*Real men* confess their love to the gas station attendant.

Cane Caldo notes:

The rebuttals here are hilarious, and fall into two camps.

1. To some people the idea of “man pursues, woman responds” is so important to the arguer that he redefines woo to mean “bought”, and bride-price as “romantic overture”. Presumably these people have a very romantic life here in America; wooing gas out of the station attendant and seducing milk from the grocer with money.

2. Those who think the stories of: David and Bathsheba (adultery and murder), Samson and Delilah (never married), Hosea and Gomer (adultery, cuckoldry, polygyny) and Jacob and Rachel are instructive as Christian tradition.

See Cane’s related post regarding Leah and Rachel for more insight.  I’ll add that David & Bathsheba and Hosea & Gomer don’t fit the pattern either.

I think part of the problem however is a misunderstanding of what Cane and I are referring to.  Commenter sipcode responded with:

I cannot agree. OT scripture speaks of sons “taking” wives and not wives taking husbands. That reeks of the woman leading.

No one is saying women should formally propose to men.  What Cane and I are responding to is the nearly universal false belief that the Bible teaches that men should follow the rules of Courtly Love regarding finding a wife.  The Trad Con claim is that a man must pick a woman and boldly declare his intention to court her for marriage.  The woman, who heretofore hasn’t considered the man one way or another, then proceeds to judge the man’s performance as he endeavors to win her heart* with acts of chivalry (like helping her move).

This is a highly unnatural way for men and women to pair off.  It artificially raises the stakes and makes it harder for both men and women to assess their own marriage market value.  A much more natural way is for women to first signal interest to the man by subtle (and therefore deniable) indicators of interest (IOIs).  If the man gets the hint, and if he is interested, the path is open for the couple to get to know each other.  This doesn’t mean men should never initiate contact or lead, but men should know how to read the signals and not waste their time on a woman who (given the chance) isn’t indicating interest.  Ironically the Courtly Love model is presented as the man leading, but in fact it is all about the man chasing.  Chasing isn’t leading, it is following.  Moreover the rigid and artificial Courtly Love model is not only not effective, it is not (as widely believed) a biblical model.

*Winning her heart is considered the lifetime role of a Christian husband, including after the wedding.  While the Bible teaches us that wives should win over their husbands, Courtly Love teaches us that a husband must forever re-win his wife’s heart.  This is especially important for Christian husbands to do when their wives get bored of being married and start affairs with high status men at work.  For the definitive guide on this, see the movie Fireproof.

This entry was posted in Cane Caldo, Chivalry, Complementarian, Courtly Love, Death of courtship, Finding a Spouse, Fireproof, Game, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

140 Responses to *Real men* confess their love to the gas station attendant.

  1. vfm7916 says:

    With so many here who dismiss the mechanics of sexual interaction, or “game”, is it any wonder that they’re having difficulty in understanding the terminology?

    Given that Dalrock has been pointing out the heresies of modern churchianity in regard to the nature of women for quite some time I’m surprised that so many here are still clinging to female primacy and purity in everything.

  2. Pingback: *Real men* confess their love to the gas station attendant. | @the_arv

  3. Jake says:

    I heard an interesting sermon about leah and Rachel. Leah was the wife of the spirit that God gave to Jacob because he loved Jacob and used uncle labans wickedness for Jacob’s good.

    Jacob’s flesh craved more and ending up giving seven more years to Laban, as well as introducing ashearah worship to Israel.

  4. dpmonahan says:

    And of course Medieval Courtly Love was not about starting stable marriages but adultery.

  5. vfm…what people are dismissing about game is the situational awareness of it, the muddled “rules” the variances, nuances, and every other aspect under the sun. People are not peg-boards or cannot be broken down to a “applied behavioral analysis” when it comes to these matters, and if it ever was….its baselined on “normal behavior” and where has that been since 1965???

    More frustration comes from the fact that is indeed made to be “foolproof” and if it doesn’t work…..one did not follow the steps exactly……no one in a Christian marriage here cracks open the manuals and watches roissy to get the latest updates daily to “decode” the wifes’ secret language…..

    I suppose game has helped folks with teaching them how to bathe and brush their teeth…..but most of us learned that at home. Getting a style that looks right and works for the guy takes work and time….something most don’t have…..

    Cocky funny and bratty lil’ sister approaches work sometimes I suppose and backfire other times.

    Is it helpful? Yes. Can it be a guide? Yes. Is it the end all be all? No.

  6. Also…with “game” being a game…there are rules….and one side doesn’t want to follow any of them, or change them???? It’s not a game. It’s a pandering…..just as bad as tranconism

  7. Damn Crackers says:

    I stated this in the previous post, but I’ll ask again. How do we even compare Biblical marriage to modern marriage?

  8. BillyS says:

    Jake,

    Nice story, but that is reading a LOT into the Scriptural text. I think I will go with what is written.

    God had appeared to him before, so it is reasonable to expect God would have told Jacob Leah was it if that was His will.

  9. BillyS says:

    You fail Jason and yet disparage any attempt beyond “brushing your teeth”?

    I don’t think it would have ultimately kept my marriage together due to many underlying issues in my wife, but it is quite possible that I could have kept my frame much better and possibly influenced things for the better.

    Why can I, who has been whacked with a divorce after a long term marriage see something you cannot see even part of? You are too focused on the PUAs and don’t hear the many voices here who have a Christian approach to things.

  10. Name(required) says:

    If there is a biblical model for obtaining a wife, I think it’s Samson : “Dad, I want that one, go make a deal with her dad and get her for me. ” If you want it to work better for you than it did for him, stay away from Philistine wenches.

  11. That’s what Game is Billy. It has no business in a Christian forum, and the Game appeasers and advocates here tell us about books called “Bang Poland” and tell us to use, and apply skills, techniques and attitudes from people who “hate Christians” and would be the first to throw us to the jackals if their life depended on it.

    Some of the most foul language, and ideas they purport are only about women being a pleasure tool for men to “use” and “manipulate”

    Me standing on the fact that women can make choices like the rest of us, rebel, or submit is on them.

    Having a great ‘frame’ has not prevented Sinatra’s marriage to Ava Gardner stay….and that’s just one example. Plenty of “top alpha” guys had their marriages blown up from underneath them…..we don’t tell these men “well…..they had zero game, and if only they did this and that…read this book called “Bang Ploand” and you will understand. Simple.”

    Wife was selfish, thought she could do better, blew up her marriage.

  12. Name(required) says:

    SeventiesJason, I gave my son a copy of 48 Laws of Power. I told him that it was full of techniques. Some might be used for good ends, some might be always wrong. He should be aware of them all, so he could use the good ones and recognise the bad ones. Game is similar.

  13. Ben Mavet Who says:

    If I understand things correctly the proposition is that Courtly Love is being taught as Biblical. The challenge is to produce Biblical evidence to support the claim.

    I certainly can’t think of any examples. I don’t know if any will be forthcoming. I found the article yesterday and the back articles that I have read to be convincing. Courtly Love is extra-Biblical.

    Personally I would compare it to electricity. Not mentioned in the Bible. If you want to live with it or without it is your call. However, the danger is that modern pastors have staked out the position that Courtly Love is Biblical. This despite the fact that evidence for it in the Bible is downright sketchy at the very best.

    Okay. I’m the new guy so I’ll shut up now.

  14. Dalrock says:

    @Ben Mavet Who

    If I understand things correctly the proposition is that Courtly Love is being taught as Biblical. The challenge is to produce Biblical evidence to support the claim.

    I certainly can’t think of any examples. I don’t know if any will be forthcoming. I found the article yesterday and the back articles that I have read to be convincing. Courtly Love is extra-Biblical.

    Personally I would compare it to electricity. Not mentioned in the Bible. If you want to live with it or without it is your call. However, the danger is that modern pastors have staked out the position that Courtly Love is Biblical. This despite the fact that evidence for it in the Bible is downright sketchy at the very best.

    You’ve got it.

  15. Maybe talking to your son about the book, and reading and discussing it together could be better Name. Telling him concretely why this or that technique is wrong, and explain why you know it to be so. Walking deeper……part of how this whole mess will be fixed.

  16. Dalrock says:

    @seventiesjason

    That’s what Game is Billy. It has no business in a Christian forum, and the Game appeasers and advocates here tell us about books called “Bang Poland” and tell us to use, and apply skills, techniques and attitudes from people who “hate Christians” and would be the first to throw us to the jackals if their life depended on it.

    I don’t understand your outrage, especially since when you asked for Game advice to find a wife, my response was that I didn’t think Game was the answer. Moreover, before Cane Caldo started his own blog, I invited him to write a guest post on this blog arguing against Game.

    Me standing on the fact that women can make choices like the rest of us, rebel, or submit is on them.

    This has been a message I’ve hammered on since I first started blogging. See Interviewing a Prospective Wife Part II: Interview Questions and Hostage negotiator for life? for just two examples.

    Edit: Another related post Should you game your prospective wife into submission?

  17. OKRickety says:

    SeventiesJason,

    I’m not certain what “Game” is, partly because I think there are many definitions out there. But, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, try ignoring the name “Game”, and see if there is value to any of the concepts (they are not intrinsically evil just because they are said to be part of “Game”). For example, I think a “Game” concept is to recognize one’s self-worth is retained even though a woman rejects you. I consider that to be emotionally healthy, not evil pride.

    By the way, I entirely agree that a Christian should not be sinning sexually even if that helps him be better at “Game”.

    However, it is clear that you are convinced that nothing related to “Game” has any value to you. You have stated that many times. Is there any value in reiterating your opinion often and at length? Do you feel better afterward? Do you think it helps others?

    By the way, I have no skin in the “Game”. I am a 60-year-old divorced man, 6 years out from a blindside frivorce after 20 years of marriage. I have not had any romantic or sexual interaction with a woman since my divorce. I think it would be foolish to even entertain the idea of entering such a relationship again. Sure, sex still interests me, but, from my experience and what I hear of others’, I highly doubt it would be worth the risk of remarriage.

  18. thedeti says:

    I’ve thought of something here and I’d like opinions from anyone, really.

    Some have suggested that we should return to the “courting” model in which young men and young women meet, go on “dates”, and decide to marry. Under that model, the man and/or his family initiate the interactions. The man expresses interest in a woman/women, and asks for permission from her parents to “court” her. She’s then asked whether she agrees, and if she does, they court. If not, the man’s request is politely declined.

    Is “courting” a poor or inefficient way for men and women to meet each other? Has it always been thus? The point of the last series of posts is that it’s better for men to pick up on IOIs and then take it from there. Is this peculiar to the present social circumstances in which men and women are more or less equal and interact with each other all the time? Was “courting” more suited to a different time?

  19. thedeti says:

    I asked this because “courting” requires a man to pick some women and “pursue” by boldly expressing interest and approaching the parents for permission to court. And the point of these posts is that this doesn’t work; men should look for those girls who picked him based on his “displays”. So it doesn’t sound like courting is a good model.

  20. ray says:

    vfm7916 —

    Game is lame. I’ll say this for its salesmen, tho: they are persistent. Kinda like herpes, which would be one fringe benefit of Banging Europe.

  21. I asked for advice…..because I have been told since I started posting here a few years back that “Game” was the answer…but countless commentators here.

    I demanded an answer for the fact for people to put up or shut up about it.
    You then tell me Game isn’t the answer……..so it’s not Courtly Love. It’s not being a Beta Chump. It’s not being a Tradcon. It’s not Game. It’s not anything.

    Some folks just got lucky…oh wait…God had *favor* on some, and some He didn’t is what it seems to be boiling down to.

    Look, I don’t have a 130 IQ lording it off like a 150 in this forum. Most people don’t. Most have between a 90-110 IQ, that goes for women as well. I have a really hard time following all of this, and many of the posters he help ignite me, and then snicker like bad boys wrote “naughty words” on the wall snickering.

    I have tried to reason this. Heck, even agree to get folks to shut-up. Now look, I do have outrage, because this looks to me as there is no consensus at all.

    Thank you for replying.

  22. Name(required) says:

    Thedeti, a young man recently asked permission to court my daughter. I know him and his family, so I quickly agreed, and am doing what I can to help him along. I don’t know if it’s optimal, but I think it’s going to work for them. They have known each other since childhood, and I know she’s interested.

  23. Dalrock says:

    @seventiesjason

    I demanded an answer for the fact for people to put up or shut up about it.
    You then tell me Game isn’t the answer……..so it’s not Courtly Love. It’s not being a Beta Chump. It’s not being a Tradcon. It’s not Game. It’s not anything.

    That’s not true. I offered specific advice. You didn’t care for it, which is fine. As I wrote before, I have been humbled reading about your dedication to Christ and helping others. You have my respect for that.

    Some folks just got lucky…oh wait…God had *favor* on some, and some He didn’t is what it seems to be boiling down to.

    I can’t speak for others, but I’ve been quite lucky. I had some inklings, but was also quite foolish in many ways as a young man.

    I have tried to reason this. Heck, even agree to get folks to shut-up. Now look, I do have outrage, because this looks to me as there is no consensus at all.

    This isn’t subject matter specific. This is true for any topic on the internet that people are passionate about. Go to a gun forum and ask what is a proper defensive handgun caliber. Likewise, go to a BBQ forum and ask if you should remove the membrane from ribs before smoking them: https://www.smokingmeatforums.com/threads/ribs-membrane-on-or-off-whats-the-consensus.251788/

  24. thedeti says:

    @Name(required):

    I know she’s interested.

    In the courting scenario, this is the only circumstance in which a father’s daughter should give permission. if she’s not interested, the dad/daughter should politely decline.

    My mom’s mom was a widow at age 40, when my mom was 13. Mom told me many times her mother made her go out on dates with ANY boy who asked her. Grandma’s reasoning was “that boy worked up the courage to ask you. You need to go.” That’s a bad idea. It’s typical of what happens when moms are making the decisions and have to do so without a husband there. Come to think of it, it could also explain mom’s viewpoints on a lot of things.

  25. thedeti says:

    @Name(required)

    And I would hope that your daughter is not “interested” as in “yeah, sure, i’ll go out with him and see what happens. I suppose that would be OK”. I hope that she is “interested” as in “hell yes I want to date him! I thought he’d NEVER ask!”

  26. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    The Trad Con claim is that a man must pick a woman and boldly declare his intention to court her for marriage. The woman, who heretofore hasn’t considered the man one way or another, then proceeds to judge the man’s performance as he endeavors to win her heart* with acts of chivalry (like helping her move).This is a highly unnatural way for men and women to pair off.

    TradCons will insist otherwise, because of some mythic golden age somewhere in the past when a young man came to the gate in the white picket fence with a handful of posies to attempt to approach the sacred front porch where he could possibly sit next to Pater’s daughter and “court her”. No doubt while Pater just inside the bay window, conspicuously cleaning his shotgun.

    Funny thing is, I don’t know a single TradCon who did this. Maybe it’s just sample error, but I know TradCons who married a high school sweetheart, TradCons who married a girl they met in college, TradCons who married a girl they met on a mission trip, etc. and etc. but so far I have not found one TradCon in real life or online who actually went through the whole “front porch courting” ritual that they are so very keen to push young people into.

    Speculation: this TradCon front porch fetish is a reaction to both the modern hookup world and to the party culture of the TradCon’s youth. It also includes the “nurture is all” blank-slate fallacy that is embedded in the modern world: somehow, if we can just get the young’uns to act like something out of a 1950’s sitcom for a while, they won’t have sex before they get married and they will marry their Soulmate [1]

    Even though that’s not how Mr. TradCon actually met and married Mrs. TradCon. The same people who are dogmatic about “wull, that’s whut worked in th’ 80’s for me!” are all too often pushing the front-porch-courtship model on others. It’s beyond stupid.

    [1] I have not asked any TradCons about the whole “soulmate” myth, but have heard enough churchgoing middle aged men talk about “soulmates” in a non-ironic, non-sarcastic manner to at least suspect there’s some buy-in of that myth as well.

  27. earl says:

    I do agree there is no Biblical basis for what we call ‘Courtly Love’.

    I did bring this up in the other thread…the story of Tobiah and Sarah in the book of Tobit. It started out as the a son doing a task for his father (getting his money)…with the Sarah part being introduced as part of that mission (namely she had a demon who killed off her husbands before consumation…the angel Raphel tells Tobiah how to repel the demon).

    I don’t know how many Prots know about that book or story because if I remember correctly it’s not in that Bible…but it’s an interesting read. I think that’s a good example of a success story…where the kid had a mission and the wife came along during the way. That’s usually how it should be for men as opposed trying to win over a wife and then get their mission.

  28. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    This is a highly unnatural way for men and women to pair off. It artificially raises the stakes

    This is very true. A young man in the typical church of 200 or so is going to get one chance at this, and if it fizzles then he’s done, no other girls in that church will have much to do with him. The reasons for this are complicated (preselection, female in-group preference, etc.) but as just about any man under 40 and quite a few over 40 but under 60 can testify, it is the truth.

    “Courting” ups the stakes by making a social testing-of-the-water into a de facto engagement. Bob and Jane Are Courting! in big LED banner sign on the front of the church is an exaggeration, but not that much.

    and makes it harder for both men and women to assess their own marriage market value. A much more natural way is for women to first signal interest to the man by subtle (and therefore deniable) indicators of interest (IOIs). If the man gets the hint, and if he is interested, the path is open for the couple to get to know each other.

    Those men who were brainwashed by feminism with the absurd notion that “men and women are exactly the same except for babies and boobs” often have a very difficult time reading the IOI’s, because they don’t know what they are looking at.

    Even some 20-something college men I have talked with do not know that when a woman comes and stands next to them at a social function that can be an IOI. The first reaction when I describe this is disbelief, because to a man mere proximity means little or nothing. Duh, women are not men, and proximity provides him with an opportunity to open conversation. Women on their side don’t get how beaten down men are now, so when they “just happen” to be standing next to Bob time after time at a social function and he does not open conversation, they interpret that as lack of interest.

    Thanks to feminists, including the conservative churchgoing ones, flirting isn’t nearly as well understood by Joe / Jane average as it used to be.

    This doesn’t mean men should never initiate contact or lead, but men should know how to read the signals

    First men have to even realize the signals exist, and that they are not that difficult to read. That’s one of the problems some men have around here – nobody ever showed them such things.

    None of this used to be a big secret, either. Read some of Jane Austen’s novels – they are nearly 200 years old but the social interactions described are essentially the same as what happens now. 19th century matchmaking in rural areas often consisted of all the men and women of eligible age “just happening’ to meet at a social function multiple times per year. The whole “front porch” stage came along later, once both parties had agreed to mutual interest.

    Insisting on the front porch courting before interest has been established is really dumb. Self-defeatingly, embarassingly, socially retarded levels of dumb. No wonder TradCons are so often fond of it…

  29. thedeti says:

    Anon Reader:

    young man came to the gate in the white picket fence with a handful of posies to attempt to approach the sacred front porch where he could possibly sit next to Pater’s daughter and “court her”. No doubt while Pater just inside the bay window, conspicuously cleaning his shotgun.

    That’s what is presented in older films and TV. But the way it really worked for a lot of young men and women was that she might have shown a little interest, but she played “hard to get” and made it appear she was more in demand than she was. Or, she was “really busy” with work, school, washing her hair, sorting her sock drawer, etc. and didn’t “have time” to go out too much. So she ran some “girl game” and made him jump through hoops and work for it and dance like a monkey. That’s where I think the “he’s gotta work for it” comes from.

    It’s not so much he approaches hat and flowers in hand, nervously asks Susie for a date, while Susie’s dad stands at the window making clear “you hurt her, I hurt you”. It was: he picks out one girl he likes and overwhelms her with attention, gifts, dates, requests for dates; while she selects from among the guys who are vying for her attention and plays hard to get. Or she at least makes it look like there are other guys, even when many times there aren’t. Or she makes herself look super busy and makes him compete with her job, school, other activities, friends, etc. for her attention.

    I know because I did this sometimes. And they didn’t usually work out well. It was the girls who were really enthusiastic where things went well. First College Girlfriend, who said “Yeah, I noticed you” and was ready and raring to go the first time we met, for example.

    Funny thing is, I don’t know a single TradCon who did this. Maybe it’s just sample error, but I know TradCons who married a high school sweetheart, TradCons who married a girl they met in college, TradCons who married a girl they met on a mission trip, etc. and etc. but so far I have not found one TradCon in real life or online who actually went through the whole “front porch courting” ritual that they are so very keen to push young people into.

    Yes but a lot of those TradCon men set about “pitching woo” and working hard to “win her love”. And that’s some of what happened in there.

  30. Anonymous Reader says:

    jason
    vfm…what people are dismissing about game is the situational awareness of it, the muddled “rules” the variances, nuances, and every other aspect under the sun.

    Situational awareness ought to be second nature to any adult. It’s how one keeps alive when riding a bicycle in traffic. Social awareness is trickier, especially for younger people and for those who are still carrying hurt around with them from the past, as well as those who are somewhere on the autist spectrum.

    Social awareness can be learned, just like any other skill – like riding a bicycle. Now, some people don’t ever want to learn to ride a bike, and that’ ok. Those people should avoid complaining about their lack of mobility…

  31. honeycomb says:

    Hmmmmmm ..

    So .. on a scalenof 1 to 10 .. 1 being least interested and 10 being most interested do you rate her interest before first contact?

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/7027813/im-a-granny-of-three-at-25-after-marrying-a-man-34-years-older-than-me-and-our-sex-life-is-amazing/

    Smart-el-ick remarks welcome too.

  32. thedeti says:

    Anon Reader, Earl:

    The current objection to the “men display, women choose” model, in which women throw out IOIs and men initiate among the women who have shown interest, appears to be this:

    when the men these women are really attracted to respond, the women will have sex very rapidly because (1) they are really attracted to those men; and (2) she has to sleep with him in order to compete successfully for a man she finds attractive. If she doesn’t, some other woman will, and whoever sleeps with him first will “win”.

    I think the response to that has to be that she has to show enough sexual interest and do the “slow dance” with him, without giving him everything right away. Plus, if she gives up sex immediately, she hasn’t “won”, because she’s given him everything he wanted and she didn’t get what she wanted (a serious marriage prospect, a potential husband).

  33. honeycomb says:

    And .. what common trait do all these wimminz have in their pics?

    It’s obvious btw.

  34. How does one learn? Anon Reader. Get up and keep falling? Keep trying? While everyone else just stands there “holier than thou” and say “well, if you don’t want to learn, that’s okay….just no complaining then”

    I am not alone in this. I don’t have this figured out like you.

    My older brother has Downs Syndrome (another of God’s beautiful lessons to teach me evidently) he has the ability to only read at a first grade level….or thereabouts…no, no matter how he tries. He will never improve. He’s now 51. What do you tell him? Keep trying? Do you use other methodologies that can still help build context, do you focus on speech ability to communicate or makes needs expressed and know? Can this be do through expressive…artwork and the like? Do we focus on the areas he can succeed or find potentials where he can find a work around?

    Yes. We do.

    We don’t shrug “well, he doesn’t want to read, or isn’t trying hard enough, so we should just have no expectations of him and he should just stay where he is”

  35. earl says:

    ‘And .. what common trait do all these wimminz have in their pics?’

    Wanting attention? Daddy issues?

    Still that one young lass was the one who had the higher interest and asked for the date so I don’t blame the guy for going for it. I could understand why a 59 yr old guy would be apprehensive to ask the 25 yr old out.

  36. earl says:

    Plus, if she gives up sex immediately, she hasn’t “won”, because she’s given him everything he wanted and she didn’t get what she wanted (a serious marriage prospect, a potential husband).

    @deti

    That’s something I don’t think most females get…they do think that’ll be the way to get him to commit.

  37. honeycomb says:

    Earl sez ..
    Wanting attention? Daddy issues?

    Earl (and everyone else) .. think physical trait.

  38. Hank-T says:

    “Even some 20-something college men I have talked with do not know that when a woman comes and stands next to them at a social function that can be an IOI.”
    So you decided that woman standing next to a man is an IOI. Maybe she is just feeling him out and it’s not an actual date. Sorry, she has to do a bit more than be a wall flower especially in a #meetoo era. A man can’t assume a woman is interested just because she decides your company is worth keeping. Women like to keep their male pets in the friendzone.
    Dating isn’t a thing. Biblically, dates don’t exist. You like someone, you marry them. Of course, you can remain steady until your concerns are relieved, but never longer than 2 years max.
    What needs to happen is arranged marriages. It doesn’t have to involve parents. Your family or friends can act as wingmen. While Internet dating might work on occasion, more successful is singles events that are put together by dating sites.

  39. Anonymous Reader says:

    thedeti
    The current objection to the “men display, women choose” model, in which women throw out IOIs and men initiate among the women who have shown interest, appears to be this:

    when the men these women are really attracted to respond, the women will have sex very rapidly because (1) they are really attracted to those men; and (2) she has to sleep with him in order to compete successfully for a man she finds attractive. If she doesn’t, some other woman will, and whoever sleeps with him first will “win”.

    “If men and women learn how to drive cars they will surely engage in illegal street racing”.
    “If men and women learn how to shoot skeet they surely will go on to rob banks”.
    “If men and women how to cook tasty meals, they surely will eat too much and become obese”.

    This objection is foolish because it is against human nature itself. Societies for thousands of years have constructed social limits on male-female interactions in order to channel human nature in a useful direction. This objection actually aims at putting people together who are not attracted to each other, a recipe for misery in the long run. Maybe in a society where arranged marriages were common it might have some value, but we don’t live there.

    Seems to me that a TradCon who claims to be all about the Bible would have a bit more faith in his daughter, too…trusting her off of the front porch, even when he’s not there with his clean shotgun.

  40. Anonymous Reader says:

    jason
    How does one learn? Anon Reader. Get up and keep falling? Keep trying?

    You clearly have a lot of hurt that has not been dealt with, and that’s a big issue. There’s probably some fears of past events to deal with as well. Maybe you could email Scott, I dunno.

    I see a lot of resentment on your part towards any man that attempts to assist you, and that’s not working.

    While everyone else just stands there “holier than thou” and say “well, if you don’t want to learn, that’s okay….just no complaining then”

    How does one learn to ride a bicycle? By standing next to it and yelling “I CAN’T DO THIS!” over and over again? Or by trying, accepting advice, trying again, etc.?

    Men have offered help, and you have found some imperfection or flaw that justifies your rejection of that help. Your words are “help me” but the subcontent is “I won’t let you help me”. Decide what you really want, and then consider what effort that will require.

    Do you read older books? Many of them have social awareness as a subplot.

  41. Anonymous Reader says:

    jason
    My older brother has Downs Syndrome (another of God’s beautiful lessons to teach me evidently)

    That parenthetical remark looks pretty sarcastic, did you mean it that way?

    he has the ability to only read at a first grade level….or thereabouts…no, no matter how he tries. He will never improve. He’s now 51. What do you tell him? Keep trying?

    No. A friend of mine has a daughter in her 20’s who was born with mental problems, she cannot read at all. We all know her limitations.

    Are you claiming that you have some sort of brain damage that prevents you from being socially aware?

  42. honeycomb says:

    ++++++++
    AR sez ..
    ++++++++
    Seems to me that a TradCon who claims to be all about the Bible would have a bit more faith in his daughter, too…trusting her off of the front porch, even when he’s not there with his clean shotgun.
    ++++++++

    It is precisely The Holy Bible that would tell you the opposite.

    And a lil pet-pev of mine ..

    Trad and Con are oxy-moronic words to use separately .. but in particular together .. regarding church and church behavior in the USofA .. These (TradCons) are neither Traditional or Conservative as far as I can tell (at least in the USofA).

    It seems that .. Traditional people hold to tradition .. Conservative people conserve and resist progressive change. Please tell me what they have conserved or been traditional about in recent years (re: marriage & divorce)?

    (We should’ve have long ago called “common-sense” un-common-sense. Because .. it’s un-common to have common sense these days.)

  43. Pingback: *Real men* confess their love to the gas station attendant. | Reaction Times

  44. Lol…I love when I ask questions, it’s again immediately turned into “you must have unresolved past issues”

    You are reading my replies incorrectly. When I have tried…or have given a situation, out you all come a bit snarky, aloof, or just condescending remarks. I try to roll it off, I am accused of denying game or some other psychological babble that I have no idea what it means…or straight up talked down to.

    This has been enough for me for the day..and you all I am sure…..I am either really really stupid (something I am starting to accept after being on here awhile and still not grasping anything)…including the in depth hair splitting of the Bible…..everything I was taught about Christ seems to be wrong…….and I don’t know Greek or Hebrew or which translation from what story of what reference and what God really meant by this situation or that…..

    I was taught that this was very simple. A good way to live. A way to strive for….it was until I started getting deeper in here.

    Another reason why the men are darkening the pews? Come to the comments section of this blog…..it’s not easy to comprehend…..and all these sectarian squabbles…many of which are over my head to a neophyte type of Christian guy is well…….its intimidating.

    How on Earth did the early church go to heaven and have eternal life? They didn’t have Bibles. They didn’t have a new church. They didn’t pray to saints on certain days and made mistakes…..

    I am also starting to see that some of you….a minority…but a vocal one here in the comments “likes” to see me this way. Very Christian of you.

    I kind of feel sick right now all of a sudden..will pop in a few days

  45. feeriker says:

    I have not asked any TradCons about the whole “soulmate” myth, but have heard enough churchgoing middle aged men talk about “soulmates” in a non-ironic, non-sarcastic manner to at least suspect there’s some buy-in of that myth as well.

    I think that for most of them it’s wishful thinking. Like most American men, they had no choice but to follow the modern (i.e., feminist) script on marriage and it got them shackled to ball-busting shrews. Their marriages, and thus their lives, are miserable hell and they’ve deluded themselves into thinking that convincing youngsters to take a trip in a time machine back six-plus decades is both realistic and a way to bring back real marriage.

  46. Oscar says:

    @ seventiesjason

    I asked for advice…..because I have been told since I started posting here a few years back that “Game” was the answer…but countless commentators here.

    There you go again, leaving out the part where you rejected help specifically offered to you. Why do you keep leaving that part out?

  47. sipcode says:

    I agree with you on Courtly Love and Trad Con, etc and think it is largely bogus. I just cannot agree that the usual or normal way for guys and gals to ‘connect’ is for the gal to “first signal” …your words: “A much more natural way is for women to first signal interest to the man by subtle (and therefore deniable) indicators of interest (IOIs).”

    If it is so subtle that it is “therefore deniable” [and assuming she won’t then lie about what she was doing] then how can it be noticed at all? Why make this point? Why do anything deniable? I’ll admit I’m dense many times but I KEEP HEARING YOU EFFECTIVELY SAY THE WOMAN SHOULD TAKE THE LEAD …and then somehow say you aren’t saying that by defining it as “deniable.” That’s what I see the church do: deny what they say and do.

    I suggest that her father tells her to simply make herself available to the young man’s notice at reasonable events. That, in fact, is what my wife did and I eventually took notice and did seek her out. Interestingly, I kind-of shunned her the first time we met as she introduced herself to me; I did not take ‘notice’ of her and ended the conversation fairly soon [I wonder if this was my way of reacting to a woman taking the lead …I don’t know for sure]. But I saw her at a distance with other people a couple months later and, without remembering our previous intro, I thought to myself ‘Who is this beauty?’ and then approached her …42 yrs ago.

    To say the woman does anything first but SUBMIT is against the whole relationship of male and female. The first thing His church does is to submit to the prospective Bridegroom. He chose us before the creation of the world; He reached out first, because He first loved us. The Bride, if she will, then makes herself ready.

  48. Anon says:

    OKRickety,

    However, it is clear that you are convinced that nothing related to “Game” has any value to you. You have stated that many times. Is there any value in reiterating your opinion often and at length? Do you feel better afterward? Do you think it helps others.

    I used to tell him Game could help him, but after he revealed his Polish upbringing and lineage (half), I gave him the sobering assessment that for him, learning Game (including LTR Game) is probably a bridge too far (high degrees of betatude are an innate trait of Polish men. This conversely makes them great employees and neighbors). This is good news in that there is no longer a stone left to unturn, and he can stop beating himself up over it.

    Of course, he starts a new track of whining, and goes to considerable lengths to insist that Polish women are unattractive (also not true). Ultimately, he just wants to whine, receive pity, and then attack those who try to help.

  49. vfm7916 says:

    @ Dalrock:

    The Resigned Loving Patriarch is really the only biblical choice. Game is key to that. Period.

    Locating a woman to even ask the questions in the marriage interview posts requires Game. Especially now.

    Yes, it’s a tool. It happens to be a damn good multitool, functioning well in almost all situations with the opposite sex. All men should have an understanding of it, even though their skill in applying it will vary.

    I’d equate it to physics. Physics is not required to understand Christianity or God, but it is required if you ever want to build any structure, move anything, use tools, etc. Game is not required to understand Christian sexual ethics or morality, but it’s required if you want to get or stay married before God.

    It’s not possible to control another’s moral choices, i.e. a woman’s in regard to staying married, just like it’s not possible to have zero risk in driving an automobile. However, we have training, insurance, awareness, and mechanical reliability to minimize the possibility. Game and the keys to female sexual attraction are risk management tools.

    Since the destruction of many, if not most, of the external cultural and religious controls on women’s behavior there’s far fewer ways to mitigate the immorality of women. Game and its variants are the only ones that truly lie in your personal control.

  50. Jake says:

    Reading very little into it. The patriarchs were fallen men who made mistakes. I’m not so arrogant as to not learn from the mistakes of my betters.

    Chasing a second wife who was beautiful invited false gods into his home, caused strife amongst his sons, got his whole nation sold into slavery by one of his sons, brutalized the emotions of a woman who by all accounts loved him, and took 14 years of his life and ability to work for himself from him.

    That anything positive came of it was God’s beneficence and a miracle(remember the goats? That was a miracle not Jacob’s cleverness) God working for his people’s good despite their best efforts to harm themselves chasing after the temporal.

  51. Anonymous Reader says:

    sipcode
    If it is so subtle that it is “therefore deniable” [and assuming she won’t then lie about what she was doing] then how can it be noticed at all?

    It’s easy to notice when a man knows what to look for. A lot of human communication is nonverbal.

    Why make this point? Why do anything deniable?

    Because women are not men with boobs. Just for a start.

    I’ll admit I’m dense many times but I KEEP HEARING YOU EFFECTIVELY SAY THE WOMAN SHOULD TAKE THE LEAD

    That’s not what he’s writing, you are choosing to interpret it that way.

  52. Anonymous Reader says:

    jason
    Lol…I love when I ask questions, it’s again immediately turned into “you must have unresolved past issues,

    Reverting to the passive-aggressive mode is really not good for you, Jason. You need to work on that.

  53. Anonymous Reader says:

    honeycomb
    It is precisely The Holy Bible that would tell you the opposite.

    Please explicate.

    And a lil pet-pev of mine ..
    Trad and Con are oxy-moronic words to use separately .. but in particular together .. regarding church and church behavior in the USofA .. These (TradCons) are neither Traditional or Conservative as far as I can tell (at least in the USofA).

    Your complaint is very important to me. Please hold and an operator will be with you shortly…

  54. “A much more natural way is for women to first signal interest to the man by subtle (and therefore deniable) indicators of interest (IOIs).”

    That may be natural (as if “natural” is better) but it sucks. These kinds of hazy, imprecise, easily denied so-called signals are no basis for interaction. Even other women suck at understanding them, so what chance does a man have?

  55. “With so many here who dismiss the mechanics of sexual interaction, or “game”, is it any wonder that they’re having difficulty in understanding the terminology?”

    No, people who recognize how stupid “game” is understand it just fine. That’s why we dismiss it.

    The ones having difficulty understanding are the ones who think an adult lifetime spent “peacocking” and “negging” and “sargeing”, attending expensive boot camps, and remaking their lives according to various self-appointed dating coaches, all so that they can hurl themselves at hundreds of women in hopes that a few will respond positively, is somehow NOT the man pursuing and the woman choosing, like chivalry dictates. Chivalry tells men to be “good” while game tells them to be “bad”, but ultimately they’re just two faces of the same coin.

  56. 7817 says:

    I don’t understand the hatred of game.

    When you consider it from a bird’s eye view, isn’t game only applied social skills?

    It doesn’t defeat anyone’s free will, it’s not magic.

    It guarantees nothing.

    Applied social skills can be used to good purposes or bad.

    Proverbs talks a lot about the naive, the fool, and the simple. How is mastering game not getting understanding regarding the opposite sex?

    And regarding it’s source, well, the genetic fallacy is an easy trap to fall into.

  57. “I don’t think game would have ultimately kept my marriage together due to many underlying issues in my wife”

    Well, there’s a ringing endorsement.

  58. “When you consider it from a bird’s eye view, isn’t game only applied social skills?”

    Sure, if you consider “negging” and “peacocking” to be social skills. But does it work? Where’s the “game” master whose gone on dates with Scarlett Johanssen or Adrianna Lima?

    Then there’s the question of which social skills should be applies, and to whom, and when. Personally I’m not about to remake my entire life according to the ideas of a guy in a big feathered hat, spending most of my free time trying to act like just the right kind of jerk to attract the kind of worthless woman who is into jerks.

  59. 7817 says:

    @ the real Peterman

    Strawman is strawman

  60. Dalrock says:

    @sipcode

    I agree with you on Courtly Love and Trad Con, etc and think it is largely bogus. I just cannot agree that the usual or normal way for guys and gals to ‘connect’ is for the gal to “first signal” …your words: “A much more natural way is for women to first signal interest to the man by subtle (and therefore deniable) indicators of interest (IOIs).”

    If it is so subtle that it is “therefore deniable” [and assuming she won’t then lie about what she was doing] then how can it be noticed at all? Why make this point? Why do anything deniable? I’ll admit I’m dense many times but I KEEP HEARING YOU EFFECTIVELY SAY THE WOMAN SHOULD TAKE THE LEAD …and then somehow say you aren’t saying that by defining it as “deniable.” That’s what I see the church do: deny what they say and do.

    Social interactions are subtle. Subtle exchanges happen all around us all the time. I’m not saying the woman has to go up to the man and give off an IOI. I think part of what is confusing you is you are thinking there are only two people involved, one man, one woman. But each has a sea of seeming choices, and they have to somehow sort out which of those choices are real. A young woman might have her eye on the newcomer to the church who happens to play guitar during worship. However, it turns out she isn’t the only young woman who is interested. So they all gather around and cheerfully welcome him to the church, perhaps twirling their hair a bit and laughing at his jokes. But he’s not anxious to settle down and choose yet, and either way not all of the young women are equally appealing to him. A smart young woman will read the scene, and realize that being a Daughter of the King doesn’t really mean anything in this context. It is painful, but she lowers her self appraisal to something more realistic. This may take a few iterations and a period of time, until she finally has a fairly accurate SMV/MMV self assessment. Suddenly a young man who was invisible to her a few months ago positively shines. Ever since he became a senior in college he’s been noticing that (less pretty than her) women are giving him subtle but clear signs of interest, but none of them really strike him so he doesn’t take any action, and goes about his mission as a man. One day our heroine ends up behind him in line at the church pot luck, and he notices that she’s laughing at his jokes and fidgeting with her hair as they chat. So he invites her to join him at his table so they can keep talking.

    As for the value of deniability, women especially don’t want to pair up with other women’s rejects. A bit of deniability early on allows both sexes the opportunity to understand their SMV/MMV reality without creating a stir.

  61. OKRickety says:

    Jake,

    “Chasing a second wife ….”

    Do you not understand that Jacob wasn’t “chasing a second wife”? He wanted Rachel as his wife as he was promised. Instead, he was tricked into marrying Leah. What would you do?

  62. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hank-T
    “Even some 20-something college men I have talked with do not know that when a woman comes and stands next to them at a social function that can be an IOI.”

    So you decided that woman standing next to a man is an IOI.

    I did not decide, I observed that it may be one.

    Maybe she is just feeling him out and it’s not an actual date.

    An Indication Of Interest is not a “date”, it is true. She could indeed be “just feeling him out”; like a woman looking over her fan at a man then looking away.

    Sorry, she has to do a bit more than be a wall flower especially in a #meetoo era.

    Sorry, women are not “men with boobs”.

    A man can’t assume a woman is interested just because she decides your company is worth keeping. Women like to keep their male pets in the friendzone.

    No woman can force you to be a pet, in the friendzone, or her beta orbiter.
    You don’t really understand this whole “attraction” thing, either.

    Dating isn’t a thing. Biblically, dates don’t exist. You like someone, you marry them.

    How old are you?

    Of course, you can remain steady until your concerns are relieved, but never longer than 2 years max.What needs to happen is arranged marriages. It doesn’t have to involve parents.

    “Needs to happen” is a passive voice. What do you believe that you can make happen yourself?

  63. Eidolon says:

    A girl at the church where I met my wife used the approach mentioned here. I was relatively new, and she came up and started a low-stakes conversation about how I was finding things since I moved to town.

    This was an excellent approach. We all know women don’t initiate conversation with men they have no interest in unless they need some specific thing. It was clear she was inviting me to come up and talk to her in the future. For a less forward guy this is a godsend — instead of approaching a girl out of the blue, he now has the opportunity to simply talk to a woman again who he talked to previously. On the other end, I didn’t talk to her again, but there was no need for hurt feelings. There’s much less pressure than a guy asking a girl out and being rejected.

    She wasn’t what I was looking for, but I had great respect for her and considered her a woman that would make an excellent wife. Despite not being near the top of the list of prettiest single women in the church at the time, she married soon after to a great guy, and ended up married at a younger age than my wife and I did.

    Her approach was similar to what some of the women in the Bible did, and it seemed to work very well for her. If I had a daughter I would advise her to act similarly in order to help her marry younger and better than other women.

  64. Eidolon says:

    I also think it’s helpful for a woman to take the approach of giving off subtle IOIs to the man because it puts the woman in the mindset of seeing the man as desirable and hoping to gain his favor.

    This establishes a healthy relationship dynamic, making it easier for her to see him as someone she can look up to, since she is essentially petitioning him as a subject would a king, however subtly.

  65. paddy says:

    @ Jason, I think that what you are missing, is that some things require to do them, without fully understanding why.

    For instance, when learning a new sport or skill, there is a period early on when you just “do the skill building exercise” without fully understanding it. I can’t read a book on soccer, then go out and be a great soccer player; and you can’t read a book about “game” and then immediately know how it all works. To be great at soccer, I have to actually do the skill building exercise, train my muscles and nervous system, then combine the different skills I learn into combinations of movement.

    Same with game! You are reading about it, but that is not the same as learning the skill.

  66. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    “A much more natural way is for women to first signal interest to the man by subtle (and therefore deniable) indicators of interest (IOIs).”

    The Real Peterman
    That may be natural (as if “natural” is better) but it sucks. These kinds of hazy, imprecise, easily denied so-called signals are no basis for interaction. Even other women suck at understanding them, so what chance does a man have?

    Professor Henry Higgens:

  67. Anon says:

    The Real Peterman has never made a cogent argument to support his beliefs about why some men do well with women and others don’t. He believes that :

    i) Nothing about a man’s results with women comprise a learnable skill that can be improved with practice. Everything about a man’s results with women is completely outside his control (height, looks, not being Polish, etc.). No man has ever greatly improved his results with women by improving his communication, style, physique, and understanding of body language.
    ii) These skills have zero value in long-term relationships and marriages. Any talk of ‘LTR Game’ will make him apoplectic.

    He is an admitted virgin, yet considers himself an expert on the subject of what does and does not work with women. He doesn’t realize that only women (like Wendy Griffith) can get away with proclaiming expertise in the face of a total absence of results.

  68. honeycomb says:

    ++++++
    AR sez
    ++++++
    honeycomb
    It is precisely The Holy Bible that would tell you the opposite.
    ++++++
    Please explicate.

    ++++++

    So .. lets see what you were talkin about 1st ..
    ++++++
    This objection is foolish because it is against human nature itself. Societies for thousands of years have constructed social limits on male-female interactions in order to channel human nature in a useful direction. This objection actually aims at putting people together who are not attracted to each other, a recipe for misery in the long run. Maybe in a society where arranged marriages were common it might have some value, but we don’t live there.

    Seems to me that a TradCon who claims to be all about the Bible would have a bit more faith in his daughter, too…trusting her off of the front porch, even when he’s not there with his clean shotgun.
    ++++++

    “would have a bit more faith in his daughter” .. Faith in a womminz?  Are you a mad man?  Have you not read Proverbs?

    There’s a Book in The Holy Bible called Proverbs .. I recommend it .. Proverbs is full of wimmimz making men unhappy in marriage (or life in general) .. Heck DIVORCE was common with and without arranged marriages .. and you want th wimminz to have further control and expect a happier outcome? You are a mad man!

    Elucidation complete .. now why are you blathering on about Biblical Marriage and TradCons .. who as I have said haven’t conserved or maintained tradition at all .. they let little miss slutty run free .. and she’s then sent to slut finishing school (aka college to avoid marriage) by these same TradCons you think are not progressive .. to which they are in fact progressives to the Nth degree.  It’s this very “faith” in their lil womminz that has cuased this epidemic (i.e. whorez-r-us).  More won’t make it better and less couldn’t hurt and would be more in line with the Bible.

    If you want a view of Biblical Patriarchy .. go visit the Amish or Menonite .. then tell me they have (and instill) the same values as these SO-CALLED TRAD-CONS .. which are neither (traditional nor conservative) in a biblical comparison.

    ++++++
    Re: TradCons
    ++++++
    Your complaint is very important to me. Please hold and an operator will be with you shortly…
    ++++++

    Yeah .. I hear ya’ .. that’s red-neck for BFYTW .. of course I mean it in the nicest way possible.

  69. Anonymous Reader says:

    honeycomb
    There’s a Book in The Holy Bible called Proverbs .. I recommend it ..

    Have read it. You new here?

    Proverbs is full of wimmimz making men unhappy in marriage (or life in general) .. Heck DIVORCE was common with and without arranged marriages ..

    So?

    and you want th wimminz to have further control and expect a happier outcome?

    How does what I said mutate into that?

    Elucidation complete .. now why are you blathering on about Biblical Marriage and TradCons ..

    I’m not. What’s your point?

  70. Hank-T says:

    Anonymous Reader: I’m quite a bit over 50 thank you and married more than once.

    Yes, you can make arranged marriages while not being passive in the process.

    Yes, I don’t understand attraction because women are not men that you already said. I am experienced with MARRIAGES, which I have more than one of my own.

  71. Jake says:

    I misstated there sorry. He was chasing Rachel. The pursuit of fleshly beauty is what cost him, what led him to pursue a second wife, which leads to problems. (Abraham, David, Solomon, Paul’s strictures on the qualities of an elder, plenty of examples)

    There is no indicator that he asked God to speak on the matter, unlike Abraham’s servant.

    Laban did nothing but make sure Jacob got the wife God wanted him to have. What would I do in that situation? No idea. I can only ask he who loves me to protect me from myself.

  72. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti
    Yes but a lot of those TradCon men set about “pitching woo” and working hard to “win her love”.

    More likely there was some attraction and the future Mrs. Tradcon chose to play “Let’s You And Him Compete For Me”, and she chose to let Mr. Tradcon win. Mr. Tradcon then declares 30 years later “Just woo her!Just get out there and woo her! That’s what I did!” because he’s rather clueless about the process he participated in.

    I’m currently reading The Red Queen. Some here would not like that book because it is written from an evolutionary biology perspective, but it is quite interesting in many ways, such as the mating dance of peacocks / peahens vs. the mating dance of prairie grouse vs. the mating dance of the lesser tern. There’s always a mating dance of some form in higher vertebrates…

  73. Name(required) says:

    I see much angst about Game, and I don’t see why. There are two aspects of Game: understanding women, and manipulating women. You desperately need the first to keep women from manipulating you. You can use the second to brighten some girl’s day with a joke, or you can use it to tempt her to sin. Everything else is a strawman.

  74. Sharkly says:

    If I understand right, the key is to find a woman who is highly attracted to you because of something she can’t leave with, like your money. Preferably a woman who has sexual attraction for you, which is often correlated to respect for you. It Helps if the man finds the woman attractive, but that is less important, because men are generally raised to be more loyal, and to work to make the best of their situation, while women, in our culture, are often encouraged to be selfish and spoiled, only accepting what they like and refusing to take the bad with the good. While it seems best that both are highly attracted to the other, it is more imperative in our Feminist culture that the woman be highly attracted, because she is the most likely to cause divorce, and is the weaker link.
    So, the man can peacock, preen, approach, tease, or whatever he likes, he just needs to make sure he doesn’t try to win over somebody who is less than enthused about him, because that is likely to be no victory at all in the long run. In our culture both people essentially have the power of choice, and can veto the other persons interest. So moral of the story, don’t waste a second of your life in the friendzone, if a relationship were to eventually develop, it would be because she settled for you, and is just a hairbreadth away from deciding she should have held out for more, and is not in fact haaaappy with what she settled for. Seek out somebody who is as highly attracted to you as you can expect realistically considering your MMV, try to find one who has a rigid sense of morality that they will stick to even when it doesn’t feel good to them, and if you also find them highly attractive, that is about as good as you will ever find. Also, make sure her family of origin was generally stable, and that she has less red flags than you do.

    Am I getting close?

    [D: Indeed!]

  75. honeycomb says:

    AR sez ..

    You new here?

    No .. greater than 7 years on and off .. thank you for noticing .. /s

    (/s = i’m making a joke at your in-attention)

  76. Derek Ramsey says:

    “The Trad Con claim is that a man must pick a woman and boldly declare his intention to court her for marriage. The woman, who heretofore hasn’t considered the man one way or another, then proceeds to judge the man’s performance as he endeavors to win her heart with acts of chivalry”

    The reason men cannot choose women is because women can end the marriage at will, unlike the biblical case where the women could not capriciously end the marriage. If a Biblical man married a women, they were basically forced to make it work or else be miserable. The problem is no-fault divorce and the child-support family model. A woman must therefore pursue a man. She must humble herself to prove her worth. It is a sensible workaround for the inherent flaws in the system.

    In a society that shuns divorce, a man can (should?) pursue a woman as he sees fit and she can (should?) pursue him as she sees fit. Mutual desire is a good thing.

    “It artificially raises the stakes and makes it harder for both men and women to assess their own marriage market value.”

    Is the Courtly Love system stupid? If so, it isn’t because the man pursues the woman, but because it artificially raises the stakes.

  77. ray says:

    seventies jason — ‘My older brother has Downs Syndrome (another of God’s beautiful lessons to teach me evidently)’

    Very evidently. Quite a blessing.

  78. Isn’t the idea that women “civilize men” an implicit rejection of Original Sin? If women civilize men, who civilizes women? Are women born civilized?

  79. Chasing a girl would be perceived by the girl as seeking validation from her. The man is placing himself beneath the girl, which is not the best strategy for winning her affection. What she wants shouldn’t be important; it should be what the family, chiefly the father, wants. Chloe Green’s father would not have chosen Jeremy Meeks as the father of his grandchild.

  80. Luke says:

    FSG, I’m not immediately sure either way on “Isn’t the idea that women “civilize men” an implicit rejection of Original Sin?”. I will say, however, that one of the key lessons of the red-pill canonical works “Home Economics” by Roger Devlin and “The Garbage Generation” by Daniel Amneus is that civilization is built by men, and men force women to be civilized (else the society crumbles, as ours is doing).

    BTW, both of those are widely available for free on the Internet. I think you’d find value in reading them.

  81. Cane Caldo says:

    @sipcode

    I’ll admit I’m dense many times but I KEEP HEARING YOU EFFECTIVELY SAY THE WOMAN SHOULD TAKE THE LEAD

    I know the feeling. We have all been lied to about what it means to lead and what leading is and who is to do what…the whole system of thought in modern churches is wrongheaded. That wrongheadedness was deliberate, and precisely how feminists and egalitarians (and later complementarians) eroded the high ground strand us all here in a confused mire.

    Acting first is not leading if the act is in submission. When a man arrives at his worksite, presents himself to his boss and says, “What am I to do today boss?” that employee is not–I repeat NOT–leading. We all understand this. Likewise, if a wife comes to her husband and asks, “What do you want me to take care of today while you’re at work?”, a complementarian pastor is going to make her out to be a leader in the home.

    You’ve excepted the same kind of wrong definition of leading, only in the match-making arena. If a women gives her number to a man, that is not leading. When the man calls her up and says, “Hey, come see a movie with me.” he is leading. Likewise, when Ruth lay down at Boaz’s feet, she wasn’t “taking the lead”; despite what that momma-boy pastor with the hipster jeans said from the stage. Ruth put herself into Boaz’s charge.

  82. David had more wives than Bathsheba and Samson had someone before Delilah. That Cane immediately assumes this is what people are referring to again makes me wonder how much he has read.

    1. To some people the idea of “man pursues, woman responds” is so important to the arguer that he redefines woo to mean “bought”, and bride-price as “romantic overture”. Presumably these people have a very romantic life here in America; wooing gas out of the station attendant and seducing milk from the grocer with money.

    Well then he’s just being dishonest.

    For one interpretation, if he means, “a courtship in the Bible that is like modern times” then of course there’s no matches because the culture and technology (which impacts culture) of the Bible is completely different from ours, they’re not going to match. So he’s essentially holding up a bag of oranges and demanding to be shown an apple.

    If on the other interpretation he does mean men pursuing women then yes “bought” and “bride-price” counts since that was the courtship rituals of the time. It would be like declaring that since I paid for my car, I was never searching or pursuing a vehicle. Which is apparently just ignoring humanity now.

  83. PokeSalad says:

    I see much angst about Game, and I don’t see why.

    Incels are terrified by the notion that there’s some secret code out there that they don’t understand.

  84. earl says:

    I see much angst about Game, and I don’t see why.

    It’s mostly the manipulating women part for me. Women have free will choice and agency.

    I do get you should have a basic understanding about them…like when they show you signs of interest. I don’t get how you can manipulate a woman into being interested in you. She either is or is not.

  85. Damn Crackers says:

    @PokeSalad – Don’t say the I-word. You may get banned on social media platforms.

    All of you vexed about finding women, there is always the Origen option.

  86. Dalrock says:

    @sipcode

    I suggest that her father tells her to simply make herself available to the young man’s notice at reasonable events. That, in fact, is what my wife did and I eventually took notice and did seek her out. Interestingly, I kind-of shunned her the first time we met as she introduced herself to me; I did not take ‘notice’ of her and ended the conversation fairly soon [I wonder if this was my way of reacting to a woman taking the lead …I don’t know for sure]. But I saw her at a distance with other people a couple months later and, without remembering our previous intro, I thought to myself ‘Who is this beauty?’ and then approached her …42 yrs ago.

    To say the woman does anything first but SUBMIT is against the whole relationship of male and female.

    Your focus is on who introduces themselves first, and I think you are missing the more general point. From your description, your wife noticed you first and was interested. This happened months before you walked across the room and (re) introduced yourself. By Trad Con logic, you and your wife reversed the process. You, the man, should have noticed her beauty first, and then set out to win her over with chivalrous acts of submission (kneeling before her is of course ideal). But she flipped the chivalrous script any way you read it, because she noticed you first, and desired to win you over first. Like Scott described with his ex wife, you started off with a woman who was already signaling interest in you, but you made it look on the surface like you were following the Trad Con script.

  87. Damn Crackers says:

    Game is just a set of Aspie/Spergy methods to get someone to act like a f*cking man. It’s a tool if you don’t know how to be masculine. It’s a tool like a screwdriver. A screwdriver won’t work in every situation, but it can fasten some nuts and bolts. The problem is when people think you can follow a “Game” flowchart and get any woman you want. People (women) aren’t robots.

    @Earl – Right, we’ve been told women have free agency as much as any man in our feminist world. So, how can you really manipulate women at all with Game? It’s like feeling sorry for all those fallen women out there. They made their decisions. No one is out there trying to match up homeless guys with brides. Why? Because most people understand you have to stop being homeless before you can even think of being matched up with someone. The same thing should apply to women. If you want a long-term man you should stop being a whore. Unfortunately, too many women learn this too late.

    I know I’m ranting, but I wish there was an army of grandmothers out there to slap some sense into young women so men don’t have to resort to Game. Then, men could just be men and get together with their young brides.

  88. JRob says:

    Winning her heart is considered the lifetime role of a Christian husband, including after the wedding

    I haven’t searched for a post on this very subject from our host, I’d bet one exists.

    From a Evangelical perspective… “He didn’t keep/find/know my heart” is usually the statement you hear from Princess right before “He wasn’t a spiritual leader” followed by “God wants me to be/I’m not haaaaappy” then the hammer is dropped. The church leaders agree as they escort the jackbooted state in to save the poor dear.

    Rainey, FoTF, every other book on the Lifeway shelf, etc propagates this drivel. My three month stint on a pay “Christian” dating site a decade ago saw this typed in every third profile.

    Not trying to divert from the point, but man oh man I want every single man to add this to his red flag list. I’d recommend it be added between “I want to go skydiving” and “We grew apart.”

    If I want to find her heart I’ll drop her off for a CAT scan.

  89. Dave says:

    A much more natural way is for women to first signal interest to the man by subtle (and therefore deniable) indicators of interest (IOIs). If the man gets the hint, and if he is interested, the path is open for the couple to get to know each other. This doesn’t mean men should never initiate contact or lead, but men should know how to read the signals and not waste their time on a woman who (given the chance) isn’t indicating interest.

    I can only partially agree with this. Either party can indicate interest in the other, and both are perfectly natural. Women are more subtle, and men are more overt; but both are completely natural, and have been done since the beginning of time. In some cases, women don’t even realize what constitutes IOIs to a man, so they send false leads.

    Women are generally the more passive ones. Their romantic sides may be completely dormant until the man wakes it up. This is not only true of romance; it is often true of sex as well. Many women can go about their daily business without so much as entertain the thought of sex, until the man brings it up. Married couples know this very well.

    It is very common for a man and woman to interact socially on a regular basis without the woman thinking anything of it. However, when the man clearly indicates his romantic interest in the woman, she then begins to think of him as a romantic potential.

    This is completely different from chasing a woman. The woman has shown, ever so subtly, that she is not interested in the man, but either the man fails to read her response, or thinks he can make her change her mind, he presses on, causing embarrassment to both of them.

    I believe in asking a woman out a maximum of two times before concluding that she is not interested. Many women, depending on where they are emotionally, instinctively say “No” when first asked to go out by a man. Maybe they have not thought of the man asking them out before, or they were taken by surprise, or due to a million other reasons, they try to protect themselves by rejecting him the first time.
    Then, they take some time to think about it, and make a decision, waiting for the man to ask again. If they say “No” a second time, it is safe to assume that they are not interested.

  90. Dalrock says:

    @FSG (@FSpeedGaming)

    Isn’t the idea that women “civilize men” an implicit rejection of Original Sin? If women civilize men, who civilizes women? Are women born civilized?

    Exactly. Courtly Love replaces God’s love (agape) with romantic love, and replaces Christ with women. In theory the mock religion was only a game, but somewhere along the way Christians started taking it seriously. As CS Lewis explained, because Christian marriage has the husband as the head and the wife submitting to her husband, Courtly Love had to focus instead on adultery:

    The love which is to be the source of all that is beautiful in life and manners must be the reward freely given by the lady, and only our superiors can reward. But a wife is not a superior.81 As the wife of another, above all as the wife of a great lord, she may be queen of beauty and of love, the distributor of favours, the inspiration of all knightly virtues, and the bridle of ‘villany’;82 but as your own wife, for whom you have bargained with her father, she sinks at once from lady into mere woman. How can a woman, whose duty is to obey you, be the midons whose grace is the goal of all striving and whose displeasure is the restraining influence upon all uncourtly vices?

    Today the adultery aspect is optional, because Christians have reworked marriage to put the wife firmly in charge (as the gods of Courtly Love demand).

  91. Oscar says:

    Cane says:

    When a man arrives at his worksite, presents himself to his boss and says, “What am I to do today boss?” that employee is not–I repeat NOT–leading. We all understand this. Likewise, if a wife comes to her husband and asks, “What do you want me to take care of today while you’re at work?”, a complementarian pastor is going to make her out to be a leader in the home.

    That’s exactly right.

    It’s taken me – and I bet it’s taken many of us – years to figure out that Christian pastors have separated wifely submission from all other forms of submission, as though it’s a category all its own. It really isn’t.

    As a staff officer in the Army, one of my bosses (to whom I’m very grateful) ingrained in me the habit of going to his office every morning and saying “morning, boss. Here are the tasks I believe I need to accomplish today. Am I missing anything? What’s your highest priority?”

    Every evening, I’d outbrief him. “Evening, boss. Here are the tasks I accomplished today. I believe I followed your priority list. Am I missing anything?”

    It didn’t work quite the same when I was a commander, but the principle was the same.

    That’s submission. Most of us practice it every day. Most women practice it every day, just not with their husbands.

  92. earl says:

    WK has added in on this…he also has this point about women who expect to be pursued.

    Standing back and remaining passive, waiting to be pursued, is just going to attract a lot of non-Christian men who are pursuing you for sex. If the man is pursuing you, and he hasn’t told you his vision (why he needs you as his wife anyway), then he wants sex.

    https://winteryknight.com/2018/08/22/is-it-the-mans-responsibility-to-pursue-the-woman-or-the-other-way-around/

  93. feministhater says:

    Sorry, women are not “men with boobs”.

    Doesn’t matter anymore. They have created a situation that now requires they put in more overt flirting.

  94. earl says:

    ‘The pursuit of women by non-Christian alpha male bad boys seems to be welcomed, surprisingly, by a lot of passive Christian women who kind of lie back and expect to just acquiesce to experiences that feel good. Women today don’t like to think about marriage in a structured way. And they especially don’t want to be asked by men about past decisions, demonstrated abilities, future wife responsibilities and obligations, etc. (How dare men evaluate them for a marriage plan!) They don’t want marriage, defined as self-sacrificial commitment. They want marriage as constant tingles, supplied by an alpha male bad boy who exists solely to generate feelings of happiness in them, and feelings of envy in their girlfriends. Think about marriage as a plan? That’s boring. Let’s get drunk and hook up with an alpha male bad boy, and see if he calls back after the abortion.’

  95. feministhater says:

    It’s easy to notice when a man knows what to look for. A lot of human communication is nonverbal.

    Lol. Sure. That is until women flat out deny sending out any signals and eventually, after enough mistakes, most men will tune out the nonsense.

    It’s so easy, most men don’t get it. Lol!

  96. Cane Caldo says:

    @natewinchester

    You’re being obstinate. Notice how you fall back onto the language of Courtly Love to talk about marriage:

    If on the other interpretation he does mean men pursuing women then yes “bought” and “bride-price” counts since that was the courtship rituals of the time.

    Courtship did not exist in a pre-Medieval world. No, really: It’s true. You can reference a dictionary and everything. The Free Dictionary has this helpful image under its definition of courtship:

  97. feministhater says:

    Women are generally the more passive ones. Their romantic sides may be completely dormant until the man wakes it up. This is not only true of romance; it is often true of sex as well. Many women can go about their daily business without so much as entertain the thought of sex, until the man brings it up. Married couples know this very well.

    It is very common for a man and woman to interact socially on a regular basis without the woman thinking anything of it. However, when the man clearly indicates his romantic interest in the woman, she then begins to think of him as a romantic potential.

    It’s obvious that she isn’t really into such a man to begin with. Women do think of sex with men they are attracted to. Quite often. They daydream about it all the time. Their romance novels are quite open about it.

    You’re stuck in the past. You will probably be thought of as a creep if you acknowledge your romantic feelings to a woman who had no previous romantic thoughts about you at all.

  98. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    The Free Dictionary has this helpful image under its definition of courtship:

    The very picture of complementarian leadership!

  99. AnonS says:

    This really needs to be the basis for a Dalrock book. Courtly love is the water that Protestantism swims in, anything counter just produces a critical error message in their brain. No wonder so much misery and loneness has flowed out of the church for young people. Girls love it in between their constant fights with depression (I’ve seen this first hand) because they can still roller coaster up to feeling like a Princess on occasion from sermons (actually designed as motivational speeches). And guys either check out or suffer silently as they talk about pursuing this girl or that girl (girls who get bored of them on their ego high), never realizing that it won’t matter unless they first get higher status.

    The exceptions being the new young pastors and guitar playing worship leaders that think it works the same because the girls they went after from their high status positions also happened to be interested in them. Or they end with stories about how “She wasn’t on my radar but she kept showing up and talking to me over and over again. I guess it was all in God’s planning. *chuckle*”

    This is the beam in their eyes they can’t see past.

  100. AnonS says:

    Now it is easy to send IOI, it is called a Smile on dating sites.

    I’ve gotten them from low tier women trying to date too far up and the valuable ones from traditional girls interested in marriage and family that I follow up on. For a long time I limited eharmony matches to local area but have some better results opening it to nation wide, young homeschooled girls aren’t on the East and West coasts.

  101. Cane Caldo says:

    @AnonS

    This really needs to be the basis for a Dalrock book.

    Agreed.

  102. Paul says:

    @Dalrock, Cane “the nearly universal false belief that the Bible teaches that men should follow the rules of Courtly Love regarding finding a wife.”

    I’ve never seen it formalized in any creed or dogma that the Bible teaches Courtly Love.
    I do recognize that current culture is pedestalizing women and large parts of the Church are extremely sensitive in their FOLLOWING dominant culture instead of DEFINING a Christian (sub-)culture.

    I do not think the bible teaches ANY specific form of how to find a suitable marriage partner, but is concerned about the end result; marriage should be honored by all, sexuality is to be enjoyed within marriage between one husband and one wife only, and you should marry a fellow Christian.

  103. Damn Crackers says:

    Let’s call Courtly Love for what it really is….romance. Before Christ, the Greeks called it madness. Plato through the mouth of Socrates called it the lowest form of love. Buddha eschewed its pull, and Jesus claimed it’s as bad as adultery.

    Now through troubadours, novelists, Hollywood, and now the Church, romance has been elevated above Christian love. The worship of Aphrodite is worse now than it was in Corinth in St. Paul’s day. What do we do?

  104. Dalrock says:

    @Paul

    I’ve never seen it formalized in any creed or dogma that the Bible teaches Courtly Love.
    I do recognize that current culture is pedestalizing women and large parts of the Church are extremely sensitive in their FOLLOWING dominant culture instead of DEFINING a Christian (sub-)culture.

    This is true in the sense that they don’t call it courtly love. They just call it Christian, or (perhaps) chivalry. This is the first problem. Look through the discussion threads on the topic and see how many even here, in the men’s sphere, read the Bible through the lens of courtly love. For example: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/08/20/a-challenge-to-traditionalists/#comment-283078

    The problem isn’t that Christians aren’t creating a separate subculture pushing against the feminist culture. This is in fact happening, but they are pushing back against feminism with chivalry*. Not only is it absurd, but they don’t even know it isn’t Christian.

    *Which is laughable since it is chivalry that enables feminism in the first place.

  105. Anon says:

    PokeSalad,

    Incels are terrified by the notion that there’s some secret code out there that they don’t understand.

    I would take it further and say that they are terrified by the notion that some aspect of their results with women is actually within their control.

    This is because that would bring agency onto them, rather than the default excuse of whatever women value most is somehow exactly what their genetics did not provide.

  106. Paul says:

    @Dalrock

    To me the cure is therefore rediscovering the basic message of Christian (biblical) roles for males and females and influencing other Christians such that this misunderstanding of “chivalry”/”courtly love” is exposed and eradicated. This blog plays an important role in such an endeavor.

    [D: Thank you.]

  107. earl says:

    This is because that would bring agency onto them, rather than the default excuse of whatever women value most is somehow exactly what their genetics did not provide.

    Especially since looks don’t matter as much from female to male as the do male to female.

  108. anonymous_ng says:

    @Cane, I like that one, compounding cupidity.

  109. squid_hunt says:

    I was just thinking about this “Wooing her forever” thing.

    My brother recently got a divorce. His wife was screwing around on him with a bunch of old boyfriends. I won’t get into his decision making skills, but one of the things she told him was that she thought he should woo her again to prove he loved her. That finally tripped the switch for him, but it makes me wonder where the actual coming from. They aren’t church goers at all. Although it does make it more powerful to say “Jesus says you have to woo me forever.”

  110. earl says:

    Wooing in marriage isn’t really what marriage is about anyway. It’s supposed to be two spouses sacrificing for the good of the other. Not one always trying to win the favor of the other.

  111. Anonymous Reader says:

    I was just thinking about this “Wooing her forever” thing.

    My brother recently got a divorce. His wife was screwing around on him with a bunch of old boyfriends. I won’t get into his decision making skills, but one of the things she told him was that she thought he should woo her again to prove he loved her. That finally tripped the switch for him, but it makes me wonder where the actual coming from. They aren’t church goers at all. Although it does make it more powerful to say “Jesus says you have to woo me forever.”

    This has been a topic of Dalrock’s for a while. Here is the result of a search using the WordPress tool:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/?s=courtship

    In particular note these:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/smp-searching-costs-and-the-unmourned-death-of-courtship/

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/the-endless-courtship-fantasy/

    His explorations of the Cult of Courtly Love have brought a lot of light to the subject, but those earlier essays are still very relevant.

  112. vfm7916 says:

    @squid

    What she says means nothing. What she does means everything.

    Her words are said simply to absolve herself of guilt. Game calls this “hamstering.” The practical philosophy of the red pill will explain why she did this. It’s not Church, it’s biology with the added bonus tool of feminism.

    Go read the sidebar on TRP or head over to read Rollo for a deep understanding of the philosophy and psychology of game. So many behaviors will become clear.

    Also understand that it’s not bad or good, it’s just biology.

  113. BillyS says:

    It would be interesting to see how many marriages can really be restored after a wife is unfaithful compared to the reverse. I would suspect that any wife that has cheated has lost too much respect to ever have a stable marriage, while the reverse is not necessarily true.

  114. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Jason: Having a great ‘frame’ has not prevented Sinatra’s marriage to Ava Gardner stay….and that’s just one example. Plenty of “top alpha” guys had their marriages blown up from underneath them…..

    I’m no expert on game, but I’ve heard it said that the instant a woman marries an Alpha, he becomes a Beta in her eyes.

    I guess it means that once a woman locks down a man, she loses respect for him.

  115. earl says:

    ‘I guess it means that once a woman locks down a man, she loses respect for him.’

    Talk about what happens in the world…when the Bible says she’s supposed to respect him.

  116. Anonymous Reader says:

    RPL
    I’m no expert on game, but I’ve heard it said that the instant a woman marries an Alpha, he becomes a Beta in her eyes.
    I guess it means that once a woman locks down a man, she loses respect for him.

    It can happen, but does not have to happen. Any managerial / leadership skill, any life skill, is not a 100% sure thing. Those who demand perfection in any area of human life are just buffering themselves in a version of “the grapes are sour anyway”.

    There are entire sites where the issue of “married game” is discussed, Rollo’s is just one.
    Rather than guessing or handwaving, men who actually want to know something can use the World Wide Web to learn about it.

  117. Anonymous Reader says:

    Trying to think of a situation where the usual Trad Con “Real Men pursue Real Women and catch them and marry them!” mantra actually worked. Perhaps before mens-fault divorce? A woman 100 years ago would be hard pressed to frivorce a man; instead she’d busy herself with other things and sigh once in a while “Well, he’s a provider”.

    Mens-fault divorce has been law in most states for over 40 years. So I really don’t get what the Trad Cons are basing this fantasy on outside of fiction.

    Speaking of fiction, I just thought of a great double-bill movie showing for a women’s church seminar:
    “The Quiet Man” followed by “McClintock!”

  118. I’m no expert on game, but I’ve heard it said that the instant a woman marries an Alpha, he becomes a Beta in her eyes.

    alpha … beta … steak … potatoes … these are meaningless terms. When people use them around here, they generally mean some shit like “women [do / do not] find person x attractive.”

    Problem with these definitions is that every man is attractive to some woman. Take a homeless wino with a quarter and he can get sex with a skank. Granted: it will be a smelly female hobo, offering to blow him in a nasty public toilet, in exchange for a quarter. The issue is “women x finds attractive, find x attractive,” which is an entirely different issue, and one which transcends the α / β dichotomy.

    Married guys around here are regularly derided as β by their brothers over on Heartiste, when those same married guys bang their wives every night, whereas the playaz can get a skank an average of twice a week, if they put the time in. So, who’s really successful with women?

    I guess it means that once a woman locks down a man, she loses respect for him.

    Part of the problem is specific to this society. Dalrock calls it the threatpoint. The minute any man puts his head in that noose, he is subject to wifey’s whims and basically at her mercy. Every single North American woman, of marriage age, knows this well.

    I have a lot of respect for women like Mychael and SunShine — these women work hard to stay attractive, be receptive, and generally go the distance to be good wives to their men. They do this despite incredible incentives to the contrary.

    Boxer

  119. earl says:

    The minute any man puts his head in that noose, he is subject to wifey’s whims and basically at her mercy.

    Hence she loses respect for him.

    It’s not marriage that does it…it’s the threat of divorce if he doesn’t produce the correct emotions in her.

  120. Luke says:

    The Quiet Man” followed by “McClintock!”

    Boxer (Secret King of All Gamma Males) says:
    August 22, 2018 at 5:33 pm

    “Married guys around here are regularly derided as β by their brothers over on Heartiste, when those same married guys bang their wives every night”

    With around 25% of U.S. marriages essentially sexless, and probably the majority of the remainder providing insufficient sex from the husband’s POV, you really should learn more about how marriage really works now.

  121. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    It’s not marriage that does it…it’s the threat of divorce if he doesn’t produce the correct emotions in her.

    A negative and self-defeating way of describing the problem.

  122. Swanny River says:

    Dalrock, I agree with others who think you have the start of a good book. However, I disagree with their conclusion that you should write a book. I’ve followed three bloggers that got popular and all branched or spread out, and their blogging died.
    I understand the desire to make mpre money from your work, but I think if it comes at the proce of starving this site, then I am not supportive. One blogger has been a steady commenter in his posts, steady posting too, while writing a book- Stacy McCain but I think the odds would be against you.
    Another thing about book writing, it’s what the TGC crowd values, so writing a book seems feminine/negative due to my personal take. Why not go full TGC and recommend to Dalrock that he get a PhD – all the popular pastors are doing it!

  123. Anon says:

    I don’t think a book is the right thing for Dalrock. All the same content is already here in the archives.

    What is needed is someone to start a red-pill Church that actually teaches the Bible, and has the balls to point out that under the laws of Marriage 2.0, Christian marriage can only exist without the state license, etc. This, of course, can’t be Dalrock since the frontman will have to be a public figure. But Dalrock can keep providing content while remaining anonymous.

    Such a Church would do very, very well (and earn a lot of money too).

  124. feeriker says:

    Talk about what happens in the world…when the Bible says she’s supposed to respect him.

    “Christian” women have an amazingly consistent habit of ignoring the Bible they claim governs their lives when it commands them to do things they don’t want to do.

    Why not go full TGC and recommend to Dalrock that he get a PhD – all the popular pastors are doing it!

    As if P(iled)h(igh and)D(eep)s weren’t already being devalued, now churchian pastorbators are getting them in droves, even further driving their value into the basement. Not helping matters either is the fact that more than a few of the “Divinity Doctorates” that these guys append to their names are honorary and not actually earned through anyacade.ic effort of their own.

  125. feeriker says:

    “…any academic effort of their own…”

  126. earl says:

    A negative and self-defeating way of describing the problem.

    That’s what it is.

    As you correctly fixed earlier in another thread…

    ‘‘it’s hard for a woman to stay mad she is cleaning’’

    Marriage is not an extension of courtly love where the man sacrifices until death to ‘win’ the love of his wife…it’s mutual sacrifice. Christ and the church. The spouse sacrifices for the good of the other. If it’s all about producing the correct feeling in her…she’s going to use divorce as a threat to get him to do it. It’s the ‘Marriage 2.0’ model instead of Biblical marriage. Love is about the will and doing instead of feelz.

    Just an example from another blog of a woman (and the guy) getting it. I can see why he snatched her up.

    ‘My wife turned to me and said “I’ll help you”. Those were her first words to me the moment we met.
    We didn’t even know each others names. She just saw me, turned to me and interrupted my conversation about my rent house needing work and blurted out “I’ll help you”.
    Still together and very happy 30 years later.’

    https://winteryknight.com/2018/08/22/is-it-the-mans-responsibility-to-pursue-the-woman-or-the-other-way-around/#comment-173613

  127. earl says:

    If there’s one line for ‘women’s game’ I’d tell them to get the attention of the guy they fancy…that’s it.

    ‘I’ll help you.’

  128. Sharkly says:

    That sounds like a good thread earl. Pickup lines that work on men! I’ll start it:

    Where can I set the sandwiches I made for you?
    I love your beard! Can I feel it?
    If you can stay, I’ll make us some bacon?
    I just love to cook!
    Can I feel your bicep?
    I hate romance novels, I like stories about children.
    I can’t watch TV, I prefer to be doing something.
    Can you spot me on my lift?
    The other girls all went out for salad. Does anybody want to go out for Barbeque?
    I always wanted to ride in [whatever car you’re driving] can you take me for a ride?
    I just bought the game “Twister” and I want to try it out with somebody?
    I got a couple of tickets to the game, but I don’t have anybody to go with.

  129. Oscar says:

    Gents,

    The reason women lose respect for their husbands after the wedding is in Genesis Ch 3.

    It’s true that the current “family” law system in the U.S. creates perverse incentives for women, but if disrespect for husbands wasn’t a problem in Bible times, there wouldn’t be so many scriptures warning against it.

    Everything in life has a spiritual component. The spiritual component is usually the most important, and also the one that people ignore the most. Many of you are making that mistake.

  130. American says:

    I’ve had many Christian women in relationships (both married and unmarried) hit on me. Everything from starting to play with my leg near my crotch under the table (different women on multiple occasions) to giving me “the look” they are ready to have sex with me anytime I want to outright telling me they are.

    Always, always, always I reject these women. I remove their hand off my leg (or crotch as the case may be) and tell them firmly that I am a GENUINE Christian who does not take sexual immorality lightly and remind them they are in a monogamous dating relationship with another male. That seems to have a 100 percent effective response in resolving the problem.

    The married ones giving me “the look” are rejected with a look of disgust. Has worked so far. The ones who went farther, I explain that I am going to tell their husband what they are doing and up to if they persist any further. That’s always worked; however, I’ve never seen one of those marriages last because they simply proceed to the next male and bang him breaking up their marriages in the process.

    Now I’m no virgin, I grew up a non-Christian in the Los Angeles area going out every weekend in high school to music events and was in the Navy. I WAS a sailor. But when I became a Christian, I repented and adopted the God’s morality applying it to my daily life. That’s when I became aware of how royally screwed up everything is in the area of familial law and our society’s cultural norms. The reasons for this are glaring, in hindsight. Dalrock’s one of the few who bravely and competently take them on.

  131. JRob says:

    American,
    It’s just the same on the east coast and in flyover country. Go to the grocery store in the late evening or weekend. Watch the heavy-makeup-and-bedazzled-jeans-wearing wives walking a few feet behind a normal looking dude. The kids will be with him. She’ll look up from her smart phone just long enough to give you the “come hither” look. Women who go to church are no different for the mist part. As you said, if it ain’t you it’ll be somebody else.

    The difference is we KNOW we answer to God for our behavior and He promised to reward us for fauthfulness. Always let it be somebody else. Hard not to high five oneself though when she’s a smokeshow :).

  132. Anonymous Reader says:

    By the way, just to restate the obvious: steps 1 through 6 of the stages of courtly love look just like beta orbiting. They also can be construed as stalking.

    Nothing says Traditional and Conservative twu wuv like stalking…

  133. ray says:

    Swanny River — Wise comment and I agree.

    This is one of the few pages on the planet that really chaps satan’s nipples. Partly due to content, of course, but also the fact that Dalrock offers few gaps for satan to slither through. When he gets frustrated (and his is about this place) then usually he just finds somebody weaker.

    He loves to see Christian pages that are monetized, or carry ads, or hold funding drives, or regularly ask for money. That’s his chance and he always takes it, it’ll go Yes Father it’s a wonderful blog, very clever I confess, but it hurts me that this Son of Adam’s writing is also is looking for money. As much as I love his works there, I felt duty-bound to mention it to you and ja few others. He had an excellent opportunity to hold forth a clean offering to you, but . . . well you know how these children of Adam are . . . always have their hand out instead of giving, as you desire. Count on me to keep monitoring the situation and reporting breaches of offering.

    Something like that anyway. There is a LOT of money and celebrity in Professional Christian Land, and what do you suppose the devil reports about that? Easy picking, bound lambs. Even to publish a book opens an breach for him, and after that it typically goes awry soon. The first thing I look for at a Christian site is the front-page — is it clean or not, if not how compromised.

    There’s a certain Christian blogger with a webpage of limited but staunch readers/commenters. He could make mucho dinero just by hitting the publishing/lecture/interview circuit, I guarantee he’d rake in celebrity and dollars. But his works clearly are not money-motivated, and thereby he weaponizes not only his good content, but his defenses against the enemy. Nothing really pleasing to God comes easily, and the idea is to produce stuff that’ll last forever.

  134. Pingback: Returning to a past that never was. | Dalrock

  135. Pingback: Models of Courtship and Marital Structure | Σ Frame

  136. Pingback: Defending chivalry’s honor. | Dalrock

  137. Pingback: Call me unchivalrous. | Dalrock

  138. Pingback: Solomon as Lancelot: Song of Solomon viewed through the lens of chivalry/courtly love. | Dalrock

Comments are closed.