compared to the cohort of women who find the president sexually attractive.

    I have no doubt that as future presidents hail more and more from the late boomer/GenX demographic that Michelle Obama will be the template for all future First Ladies [sic]. Just as second-wave feminism, by coarsening the current generation of grandmothers, has rendered the traditional grandma stereotype obsolete, so will third-wave feminism have rendered the First Lady role model an anachronism (almost all wives of professional pols today who are presidential aspirants are enpoweredeimminz with political or business careers of their own who aren’t about to be content with being “arm candy” or living in their husband’s shadow while he plays Sock Puppet-in-Chief for four to eight years).

  276. jf12:

    “Re: God’s godliness, vs Man’s manliness. God’s godliness CAUSES His people to respond positively, lovingly, obediently, just like a Man’s manliness CAUSES his women to respond positively, lovingly, obediently, etc. Wouldn’t it be so nice if the world you envision there, dude, actually was that way?”

    Can’t agree. Christians have to accept His free gift of Love. And we must continually choose to do His will everyday. This is the essence of free will.

    Husbands choose to love their wives, just as wives choose to submit. The path walked may be easier if a husband is choosing to lead, but the wife still has to make the choice.

    God’s commands have always been conditional to us: If you love me.. you will obey my commands. Honor your father and mother.. that you will live a long life in the land. If my people repent and turn.. from their wicked ways I will heal their land. Trust in the Lord with all your heart and in all your ways acknowledge him…. and he will make your path straight. God works everything together for good… for those called according to his purpose. If you abide in Christ… he will give you peace.

    It’s a choice. Some paths have “seemingly” been made easier. But it’s still a choice.

  277. LiveFearless says:

    “Churchian Idol”

    There is no free pass in development for you in your quest to remain comfortable in your soul-less, pompous, ‘male’ estrogen-bag habits attempting to fix your beast-serving religion, ‘church’, teacher, writer, congregation that’s obsessed with masculine suppression. Build your body since that’s the REAL church according to the MAN you say you follow.

  278. jf12 says:

    @Deep Strength, glad to see you’ve repented of your No Truly Masculine Man fallacy.

  279. Edwin says:

    “Earlier, society made women economically dependent and therefore submissive because of that.”

    MADE them economically dependent? Regardless of what feminists have told you, women are for the most part weaker than men. Strength and strength-endurance is needed to produce most things, even today. More than half of our economy is diverted to stupid endeavors with shitty laws and monetary policy, and fluffed up on borrowed non-existant money, so the number of jobs that aren’t very physical is extremely exploded. In a real, free-market economy, most men work with their hands; you know, mechanics, framers, masons, plumbers, etc. Our economy will revert back to this once the fed gov goes bankrupt in the next 30-60 years. You can look at China, a country that in reality, ironically is actually more free market than we are as an example. They also save like 50% of their income, which is also the natural order of things in a free market.

    In that situation, women are only so useful. They’re not all completely helpless, but the limits are there. Pregnancy makes a woman’s situation much worse in such a free market (that is, REAL) economy. You can’t carry 40 lb, 8 x 8 x 16 blocks all day long up higher and higher to build a foundation on a hot summer day when you’re 8 months pregnant.

    Early societies didn’t MAKE women economically dependent. They HELPED them by inventing marriage in the first place. If a woman wanted sex (which they pretty much all do, like all people), she could expect pregnancy as a result. Marriage gave a woman sex but also a man to provide for the baby (note, that to some extent, the ability to have sex finally wasn’t necessarily with just the husband, if the woman were the type who could get away with it – this was mentioned in Eyes Wide Shut, women looked forward to marriage because “it meant they could sleep with other men”). And regardless again of what feminist-leaning modern scholars will tell you, women CANNOT do large-scale grain agriculture, the kind where you make enough to sell some, on top of feeding your family. Yeah, pushing that plow is a motherfucker, it’s not a joke. A “garden” isn’t going to cut it if you want to feed multiple mouths.

    I can easily imagine situations in very early pre-marriage societies; a girl gets sweet on the big alpha-male, she has so much fun flirting with him and screwing him. One day she gets pregnant, maybe the guys still sleeps with her for a while, maybe not. Eventually, she has the kid. One day when he brings home a hunted animal, and all the guys are cooking it, she demands some to feed her kid. She says the kid is partly his fault. He says no dice, nobody can do anything about it. Coulda happened repeatedly here and there.
    It’s just one strong factor that made/makes marriage such a strong, stable, cultural universal. There are a LOT of other things going for it, too. Just saying that this is one of them.

  280. @Dalrock @innocentbystanderboston

    A whackjob Kaczynski was, but he quickly found out that there’s no escaping the borders of the state today, as did the incrementally less insane Branch Davidians, and the merely-odd Weaver family. You’re participating, whether you like it or not. You can’t opt for self-sufficiency (or more realistically, opt-out of the society), even if you’re capable of it.

    Also, I’m a tad miffed that suggesting even murderous psychopaths can be right about a thing or two is tantamount to my endorsement of them. The reference I made was to before the bombing campaign when ol’ Ted was in his bug-out cabin in the woods and, lo-and-behold, society followed him there (I wrote this sentence before reading Innocent’s follow-up post….exactly what my line of thought was). The point of the Dark Enlightenment is that you can engage ideas no matter how unpalatable nor where they came from so long as they are true, and in this instance, the inevitability of participating with the state is certainly true. Even the Mormons and the Amish are finding this out the hard way.

    It surprises me that so many would-be traditionalists opt-in to the system out of fatigue or refuse to fight back. Where else do they think we have to go if our society caves? If anything, the increasingly hostile atmosphere encourages me to act more subversively until I can secure actual employment that frees me to speak freely under my own name. Another heartening thing given to us (given in a moment of extreme despair) was the story of Phil Robertson’s GQ comments and the demonstration that a large portion of America would not be bullied (actively, at least). Now, I hold no illusions of how things would have went if Phil wasn’t extremely eloquent, lethally intelligent, and rigorously principled, but the fact that it’s still possible to win should be the focus.

    In fact, the Robertson family should be a model-of-sorts. The family is secure in itself from the outside, even monetarily as their savings and business allow them to speak their minds (even if A&E cancelled the show, no Robertson would go hungry for generations). Better yet, rather than self-preservation and seclusion, the family manages to proselytize outside of their secure environment. Of course the show isn’t a perfect display of Godly masculinity and submission (Willie puts up with an awful lot from his wife, at least on camera), it’s a starting point and a forward outpost from which these virtues (among others) can be taught.

  281. LiveFearless says:

    How Christians Can Take Credit Please define ‘Christians’ and “Take Credit”

  282. JDG says:

    @JDG, economic dealings with shady people is Biblical and of God’s will and blessing, both Old Testament (e.g. Deuteronomy 23:20, not to mention “Behold, I have heard that there is corn in Egypt …”) and New Testament (e.g. John 4:5-9).

    I can’t disagree with this. I just don’t know for sure what is meant when people use the term ‘game’. I’ve read different ideas about it. Therefore I don’t know if ‘game’ is something that a Christian should use or even needs to use.

    Some of what I ‘just do’ seems to fall into the game category according to some. Other things I’ve read about game no Christian should ever do. I think that anyone who trusts in Jesus and is willing to follow in His footsteps will learn what he needs to know through prayer, studying God’s word, and applying this to his life. Jesus is alive and active in our lives. For those who are not Christian and reject such an invitation, I’m sorry I have nothing to say that would interest you.

    Another thing I don’t understand is all this fuss over attracting a woman here in the U.S. when it is commonly under stood that the vast majority of women here are not wife material. Maybe I’m being foolish to some, but I would rather remain single than end up married to a woman like the ones I mostly encounter in this country. If you are already married then that is a whole different can of worms.

    From what I have seen I guy doesn’t have to be ‘super alpha’ if you are dealing with women who actually appreciate men. The women here have lost the marbles. I’m not saying foreign girls are perfect. But the difference in what they think about men is night and day by comparison. All of the women from over there that I have met appreciate their men in a way that almost none of the women here do.

    Okay, my rant is over.

  283. jf12 says:

    @MarcusD re: steroids. The effect disappears if normalized by rates of abuse of other substances. About the only conclusion to be drawn is that aberrant behavior in one area is most likely to be accompanied by aberrant behavior in other areas. This steroid effect is undoubtedly the same as those boys being more likely to wear toenail polish than straight boys.

  284. Edwin says:

    @ Karamazov

    what very conservative church is that?
    Been thinking of going to church. Not getting any younger; need a wife in the long run (not super-long, but you know what I mean). Plus I wouldn’t mind engaging in promoting family

  285. Novaseeker says:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gay-bisexual-adolescent-boys-six-times-more-likely-to-use-steroids-than-straight-boys/

    That’s because gay men, being men, are visual, and the bulking up increases the visual appeal to gay men. Straight men are under a bit less pressure in this regard, because women are attracted by various things, but of course with economic parity between the sexes the pressure is increasing on straight men to juice up, too — it’s just different in that gay men choose their sex partners the way straight men do — almost all visual, just directed towards men and not women.

  286. jf12 says:

    @JDG, I agree with all you said in your rant. Including “If you are already married then that is a whole different can of worms.” Worse yet, after having been frivorced at 30 and suffering through This American Hell-of-a-Life for another decade, I foolishly married another American woman.

  287. jf12 says:

    Re: ” I don’t know if ‘game’ is something that a Christian should use or even needs to use.” Game is something a Christian shouldn’t need to use, if society were organized properly. But society’s not.

  288. Novaseeker says:

    This steroid effect is undoubtedly the same as those boys being more likely to wear toenail polish than straight boys.

    Different sets of gay guys. One set is the muscle set. Another set is kind of “effeminate” set. The ones in the latter camp aren’t juicing — the ones in the former camp are. The former camp are generally “stealth” (i.e., look and act like straight guys), while the latter are less typically masculine ranging from a little bit “off” to the stereotypically “fabulous hairdresser on fire”. Mostly the latter are the “visible” gays, while the former are stealth.

  289. JDG says:

    What’s wrong with Michelle?

    What’s wrong with any feminist?

  290. Dalrock says:

    Novaseeker, I see that your domain name is expired. Do you plan on moving your blog to a free hosting platform?

  291. @Edwin

    A very specific designation of Anglican.

  292. Novaseeker says:

    I’m looking into what to do with the blog at this point, Dalrock. I may move it back to free.

  293. LiveFearless says:

    @JDG things I’ve read about game no Christian should ever do

    Whatever ‘word’ used, here’s the definition for true Christian males.

    BE
    A
    MAN

    You’ve never learn about A MAN from your ‘church’ or ‘christian’ author, teacher, preacher…

    So what is A MAN?

  294. Pingback: Reclamation | Donal Graeme

  295. So what is A MAN?

    Ask Pastor Driscoll, and he’ll say a man is only someone who is married but is loaded down with responsibilities (because a truck handles better, drives straighter with a heavy load.)

  296. Novaseeker says:

    Yes Driscoll follows the “men as oxen” concept.

  297. oxen move straighter with a heavy load

  298. JDG says:

    You’ve never learn about A MAN from your ‘church’ or ‘christian’ author, teacher, preacher…

    I learnt it from John Wayne. kidding!

    I learned how to be a man from hardship, prayer (where God spoke to me through His spirit), studying the word of God, and from other men. Believe it or not, some of those men I learned from were Christian men. Not the kind often spoken of here, but the kind that will keep their word (and the Word of God) to their own hurt.

  299. Novaseeker says:

    oxen move straighter with a heavy load

    Yes. 1 Driscoll 5:25-36.

  300. galloper6 says:

    I see the heart of Game to the be; understanding the true nature of women and the mechanics of attraction/seduction. Necessary because the ideaized women the Churches promised us dont exist. Plus every shepard (clergy and father of daughters ) should be an EXPERT on wolves.

  301. infowarrior1 says:

    “Not only would it be professional suicide to the pastorate and economic suicide to the corporation, but the stampede of women for the exits in the wake of such a message, most never to return, would sent a horrifying message that confirms what many of us “recovering churchians” have long known but that no one wants to admit: that most “Christian” (read: churchian) women reject the Word of God. Period. They simply WILL NOT hear it, let alone submit to it. Period.”

    John 6:60-71
    “60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

    66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.”

  302. Boxer says:

    IBB quotes Marc Driscoll, shyster extraordinaire:

    oxen move straighter with a heavy load

    LOL! That’s so demeaning. Hard to believe that huckster is able to sell this to his flock.

    Brother Boxer is going to put on his Brigham Young beard and prophesy now, about old Driscoll. I would bet money that within the next 5 years, he is exposed as a fraud.

    My best guess is that the fraud will be financial in nature, though it might be that he’s boffing some hot young woman (or man?) in his conversation, who rats him out in the press.

    Either way, that guy is clearly full of shit. I hope none of you Protestant brothers here are taking anything he says seriously. Women don’t want pack animals. Women want a man that is looked up to. If anyone here is sending Driscoll any money, consider sending it to me instead. I won’t use it any better than he does, but I’ll have the decency to thank you for the freebies and won’t insult you to your wife as he does.

    Regards, Boxer

  303. infowarrior1 says:

    ““Not only would it be professional suicide to the pastorate and economic suicide to the corporation, but the stampede of women for the exits in the wake of such a message, most never to return, would sent a horrifying message that confirms what many of us “recovering churchians” have long known but that no one wants to admit: that most “Christian” (read: churchian) women reject the Word of God. Period. They simply WILL NOT hear it, let alone submit to it. Period.”

    Those women demonstrate that they never belonged to God in the 1st place. What a truly regenerate person would do if he hears the word of God? If the truth of the Gospel was preached to them in the 1st place they would have never been “Christian” at all. Perhaps some of them would be truly saved. But many of them have always been and always will be rebels save for the grace of God.

    Only now that they are cloaked in “Christian” clothing having the appearance of Godliness and denying the power thereof because their they are unregenerate and never heard of or believed in the true Gospel.

  304. greyghost says:

    infowarrior1
    That is what lack of faith looks like. I like the idea of a guy with a job working as a preacher on sunday for the sake of the word and not for the money.

  305. Anonymous Reader says:

    This, again?

    Why is it that no one has a problem with Toastmasters. I’ve never participated, but men I know who have tell me it has been very beneficial to them. Effective public speaking is very useful in both business and personal environments. Intonation, eye contact, inflection, posture, and other common speaking techniques come naturally to some people, but many others must learn how to do them. Toastmasters provides an environment for people to learn how to speak effectively, by speaking to each other on a regular basis in semi-formal environments. I believe that members will even come watch another member’s speech in a work or other place, and provide discreet feedback. There are field reports. There is a proven method that works.

    Of course, the techniques of effective speaking are amoral – they can be used to persuade a suicide off a building ledge, they can be used to con old ladies out of their life savings. Inspirational speakers, sports coaches, telemarketers and used car salesmen all are known to use these techniques…

    So it surprises me that the usual suspects have not denounced Toastmasters as a bad, bad thing, because telemarketers and then smugly assured everyone else that all one needs to learn to speak effectively is to read the Bible.

    Perhaps there isn’t the same emotional investment in public speaking as there is in helping men to get married and stay married. Or perhaps there are other issues.

    Be that as it may, I await the thundering denunciations of Toastmasters with the same sturm und drang as the denunciations of Game. If certain people really believe what they are saying.

  306. Anonymous Reader says:

    I see that SunshineMary is posting all about “allies” and “morality”.

    Here is what she wrote to PUA’s on her site, after mentioning them as possible “allies”:
    The minute we have driven off our common enemy, it is my hope that the men of the tribe of Christ will kill your kind

    This is promotion of murder as a solution – a final solution – to a social problem. Attempting to point out the wrongheadedness of this was useless, and I stopped wasting my time talking to a wall. Any readers who wish to check can go search the site for themselves.

    As for me, I have no reason to waste my time there. Because I reject murder, I refuse to condone murder, and I reject those who champion murder.

  307. Anonymous Reader says:

    8oxer
    Brother Boxer is going to put on his Brigham Young beard and prophesy now, about old Driscoll. I would bet money that within the next 5 years, he is exposed as a fraud.

    It might take more than 5 years. Jimmy Swaggart lasted quite some time before he was caught with his hooker(s), for example. But in my experience, those who parade their faith around on a stick, shouting loudly for everyone else to get in line right now behind them, are generally trying to distract people from something else. This doesn’t just apply to TV hucksters like Swaggert, but also to the Holy Joe one can find in many churches. I’ve seen more than one case where some bigmouthed Holy Joe turned out to have a mistress, or a habit of “personal counseling” that got very personal indeed, or spending that exceeded income by some miracle.

    And on the other hand, I have personally known some very devout men who chose to share their faith via quiet, continuous action rather than loudmouthed bellowing. I wonder which kind of man is more effective, in the end?

  308. MarcusD says:

    @AR

    https://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/ill-dress-up-as-truman-if-youll-dress-up-as-stalin/

    http://superiormanlogic.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/revolution-now/

    Though, she does clarify:

    ** There is not an actual physical war going on between PUAs and Christians. There is no literal physical killing or purging by death being called for, since we are talking about Barbarians, Rome, and Christians, not, you know, actual people. This is another one of those word picture thingies.

  309. Opus says:

    I concur with Anonymous Reader. I have no doubt that, where I am, had the Police come to hear of it, she would have been arrested and probably imprisoned – though of course she could have played the Pussy Pass.

    I have some sympathy for Christians as they are now an oppressed majority, but encouraging Civil War (and justifying that on the grounds of ‘God told me to’) – whilst in practice encouraging a Lets you and him fight over me, is amongst many other things Misandry.

  310. jf12 says:

    War is something a Christian man shouldn’t engage in, if society were organized properly. But society’s not.

  311. jf12 says:

    A man should just till his own fields and not engage in working for another man, if society were organized properly. But society’s not.

  312. Anonymous Reader says:

    MarcusD, that thread contains many examples of the Female Imperative at work; the anti-rational emotional tirades demanding “Let’s You And Him Fight Because I Say So”, the handmaidens of the white feather, beta orbiters and pedestalizing White Knights, and so forth. I quit reading it after my last reply to SSM, for the simple reason that there was no longer any point. When someone has deliberately taken an immoral and unlawful position, and refuses to see anything wrong with that position, rejecting plain English and simple logic, then it’s more like wrestling with a pig than a debate or discussion between adults.

    MarcusD quotes SSM
    ** There is not an actual physical war going on between PUAs and Christians. There is no literal physical killing or purging by death being called for, since we are talking about Barbarians, Rome, and Christians, not, you know, actual people. This is another one of those word picture thingies.

    This is not a clarification, it is not even a rationalization, it is pathetic backpedaling. It is a refusal to admit error of any sort. The condescending tone of contempt oddly enough adds nothing to the truth of the argument. SunShineMary overtly called for men to be killed. Not in self defense. Not after some trial or other. Just killed. Period. She’s not so stupid as to be unaware of what the words she’s written actually mean, either.

    Although she did modify the imperative order slightly at the tail of her rant (bold emphasis added):

    But on the margins, I see some Christian men waking up and realizing that any functional society we wish to create in the future will need to convert, cast out or kill the sexually immoral both male and female

    That’s not a “word picture thingie”, either. That’s an imperative statement, an “ought”. It’s not a new idea, this notion of “convert to my religion, or be exiled, or die”, to be sure. One can even find it in religious works. Perhaps SSM was paraphrasing this famous line:

    “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”

    Not exactly the Sermon on the Mount…

  313. Anonymous Reader says:

    Expanding a bit on Toastmasters, suppose that boys were trained from kindergarten on that they should only speak in a monotone. That when reading aloud, they should read in a stilted, robot-like monotone. “They should on-ly read a-loud in a mon-o-tone, like some sort of ro-bot in a bad sci-ence fic-tion mo-vie”, with no animation or inflection whatsoever.

    Suppose that boys and young men also got that same sort of training in the churches. To speak always in hushed, boring, monotones. Naturally there would be a few who would get away with rebelling, with speaking in a more animated manner, and they would stand out from the rest. They’d be more popular, especially with girls.

    Now suppose that some young men, frustrated at their lack of success not just socially but in the workplace as well, happened to discover a group of telemarketers and other sales types, some of whom were almost certainly con men…men who could and did speak effectively in both public and private situations. Men who were conveying ideas with verve. Men who were becoming leaders in their workplace, because they could speak effectively. Suppose these young men began to pay close attention to what the salesmen were doing: how they chose to stand, how they shook hands with other men, when they made eye contact, how they modulated their voice. And some of these young men chose to write down what they had discovered, then go and try it in discrete public settings such as bars and nightclubs, before trying it out at work.

    And they found that this system worked. They found that casting off the training they’d been given in school and church, to al-ways talk like a ro-bot, had benefits for them. Immediate benefits in social situations, and longer term benefits in the workplace. Suppose this knowledge became sorta kinda codified in a book called “The Speech”, and that other men took parts of “The Speech” and modified it with their own thoughts, opinions and discoveries.

    Who would denounce this discovery and subsequent exploration? Oh, perhaps women – who would complain that while all they really want is a Nice Guy, that Nice Guy has to be well spoken. He has to speak well; in a commanding way, or a persuasive way, depending on the situation, but it has to be natural, something he “just gets”, not a bag of tricks that he learned. To “just get” effective speaking is sexy, to have a bag of tricks is creepy.

    And, of course, those men who were born and/or raised with a gift of gab – they’d object to “The Speech”, because it creates competition for them, and also calls into question the “naturalness” of their own speechifying. School officials wouldn’t like it, and neither would the more insecure of societal leaders – after all, if every man were to learn the common methods of effective speaking, then they would see and recognize those methods when other men were using them. Some church leaders would be among the category of “insecure leaders afraid of The Speech”, too.

    And this opposition to men learning how to speak effectively would be cloaked in various ways – not “natural” / “bag of cheap tricks” by some, “immoral” by others who would point to con men and shady salesmen as “typical examples of those who use The Speech”, “not needed” by men with natural talent for speaking (“Oh, that’s just a waste of time. Just be yourself and speak naturally, that’s all there is to it!”) or some combination of the above.

    Yet in the final analysis, there’s nothing fake, or immoral, about learning to speak effectively. It’s just a skill, a set of mental tools. How it is used depends on the man using it. Learning to speak effectively won’t turn a good man into a con man, it just makes him a more effective good man.

    Oh, I forgot, there’s another response that would occur. Some people, having denounced The Speech as inherently immoral, would then turn around and propagate the same rules for effective speaking, but with different names. They’d then claim to have found all these rules in the Bible, and they’d call their version of The Speech “Biblical Speaking”. Instead of proper eye contact, for example, there would be “mindful looking” or some such. It would be the same thing, but the different labels / names would be comforting to those who on the one hand wanted to be able to speak effectively, but on the other hand confused the tool of speech with the man who uses it. Of course, in the process those people would be able to claim their own moral supremacy over users of The Speech, because “different”, and then demand that all Truly Moral men should get in their line, follow their way, act like them, because. Just because.

    So, when will the denunciations of Toastmasters begin, I wonder?

  314. Micha Elyi says:

    @ MarcusD

    Thanks for reprinting that article, it was disgusting. That might as well have been written by a modern Christo-Feminist. For it instead to have come from a Catholic publication in the 50′s… no wonder the American Church is in a bad way.
    donalgraeme

    I disagree that the portion of the book that MarcusD chose to quote was “disgusting” or “might as well have been written by a modern Christo-Feminist”.

    The 1950s was a very different time. When the author of the book MarcusD excerpted writes, “There are exceptions, of course, and our presumption, that in general it is best to leave the past buried, leaves room for them”, readers in 2014 must bear in mind that he is writing before the sexual and feminist revolutions burst upon us. Betty Friedan would not publish The Feminine Mystique for another eight years. The beach party movies of now-deceased Annette Funicello were just as many years in the future. If MarcusD and donalgraeme want to argue that 1950s (or even 1960s) America anticipated that the Disney corporation would someday produce child stars that would become today’s Miley Cyrus, Christina Aguilera, Britney Spears, or Lindsay Lohan, they can try to sell me that. But I won’t buy it. I conclude on the basis of plain common sense that the “exceptions” the book’s author mentions are much wider than MarcusD or donalgraeme appear to suppose.

    If MarcusD wishes to offer well-described hypothetical cases on his own blog that illustrate his own judgment of when and what disclosure of ones past sexual history is appropriate he can go right ahead. Such a blog post and the comments from readers it could draw might make interesting reading. (The situation given in Part I of the material MarcusD quoted is not well-described.)

    That type of advice started cropping up post-World War II, but really picked up speed in the mid-50s.
    MarcusD

    Unsupported opinion.

    The people who get the angriest when someone insists on marrying a virgin are usually religious people (whether the person insisting is a virgin or not).
    MarcusD

    Unsupported opinion. Also, the claim does not match my own experience.

    It’s worth noting that in the 1950s, promiscuity (that is, premarital sex) was properly understood as being undesirable (e.g. not a positive), but the effects on subsequent marital dissolution and marital satisfaction (etc) were not at all understood..
    MarcusD

    I sampled some of the papers MarcusD mentions at his blog in his post Some Trends Worth Noting. In my opinion, they don’t hold up the broad claims of “subsequent marital dissolution and marital satisfaction” he makes.

  315. Sir_Chancealot says:

    Yes Earl, women get to decide what makes men sexually attractive to them, just as men get to decide what makes a woman sexually attractive to them.

    Let’s stop with this junk about Jesus being an alpha. If anything, he was a sigma. He cared very little what people thought of him, or thought of his mission. Alphas VERY much care about such things. Pilate and Herod were alphas. You would know this if you ever spent any time around one.

    You want me to follow some man? Some pastor, priest, or shepherd? Fine. Show me the man today who can raise the dead with nary but a word, can feed 3,000 people from a few loaves and fishes. Who can heal people when they merely touch his clothes. Who can calm the waves and wind with but a phrase. What’s that? Too steep of a requirement?

    Ok. Show me a man who can order a mountain to cast itself into the sea, and it obeys him. Hell, we won’t even make it THAT difficult. Show me a man who can order a chair to cast itself into the sea. After all, that only requires faith the size of a mustard seed.

    Oh? No one alive and still on planet earth can do that? Well, then, it doesn’t do us much good, now does it? No wonder Jesus questioned whether he would find faith when he returned to earth.

    In any society that does not have arranged marriages, and harsh (legal and extra-legal) measures against divorce, adultery, and fornication, a man MUST be sexually attractive to his woman. And a woman, if she wants kids, MUST be sexually attractive to her man.

    Why is this so hard for Christians to understand? Are there things both sexes can do unilaterally so that they are attracted to their spouses? Absolutely, but as Deti has repeatedly hammered home, there has to be SOMETHING there to work with. After all, even Jesus had trouble doing miracles in a place where there was almost no faith. (Ooooo! Forgot about that little part of the story, didn’t you?)

    I’m beginning to wonder if some of these women aren’t right, and some of you “MGTOW” men are just incredibly picky. Which is fine, except that you won’t own up to it. God, it’s like you expect women to act like men. Where is the fun in that?

    Yes, women do get to define what they find sexually attractive. They do NOT, however, get to define what is “masculine”. You confuse the two. They may find whimpy, effiminate boys as sexually attractive, but those boys sure wouldn’t be masculine. Learn the difference.

    Deti, you must have the fortitude and constitution of heroes of old, to keep harping on something that people should understand by your second explanation. People don’t want knowledge, they want people to confirm their own beliefs, same as it ever was.

  316. jf12 says:

    “Yes, women do get to define what they find sexually attractive.” “Why is this so hard for Christians to understand?” because what women find sexually attractive does not line up with the Christian ideal, and in most cases goes exactly opposite of it. In very many ways it is very very very much easier on women than men, because it is so easy to be a good (young) Christian wife who is sexually attractive to a good Christian husband, but it is evidently very very very difficult for women to be sexually attracted to a good Christian husband, which is the one specific way in which it is more difficult to be a woman. A man walks around all day with his natural lusts having to be kept under control every microsecond, so he gets pretty good at containing his inner nuclear fires in a vast fortified toroid with cooling towers etc. In contrast, usually to get anything going for themselves, women have to make do with rubbing two wet sticks together in the rain, partly shielded by a wet blanket, so on the rarish occasions that she gets all hot and bothered she doesn’t know how to contain as well.

  317. MarcusD says:

    I disagree that the portion of the book that MarcusD chose to quote was “disgusting” or “might as well have been written by a modern Christo-Feminist”.

    You are free to do so.

    The 1950s was a very different time.

    I stated as such.

    If MarcusD and donalgraeme want to argue that 1950s (or even 1960s) America anticipated that the Disney corporation would someday produce child stars that would become today’s Miley Cyrus, Christina Aguilera, Britney Spears, or Lindsay Lohan, they can try to sell me that.

    Non sequitur.

    I conclude on the basis of plain common sense that the “exceptions” the book’s author mentions are much wider than MarcusD or donalgraeme appear to suppose.

    Can you expand on this?

    If MarcusD wishes to offer well-described hypothetical cases on his own blog [...]

    Unsupported opinion.

    Unsupported opinion. Also, the claim does not match my own experience.

    Currently writing on it. Have plenty of sources. Sit tight.

    Unsupported opinion [because] the claim does not match my own experience.

    Maybe?

    that illustrate his own judgment of when and what disclosure of ones past sexual history is appropriate

    Can you explain why you wrote this?

    In my opinion, they don’t hold up the broad claims of “subsequent marital dissolution and marital satisfaction” he makes.

    “e.g.” Also, I think you’re confusing different discussions given your quote above.

    Besides that, as I stated further up, I have another post coming that will (quite handily) back up my claims. I made the above “Unsupported opinion” (which is kind of a silly remark, actually) with the knowledge that I had supporting sources.

  318. jf12 says:

    cf Obsidian
    http://www.justfourguys.com/the-primacy-of-desire/
    It really would be extremely mean of God and/or man to demand, via irrational projection, that his wife be sexually attracted to the way that he kneels just because he is sexually attracted to his kneeling wife.

  319. jf12 says:

    @SD I have nice guy son, raised well, a couple years out of college, who has never been on a date. A little while ago he stopped trying, since, it hurts. If you’ve ever been turned down you of course know it hurts a little, but unless you’ve never *not* been turned down then you have no idea how much each additional grain of salt hurts that wound. Since I would like grandkids and since I can’t in good conscience advise him he ought to try to be more bad, I have been asking around “What should we tell our sons?” with predictable i.e. useless results. The Truth of course is that women ought to appreciate nice guys better, but that’s never going to happen ever again, even pretending it used to be true in earlier centuries. So, absent the wholesale redesign of society that SSM is going to unveil tomorrow, it seems to me one way to play this difficult lie is to deliberately hook it sharply into the rough and then see where it bounces.

    Given that women are so susceptible to being picked up by bad boys, arguably (I want to argue) a nice guy learning how to pick them up could be the most whitest knightest thing to do for him to save women. How should I go about broaching the idea that Good Girls Need Picking Up Too? It seems you have some progress in that specific direction, maybe the only one I know about. My earlier thought, that I could just sort of casually demonstrate “accidentally” picking up a nice girl in front of him (which I’m sure I can do) I’ve more or less kiboshed out of fear of the wife’s frying pan, one of the reasons I also haven’t quite demonstrated picking up another woman in front of her.

  320. @SD I have nice guy son, raised well, a couple years out of college, who has never been on a date. A little while ago he stopped trying, since, it hurts. If you’ve ever been turned down you of course know it hurts a little, but unless you’ve never *not* been turned down then you have no idea how much each additional grain of salt hurts that wound.

    I need more information.

    Being a nice guy is fine if he isn’t fat and fairly good looking. Is your son overweight?

  321. Boxer says:

    Hey jf12:

    How old is your son? I definitely don’t want to seem unsympathetic here, but I have a hard time believing that *no* woman will hang out with him. It is, however, perfectly believable that no woman *that he wants to date* will hang out with him.

    Since I would like grandkids and since I can’t in good conscience advise him he ought to try to be more bad…

    He doesn’t have to be bad to get dates, but there are a couple of things that he can do which might help.

    1. Ask out girls who are, objectively, not as “hot” as the girls he’s being rejected by.
    2. Hit the gym, find him a decent hairstylist, buy him some newer clothes, and give him an all around makeover.

    About 1: I’m not advising that he should try to hit up extreme fatties, sluts covered in tattoos, or amputees. The cute-but-not-beautiful semi-awkward wallflower types who never get noticed by dudes are who he should be after.

    About 2: You/He should not have to spend a ton of money. Have him join the YMCA (cheap personal training here) and get some better looking duds at the secondhand store if you’re strapped. The point is that he should look like he takes care of himself.

    A couple of other general things:

    * I’ve been rejected by women at least a thousand times. For better or worse, this is part of manhood. Most of the time, the rejections aren’t personal. Not all women will want to run around with you, and that’s OK. I realize there are PUA types who claim they never get rejected. That’s not been my experience. The best thing to do is to put rejection into context, and keep asking around.

    * Being celibate is not the end of the world. If he really likes that lifestyle, he can join the priesthood. I studied at a jesuit university, and some of the coolest guys I met there were priests who didn’t have time for picking up chicks. You can live a very meaningful and good life as a single man who concentrates on non-sexual/marital things, while still pursuing manly virtues.

    Best, Boxer

  322. jf12, if you read my post “how he got the girl” (sorry, my comments on here disappear when I put links in), you’ll read the story of how RLB and I met. Also read “Christian Game” by RLB on my blog – the comments on that post are good as well. RLB teaches our son two different things, the first – how to attract the second how to, in two weeks, determine if she’s marriage material. He’s tending to an extended family emergency for the next few days but when he gets back I’ll talk with him about writing a post going into more detail.

  323. Jay in DC says:

    It’s Traditional Sex Roles Week at RoK:
    http://www.returnofkings.com/28534/traditional-sex-roles-week

    Meanwhile, evangelical women are calling for more egalitarian sex roles:
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2014/january/why-we-need-paternity-leave.html?start=1

    I don’t know, maybe my traditionalist read on the situation is wrong. Maybe it’s PUAs who should reject Christians as traditionalist allies rather than the other way around.

    Now, like Saul, I think the scales are finally starting to peel from your eyes. I am keenly aware of this part of the so called “Dark Enlightenment” but generally avoid it like the plague because it tends to be filled with incessant hand-wringing and willful flailing of oneself, it is a Catholic thing… (was raised as such)

    I was inadvertently summoned here by da GBFM. I have to first off +1 Rollo above, he basically encapsulated my view without my need to repeat it.

    My purpose then, is more that of messenger. I find it very odd that you pontificate from the high moral ground like most good theists do. First off Roissy… it is 2014. It may be time to refresh your browser a bit. And on that same note, as others have pointed out CH in it’s modern incarnation is a radically different place than even a few years ago. I’m guessing, like me, most of you simply haven’t darkened it’s doors in a while, just as I tended to not plant myself in this part of the connected DE web.

    Might want to do that some time, you may see something quite different from you ingrained perceptions. And as SSM noted above, ditto for RoK. The quality of writing there is quite inferior, but on many occassions there heart is in the right place at least.

    There are many users of “Game” who may ID as PUAs only, but I can tell you there is also a preponderance that are what has been labeled above neo-reactionaries. I am a ruthless Alpha Predator by nature, and have been since a young age. I quickly adapt to maximize my benefit in whatever environment I find myself in. In the game of dating, love, and relationships, this led me to become a de-facto “PUA” by your defintion though I had never seen a single article about such a thing since after 2008.

    I’ve bounced around the DE Web since then most often in lurker mode. CH is rightly, just about in the center of the crosshairs of that nifty little map we’ve so much of lately. I found other sites to be too restrictively focused. It was PUA, or MRA, or HBD, or on that tiny little red line Traditionalists.

    CH mixed all that into a blender in just the right amounts and has been exceedingly good at trying to keep that equilibrium intact. Of course the most inflammatory RealTalk™ that occurs in that place is HBD and ethnocentric issues as that is the most sacred of all sacred cows, but even that little pinata is frequently punctured.

    If you all decided to leave your “red line” a bit more frequently you would marvel at how much many of our goals line up. I would say it is a minority of red pill men who just want to ride this wave into oblivion. Most would like nothing more than a return to the values of antiquity, but we realize that such things occur in slow cycles, so in the interim, we ride the wave…

  324. Pingback: Lightning Round -2014/02/05 | Free Northerner

  325. jf12 says:

    @Boxer, he’ll be 24 soon. I got turned down my first 50 or so times, and married the first girl who finally said yes (after saying no before), by age 20. I count myself as an extreme failure with women. 1 for 50 is not much better than 0 for 50 in any real math. I looked, and look like a nerd. Clothes don’t really help.

    My son had been tuned down a dozen times already in high school, 100% ok-looking church girls afaik, but after doing some soul searching and so forth, has hence confined his efforts since college to strictly nonhot but affable women he talks to who do not have boyfriends and who indicated to him (or second hand) that they maybe kinda might like him. He’s up to maybe 0 for 24, but trailed off and stopped looking completely about a year ago. No sense keeping a house on market when there are literally no buyers at all. He hangs with a half dozen other yuppie guys with good jobs that also can’t get any dates at all ever. They do guy stuff, fishing, golf, xbox, etc. afaik he’s the only one who has given up.

    The last girl he asked is an identical twin Choctaw girl, quite skinny and unattractive in my book, a 3 maybe like if you count some of the severely deformed etc as 1s and 2s. But she’s very nice, the kind that waves and smiles goofily for vines, and has a nice voice. They moved into the area when one got a job after college, and my son was the first guy in the church “College and Career” singles group that they talked to since he was the nicest guy. He looks like a nerdly nice guy, because that’s who he is.

  326. jf12 says:

    @SD thanks for the suggestions. I figured you had some. I’ll peruse tomorrow.

  327. Denise says:

    @Sir Chancelot | “In any society that does not have arranged marriages, and harsh (legal and extra-legal) measures against divorce, adultery, and fornication, a man MUST be sexually attractive to his woman. And a woman, if she wants kids, MUST be sexually attractive to her man…Why is this so hard for Christians to understand? Are there things both sexes can do unilaterally so that they are attracted to their spouses?”

    It’s not difficult. No one wants to feel like they are not good enough as is.

  328. infowarrior1 says:

    @Anonymous reader.

    I concur. After all the LORD himself said:” vengeance is mine I will repay”

    Therefore we must not avenge ourself but leave justice to the state. As they are agents of wrath bearing the sword to execute vengeance on evil-doers. Likewise God will vindicate us enabling us to get by without barbarity and making enemies of that person’s family and friends. We are to be agents of mercy spreading the gospel of repentance that is Christ crucified. Enabling escape on the day of wrath from God’s judgment. That is what the PUA needs.

    Only at the millenial reign do we rule with a rod of iron crushing nations like broken pottery.

  329. jf12, I’ll give your son some advice. Don’t bother until he is 35 or older.

  330. jf12 says:

    @SD I read those two suggested posts last night, then this morning tried to make some applicable sense of others. I don’t see it. What I see is some form of Brady Rulez
    1. Become handsome.
    2. Become attractive (in behavior).
    3. Stop being unattractive.
    Yes, it is good that he alphaed up his behavior and landed you. Yet, he was ALREADY handsome! ALREADY “captain and quarterback of his football team and the captain of his wrestling and baseball teams.” Is anything NOT going to depend on those qualities first?

  331. jf12
    I’m not going to be much help, I’m afraid. It’s frustrating. I just re-read M3′s whole post, http://whoism3.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/confessions-of-a-reformed-incel/ and can see why you’d not want to steer your son over there. However, what concerns me, is at the risk of sons sinning (and lets be real, they already are), are we overlooking the possibility that their frustration could lead to other very vile behavior and/or denouncing their faith?

    I can’t think of a blogger who remained a virgin and writes on how he successfully approached and was able to attract women in a way that would be helpful for your son to read about. There are great blogs on theory but the men writing them are still single. Life is not fair, that I realize. My son has a bunch going for him naturally (tall, fit, attractive). I wish I could be more help, or for that matter, I wish I knew where to direct you.

  332. jf12 says:

    Re: “are we overlooking the possibility that their frustration could lead to other very vile behavior and/or denouncing their faith?” I think my concerns stem from not overlooking.

    Our retention rate (Pentecostal, if you didn’t remember) for young men is abysmal. A large percentage of our congregants are first-generation convert families, such that the child of a convert was not earlier raised in church. Uniformly what those young men see are the vast majority of church girls turning sluttier upon reaching 18/independence/freshman in college if not before, too-typically flaunting it in front of the church for a few services before ceasing to attend after being called out. Those young men then see no girls, zero, for themselves, and then they leave too. Usually the girls show back up after a few years, often with a child or two, and wonder how come they can’t find any men to marry.

  333. jf12 says:

    Re: “My son has a bunch going for him naturally (tall, fit, attractive).” I’ve never known any such man to have any trouble with women after becoming an adult. The set of attractive (hetero) men without girlfriends plural is the null set.

  334. And remember SD wasn’t exactly a chaste women..

  335. No worries feministhater, my past is known by jf12. He’s read my blog, you know where I tell you and anyone reading what you hasten to tell others to remember. ;)

  336. Hasten?? How many times have I hastened to tell anyone of a person’s past except when they use it as some sort of ‘good meaning’ story. I just ‘hasten’ to add that it’s not..

  337. And, dear gentlemen, what exactly is SD saying when she says:

    I can’t think of a blogger who remained a virgin and writes on how he successfully approached and was able to attract women in a way that would be helpful for your son to read about.

    I’ll just let that simmer for a bit…

  338. I’m saying the blogs I’ve read are either single men writing them, men who are married but were not virgins when they married (like my husband), and/or were virgins when they married but have not, to my knowledge, written about what this man is looking for.

    jf12 is looking for advice for his son. I have none to give. Hopefully someone else does.

  339. jf12 says:

    @SD your empathy for undesired men makes you a very classy lady in my book. No matter what all the boys say about you (inside joke for me, but doesn’t need explaining, I think).

  340. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    jf12, I’ll give your son some advice. Don’t bother until he is 35 or older.

    I’ll add two related bits: Don’t (as in, don’t even think about it) marry a girl in her late 20′s or older, and, closely related, don’t limit his search to his own age group.

    As you describe him, he’s prime beta bucks material, and will be very attractive (eventually) to a future ex-wife. Limit his exposure by ruling out women approaching (or past) the wall.

    All of this assumes he has to get married. If he can handle the burning, I’d recommend against it.

  341. There is no advise for unattractive men in this scenario besides saying that they need not bother. Tell them to do something else with their lives instead of telling them constantly that it’s their fault for being unattractive. Saying my husband is attractive and you should be more like him is useless. The only reason you’re with your husband is that he would accept you and you are attracted to him..

    The reason you’ve only read blogs by single men or non-virgin men is quite simply because to ‘attract’ women one needs confidence. And since the only way men gain much confidence with women these days is to sleep with them, only those that sleep with them have the confidence required to ‘next’ any women who is going to waste their time.

    The real issue with what you’re saying is that for Christian men to become attractive, they have to sleep with other women..

  342. Sir_Chancealot says:

    Ok, JF12. You want some advice on how to make your son more attractive to women?

    First and foremost, does he have social skills generally? If not, THAT is the thing you want him to learn first. Second, if he has a career in IT, tell him to NEVER tell women what he actually does for a living. Third, get him to hit the gym (hire a personal trainer, if you can afford it). The fourth thing will help more than any other single thing you can do. My next sentence will have people fainting in vapors, but keep reading anyway.

    The fourth thing you do is open the Yellow Pages, and look under “escorts”. You find the hottest escort you can afford. You hire her to attend some social functions with your son. You tell both her and your son that you are hiring her to make your son more attractive to the women he can actually get.

    She attends the social function, and any woman that asks, she is to tell them that she WANTS to get with him for an LTR, but “he is kind of picky”. Get that? You aren’t hiring this escort to have sex with him, you are hiring her to be an ACTRESS, only she is going to play her part out in real life, instead of on a stage.

    Because she is good looking, other women will now say “What have I overlooked in this guy?” It won’t get him a woman, but it WILL give him an opportunity that he didn’t have before. You hear PUA guys refer to this as pre-selection.

    How do I know this works? You should see the reactions I got from women when I went out with a friend of mine. I ran around with her when I was 41-42. She was 24, tall, blond, skinny, good looking, and had a big chest. Let’s just say that two of the highlights were I got to “date” a chick who was 26, and an opportunity to “date” one who was 22 or 23 (didn’t take that one up on the offer.)

    Remember, you are hiring this chick only to play a role. Nothing more, nothing less. It will give him opportunities, but he has to seize those opportunities. it does NOT in any way, shape, or form guarantee him success, but it does get a foot in the door with women who might not otherwise be inclined to even give him a chance.

  343. galloper6 says:

    I once saw a church where that did not have this problem of beta brotherrs with no chance with women. It was back in the 70s. Just picture a rather young church with many manly men and a lot of hot young wives. There were even attractive single women there. This church was consisted mainly of a battalion of Pentecostal paratroopers.
    There are other ways of getting and showing the confidence women require for tingles than being a PUA. If we would raise confident street wise sons we would get confident street wise Christianity. I have an idea how.

  344. galloper6 says:

    Sir Chancealot,@ Love your idea . I have thought of similar “ruses of war”.

  345. jf12 says:

    @feministhater “The real issue with what you’re saying is that for Christian men to become attractive [to Christian women], they have to sleep with other women.” Yes, this is the conundrum or undesired men.

  346. LiveFearless says:

    Let’s act like the ones GIVING AWAY the truth are charging for it. Who gets to earn money for sharing the knowledge? Whoever you pay for the knowledge.

    Since the knowledge is free, this post does what ‘christians’ usually do… act like spoiled brats arguing over whose idea it is. Then they complain that it is IMMORAL to learn the truth. Why do you discuss who gets the credit? BECAUSE IT IS FREE. For this reason, ALL sources of the concepts (which work for them) like Roissy, Rollo, Deti, Heartiste, GBFM, Captain, B & D, D & P, Chateau, Matt, ChristianMcQueen, DJ, Yohami, 3mm, Private, Roosh, Donegal and many others… THEY SHOULD CLOSE THEIR BLOGS AND ALLOW ONLY PAID SUBSCRIPTIONS AT $2,000 PER MONTH SO THE LITTLE CHRISTIANS WILL STOP BEING THE LITTLE ‘PHARISEES’

    It’s free so the ‘christians’ discuss what’s morally right and wrong. Then, take credit for a ‘morally OK way’ and then be able to control people with a set of rules … ‘this information can help the followers, we must have a sanitized version to own and use to control the followers. They will buy it because they do not want to burn in hell.’ This Jesus you keep mentioning came to stop that nonsense. That’s why the ‘christians’ are so embarrassing! You get freedom and stuff for free, and you demand rules and a format.

  347. jf12 says:

    @Sir_Chancealot, yes, I agree. No, he is not highly social skilled, especially around females, but being highly social and extraverted (think Steve Urkel, but better dressed, with a deep voice, and killer patter) never helped me any. He’s a nuts-and-bolts mechanical engineer (for an electronics and IT company …), got flabby and out of shape in college but is now pretty solid from a couple years of being on his own hit-or-miss meals and general physical activities. I’ve thought about the hiring the girl thing before.

    My own standing among the women at work soared after an incident a couple of years ago. I was out to a workday lunch with a team (stay at home) mom (my high school robotics team), because she was to be in charge of a big banquet team dinner. I called her the cookie momster, affectionately, since when she started she was bringing cookies to every practice. She had been acting all girly around me all the time for a couple months already, and I was kind of throwing her a bone with the lunch, but she really really dolled up for it. I’m sure it looked like we were in cahoots when the laydees from work waltzed in and stopped short, but the looks on their faces couldn’t have been more judgmental if I had this mom under me, right there on the café table. And minutes later when I handed her a lot of money in cash, me pretending to be furtive by this time, but glaring at them, and her counting it out, thrilled to be with me and doing things for me for money, they hustled out without ordering, visibly vibrating, apparently to get back to the office soonest.

  348. Anonymous Reader says:

    sir_chancelot’s idea is an example of “social proofing”, and as such it is certain to trigger hypergamy in some, or all, women present when he walks into an event with a pretty woman by his side. And yes, all women are like that, to some degree.

  349. LiveFearless says:

    @Anonymous Reader, @Sir_Chancealot, @jf12 Date Outsourcing a ‘date’ as social proof… of course I’ve never seen this occur at events here in Hollywood. Remember, the ‘christian’ pharisees would not allow it since they would see this as a form of not telling the truth, deception or sorcery. They would call this a sin that would attract other women. They would say that if you give a ‘christian’ man this power, he will be tempted to fornicate regardless self improvement, therefore it is a sin, and it would not be allowed by churchianity.

  350. galloper6 says:

    Face it it is time we “read Rommel’s book”.

  351. Sir_Chancealot says:

    @JF12, listen up.

    Send your son to Roissy’s site. Have him memorize the 16 commandments of poon. Send him to marriedmansexlife. Send him to SunshineMary’s blog. This will do 3 things. First, Roissy will let him know how to actually treat women (with indifference, generally). Athol will then show him when and how to add beta to his skillset. SunshinMary will show him that there are a few (granted, VERY few) women that are still worth pursuing; that he might be able to get his “happily ever after”. In other words, it will give him hope.

    As someone’s grandpa in the manosphere once said (paraphrasing), “Son, don’t find a reason a woman won’t have sex with you. That’s her job.”

    He has to WANT to meet a woman. If he does, your job is easy. Be the dad. Give him the benefit of your wisdom. “Son, there are 3 web sites I want you to visit. Here is the first. When you have read it, and understood it, then I’ll give you the other two.” That’s just an example of what you could tell him.

    Set down and get a plan together with him. Sometimes, dads have to give their kids a kick in the ass. Remind him that it should be FUN interacting with women. Oh, which reminds me! Send him to Dannyfrom504’s site too! If Danny doesn’t have any excuse (and he doesn’t), your son can’t have one either.

    You now have the beginnings of a plan. Are you a man of action, or one of words?

    Hire that escort, put her on your son’s arm, and SEE if what I am telling you is true. Pre-selection is king, baby.

    One last thing: Your son may be one of those who are MGTOW. If so, make sure it is by CHOICE, and not because of defeatist thinking.

    Good luck!

  352. LiveFearless says:

    Just listened to this one by Keoni Galt:

    http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-great-unlearning.html

    This man is a great artist. Just read it, and thank him for being open about his marriage. He demonstrates how what some call ‘game’ actually means be a MAN by living the TRUTH.

  353. Anonymous Reader says:

    LiveFearless, Keoni Galt famously wrote a long series of comments at Roissy/Heartiste that laid out many basics of Married Game in a “I can’t believe this situation, I can’t believe this works, but here it is” kind of manner. I know for a fact that there are men who have read it and found the truth there saved either their marriage, or their sanity, or both. Don’t forget for every one who comments on a blog such as this, there are dozens to hundreds of silent readers. It was that series of comments, if I recall correctly, that led to him opening his blog.

  354. Anonymous Reader says:

    infowarrior1
    I concur. After all the LORD himself said:” vengeance is mine I will repay”

    I’m not a scholar of the BIble, but I have reason to believe that you can produce quotes supporting your position, while SSM really can’t. In fact, even a “red-letter only” reader of the Bible would be able to determine this.

    Therefore we must not avenge ourself but leave justice to the state. As they are agents of wrath bearing the sword to execute vengeance on evil-doers. Likewise God will vindicate us enabling us to get by without barbarity and making enemies of that person’s family and friends.

    It’s not like the concept of a blood feud is unique to any one culture, either. As I pointed out to SSM, and she ignored, once that kind of killing starts it does not necessarily end very quickly.

    Anger can lead to people saying or writing things that, on reflection, are in opposition to one’s stated beliefs. The mature thing to do when one writes or says something really obnoxious is to admit error, apologize if need be, and resolve not to do that in the future. The immature thing to do is double down on defending the undefendable, then blithely pretend it never happened by speaking/writing about other topics. This doesn’t work if anyone with a memory is involved…

    My suggestion to SSM would be the adult approach: admit that calling for murder (retail or wholesale) of men that offend her was a boneheaded thing to write, back off from that untenable and immoral position, dial back the vituperation and get on with the business of being an adult.

  355. Micha Elyi says:

    I find it funny that you are exhibiting the same sneer that i’ve seen women on dating sites give me when i told them i was reading the book ‘the game’. You all treat learning game as a means to trick women…
     
    Women need to start flushing that shit from their mind. GAME is a TOOL.
     
    M3

    Game is a tool to manipulate women. Why do you think players named it game?

    M3, I see you reacting like a Rules Girl who’s shocked to discover that men resent being manipulated, becomes red-faced, gets defensive, then turns indignant and begins to insist that men who don’t like being manipulated and objectified are somehow in the wrong.

    When the targets of your manipulative game call you on what you’re up to, M3, the “shit” is not in their mind.

  356. Anonymous Reader says:

    8oxer
    Brother Boxer is going to put on his Brigham Young beard and prophesy now, about old Driscoll. I would bet money that within the next 5 years, he is exposed as a fraud.

    Driscoll turns out to have a few problems, although not too bad, not yet; it’s hardly unique, for example, for an author to essentially buy a NYT Bestseller ranking. Still, it’s a bit unsavory for a preacher to do so with church money. Ghost writers are not that uncommon either, but one has higher expectations for a preacher.

    There are broader issues in the article below that churchgoing men and women may find interesting or significant, but the piddling dishonesty of Driscoll in his book marketing is a big “tell” to me.

    http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/03/mark-driscolls-problems-and-ours

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