Men’s Sphere Thought Experiment II: Divorce is Just a Tool

Divorce is just a tool, and it can be used for good or for evil. Christian women need divorce because the church is no longer teaching Biblical marriage where a husband loves his wife as Christ loves the Church. If a husband in any way lacks dominance or attraction, then Christian women absolutely must learn the power of divorce.

Because divorce is morally neutral, then we can apply it judiciously. Christian women don’t need to go whole hog divorce, but what’s wrong with a little seasoning? Start lightly; maybe pretend you have a headache tonight, and withhold sex from him.

Divorce is truth: Thousands if not hundreds of thousands of women have encouraged their man to get some skills in attraction and dominance by withholding sex, divorce, and the efficient use of adultery. What’s wrong with her flirting in front of her husband if it causes him display a little manliness? Even if things don’t work out between her and him, she will have left him better than she found him.

If this is wrong, explain why in the comments.

Doublethinking Lust III: Trying to Harness Seduction

Simon Grey–a favorite and friend of mine–takes me to task for what he sees as a host of errors in my recent posts about Game. Most of his accusations miss the mark because they are cascaded from his unwillingness to acknowledge that word seduction has a negative connotation; that seduction is a negative connotation. He writes:

Let’s start with consulting the dictionary.  Merriam-Webster’s defines seduction as, “the act of seducing; especially:  the enticement of a person to sexual intercourse; something that seduces; something that attracts or charms.”  Astute readers will note that this definition of seduction makes absolutely no assertion towards the morality of its ends.  Seducing a woman for sex can be good (like getting your wife into bed) or it can be bad (like getting someone else’s wife into bed), but there is nothing intrinsic to seduction that makes it good or bad.  So, Cane’s understanding of seduction is not great because he apparently doesn’t even know what the word “seduction” even means.

Let me fix that bolded sentence for Simon: “Mildly astute readers will make a half-assed effort and then congratulate themselves to note that this particular definition of seduction makes absolutely no assertion towards the morality of its ends.”

We can know this a few ways.

1. The etymology of the word means “to lead astray”.

2. The KJV, ESV, NASB, and NKJV only and always use the word seduction or seduce in the sense of “lead astray”. It is not without reason that we are taught that “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”; rather than, say, “Believe in yourself to have the right answer.”

3. Most damningly, his own provided definition for seduction starts with: “the act of seducing”. Clicking to the definition of seducing returns the definition of seduce, as we would imagine. Please do look, and notice that there is a blue blurb box that gives you an incomplete definition of seduce; a sort of Twitter version of the definition. Below that, in the white box, it reads:

Full Definition of SEDUCE

1:  to persuade to disobedience or disloyalty
2:  to lead astray usually by persuasion or false promises
3:  to carry out the physical seduction of :  entice to sexual intercourse
4:  attract
se·duc·er noun

Ska-doosh. The important part of seduction is not the part about attraction or persuasion, but about disobedience, disloyalty, and leading astray. If we want to talk about attraction or persuasion, then we use the words…attraction and persuasion.

Someone who instead picks the word seduction wants to entangle harness a particular meaning. Just so: Someone who wants us to choose the word seduction wants to harness entangle us to be lead astray. Some of those people went to college. Some of those people even teach at college. Some of those people write dictionaries.

For this reason, those in Christian homeschooling circles often and wisely recommend the use of Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English language. Here is that definition of seduction:

1. The act of seducing or of enticing from the path of duty.

We ought not be the sort of people who can’t distinguish between harnessing, and entangling.

This is How We Shall Live

When I was growing up, our church devoted one Sunday a year to youth. Instead of the pastor preaching, and the music minister leading the hymns, on that particular Sunday evening service various youth were chosen to take up those roles. One of those years, I was asked to give the sermon for the Youth Service. I chose Ephesians 6:10-20. It was the only sermon I ever preached, as I rejected the path of a pastor, or priest. This is not that sermon, but it is still a passage I reflect on often, and from which others who are searching out what it means to be manly might profit.

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. 14 Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. 16 In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; 17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, 18 praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, 19 and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.

“Finally”: As in utterly, regardless of all else, most importantly, this is it.

“be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might”: Have confidence (confidence means “keep faith with”) put your faith with God’s love for you and in His ability to sustain and perfect you as He sent His only Son to die for your sins, and then bodily raised Him from the dead, and took Him back to rule in Heaven. Not faith in yourself; not in your talents; not in your accomplishments; not in others, nor their talents or accomplishments; not in civilization; not in progress; not in politics; not in kings; not even in priests and pastors.

“Put on the whole armor of God, “: There is a battle; a testing, and that battle is one where you will be attacked, and you need to armor-up to be prepared and protected. This armor is from God and for you.

“that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.”: It is a curious thing to recommend armor against schemes. Armor seems an unlikely choice to defend against traps, subterfuge, misdirection, seductions, temptations. It is counter-intuitive to armor up against schemes. (Machiavelli and Sun Tzu would surely scoff.) To armor-up is to prepare for direct conflict; when next we are informed that the enemy will attack indirectly. Our nature is to respond in kind; to fight fire with fire; strategy with strategy; psychology with psychology; subterfuge with subterfuge; misdirection for misdirection; seduction over seduction; scheme against scheme; devilry with devilry; evil for evil. If you’ve been churched (especially Protestant), it’s very likely that what you’ve been told is this is because we’re spirits fighting a spiritual war, and “armor” and “schemes” are just poetic stand-ins for “good things” and “bad things”, respectively, in the overall battle.

“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”: The answer to the puzzle of “Why armor against schemes?” is in the word “we”, and what “we” are. We are flesh and blood and spirit fighting against purely spiritual things. Our inclination (again) is to fight fire with fire–spirit with spirit–but what Paul is saying is that we fight the spirit with flesh and blood also, and so we need a flesh and blood defense. He is recommending a visible armor to fight invisible evils. It’s important that others can see your armor, which is your works.

“Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm.”: Our goal is not to kill, but to withstand. The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, Jesus said. That kingdom is besieged, and as the Church–the woman/son in the relationship between God and mankind–we are defenders of the hearth; not conquerors of the invaders. Our part is just to withstand, and that will be enough. Moreover: By necessity our home is our hospital, and anyone stricken down can find succor within. Having been taken captive to Christ’s home, they become free comrades. We can do this because we have confidence in Christ’s victory over Satan, evil, and death; in the power of His might.

“Stand therefore”: Get (you) up! Man (get) up! Woman (get) up! We hear little of the first, lots of the second, and near nigh of the third.

“having fastened on the belt of truth”: Take up the truth first. Whatever your starting principle is, that is your truth. It is the foundation and binding of the rest of the armor, and covers the stomach and loins. They hold fast the places of hunger and desire. Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” So, keeping in mind what we’ve learned so far about man’s proclivity to fight fire with fire: While it would seem intuitive to counter bad behavior or culture with bad behavior or culture, the way we are instructed is to counter it is with taking up the Gospel. It surrounds the place where you get “feelings in your gut”; where you find the guts to continue on because of the truth that is in you. Jesus said it this way:

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

This is the opposite of pride, self-esteem, irrational self-confidence, and “believing in yourself”; the opposite of greed; the opposite of lust; the opposite of wrath. This is truth encircling, covering, training, girting, and belting down animal desires.

“and having put on the breastplate of righteousness”: Righteousness performs two important tasks. Most importantly it guards your heart. Returning to the Beatitudes, Jesus says:

8Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Acting rightly will keep you from temptations, agonies, broken hearts, and sentimentality. The second task is showing your emblem, your heraldry: to Whom you belong, and what honor and decorations have been given to you. And that honor is persecution:

10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Persecuted for the sake of the emblem upon your chest, the sign of your Master, and the owner of your inheritance.

“and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace.”: Having been equipped to stand with truth and righteousness, you will be prepared to be sent forth into dangerous terrain with unsure footing. Where once the unfulfilled law marked the way no man could go, now is passable to him who walks in the gospel of Peace; making the good news of peace wherever he goes.

In Romans Paul writes with this same metaphor:

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 and how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

It is a reference to Isaiah, one of the prophets who lived in the times of fall of Israel and Judah, and wrote of better times to come:

How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings,
that publisheth peace;
that bringeth good tidings of good,
that publisheth salvation;
that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!

The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand! Jesus calls those who wear the shoes of the gospel blessed, peacemakers, and the children of God.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

“In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one” Having girt your desires with truth, plated and polished your breast with clean action, and strapped on the surefootedness of the Gospel: Do not think you will be attacked face-to-face, and keep the faith that you are being attacked because they recognize righteousness as the mark of the evil one’s Enemy; because you are doing His work, and not because you are being punished by God.

11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

These fiery darts come in many forms: arrows, javelins, spears, gossip, false accusations, divorce, rebellion, mockery… More deadly are the darts that burn with the poison of flattery, sensuality, sentimentality, and seduction. Whatever you may have heard about keys and locks: The master keys of Earth, and their holders, can only open empty graves.

For there is no faithfulness in their mouth;
their inward part is very wickedness;
their throat is an open sepulchre;
they flatter with their tongue.


For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb,
and her mouth is smoother than oil:
but her end is bitter as wormwood,
sharp as a two-edged sword.
Her feet go down to death;
her steps take hold on hell.

The clever among them know it, but they return to it over and over again like dogs to vomit.[1]

“and take the helmet of salvation”: The head is the container of the mind, and four of the five senses. Here we see the fading beauty of the world; we hear the gospel and the law; we taste the salt; we smell death. Altogether, we can know and reason the need for our salvation. The head is also the master of the body, and with it we command the limbs to work out our salvation as we keep the fear of the Lord ever-present in the mind, and there He does His work in our minds.

12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

which we then pass down to the body; eating and digesting His work which brings nourishment and enables our bodies to obey the head; which is protected by this salvation process.

“and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God”: The one weapon of God; His Word literally embodied in Christ; and also figured in the Bible, and in the Lord’s Supper. It is a double-edged sword to be wielded offensively–to cause offense–for the defense of others. Unlike all the other pieces of the armor of God, it is never used in place, or at rest. It does not perform its task while sheathed, or simply on your person. You never complete its training; the more you use it the more it teaches you about its use. It is the only item that can cause injury to the wielder, and easily in the hands of the foolish, but familiarity strengthens the mind, body, and spirit. Swung swift and accurate, it sings, and it is beautiful, light, keen, strong, and lethal.

“praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints”: Be mindful and steadfast in your defense, and more for the defense of others. Keeping communication to God open; especially for your fellow protectors, who are also under siege; sacrificing the priority of your desires, for their needs.

“and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.”: This same armor is the uniform-chain of an ambassador-slave to Christ; whose yoke is easy, and who grants freedom from the world. Everywhere the servant of Christ goes in His uniform, His chains, His armor; the ambassador-slave is free from all ideologies, theories, politics, and various contrivances of men.

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

In the King James Version, it begins: “Finally, my brethren…” which tells better whom Paul is addressing. This after he addressed children and servants (among whom are wives; as some brethren are to other men). This last chapter is the summary of how we are to relate to and serve one another in our service to God.

[1] This link came in precisely as I wrote that sentence. Not sure what to think about that. YMMV.

The Errors Among Us I: Vox vs. Chesterton

Recently I’ve been told again that I have an improper understanding of Game; that my definition is not great because I put a great deal of focus both on the word and on the concept of seduction; which is enticement towards evil. It is stated, implied, and assumed that therefore I don’t understand what Game means, or what it is; that if I actually understood Game, or if I actually understood its application that I’d be able to–as a Christian–understand that it’s a matter of seducing the right woman into marriage. Not convincing (that’s something losers do), but getting a woman to like a man so much that she wants to have his babies, and that continuance of this seduction will lead to a happy wife happy life (enjoying her life, and happy do his bidding) scenario.

To be fair: Pro-Game folks hate that phrase. They’d much rather turn it around and say that Game stops  a wife from being unhappy and from the man having an unhappy life. Damned if I can see the difference.

It’s also said–particularly by those of the Vox Day Alpha Game Plan persuasion–that an understanding of Game unlocks the secrets of a contented existence; not just in marital or sexual relations but across the human experience. In other words, it would open one’s eyes to the various things that the Neoreactionary and Dark Enlightenment folks have been going on about. With that in mind, let’s look at his definition of Game; written in response to my very first post in the Men’s Sphere, and hosted by my friend Dalrock.

Vox Day: A much better definition of Game is this: the conscious attempt to observe and understand successful natural behaviors and attitudes in order to artificially simulate them.

So, Game–in it’s broadest sense–is about looking at men who have found success in the world, calling that worldly success good, and then imitating it to the point that these habits of worldly success are internalized and then realized.

Now the first thing to accept if we accept Vox’s idea is that Christ failed at this. He was literally born in a barn (the very phrase we throw at those who have no civilization whatsoever) and slept where animals eat; symbolically, He was food for the stupidest animals, and not only animals, but the animals who are too stupid to remain wild. This all happens under suspicious circumstances, born to probably a teenage mother and a father who was not His biological father; without schooling, without wealth; indeed without ANY of the trappings that we consider worldly success. When He grew up He quit His job, and took up bumming around to tell a tiny beat-down nation of sell-outs, sheepherders, ragamuffins, and whores who cut on their sons’ genitals about a God they did not know.

At first, He got some followers; quite a lot of them. Then those throngs dwindled down to a mere 72, and then to 12 disciples; salt of the earth crackpots the lot of them. Eventually, each of those 12 would desert Him, and Jesus would be hung on the cross for (a whole lot of) something He didn’t do. After his death, the only one’s who gave a hoot about Him was a handful of spinsters. Pathetic.

I’m not the first to see this contrast between the story of Christ and the stories of worldly success, but I just wanted to lay it out very clear. Should any of my readers have the bad habit of thinking of themselves as conservative, reactionary, neoreactionary, traditionalist, etc. this old Chesterton chestnut should be right up your alley:

If the Jews had answered that question wrongly they might have lost all their after influence in human history. They might have sunk even down to the level of modern well educated society. For when once people have begun to believe that prosperity is the reward of virtue their next calamity is obvious. If prosperity is regarded as the reward of virtue it will be regarded as the symptom of virtue. Men will leave off the heavy task of making good men successful. They will adopt the easier task of making out successful men good. This, which has happened throughout modern commerce and journalism, is the ultimate Nemesis of the wicked optimism of the comforters of Job. If the Jews could be saved from it, the Book of Job saved them. The Book of Job is chiefly remarkable, as I have insisted throughout, for the fact that it does not end in a way that is conventionally satisfactory. Job is not told that his misfortunes were due to his sins or a part of any plan for his improvement.

But in the prologue we see Job tormented not because he was the worst of men, but because he was the best. It is the lesson of the whole work that man is most comforted by paradoxes. Here is the very darkest and strangest of the paradoxes; and it is by all human testimony the most reassuring. I need not suggest what a high and strange history awaited this paradox of the best man in the worst fortune. I need not say that in the freest and most philosophical sense there is one Old Testament figure who is truly a type; or say what is prefigured in the wounds of Job.

Time for a rewind. Here’s Vox again on the good that is Game:

A much better definition of Game is this: the conscious attempt to observe and understand successful natural behaviors and attitudes in order to artificially simulate them.

Here’s Chesterton again on the foolishness of calling success good:

For when once people have begun to believe that prosperity is the reward of virtue their next calamity is obvious. If prosperity is regarded as the reward of virtue it will be regarded as the symptom of virtue. Men will leave off the heavy task of making good men successful. They will adopt the easier task of making out successful men good. This, which has happened throughout modern commerce and journalism, is the ultimate Nemesis of the wicked optimism of the comforters of Job.

Next time you’re chuckling at Heartiste’s Beta of the Month entry: Chew on that. Whom did God imitate–what kind of man did God assume–when He came to Earth, and what does that tell you about what He believes success to be, and who should be called good?

If God is the god who made families, and if the Bible tells us about how both are ordered: Why isn’t courtship and marriage the topic of discussion for family formation? Why are we instead discussing how to seduce properly; how to seduce the right woman? Why are we encouraging and women to marry the men to whom they have the most exciting physical response? Even if they try to mitigate it by looking for good provider traits–what the Hell kind of temptation is that to set? The whole idea of checking for sexual response first is perverse, and not in keeping with the tradition or what is assumed in the Bible.

None of this has anything to do with those things a man will, should, and can do with his bride once he has one. Can you slap her on the butt? Yes. Can you tease her? Can it be good for her to have some dread instilled in her by someone who loves her? Yes. What we’ve lost is the archaic definition of the word husbandry; as in the craft of husbands, and we lost the definition when we laid aside the wisdom. Gentile (non-Christian) wisdom for getting laid is not the way to go about getting it back.

The Language of Seduction

The acceptance of the word seduction among Christian men is one of the things I had in mind when I wrote my post Unplumbed Wrongness. I think a good deal of men like it for the very reason that it does have a dark connotation, and therefore they imagine it is “really powerful”; unlike convinction; which strikes men as goody-two-shoes.

I’ll just go ahead and throw this out there now, but the next link in the chain back is: Why did we stop using matchmakers, betrothal, etc.? This is part of the breakdown; the wrongness. Yet if you say it you’re a quack. By and large, one cannot get Christians to repent back to mere courtship; much less step back to arrangements.

Yet, the Bible generally presents a man choosing his spouse as the thing he does that brings trouble down on his head: Jacob (with Rachel), David, Solomon, Sampson, Pharoah (with Sarai)…I can’t think of an example of a man picking his spouse and it going well.

*Re-purposed from this comment.

Decrease Your System is Noise Ratio

Aquinas Dad writes:

[yes, I *do* have the phrase ‘authentic Christian masculinity and femininity’ on my clipboard, why do you ask?]

This is it. This is why some Christians in the Men’s Sphere are wont to throw every bit of wisdom (about food, race, class, corporations, etc.) all under the heading Game. The obfuscation of the term Game is a misuse of shorthand because people see some correlations, and it’s just a lot easier (if wrong) to extend the definition of Game to mean whatever contradicts or combats an untruth or common misconception is floating through the culture. This redefining is born of both sloth and a love of systems…like the clipboard function.

As I said WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back here, this is Game:

Game is the applied science of attraction, most commonly expressed as the art of seduction. It’s based on the supposed evolutionary psychology of human; with a special emphasis on exploiting the condition of hypergamy.

Whatever doesn’t fall under that is not Game. You’ll notice that wisdom (which means “understanding”) and Game are not the same, but that there are correlations.


My long view, unlike others, is not one where Christian principles take the world (or Western Civilization) by storm and through blood and smoke we right this ship of iniquity. God said that’s His domain, and that He turned it over to Christ, and that Christ’s good work is already being done. We’re just waiting while Our Lord tarries. Yet when Our Lord returns, He most surely will make an end to all those who have not heeded His call.

Before Paul writes to the Corinthians about marriage, he writes of a situation in their church where a man is sleeping with his father’s wife.

5 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Catch that? The flesh belongs to Satan (That’s why we’re all going to die before we are reclaimed and resurrected.), but the Spirit rightfully belongs to Christ. Not only that, but the job of the destruction of the flesh belongs to Satan; not Cane; not Cane’s children; not SunshineMary’s church; not the Roman Catholics; not some future earthly king. Satan. If you are in the business of the destruction of the flesh, you’re in league with Satan. This isn’t hard to understand. It’s hard to hear; especially when you feel like you’re alone. There is no Magnificent Seven coming to save our earthly shells. (Foreshadowing likely posts to come, here).

By the way: “spirit” here means both “why you do what you do”, and “your essence”.

Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

This is what Dalrock is talking about when he says,

Roissy and the other PUAs aren’t the ones who destroyed marriage. Feminists did with the enthusiastic support of modern Christians. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the very obvious sins of Roissy, but what I see very often is Christians focusing on Roissy’s sins as a sort of smokescreen to avoid accepting the profound failure of modern Christians to honor what God entrusted to us. “Look at Roissy’s sin!” is very often the prelude to “Nothing to see here (in Christianity) folks, move along!” That Roissy has anything to teach Christians about marriage should be deeply humbling to Christians. Very often instead the response is hubris and chest thumping about how morally superior Christians are to Roissy.

And this is true: Most Christians are eating not only with the old leaven of fornication and idolatry, but the new leaven of malice and wickedness; some by their desire to see their enemies dead, some by their desire to see others suffer, and some by their desire to imitate such activities from which we should rather desire to see them redeemed and forgiven.

This leaven was added to the fact that those Corinthians Christians were celebrating a member’s freedom from the Law in Christ to fornicate with his father’s wife since it wasn’t “against the Law”. Yes it was. The Law has been fulfilled, but it still exists, and fornication still goes against it. You might say you never do that because fornication with your mother-in-law is really creepy, but I wonder how many of us have congratulated a Christian brother on his marriage to a Christian woman who was previously married to another living Christian man? Is that man not sleeping with his living brother’s wife? How is it better to celebrate sleeping with your sister-in-law? Because she’s younger, hotter, tighter?

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

Don’t kill yourself trying to get away from non-Christians. It’s a good thing to be among them. This, I see, as the good of the Men’s Sphere. It’s a place where Christian men who are intent on being a witness–a sign–for Jesus Christ can speak freely to non-Christians.

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

So any man who professes Christ, but does not repent of the sins of those sins  should be anathema; he should be shunned. This means that a Christian who says, “I’ll quit later”, or, “Look, the world is the way the world is, and I’m just a squirrel trying to get a nut.” is not to share your company; not even to eat with him. In other words: It is better for you or him to starve than to accept this behavior; this spirit; this essence.

Note also that there is a running assumption that there are no non-Christians in the church of Corinth. You don’t bring a stranger to church to get Christ. You take the Gospel and your witness into the world, and you bring Christians to church for discipleship and communion. What concord does Christ have with Belial?

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

Well, here the rubber hits the road for bringing Game into church. Is a church congregation’s problem that its men are weak in understanding women, or is their understanding of women weak because they do not actually believe what is revealed in Scripture that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; that all men and women are full of idolatry, licentiousness, fornication, murder, and other kinds of sin? Have those men been deceived by other men, or have they chosen to believe it because they want to curry favor with women in the hopes of attracting one and getting her drunk enough on pride that she’ll do him the favor of “marrying” (read: sleeping with) him? Now…that’s a different tactic than getting her drunk on pride for having the status granted by a man other women want to have sex with, but it sounds like an applied psychology for seducing women to me…albeit a far less effective one for the tastes of the sinners of our times.

So, now what?

An Eros-driven Christian replacing one worldly system of Game for another is simply a false and vain teaching if Game mean anything  separate than wisdom. In Mansophere terms: It is replacing the lie of Churchianity with the lie of Game. And if Game does mean wisdom, then call it Wisdom, and pursue her. She, unlike Eros and unlike his mother Venus, actually is truth.

20 Wisdom crieth without;
she uttereth her voice in the streets:
21 she crieth in the chief place of concourse,
in the openings of the gates:
in the city she uttereth her words, saying,
22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity?
and the scorners delight in their scorning,
and fools hate knowledge?
23 Turn you at my reproof:
behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you,
I will make known my words unto you.

I take True Love, Feminism, Chivalry, Egalitarianism, Liberal Democracy, Churchianity, and Game all as proof that far, far too much credit has been given to Athens. However; I have to give the Greeks credit for at least one thing: Mixing Eros[1]  and Athena[2]  was one androgynous step too far even for the man-boy-loving Athenians. Nor did they enthrone Hera[3] over Zeus. You need modern scholarship to go to rot if you want to fester this false choice between hermaphroditic and pagan gods. You need convoluted systems of thought manufactured by man, and to fail to abandon them when they break down. Honestly: Look at how hard it is to get people to define “Game”.

But you don’t need much scholarship at all to evade all of that and get wisdom, the truth, and the Truth. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and wisdom is the key to all these things; even lowly things like how to find and attract a wife. Wherever one would find instruction in the fear of the Lord, there is the answer for the question of how to find a good wife: wisdom. One might say good wives come from God.

Game is not the truth anymore than Eros, Athena, Psyche, or Zeus is the truth; none of whom are of Christ, who is the Truth. Yet wisdom is the truth. She belongs to and follows behind and serves the God of Abraham alone.

[1] The vagina-tingle generating fatherless son of the single mother Aphrodite, goddess of physical love, beauty, and pleasure

[2] The dutiful and martial goddess of wisdom and warfare; daughter of the father of gods, Zeus.

[3] Goddess of women and marriage; famous for hen-pecking Zeus. The animals associated with Hera are the cow (dumb women), the lion (beast of beasts), and the peacock (show-offs).

So A Jew and an Assyrian Walk Into a Bar

Your king went forward with his plans to cooperate with the Assyrians because it seemed like the thing to do at the time. Now that error has come to fruition, and the Assyrians have taken control over Israel and Judea.

You’re a beat-down Jewish man living in Assyrian Israel. Every day you watch the troops of you occupier march by on their majestic destriers; with their fancy clothes, thick armor, and big muscles. More than once you’ve caught your wife looking at them. Sometimes she tries to hide it, but other times she just doesn’t care if you see her or not.

Yesterday, an Assyrian soldier was carousing around town with his friends, and his robe fell open; revealing himself. That was one of those moments you caught your wife biting her lip. You wonder to yourself: Besides armor, horses, fine clothes, a big ol’ swinging dick, and an army: What’s he got that I haven’t got?

You went to the Temple and sought advice from the rabbis, but they were busy convincing a group of curious invaders that they don’t have to change anything about themselves to become children of the Israelite God. They can stay as they are, live as they have as long as they keep their idolatry to a dull roar, and YHWH will accept them. He will make them profitable as long as they bring some riches to the temple like a good Jew. You don’t have much in the way of riches, and no way to go about getting them; especially with so many martial forces entrenched around you.

Sad and envious, you wander into the market to go about your work. Everywhere you look, you can see the men and women bustling around at their chores. You notice, whenever an Assyrian saunters by, the Jewish women giggle and titter to themselves; trading gossip on which Jewess has shupted the more Assyrians in her day.

You need a drink and some solace. You walk into a tavern and grab a drink. Sitting next to you is one of the occupiers. You recognize him as one of the Assyrians that the Yentas like to talk about. He’s not one of the masterminds of the invasions; he’s just a sergeant off-duty. He offers to buy you a drink.

Surprised, you accept, and a conversation begins. You get to talking and discover that he’s got a good sense of humor, and a quick tongue. You decide he’s not a bad sort of fellow for an occupier. Perhaps he can make sense of why Jewish women are so eager for guys like himself, and he agrees to tell you.

He says that they dig the power, and all the trappings that go with it: the horses, armor, and insignias–but most importantly the attitude; just the sheer belief that because you’re Assyrian your are destined to rule. Naturally the fact that they are occupiers is a big turn-on. There’s also the strangeness that goes with being foreign because women value novelty. Not to mention the fact that Assyrians do have bigger shvantzs than Jews.

You ask him how he found all this out, and he says, “Well, by shtupping a lot of Jewish daughters. Not your daughter perhaps, but a lot of them.”

As you leave, you thank him and his people for their occupation of Israel, and for revealing the truth to you by fucking all the Jewish women they can; even if they couldn’t yet make it to your own daughter. Now–with this new secret information–you set off to be the most Assyrian-looking Jew you can manage.

The B-Eatings will Continue Until the Threshing is Done

It comes to my mind that this statement by me:

Roissy didn’t have anything to teach me about marriage. First of all: I said I read him and saw myself as I had been before I’d ever heard of Roissy. Second, and more importantly: Roissy teaches against marriage!

stands a good chance of closing a loop of thought for some of you out there, and that such closure will be a conclusion that was the same as your assumption that Game is good [1] because I said I resembled someone you believe to be good not just at Game, but with women in general.

In Men’s Sphere parlance it looks something like, “He doesn’t get it because he’s a natural alpha.”, or, “That hypocrite is just trying to keep success to himself.”, or maybe the more punctual, “Fuck you, hypocrite.” If you find yourself on that loop of logic, then you can be sure that you are on a circuit of rationalization; a hamster wheel, if you will. My suggestion is for you to step off.

You either believe that wives are from God, or you don’t. You also either believe that good wives are from God, or you don’t. The delineation of good, bad, and no wives in the Bible suggests that wives are much more than partners for sex; even if sex is the beginning–and it is. Here are some possibilities for why God does or does not give a man a wife:  punishment, training, responsibility, pleasure, reflection, consequence…

The answer is: All of the Above, and that it mirrors and furthers the discipline given to mankind in Genesis 3. The gift of a wife is the gift of work, but it is a work of subsidiarity; of stewardship. The husband acts in the place of the God–the creator and owner of each of us. This wife is the franchise of which you act as owner, operator, chief bottle-washer and head-and-only janitor of Mrs. Yourself, Inc.

Here’s how St. Paul talks about it [2]:

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Now, what we hear in church is that this is a great honor to be a husband. This is true. What’s not true is that the mere presence of the wife and her worth herself which grants the honor. No; that’s wrong and blasphemous.

So what is the source of the honor? It’s the fact that the Almighty God, Lord of the Hosts of Heaven, looked down on our mortal existence, and He Who Needs No Help said:

“I want you to help me. See that parcel of land over there? Go, and prepare it as a place for Me: build it, clean it, farm it, While you’re there: Enjoy yourself, and make use of my property. Live there, eat there, and be satisfied there; as if it were your own. Bear in mind: I will hold you accountable for what I find when I return.”

In the Old Testament, it looks like this:

Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

I’ll be returning to this passage later, but for now: Who of the defenders of Game as a worthy topic, can point me to a Game blog that arrived at such a conclusion on the reality and circumstances of marriage?

[1] Pay close attention to my very clear and plain English: I did not say you can’t use Game to seduce a woman.

[2] Which I’m sure everyone is tired of reading, yet the Scripture beatings will continue until…