How the sin of addiction can lead to seduction and abandonment.

The topic of pornography addiction in Fireproof has me thinking about the issue of addiction in general.  Addiction is serious business.  The addict loses all sense of perspective, and will do anything to get their next fix.  This profoundly corrupts their sense of morals, and therefore makes them untrustworthy.  Very often the thing which the addict craves is something which would be healthy in the right context.  The power of their addiction however can turn what should be wholesome and beautiful into something dark and shameful.

There is one kind of addict which we have discussed but haven’t given enough attention to in this space.  This addict is on an obsessive search to secure as many notches as they can.  They are fueled by the high they receive when they convince their victim to go all the way.  Taking what they want by force wouldn’t have the same impact;  the rush comes from the victim’s willing consent.  In their amoral attempt to get their next fix, they will say or do anything to seduce their mark.  The mark for their own part typically never sees this coming.  They think if they offer themselves in good faith they will be loved and accepted as a result.  But while the addict isn’t acting out of malice, once the mark has gone all the way the addict has no more use for them.  The mark is left bewildered, hurt, and rejected.  This experience can be absolutely devastating and life altering.  What did they do wrong?  Why did the addict drop them as soon as the deed was done, only to pursue fresh meat?  Did the discarded mark never really mean anything to them after all?  Was all of the wooing and effort to make them feel at ease only a ruse to get them to consent?  Unfortunately, often the answer is yes.

We’ve all known the victims of this kind of cruel use of the innocent.  We’ve seen the life long pain this can inflict.  I must stress that there is nothing inherently dirty or wrong with the victim’s choice to consent.  They were merely offering their most precious gift, hoping to be loved and accepted in return.  Their only fault is having been too trusting of those who said all of the right words but never really meant them.  Had the addict not discarded them once it was done it could have been something of great beauty.

I assume everyone reading this knows exactly what I’m talking about.  The church’s addiction for grooms is a not well kept secret.  They most often woo the young, promising acceptance if he only does this one thing for them.  While innocent the young mark still might sense something is amiss with the seducer.  Many will offer to give up something lesser instead, keeping their one true gift for when they are certain their love will be returned.  What if I call her my girlfriend, maybe even live together with her?  I promise to remain faithful.  But the seducer is adamant;  he must go all the way, and it must be done in public.  Once you do this, they tell him, you will be loved as one of us.  But the mark is suspicious, he’s heard of other men who went all the way only to be treated with contempt afterward.  This is all part of the game for the seducer, who knows the conquest is near.  This time it’s different.  Those other grooms meant nothing to me.  The mark still isn’t sure, but the seducer knows all of the right words.  I’m not that kind of church.  I’m the kind which actually values marriage.  You can trust me.

How can they ever trust again?

This entry was posted in Church Apathy About Divorce, Satire. Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to How the sin of addiction can lead to seduction and abandonment.

  1. deti says:

    Is Solomon II ghostblogging here?

  2. zed says:

    This is all part of the game for the seducer, who knows the conquest is near. This time it’s different. Those other grooms meant nothing to me. The mark still isn’t sure, but the seducer knows all of the right words. I’m not that kind of church. I’m the kind which actually values marriage. You can trust me.

    Dalrock, you are brilliant!

  3. dragnet says:

    I laughed out loud reading this.

    Totally brilliant!

  4. Ceer says:

    That’s why, when you get the shaming language, you leave. There is no Christianity unless christian principles apply to everyone equally. Look at the inner clique of the church.

    Do they keep their sins to themselves? Does nobody question them for their poor choices? Do they refuse to talk about woman’s submissiveness? Do they bash men when the men aren’t looking? A yes to any of these questions is a red flag.

  5. Lavazza says:

    Magnificient.

  6. Houston says:

    Yes, the churches’ betrayal of men to feminism and the divorce meatgrinder is a pump-and-dump. In my bachelor years, I was mentored by a close friend who’d been through that meatgrinder twice. He didn’t want to see me suffer the same fate, so he taught me some rudiments of Game (before it was called that) and shared many stories of how churches treated him as a divorced man. In most places, he was regarded as a second class Christian, never to be accorded the same level of respect and authority granted to men who were still married.

  7. Dalrock says:

    Thanks for all of the kind words.

  8. Brian says:

    “In most places, he was regarded as a second class Christian, never to be accorded the same level of respect and authority granted to men who were still married.”

    Oh, better still is that the wife that left because she’s “not haaaaaapy”, is treated far better than the husband that did everything he was told he was supposed to do.

    Not that I know through personal experience. If only I’d learned about game back when I was in college. Friends tried, but the brainwashing was set pretty deep back then.

  9. RL says:

    Nice article, but isn’t that just a variation of the other recent one on ‘Promiscuity is good, so long as it is done on the woman’s terms.’ where you just mock that’s an addiction if it is done on the men’s term?

  10. Stephen says:

    The modern church knows where its following comes from and what that following expects. Many Christians today are deeply loyal and faithful as long as the church they attend assures them that they are one of the “righteous few.” If that notion is ever challenged, watch those true believers march out the door. This is especially true of Christian women, who of course make up the overwhelming majority of Christians today.

    I had a female friend who was the most righteous Catholic who ever lived, second only to the Virgin to hear her tell it. She attended every Sunday, gave regularly, joined all the groups and missions, etc. She liked to drag the rest of us to services with her, and told us off if we didn’t go.

    One Sunday a visiting priest signaled the parishioners at the appropriate time to come forward to receive communion as per usual. An older man, I remember he seemed different from the regular priest. Before sitting down to await the end of the communion distribution process (I admit it’s been several years since I set foot in a church) he reminded everyone that of course those who were divorced and especially those who had been remarried should think about whether or not coming forward to receive the Eucharist was the right thing to do in their situation.

    Well, my female friend said nothing at the time but went forward and got communion as always. She told me the following week she’d quit the Church “because it was out of touch with its old fashioned attitudes.” I remember being skeptical and her saying, “Look, I still believe all that stuff, but come on.”

    Her “good Catholic girl” facade couldn’t withstand the reality that her divorce and remarriage was a bad thing in the eyes of (her) God. She joined a Methodist church where the policy is “you’re a good Christian if you give regularly and do some charity work now and then.” The Methodist minister gave an interesting sermon on the one Sunday I attended that church with my friend. It was about how the Bible was put together by patriarchal males who wanted to oppress women.

    I remember thinking it sounded just like a women’s studies lecture I’d heard back in undergrad. At the end of the service she noted that she taught a women’s studies class part time at a local community college, solving that Mystery for me. I also remember the happy group of women and a few men who went up to the minister after services and told her how thrilled they were to learn the truth.

    What’s really interesting to me was my friend was a long way from being the only woman who quit attending the Catholic service that day when the visiting priest actually tried to (half-heartedly) enforce the rules. I didn’t quit because the Catholic Church demanded too much, but because it was both boring and effeminate in my opinion, though I realize not every church is like that. I’m sure some are better, but most are much worse.

  11. Opus says:

    I am not at with you on this.

    1. It appears to be assumed by the film that Pornography (and thus sexual drive) is an addiction. One thus has celebrities checking-in to clinics to cure their sexual addiction (Michael Douglas) but (I am not a Psychologist) there is a view in Psychology that there can be no such thing as sexual addiction. Even if that were mistaken it does not follow that an interest in photographs of female nudes is either a perversion or an addiction. By using the epithet ‘addiction’ the woman seeks to shame or guilt-trip the man – as if male sexual desire (except when aimed at her and on her terms is somehow disgraceful).

    2. More importantly, my own observation of what we call Alpha males is that they NEVER mislead the young ladies, who without forethought throw themselves at the Alpha of their choice. Neither are they trying to get notches on a belt. There may be men like that, but I have not met them. What one does find however is women who post-coitus realise that they have let themselves down and either chase the Alpha (Donna Elvira in Don Giovanni for example) or make up a false rape accusation (Donna Anna in the same opera).

    Essentially Dalrock I think that this post raises two straw men.

  12. Herbie says:

    Some churches may be dropping the ball with regard to training young men these days, but eventually independent thinking needs to kick in. If a serious emphasis on character is lacking when selecting a mate, they’re setting themselves up to be played for a chump. Left unchecked, their naivete will turn into stupidity.

  13. slwerner says:

    Opus – “Essentially Dalrock I think that this post raises two straw men.”

    You have to read the last paragraph (as well), otherwise you’ll miss the old “switch-a-roo” that Dalrock pulled on the readers.

  14. prost says:

    “They are fueled by the high they receive when they convince their victim to go all the way. ..
    .. They most often woo the young, promising acceptance if he only does this one thing for them.”

    A clever comparison. But notice that when people try to persuade men they usually default to shaming. I’ve had experience with church trying to shame me.

  15. Celeste says:

    In what way can the church take a hard line on divorce, and still maintain a vibrant congregation. So many are afraid of “scaring away congregants.” But the fact remains, they’re right in that many will leave if divorce and female misbehavior is criticized as it should be. What’s the solution?

  16. Brendan says:

    In what way can the church take a hard line on divorce, and still maintain a vibrant congregation. So many are afraid of “scaring away congregants.” But the fact remains, they’re right in that many will leave if divorce and female misbehavior is criticized as it should be. What’s the solution?

    Let the people leave, let the church shrink a bit, and let those who don’t want to really be Christian be separated as the wheat is separated from the chaff.

  17. Celeste says:

    Brendan,

    Now that I’m rethinking it, I think you may be right. I think a lot of people look at some of the really ooey-gooey loose churches and find them a bit silly. Would the new, harder-line churches be relegated to the fringe as the new “fundamentalists” or would that “fundamentalism” become something to be praised.

    I guess time will tell.

  18. Dalrock says:

    @Celeste

    In what way can the church take a hard line on divorce, and still maintain a vibrant congregation. So many are afraid of “scaring away congregants.” But the fact remains, they’re right in that many will leave if divorce and female misbehavior is criticized as it should be. What’s the solution?

    I don’t think we will see any existing denomination or even congregation change on this issue. I do think however we will see at some point a new congregation lead by a pastor who understands what science is teaching about human nature and is therefore unafraid to follow the Scripture in this regard. Even if only a very small percentage of existing Christians wished to actually belong to such a church, I think you can see how the at first small church or churches could then grow very quickly. Sustained growth would be easy as women naturally follow the stronger men, and more men finally realize that women don’t respect or even want men who supplicate to them. This would then create a fascinating debate, as the old school feminised churches try to demonize the young upstart who isn’t afraid to offend women, yet somehow still has a growing following of both men and women.

    I would bet the man who will lead that first congregation is still fairly young; most likely still in High School (if that old). He may be learning about game over at Roissy’s as we speak.

  19. Lavazza says:

    Stephen: I cannot find the quote but there is a passage in War and Peace where Helene Kuragina wants to divorce Pierre Bezukhov to marry one of her new lovers and she is discussing the matter with a high priest and she says something like “What is the purpose of religion if it cannot solve a simple problem like that?”. And also some reasoning about changing religion so that she cannnot be bound by her therefor false previous religion under which she married.

  20. greyghost says:

    I would bet the man who will lead that first congregation is still fairly young; most likely still in High School (if that old). He may be learning about game over at Roissy’s as we speak.

    You know what dalrock you are effective and popular because you have this great ability to see applied theory in actual human practice.

  21. Stephen says:

    Lavazza: You make a good point. I think that the whole rationalization problem when it comes to divorce can be found throughout history in both fictional works and in real life. I’m sure that folks have been bending the rules to suit their own needs forever. Sometimes religious leaders fail to set down and enforce the rules the way they should, but instead look to profit by telling people what they want to hear.

    As a side note, it’s of course not a problem bound to Christian churches. I remember the bizarre situation my high school Spanish teacher was in in her marriage(s). She was Jewish and married a gentile. Her family was made up of half Reform Jews and half Orthodox. When she married the gentile, the Reform folks were thrilled and very supportive of her. The Orthodox family stopped talking to her even at reunions.

    Later she divorced and eventually remarried a Jewish man. She thought she would be doubly shunned by both sides of her family, the Reform side for divorcing and the Orthodox for her original marriage to a non-Jew. This was back when Reform still had a thing against divorce (1970s, which was like a million years ago in terms of our society’s attitudes toward both marriage and religion if you think about it).

    Instead, the Reform were angry because she got divorced and then remarried. But the Orthodox were thrilled with her divorce. To them, her original marriage was a sham and so didn’t count (though they shunned her anyway for it for some reason). When she divorced the gentile and married a Jew, she was back in their good graces once again, though now with the other half of the family upset with her to some extent. To the religious Jews in her family, her divorce was a form of redemption and returning to the fold.

    In a way, this is just a much more open and honest version of what some Christians think when they divorce and remarry. The new person is the real person that God wanted for them, and the second (or third, etc.) marriage is the “real” marriage.

  22. Perhaps one of Dalrock’s many readers can quietly share this series of posts with the Christian media.

    A shit storm needs to be brewed.

  23. Celeste says:

    Wow, a truly orthodox church taking evolutionary biology into account…what a synthesis of seemingly contradictory, yet truly wonderful combination!

  24. Brendan says:

    In a way, this is just a much more open and honest version of what some Christians think when they divorce and remarry. The new person is the real person that God wanted for them, and the second (or third, etc.) marriage is the “real” marriage.

    Although Christian churches play the same exact game when it comes to divorce and remarriage, really.

    Newt Gingrich divorced his second wife to marry Callista Bisek, a congressional aide he had been having an affair with during his halcyon days in the U.S. House of Representatives for more than five years during that period, while he was still married to his second wife. He even proposed to Callista while he was still married to his second wife.

    Yet, his third marriage was in the Catholic Church, and a couple of years afterward it has been reported that he petitioned to have his second marriage (of eighteen years) annulled. I have no information as to whether this was granted, but in any case, in 2008 or 2009 Gingrich was received into the Catholic Church, and is now a fully fledged Catholic, gracing the likes of the National Catholic Register and so on.

    Yep, Christian Churches do the same thing in terms of prior marriages, because they are happy you have “found the light” and “abandoned the error of your previous ways” and so on, which is a convenient cover for allowing people to escape their prior marriages in other Christian churches and sidestep the rules.

  25. Insight says:

    Celeste said:
    “Wow, a truly orthodox church taking evolutionary biology into account…what a synthesis of seemingly contradictory, yet truly wonderful combination!”

    Another way to look at it it an orthodox church returning to it’s roots. It’s pretty clear that the early church understood the true nature of people (and especially women), which is why Christianity has been so successful for 2000 years. It’s only with our modern understanding of evo-psych that we now understand the full wisdom of those teachings, and why the modern version of Christianity is so corrupted. Now, with our fuller understanding of science, we can progress all the way back to closer to the way things used to be. I think they call this singularity.

  26. Celeste says:

    Perhaps natural selection works on religious sects too, those that don’t conform to human nature will be culled from the population.

  27. Brian says:

    and, of course, men realize (whether overtly or subtlety) that they are getting screwed by the church, so they leave. And the church’s become even more feminized and become even more anti-men, and so forth and so on. And the downward spiral continues. I agree with the poster above, a real church that stands for something (in deeds and words) will really grow.

  28. Ya Boy Matt says:

    You really do have the Solomon in you Dalrock.

    I work and live in a part of a country (not the US) dominated by, on the one side, the thoroughly feminized LDS churc, and on the other, the thoroughly feminized Dutch Protestant Calvinists. The small group from the local arts and music community ironically enough HAS the most monogamous women. I’ve noticed in this place anyway, the hipster university clique is the hardest to bed, followed by the LDS and finally, way way way at the opposite end of the well-lubed drawbridge spectrum, the Calvinists.

    For a Godless Italian Catholic its like cats to milk. Hard asshole game and what I call “fatherly” game when running Hot and Cold is just…. ahhh I think I need to hit the acoustic lounge tonight. Its open mic night.

  29. Ceer says:

    @Opus

    In case you didn’t get the gist of the article, Dalrock is drawing a metaphor between sex addiction of individual people and divorce collaboration addiction among churches.

  30. Insight says:

    Celeste says:
    “Perhaps natural selection works on religious sects too, those that don’t conform to human nature will be culled from the population.”

    Exactly right. The Shakers are the poster child:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers

    “Begun in 1747, the members looked to women for leadership.”

    “Strict believers in celibacy, Shakers acquired their members through conversion, indenturing children, and adoption of orphans.”

    “Many, however, did not remain Shakers. Turnover was high; the group reached maximum size of about 6,000 full members in 1840, but as of December 2009 had only three members left. Only a few of the original Shaker buildings are still in use today.”

    So apparently either strict celibacy, women in leadership, or both, is not conducive to long-run propagation of religious sects. I am stunned. Cool architecture and furniture, though.

  31. Johnycomelately says:

    I didn’t think it was possible but you have outdone yourself once again, I wonder how many ‘preachers’ are wiping the coffee off their computer screens after having read this piece.

    This piece reminds me of a Russian ascetic preaching about how there will come a time when the churches will need to be defended from the bishops.

    Thank the morning star we live in the west and any moral perturbations can be quickly remedied by driving down the Relativistic Church Boulevard and choosing whatsoever the heart desires.

  32. Paragon says:

    @ Celeste

    “Wow, a truly orthodox church taking evolutionary biology into account…what a synthesis of seemingly contradictory, yet truly wonderful combination!”

    I have given this topic some consideration, and it occurs that where belief systems do not purport to make falsifiable claims or predictions, it does not follow that they can be challenged on that basis.

    And since every facet of human intuition is bounded by some element of a priori bias(trivially observed in countless trends of conventional thought), one can see how easily likewise irrational systems become entangled in the even the most exacting methods of scientific rigor.

  33. Celeste says:

    @Paragon

    I’m actually not a believer, but I do think that certain aspects of Christianity are our best coping methods for a non-ideal human nature. It seems to me that the early leaders of many religions created codes of behavior in order to allow civilization to function, hence, they are useful.

    I guess I think that your last paragraph was suggesting you find the religion to be the irrational system? I admit that your second paragraph confused me ever so slightly, but mostly because I figured that most people on this board were Christians.

    While I’m not a believer, I certainly am interested in working with believers where there is common ground, and I see monogamous marriage as a way to balance the antagonistic desires of men and women in order to achieve social cohesion.

  34. Insight says:

    Brian says:
    “and, of course, men realize (whether overtly or subtlety) that they are getting screwed by the church, so they leave. And the church’s become even more feminized and become even more anti-men, and so forth and so on. And the downward spiral continues. I agree with the poster above, a real church that stands for something (in deeds and words) will really grow.”

    You have just described how a pink ghetto is formed. It’s happening to colleges and some professions, too. As increasing numbers of women are drawn to a high-status activity/organization/profession, they feminize it by watering down the standards and subtly adjusting the rules to be anti-male (or at least anti-beta male). This reduces the prestige of the activity, which drives men away, which increases the feminization, which further reduces the prestige and drives away more men, until it becomes a low-status, female-dominated activity.

  35. Mencken says:

    *clap clap clap*

    I absolutely did not see this coming. It certainly drives the salient points home.

  36. Paragon says:

    @ Celeste

    “I guess I think that your last paragraph was suggesting you find the religion to be the irrational system? I admit that your second paragraph confused me ever so slightly, but mostly because I figured that most people on this board were Christians.”

    I was saying that to acknowledge that a belief is irrational, is not necessarily an invalidation(you can be a believer and still acknowledge that the belief of ‘irrational’ – that is the essence of faith, IMO).

    I further go on to elaborate that it is human nature to be entangled in irrationality – and there is no product of human endeavor that can be divested from it.

  37. JoyStick says:

    brilliant post!

  38. Leaf says:

    @Insight
    Hmmm…”Male Flight” syndrome?

    I think you may be on to something.

  39. Looking Glass says:

    @Celeste:

    “Perhaps natural selection works on religious sects too, those that don’t conform to human nature will be culled from the population.”

    Denominations rise and fall, quite a lot. What we take as the “old time religion” rarely is. Things have changed, a lot, and fairly rapidly at times.

    And, yes, the Shakers were a really interesting group. The celibacy bit is due to the founder’s loss of several miscarriages. Though she was apparently very charismatic. Oh, and the Shakers were industrious for their small numbers. Rabid inventors in the 1800s.

    As for “what’s a church to do?”. The answer is straight forward: you simply preach what the Bible says, in the context it was given. You may lose in the short term, but that, to the church, shouldn’t matter. And, on a macro scale, it wouldn’t matter to them. The “more demanding” religious groups are growing at the most rapid pace right now.

    Oh, and one funny point about the Mormons/LDS. They’re still fairly patriarchal, but they’re feminized in some of the most irritating ways. When I was very little, my mother was thinking of joining them, but as she got into the theology, it drove her nuts. For as “manly” as they like to portray their Men, and there is some definite benefits to the men, the women are on this stupid, stupid pedestal. Before any of the other theology problems, she couldn’t stand what they did to their women. My mother is a wonderful women, she hates the concept of being treated like a child.🙂

    I do want to point out there *is* actually a few good congregations out there. Emphasis on a “few”. We had to go through a lot of churches to find ones that had a clue what they should even be preaching and was actually willing to deal with the problems, rather than being a stupid social club. (Someday I’ll relate how our previous church managed to coup de grace my mother’s marriage by complete failure and ineptitude.)

  40. Legion says:

    Celeste says:
    November 9, 2011 at 4:07 pm
    “What’s the solution?”

    I assume churchmen are in it to serve god. When they start ignoring or changing their god’s message to keep the pews and collection baskets filled, they would have to answer for it in the afterlife. (If there is one, says the atheist.)

  41. Looking Glass says:

    Probably the best song on the topic. The Newsboys – Lost the Plot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6wgX9X65ik

    Here’s the Lyrics. Realize, this is one of the most popular Christian bands of all time. (This is technically a B-side song, but it’s still one of their best)

    [D: Replaced paste of lyrics with a link.]

    It was also written in the late 90s. It still holds true.

  42. Opus says:

    @slwerner and ceer

    Thanks for trying to put me straight. Having re-read the post this morning and seeing it in a somewhat different light, I really like it, with the exception of the last paragraph which still (I’ve read it thre times now) makes no sense to me atall – I mean, I have no idea what it is on about. I suppose it is something inherently american. Otherwise my apologies for being so dense.

  43. Lavazza says:

    About pink ghettos.

    The number of ordained women has grown rapidly. 1970 they only constituted 2 percent of all priests in Sweden. Ten years later the figure had risen to eleven percent. From there it has climbed to 20 percent in 1990 and to 31 percent in 2000.

    The Swedish church used to be a state church, and due to that it still has a lot of members, but it is rapidly declining, expecially when it comes to visits.

    2008 72.9% percent of all Swedes were still formally members of the Christian Lutheran Church Swedish Church. In 2009, 71.3% were Church members, nearly 2% less than in 2008. Less than four percent of the members of the Swedish church go to church during an average week. Around two per cent are regular participants.

    As opposed to the Muslims. The Muslim group, which according to loose definitions amounted to 400 000 people in 2006, has the highest growth of all religious groups. 5% of Muslims, or 20,000, are considered to be practicing accordning to a more stringent definition (they participate in Friday prayers and pray five times a day).

    I am a yogi and I practice 3-5 times a week (asanas, pranayama, meditation) for 1-2 hours per session.😉

  44. Lavazza says:

    Looking Glass: “As for “what’s a church to do?”. The answer is straight forward: you simply preach what the Bible says, in the context it was given. You may lose in the short term, but that, to the church, shouldn’t matter. And, on a macro scale, it wouldn’t matter to them. The “more demanding” religious groups are growing at the most rapid pace right now.”

    That is true. My guru’s guru said this avout the yoga research institute he started: “I have brought up this institute out of nothing. If it goes to nothing, I do not mind; but Yoga should not be diluted!”

  45. Celeste says:

    Looking Glass
    In regards to “preach what the Bible says, in the context it is given.” Doesn’t almost every church believe they are already doing this? This has been my impression.

  46. DCLXVI says:

    Why deal with a Church at all? The Church is an institution designed, by Man, to control Man.

    Why not connect with God directly, as an individual? It is surprisingly easy to speak to God once personal ego disappears.

  47. slwerner says:

    Opus – ”…makes no sense to me atall – I mean, I have no idea what it is on about. I suppose it is something inherently american.”

    It was a very clever set-up.

    As one begins to read the post, it seems as if the addicts that Dalrock is referring to are those alpha males taking advantage of young church women (who we naturally assume are the one “offering themselves in good faith” exchanging sex in the hopes of receiving love/commitment).

    He let’s the reader continue to believe this is what he is alluding to…until that last paragraph, wherein we learn that he is referring to ”The Church’s addiction for grooms” – that desire that runs throughout Churchianity to see young beta men sign themselves up to a marriage contract so that they can begin pleasing a wife and making babies.

    It’s about how churches do not really care about those young men, nor what unjust fate might befall them once they are married. They just want to see them getting married.

    It might be something unique to the way American’s understand things. But, come on man, you are an attorney, so you must be more than intelligent enough to have seen that you’d been had, tricked into thinking one thing, then the surprise sprung on you at the end?

  48. Looking Glass says:

    @Celeste:

    They believe it, but to throw a contextual Bible quote at it: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.” Matthew 7:16-18

    Or the updated version: “Talk is cheap”.
    Or the PUA version: “Watch what they do, not what they say”.

    I’m sure most of them say they do believe they are, but how they act sure doesn’t come across that way. Most of them act as annoying social clubs with a speaker. Being in a “good” church is night & day.

    But, on the technical stuff, emphasis on the “context” bit, in my previous comment. That takes a passing knowledge of at least Ancient Greek (some ancient Hebrew doesn’t hurt either). *Then* it’s a matter of taking it as the words say, rather than as we want them to say.

    That’s surprisingly hard for most pastors. While they claim to preach “The Word”, the fairly basic readings tend to escape a lot of them. I’ve been in a number of churches over the years, and it’s a really hard thing for a lot of them because they run into two problems:

    1) They focus too much on the English words themselves. These are translations and something is *always* lost in a non-expansive explanation.
    2) In the bad churches I’ve been in and most of the TV preachers, they fall into the “Mass Media” mode for source material usage.

    By the “mass media” point, I mean fairly simply: by limiting the discussion of the source material to what you pick, you prevent discussion on the entire piece. So it’s *very* easy to hide/ignore/distort the side issues. Doing this allows a Church to get around a lot of messy issues and look really nice. It becomes very “family friendly”. The theology veers closer to the “God will make you Happy” message (how it went from “save the soul” to “personal fulfillment” is another story, but the theology sells). You get to have a big, growing Church and you sell copies of your sermons all over the place. (Seriously, there’s millions in selling sermons and sermon material, but you have to be popular)

    The difference is *really* telling, but normally subtle. Things you should always expect from a standard sermon:
    – Text of the passage fairly early.
    – A look at some of the key words and at least a discussion of what the Greek fully implies (any discussion of “Love” requires this, no skimping).
    – At least 1 look back at the text (or the important part for the discussion at hand)
    – The relevant other passages. (Most of the Bible is stories or responses to specific questions, so the basic, logical side issues are normally addressed in another passage)

    It sounds really simple, but think through that checklist at the next sermon you’re at. It’s really important to stay within the “frame” of what’s in the Text. Applying certain passages to modern life isn’t always there (we don’t follow Jewish customs these days, so the direct reading isn’t exactly applicable) and taking certain things out of their context really comes off hilarious (if you slice up part of the Book of Romans, we obviously should be going to Spain, as our goal in life).

    The tendency is to spend a lot of time talking about moral demands outside of the text. While this is caricatured a lot in the media, I’ve seen it first hand enough that the reality isn’t too far for a lot of churches. Social order, and enforcing it, tends to become the reason the churches exist. Which is why the Men tend to check out. Women care about social order, while most men do not. Which is a topic Dalrock spends a whole lot of time talking about. It’s just that social order benefits are heavily skewed against Men these days (they used to be a pretty solid deal for a Guy, which is what was useful to society, as a whole).

    I know a lot of Churches think they are, but they spend a whole lot more time preaching at the Choir than doing it well. Or, more commonly put: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Or, as we’d say now “Religion FAIL!”.

  49. I have to say that I have to chime in here. I am sick and tired of seeing all of these “pro-game” biases and it is really starting to become an attack upon my Christian convictions. I already know that I will probably be chastised, so I’m pretty much prepared. The problem with the entire “go gamer ra-ra” is that despite the edge it allows for a select FEW group of men, it continues to propagate the idea that men are all after “one thing”. Coming from a guy who PAINFULLY stands next to his Christian convictions, whenever I have even attempted to date anyone in the church, there was a virulent lack of any sort of bonding or any sort of interest because of the pain that was inflicted on her by some a-hole who was just trying to get his fix. I am not painting all these gals as innocent creatures, far from it. But being a true man of any modicum of character means that you take fair share of responsibility of what is going on. I take the full responsibility that even though I know women’s behavior to be very corrupting in the church, I didn’t speak up against it until it was too late. I suppose now I am starting to get a very small idea of what Jesus went to when those who professed to agree with him, betrayed him to the real criminals. Frankly, game gives men the tools to continue to propagate the pump n dump culture, nay it even incentives such a thing. Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending and white knighting these harlots. I suppose because I play by the rules, I shall probably remain alone for the rest of my life. Dalrock, I really hope that a part of your message was used to denigrate how these Alpha jerks tend to perpetuate this type of culture which leaves us normal nice guys, who are NOT white knighting, out in the total dust. Despite what most believe, game can’t help everyone and to those it doesn’t help, it only hurts..severely.

  50. Looking Glass says:

    @Crimson Viceroy:

    A “nice man” can know physics. A “nice man” can know chemistry. A “nice man” can know biology. A “nice man” can understand human psychology and sexuality. Knowledge is knowledge, it’s what you *do* with that knowledge that’s important.

    The “pump & dump” culture has always existed since the age when travel first happened. Nothing written on any PUA blog (which this isn’t) will change it’s existence. It may make some guys far more effective at it, but it’s really not going to change much.

    What will help is learning *why* things work then taking steps to help those avoid the pitfalls, for everyone.

    It’s not the PUA guys that have abused you. It’s the Church for failing to hold onto it’s mores and not transferring on the important information about relationships. Actually, we pretty much actively hide them now.

    Oh, and Jesus was *anything* but a “nice man”. He ran all over his Apostle, all the time. “Nice” really doesn’t enter the equation with him.

    The old rules have changed. They were changed. Human biology hasn’t changed. All you can do is adapt.

  51. Dalrock says:

    @Crimson Viceroy

    Frankly, game gives men the tools to continue to propagate the pump n dump culture, nay it even incentives such a thing. Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending and white knighting these harlots. I suppose because I play by the rules, I shall probably remain alone for the rest of my life. Dalrock, I really hope that a part of your message was used to denigrate how these Alpha jerks tend to perpetuate this type of culture which leaves us normal nice guys, who are NOT white knighting, out in the total dust. Despite what most believe, game can’t help everyone and to those it doesn’t help, it only hurts..severely.

    My fundamental view on it is twofold:

    1) The alphas will exist, regardless of what I say. This is by their very nature. They aren’t rule followers (as a group). This is what makes them so attractive to women.
    2) Railing against pump n dump gives the impression that there should be a kinder gentler carousel so that women can enjoy their promiscuity to the utmost. So long as this is the prevailing paradigm (and it most certainly is, including as I have shown amongst Christains) men like you will be fully shut out.

    I also think men can benefit from learning game even if they are wholly unfit for the world of pickup (like me).

  52. slwerner says:

    Crimson Viceroy – ”Frankly, game gives men the tools to continue to propagate the pump n dump culture, nay it even incentives such a thing. Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending and white knighting these harlots. I suppose because I play by the rules, I shall probably remain alone for the rest of my life.”

    Oh, my friend,

    You sadly misunderstand the original meaning and intent of what has been carelessly expanded into the umbrella of “Game”.

    Originally, it was a way to describe an intangible element that a man possessed. It came from American-black (aka African-American) slang, first used to indicate that a (basket) ball player had a certain something special beyond his athleticism and developed skill set. It was that “confidence” that he posses in his abilities that allowed him to, in the most pressing of situations, perform almost flawlessly when most other equally skilled players would have “choked”.

    Few demonstrated this concept any better than Michael Jordan. He was, of course, a superb human and athletic specimen, and he had developed top-most basketball skills. But he had that something extra, that something special that allowed him to come through in the clutch. In a word, he had confidence.

    And, it was that meaning of “Game” which was first adapted to try to describe the man who had developed the confidence to be successful with women. All the other adjunct stuff about the “tricks of the trade” are, in the end, just ways of demonstrating how a man can work from a basis of personal confidence to influence the situation (typically between himself and woman he is interested in, but this is not the only place wherein “Game” can serve a man).

    It is a common mistake to assume that the only purpose men have for game is seducing women. This is likely due to the proponents of that use being the most vocal. But, a man having confidence is not only what attracts women, but also establishes him as a standout amongst men (ever notice that it’s the most confident guys who can inspire other men to follow their lead? Of course you have, we all have).

    And, it is such confidence which a man can parlay not only into hook-up style sex, but which he can (alternatively) use to attract women which whom he would hope to be married, and to maintain the respect and admiration of his spouse.

    Women have demonstrated their admiration for all sorts of confident men, natural alphas or PUA’s; the best of the quality men, and (sadly) the worst of the dangerous and violent thugs.

    A man is free to chose how he uses “Game”. If you develop the personal confidence that garner the respect and admiration of women, you can also choose to use that to your advantage to weed-out the harlots, and find a quality women to be with, and then to hold on to her.

    Don’t sell it short until you better understand it.

  53. Aqua Net says:

    Game is “masculine mystique”. You know like “feminine mystique”? Men have a mystique too.

  54. Aqua Net says:

    “In what way can the church take a hard line on divorce, and still maintain a vibrant congregation. So many are afraid of “scaring away congregants.” But the fact remains, they’re right in that many will leave if divorce and female misbehavior is criticized as it should be. What’s the solution?”

    The solution is 2 different churches. One that takes a hardline on divorce and one that doesn’t. This has already been happening for the longest. Pro-divorce Christians are able to find churches that reflect their values, and so are anti-divorce Christians. You just need to do some shopping around before you join a church. Maybe gender-segregated churches might help also.

  55. Anonymous says:

    Cheating is sex or just (ahem) “whackin’ it” with involvement of another person… not looking at porn, which is an excuse.

  56. Anonymous says:

    “I would bet the man who will lead that first congregation is still fairly young; most likely still in High School (if that old). He may be learning about game over at Roissy’s as we speak.”

    This seems like wishful thinking. Also, I’m not so sure that “alpha” techniques can be used to influence women’s non-sexual decision-making. If an alpha male tells a woman the whole spiel about why feminism sucks, why she should marry before she gets old, etc., she may want to sleep with him, but I doubt she’d actually alter her longterm behavior.

  57. Anonymous says:

    Furthermore, Dalrock, I think you may be being somewhat too harsh on the Church. From what I’ve seen, most clergymen who side with the women are more akin to social conservatives – they’ve led fairly sheltered lives(though they don’t know it), and generally believe their own bullshit. “Blind leading the blind”.

  58. Anonymous says:

    “Women have demonstrated their admiration for all sorts of confident men, natural alphas or PUA’s; the best of the quality men, and (sadly) the worst of the dangerous and violent thugs.”

    Yes, but this doesn’t translate into them rejecting feminism. Women want to sleep with confident men – but that’s it. For instance, George W. Bush was a much more confident candidate than Gore or Kerry. In both instances, women voted much more strongly for the democratic candidate.

  59. Pingback: Game for pastors part I | Dalrock

  60. Pingback: A series of descriptive posts/links - Christian Forums

  61. Pingback: Mark Driscoll’s feminist foolishness posing as Christian wisdom. | Dalrock

  62. Pingback: Linkage | Dalrock

  63. john2.0 says:

    Brilliant!

  64. alcockell says:

    Isn’t there some close analogy in the way some sections of the Church don’t care for grooms evident in some sectors of the TradCon anti-abortion attitude? As in “ensure the kid is born – but after they’re out of the womb, fuck ’em”?

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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