Seduction theory, PUA (Pick-Up Artists), "alpha" male, "beta" male, "neg-hits," "Game," etc. I have been familiar with these terms for just about as long as I have been focused on men's issues. The theory of gender relations that lies behind these terms has been the stuff of chatter among some MRAs, MGTOWers, and the such like. To be certain, the ideas of the PUA community have not been entirely adopted by MGTOWers and MRAs. A lot of PUA literature seems to suggest that men who don't get laid are, of necessary, "losers." MGTOW rejects this message for the simple fact that the approval of women is not a valid metric of a man's worth. However, some still see value in the PUA philosophy for instructing men in how to view women and how to treat women. If you are not religious, the following discussion will be of no value to you. You may choose to ignore this post. But what about the Christian man? Can he carry anything away from PUA theory?First of all, let us deal with the main goal of PUA theory: to seduce and bed women. PUA literature, with little or no exception, assumes sex outside the bond of a committed, godly marriage. There is talk of practicing and honing your skills on women. But what does the Bible say in response to this?
For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. (Gal. 6:8, NASB)And there is a lot to reap in this side of eternity from promiscuity and sports sex: jealousy, crimes, financial loss, loss of health, emotional problems, and yet even loss of life.
But then their is other side of eternity:
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal. 5:19-21, ASV)Simply put, a Christian man can forget about "Game." He needs to keep his pants on and his mind pure. Someone may say, "Okay. I'm not going to sleep around but Game Theory allows me to understand women better." For what purpose? To get married? To stay happily married? If you are thinking that, then you are wrong on both counts.
PUA only explains the behavior of ungodly women. Note, I didn't say "non-religious" women. I said ungodly women. Doing "game" in order to attract a godly woman is like telling Christian women to wear slutty clothing and swing on a pole in public to attract godly men. It's a false and unbiblical approach. Indeed, I am certain doing "game" and being the Alpha male will work for a lot of church-going women, but it is because they merely have a form of godliness (2 Tim. 3:5), but are not really mature in Christ (if they are even saved at all). Do you want to be married to those kind of women? Remember, "Game" is great for casual sex with emotionally unstable women, not for helping you find a spiritually mature woman that cares about your mind, body, and eternal welfare.
PUA may insist that women are the same and hardwired to respond in a similar fashion. The Word of God declares such reasoning null and void. Read the Bible plainly says about the "nature of women":
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures. (James 1:13-18, NASB)
Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? (Rom. 6:16, NASB)
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. (Gal. 5:16-17, NASB)
Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (Gal. 5:24, NASB)
Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. (2 Cor. 5:17, NASB)Look at the verses carefully. When it comes to being tempted by the wrong things, no woman can claim God made her a certain way. A biblical anthropology declares that women are free moral agents who have choices for their behavior. A woman who chooses a "bad-boy" thug over a responsible but unassuming Christian man is not acting on some trait that is innate to women. Don't blaspheme the Creator, who made women, because your are unwilling to think outside the box about how women should behave. The woman who responds to PUA tactics is in bondage to sin and worldy self-deception. Likewise, men can be in bondage to worldy self-deception about women. Before I was a Christian, the women of Playboy were awe-inspiring. After I got serious about God's word regarding sexual purity, the women of Playboy became pitiful (the display of their flesh becoming like what Amir Larijani would call "cattle shows").
As a Christian man, your main goal in life is not be pleasing to the women of the world (including the women of world that sit in a church building). You main goal in life is to be pleasing to Christ. If the women in your faith tradition don't appreciate that, then their souls are probably in a precarious spiritual condition. You should be concerned about their eternal destiny and where they might take you if you allow yourself to be influenced by them (Eccles. 7:26; 1 Cor. 15:33).
Being Christian man means you won't be having sex with a lot of hot women, if any women at all. The Bible commands men to be responsible, dependable, gentle, humble, agreeable, longsuffering, law-abiding, not greedy for gain, not brawlers, free of selfish ambition, not high minded, those who honor others over themselves, not self-promoters, cautious, and slow to speak their mind (1 Cor. 15:58; 1 Tim. 6:11; Col. 3:12; James 3:17; Titus 1:7; 1 Tim. 6:17; Rom. 12:16; Rom. 13; Heb. 12:14; Phil. 2:3; 1 Thess. 4:11; Prov. 14:16; Prov. 27:2; James 1:19). These and other godly qualities are not exciting to the women of the world. They'll dismiss you and write asinine essays about why "nice guys aren't so nice." You might like to think of yourself as a "bad boy" who nonetheless plays by the rules. Think again, pal. Believe me, when they say "nice guy" in a peeved tone, they most certainly mean men like you. That's the brakes and that's your cross to bear.
You may wave your John Eldridge books in my face all day long, but here's the bottom line:
For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. (1 Cor. 1:26-29)It annoys me to no end to see Christian men get all defensive when the world questions their masculinity ("Hey, being a Christian doesn't mean I'm a wimp! I can clean out an entire bar with my two bare fists!"). Sorry, but you will never be "man enough" in the eyes of the world (and in the eyes of nominally Christian women). Accept the shame.
As a Christian man, you might get married to a woman who is very physically attractive, but there's no guarantee of that. Both sexes like a modicum of physical attractiveness in one another. But overall, the only women you should be remotely thinking about are godly women. By this I don't mean the culturally conservative, churchy types who want a man to provide them with "many luxury vacations" or the nice house, two cars, and three kiddies. I am talking about a woman who a heart on fire for Christ. Spiritual people of either sex are hard to find, even in churches. Churches in America have degraded to nothing more than well-furnished, well-lit community centers for people who are into SWPL. For either sex, finding a godly spouse means going through buckets of chaff to find one grain of wheat. As a Christian man, that is the reality for you in an age where Western Christianity has "left its first love" (Rev. 2:4).
The pile of gravel the Christian MGTOWer has to shovel is a unique one. It deals with the cost of discipleship. That means you may never find "the one." It means you may have to fly solo through this life. When you go to heaven, you will be given a new body. It will not be the body of a male porn star or the Studmeister (Luke 20:35). That should clue you in the bigger picture of what your life is about.
Personally, I happen to be friends with a single woman who is very spiritually-minded and devout. There are times when she makes me feel like a spiritual beta. The women of the world, on the other hand, do not make me feel like the "beta" because they have nothing to offer to me--besides illicit sex. What good is that? (Mark 8:36). But get this: Being a slave to Christ means that you are free from the Untouchable Goddesses Who Reign Over Male Self-Esteem and Happiness.
Let me put it to you another way: Do you care if an ugly woman calls you a "beta"? She says, "You're not my type!" You think to yourself, "So what's your point, lady?" In the same manner, the Christian man looks at the women of the world (including the worldly ones that sit in the church) and sees the truth: these women are like whitewashed tombs. So, what good is Game Theory to me if my intimate relations with women are limited to marriage and if I am studiously avoiding those women who are in bondage to sin and the devil? I don't have to consult Doc Love or whoever to ferret out these women. I just need to consult my Bible (Luke 6:44).
I know how some of my posters might retort: You take the Bible too literally. Religion is a just a tool for weak-minded people who have no life. Yada, yada, yada. Sorry, but that discussion is beyond the scope of this blog. If you have a gripe against Christianity, there are other venues for you to express your misgivings. What I have expressed here is not some form of self-medication or statement of "sour grapes" regarding mate selection. I am simply stating what my religion demands of me. Even if I was in a position to have sex with every lingerie supermodel and NFL cheerleader under the sun, I would still have to answer to God for my actions. If you are going to follow Christ, these are the facts that you must come to terms with. It is really as simple as that.
Final note: Culturally conservative women who play the "nice girl" act, don't put out for the gents, and yet are worldly and spiritually immature in so many other ways most assuredly have nothing to offer me (Prov. 21:19). If marrying "in the faith" means marrying one of these suburban female overlords who wants her SUV, Martha Stewart lifestyle, and "many luxury vacations," then take me to the urologist for my scheduled orchiectomy (because it's going to happen one way or the other in that case).
Suggested reading: Women Who Diss Christian Men as Being Weak
54 comments:
Brilliant, and timely. Thank you.
Its a hard sell and many aren't willing to take up the cross. I can only imagine how early Christians must have felt in a society that glorified the sensual.
Great post.
Anakin,
That's GOOD stuff! If I get a chance, I might run that on my blog. Though I understand why some guys 'run game' (I despise that phrase and all it connotes), it still bothers me on a visceral level. Thanks for articulating what I believe, and why...
MarkyMark
I was not familiar with the PUA community until reading about it in the aftermath of the Pittsburgh gym shootings.
From what I've read about it, I'm convinced that (a) 99% of what comes from there is exactly the very hedonism that Christians are called to eschew, and (b) when guys like Roissy DO get it right--which is about the 1% of the time--they are merely saying things that you can find from Christian authors like Coughlin.
The only serious takeaways here: men need to understand that women generally want a man who can take the lead.
It's not Biblically wrong for women to do the pursuing--after all, this is what Ruth did. Still, the exception does not make the rule. It is not reasonable to expect her to do the pursuing.
The godly women are going to want a husband to whom they can feel confident submitting. Women--godly or not--are simply not wired to be attracted to pushovers. Some are, but even in their heart of hearts they usually want a man who can take the lead.
You can have those qualities and still get turned down--after all, even otherwise godly people still are influenced by the "erotic field of view", and, yes, chemistry does matter.
(The "you're not my type" line doesn't offend me in the slightest. Women also need to understand, though, that men are just as capable of saying the same thing. If it's legit when women do it, it's also legit when men do it.)
The danger for the men is, when we do get turned down, the prospect of sacrificing the masculinity in an attempt to attract the women we think we want. THAT can lead to further misery, as you would be effectively handing her your balls.
The latter is what Roissy might call a "beta", or--as I put it--a man with no balls.
The sad thing about Roissy is that he is correct, 100% of the time. He has simply removed the scales from many eyes by detailing the sordid nature of the fairer sex when left to its 'natural' state.
The socialists/humanists/liberals have finally discover how to destroy the nuclear family, give women whatever they want.
In this new (dis)order the Godly man is at the end of the queue.
Anon: Coughlin and Roissy are correct in their articulation of (a) how women are wired, and (b) what kinds of men to which women are generally attracted. The difference is that Roissy--and other hedonists--are exploiting this for their pleasure whereas Coughlin (and other Christian masculinity proponents) are promoting this to encourage men to be better Christian men rather than "Christian nice guys".
We can sit here and wax all day about "betas" or "nice guys" getting passed over, and--you know what? Some things are what they are.
Women aren't attracted to pushovers; they prefer that men do the pursuing; they generally prefer a man who is secure in his own skin; they generally prefer a man who will be decisive and take the lead.
Are those necessarily un-Biblical expectations? I would submit not.
After all, if (a) the husband is head of the wife, and (b) the wife is called to submit to her husband as to the Lord, and (c) husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, then that dynamic alone infers a significant expectation of leadership ability on the part of the man.
This is a good writeup. The PUA community will share the same eternal fate as the usurping feminists if they do not repent and are unwilling to take up their cross.
Note that being godly and being a wimp are not one and the same. Turning men into women isn't working very well and the feminism-infected churches better realize that or their future will be very bleak indeed.
Another good post.
This (the PUA or Game community) is the logical consequence of today's culture, in which there is nothing wrong or shameful (according to the culture) about casual sex, as long as you FEEL like it (or he is rich, powerful, or famous) + the way men and masculinity are being treated. Hedonism and narcissism dealing with materialism on the part of women.
Tom Leykis, when he was still on the air, had a weekly "class" called Leykis 101 that was all about "how to get more tail for less money". Leykis, and atheist who proudly claims four abortions (he urges men to always wear a condom and only date women who will have abortions), says "dating = sex" and "there's nothing in it for a man to get married". He admits that marriage is good for children, but he never wanted children. According to him, following his rules reduces the risk of the possible negative consequences of fornication to an acceptable level - kind of like how you wear a seatbelt and drive a car, even though people die in accidents every day... so why stop having sex because some people get STDs?
And really, his stuff makes a lot of sense in today's culture... IF (and these are big ifs) there is no God, a person sees nothing wrong with abortion (or not enough to overcome the inconvenience of a child), and someone does not ever want to have children, and someone doesn't have a problem with treating women with disrespect in order to get more sex.
Unfortunately, his advice "works" because there are so many women out there who will hop into bed under these conditions. There are women who don't know how to deal with a man who treats them with respect. There are women who are trying to use men for their own material gain.
There are three basic categories of people when it comes to socializing between the sexes (in heterosexuality, anyway). The marriage-and-family minded, the hedonists/materialists, and those akin to MGTOW (though I suspect fewer women than men would fall into this last category). I believe people in the first and third categories can be - but aren't necessarily all - godly and correct in their lifestyles. As for my own male loves ones, such as, say my brother... if he won't be persuaded towards either of those and instead wants the second category, then I would highly suggest adhering to most of Leykis' advice, because I'd rather he not conceive children out of wedlock, or allow women to walk all over him.
The important thing (if general happiness is important) is that the people in the three categories stick to their own categories in dealing with the opposite sex. And Leykis even advised that... He wanted to know why "Christian" girls were willing to fornicate, but would invoke their faith at some other points in the interaction. He advised his "students" to avoid virgins and single mothers and seriously "religious" women.
As a woman, I'd say Amir is right. Christian women want men who are humble, kind, gentle, and godly. They also want men who are strong, confident leaders. It is tough to find all that in one person. I don't know about this Game Theory, but my guess is that the blog author is correct--a woman who really loves Jesus would be turned off by a man who acted like that.
I'm quite disappointed by this post. Game is the antidote to so much of the stuff you typically complain about, Anakin, and I'm very pleased to see it getting out into the young male Christian community. They (we) need it badly.
Pace Amir, Roissy et al. have got it something like 95% correct. (The other 5% consists mostly in failing to understand female nature as a consequence of the Fall. I wish he would become a Christian - he would have much to teach young men today.)
I think part of the problem here lies in misunderstanding what 'game' really is. Thus, MarkyMark:
Though I understand why some guys 'run game' (I despise that phrase and all it connotes)
Why do you despise it? I used to be disgusted by it, too, until I learned over time that despite the way it might seem, 'game' doesn't mean treating relationships as if they were a game. 'Game' is simply shorthand for 'behaviours that are attractive to women.'
I was not familiar with the PUA community until reading about it in the aftermath of the Pittsburgh gym shootings.
Really? That surprises me, because even on your blog you consistently utilize some of their techniques, and I figured maybe the reason you had snagged a fiancee was because you were learning game.
More later if I have time - I want to comment on Anakin's use of scripture. The thrust of what I will say will be that taking up one's cross and rejecting worldly behaviours doesn't translate into ignoring the fundamental reality of female nature. Being a Christian /= being stupid.
"'Game' is simply shorthand for 'behaviours that are attractive to women.'"
Although the term "game" sounds kind of lame, it does capture the truth that mate finding is competitive - whether you're a Christian or not (just look at how pastors and their wives seem to match in terms of levels of physical attractiveness). And it's the refusal of that fact that seems to mess believers up, keeping them mired in "righteous expectations" of the opposite sex, ie. "must have 'heart on fire for Christ", even though the scriptures speak of no such lofty criteria for a mate.
It's all well and good to say "walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh", but too many single Christians overspiritualize things and end up feeling guilty and confused with what seems to them to be a conflict between the spirit and the flesh in their attractions to the opposite sex. As if finding "the one" isn't supposed to involve physical attraction, and if it does, there's something "ungodly" about that. So you end up with two extremes: those who end avoiding "the flesh" and thus end up avoiding relationships altogether, and those who end up attributing every romantic impulse to "every good gift comes from God" and smugly put His stamp of approval on their romantic choices.
Christians have no trouble with reading the signs of nature when it comes to deciding when to sow seeds in their gardens or hang washing out to dry. I suggest that we use the same practical wisdom and skills of observing human nature when it comes to mate finding -- "game-lite", if you will. If we did that, accepting a bit of humanity in that process, then perhaps we might even find some hidden reserves of grace within ourselves and see the wheat that we'd previously written off as chafe.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! Thank you for saying what I've been thinking in my head for months. The PUA method will never work on a woman of God, period. She'll smell those lies from a mile away. These men want a Godly Wife, yet sleep with anything but and complain about how they can't find a woman of worth.
Kimberly
"Game" is unfortunately very misnamed. It suggests that people who learn it are "gaming" other people. While that probably is true in some cases, it isn't really what the essence of Game is. The essence of Game is simply learning how to behave in a manner that is charming in a masculine vein -- something that women find attractive. It is the male equivalent of women putting on a nice dress, heels and makeup -- which they similarly do knowing full well that men find this attractive.
The issue with "Game", of course, is that it *can* be misused, just like clothes and makeup can be misused for women. Does that mean we tell women that it is unscriptural and ungodly to wear heels and makeup? I don't think so.
One needs to distinguish between pick-up artists (who use Game to pick up women for casual sexual encounters -- something which is indeed ungodly) and other men who have used Game to simply become more attractive men to find a mate. In this way, Game is a tool, like makeup -- if it makes your mate (or prospective mate) more attractive (and vice versa), I can't really see the harm.
People will object: but that's advocating manipulation! No, not really. Game is essentially about being charming in a masculine vein. It is no more manipulative than any other behavior which the opposite sex finds attractive. Do we chide women for being manipulative when they twirl their hair? No, we don't. Game is like that: it's learning to behave in a charming manner which women enjoy being around. And the latter is the key: women enjoy it when men use Game. They like charming men. Especially if those charming men are their husbands and boyfriends.
As with any attractional tool, Game must be approached with caution. If one does not, then one can easily fall into a set of behaviors that is clearly sinful. And in that vein, one needs to be careful of how one accesses these materials and ideas and so on. It's treacherous. People like Roissy, as insightful as he is into female sexual psychology, have no moral structure whatsoever, and a dreadful sense of right and wrong (or rather a lack thereof). So it's very true that caution is needed. But learning to become a more charming man is a very useful skill for men -- not just when it comes to attracting women, but in other areas of life as well. It's like learning a new language, or a musical instrument --> it augments who you are as a person.
@Amir Larijani
^5....why would I or any woman want to submit to a piece of trash like Roissy. What men like him need to understand is that a woman should not submit until she finds a man who has submitted himself to God.
These men will never find happiness based of the the PUA method....only empty promises and empty lives.
Kimberly
Kimberly
I have never cared for the whole PUA thing. To me, life is anything but a game, and to play it with other people's emotions sounds despicable. Even leaving aside the Christian ethics or lack of them, I find the whole thing unpalatable.
Unfortunately, their methods work in most cases. What does that say about the greater majority of the population?
I don't know a whole lot about PUA but I made the mistake of checking out something at Roissy's blog last week. I was planning on posting about it but have not yet had the time.
What I read there seemed an exceedingly hedonistic and (what seemed to me) soul-less approach to interacting with the opposite sex. While I understand Nova's comparison to makeup and dresses in terms of attraction, I find myself questioning the "wisdom" of a man (and I mean Roissy or others of the type) who has lived the life he has. If he was truly "wise" he would not be doing what he does, he would be following the advice in proverbs. It isn't wisdom to use someone else's sin to your advantage.
I think Amir is right though that women are attracted to men who are decisive and are willing to lead them.
There are a lot of misconceptions of "GAME," largely because the primary proponents are PUA like Roissy who practice and preach it to indulge in the hedonistic style of lascivious promiscuity made mainstream by the feminist movement and libertine cultural indoctrination by the mass media.
But the reality is, the very same mass media cultural indoctrination that was behind the loosening of sexual mores amongst secular women, is also the same movement that has by and large emasculated the typical Western Male...both Christian and secular.
GAME is simply reconnecting men to their backbone and their balls, and teaches men that they MUST be the dominant leader in a relationship in order to inspire respect, admiration and lust from their female partner...whether she be a wife, girlfriend or casual sexual partner.
Just as Nova pointed out, GAME is just a tool kit...an analytical observation of what behavior, attitude and demeanor is attractive to female biological hardwiring.
It is no more sinful to "game" your wife than it is for your wife to put on some sexy lingerie for your visual arousal.
Studying game to learn to reassert positive masculinity would HELP any Christian male learn to become the true Patriarch...the biblical role Men are charged with as heads of their household.
How many loveless, sexless Christian marriages do you know of, Anakin? How many have become nothing more than an institution of begrudging, religious duty? I know, because this is how my parents have remained married.
And it's all because my Dad has fallen under the white knight chivalry notion of Christianity that instills this mindset that females are inherently superior in morality and character...and that women should be deferred to.
This is what "Game" calls "Beta" behavior, and it absolutely KILLS your wife's attraction for you. She will develop marriage killing contempt the more beta you become. Even if she dutifully fulfills her wifely duties in the spirit of her religious convictions...this visceral contempt will embitter her and affect their marriage negatively.
While some of you Christians may get stuck on the notions of PUA, and the proponents of it that practice promiscuity in this fallen world, you need to realize this: GAME...whatever you wish to call it...is actually VITAL to sustaining a proper, Christian based marriage. When the bible commands that a wife submit to her husband's authority, IMO, it is literally a biblical command for the Husband to "GAME" his wife...establish his social dominance that will lead to a happy marriage that thrives when each person fulfills their godly ordained gender roles.
I'm with Amir and Galt. BTW, I'm currently reading Coughlin. I've taken specific advice to get dates and even just plain more positive responses to phone calls, emails, how to initiate contact, how to tune into signals for interests --in short how to lead.
To digress for a moment, I was taught in 4th grade how to answer a question in class, e.g., if the question is, "Tell me the capital of Nebraska?" then the correct form of answering is e.g. "Bismark." Not, "uh, Bismark?" As it happens, of course, Bismark is not the capital of Nebraska, but the point is how you answer, even if incorrect, even if just a guess, matters. I am not advocating lying. Or deception. It's matter of the habit of assertion in the face of tests. In PUA, they talk about tests by women all the time. "Uh, Bismark?" can turn into a lifetime wus habit. It's not attractive. Surely they teach similar things in USMC ROTC?
For another example, consider clothes. If a slight change in the cut of your suit would make you more attractive to women --all women, not just ungodly women, wouldn't it be good to get the new suit?
The problem I think for the Christian man is that so much of Roissy and PUA (similar to the Rules for women from 15 years ago or so) is tied up with unfair advantage, with manipulation and hence leads to temptation. It's dangerous cause it works.
Also, like the weak might admire fictional characters for their heroism, their abilities, and wrongfully adopt some harmless vice that the author of the tale has given the hero to somewhat humanize him, I think there's a legitimate fear for Christians that men will adopt the vicious habits of Roissy, to say nothing of the actual fornication. Some of this material is powerful. What did the Celts say? "Never give a sword to a man who can't dance." Game as leadership has some use. But, again, it's powerful, like a gun.
An excellent post, Anakin. One of your best, truly.
"Do you want to be married to those kind of women?...The woman who responds to PUA tactics is in bondage to sin and worldy self-deception."
I asked this very same question a few minutes ago over at Josh Xiong's place. If putative Believing women respond to game tactics, are they even worth the Believing man's time? I think the answer is yes, for the same reason that wives are counseled to feed their husband's sex drive with visual displays ("game" for women), but I'm still pondering the issue.
Shifting gears for a moment, believing men, I think, are well tutored on the inherent depravity of men. I think learning about game has utility in re-educating Believing men as to the depth of the depravity of women and illuminates how easily manipulated they are by certain tactics, something that I think the Church and the social conservative sphere is reluctant to confront.
Thus I regard game tactics as educational in the sense that we learn that women inherently respond to such behaviors employed by men, the same as men have an inherent biological response to visual signals displayed by women. This is a necessary counter to the falsehoods about what women want and what women need that somehow men still seem to acquire (ironically, some of those falsehoods come out of women's own mouths).
When both men and women are aware of what makes a woman's--if you'll pardon the crudity of the following PUA term--"'gina tingle", then that knowledge and awareness can only help protect the righteous from temptation and keep Godly relationships together.
Its a sad day in Christendom when stout Christian men have to play 'games' and placate to the whims of a woman to get married.
I wonder if the same emphasis is being placed on women to curtail their behaviors?
Anakin, I would also add the following point...in your "About" section of this blog, you wrote:
"My intention is provide a scriptural response to anti-male sexism."
Think of "GAME" as a non-scriptual response to anti-male sexism.
Its a sad day in Christendom when stout Christian men have to play 'games' and placate to the whims of a woman to get married.
It's a sad day when the discussion on how to restore dominant masculinity that inspires feminine love and affection gets misinterpreted, derided, ignored and marginalized as a "game," simply because the guys that have brought this discussion to the forefront are "players" who's lifestyle you do not approve of.
It's NOT a "GAME." That's just the current nomer for it, because the guys that are preaching it are playing it as a game to attract promiscuous women.
It's much deeper than that.
The principles, insights and explanations into female mating behavior can serve the monogamous married male dedicated to inspiring the love and affection of his wife for life just as well as it serves the hedonistic cad who is only looking to add notches to his bed post.
Kimberly asks:
...why would I or any woman want to submit to a piece of trash like Roissy. What men like him need to understand is that a woman should not submit until she finds a man who has submitted himself to God.
Actually, what I suggested was that women are drawn to men who will lead and who are not pushovers.
This is true for both godly and ungodly women. The latter are drawn to the secular variants of what I am talking about: that is, the Roissys of the world. The Christian women are drawn to the Christian men who exude the qualities that I am talking about.
However, both secular and Christian women (men) have been known to operate within an "erotic field of view", in which they are attracted to men (women) with certain qualities, provided that he (she) falls within her (his) range of attractiveness.
These men will never find happiness based of the the PUA method....only empty promises and empty lives.
No argument here.
However, both secular and Christian women (men) have been known to operate within an "erotic field of view", in which they are attracted to men (women) with certain qualities, provided that he (she) falls within her (his) range of attractiveness.
Very true, Amir. Roger Devlin pointed this out quite well in one of his essays.
I have read very little PUA literature (fortunately). However, I have read enough to see that there are fundamental differences between the guy who listens to this voice and the guy who listens to the Word of the living God.
Take emotional manipulation, for instance. In the effort to not be seen as "needy", the PUArtist rides rough-shod over a woman's emotions in the attempt to prove that he doesn't need her. He will be harsh; he will be unfaithful; he will be arrogant. This is not the attitude of the meek and mild. And in reality, the PUArtist is just as "needy" as the next ungodly man. He is simply learning to mask his neediness in order to meet his need in the wrong place. The Biblical guy is not needy because he knows that Jesus is enough. He can be a decisive and strong man because he follows the Lord and not the desires which his fellows class as "needs". In this way, he can love women with gentleness and true compassion like his Saviour without being chained by the fear of being "uncool".
In regards to women liking the PUArtist, I think there are a number of sinful motives. Firstly, women are often needy themselves and are looking to have their needs met in men. The PUArtist, not seeming to be needy himself and pretending to have all his needs met in himself, seems to be the perfect candidate for idol of the month. Secondly, the PUArtist plays hard to get. A woman's sinful pride abhors the concept that she is not God and therefore cannot be and have everything. The idea that she is simply "not someone's type" (as another commenter mentioned) is horrible to her for she wants to prove that she is a goddess and can get the most sought-after man (un)available.
These are what I see to be the foundations of the PUA issue. Some of the superficial externals are not necessarily bad and Novaseeker is probably correct in likening them to a woman's personal grooming. For instance, there are Biblical reasons for not writing long love letters at the first available opportunity to a girl you have a crush on (see Biblical passages on discretion), not just PUA reasons. The problem comes when superficial expressions of good principles (that you don't hold to anyway) are all you have to offer because you are wasting your life perfecting your technique in order to find and keep an idolised woman.
(Just commenting to tick the box for follow-up comments...)
Anika, you miss the forest for the trees.
Take emotional manipulation, for instance.
The very essence of "GAME" is for men to avoid emotional manipulation. To NOT cater to a woman's emotional state...to be strong. A logically driven compliment to the female's emotional state.
In the effort to not be seen as "needy", the PUArtist rides rough-shod over a woman's emotions in the attempt to prove that he doesn't need her.
This is exactly wrong. Game teaches men that appearing needy kills a woman's attraction for him, and that letting the woman's emotional state run rough-shod over him and dictate his behavior is a one way ticket to martial dissatisfaction.
He will be harsh; he will be unfaithful; he will be arrogant.
Arrogant? Perhaps. No more arrogant than a young 17 year old woman telling grown men how they should act so that they can be acceptable Christian Men.
But there is no template in "Game" that dictates that a man must be unfaithful. Re-read my previous post and nova's. Game is just a tool that can be used for either good or evil purposes.
This is not the attitude of the meek and mild.
Yet another Christian woman deigning to tell men they must be wimps to live a life that Jesus would approve. Right. Tell that to the money changers for which Jesus so meekly and mildly treated when they defiled the House of God.
And in reality, the PUArtist is just as "needy" as the next ungodly man. He is simply learning to mask his neediness in order to meet his need in the wrong place.
Yes dear..we are all needy. Men and Women need each other. PUArtists certainly do not live morally clean lives from a Christian point of view...but the PUA's "need" is the same "need" a Christian man has. The PUA is simply the reaction to the socially engineered changes in society's cultural values regarding sex, thanks to the feminist movement.
The Biblical guy is not needy because he knows that Jesus is enough.
Do you regularly read this blog, Biblical Manhood? Do you not fail to see the overarching premise of this blog? Apparently there are plenty of young Christian women, just like yourself, who will SAY that a Biblical guy who knows Jesus is enough.
Yet, when guys like Anakin observe what the majority of young Chrisitan women DO rather than what they say, it's quite apparent that KNOWING JESUS is certainly NOT "enough."
He can be a decisive and strong man because he follows the Lord and not the desires which his fellows class as "needs".
Inspiring love and attraction in your wife by providing the social dominance and leadership is exactly what the Lord desires. Which is why he commands the Man to be the Head of the House and the Woman is to submit.
In this way, he can love women with gentleness and true compassion like his Saviour without being chained by the fear of being "uncool".
Fear of being "uncool" has nothing to do with this.
Please note: the post was "Biblical Manhood" vs. "GAME"
NOT Biblical Manhood vs. PUA.
This is the context that I'm arguing from. Of course the PUA lifestyle is not compatible with Christian morality.
But that is not what "GAME" is about. Game is simply the means to which the PUA pursues his immoral hedonism.
That doesn't mean "Game" itself does not have a positive purpose that can help Christian men avoid turning into sackless wimps that inspire contempt in their wives because they are trying to be "meek, mild, gentle and compassionate" when in fact all they are doing is being a Beta and deferring to their women.
The Bible says wives should submit to their husbands.
Yet many many many Christian men and women do not follow this biblical precept. And they are very unhappy and dissatisfied in their marriages because of it.
Adam T asks: Really? That surprises me, because even on your blog you consistently utilize some of their techniques, and I figured maybe the reason you had snagged a fiancee was because you were learning game.
Yeah, really. I was not up on "game", but I have been a fan of Coughlin.
In the case of my engagement, I chalk that up less to "game"--the only thing I did differently in this case was extend grace at critical junctures, and that was definitely not "game"--and more to providence.
The very essence of "GAME" is for men to avoid emotional manipulation. To NOT cater to a woman's emotional state...to be strong. A logically driven compliment to the female's emotional state.
I have no problem with men avoiding emotional manipulation. I'm just saying that fighting fire with fire is not the way to go.
Game teaches men that appearing needy kills a woman's attraction for him, and that letting the woman's emotional state run rough-shod over him and dictate his behavior is a one way ticket to martial dissatisfaction.
Of course being needy does and should kill a woman's attraction. I am simply saying that playing the "game" is too often simply a way of covering up for emotional neediness.
And absolutely not should he let a woman's emotions dictate his life. I am simply saying that he should let the Word of God dictate his life. Sometimes that will mean firmly and sharply rebuking a woman for sinful emotions, but it shouuld never mean denying or using her emotions.
No more arrogant than a young 17 year old woman telling grown men how they should act so that they can be acceptable Christian Men.
Well, to be quite honest, I am perfectly aware that no-one would listen to me even if I were to assume the role of teacher. I'm thinking out loud. :)
Yet another Christian woman deigning to tell men they must be wimps to live a life that Jesus would approve.
I'm not saying that wimpiness is good...I'm saying that following Christ may entail things that don't exactly fit in with "macho".
Men and Women need each other
...yes and no. Yes, we do need each other as brothers and sisters. As romantic partners? I'm not convinced.
Yet, when guys like Anakin observe what the majority of young Chrisitan women DO rather than what they say, it's quite apparent that KNOWING JESUS is certainly NOT "enough."
I suppose the question would be: "enough for what"? I'm not saying that you might not have to do more than "know Jesus" to attract a woman; I'm saying that knowing Jesus is enough to live a Christian life, which is incompatible with many of the popular secular ways that men attract women.
In regards to being attracted, yes, I have personal preferences. The point is that I should not let these personal preferences become "the main thing". I wish to love a man for his character, not his car, not his looks or anything else. I fail. But I strive not to.
Perhaps we are talking past each other, though. As I said, I have no problem with some of the superficials of "game" but with the attitude that often underlies them.
...yes and no. Yes, we do need each other as brothers and sisters. As romantic partners? I'm not convinced.
Damn. You are exactly the sort of young Christian woman that has driven Young Christian men to give up on the idea of getting married and becoming the Patriarchal head of his household as God ordained we should.
Feminism has certainly corrupted and subverted Christianity on so many levels.
But does not the difference in view point come down to whether you believe marriage is Biblically commanded?
If so, then yes men and women *need* to get married, just as they *need* to obey their Lord.
If not, then they can choose marriage or not. But if they do, as you said, both men and women need to obey God's pattern in male headship and female submission.
I think male leadership is great. I just think that it is importance to consider what a male leadership based on a false need for romance is actually leading to...
(Note: My point is that while a member of the opposite gender is a *need* for romance and sex (both wonderful things in and of themselves) it is not a need for holiness, health or anything else.)
I find interesting Christian men must 'game' it up to meet the expectations of a woman. Whats being asked of Christian women to meet the expectation of men?
"The PUA is simply the reaction to the socially engineered changes in society's cultural values regarding sex, thanks to the feminist movement."
Actually, PUAs and "game" existed long before feminism. Nor did feminism ever really extinguish either. All feminism did was give men an excuse to be passive.
There is an assumption here -- unfounded, really -- that making onself more attractive to the opposite sex is unbiblical.
Nonsense.
If we believed this, then women would be like they are in Saudi. And they are not.
Game is the male equivalent of not "grooming", but making oneself attractive. Heels and makeup are not "grooming" -- hello! And game is the equivalent of these attraction specific behaviors in women.
It is not ungodly, it is simply a tool like any other, and the equivalent of many more tools women have (Christians as well without critique) at their disposal for the same purpose.
"
(Note: My point is that while a member of the opposite gender is a *need* for romance and sex (both wonderful things in and of themselves) it is not a need for holiness, health or anything else.)"
Anakin agrees vociferously with you. We can all be gender separatists, because the current relationship culture sucks. Is this pleasing to God? Probably not. But that's your call, according to your relationship with Him.
Novaseeker: I'm not sure if your comment on attraction was addressed to me. I'll act though it is, though. :)
I fear that I haven't been particularly clear in what I've said here....I seem to be clarifying a lot. But I agree with you, attraction is not wrong...[t]he point is that I should not let [my] personal preferences become "the main thing". That is, whereas my personal preferences may not be inherently sinful, they're not the big deal. This means that I can't marry a guy who has the personal preferences but not the faith.
On the other hand, a lot of what I have seen described as 'game' (and there are different ways of defining the same word) has nothing to do with personal preferences but with right and wrong.
Basically, I've seen underlying attitudes that are wrong (i.e. I must pretend that I can get my needs met in myself, I must get a woman at all costs) and resulting behaviours that are wrong, even though some of the resulting behaviours are fine.
And gender separatism doesn't sound very fun to me personally. :) I just think that gender together-ism at all costs has some bad results for both guys and girls.
Ah...yes, you were talking to me. Specifically the "grooming" word. There are a number of ways of seeing that, but ok, "trying to be attractive" then. No problem with trying to be attractive per se. In fact, you should be attracted to the person you marry. Just for good or neutral reasons, not bad ones.
Anakin, you are awesome. The only thing about "Game" that helps a relationship is having a sense of humor. Roissy's manner of going about it is cruel with snipey and negative things. As Christians we are to lift each other up. It is so difficult to accomplish.
One of out cultural challenges is that we expect couples to get together ON THEIR OWN and make it ON THEIR OWN. I'm reading a novel set 200 years ago and everything was done in groups but with the intention of becoming exclusive. Adults and peers were ever present, making introductions and helping conversation along. The system was not perfect, but it might have been better for those who are on the shy side.
Game is the male equivalent of not "grooming", but making oneself attractive. Heels and makeup are not "grooming" -- hello! And game is the equivalent of these attraction specific behaviors in women.
It is not ungodly, it is simply a tool like any other,
Just popping in quickly, haven't read most other comments, but in fact this very thing is what I was thinking about last night - yes, you are correct here, Nova: 'game' is the male equivalent of makeup. The corollary is that women LIKE game. Just like a man who knows his girl is wearing makeup is no less attracted to her, a woman who sees and knows that a man is using 'game' will still like him. 'Game' is no more a form of underhanded manipulation than makeup is.
I might also add that I agree with Vox Day's comment a few days ago: Roissy's promiscuous behaviour is not to be emulated by Christians; he uses game to live a lifestyle that is immoral according to the Christian tradition. But game need not necessarily be used in this way.
Savvy says: One of out cultural challenges is that we expect couples to get together ON THEIR OWN and make it ON THEIR OWN. I'm reading a novel set 200 years ago and everything was done in groups but with the intention of becoming exclusive. Adults and peers were ever present, making introductions and helping conversation along. The system was not perfect, but it might have been better for those who are on the shy side.
THANK YOU! I've been harping on that quite a bit, both here and on my own blog space.
Fact is, you don't even need to go back 200 years to find such a framework; that framework existed up to about 50 years ago.
People usually grew up in the same communities, families knew each other, kids usually went to the same schools, same churches, joined the same activity organizations (Boy/Girl Scouts, Little League, 4H, etc.), and often married people they knew for years. Families and churches worked together.
Much of the vetting was done by the friends, parents, and other adult figures for the respective parties. Even "tough to marry" folks--those who were socially awkward, physically handicapped, or otherwise fell outside the traditional envelope of attractiveness--had an easier time getting married.
Today, that social structure doesn't exist. Ergo, it's a lot easier to fall through the cracks.
Like I said, the 9,000 pound elephant in the room is this: why are so many churchgoing Christian men (women) finding their wives (husbands), who are also churchgoing Christians, outside the Church?
Short answer: they met and married while taking a hiatus from church.
Anon says: Short answer: they met and married while taking a hiatus from church.
Not really. I'm referring to people who are otherwise churchgoing folks, who are finding their mates--who are also churchgoing--in other venues.
These are people who have not taken a hiatus from church, but rather simply found their mates through eHarmony, Christian Cafe, blogosphere, co-workers, athletic leagues, running clubs, or Christian functions outside of regular church life.
It seems that even when churched people get married, they meet their mates elsewhere. And this is happening even when there are eligible mates in their respective churches.
In my current church--which I joined right after I started pursuing FutureMrsLarijani--there is a single gal who is very eligible. Bravo Whiskey. She's 28. There is a guy in the church who is the same age, has been at that church since its founding, has known the gal for years, and yet--is engaged to a gal outside that church. Why they never got together is something I don't understand.
Timing is everything: had I joined that church a couple weeks sooner, I would have happily pursued Bravo Whiskey.
But I'm glad the timing was what it was: nothing against BW--she's a good gal and deserving of a good guy--but I'm thankful for FutureMrsLarijani. FML and I fit each other as close to perfectly as you can get on this earth.
I have to say that I was never really interested in meeting a woman at church, specifically -- as in, someone met through a church social group or coffee hour or something like that. It just seems like ... an odd place to meet people. It felt like I shouldn't be "scoping out women" in church, or at church functions.
That's just me, of course. I'm sure plenty of other men feel quite differently about that/
Novaseeker says:
I have to say that I was never really interested in meeting a woman at church, specifically -- as in, someone met through a church social group or coffee hour or something like that. It just seems like ... an odd place to meet people. It felt like I shouldn't be "scoping out women" in church, or at church functions.
And that may be due to the "we don't run a dating service here" mentality that often gets communicated (directly and indirectly) in evangelical circles.
The catch-22 is this: if you don't meet her at church--or related function--then where do you meet them?
Without social structures--that facilitated this in past generations--finding a mate becomes all the more difficult.
I agree that there is nothing anti-Christian about game by itself. The PUA lifestyle is a different story, but the use of game does not automatically mean a PUA lifestyle.
The real question isn't if I want a believing woman that responds to game. It's are believing women any different than non-believing women. The answer is except for a handful, no. In such a case what is the point of using game? Just because you haven't been using game to live a PUA lifestyle doesn't mean that she hasn't been slutting it up and having sex with God knows how many guys. If that's all you're going to get (and Churches are filled with this kind of woman) then there is no point to using game.
My other problem with game which Anakin touched on was the associated use of shaming language. Game is used an excuse to call guys who aren't getting laid losers, gay, etc. Even on the non-PUA side this is true too because then they will call you a loser for not being married. I reject that as I reject all shaming language used against men.
Plus, there are limits to game. Game won't protect you against STDs. Of course, no one claims that it does, but again even in Church your dealing with women who have had sex with lots of guys. Is using game worth it to catch something that kills you or is painful for the rest of your life?
Also, game won't protect you against false rape charges, divorce, etc. The practitioners of game just claim these things will never happen. Vigorous assertion won't protect you. These things can and will happen regardless of your use of game.
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal. 5:19-21, ASV)
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures. (James 1:13-18, NASB)
Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? (Rom. 6:16, NASB)
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. (Gal. 5:16-17, NASB)
Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (Gal. 5:24, NASB)
Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. (2 Cor. 5:17, NASB)
Excellent selection of verses! Really, this is all that needs to be learned from this post.
I find interesting Christian men must 'game' it up to meet the expectations of a woman. Whats being asked of Christian women to meet the expectation of men?
I think providing their husbands with many luxury vacations would be a good start. ;)
Adam T., Novaseeker, Keoni Galt - Excellent posts. Anonymous August 19, 2009 3:21 PM - Superb. "Game" itself doesn't have to be pursued for hedonistic ends.
Kimberly and Anika, what you've succeeded in doing is demonstrate that you don't know yourselves and women in general as well as men with even a little bit of "Game" do.
The one thing that "Game" also does, that hasn't been mentioned here, is teach men how to qualify women.
emarel
"Anonymous August 19, 2009 3:21 PM - Superb."
Thanks, Emarel.
Btw - it was a woman who wrote it!
Good post, Anakin. However, that is good ONLY within the assumption "being attractive to women is necessary to be a happy man". If that's not true (and I think most PUAs agree), then one shouldn't worry about being charming to women in the first place. Certainly the Bible doesn't say a man should make a wife his first priority. Well, some parts of the OTest do, but I believe that the OT itself is not binding on Christians, though there is plenty of great wisdom and insight in it (but purely theological discussions are another topic).
The point is that if you make having a woman even an important care in your life, you are compromising your walk with Christ (IMO, at least). Even if a guy is not a believer if any sort, I'd still say that if he makes womens' approval a priority in his life, then he has a fundamental misunderstanding of what happiness is.
In short, I think happiness is characterized by a steady calm emotionally-neutral (but not robotic) ride without feel-good emotionalism. In fact, I'd call feel-good emotionalism a counterfeit happiness, because it is not a sustainable form of joy/happiness. In fact, I left a lot of the evangelical movement behind precisely because they unwittingly confuse feel-good emotionalism with spirituality (but again, that's another topic).
CORRECTION: In my first line, I said "Good Post, Anakin" when I really meant "Good Post, Novaseeker". Still Anakin made a great blog post. As you can tell, there are elements of both Anakin and Novaseeker that I agree with, in their respective contexts.
Hey I used to be in the Pick up artist stuff before I was a christian and I did it a bit when I was a Luke warm christian. I would like to talk with the creater of this blog for help and some guidance. I think its good I found this site to have a good biblical placing when it comes to this. I was into Psychology for picking up woman before. I was able to understand them but I think its wrong.
please email me at danieldavidduperron@gmail.com
Thank you :)
No joke. You probably just saved me from God's judgement. I am a new Christian who has dipped into PUA online communities and considered using the PUA tactics, but thanks to this blog, NVM. Thank you for your inspiring blog post.
Post a Comment