A blog for Christian men "going their own way."

Friday, August 21, 2009

Biblical Manhood vs. "Game" (Reprise)

In my last post, I looked at how PUA theories about women and men were incompatible with the Christian worldview. Some of my readers nonetheless tried to defend "Game." I can understand someone disagreeing with me, but what is baffling is when people merely restate the very thing that I just got done refuting and don't offer any counterarguments in response to my specific points. I put forth several scriptures that show just how unscriptural PUA theory is in its assessment of what it takes to attract women. No one addressed the scriptures, specifically the scriptures that tell men how to act--scriptures that are quite clearly in conflict with worldly notions of masculinity.

One red herring thrown into the discussion is that women don't like pushovers. Another red herring was the mention of men doing things to attract women and how natural that was. My discourse is about neither of these things, per se. Some readers want to redefine "Game" to mean things men have always done to catch the eyes of ladies. Historically, the word "Game" has had more negative connotations than that. I say it has too much to be used by Christian men.

When a godly women makes herself attractive, we don't call this "teasing." When she is sexually assertive with her husband in the bedroom, we don't call her a "porno slut." Likewise, we should not the use the language of PUAs to describe what godly men do to attract women. Are you nostalgic for the masculinity of the past? I'll tell you where the PUAs would be in the past--on the bottom of the food chain, dismissed as gigolos, cads, and rakes. They would be tarred and feathered and run out of town.

What Attracts Women = Natural?

You might say that women are naturally attracted to cads and rakes. I say that women are sinfully attracted to cads and rakes. God did not design women to be attracted to the things he clearly condemns in his Word. Worldly women are attracted to the wrong things because they are in rebellion against their Creator. So, let's break it down and review some examples ...

1. "Game" might say that cockiness and arrogance attracts women, but the word of God condemns cockiness and arrogance (1 Pet. 5:5).

2. "Game" might say having wealth and material things attracts women, but the word of God condemns the eagerness to get rich (Prov. 28:20).

3. "Game" might say that the "neg-hit" attracts women, but the word of God condemns unedifying speech and unduly provoking others (Eph. 4:29; Gal. 5:26).

4. "Game" might say that keeping women on a yo-yo keeps them off balance and clinging to you but the word of God condemns dishonest and inconsiderate behavior towards others (Prov. 11:3; James 3:17).

5. "Game" might counsel men to avoid "one-itis" and to keep several different women in rotation. "Game" may even point out that women like men who already have other women in tow. But the word of God condemns sexual immorality and treating women in impure ways (1 Cor. 6:18; 1 Tim. 5:2).

6. "Game" might say that women are attracted to men who know how to assert dominance by keeping other men down, but the God of word spells out doom for such a man (Mark 10:42-43; Psalms 72:4; Isaiah 26:5; Luke 1:52-53).

7. "Game" might say that women are attracted to the man with the "warrior" spirit, who fights others for what he wants. But God condemns brawlers, self-seekers, and the such like and commends peacemakers, those who are gentle, and those who suffer for righteousness sake instead of taking vengeance (2 Tim. 2:24; Titus 3:2; Rom. 2:8; Rom. 12:9).

8. "Game" might say that men who are "bad boys" (those who are uninhibited enough to engage in socially deviant behavior) attract women, but the word of God condemns these confident men as fools (Prov. 14:16) and tells men to suffer as those who do good, not as evildoers (1 Pet 3:17).

I could go on with other examples of ungodly things that attract women. The bottom line is that I rather be boring to women than be damned for eternity.

About Confidence and Taking the Lead

Now, to be fair, there is dating advice out there for men, which the PUAs expound on, that is not so morally problematic as the examples I give above. A lot of it focuses on behaviors that make you appear to be confident to women and in control of the situation. Here's the catch: I note with concern how men talk about confidence as something you do to attract women. I see this kind of talk especially among PUAs and traditionalists. Even Paul Coughlin, in his book No More Christian Nice Guy, cages the idea of being a strong, manly, confident guy in terms of something that pleases women. It is not till the very end of his book that he mentions, in passing, the idea of men being something more than that.

MGTOW does not look at confidence as something you do to attract women. MGTOW looks at confidence as something you ARE IN SPITE of women. I think this is one primary way in which MGTOW "owns" and "pwns" the other voices out there speaking on masculinity. The key is not traits and behaviors that women think express confidence, but actual confidence itself. The man who doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to take the nuclear option and tell wicked women to buzz off, even if it means being alone, is at the mercy of women. He is the real pushover. But look at the PUA guy. He keeps flashing his peacock feathers before women and doing dances that make him look "confident." I frankly don't see how any man who is deathly afraid of going without sex and female attention can be called confident. Sure, a stupid woman with no sense or discretion will fall for such fake displays of confidence. It's easy to bed stupid women. It's not so easy to stay happily married to them (And I remind my readers that marriage is the only "game" ChristianGuy gets to play). Authentic, godly confidence risks turning women off for the sake of what is right and what is just. A lot of men outside of MGTOW don't have that kind of confidence.

The Limitations to Attracting Women

I have already pointed out that men cannot embrace any traits or behaviors that are sinful in order to attract women. But even in morally neutral matters, a man cannot work to attract women at the expense of his relationship with God (Luke 14:26). If his ultimate care is to please women instead of pleasing Christ, then he is no better than the young lady that primps and preens herself and yet does not grow in her spirituality. Religious leaders are always telling young women to maintain their inner beauty and not to make outer beauty their primary focus (1 Pet. 3:3-4). We need to be telling young men a similar thing. We do not need to be reducing young men to peacocks on display for female consumption. We do not need them to be reduced to success objects or status objects that provide women with "many luxury vacations." Apathy in this matter is inexcusable.

Pushing Back

Another point: Women, culture, church, and even family members often push back against the expectations men have about attractive women. They tell men "stop being shallow," "be realistic," and the such like. Well, men need to do the same thing with women's expectations. Push back!! When I look around, though, I see a lot of passivity from men ("Women won't change," "that's the way they are," "you won't get laid thinking that way"). But I ask: Why are men expected to change their preferences on everything, but not women? Men who don't have the courage to question women on their expectations (which may be the product of a feminized culture and not biology) don't have the right to talk about other men getting back the physical tokens of their masculinity.

Recently, a snarky poster viciously compared me to George Sodini, a man who recently took his frustation out on some women and killed them. But as Amir has pointed out, George was into PUA ideas, not MGTOW. Mr. Sodini allowed himself to be a tool for a stupid culture that says you are a nobody if you are not getting laid. And sadly, in death, he has become a tool for paranoid pundits who want to tar and feather every man that voices misgivings about misandry and gynocentrism. A man like Sodini can feed anger and resentment to the extent that he lets others control his self-image (including women). If a man looks to others for approval, he gives them that control. On the other hand, a man can never be the "loser" if he refuses to play "the Game" in the first place.

57 comments:

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech said...

While I do think that game is technically not anti-Christian (since it depends on how you use game), the associated shaming language it usually seems to generate is. Beyond that, the fact of the matter is that MGTOW is superior to game, period.

I have already talked about how game won't protect you from false rape charges, divorce, STDs, etc. That doesn't need repeating.

As I have thought about what is really telling about game is how most of its proponents can't seem to help but engage in shaming language. This is really the key whether the shaming language is "You're a loser for not being married" or "You're a loser for not getting laid". Even if a man uses game he is still giving women power over him. The use of shaming language is proof of this.

MGTOW is superior to game because a MGHOW is not under the thumb of women. I just wrote on my blog about how shaming language is progressively less effective. One point I made was that threats of, "women won't have sex with you" are futile if women aren't having sex with you now or you are otherwise not under the thumb of women (as in MGTOW). A man practicing game can and will be threatened by this shaming language which is why they give out shaming language to MGTOW.

SavvyD said...

Stuck at home with neck pain tonight and looking at Roissy's blog before I came back over here--it's all so negative over there!!! I don't appreciate that all women are viewed as sluts and target for a game. I've seen guys be angry with me when I turned them down after running a perfect game on me. I'll go along with it to a point because I'm a friendly person and then I walk. I'm actively seeking the guys who speak truth in love--guys like Seattle who are pointing me to God. sadly, he's way far away. the right girls are looking for the right guys.

Anonymous said...

I guess it's the narrow path or the wide path.

Justin said...

Lets be clear: Roissy is an agent of evil, no exageration. Like the many other legions of pornographers and ungodly comedians, he is leading many many people astray with titillation and amusement. The very terminology: of Game, alphas, betas, negs, etc, is all corrupt in its implications and values. It is irredeemable, and should be resisted at every turn. Thank you for leading the way.

Anakin Niceguy said...

Justin,

As a bible-believing Christian that rejects naturalism, I have concerns about the PUA lifestyle and their worldview. I do agree that a lot (though not all) of their ideas are harmful and wrong in that sense.

However, I do have some respect for PUAs in the sense that (1) some of them have MRA tendencies and (2) they are not Nazis who are trying to mold the rest of the world in their image. The social left and social right have their "true believers" who want to impose their sick, murderous utopian fantasies on the rest of us. That is why the feminists and cultural conservatives seem to be bed in with each other in their male-bashing. We have seen these two groups take outlandish steps to increase the size of government, strip men of their civil liberties, demean and dehumanize men in popular culture and our legal systems, etc. The perverse male-bashing that is now occurring in our churches is icing on the cake.

As a Christian, I cannot subscribe to PUA, but I am not going to use legal, economic, or social coercion to neutralize those who do subscribe to it. Sadly, I can't say the feminists and the social conservatives are above doing that very thing. That is when I think of "evil" in its malevolent sense, I am more inclined to think about what feminists and social-cons do.

Thursday said...

Strawmen all the way down.

1. "Game" might say that cockiness and arrogance attracts women, but the word of God condemns cockiness and arrogance (1 Pet. 5:5).

To be precise, game involves what is called cocky funny. Which means a light hearted joking cockiness, that demonstrates proper self regard, but also shows that you know the difference between that and actual arrogance. Too much cocky and your just a jerk.

2. "Game" might say having wealth and material things attracts women, but the word of God condemns the eagerness to get rich (Prov. 28:20).

Does having the resources to support a family make one un-Christian? Does Christianity demand a completely spartan lifestyle? Rhetorical.

P.S. Women aren't actually all that attracted to wealth. You're observing the corrallaries of wealth and making a false assumption.

3. "Game" might say that the "neg-hit" attracts women, but the word of God condemns unedifying speech and unduly provoking others (Eph. 4:29; Gal. 5:26).

Women love light hearted teasing. A "neg" should leave her laughing.

4. "Game" might say that keeping women on a yo-yo keeps them off balance and clinging to you but the word of God condemns dishonest and inconsiderate behavior towards others (Prov. 11:3; James 3:17).

Women want to be taken on an adventure. They want a story, not some static picture post card.

5. "Game" might counsel men to avoid "one-itis" and to keep several different women in rotation. "Game" may even point out that women like men who already have other women in tow. But the word of God condemns sexual immorality and treating women in impure ways (1 Cor. 6:18; 1 Tim. 5:2).

Until she has committed there is nothing wrong with keeping your options open, so long as you don't engage in sexual immorality.

6. "Game" might say that women are attracted to men who know how to assert dominance by keeping other men down, but the God of word spells out doom for such a man (Mark 10:42-43; Psalms 72:4; Isaiah 26:5; Luke 1:52-53).

Game doesn't have to involve keeping other men down. Women, however, do want a man who can stand up for himself.

7. "Game" might say that women are attracted to the man with the "warrior" spirit, who fights others for what he wants. But God condemns brawlers, self-seekers, and the such like and commends peacemakers, those who are gentle, and those who suffer for righteousness sake instead of taking vengeance (2 Tim. 2:24; Titus 3:2; Rom. 2:8; Rom. 12:9).

Women want a protector. I see nothing wrong with that. Being a protector doesn't mean being a brawler.

8. "Game" might say that men who are "bad boys" (those who are uninhibited enough to engage in socially deviant behavior) attract women, but the word of God condemns these confident men as fools (Prov. 14:16) and tells men to suffer as those who do good, not as evildoers (1 Pet 3:17).

Being a "bad boy" is just another word for being a bit unconventional or edgy and its completely relative to the girl. For a traditional Asian girl, it may be having a boyfriend who is getting a BA in History instead of engineering. Nothing wrong with that.

*******************************

Really the selfishness of your attitude is astounding. Basically, you're saying, "I should be as boring and conventional as I like and still get the woman I want."

MarkyMark said...

Thursday,

I don't think Anakin is being selfish at all. He simply articulated where, how, and why Game does not agree with the Scriptures. Since he is a Christian, the Scriptures are his Final Authority in all matters of faith and practice (i.e. applying his faith to life itself).

MarkyMark

LadyElaine said...

MarkyMark:
Agreed. Just so you know, I am a fellow plain Jane who wants a godly man. Not every woman wants the jerk, or the proverbial "bad boy."

Anakin Niceguy said...

My response to Thursday ..

Strawmen all the way down.

Not so fast, Thurday ...

To be precise, game involves what is called cocky funny. Which means a light hearted joking cockiness, that demonstrates proper self regard, but also shows that you know the difference between that and actual arrogance..

Strawman. I never condemned light-hearted joking (but even the Bible says something about coarse joking which needs to be kept in mind). Too many women are STILL attracted to jerks.

Does having the resources to support a family make one un-Christian? Does Christianity demand a completely spartan lifestyle? Rhetorical.

Strawman. I never said a man should be relieved from providing for his family. Too may women STILL seek after wealth.

Women love light hearted teasing. A "neg" should leave her laughing.

Strawman. Never said anything against light-hearted teasing. Too many woman STILL seek jerks.

Women want to be taken on an adventure. They want a story, not some static picture post card.

We all want to be taken on adventure. So maybe men should dump their wives for young women, according to your line of thinking?

Anakin Niceguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SavvyD said...

Hey Anakin, et all. If you want to see what I'm REALLY attracted to, I have posted a few tibits of emails from a guy who just moved to Seattle in two separate entries.

1. The Important Stuff from Seattle
2. Email From Seattle

I can't say if things between us would be different romantically if we were in the same place, but at least he would be my good friend.

www.SavvySingleChristian.blogspot.com

SavvyD said...

Thursday--having a sense of humor in a relationship always helps grease the wheels. I've often employed humor in sticky situations. It works on women and children even--I found a mother who was at her last rope with a child arguing with her over chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream. The child was swearing that they had chocolate. I offered to take his ice cream cone since it seemed that he didn't want it. with in a few minutes he was saying how much he loved vanilla. I wrote about that in a little thing called Savvy Mothering http://savvysinglechristian.blogspot.com/2009/04/savvy-mothering.html

I'm sure Ankin has a great sense of humor--more along the lines of Monty Python than I Love Lucy.

Anakin Niceguy said...

... my response continued ...

Until she has committed there is nothing wrong with keeping your options open, so long as you don't engage in sexual immorality.

If you are in a romantic relationship with a woman, there is most CERTAINLY something wrong with having an eye for other women. Nowhere in the Bible is there is any justification for playing the field. In a Christian dating relationship, you are hypothetically moving towards marriage or you are not dating, period. Otherwise, it's just friends. There is no scriptural authority for the alternative.

Game doesn't have to involve keeping other men down. Women, however, do want a man who can stand up for himself.

Strawman. Never said anything bad about men standing up for themselves. Too many women STILL go after men who express social dominance by keeping other men down.

Women want a protector. I see nothing wrong with that. Being a protector doesn't mean being a brawler.

Strawman. Never said anything bad about protecting the vulnerable. Too many women STILL want brawlers.

Being a "bad boy" is just another word for being a bit unconventional or edgy and its completely relative to the girl. For a traditional Asian girl, it may be having a boyfriend who is getting a BA in History instead of engineering. Nothing wrong with that.

That's moral equivalency. An Asian man getting a BA in History can hardly be compared to adulterers, alcoholics, vandals, reckless people who endanger other people's welfare, drug users, corrupt CEOs, slimy politicians, men who treat others rudely because they are in social position to do so, hoodlums that don't stick around to father the children they bring into this world, anti-intellectual flunkies, and the such like that has captured the imagination of the modern female.

Here's your bad boys for you. Too many modern women are attracted to REAL bad boys, not the dudes who fantasize about what they would do if they never got punished for it.

You can water down the list all you want, play semantics, and come up with harmless analogues to the behaviors I described, but that's just a red herring. The bottom line is this: I have not heard the PUAs come down hard on women for their stupid choices in mates and their attraction to really, truly, bad behavior. Instead, it seems to be about sexual appeasement to worst proclivities in the modern woman.

Really the selfishness of your attitude is astounding. Basically, you're saying, "I should be as boring and conventional as I like and still get the woman I want."

Straw man. Ad hominem. Code Purple Tactic. Stay on topic, sir. The debate about PUA ideas, not about my person.

Anyway, I see from your blog that you are PUA. I think that explains your post and your dismissive attitude towards MRAs, replete with shaming language ("It is hard for men to play the victim card without looking weak and therefore loserish. Most men would rather just suffer in silence than admit their weakness.") According to you, MRAs are about playing the "victim card" and "admitting weakness". I've crossed this kind of talk from PUAs many times before, needless to say.

Anakin Niceguy said...

... cont'd

I have to agree with one poster at Beta Revolution that "PUA is just Cosmo for men." It's existence depends not on nature but on government entitlements and the birth control pill. Take away at least the government entitlements and people will be singing a different tune about what attracts women (given their "natural drive" for SELF-PRESERVATION will kick in when they realize their taste in bad boys will get them nowhere in the long run - food chain or gene pool). Sooner or later, that day is coming. When the system collapses, a lot of Alphas (real and self-described) are going to be the first ones to go. It's the builders, not the loverboys that make the crops grow, the babies safe, etc.

Thursday said...

Anakin, you took all sorts of bad behaviors and then said that they were what defined game. That was really dishonest of you.

P.S. None of the bad behaviors you described are even close to being necessary to attract women.

It is hard for men to play the victim card without looking weak and therefore loserish. Most men would rather just suffer in silence than admit their weakness.

I am dismissive of the men's rights movement because it isn't going anywhere, not because I don't sympathize with it's goals. The above is a factual statement, without any moral prescription in it. Men can be shamed and this works strongly against the men's rights movement.

As for admitting weakness, you can redefine things all you want but the underlying reality is that most men want women on decent terms and some men and can get them and some cannot. The latter are weaker (i.e. they are lacking the power to get what they want) than the former. That's not a moral judgment.

KnightWatch said...

Thursday said: Really the selfishness of your attitude is astounding. Basically, you're saying, "I should be as boring and conventional as I like and still get the woman I want."


Actually, Anakin said "that I rather be boring to women than be damned for eternity." No selfish motive in that. Furthermore, I believe he's already made his point that he's not looking for an approval or popularity contest, or at least unwilling to place other idols above his first love for Christ along with applicable scripture. Of course, it stands to reason that if a person is not saved, then the message is really lost to those who are attracted to the world.

In his previous post, I also noticed that not many folks attempted to take Anakin to task by applying scriptural references for argumentation. I am surprised there APPEARS to be so much confusion for a difference of opinion.

The one thing I can see Anakin guilty of here is that he has simply refused the laodicean approach to scripture and culture. He has yet to water down God's message on this subject (in so far as I can see). It is what it is.

njartist said...

Anakin,

How does a godly man obtain a wife?: Abraham married his cousin/sister; Abraham sent his servant Eleazar to his relatives: Eleazar may have looked for Isaac's wife using a righteousness test, but he impressed Rebekah and her father and brother with Abraham's wealth; Jacob earned Rachel by fourteen years of labor under his uncle.

Old testament manhood & marriage equals wealth and kin: or, in today's vernacular, do you earn or make enough money to marry your cousin. So, in my youth, should my father have sent to his brother to have me marry my cousin?: but my father was a house painter and would not have impressed my uncle or my cousin with the promise of wealth: net result: I would still not be married.


In the new testament, Paul is the one who writes about marriage: he declares being unmarried and celibate as the preferred state; especially, if that is the state you were in when called. Paul does not cover how to go about becoming married; though, he does talk about having a virgin companion and marrying if you cannot keep her in that state. Paul does write in a manner that indicates the man, not the woman, has the power of marriage: this is not today's condition and pretending it is will not make it so.

Even so, the male who desires to be a even somewhat biblical man will most likely have to come out of today's feminizing, apostate church: he becomes separate from the body of Christian woman: there is a further irony here, as he realizes that many "Christian" woman go outside the body to find bad boy or high income husbands to drag back into the church and pollute it.

As the terms of his lonely condition dawn on him, the Christian man looks around for explanation and remedies: the remedies must fit what is, not ought to be, not what once was, and not the "informed" opinion of people with theological educations, and thereby having the status that meets today's woman's requirements. The Christian man must look reality straight in the face and examine the cost. Game or a modified version of it is a remedy. Going after mammon and becoming a willing participant in Babylon is another. Else walk alone.

Yet, Paul raises another issue: what are today's spiritual conditions: how far are we from the Tribulation and Christ's return? Current prophecy places us within weeks, at best months away form the onset of the Tribulation. At the very least there is going to be a local national tribulation for Christians. In this case, the Christian man must wake up and order his priorities accordingly: getting married and rising the ladder of success are not appropriate strategies.

Emily said...

Off Topic - I just read Many Luxury Vacation's Blog and it said that he had inoperable cancer. Do you know what happened to him? I assume you don't, but the news makes me kind of sad :'(

Davout said...

thursday,

Why should women be buyers and men sellers in the sexual market? Because of biology or 'nature'?

Game means that men are supposed to 'work on themselves' in order to have sex (but not marry or procreate) with women who are valued for their looks. In other words, men lack something, women don't and men must compensate.

My primary objection to game thus is that it reinforces the culture of arbitrary female entitlement.

Secondly, Roissy quoted his hero Mystery's fatherhood as follows: "But now he has surrendered to the slow, persistent wind-down of aging, settling (at least in some small measure) for fatherhood and responsibility at the expense of the thrill of seducing fresh, piping hot pussy. I feel hollow inside."

Roissy often cites evolutionary biology in support of his arguments but success in evo b is based on maximizing progeny. Roissy, however, views frequency of sex rather than children as the measure of success. The means of evo b has thus become the end for Roissy. (To some extent, that is an indictment of women in the sense that PUAs do not want to spend extended time with them.)

Men need more confidence nowadays but the reason they don't have confidence is a direct consequence of gynocentrism. Game rewards the beneficiaries of feminism (sluts and entitled women) with what they need least of all: an ego boost, while jading women who are seeking long term relationships. It also causes men to attach their sense of confidence to the approval of women.

MarkyMark said...

It also causes men to attach their sense of confidence to the approval of women.

Davout,

That is one of many reasons I have a problem with game. If you think about it, you're STILL catering to women! You're still giving them what they want, all for access to their filthy, disease ridden twats...

MarkyMark

Amir Larijani said...

Anakin says: One red herring thrown into the discussion is that women don't like pushovers.

Hardly a red herring; in fact, that is one thing that a Christian masculinity proponent--like Coughlin--would have in common with a secular exploiter like Roissy.

What Roissy calls "beta" is analogous to what Coughlin calls a "Christian Nice Guy".

I'd never heard of "game" or the "PUA moment" before the Pittsburgh gym shooting, but--reading about it--it seems that "game" is just masculinity without Godly accountability.

I would agree that the use of "game" ought to be compared against the backdrop of Scripture--and most of it is an affront to Biblical masculinity.

slwerner said...

Seeing as how the propriety of (so-called) “Game” is being called into question, I’d like to ask a serious question to those who have decided that they are dead-set against it’s use.

First, to get the proper context, let me point out one of the most prominent aspects of “Game” – the understanding of female sexual desires so as to be able to act in ways to manipulate women.

Now, the fact that it is unabashedly about manipulating another person seems to be, on it’s face, highly objectionable, I’d agree.

But, getting back towards my question, I sure that virtually everyone is well aware that women have for ages (all throughout written history) been able of use their understanding of men’s sexual desires in order to manipulate men into all manner of action – all the way from going to war (and sacrificing thousands of lives), right down to threatening to withhold it to manipulate the outcome of everyday domestic disagreements. (Does anyone deny this has happened?)

Then, for you anti-”Game” folks, let me pose this question (finally):

How do you feel about women “Gaming” men in the way they do?

Anika Qing said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anika Qing said...

How do you feel about women “Gaming” men in the way they do?

I think that it is horrible. Period.

Anonymous said...

"How do you feel about women “Gaming” men in the way they do?

I think that it is horrible. Period."

Remember "The Rules" for women seeking marriage a few years ago? At the time, certain people (ie. feminists) were outraged by what they thought was "manipulative" behaviour being encouraged by it. But really, it's not manipulative at all, it was mostly about *pacing* things. And I think the same thing could be said about the better aspects of "game", too.

As I said earlier, it's too bad it's called "game". It gives an impression of manipulation, which probably encourages it too, even among those with better intentions.

I just don't get all the moral outrage, since is merely about people learning better interpersonal skills. You don't always have to be transparent all the time. Look how many pastors are experts at banter and calculated influence -- "wily as serpents", if you will. As long as these skills are used to good end and no one gets hurt, what's the big deal?

Anyways, it's a relief to see the discourse continue. Hopefully some middle ground will be found between all the pious doublespeak of "biblical dating" and machiavellian "game". It's about time there be an unpacking of these concepts.

Keoni Galt said...

Anakin, you are attacking the superficial aspects of game...the "techniques" and "tricks" for guys aspiring to promiscuity. It really goes much further than that.

I can only go by my own personal experience.

I've been married for 11 years now, and in retrospect, I can say my marriage has gone through three stages:

1) We were young, infatuated with each other. I lead, she followed.

2) After the honeymoon stage of the marriage went away, it drifted into a very troubled relationship....and it had nothing to do with money, adultery, jealousy or a whole host of other causes most people blame marital troubles on. No..we had trouble because I had swallowed the lies of conventional wisdom and mainstream society wholesale. I put my wife on a pedestal and our relationship changed from a husband/wife one into the dynamics of a mother/child. I lost my spine.

Perhaps you've seen marriages like this? Where the husband is a beaten man, entirely submissive to his wife? And the wife of such a marriage...she usually has the reputation as a shrew or a sharp-tongued, battle axe? This is the behavioral dynamic my relationship fell into...and my wife could not stand it.

Yet she consciously did not think of it like that. She was "unhappy" and we fought over everything. And in every instance, I tried to take the path of least resistance. I always yielded to her. I let her make all the decisions. I asked her constantly what she wanted in an effort to appease her...and things only got worse. I went for approximately 7 years like this...and I had already come to grips with the idea that my wife was planning to leave me. We just couldn't get along anymore.

And then, I discovered this thing called "GAME."

I didn't buy a book, attend a seminar or order a DVD. I found several blogs who's authors were seriously into the discussions of what makes women attracted and what kills that attraction...as well as the subliminal congruence tests that women use to test their men (often times without even realizing it themselves...). Game calls this the "Shit test."

Upon reading such insights, I quickly made the connection between all of the problems we were having and my own behavior.

In short, I figured out that I had become "BETA." And if there's one thing a woman despises, it's the idea of mating with a man of lesser stock...and I had begun to act like one of those men of undesirable traits that women wholly despise on a visceral level.

ATTRACTION IS NOT A CONSCIOUS ACT.

A woman that is attracted to you today, could wake up one day and find herself in total disgust with the man you become. Throw in a belief in religion that dictates that it is her spiritual duty to stay married to the man she became contemptuous of because he became "beta" and you get what I see in churches all the time: the shrew of wife and the beaten down husband...both bitterly and unhappily married until death do they part (or no-fault divorce court...seems like plenty of Christians break their vows nowadays.)

Keoni Galt said...

Once I gained an understanding of basic male/female attraction dynamics, I began to apply the concepts of "pickup" and "game" and began to "game" my own wife. Which brought me to the third and current phase of my married life:

3) Happily married.

Game helped me regain my masculinity. I had unknowingly and ignorantly surrendered it completely because I thought I was doing the "right" thing in deferring to my wife in all things. In many ways, I had become that married chump portrayed so ubiquitously in commercials, tv shows and movies.

I used to beg my wife for sex...which of course she would contemptuously turn me down most of the time. Game gave me insight into the basic idea that Women want to be seduced by man...not cajoled into giving it up to a spineless wimp begging for it. Even if you're married for years, a woman still desires that her husband actively seduce (i.e. "game") her.

If you have this idea that all married christian woman is supposed to just enthusiastically desire sex from her husband no matter how he acts...that it is her biblical duty to lust her husband...than I guess game has nothing to offer you.

But let me tell you...I see nothing biblically wrong with anything I've done in applying "game" to my marriage. It is not sinful to playfully tease your wife, or exercise my masculinity in social dominance.

It is not sinful to dominate your household.

Indeed, that is God's calling for men to be the Patriarch's. The Head of the House.

My "post-game" point of view has really opened my eyes to this. In almost all the Christian marriages that I know of, the unhappy, contentious marriages I have observed, are almost always taking place with the dynamic in which the wife "wears the pants" and the husband is just another child she has to bother with caring for.

It is women's biological nature to secure the highest genetic stock she can for her offspring.

Hypergamy.

This is the way women are designed, by God. Which is why I believe he commanded men to be the head of the house.

"GAME" is if you really get down past the veneer of cads and rakes seducing women to live lives of sinful promiscuity..what Game boils down to is re-programming men from the lies of our feminist driven, secular culture that instills an aversion to masculine behavior.

In short, you can be masculine and dominant without being abusive.

Davout said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Davout said...

slwerner,

If you acknowledge that

(1) women have historically gamed men

and

(2) such gaming is objectionable

shouldn't the logical response be to stop female gaming, rather than to essentially say "if you can't beat them, join them"?

slwerner said...

Keoni Galt - "Even if you're married for years, a woman still desires that her husband actively seduce (i.e. "game") her."

Exactly!!!

And, I commend you for bearing you soul. I know it can be difficult to face the way we were.

Over on Novaseeker's blog (http://novaseeker.blogspot.com/2009/08/corrective-to-conservative-misandrists.html), I laid out some of the details of my own pre-"game" struggles for one of the "Game is pure evil" types, Justin.

However, I wasn't able to be near so bold as you've been in confessing the depths of my own betatude - which basically mirrors what you shared.

And, just as your point I've quoted, I will once again tonight use the elements of "Game" to seduce my wife - do the very things that I've learned arouse her, and let her know just how much I (still) desire her. In short I will use knowledge to manipulate her emotional and sexual states to the point where I am virtually certain to succeed in my seduction.

Then, I will employee "techniques" which I know bring her great pleasure - my own "Game" strategy to ensure that she never looks at another man "that way".

Who knows, perhaps just as last night, I will such an effect that, just like this morning, tomorrow morning, as I start to get out of bed, she playfully grab me, and say, "Not so fast.."

It does sadden me that some of these guy's have become so put-off by the immoral, selfish, and hedonistic aspects of "game" that a few have employed, that they have failed to grasp the true power of "Game" to restore masculinity, and save a man from ever having to appeal to his wife's sense of Biblical Duty if he is to hope for even cold, passionless sex from her.

I do wish I could better help them to understand.

Anonymous said...

Too may women STILL seek after wealth...
Too many women are STILL attracted to jerks...
Too many women STILL want brawlers.
Too many modern women are attracted to REAL bad boys...
Too many women STILL go after men who express social dominance by keeping other men down...

And the pre-occupation with the crimes and misdemeanors of the bimbo minority go on and on and on. Let's call that "CODE SCARLET"

Anonymous said...

"If you acknowledge that

(1) women have historically gamed men

and

(2) such gaming is objectionable

shouldn't the logical response be to stop female gaming, rather than to essentially say "if you can't beat them, join them"?"

Thing is, female gaming (at least as far as "The Rules" go, where the object is matrimony, not casual sex) only exists because men are the pursuers, and typically lose interest when conquest happens too easily or too quickly. Remember, the most important rule is "love only those who love you", so you don't "go after" men, but wait for them to take the initiative".

If a woman could set her sights on a guy she wanted and directly communicate her interest, repeatedly, to the point of proposing marriage to him, there would be no "Rules". Going after men in such a direct fashion might work for temporary sexual relationships, but rarely do they lead to marriage. Why? Because nature seems to have given men the perogative of pursuit, and when things get reversed, it rarely works out.

I think a lot of single guys forget how little it takes to make them run in the opposite direction when a woman's doing the chasing. Kind of like when you're hungry and the big McDonald's M is looming like a bright beacon in the distance, but once you're out of the drive-thru and start eating, you're wondering why you'd bothered!

Nevertheless, female gaming - which really is more about pacing - exists because men, appreciating only the spoils of the challenge, seem to want it that way. And I think the same could be said about women to some extent, that "game" is the male version of playing hard-to-get, and that it paces things better, creating the kind of timing that allows attraction to develop.

Males and females of many species seem to go through a courting ritual that involves a certain amount of approach-avoidance and "negging" behaviour. I had a big tomcat once who I caught outside making up and down rowling sounds at a poor old female tabby, who just sat there crouched, uttering a low steady growl. I didn't stick around to see if they "got it on", but I wouldn't be surprised, since he was very much an "alpha" (but I might be biased!)

slwerner said...

Anonymous - "Thing is, female gaming (at least as far as "The Rules" go, where the object is matrimony, not casual sex) only exists because men are the pursuers, and typically lose interest when conquest happens too easily or too quickly. Remember, the most important rule is "love only those who love you", so you don't "go after" men, but wait for them to take the initiative"."

Just as many women are not familiar with "Game" (until recently, anyway), I'm not familiar with "The Rules".

Your description makes them sound somewhat innocuous, and applied with a "good" intent.

Assuming this to be true, “The Rules” seem to me to be a perfectly logical attempt to use knowledge of men’s emotional/sexual tendencies in order to manipulate them, much the same as “Game” can (and ought to) be used to leverage an understanding of women’s men’s emotional/sexual tendencies in order to manipulate them. In both cases, if done by people of good intent, they are simply likely to “lead” the person being gamed in a direction that they are not adverse to going – and perhaps, it is even for their own good.

The “gaming”, regardless of which sex is doing I to the other, is only as good or evil as the one using it intends for it to be.

I had asked the rhetorical question about peoples views on female “gaming” of men, since, a) it seems to have been largely overlooked in the debate of male “Game”, and 2) it’s something that everyone knows happens, and has a certain “comfort level” with it happening, and c), that most would agree that it is, by it’s very nature, not a good thing – because it relies on manipulation.

Yet, as we “drill down” into the subject, a clear picture emerges that to truly judge the ”Game”, “The Rules”, or any other form of sexual/emotional manipulation, one need to understand both the reasons it id being done, and the character and intentions of the one doing it.

I say this as a means of making het point that one should not judge “Game” solely on certain individuals who promote it, but rather should decouple their judgment from the term itself (and the bad intentions that term can suggest) as well as those who misuse it, and instead take a closer look at what good outcomes might also be possible when it (or, God willing, a better termed sub-set thereof) is applied for honorable ends, by honorable people.

Davout said...

"Because nature seems to have given men the perogative of pursuit, and when things get reversed, it rarely works out."

This is an example of the 'is-ought' fallacy. Just because men have a higher sex drive on average than women, it does not necessarily follow that the burden of pursuit should fall upon men.

You also construe an average sex difference as only a moral responsibility. Consider what would happen if I viewed the greater average male sex drive as only a moral right:

Men would have a prima facie right to have sex with any woman they want and there would be no such thing as rape.

Sex differences are morally neutral. It is feminism that ascribes moral values to them.

Amir Larijani said...

Davout says: Just because men have a higher sex drive on average than women, it does not necessarily follow that the burden of pursuit should fall upon men.

While it is hardly morally wrong for a woman to do the pursuing, and while it is hardly morally wrong for the man not to do the pursuing, one must ask the question of whether it is reasonable for a man--who wishes to marry--to wait for a woman to pursue him.

We can sit here and circle-jerk over "musts" versus "oughts" versus "good versus better", but the fact remains: if a man wishes to get married, the percentages are MUCH GREATER in his favor if HE does the pursuing.

I know a guy in a singles group at a very large church. He's a year my senior. He's been at that church for at least 15 years. He's been in the "singles ministry" the entire time.

He's the stereotypical "nice guy": a good guy who is at every ministry function, works hard for a living, but rarely ever gets a date let alone a serious marital prospect. He is VERY passive in the pursuit matter, and his mannerisms smack VERY MUCH of the "awww shucks" pushover. Exactly what Roissy would call a "beta".

Now I'm not saying that God can't drop a great Christian gal into his lap, nor am I suggesting that he is living in sin by not doing the pursuing.

On the other hand, his chances would be a heck of a lot better if he did the pursuing, and if he became more assertive and decisive.

I would call that more of an exercise in masculinity, rather than "game".

In fact, exercising such masculinity, far from being "game", is a man's way of refusing to be "gamed" by the women. In their heart of hearts, most women would prefer a man who will not be "gamed".

I think of it like wrestling. When your opponent shoots in for a takedown, you have a couple of options: (a) a reflexive countermove--which is defensive--or (b) a countermove which uses the opponent's momentum to your advantage. Really good wrestlers will use the latter. The end-result: you maintain control and score big points in takedowns and nearfalls.

For the secularist, that control is for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

For the Christian, it's about exercising legitimate Biblical leadership. If the husband is head of the wife, it is within the man's best interests that he prove himself capable of leading.

Anonymous said...

Just as many women are not familiar with "Game" (until recently, anyway), I'm not familiar with "The Rules"...“The Rules” seem to me to be a perfectly logical attempt to use knowledge of men’s emotional/sexual tendencies in order to manipulate them,"

If you are not familiar with "The Rules", then how do you know if they are "manipulative"? Google "The Rules" and find out exactly what they are -- there's should be no shortage of information on the internet. And then I challenge you to tell me what rule, if any, is actually "manipulative". I think that what you will find is a general rule for women not to jump the gun and do the pursuing, but to allow the process of men doing the pursuing to unfold naturally, ***without manipulating the guy or the situation***

OTOH, "game" is by its very design, manipulative. Whereas "The Rules" puts a woman in a more passive and receptive stance, "game" involves a man actively strategizing things he might say or do in order to evoke a certain emotional response from a woman, as well as a behavioural response (that she be enticed to do the pursuing). Game (which pre-dates feminism) was designed with the pursuit of sex in mind, but it can be used ethically by men who are sincerely seeking marriage.

slwerner said...

Anonymous - "If you are not familiar with "The Rules", then how do you know if they are "manipulative"? Google "The Rules" and find out exactly what they are -- there's should be no shortage of information on the internet. And then I challenge you to tell me what rule, if any, is actually "manipulative"."

I stand corrected. It seems I "read" into your remarks what I mistook for you holding them out as a corollary to "Game"

I apologize if my incorrect assumption has angered you - I should have looked up "The Rules" rather than go with what I thought you were saying.

Again, I intended no offense.

And, thank you for setting me straight wrt "The Rules", which are what you've described them as - not a corollary to "Game", but more of a reading the signs an individual man is giving out, and basing relationship decisions on those signals.

My mistake about what "The Rules" entails, however, does not negate my basic assumption that even female games that did seek to manipulate a mans emotions and desires would not automatically be evil, so long as they were done with a good intent. That's all I really wanted to get across - I had not intention of misrepresenting "The Rules", and I apologize for having done so.

Anonymous said...

slwerner,

No worries, I wasn't angry about your misinterpretation of "The Rules" -- no hari-kari necessary! But, if I may continue tweaking...

""The Rules", which are what you've described them as - not a corollary to "Game", but more of a reading the signs an individual man is giving out, and basing relationship decisions on those signals."

Actually, The Rules discourages women from "reading the signs", since women have a tendency to obsess over signs and signals and end up reading too much into things. Basically, the rules philosophy (which is much like that of "he's just not that into you") is based on the reality that if a guy is interested in you, he will initiate things. He will ask for your number, he will call, he will ask you out, he will call and ask you out again, and again, propose marriage, then marry you. So if he's not doing those things then there's really no point in looking for signs and signals, and that trying to make things into something they are not is what gives rise to women manipulating -- which they strictly discourage.

Anakin Niceguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Haha, this blog is intruiguing! I agree with so much of what you say...even if I (as a woman) do get a bit offended at certain things. There's a bit too much of the chest-beating (a la Tarzan) testosterone thing going on this blog...too much for my liking anyways. BUT...I realize a lot of it is probably due to theunderlying anger and natural reaction to the feminism of this age. I have to admit, I really, really respect the fact that you don't cower away at the screams and ridicule and threats of the firebreathing feminist, like so many other men. This blog is a little offensive to me as a woman, and that's refreshing! No man wants to challenge erring women anymore. A lot of the stuff you say is hard to hear, but that's probly cuz it's right. As long as I don't find any of the more extreme views on this site (1 sinful woman = 100 sinful men) etc, I might be stickin around.

Keep up the good work, sir!

-Lauren

Davout said...

Amir said:

"If a man wishes to get married, the percentages are MUCH GREATER in his favor if HE does the pursuing."

I am not arguing with that. In non-feminist times, your arguments make sense.

However, we live in feminist times. The incentives for men to get married are much less than they were pre-feminism. Any man who gets married is putting a great deal of faith in his wife that she doesn't whimsically abuse her privileges to use the state against him.

Given the decreased incentive for men to marry, it is logical that men should proportionately decrease their pursuit of women.

One alternative is to fix the system. Another is to leave the country and find a mate in a non-feminist country. Yet another is to find meaning in one's life without marriage.

Encouraging men to get married in a feminist country would only perpetuate the problem because married men fund the state, through ignorance and/or cowardice.

For the Christian, it's about exercising legitimate Biblical leadership. If the husband is head of the wife, it is within the man's best interests that he prove himself capable of leading.

Biblical leadership is not protected by the state. The right thing IMO to do would be to protect it from state encroachment before advocating biblical marriage to men.

Amir Larijani said...

I said: For the Christian, it's about exercising legitimate Biblical leadership. If the husband is head of the wife, it is within the man's best interests that he prove himself capable of leading.

Davout said: Biblical leadership is not protected by the state. The right thing IMO to do would be to protect it from state encroachment before advocating biblical marriage to men.

Your approach has no Biblical precedence. Since when does God ever command the Church to wait for the State to clean up the political scene, before the Church can promote the very things that God ordained in Creation?

Women and men today are impacted by feminism, just as men and women of the First Century were impacted by the banal and lascivious culture of that day. The threat was not simply one of divorce, but rather getting betrayed into the hands of government.

And yet, while Paul wished others could be like him--celibate--he also said, "it's better to marry than to burn", even has he provided very harsh admonishments to husbands and wives regarding submission and headship. Ephesians 5 comes to mind...

Paul didn't back down from promoting Biblical leadership, even in the face of government opposition to the Church on nearly every front.

What you're suggesting is that the Church just punt on marriage altogether and wait for the State to return marriage to status quo ante circa 1950.

That's not even close to Biblical masculinity, Davout. In fact, that failure of the Church to promote Biblical headship/submission--in favor of the Metrosexual Jesus (also known as "Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild")--is exactly what got the Church where it is now.

Amir Larijani said...

I said:
"If a man wishes to get married, the percentages are MUCH GREATER in his favor if HE does the pursuing."

Davout said:
I am not arguing with that. In non-feminist times, your arguments make sense.

However, we live in feminist times. The incentives for men to get married are much less than they were pre-feminism. Any man who gets married is putting a great deal of faith in his wife that she doesn't whimsically abuse her privileges to use the state against him.

Given the decreased incentive for men to marry, it is logical that men should proportionately decrease their pursuit of women.


You are conflating two matters: (a) the premise that the man who aspires to marry, should do the pursuing, as that is a higher-percentage move, and (b) the fact that marriage is less favorable to men.

As for men placing faith in the woman not abusing her position, that is true. There are ways to ensure that the faith is rational, but that's not foolproof.

Then again, nothing--and I DO mean NOTHING--in life carries zero risks.

If I have a bank account, I am putting a lot of faith--some could argue too much--in the bank to redeem my deposit, or--worse--the government to keep their promise to insure my deposit if the bank goes tits up.

It is on you to decide for yourself what your own level of risk tolerance is, and make your decisions accordingly. You must also weigh that against all the risks involved, and I'm not just talking financial.

As for the matter of pursuit, by insisting that women must do more of the pursuing, then you are only ensuring the likelihood of marrying a feminist.

After all, if you let HER pursue YOU, you are, in essence, handing your balls to her.

That will do nothing to stem the spread of feminism.

Davout said...

"Since when does God ever command the Church to wait for the State to clean up the political scene, before the Church can promote the very things that God ordained in Creation?"

It appears you are arguing that the church can function independently of the state. I don't think this is possible today given that the state and church are adversarial, that the church has zero power to enforce its laws.

"Paul didn't back down from promoting Biblical leadership, even in the face of government opposition to the Church on nearly every front."

Even if the church persisted in Paul's time, it does not necessarily follow that it will follow the same course today. There is no 'St. Paul' today. The church leaders promoting biblical leadership nowadays are putting the onus on men to be 'better' instead of reprimanding women for being entitled. This is equivalent to blaming the victim.

"What you're suggesting is that the Church just punt on marriage altogether and wait for the State to return marriage to status quo ante circa 1950.

That's not even close to Biblical masculinity..."


Biblical masculinity does not exist in a box. For the church to currently advocate marriage is tantamount to advocating husband abuse. It is quite easy for a woman to claim that biblical masculinity is 'oppression'. Why take that risk if the state agrees with her? It is a little much to expect the husband who has to watch his financial and emotional state crumble to rest assured that he won the 'moral victory' by staying true to his biblical principles. The very real and large risks outweigh realising the mirage of a traditional marriage in nanny state countries. Even men who do have a happy marriage are financing feminism through their tax money.

"As for the matter of pursuit, by insisting that women must do more of the pursuing, then you are only ensuring the likelihood of marrying a feminist."

That is debatable. I could likewise argue that by doing all the pursuing, you are ensuring the likelihood of marrying an entitled woman. The point is that if the paradigm of leadership/submission is not to a woman's taste at any point post-marriage, she has options to screw you over and there is no way to tell whether or not she will screw you over. I am not advocating marrying a feminist but I am saying that women, nowadays, have to pay a price to men to get married. Think of it as the debt owed to men from feminism. If church leaders advocate that women have to ante up to get married because of feminism, I doubt that men would feel castrated. On the contrary, men would cause the laws to change for the better because it would reinforce men's perception that they are being wrongly victimized. Currently, men internalize the shaming and blaming (which begins from an early age) and manifest it as social awkwardness. IMO, feminism is to blame for the majority of socially awkward men.

"That will do nothing to stem the spread of feminism."

As I mentioned earlier, the way to kill feminism IMO is to stop funding the state. Married white men are the largest demographic of useful idiots who fund the state.

"There are ways to ensure that the faith is rational, but that's not foolproof."

How is it possible to hold a woman accountable for maintaining her faith?

Amir Larijani said...

Davout says:
It appears you are arguing that the church can function independently of the state. I don't think this is possible today given that the state and church are adversarial, that the church has zero power to enforce its laws.

The Church always has the capacity to function independently of the state. This has been the case even in times of the most extreme persecution. In fact, the Church has been shown to flourish in spite of State efforts. The Church only endangers itself when it becomes a mouthpiece for the State.

Even if the church persisted in Paul's time, it does not necessarily follow that it will follow the same course today. There is no 'St. Paul' today. The church leaders promoting biblical leadership nowadays are putting the onus on men to be 'better' instead of reprimanding women for being entitled. This is equivalent to blaming the victim.

And what does the latter have to do with the State? The Church is at fault, not the state.

Biblical masculinity does not exist in a box. For the church to currently advocate marriage is tantamount to advocating husband abuse.

For the Church to advocate marriage is perfectly Biblical; for the Church to advocate marriage--in accordance with the Statist agenda--is not.

TBC...

Amir Larijani said...

Davout says: It is quite easy for a woman to claim that biblical masculinity is 'oppression'. Why take that risk if the state agrees with her? It is a little much to expect the husband who has to watch his financial and emotional state crumble to rest assured that he won the 'moral victory' by staying true to his biblical principles.

Christians have been known to risk far more than the financial and emotional. And--like I said--the risks you mention, while real, are substantially overstated.

The very real and large risks outweigh realising the mirage of a traditional marriage in nanny state countries. Even men who do have a happy marriage are financing feminism through their tax money.

We finance a whole host of things we don't like with our tax money. That is hardly a case against Christians.

[the premise that women doing the pursuing increases the likelihood of marrying a feminist] is debatable.

No it isn't. If she pursues you, and catches you, then she owns you. What rational basis does she otherwise have to submit to you?

In fact, you decry feminism while suggesting that women must take on the role of feminist--be active pursuers--to land husbands. It's a self-defeating position.

TBC...

Amir Larijani said...

Davout says: I could likewise argue that by doing all the pursuing, you are ensuring the likelihood of marrying an entitled woman. The point is that if the paradigm of leadership/submission is not to a woman's taste at any point post-marriage, she has options to screw you over and there is no way to tell whether or not she will screw you over.

Now ask yourself what the likelihood is of this actually happening. The divorce statistics are themselves misleading--when you look at cohorts, the percentages are much lower--and when you start factoring in such matters as church attendance and regular prayer, the divorce rate plummets like an unlucky paratrooper.

Like I said, there is no such thing as zero risk in life, and you have to weigh your own risks for yourself.

OTOH, you are suggesting that the Church ought to wait for the State before they start preaching the truth, is ludicrous. There is no Biblical precedent for this, and is in fact quite cowardly when you compare your attitude with those of Christians in heavily-persecuted countries.

I am not advocating marrying a feminist but I am saying that women, nowadays, have to pay a price to men to get married. Think of it as the debt owed to men from feminism. If church leaders advocate that women have to ante up to get married because of feminism, I doubt that men would feel castrated.

They have paid quite the price. As have the men. Both sides are now engaging in more risk-aversion which has not helped either side particularly well. This has resulted in later marriages, more infertility crises, and more student loan issues for women.

If you find a woman who is marriageable and start demanding that she antes up more because of the sins of her sisters, you will only be cutting off your nose to spite your face.


OTOH, pastors ought to challenge women to consider the effect of feminism, as it has been a lose-lose for everyone, women included.


On the contrary, men would cause the laws to change for the better because it would reinforce men's perception that they are being wrongly victimized. Currently, men internalize the shaming and blaming (which begins from an early age) and manifest it as social awkwardness. IMO, feminism is to blame for the majority of socially awkward men.

But waiting for the State to change, rather than taking on challenges and succeeding in spite of them, is hardly an expression of masculinity. Nor does it have biblical precedence.

As I mentioned earlier, the way to kill feminism IMO is to stop funding the state. Married white men are the largest demographic of useful idiots who fund the state.

Lemme get this straight: you are suggesting that rather than risk a 30% chance of divorce, a man should stop paying taxes, risk a near-100% chance of going to jail for tax fraud, which would destroy him financially and blow a hole in future earnings capacity?

If this is your position, it does not seem to have a rational basis.

Amir Larijani said...

I said: There are ways to ensure that the faith is rational, but that's not foolproof.

Davout asks: How is it possible to hold a woman accountable for maintaining her faith?

First off, let's stipulate a couple facts:

(1) I already have conceded that ensuring that your faith in her reliability, is not foolproof. Never has been. Not even prior to modern feminism. Nor is the risk exclusively on the men. Men (women) have always entered marriage with the risk that she (he) could be a complete phony.

(2) It is not my job to make sure that she maintains her faith. I cannot force her to have faith, any more than I can force her to love me. Nor can she force me to love her, or have faith.

OTOH, there are ways in which I can ensure a higher probability of success:

I can look at her life track record.

(a) How has she handled money? Does this vary from what she says her values are?

(b) What has her record been at church. Is she a mere attender? Does she do things that are important but not easily visible? Does she accept criticism from leaders in her church? Does she undermine leaders? Does she sit around and talk trash about people she does not like?

(c) What is her stated attitude about feminism? Is that consistent with the way she has carried herself?

(d) What is her attitude toward her family, if she comes from a bad one? Is it one of hatred, or one of pity? Hatred=BAD; pity=GOOD.

(e) Is she honest about her own faults, evidenced in her willingness to accept criticism from you? Does she duck responsibility when she screws up? Does she own her junk in life?

(f) How does she understand Ephesians 5?

If she thinks in terms of "mutual submission", while denying the headship of the husband, then you might want to move on.

If she gives you a more correct answer, then you must consider whether her actions around people in authority are consistent with that. If the consistency is there, her score goes through the rood. Otherwise, she has some hard questions to answer.

(It is also fair for her to ask you what your view is on leadership, and to contrast that with the way you have carried yourself in life.)

Those things are no guarantor of a "keeper", but they make your percentages much higher. The risks certainly decline remarkably, even as the State flexes its muscle.

Davout said...

"The Church only endangers itself when it becomes a mouthpiece for the State."

This happens because the church has zero power. I quote from the Catholic encyclopedia: "The State must also protect the Church in the exercise of her functions, for the reason that the State is bound to protect all the rights of its citizens, and among these their religious rights, which as a matter of fact would be insecure and fruitless were not the Church protected. The State is even under obligation to promote the spiritual interests of the Church; for the State is bound to promote whatever by reaction naturally works for the moral development of its citizens and consequently for the internal peace of the community, and in the present condition of human nature that development is necessarily dependent upon the spiritual influence of the Church."

"The Church is at fault, not the state."

The state is at fault too: It validates the ideas of the errant church leaders through its laws.

"For the Church to advocate marriage is perfectly Biblical; for the Church to advocate marriage--in accordance with the Statist agenda--is not."

But a large number of (and what what I read the major) church leaders are either advocating pseudo-statist marriage, shying away from biblical marriage or trying to create biblical marriges by disproportionately burdening men. So either you have to concede that the church is shrinking or that the church and state are merging.

"And--like I said--the risks you mention, while real, are substantially overstated.....The divorce statistics are themselves misleading--when you look at cohorts, the percentages are much lower"

But why is that? The risk of divorce decreases as a man's wealth (and educational level) increases. The cynical (or realistic) way of looking at it is that, as you increasingly fund the arbitrary spending habits of women and pump more money into the government (because of the progressive taxation scheme), women reward you by not subjecting you to divorce, presumably because they want to keep on spending. Also, one's exposure and thus indoctrination by the liberal academia is highest if one are chronically exposed to political correctness. Ergo, one is being unwittingly trained to be a tool to support female consumerism. What about the marriages that are unhappy but persist because its too expensive to divorce or because one has to stay together for the kids? Surely you jest about substantially overstated risks!

"....and when you start factoring in such matters as church attendance and regular prayer, the divorce rate plummets like an unlucky paratrooper"

Here's a 1999 study by the Barna research group that states: "Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience." Assuming the situation hasn't changed dramatically over 10 years, this contradicts your above assertion. Further, it is well documented that women initiate between 2/3 -3/4 of all the divorces. So, the average man has a substantial chance of being blindsided.

contd....

Davout said...

"There is no Biblical precedent for this, and is in fact quite cowardly when you compare your attitude with those of Christians in heavily-persecuted countries."

I would contend that many of the Christians are resisting not because they are devout but because they don't have a means of escape and conversion does not economically improve their situation. Courage is the unwitting result of desperation. There are many ways to skin a cat. What you call cowardice, I call common sense. If the situation is not of your making, why do you infer an obligation to fix it? Are you next going to say that men are obliged to alleviate global poverty?

"They have paid quite the price. As have the men."

Equating male and female suffering due to feminism is rather disingenuous.

"But waiting for the State to change, rather than taking on challenges and succeeding in spite of them, is hardly an expression of masculinity."

I am not merely waiting for the state to change, I am advocating that men engage in actions that will lead to its downfall. It is easy for those not doing the running to tell others to run headlong into a wall of spears. Those who did not create societal problems should not be made responsible for solving them.

"...you are suggesting that rather than risk a 30% chance of divorce, a man should stop paying taxes, risk a near-100% chance of going to jail for tax fraud, which would destroy him financially and blow a hole in future earnings capacity?"

Could you quote your source on the 30% divorce rate? Perhaps you mean only Evangelical Christians? Divorce is only the beginning of a man's problems so one should not gloss it over by trying to present tax fraud as a more serious problem. The result is quite often financial destruction and removal and alienation of children from the father and health problems. There are other MGTOW avenues I have suggested in a prior comment to avoid paying tax in a nanny state i.e. leaving the state for greener pastures or embracing singlehood. Fixing the system without damaging the state is impossible IMO. Evading taxation is not impossible as a few of my non-jailed friends would attest to.

Thanks for the detailed reply to the question on how to hold a woman accountable for maintaining her faith...
I have a quibble, however with your statement:
"It is also fair for her to ask you what your view is on leadership, and to contrast that with the way you have carried yourself in life."
How can men be providers and leaders if the state engages in affirmative action to promote women at the expense of men? Is it consequently correct for women to demand that a man provide a certain income and hold a certain status in society?

Amir Larijani said...

Davout says: This happens because the church has zero power. I quote from the Catholic encyclopedia: "The State must also protect the Church in the exercise of her functions, for the reason that the State is bound to protect all the rights of its citizens, and among these their religious rights, which as a matter of fact would be insecure and fruitless were not the Church protected. The State is even under obligation to promote the spiritual interests of the Church; for the State is bound to promote whatever by reaction naturally works for the moral development of its citizens and consequently for the internal peace of the community, and in the present condition of human nature that development is necessarily dependent upon the spiritual influence of the Church."

The Catholic Encyclopedia is no match for the words of Jesus Christ: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, and yet you proclaim that the local magistrate exceeds the power of Satan? Go directly to JAIL. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.

And yes, the divorce rates are very overstated. Read it and weep.

Amir Larijani said...

Davout says: Here's a 1999 study by the Barna research group that states: "Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience." Assuming the situation hasn't changed dramatically over 10 years, this contradicts your above assertion. Further, it is well documented that women initiate between 2/3 -3/4 of all the divorces. So, the average man has a substantial chance of being blindsided.

That Barna study does not analyze the divorce rates in terms of cohorts, which is what Heller does.

I'm not saying that the divorce rate is something to dismiss; certainly not. Nor am I saying that divorce doesn't represent a risk against which a man ought to mitigate.

Still,

(1) the threat of divorce is not sufficient reason for a Christian man--otherwise inclined to marry--to eschew marriage, provided he finds a woman of godly character;

(2) the governmental bastardization of marriage in the legal realm is no case for the Church to cease to proclaim marriage as God proclaims it in Scripture;

(3) there is no Biblical case for the Church to make their proclamation of the truth contingent on the actions of the State.

No prophet in the Old Testament, or Apostle in the New Testament, or Reformer in history, allowed governmental interference to stop the proclamation of the truth.

The Christians in Red China would look at your ramblings, and pity you. Their legal climate makes ours look like Libertopia, and yet they manage to proclaim the truth with boldness.

Amir Larijani said...

Davout says: I would contend that many of the Christians are resisting not because they are devout but because they don't have a means of escape and conversion does not economically improve their situation.

Actually, in China, living out your faith can be very dangerous. If the local communistas decide that you have had enough children, and desire for you to abort, your stand for the truth can be major risk that impacts the entire family. One could go from middle class to outright destitution by such a move.

You speak of the risks of divorce for the American male, which--while overstated--are not trivial.

But they pale in comparison to the risks of the Christian in China who dares to stand for the truth. Go outside the State Churches--which don't preach the Resurrection--and you'll find out very quickly that Christians are under risks--including economic ones--that make our risks quite petty.

Courage is the unwitting result of desperation.

Not true. The Israelites were not desperate when the entered the Promised Land. In fact, God charged Joshua to be bold, strong, and courageous. The basis for this was (a) He was giving them the land, and (b) He was with them.

In Joshua 5, after the Israelites circumcised the males, God pronounced that He had rolled away the reproach of Egypt. The stigma of slavery was no more. They had a positive reason for courage and boldness; this is hardly the portrait of desperation.

Ditto for the Christians of the Early Church. Theirs was not a situation of desperation. In fact, they could have made their lives easier by "going with the flow" and not rocking the boat and accommodating the Jewish leaders.

But no...they went against the grain, and sometimes paid with their lives.

There are many ways to skin a cat. What you call cowardice, I call common sense. If the situation is not of your making, why do you infer an obligation to fix it?

If you are a Christian, it is your duty to proclaim the truth when backed into a corner. Jesus said that anyone who acknowledged Him before men, that He would acknowedge before the Father, and that those who denied Him before men, He would deny before the Father.

When Jesus said that, He was speaking to people who would be under severe pressure--the threat of death--to capitulate. He warned that their own families would betray them, and that they would face leaders at every level of society.

And yet Jesus told them not to fear the government--those who can only destroy the body--but He who can destroy both body and soul.

Whether you choose to marry is your business; that said, irrespective of the legal climate, it is on the Church to proclaim marriage as presented in Scripture.

Davout said...

Heller remarks in his conclusion: "A closer look at even these lower rates indicate that there are really two separate groups with very different rates: a woman who is over 25, has a college degree, and an independent income have only a 20% probability of her marriage ending in divorce; a woman who marries younger than 25, without a college degree and lacking an independent income has a 40% probability of her marriage ending in divorce."

All the Heller study indicates is the effect of feminism on marriage. It does not indicate that marriages are biblical. It does admit that the rate of cohabitation over marriage has increased. (So the divorce rate is artificially reduced because the couples who would have probably divorced are now cohabiting). It also does not indicate the effect of daycare compared to stay-at-home mothering upon children and which of the two groups above tend to put their kids in daycare more often. It does not say who does 70+% of the divorcing (women). Reading the Heller study, one is otherwise led to assume that both men and women are equally likely to divorce each other, which is egregiously misleading.

Heller also shoots himself in the foot: he says that cohabiting couples would be better off marrying because he says the divorce rate is lower than they think it is. However, he admits that they have cohabited because they think marriage is risky. Heller must be assuming that the rate of divorce among the cohabiters is the same as that within the married couples but as Heller himself shows, cohabiting couples break up at twice the rate of married couples! So, if cohabiting couples were to marry, they would raise the divorce rate.

As I mentioned earlier, marriage for women is about economics: the guy who brings in the most bacon gets to stick around her the longest. The women who are currently divorcing more often according to Heller would have been divorcing less pre-feminism because there was generally no need for even a supplemental income. The government imposed need for women to have their own income has created considerable insecurity among women who don't feel fulfilled unless they get a 'career'. These women are not really independent because male tax money pays for many women's incomes. Most nanny state women today work in redundant positions. Worse, not only do 'independent' women polarize wealth via their hypergamy, they also create an underclass of daycare providers.

The men who marry 'independent' women are men who are more likely to be liberal patsies, having spent considerable time in left-wing academic institutions. Being egalitarian idelogues and/or men without backbones, they are less likely to complain about the absence of leadership/submission in their marriage, thus going along with whatever their wives want. Marriages that persist like this are not good ones or Biblical for that matter. (I know two guys who are right now caught up in this kind of marriage.)

To summarise, the present state of divorce rates is consistent with male capitulation to egalitarianism and governmental intrusion into marriage and dovetails with the Barna study that shows the highest divorce rates within communities that espouse the leadership-submission paradigm. If you are advocating Biblical marriage, it is hypocritical to attempt to use the Heller study as supporting evidence.

Davout said...

"The Catholic Encyclopedia is no match for the words of Jesus Christ: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Saying a biblical quote is no match for logic is nonsensical. Even so, I question the applicability of the biblical quote: One can argue that Jesus meant (by 'it') that the church would live forever within Peter (or within the most devout), not that the material church would live forever.

"No prophet in the Old Testament, or Apostle in the New Testament, or Reformer in history, allowed governmental interference to stop the proclamation of the truth."

I fear your zeal to promote marriage has led you to water down the risks of divorce for men. Certainly, the church can proclaim marriage as in the Scripture, but when the state legally allows one in the couple to PROFIT from reneging on biblical marital responsibilities, Biblical marriage has no teeth. At the very least, the church (or the Catholic church, at least) should start excommunicating its members who violate the Biblical marital contract in complicity with the state.

Chinese Uighur Muslims face arguably worse hardships than do Chinese Christians, so the resistance against hardships generally does not stem from a belief in Christ (or Allah for that matter), but rather from reactance. Certainly, some are very devout but a large number are simply reacting out of desperation to their freedoms being arbitrarily curtailed.

If the christians of the early church were able to emigrate to other countries where they would be freer, they would do just that instead of exposing themselves to harm in that country.

"If you are a Christian, it is your duty to proclaim the truth when backed into a corner."

Certainly proclaim the truth, but what then? At some point, one must move on from Biblical quotes to action consistent with the quotes. Perhaps I would respect the church more if it were openly at war with the state...

Mrs. Pilgrim said...

Davout writes: "Even if the church persisted in Paul's time, it does not necessarily follow that it will follow the same course today. There is no 'St. Paul' today. The church leaders promoting biblical leadership nowadays are putting the onus on men to be 'better' instead of reprimanding women for being entitled. This is equivalent to blaming the victim."

Many Christian women are exhorting one another to give up feminism and repent. Pastors in non-mainline denominations are taking up that cry themselves--and being marginalized by the media for so doing, so of course you won't hear about it.

Also: "One can argue that Jesus meant (by 'it') that the church would live forever within Peter (or within the most devout), not that the material church would live forever."

"Material church"? What the blazes is that? If it is the faith of the devout that is the mainstay of the church, then what difference does it make if the government approves or doesn't? The Christian does NOT regard martyrdom as a defeat, you know.

Davout said...

"Many Christian women are exhorting one another to give up feminism and repent."

More power to such women. The question is: what is their motivation to do so and would secular women be attracted by a similar motivation?

"Material church"? What the blazes is that?

By material church, I meant the people who are fairweather Christians. I understood Amir to be making a claim that all Christian people, fairweather and devout, would be expected to be the rocks of Christianity.

I disagreed and said that only the devout could be expected to be such 'rocks'.

The Christian does NOT regard martyrdom as a defeat, you know.

What happens when there are other options (besides martyrdom) to fix the problem.... like bringing down the state.. or migrating? Is is not advisable, then, to keep martyrdom as a last resort?

I cannot agree that the church can reasonably function independently of an adversarial state.