(Editor’s Note: Keoni has been a friend to me since I started. He was one of the first commenters, and when I started he immediately put me into his blogging feed.)
In a comment of my last post I wrote something that I want to expound upon.
Clothes and jokes and negs (teasing) can cover over some marital bad spots for a short while, but in the meantime if you’re not addressing the underlying problem it will never work. The slut crutches of negs, dread, etc. are fine methods for picking up, spinning plates, etc., but a lousy way to run a marriage.
Let me rephrase that last paragraph in a way that doesn’t sound so harsh to the pro-Game crowd: Game tactics are spices, but pepper does not a meal make. Nor are folks starving to death (divorcing) over its lack. The problem is–and I think Keoni should agree–is that we have gorged on simulated sweets. Now some folks are claiming more pepper with the sweets will make those phony meals nutritious because we have heard that some healthy folks put pepper on wholesome food.
To which he responded:
“I like the analogy, but I’ll respectfully disagree on the “starving to death” aka divorcing analogy.
The lack of spices in cooking leads to a monotony of bland dishes. While bland dishes can be nourishing, when access to spice is available, the temptations of the spicy meal can be much more compelling when you’ve endured years of nothing but bland, unseasoned fare.
“Variety is the spice of life” “
There are two reasons I want to continue this discussion, and the second follows from the first, and in (at least) another post.
All Good Game is Good
In my last couple posts I talked about how all things God made are intrinsically good and have moral value. So, don’t tell me that “Game is just an amoral box of tools”. That won’t fly here until you are prepared to prove logically, through scripture, that God makes things that are without morals. “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are good for me”, he said…twice. If they are lawful they are good. What is the modifying substance? You. Me. Humans. It may be that I am not fit or ready to use something. It may be that you are not strong enough for me to safely use them, and I must take you into consideration when I do something. Regardless, the things themselves are still lawful; they are good because we know God only makes good things.
Where we get into trouble is labels. When we give a label to a behavior we tend to start thinking of it as a thing unto itself. That’s fine and even good if it is a thing, but sometimes it’s not a thing, but an action. Hypergamy, for example, describes the female preference in mating. If a married woman finds another man who is more dominating, superior, and attractive than her husband her hypergamy is probably going to notice. If she acts on that hypergamy (from flirting to fornicating) then we might say that her hypergamy drove her to it. We would be wrong. That’s not hypergamy. Hypergamy is the thing that made her notice he was superior/attractive–and that’s it. What she’s engaged in is coveting and lust. It’s lack of self-control. Lust and coveting aren’t unconscious “biological drives” unanswerable to reason. They’re choices. They are the willful products of a mind that is conformed to the spirit of this age.
The other way labels get us into trouble is we start to call behaviors–choices–as things; such as lust. Lust is not a thing, but a decision. We make the label lust because it’s a heck of a lot easier to say “She is full of lust”, than it is to say, “She has a habit of repeatedly engaging in sexual thoughts and conduct that were inappropriate.” Hypergamy is not a choice, but is a fact. Lust is a choice, and not a fact. Hypergamy is good. Lust is bad.
So, if your wife is suddenly browsing old high school boyfriends on Facebook, or talks about her male boss just a little too much: You don’t have a hypergamy, or even hypergamy in overdrive problem; you have a sinful wife problem.
There are good choices, too. Love is a choice; not a fact. Falling in love is a choice, not a fact. People will protest that it is beyond their control. That’s wrong. When a man says, “It’s not my fault that I fell out of love with her when she gained 50 lbs. and stopped wanting to have sex with me.”, that’s a lie–though he often doesn’t know it. The truth is, “She communicated to me that she didn’t want me to love her by gaining 50 lbs. and rejecting my sexual advances. So I quit trying to be in love.” We know this because it’s the only logical conclusion from our premises. We also know it because a man in that situation is angry at her and her behavior; not the facts of her existence. Men who focus on the facts tend to be melancholy, or even depressed about them; not angry.
Why do I say good Game is good? Well…it depends what we mean by Game. There are, generally speaking, three different definitions of Game.
- knowledge of the facts of human existence, circumstances and behavior
- an understanding of hypergamy, koreogamy, socio-sexual cues, and other features of human nature
- an understanding of current trends in the Marriage MarketPlace (MMP) and Sexual MarketPlace (SMP), i.e., knowledge of the behavior to which people are actually engaging
- the ability to read a person’s behavior; to interpret verbal and non-verbal cues; particularly of a sexual nature
- manipulation of self or circumstances to affect change in another’s perception or behavior
- ex.: flirting, dress, negs, agree and amplify, etc.
- is strictly conscious behavior
- this is the most-often denied definition, but is ubiquitously used (e.g., “I did X, and she couldn’t help herself!”)
- an established pattern of behavior
- strictly speaking this is conscious behavior, but it’s practiced unto relative thoughtlessness. It’s manipulation as muscle memory or rote response; like shifting gears, or tying shoelaces, or replying to a question with “Yes sir and no ma’am”.
- The way a person lives; the totality of their behavior. In this sense it’s like a personal culture. We say a person has “No Game” in the same way we say a people have “No culture”. What we really mean is either we don’t like the culture, or we believe the culture is inferior. Like it or not: McDonald’s and blue jeans are American culture.
The first definition really ought to be called something different, but for the sake of understanding I’ve included it. Regardless, it is, I think, wholly good. We are not called to be ignorant. We are to be wise as serpents. We are to heed wisdom crying aloud in the streets. Some knowledge may be unnecessary (there are plenty of deviant behaviors I could live my whole life without knowing), but if I were clean of sin, knowledge of them would be no hinderance to me anymore than it hinders God, and in fact might aid me in helping another. That’s a good thing.
The second and third definitions are the behaviors. These are the things that are not moral or immoral, but never amoral either. Again: Actions are not things, and the moral value of an action depends entirely on the actor, and the circumstances. You can get into some really crazy digressions here (and Catholics do), but the point to understand is that your intent, your act itself, and the consequences all have a bearing on the morality of any given action. More exasperatingly: Sometimes the second two conditions are completely unknowable; particularly the consequences.
Here’s a strange but vivid example: Suppose you’re on the 12th floor of a burning building with many other people. You look across the breezeway, and it seems to you that it’s close enough to jump from your window to their fire escape. You tell the others you have a plan, and they agree: You go first. You jump, miss the ledge, and plummet to your death. The remaining people find another route, and escape the blaze. Even though your intent was to save lives, and even though your example saved the lives of others, it was still stupid. Stupidity is sinful.
Some of you are asking, “But what is the thing that inspires and motivates a person to do what they do? Yes, love is an action, but God says He is Love, and that we ought to have love for one another. He speaks of it as a thing. And there are other things that are mentioned as things.” Yes, you’re right. Those things are called spirits. In out times, we’ve psychologized the crap out of spirits, and call them other things; the “psychology of…”; “attitude; psychiatric problems. We will call them anything to avoid the word spirit; unless we’re talking about ghosts, or some sparkly cosmic feel-good ultra-violet luminance to which we sorta-kinda pay homage in church. But spirits are real, Yes, God is love. God is and has a spirit. Love is a spirit. Spirits are real. They are what we tap into to motivate us to make decisions about what to do, and why. This is especially true when we aren’t sure of what we’re doing, as a mind can override a spirit. That’s what they’re for.
So which Game is good Game? It’s the action Game motivated by a good spirit. If you’re trying to figure out how to convince your wife to lose 50 lbs. so that you are attracted to her, then negs are not the answer because she’s going to get older and uglier no matter what you do. If you’re trying to get a woman to follow you for the rest of your life, then a committed workout routine and a sensible diet aren’t going to cut it when those luxuries are no longer available for economic, health, or age-related reasons. If you’ve been looking to evolutionary psychology for the reason your wife cheated on you, then you’re looking in the wrong place.
If you’ve been imitating Dark Triad of narcissism, psychopathy, and machiavellianism to attract and keep a wife, then you’re in for a world of pain. If you’ve been trying to appease and niceguy a former harlot into a goodgirl, then you and the Dark Triad guy can commiserate.
You, or she, or both have a spiritual problem, and need a spiritual solution. There are a lot of spirits out there vying for our attention, and some of them are loose in the world, and some of them are in people, and some of them are people. There is only one spirit of God though, and His spirit is love. This is why the civilizationalists vs. nihilists debate is–at best–a sideshow of the Christian Manosphere. It’s really just a huge debate on which type of paganism and idolatry one prefers. We are not called to save or destroy any society, and in fact we believe that they all will be burned. While it is a travesty that a wife can divorce her husband, and take half or more or even all of his belongings, that is insignificant compared to the fact that we will die, and everything we have will be given to others. Not only us, but our wives, our kids, and everyone we know. Crying over dismemberment of earthly hoards is truly ridiculous once we accept that. Yet it is the domain of Satan to steal, kill, and destroy. It is the friends of Job whom Christian nihilists echo. In fact, it is his wife whom they most resemble:
“9 Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die.”10 But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
We shall receive good and evil. Christian marriage isn’t about saving civilization, and it isn’t about avoiding caddishness, sluthood, and nihilism. It’s about committing to love and serve someone who is not worthy of love, but who needs it. It’s about collaborating with them in a loving, joyful, and orderly spirit of authority and submission to be not only open, but enthusiastic about raising and sending forth life and spirit. It’s about representing the gospel and the trinity to the world. If civilization or darkness prevails during our times, that is God’s business, not ours. We cannot know whether we shall save our spouses, much less civilization.
As for the Christian MGTOW…what about them? The Christian MTGOW is perfectly acceptable and holy; provided that he is in the right spirit. If his spirit is one of destruction and condemnation, then he is of Satan; who was a murderer from the beginning.
To some of you, this may seem like a simple a different perspective or rephrasing of the same things most the Game bloggers are saying (with a holy-roller bit tacked on at the end), but this shift in paradigms will make all the difference. In the next post I’ll take a look at three Manosphere stories (two of which should be familiar to most of my readers), and dissect them to show what I’m talking about, to those who can see and hear it.
I didn’t do my links to bible verses this time. Judging by the click-throughs they are a waste of time. If you want to know upon which verse(s) I base a statement you can ask me in the comments, and I will gladly reply.
 I’m a big fan of labels, but that doesn’t mean we ought not be considerate in their use…you hippie.
 You’ll notice I do not include the accumulation of things or experiences in here. From a Game perspective, it’s useless to simply be wealthy if it is not demonstrated in some way. A dotcom billionaire in a teeshirt and jeans is no better off than the broke college student in teeshirt and jeans until the girl sees the ferrari. Also, a string of past sexual conquests is worthless unless it can be demonstrated to have value. Prostitutes are sexually conquered no less than tramps; but women will judge the value of those conquests differently.