On Axe Biting

What’s the Question?

In Dalrock’s latest post, the comments brought forth a question.

BY THE WAY: You should know that I write in vulgar terms because this is a vulgar era. Complaints will be disregarded.

It developed from the observation that men are due sex in a marriage, and how important sex is for a man to be connected to his wife. Women are due this, too, but that complaint is rarely heard in our ‘sphere–because that’s not the problem we’re faced with. This led to a discussion on the “double-standard” concerning how the number of men a woman sleeps with makes her a slut; as it relates to

Any number (N) of sexual partners above 1 (excepting any circumstance such as being widowed) will result in–at least–a temporary label of SLUT (N > 1 = SLUT),

but how the reverse is not true. The going wisdom of the Manosphere says, that some number above 1 theoretically exists for the man, but the state of slut lacks consequence for him. This is attributed to various inherent evolved priorities, and risks to men, concerning female chastity. Women, being different–and they are!–,will tend to focus on whether the man has the wherewithal to protect the family she makes with him. So an N well over 1 might be a display of risk that he might leave. This is all, of course, related back to evolutionary principles about how our apeman/caveman forebears were rightfully concerned about caring for offspring; making sure their his offspring; making sure he can protect them; etc.*

Several of the men held forth in this manner; making the otherwise logical connection that women who refused to accept the principles of the equation (N > 1 = SLUT), or acted in defiance of it, were doing so out of a base desire to ape men. This is logical because so many modern women are imitating men, in increasingly any area they covet; no matter how unfruitful these imitations may be. The effect of these statements on the women that frequent the blog was engrossing.

Woman 1 put forth the sadly typical answer that I’ll paraphrase as: “There is no standard. Men and women are equal, and should pinky-swear to go halvsies on everything–including desire, sex, ignorance of sexual history, and other chores.”

Woman 2 gave a defense of the Manospherian concept. She started out fairly well (by the wisdom) and acknowledged that women howl at the “double-standard” because to recognize any standard whatsoever is to accept that virtually all modern women are , or have been, sluts. Not an easy thing to contemplate, for sluts, former sluts, or their husbands.

She didn’t think so either. Her next comments were about how they’d risen above all that. Her husband had slept with numerous women and she has an N >;; 1. Nevertheless, he was her best, and he had settled on her. Obviously she must be his best. With the exception of a couple minor hiccups that are nothing but faded memories: their glue is great!

Woman 3, the one I want to write about, could see something was missing from the discussion. She detected it early on in the thread, but was having trouble putting it to words in a way that most of the commenters could either understand…or accept. Her comments were–taken in all–iterations of a couple questions that I’ll paraphrase first as two questions:

1) Why do men seem to only want sex and chores (food, laundry, etc.) from a woman, in marriage?

2) If sex and chores are what men get out of marriage, then what do women get; given that men and women are different, and especially given a relatively non-violent (not much need for personal protection) dual-income society?

The consolidated question: Where is my Oneitis?

The Answer: Oneitis is for Pussies.

I’ve never seen in the Manosphere where Oneitis is openly held in esteem. It’s a term of derision. The best expression is by Roissy (NSFW):

Oneitis is a disease of the amygdala that presents as a total incapacitation of the man’s logic, reason and interest in hobbies, hygiene and restful sleep. Oneitis exists in two forms, a precoital and postcoital expression of the virus. The precoital, or “#1 crush”, form occurs when two conditions are met: A girl possesses a precise beauty of the face that closely matches the beauty template the man carries in his head for the perfect woman, and this girl is within the man’s visual and aural field. The postcoital, or “no girl will ever be as good as her”, form occurs when the same conditions are met, with the additional factor that the man has boffed the girl and is now not boffing her.

This is the inverse of the rationale for women keeping their virginity until marriage: Why men should remain chaste. Men know this, and fear it. What if he goes without sex forever? The Game approach to overcoming that fear is to confront it; to bash it down by repeatedly banging ever hotter women until there is no standard left…just like Feminists and Buddhists (the one cool religion left).

If you read the whole post, he goes on to deal with only the post-coital form of Oneitis (which is interesting in itself), and his prescription is: Go Fuck Ten Other Hotter Women. He then spreads a more realistic roadmap of what this regimen will look like: Refrain from chasing women for a period; Pursue only women of better looks than the ex-woman; build them up in your mind; then bang them. Repeat.

The Full Answer: Oneitis is for Your Wife’s Pussy

Sex is not the glue that keeps a man and woman together. Sex is the wife’s one half of the compound which–when mixed with the husband’s half of the compound–forms an epoxy that holds a marriage together. His half is called emotional commitment–Oneitis. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

This is what Roissy is so good at: His post makes nonsense of the rationalizations of Woman 1 and Woman 2. That is, women who, as exploiters of the mind-field** known as the sexual marketplace, screwed their way into a position that is ludicrous to believe is sustainable; that husbands would–or could!–find such women suitable as permanent helpmeets. Only Woman 3 is confronting this, and she’s been ridiculed up and down for it. Roissy doesn’t give a cure for current-coital Oneitis because it’s not an affliction. Post-coital and pre-coital Oneitis aren’t viruses; they’re sexual disorders caused by one of two conditions:

Condition 1: Men slutting themselves out emotionally to women they had no business giving it to. If he’s not married to her, she doesn’t deserve it. And there’s no getting around that sex will do this to a man whether he likes it or not.*** Whoever that first woman is she is the hottest woman to ever have sex with him, and she will milk that emotional commitment from him as surely as her body milks his. This state continues until someone out-milks her, or he reaches the Zen-like state of no attachment.

Just so we’re clear: For a Christian, Zen is bad. For a Christian man who wants to be, or is, married: No attachment is bad. His marriage risks becoming unstuck because he has mixed the epoxies; layering over the same territory each time; each time committing less of his half of the compound. Eventually, he’ll have caked-on so much epoxy that he might be better described as married to his memories; each grey layer indistinguishable from the next, but never cementing to his wife. It is hard work chipping that off, and starting over. He might not even want to. The memories can be pleasing, in a disordered, corrupt way. In the meantime, he can still play house.

Condition 2: When a woman rejects sex with her man. This particular form of post-coital Oneitis is despicable because it was explicitly inflicted on the man. Wives: Do not stop having sex with your husband if you want to stay married. Husbands: If you’re wife is refusing you then she’s telling you she wants a divorce…though a man may have to explain this to her, as she’s too busy rationalizing why she’s emotionally abusing her husband to realize it. Most husbands cannot remain under this affliction too long. He’ll either withdraw so much as to be nearly useless, or he’ll start making epoxy with someone else.

The purpose of the Sex/Oneitis epoxy is to foster an environment where the man and wife become one. This occurs when her sex draws out of him his emotional commitment, which draws him in further until he’s penetrating all aspects of her life, and gives she gives joy to all aspects of his. She does housework to give him a pleasing environment, and not because she’s anal retentive. He gets involved with choosing the homeschooling curriculum to relieve his wife of the burden of fearing the wrong choice, not because he thinks he’s so smart. This is a lifelong process. Sex and emotional commitment should be, too.

No One Says This?

That’s not quite true: here, here, and here you can find Manosphere-authorized examples of the phenomenon described as Oneitis; though none of them refer to it by name. No doubt there are others, but those are the ones I know about. You should go read them.

 

*That in itself is fascinating since the best Game technicians demure from children. What happened to their code? How could these genetic giants gain so much insight from studying evolution, but MISS OUT on the code that tells them to have kids? If you can’t trust the code, who can you trust?

**Stet

***With the exception of men who truly emulate the Dark Triad traits.

The Blessing of Good Enemies

Many thanks to Keoni Galt for pointing out a gross error in my first episode of Cane Reads the YSV Bible. I have made a small, but important change. Check it out.

Cane Reads the YSV Bible: 1 Samuel 17

This is the beginning of a new series: Cane Reads the Y(our) S(tandard) V(ersion) Bible.

_______________________

Now the Feminists gathered their armies for battle. And they were gathered at WordPress, which is on the Internet, and encamped between WordPress and BlogSpot, in Cyber-Space. ²And Vox and the men of Christendom were gathered, and encamped in the Manosphere, and drew up in line of battle against the Feminists. ³And the Feminists stood on the mountain on the one side, and Christendom stood on the mountain on the other side, with a valley between them. ⁴And there came out from the camp of the Feminists a champion named Roissy of Chateau Heartiste, whose bed held six sluts and a model. ⁵He had a helmet of the Ignorance of Beauty on his head, and he was armed with a coat of seduction, and the weight of the Frame was two chicks at the same time.

⁶ And he had bronze Frame on his legs, and a javelin of Evolutionary Psychology slung between his shoulders. ⁷ The shaft of his Intellect was like a weaver’s beam, and his spear’s head had weighed six hundred vaginas. And Irrational Confidence born by Church Apathy went before him. ⁸ He stood and shouted to the ranks of Christendom, “Why have you come out to draw up for battle? Am I not a Hedonist, and are you not servants of Vox? Choose a man for yourselves, and let him come down to me. ⁹ If he is able to fight with me and kill me, then we will be your servants. But if I prevail against him and kill him, then you shall be our servants and serve us.” ¹⁰ And the Hedonist said, “I defy the ranks of Christendom this day. Give me a man, that we may fight together.” ¹¹ When Vox and all Christendom heard these words of the Hedonist, they were impressed.

Now Cane was the blog-son of a blogger of a Christian part of the Manosphere, named Dalrock, who had many commenters. In the days of Vox the man was already a hit and advanced in posts. ¹³ The three oldest blog-sons of Dalrock had followed Vox to the battle. And the names of his three blog-sons who went to the battle were Ashur, the wittiest, and next to him Deti, and the third Brendan. ¹⁴  Cane was the youngest. The three eldest followed Vox, ¹⁵ but Cane went back and forth from Vox to feed his father’s sheep in the Manosphere. ¹⁶ For forty days the Hedonist came forward and took his stand, morning and evening.

¹⁷ And Dalrock said to Cane his son, “Would you be interested in writing a guest post making your case instead of defending it piecemeal here? See if your brothers are well, and bring some token from them.”

¹⁹ Now Vox and they and all the men of Christendom were in the Manosphere, fighting with the Feminists. ²⁰ And Cane rose early in the morning and left the sheep with a keeper and took the provisions and went, as Dalrock had commanded him. And he came to the encampment as the host was going out to the battle line, shouting the war cry. ²¹ And Christendom and the Feminists drew up for battle, army against army. ²² And Cane left the things in charge of the keeper of the baggage and ran to the ranks and went and greeted his brothers. ²³ As he blathered on about The Matrix, behold, the champion, the Hedonist of Chateau Heartiste, Roissy by name, came up out of the ranks of the Feminists and spoke the same words as before. And Cane heard him.

²⁴ All the men of Christendom, when they saw the man, fled from him and were much afraid. ²⁵ And the men of Christendom said, “Have you seen this man who has come up? Surely he has come up to defy Christendom. And the king will enrich the man who kills him with great riches and will give him his daughter and make his father’s house free in Christendom.” ²⁶ And Cane said to the men who stood by him, “What shall be done for the man who kills this Hedonist and takes away the reproach from Christendom? For who is this uncircumcised Hedonist, that he should defy the armies of the living God?” ²⁷ And the people answered him in the same way, “So shall it be done to the man who kills him.”

²⁸ Now Ashur his eldest brother heard when he spoke to the men. And Ashur’s anger was kindled against Cane, and he said, “You have a problem with wiles? I get it – you have an axe to grind, don’t we all. You also don’t seem to realize that trying to “prove” something on the internet is something no one should ever attempt. At the root of it, you long for a victory, you desire to taste the visceral thrill of a bold internet triumph.” ²⁹ And Cane said, “Don’t mistake my fervor for the topic for a generic desire for victory. I confess to being over-eager–I’ve been musing on this for literally years, and I’ve been hyper-focused on it for the past week.Was it not but a blog post?” ³⁰ And he turned away from him toward another, and spoke in the same way, and the people answered him again as before.

³¹ When the words that Cane spoke were heard, they repeated them before Vox, at AlphaGamePlan, and he sent for him. ³² And Cane said to Vox, “Let no man’s heart fail because of him. Your servant will go and fight with this Hedonist.” ³³ And Vox said to Cane, “Game is not a lifestyle or a philosophy, it is nothing more than an analytical tool, moreover, it is a tool that can be broadly applied to a broad spectrum of human behavior. Cane isn’t looking deeply enough, he is too focused on the particulars of what Roissy is advising to understand what Roissy is doing.” ³⁴ But Cane said to Vox, “Your servant used to keep sheep for his father. And when there came a lion, or a bear, and took a lamb from the flock, ³⁵ I went after him and struck him and delivered it out of his mouth. And if he arose against me, I caught him by his beard and struck him and killed him. ³⁶ Your servant has struck down both lions and bears, and this uncircumcised Hedonist shall be like one of them, for he has defied the armies of the living God.” ³⁷ And Cane said, “The Lord who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear will deliver me from the hand of this Hedonist.” And Vox said to Cane, “Go,and the Lord be with you!”

³⁸ Then Vox clothed Cane with his Frame. He put a helmet of Ignorance of Beauty on his head and clothed him with a coat of seduction, ³⁹ and Cane strapped his Game over his Frame. And he tried in vain to go, for he had not tested them. Then Cane said to Vox, “I cannot go with these, for I have not tested them.” So Cane put them off. ⁴⁰ Then he took his discipline in his hand and chose five verses from the Book and put them in his laptop. His conviction was in his hand, and he approached the Hedonist.

⁴¹ And the Hedonist moved forward and came near to Cane, with Church Apathy bearing his Irrational Confidence in front of him. ⁴² And when the Hedonist looked and saw Cane, he disdained him, for he was but a commenter, beta and churchian in appearance. ⁴³ And the Hedonist said to Cane, “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?” And the Hedonist cursed Cane by his god of biomechanics. ⁴⁴ The Hedonist said to Cane, “Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the field.” ⁴⁵ Then Cane said to the Hedonist, “You come to me with Game and with Intellect and with Evolutionary Psychology, but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Christendom, whom you have defied. ⁴⁶ This day the Lord will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down and cut off your head. And I will give the dead bodies of the host of the Feminists this day to the birds of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Christendom, ⁴⁷ and that all this assembly may know that the Lord saves not with Game and Intellect. For the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give you into our hand.”

⁴⁸ When the Hedonist arose and came and drew near to meet Cane, Cane ran quickly toward the battle line to meet the Hedonist. ⁴⁹ And Cane put his hand to his laptop and took out a verse and slung it and struck the Hedonist on his forehead. The verse sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the ground.

⁵⁰ So Cane prevailed over the Hedonist with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Hedonist and killed him. There was no Game in the hand of Cane. ⁵¹ Then Cane ran and stood over the Hedonist and took his Game and drew it out of its sheath and killed him and cut off his head with it. When the Feminists saw that their champion was dead, they fled. ⁵² And the men of Christendom and the Manosphere rose with a shout and pursued the Feminists as far as Chateau Heartiste and the gates of UMan, so that the wounded Feminists fell on the way from The Society of Phineas as far as Chateau Heartiste and UMan.⁵³ And the people of Christendom came back from chasing the Feminists, and they plundered their camp. ⁵⁴ And Cane took the head of the Hedonist and brought it to Texas, but he put his Frame in his blog.

⁵⁵ As soon as Vox saw Cane go out against the Hedonist, he said to Keoni, the commander of the army, “Keoni, whose blog-son is this youth?” And Keoni said, “As your soul lives, O king, I do not know.” ⁵⁶ And the king said, “Inquire whose blog-son the boy is.” ⁵⁷ And as soon as Cane returned from the striking down of the Hedonist, Keoni took him, and brought him before Vox with the head of the Hedonist in his hand. ⁵⁸ And Vox said to him, “Whose son are you, young man?” And Cane answered, “I am the blog-son of your servant Dalrock the Manospherian.”

_____________________

Now if it strikes you that I have must have Irrational Confidence to write myself into this position, that just means you’ve missed the point. Besides, it’s in my tent–with all the other armor. This post was born of an email to a friend, and in the middle (it took quite awhile to do this. My own words are easier.) another friend made the comment that my advice leaves men defenseless. That just means he’s missed the point of the Real Story.

And if it bothers you that I’ve camped PUAs in with the Feminists, then you don’t understand that it is the state that lends women from its harem, for use in the harems of others.

 

Update: Free Northerner tackled this scripture well, here.

Games 2:14-18

I had an epiphany today on the nature of my struggle with Game’s usefulness: It’s a crisis of faith versus works.

The writers of Game with a Christian background (currently or no) seem to follow this cleft, too. The closer a person skews to Roman Catholic, the more likely the person takes the approach of : Work the system–practice and ritual will get you there. But even Baptists get baptized.

The closer you are to Protestantism, the more Game seems to be about Frame; inner-Game. The idea that successful Game is the fruit of internalizing it. Still, Roman Catholics should read their Bible.

I’m a Protestant at heart, so that probably influences my view.

So You Want to Rule Me

Roissy says it this way: “Tingles are born in the defensive crouch.”, but that pales in comparison to scripture: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

During my dark days there were several women (all but one) who tried to validate their feelings for me–their desire to make me their husband–with their knowledge that I was an adulterer. It was always couched in a warning–for my benefit, you see. Yet they spread their legs to me without me even asking. Their mistake was born of conflict in their own minds; between wanting to believe that men slip into adultery, and knowing that men actually choose it. In my case, I was very deliberate about it; though it was the women who made themselves available to me.

They all knew I was married.

They all knew I was a father.

They all wanted to control me.

They all thought the way to do it was offer me their vaginas.

They all wanted me, but I ruled over them.

It’s not because I am a “natural”, or had tight Game. It’s because it’s an inescapable consequence of the Fall. Another part of that Fall is that, as a man, my misdeeds can have a profoundly corrosive effect. Recognizing this is part of being a man. And that’s all I am. I’m no longer an adulterer. I’m just a man who is waiting to be transformed by Christ, and trying to point others in a more profitable direction than the one I’ve take. I’m no gentleman. There is no way around the Want and the Rule, and only the Fall explains women’s hypergamy in overdrive.

And some natural alpha I am, who’s wife got fat, and who was repeatedly denied, and nagged. No matter how tight your Game is, marriage changes the relationship RADICALLY. You can’t Neg away the nag. You can’t Push-Pull the fat off. You can’t parlay Kino into sex with a rebellious wife.

I’m not saying Game writers don’t get it, or that they don’t say it–because they do. They see it, and most say it (and often!) as: DON’T GET MARRIED. And they’re right, in a sense, because marriage dispels the Game paradigm as light dispels dark. A big part of establishing your Frame, with Game, is the ability to move on. The Christian man does not have this option; emotionally, or spiritually. If she’s your first, as she should be, then for physical/biochemical reasons as well. If you do divorce, then you have to contemplate the fact that you can never marry another. He cannot hide in the dark once the light is shone on him. Again: the Bible, all of it, is meant for you.

Marriage is a big commitment; HUGE in this legal era of misandry and frivolous divorce theft. Some Game writers will tell you that you must practice marriage/LTR Game. First of all, LTR/marriage Game starts from the foundation that you can, and maybe should, divorce your wife. And if you look at their lives, that’s what they do for a living: they Game. This is either because LTR Game takes so much time, or as I say: because Game–as those men write about it–is more than a bag of discipline tricks that you reach into when the wife acts out. They go far beyond Negs, Push-Pull, Fitness Tests, Kino, dressing well, working out; which I’ve said I see no problem with. It’s when you start talking about establishing Frame where you have to choose Game or scripture. Game can give you a Frame, but to make it Impenetrable you have to submit to the Ring of Game, the Breaking Wheel.

The reason that I chose to divulge my whole story in the comments of the previous post was for a handful of men that have sent me emails. I want to clear the misconceptions away of the idea of “natural” Impenetrable Frame. You only get impenetrable when you decide what you believe, no matter what, no matter who is standing against you, or trying to win you over. Even though I have been a baptized believer since I was eight, I didn’t believe that the Bible was all meant for me; good for my instruction. I thought it, and I would say it, but I didn’t believe it. You have to submit to God’s Word. You have to submit to the idea and understanding* that scripture are Dark Sayings, (powerful) Things Heard and Known. You must rule yourself, and the only way to rule yourself is to submit to one belief system or another; to understand.*

No man can serve two masters.

*What do we mean when we say we stand under something?

Dark Scripture: Ignore the TSA

Prologue: This post was originally a comment over at Sunshinemary’s very good blog, The Woman and the Dragon. The post itself was about a young couple who were struggling with traditional husband and wife roles; particularly the frequency of sex. At some point, it transformed into a bit of an intervention on how to get me to realize the usefulness of Game, and how I’m in denial about my use of it in my own life; after revealing some spots of serious trouble. During the rising action of the confrontation, Sunshinemary threw out (as an aside) that she didn’t know what a Neg is, or Push/Pull. I used that as a springboard for an overall statement on my thoughts on Game (though I confess I didn’t intend this when I started it). We pick up at the climax of the conversation with me defining the “Neg”.

“Neg” and “push-pull” are somewhat related, in their intents. In a further demonstration of the depths of my hypocrisy, the easiest way to explain the Neg is by example.

Yesterday, going through security at the airport, the screener was a young pretty Puerto Rican girl with crazy long eye-lashes. In an attempt to make my day less oppressive (because I HATE the TSA, airports, and my platinum status), I said, “Those are some serious eyelashes you’ve got there.”

That was a Neg. And she responded as a PUA would predict: by proving herself. Suddenly she’s not bored by checking my ID, but looking at me–half-shocked and half-pleased–and saying, “They’re real! I wouldn’t wear fake lashes!”, as she mindlessly scribbles on my ticket. All thoughts of me being a potential bomber have flown. If I had said, “I like your eyelashes”, she would have offered a self-satisfied “Thanks” without ever looking up.

Of course, as soon as I got my ticket back, I thought: Crap. I just Gamed her., but it never even occurred to me in the process. I was just trying to not hate being at the airport. Again, it’s not that Game doesn’t work. That’s not the question. It is this: Is this something that most Christian men should be studying? And if it is, is reading PUAs the right way to go about learning it?

I know: to the sexually frustrated men of the world I sound like the biggest sonuvabitch. What other reason can there be for me to argue against Game–which is what they see when I describe what I do–except to conclude that I’m trying to keep other men from being successful? We’ll come back to this.

If Game means simply the list of tools: 1) Neg (tease), 2) Push-Pull (busy now, call you later), 3) Kino(escalation in touch, duration of touch, and meaning of touch) 4) Passing Fitness Tests (ignore, deride humorously, amplify to absurdity) then I don’t really have a problem with it.

BUT! Successful Game-users will tell you that you can’t just follow a checklist, you have to make it your Frame. What do they mean?

If Game is about building “Frame” (sometimes called Impenetrable Frame), then we ought to know what we mean by “Frame”. “Frame” is short for “Frame of Reference”. In other words, from what point of view do you hear comments, make comments, and take action? It’s a question of who is the author of that reference. If it’s biology–as Game says–then do whatever is biologically sound; whatever it permits. If our frame of reference is scripture as the Word of God, then we ought to be looking from scripture’s perspective whenever we have a question of the Author about what we should say or do.

Now:

1. It’s been said on here that I have natural Impenetrable Frame. It’s taken as a given that my sexual “success” with women is proof of that Frame.

2. I’ve said that whatever Frame I have is because of the discipline I received growing up; very much including reading and memorizing scripture. In turn, I suggest that others start reading and memorizing scriptures; that the frame will grow out of this.

3. I am implicated as a idiot-savant (at best), and a Dark Game-using* liar (at worst); when I say it’s scripture that set my frame.** It’s said to me that scripture won’t get you there. It’s further retorted to me that–according to the deep reading into the psychology of my writing–that what I actually did was employ Game, but I just can’t see it. This is credited to either my blinding stupidity, or my guilty cheating heart, or both.

To return to the long-eyelash girl: The truth of the matter is that–if you read the Bible–you’ll learn that allowing yourself to be charmed by a woman’s beauty can be a ruinous path. You’ll also learn that women aren’t supposed to be flaunting their beauty. If a woman is doing so, this is a sign of bad character, and other ungodly behavior. You must balance this with the idea that beauty is real, and itself godly. The way forward is to notice the beauty of the world, but not be beguiled by it because earthly beauty is fleeting. It’s godly beauty that is truly worthy of praise. So, the Bible-reading man who notices a particularly beautiful woman says to himself: “Now, there’s something.” If saying it aloud to the possessor of beautiful eyelashes, you might say it as: “Those are some serious eyelashes you’ve got there.”

OR, you could read Roissy’s Sixteen Commandments of Poon. Number Ten is “Ignore her beauty”. Without even reading past the rule to the whole definition, the superiority of the scriptural method reveals itself. Whatever truth is in the definition is–at best–incomplete, because ignoring a woman’s beauty is to miss something wonderful. But let’s take a look at that commandment’s definition:

The man who trains his mind to subdue the reward centers of his brain when reflecting upon a beautiful female face will magically transform his interactions with women. His apprehension and self-consciousness will melt away, paving the path for more honest and self-possessed interactions with the objects of his desire. This is one reason why the greatest lotharios drown in more love than they can handle — through positive experiences with so many beautiful women they lose their awe of beauty and, in turn, their powerlessness under its spell. It will help you acquire the right frame of mind to stop using the words hot, cute, gorgeous, or beautiful to describe girls who turn you on. Instead, say to yourself “she’s interesting” or “she might be worth getting to know”. Never compliment a girl on her looks, especially not a girl you aren’t fucking. Turn off that part of your brain that wants to put them on pedestals. Further advanced training to reach this state of unawed Zen transcendence is to sleep with many MANY attractive women (try to avoid sleeping with a lot of ugly women if you don’t want to regress). Soon, a Jedi lover you will be.

Did you catch that? Let me translate: To see beyond the outer beauty of any given female, you must sleep with MANY attractive women. Does this sound anything but immoral to anyone? (I don’t want to hear “Dark Game”*.) What Roissy and scripture agree on is that you can’t just say to yourself, mantra-like: Ignore her beauty. Ignore her beauty. Ignore her beauty. You’ve got to have a reason to actually believe it. You must be saying this to yourself reflexively, automatically. If you don’t, you can’t count on saying the right thing to the girl at the right time. Scripture says we do this by having good order; by observing everything in its place. Roissy says to do this by dashing your preconceptions about beauty on the boulders of many attractive, promiscuous, women.

The great thing about using Roissy’s Commandment Ten as an example is that this one is almost universally touted as being essentially Christian in spirit and practice. It’s not me who hasn’t been thinking seriously about Game, and it’s not Roissy either.

Plus, now you know why I picked this blog’s title.

*How does an amoral set of tools, or even some subset of those tools, acquire the modifier “Dark”? What sense does Dark Game make, when Game is amoral? Biology is the author of Game, and biology is amoral; so all Game is therefore amoral, and so by definition cannot be Dark. After all, Game takes it as a given that men are by nature polygynous; so really we have to say that cheating is just an amoral biological function, and that it is scripture which is transgressing on biology’s innocent, amoral, tools.

**Has it occurred to anyone that the best PUAs currently in the Game world are either current or former Christians (Roissy, Rollo, Mentu, ThePrivateMan, the list goes on…) with more than a passing knowledge of scripture? Why do we attribute their success to palm-reading tricks instead of the power of God’s word; even in the hands of sinners? Furthermore: Has it occurred to anyone that a person could read scripture and then use it to seduce; that there are plenty of women out there who get turned on by the idea of the Son of the Preacher Man? Call it: Dark Scripture.

Should Marriage Be Easy?

AR10308 continues to prove to be a very valuable critic, and I appreciate it.

I think that this demonstrates that for most things mean to be widely consumed, being able to simplify for accessibility is the way to go. Granted, there is value in doing things that are hard, like Ranger School and SEAL training, however those are only meant for a select few. If having a good marriage required that level of focus and intensity at all times, there wouldn’t be hope for anyone.

I’m going to suggest that we’re often not understanding the depth of the problem. As Christians we must take into account that:

1) Marriage is a very serious business from the Christian man’s perspective, with serious rewards and consequences. It’s not merely about having poon-on-tap (although: be fruitful). To begin from that frame of reference is to lose sight of the inherent godliness of a Christian wife, and therefore lose sight of what we’re to be about as Christian husbands. Sex isn’t just something we do in the meantime. It’s part of our calling. Ask any husband currently being denied, and he’ll tell you he’s not only dealing with a physical hunger, but a spiritual one, as well. If we don’t agree with this, then Game (simplifying the accessibility) is what you want.

2) We shouldn’t gloss over the fact that when a Christian man chooses marriage (as he should if he burns with passion), then he is giving up most, if not all, of his effectiveness to the larger Kingdom of God. His focus must now be on his wife and family. We skip this point a lot, in our desire to fulfill our physical urges.

3) From the legal perspective: modern marriage is a pit-trap over Hell, covered over with the palm fronds of emotional imperative, dating around, and princess weddings.* Marriage is a must for the sexually aroused Christian, so he has to step out over that pit. Game seems to me–at best–a latticework that can be placed over the fronds. It can be of some use, but it has so many holes in it that, perversely, it seduces not only the woman (as is its intent), but also the man into thinking that he’s safe. What we want is a reliable, full, covering of the pit, to rescue us from that Hell.

4) The Christian marriage is also about bringing forth fruit; not only of the spiritual kind, but with a decided emphasis on the physical fruit of children, and rearing them until we give them back to Christ; as co-conspirators, not mere underlings. The married Christian must confront this. Imagine the conversation with your son, with whom you wish to be not only honest, but useful: “No, no, no. I’m not mad at your mother: I’m just Gaming her.”

I’m going to stop here, because I think that thinking through the problem from this perspective on my own was very helpful to me, and can be for others.

End Note: One of the things that was reinforced by writing this, was how much scripture has to say on the subject, and how thankful I am to my father (and my Father) for giving it to me. Thanks, Dad. There’s a lesson here about how to develop your frame.

*Dalrock and I seem to be singing from the same hymnal today. Not sure who’s the melody, and who is the harmony.

On Loyalty: Some Excellence from Mad Men

I’m a big fan of a good story, but I especially like those that can be learned from. That should explain a bit of my over-eagerness to compare Game writings with The Marix more completely than just the concept of the Red Pill ushering one into reality.

Netflix only has through season four of Mad Men, so that’s as far as I’ve watched, but the first season is very good, and of course there are many Game-related topics to investigate. I’m sure there’s been quite a bit of it: Roissy has talked of the main character Don Draper several times. There’s a scene from the end of the first season that came to mind when I read a comment from one of my more passionate detractors. He wrote:

I think we’re all waiting for your teachings on a Christian frame of masculinity that is as rapidly digestable as the Red Pill. Meanwhile, we read your stories about you handle your wife and think “he just Gamed her textbook”, to which you reply “Nah, I used being a Christian” that I can’t help reading in Mark Driscoll’s* voice.

Now, I never said “rapidly digestible”. Very few things that solve fundamental problems can be done quickly. Indeed, Game might be a useful stop-gap, as several people suggested. At this point, in the gun-to-head scenario, I’d have to say it’s not a solution. As to me gaming my wife: I must admit that it certainly looks that way; except the examples he’s referring to were from before I’d even heard of the term (“He got game” withstanding). This is why I keep trying to crack this nut. Furthermore, in those instances I was just angry, not calculating. There are plenty of men who became furious at their wives, and still were served papers.

Let’s get back to the topic. The people that are still mad at this man don’t seem to understand that I did something that is pretty difficult to do: attempt to synthesize all the disparate aspects of Game**, and address how that synthesis is not useful to the Christian Married Man. Ok, so I’m wrong. Who Cares? Many (including me) wouldn’t even know why or how it is wrong (if it is) if I hadn’t attempted it. The links I gave in the first post were to some very powerful rebuttals to me, and I challenge anyone to synthesize even those. I can’t, but I learned a lot from each of them and their respective comments…even of the detractors…maybe even especially of them. Which brings me back to Mad Men.

Mad Men Spoilers Ahead, and in the Video

Don Draper is living a lie. He stole a dead man’s name to escape the Korean War. One of his underlings, Pete Campbell, found out and tried to blackmail Don by threatening to reveal his secret if Don doesn’t give him a promotion. Don calls his bluff and gives the promotion to another character; which plays out in the clip below:

In one sense, I played Don Draper in Bert “Dalrock” Cooper’s office to all the incensed Pete Campbells out there. My story doesn’t fully jive with the wider narrative of my life. But from a different perspective, I was the Pete Campbell, bewildered and angered by the unspoken inconsistencies of the Don Drapers of the rest of the Game blogs–several of whom displayed much more displeasure than Don shows in the clip above. The Coopers responded to me: Who Cares?

The point of this blog is to put my energy into bringing in accounts***, and I suggest my Pete Campbells do the same. One never knows how loyalty is born.

* A particularly, and mostly justifiably, hated-in-the-manosphere preacher.

** And I was at least partially wrong; maybe fully wrong. My thesis isn’t completed yet.

*** I have four, no: five, no: six as-yet-to-be-completed posts waiting for more time and more specific inspiration, but accounts are coming.

I Heard You

After my first guest post* on why I don’t think Christians need Game** at Dalrock’s, the comment was made that I should get my own blog. As with most anonymous suggestions, it was very sweet.

One of the best things about it was that I got to find out I’m not a disciplined, or organized thinker. That’s a trap I fell into because, outside of blogs, I interact with people who are not even interested in thinking. And as a commenter on blogs, you’re not really punished for having incoherent streams of gobbledygook because one bit of flotsam hardly differs from another.

Writing a post for a blog with nearly 3 million hits–and being responded to–will bring this error more clearly into focus.

Just so they’re collected in one place, here are the links to various blog posts in response to that piece. They’re in no particular order except in how I remembered them.

The Left Half is the half I left off.
Alpha Game Plank in its own eye
UMan Defense Against the Dork Arts 1
UMan Defense Against the Dork Arts 2 (It takes two classes to understand how wrong I am)
Society of Amateur Gentlemen: Gollum Game
The Private Man’s Religion is Private, Man
Society of Phineas declines to deride me (much appreciated)

Update: Free Northerner Helps Stop the Gaps in my Logic

I invite everyone to read them, and the comments–which at last check were all well under 100–so this isn’t a huge task; unlike Dalrock’s blog.

In conclusion:

*I’m ridiculously grateful to Dalrock for that opportunity.

**Should, maybe, possibly be “I didn’t think…”