The Men’s Sphere Thought Experiment

Use “Game” in a sentence that you think is true. Then, repeat that sentence, but replace the word “Game” with the word “Wisdom”.

I’m very curious to read your results in the comments.

Advertisements

46 thoughts on “The Men’s Sphere Thought Experiment

  1. I played Dungeons and Dragons as a kid in Elementary school – late 1980’s it was the rage. Did you?

    Somehow, I don’t think you did, but I could be wrong. The reason why I think you did not, is the very basis of this post.

    If you had, this is the supposition you would have made: Use “Game” in a sentence that you think is true. Then, repeat that sentence, but replace the word “Game” with the word “Charisma”.

  2. -Game was codified by PUAs
    -Wisdom was codified by PUAs

    -The primary aim of Game is to attract women
    -The primary aim of wisdom is to attract women

    -There are a lot of Game blogs
    -There are a lot of wisdom blogs

    -A man can attain Game while denying God
    -A man can attain wisdom while denying God

    I think it is fairly obvious that game=/=wisdom.

  3. @Keoni:
    Charisma (Cha)

    Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting. Charisma is most important for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to turn undead. Every creature has a Charisma score.
    You apply your character’s Charisma modifier to:
    Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, and Use Magic Device checks. These are the skills that have Charisma as their key ability.
    Checks that represent attempts to influence others.
    Turning checks for clerics and paladins attempting to turn zombies, vampires, and other undead.
    Sorcerers and bards get bonus spells based on their Charisma scores. The minimum Charisma score needed to cast a sorcerer or bard spell is 10 + the spell’s level.
    Any creature capable of telling the difference between itself and things that are not itself has at least 1 point of Charisma. Anything with no Charisma score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Charisma score also has no Wisdom score.

    Wisdom (Wis)

    Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. While Intelligence represents one’s ability to analyze information, Wisdom represents being in tune with and aware of one’s surroundings. Wisdom is the most important ability for clerics and druids, and it is also important for paladins and rangers. If you want your character to have acute senses, put a high score in Wisdom. Every creature has a Wisdom score.
    You apply your character’s Wisdom modifier to:
    Will saving throws (for negating the effect of charm person and other spells).
    Heal, Listen, Profession, Sense Motive, Spot, and Survival checks. These are the skills that have Wisdom as their key ability.
    Clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers get bonus spells based on their Wisdom scores. The minimum Wisdom score needed to cast a clerics, druids, paladins, or rangers spell is 10 + the spell’s level.
    Any creature that can perceive its environment in any fashion has at least 1 point of Wisdom. Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Wisdom score also has no Charisma score.Wisdom (Wis)

    Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. While Intelligence represents one’s ability to analyze information, Wisdom represents being in tune with and aware of one’s surroundings. Wisdom is the most important ability for clerics and druids, and it is also important for paladins and rangers. If you want your character to have acute senses, put a high score in Wisdom. Every creature has a Wisdom score.
    You apply your character’s Wisdom modifier to:
    Will saving throws (for negating the effect of charm person and other spells).
    Heal, Listen, Profession, Sense Motive, Spot, and Survival checks. These are the skills that have Wisdom as their key ability.
    Clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers get bonus spells based on their Wisdom scores. The minimum Wisdom score needed to cast a clerics, druids, paladins, or rangers spell is 10 + the spell’s level.
    Any creature that can perceive its environment in any fashion has at least 1 point of Wisdom. Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Wisdom score also has no Charisma score.http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Charisma
    So why did you chose Charisma instead of Wisdom?

  4. Wisdom in the Bible is addressed as a “she”. Perhaps Game is how to address the rebellious women…and wisdom is the more to address the submissive side of women.

  5. “So why did you chose Charisma instead of Wisdom?”

    Mainly because Cane’s thought experiment is a no-brainer. It’s an apples to oranges comparison.

    “Game” is about men increasing their attractiveness to women.

    There exists many, many men bereft of even median levels of Wisdom, who are attractive to women.

    “Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.”

    Studying and practicing Game is a way for men to boost their Charisma.

  6. I’d choose Wisdom…that would take care of what to do when she is in her rebellious state and her submissive state.

    Wisdom is the combination of knowledge and understanding. So it is probably a good idea to understand and know what to do when rebellion is around. Being ignorant of human nature is a bad idea.

    As it relates to game…you can use it to take advantage of rebellious women outside of marriage for your own needs which is sinful lust…or use it to turn your wife around back to her submissive side for her needs which is love.

  7. Keoni,

    I too have played D&D. I think the metaphor is apt here for the very reason that you could adequately substitute Charisma for Game in a way that you can’t substitute Wisdom.

    Fundamentally, wisdom and truth are connected, charisma and truth are not. Game argues from a standpoint of efficacy, and is fine in so far as that goes. If you ask “Does is work?” The answer is undoubtedly, “most if the time, yes.” But you go too far if you say Game or the Red Pill is Truth. Charisma is simply strong personal magnetism. Wisdom is the fruit of seeking truth. Charisma asks “can I do this?” Wisdom asks “should I do this?”

    I’ll leave you gentlemen to work this out for yourselves. Just one gamer chick’s thoughts on the relative merits of status attributes.

  8. I’m not a man, nor a sphere, but it occurs to me that this is useful information for women as well. After discussing this with my husband, I’m wondering the following:

    Is “game” not a sub-category of wisdom? Since it’s human to want to label things with a name, we could use the example of a filing cabinet (I stole this concept from a priest, to be clear this is hardly original on my part).

    If the cabinet itself is Faith in God, necessarily those without that faith don’t have a drawer or a file, but for those who do, one drawer would be likely be labeled “Wisdom” (perhaps another is “Worship”, etc). Within those drawers are the hanging files that hold the more detailed and nuanced parts of the process that achieves whatever end the Biblical principle (in this case wisdom) prescribes for the program (human interaction). Perhaps one manilla folder in the Human Interaction file is How to Attract/Discern/Maintain a Suitable Marriage Partner. OR, I suppose, someone might label it “Game”.

    The biggest difference is not what it is called if we are operating in a Christian paradigm, as I read that most Christian men agree on the Principle/Program/Process, at least for the most part. The problem being, as with so many righteous processes, the principle has been violated. In the non-Christian cabinet, which can only be a Preoccupation with Self, there is no drawer labeled wisdom, because that implies a mutual good to all who encounter it, whether they know it or not. So, no one can claim that game and wisdom are the same, because Game, or whatever someone elects to call it, can only be assessed based on the drawer in which it is filed. If you’re pulling it from the PUA drawer, it cannot, by definition, be wise. It can be cunning, but that is not the same as wisdom.

    So, while I’m all in with the fact that PUA Game has no place in the Christian armory, I cannot see how simply labeling the process “wisdom” – or even simply “game” for that matter – is going to be particularly useful to the average young file clerk of today. I do think categorizing things more specifically can be helpful, sometimes.

  9. Game is truth.
    Wisdom is truth.
    With game I am able to increase my inner and outward attractiveness,persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and thus attract more potential mates.
    With wisdom I am enabled to have greater willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. Being in tune with and aware of those surrounding me ,I am able to discern the potential mate that would be the best fit for me.
    But is Wisdom really Truth?
    Also you can’t really switch game and wisdom in the above sentences using D&D terminology. Despite that I don’t see that game/wisdom is apples/oranges.

  10. Remember Cane’s parameters: “Use “Game” in a sentence that you think is true.”

    I think: Game is not truth.

    Truth is truth.

    Game is a praxeology based on recognizing and applying axiomatic truths to achieve a deliberate purpose.

    You stated:

    “With game I am able to increase my inner and outward attractiveness,persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and thus attract more potential mates.

    With wisdom I am enabled to have greater willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. Being in tune with and aware of those surrounding me ,I am able to discern the potential mate that would be the best fit for me.”

    I would revise it thusly:

    With wisdom, one can study the praxeology of game to increase one’s charisma.

    So….let’s try this again.

    Game Wisdom is a praxeology based on recognizing and applying axiomatic truths to achieve a deliberate purpose.

    Doesn’t make sense – because Wisdom is an attribute, not praxeolgoy.

    But I gotta hand it to you Cane. This thought experiment has been useful and insightful and clarifying my thinking on the topic.

  11. @KG

    Doesn’t make sense – because Wisdom is an attribute, not praxeolgoy.

    That’s an assumption (perhaps even valid), but it is the thing the thought experiment is testing. To bring in Gygax’s assumption poisons the experiment.

  12. Cane,

    I have something that could(possibly) add value to the discussion but do not want to distract or derail you. Is there some way I could e-mail you and run the info by you without doing so?

  13. Wisdom works for me, but I don’t care what we call it as long as it produces upright, confident, decisive, and masculine men who are prepared to lead along with self-controlled, virtuous, domestic, submissive, and feminine women who are prepared to follow.

    If it produces something else then I’m not sure we can call it wisdom.

  14. First of all, all you young punks and your #rd Edition D&D!

    Bobbye; Keoni,
    “Game” is not truth. Indeed, it could be argued that since a large part of “game” is predicated as acting like someone/something you are not “game” is deception. And if “game” were, actually, based on axioms
    1) it would work more often
    2) it would not require deception
    3) Christians would not be wondering if it were moral (it isn’t)
    plus there wouldn’t be attempts to dissuade rebuttals with NAWALT – if it were truly axiomatic there would be no discussion.

    Indeed, this is part of why I am confused when I see folks like JDG or Deti discussing “game” as ‘teaching/promoting masculinity’; it does no such thing.

  15. Aquinas Dad:
    this is part of why I am confused when I see folks like JDG or Deti discussing “game” as ‘teaching/promoting masculinity’

    That’s because everything that ‘works’ (for values of ‘works’) is Game is masculinity by definition.

    I’ve become increasingly convinced that the never-unequivocal term “Game” is a kind of postmodern verbal power play; an attempt to amog and own masculinity. Kind of like the progs labeling themselves “pro choice”, or the neoconservatives urging everyone to drop the term “neoconservative” – which they invented – and just admit that neoconservatism is realtrue authentic “conservatism.”

  16. “Game” is not truth. Indeed, it could be argued that since a large part of “game” is predicated as acting like someone/something you are not “game” is deception.

    The point of “fake it ’til you make it” is to get guys to get up and DO something. To change there behavior. To take men who are afraid of approaching strange women they are attracted to in an attempt to find a woman to have a relationship (whatever kind of relationship that may be, sinful or not). That first step towards changing a routing of self-defeating and crippling fear is the most important.

    But the entire point is to NOT ‘create a facade and maintain it in perpetuity,’ but get men to break out of a vicious cycle of self-defeating fear of rejection.

    “I’ve become increasingly convinced that the never-unequivocal term “Game” is a kind of postmodern verbal power play; an attempt to amog and own masculinity.”

    Zippy, I believe you just don’t understand the level of emasculation the younger generations have been inflicted upon by the culture at large. Game is not an attempt to “own” masculinity, but rather is more like throwing a rope to drowning males in a sea of secular, progress liberalism/feminism….or a signpost pointing towards the path of masculinity to a host of males lost in a wilderness. It was my generation and onward that grew up under the paradigm of the broken home and single mother households.

    This is one thing about Cane I absolutely agree with, and that is the loss of Patrimony is endemic in today’s culture. Game in one sense, has partially filled that void.

    PS – I started playing AD&D 1st edition when I was in the 3rd grade. I became a dungeon master for my group of friends with 2nd edition in 7th and 8th grade.

  17. @Zippy

    I’ve become increasingly convinced that the never-unequivocal term “Game” is a kind of postmodern verbal power play; an attempt to amog and own masculinity.

    The never ending wrangling about the definition of Game is truly tedious. How many years have we been stuck on this? I propose we find a way to table this, and have proposed we do this by focusing on analyzing specific concepts for their validity, morality, etc. What I would be weary of however is the argument that all things Game are invalid/immoral/ineffective/whatever because Game can’t be defined; don’t use anything “Game”, because Game isn’t a real category.

  18. Wrangling about that word is tedious alright.
    KG is about action, about DOING.
    But what to do? how to do? how to remain faithful to God while doing it? those are fair questions.

    One thing I learned from “game” bloggers is what not to do around women: don’t supplicate, don’t act wimpy, don’t leave it to them, don’t abandon decision-making, don’t slouch over, etc. That in itself was valuable. And definitely not in contradiction with the Bible. That’s a start. But only a start. However, the real tragedy is I had to learn that from non-Christians, I didn’t learn that from my father or from my Church. Had to bootstrap myself from somewhere. This is the hole I’m hoping to see addressed more fully in the Christian men’s corner… rather than wrangling over that word.

  19. [A broad response],
    ‘Loss of patrimony’. A great term for it.
    While I agree a tabling of the discussion of what is and is not “game” etc. is possible it might not be possible yet.
    Don’t you hate fuzzy terms?
    For example, I see ‘son’t act like a wimp, be a leader, don’t slouch’ as ‘what you teach 7 year olds’ or ‘Dale Carnegie – the first 15 minutes’. I don’t associate it with some arbitrary Greek letter nor with getting married it is just life.
    Tough. Tough stuff and tough times.
    That is why I keep going back to teaching/learning the virtues. Not only are the virtues the basis of virtue ethics (and deontological ethics) but hey usually require a radical transformation of the inner self.
    “Fake it ’til you make it” is, too me, about the *least* offensive thing PUAs discuss. That is just the ancient formula for developing the beginnings of courage. Again, that is more ‘basics of human interaction’ than “game” to me. My issue with that is – *WHY* are you faking it? How and where?
    One of my best friends is a (relatively recent) widower with 6 kids. They are 2 girls, 2 boys, 2 girls from 17 to 5. His third child and oldest son, let’s call him Charlie, was pretty shy at 14 so – we took him to a dance. A big group dance for teen Catholics where two of my sons (who are friends of his) were going to be. We all arrive and, as usual, there are more girls than boys and I told Charlie,
    ‘You have to ask a different girl to dance for each dance’ (a rule of the dances; they exist to teach kids how to mingle)
    ‘How do I ask a girl to dance?’
    ‘Try this – pick one, walk up and say ‘I would like you to dance with me’
    ‘And if she says no?’
    “Ask someone else’
    Now – is that “game”? I don’t think so.
    BTW – Charlie goes to all of these dances now, as do my oldest 3, and none of them ever need to sit out dances.
    Where am I going with this? Just pointing out that a lot of what some tend to bundle with “game” isn’t “game”. I think that when we get wrapped up in this we’re Daffy Duck to the PUAs Bugs Bunny – we’re arguing about parsing a word rather than dealing with Elmer.
    Here’s my position/how I think about the subject:
    – Insofar as “game” was originally developed by PUAs to engage in near-anonymous promiscuity it is totally incompatible with Christianity. The techniques that PUAs use to deceive others or to cause them to feel fear, shame, etc. for the purposes of manipulating them into sex are likewise to be avoided.
    -Also, because the PUAs have a deeply flawed understanding of human nature, especially teleology, their concepts of what women are like, how women should be treated, and categories like ‘alpha/beta/gamma/omega/sigma/whatever’ are to be treated with *at best* great suspicion.
    -That being said, those elements are a very narrow set of what most of the Christians discussing this topic are even mentioning. The vast majority of what Dalrock, Donal, SSM, etc. are really discussing are actually sex-appropriate social skills and attitudes informed by human nature and teleology or, simply, authentic Christian masculinity and femininity as expressed in public.
    – Since PUAs aren’t addressing or even truly concerned with authentic Christian masculinity or femininity (and would probably reject both as an impediment to *their* goal of near-anonymous promiscuity) they have literally nothing to say about the subject other than certain overlapping behaviors that are shared simply because they are almost universal
    – While many complain that modern churches and fathers no longer teach authentic Christian masculinity and femininity we are NOT going to find them accidentally left in a drawer at some non-Christian PUA blog about “game”
    – Similarly, while many complain that modern churches and fathers no longer teach authentic Christian masculinity and femininity this can’t be universal because people with authentic Christian masculinity and femininity exist and are seen al around us if you look. Indeed, a lot of number seem to indicate they are growing
    [yes, I *do* have the phrase ‘authentic Christian masculinity and femininity’ on my clipboard, why do you ask?]
    – Since part of being a theologian is a strong grounding in history I know that this is far from the first time authentic Christian masculinity and femininity was felt to be/was in decline and that great Christians have addressed this before.
    – So I am going to focus on using Church teachings and past theologians and what they used to overcome similar trends in the past to deal with this now.

    .
    Damn, I am a verbose SOB, aren’t I?
    If you are freaking out here is the
    TL;DR – PUAs aren’;t Christian and don;t understand men and women properly so we need to flat-out ignore them other than that they correctly pointed out that a lot of men and women don’t know what authentic Christian masculinity and femininity is.
    So let’s focus on authentic Christian masculinity and femininity, stop talking about “game” and move forward
    .
    Thoughts on my Joycean comment?

  20. @Aquinas Dad

    While I agree a tabling of the discussion of what is and is not “game” etc. is possible it might not be possible yet.

    ok. But in the meantime, until the critics of Game have defined what they mean* by Game, it doesn’t make any sense to say things like “Game is immoral”, or “don’t use Game”, etc. What I’m saying is it is ludicrous to simultaneously claim Game isn’t defined or can’t be defined, and also warn against it. What should I not teach to other men? What should I not discuss? What should I not do in my marriage? If this is truly a warning to others and not an attempt to sabotage the discussion, the warning must have meaning, not just urgency.

    *I’m not arguing that we need everyone to agree on the term before one can warn against it, but those doing the warning need to state what it is that they are warning against.

  21. @AD

    So let’s focus on authentic Christian masculinity and femininity, stop talking about “game” and move forward
    .
    Thoughts on my Joycean comment?

    You’re on the right blog.

  22. @ Kenoi: You said,” Game is not an attempt to “own” masculinity, but rather is more like throwing a rope to drowning males in a sea of secular, progress liberalism/feminism….or a signpost pointing towards the path of masculinity to a host of males lost in a wilderness” I see game as rather an acceptance of that “sea of secular, progress liberalism/feminism” as being how it is, and a man choosing to dive into that sea and derive as much ‘good’ as he may from it. It is not counter-culture at all, but instead wholly consistent with that culture. Any attempt to teach a boy to be a man cannot start with the premise that having sex is what is most important. That is what I see game doing, making sex primary.

  23. @Dalrock

    But in the meantime, until the critics of Game have defined what they mean* by Game

    When I do, you retort that whatever I defined isn’t what you mean when you endorse Game; as if you alone are the arbiter of what is and is not Game when we’ve both agreed that you and I individually do not have the right to tell those who coined and expounded the term Game what they meant by it.

    When I say that it can’t be ignored because it’s being pushed by and to the people I’m trying to speak, you say you don’t believe this is true, and I need to provide some examples.

    When I provide some examples, you have no response. Then some time passes, and you come back and say that what I have defined and shown–and is repeated by popular Game advocates who call themselves Christian (pride-based attraction, for an example)–you circle back and imply (say) that I need to define what I mean by Game.

    What you have here, Dalrock, isn’t an argument with a means towards an end, but a circle of contentions meant to stall out conversations…except the one you want to have.

  24. Pingback: Decrease Your System is Noise Ratio | Things that We have Heard and Known

  25. @Cane

    @Dalrock

    But in the meantime, until the critics of Game have defined what they mean* by Game

    When I do, you retort that whatever I defined isn’t what you mean when you endorse Game; as if you alone are the arbiter of what is and is not Game when we’ve both agreed that you and I individually do not have the right to tell those who coined and expounded the term Game what they meant by it.

    I’m not sure what exchange you are referring to, but since your most recent post defines Game, I’ll respond directly to that:

    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.

    I suspect what you perceive as intransigence on my part is my not really believing that this is all you are really getting at. So let me state how I read the above in the context of warning men (especially Christian men) against Game. If Game is the applied science/art of seduction, you are arguing that Christian men must never attempt to seduce their wives. Given the “special emphasis on hypergamy”, this then means Christian men must especially take care not to be attractive to their wives by demonstrating high status. Is this really your argument?

    When I provide some examples, you have no response. Then some time passes, and you come back and say that what I have defined and shown–and is repeated by popular Game advocates who call themselves Christian (pride-based attraction, for an example)–you circle back and imply (say) that I need to define what I mean by Game.

    What you have here, Dalrock, isn’t an argument with a means towards an end, but a circle of contentions meant to stall out conversations…except the one you want to have.

    This is quite a harsh charge, and I don’t see it as accurate. I won’t say I’ve responded to every point you’ve ever made, but I have tried very hard to argue in good faith. Most recently you provided Vox as an example of someone bringing Game into church, and I offered as a better example my own ill advised (and aborted) Game for Pastors.

  26. se·duce (sĭ-do̅o̅s′, -dyo̅o̅s′)
    tr.v. se·duced, se·duc·ing, se·duc·es
    1. To lead away from duty, accepted principles, or proper conduct. See Synonyms at lure.
    2. To induce to engage in sex.
    3.
    a. To entice or beguile into a desired state or position.
    b. To win over; attract.

    Notice that first definition; why does it lead? Well, the etymology of the word is such that it originally meant “to persuade a vassal, etc., to desert his allegiance or service,” and before that it meant “to corrupt”.

    Yeah.
    I don’t seduce my wife, sorry.
    That is part and parcel of my older, from other blog entries, warning – when you use the metaphysics of immoral people you run the risk of adopting them.
    PUAs WANT to corrupt women; they INTEND TO lead women away from accepted principles and proper conduct. They, yes, want to SEDUCE. Is it a surprise that if you examine their methods and try to put them into practice you might get a skewed idea of interpersonal relationships? Especially since, never forget, they are self-described former losers who want nothing more or less than a los of immoral fornication with no emotional content. How can their attitudes *not* mess up a proper Christian understanding of not just sex but or matrimony.
    Or, shorter version – lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
    So what do my wife and I do if I do not seduce her? We *do* engage in the marital embrace; we discharge the marital debt.

  27. @Dalrock

    Not near a PC, so this will be incomplete, but I should not have said you meant the arguments to be a circle of contentions. My apologies.

    However, that is the effect.

    As for the rest: AD has it right: Wives aren’t seduced. In the same way: A wife joining her resources to a man when he married her and gains the right to enjoy sex with her is not the same as a whore taking money for sex; and not just because one relationship is longer than another. The relationship is profoundly different, and one should approach them (both in thought and deed) differently.

    The same is true for girlfriends, STRs, LTRs, concubines, sluts…every form of sexual relationship with a woman that is not: Wife.

  28. So AD and Cane, what you are warning men is never to (knowingly) do anything which would cause their wives to want to have sex with them. You are warning that a husband causing his wife to desire sex with him is immoral and illicit, not that wives shouldn’t need to want sex in order to honor their marriage vows. This is your warning to men about Game.

    [CC: Let me know if I corrected it properly.]

  29. So AD and Cane, what you are warning men is never to (knowingly) do anything which would cause their wives to want to have sex with them. You are warning that a husband causing his wife to desire sex with him is immoral and illicit, that wives shouldn’t need to want sex in order to honor their marriage vows. This is your warning to men about Game.

    Being appealing to your wife isn’t seduction because she’s your wife.

    Game changes the man; not the woman. When a man changes, she may respond differently, (not guaranteed) and so the nature of the relationship may change; but that doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not a man can seduce his wife.

    Even if one somehow pulled off this contradictory and impossible feat of seducing a wife, he steals the honor from his wife; that it was his own awesomeness, and not her good sense to submit to that which is good, and good for her: to love and respect her husband.

  30. @Cane

    Being appealing to your wife isn’t seduction because she’s your wife.

    Game changes the man; not the woman. When a man changes, she may respond differently, (not guaranteed) and so the nature of the relationship may change; but that doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not a man can seduce his wife.

    Even if one somehow pulled off this contradictory and impossible feat of seducing a wife, he steals the honor from his wife; that it was his own awesomeness, and not her good sense to submit to that which is good, and good for her: to love and respect her husband.

    Just for the record, we are now two levels deep in wrangling over terms. We are arguing over the term seduction because it is core to your definition of Game. Are you saying that you only object to men using Game if they want to do the impossible? Or are you objecting to men doing as I am using the term seducing, meaning to cause is wife to desire him sexually? Are you making a blanket statement that a man (intentionally) causing his wife to feel arousal towards him is sinning?

    It does appear from the second paragraph I quote above that you are making the case that a husband deliberately trying to cause his wife to feel arousal towards him is sinning. If so, since the command not to defraud is made equally to both wives and husbands, is a wife who wears lingerie to fuel desire in her husband not sinning against him in the same way, by stealing his honor?

  31. “So AD and Cane, what you are warning men is never to (knowingly) do anything which would cause their wives to want to have sex with them. You are warning that a husband causing his wife to desire sex with him is immoral and illicit, not that wives shouldn’t need to want sex in order to honor their marriage vows. This is your warning to men about Game.”
    Not only no, but Hell no.
    Let me reflect that back at you: is the only way you can make your wife want to have sex with you is to manipulate her emotions until she feels so insecure that she agrees, against her better judgment or actual desires, to have sex with you as validation?
    I hope not, for many reasons.

  32. I got very little direction growing up regarding women other than “be honest, be nice, be yourself, work hard, etc.” Which, while not bad on its own, is disastrously insufficient around women, leaving me swimming in the deep ocean looking for *any* life raft. Back then, there weren’t any coming from the Christians. Only the “gamers” had them. They may be un-Christian, but they got me out of the water, that was valuable at a point when I needed that. I’m back in the Church … but, but, but … I am *not* the least bit ashamed that I took a life raft from a non-Christian. So while you various Christian writers are hashing this out, y’all need to keep your eyes on the ball … those men still floundering out there, both within and without marriage.

    Being a Christian man and being attractive to Christian women are not supposed to be incompatible with each other. But for many men and in many environments, yes they are. For whatever reasons discussed voluminously elsewhere. AD, it doesn’t matter how many times you furiously wave your arms and say it ain’t so. Sorry to tell you, it is so. What you see here and on other blogs is just the tip of the iceberg out there. I can’t change those women, I can only work on myself and I’m looking for guidance.

    That said… AD, you showed us an example of an action you gave your son. Go over there and ask that girl for a dance. Such a simple exercise to help him develop confidence around women. But you’d be shocked and amazed how often simple stuff like that just doesn’t get imparted. Perhaps you and others might do well to step back from the wrangling over terms and start thinking about concrete actions and paths that might help the many grown Christian men of all ages still looking for life rafts. Along with those like me who found life rafts from the “gamers” but want to be Christian. Help these men to improve themselves within Christian contexts and make themselves attractive to Christian women at the same time. Sure you’ll argue that’s not making it about God. I’ll argue back that if consciously making oneself attractive to Christian women gives one a better context to vet a woman for marriage or a better opportunity to lead a family as a Godly masculine man (or lead the one he already has, as KG did), what the heck is wrong with that?

  33. Random,
    Small correction – “Charlie” is the son of a friend of mine.
    “… it doesn’t matter how many times you furiously wave your arms and say it ain’t so”
    You may not be aware of this since I haven’t posted it here but two things motivated me to get involved in this: One was the large number of good Catholic men coming to me and complaining that ‘there are no good Catholic women who want anything to do with me.’
    The other was the large number of good Catholic women coming to me and complaining that ‘there are no good Catholic men who want anything to do with me.’
    Yeah – I know that it is bad. That’s why I am here, asking and talking.
    On the other hand, I see things from a different side. I see the Men’s Conferences where we track down priests that speak about wifely submission in their homilies and speakers that focus on authentic Catholic leadership – and only 3 unmarried men come. Sure, they’re married within the year, but all the other young men who didn’t come complain ‘no one is teaching me what to do’….
    [more later]

  34. @AD

    Let me reflect that back at you: is the only way you can make your wife want to have sex with you is to manipulate her emotions until she feels so insecure that she agrees, against her better judgment or actual desires, to have sex with you as validation?
    I hope not, for many reasons.

    No. But this is either a straw man or a misunderstanding of the Neg (or perhaps Dread Game?). Cane wrote a post about the Neg and why he likes it here. Dread Game is much more problematic, and I think a Christian husband would need to be extremely careful if considering using it. I made the case here that a mother using a bit of dread game on her daughter is actually loving, but for a husband this would seem more problematic. I would say that in the way that Dread Game is normally discussed it isn’t something a Christian husband should use.

    But either way, you are misunderstanding the mechanics of why the Neg and Dread Game works. The result is actual attraction/desire, not a woman who agrees to have sex against her better judgment or actual desires. Part of what so offends the modern sensibilities about the neg in specific though is the modern obsession with moxie and women’s self esteem. The idea of playfully teasing a woman is horrifying because this isn’t how moxie is made. This is true, but moxie isn’t biblical, and contrary to popular belief it isn’t conducive to a woman finding her husband sexually attractive.

  35. @AD, appreciate your reply. At least you have seen the phenomenon for yourself of Catholic men and women looking past each other. Happens not just to the young adults, happens to my generation too. I’m invisible to the available women in my parishes, but I can’t be that bad as I can get dates from non-Christian women. Correction about your friend’s son, not yours, ok, but think you got the point of what I was saying. btw, have you checked out Deep Strength’s blog?

  36. I couldn’t take the time to respond before now. I’m going to tackle these somewhat out of order.

    @MarcusD, AQ & Dalrock

    The negative connotation of seduce as leading away from duty is not an etymological fallacy. I cannot recall its use in a positive sense except among players. Succubi seduce; angels do not. Darth Vader was seduced to the Dark Side because it seemed more powerful. Luke chose the Light because he saw it was good.

    The idea of seduction and the idea of evil go together, and very often it is because things appeared different than they actually are. Conversely, the ideas of convinced or chose go with the idea of good, and usually when things are seen clearly.

    More convincingly: a BibleGateway search for the word seduce only reveals evil tempting people away from what they were supposed to do, or not do. I have consistently used the Bible as my touchstone, and I don’t plan on changing now.

    @RA

    That said… AD, you showed us an example of an action you gave your son. Go over there and ask that girl for a dance. Such a simple exercise to help him develop confidence around women. But you’d be shocked and amazed how often simple stuff like that just doesn’t get imparted.

    You actually think:

    1) Men don’t know they have to ask women to dance if they want to dance with women?
    2) That the rest of Game is this relatively benign?

    Perhaps you and others might do well to step back from the wrangling over terms and start thinking about concrete actions and paths that might help the many grown Christian men of all ages still looking for life rafts.

    I don’t know what to tell you except that this metaphor is not how I see things. I think those life rafts have tethers. I think the term seduce has an intrinsically negative connotation, and that the word association is on purpose. I don’t buy neuro-linguistic programming, but I think language definitely influences our thinking. As an example: I think encouraging seduction is seductive; I think it will make a man see his wife as something less than a wife.

    @Dalrock

    Just for the record, we are now two levels deep in wrangling over terms.

    I know there is no way you could know this, but you’re docking me here for my past forebearance with the word seduce when the truth is that I’ve always had a problem with it.

    We are arguing over the term seduction because it is core to your definition of Game.

    I didn’t pick my definition ex nihilo. Here are the titles of some of the most famous resources on Game:

    -The Art of Seduction
    -Seduction Forum
    -alt.seduction.fast
    -reddit.com/r/seduction (“Seduction, Self-Improvement & Pick-Up)
    -Strauss’ “The Game” forward: “Hidden somewhere, in nearly every major city in the world, is an underground seduction lair. And in these lairs, men trade the most devastatingly effective techniques ever invented to charm women.”

    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.

  37. Pingback: The Language of Seduction | Things that We have Heard and Known

  38. @CC
    on the two inferences you drew from my point about asking girls to dance, you’re too much your own master to realize how much betatude is out there. I’ll cite your own posts regarding your family as evidence of that. My point is that intellectually sure, men know that they gotta ask the girls to dance. But rubber meets road, many men ain’t there, they’re still deep in their own heads and rubbing their hands in anxiety. Free Northerner gets deeply into this in his help for Omegas series of posts. On #2 in particular, I never said that and I’m not sure how you could infer I thought it.

    About wrangling, I wasn’t talking about seduction, I was talking about other debate regarding the definition of game. Though I can see your point regarding seduction. Regarding life rafts and tethers, it wasn’t the “correct” life raft that picked me up, but what was important was that I got back up. Then exercised my free will to return to the Church. Not all men make that choice, I know. some fall into greater sin. At the bottom, one has to be open. Fish those desperate men out however one can, then they can be ministered to. Sure the Way is narrow, but being too didactic about it only closes men off who don’t have to be closed off.

  39. Heartiste on the neg:

    You’ll also note that a lot of these unnervingly ambiguous observations focus on a girl’s presumed inability to cut loose and have some fun. They are designed, in other words, to eradicate anti-slut defenses and persuade her to open up… to you, the fearless judger of her feminine worth. Some others focus on her social naivete, or her craving for attention. Sprinkle to taste. Some of these negs fall under the category of cold reads; the difference being that cold reads are usually unambiguous compliments worded to entrap a girl deeper into conversation by getting her to talk about herself.

    Seduction is the art of contrived concealment. You want to seduce without revealing the machinery of your mind, or the purpose of your words. You introduce the dangerous idea, and if you are successful, she picks up the idea and joins you in her own seduction.

    The art of separating the gold from the dross in Game seems to be turtles all the way down.

  40. @Cane

    I should not have said you meant the arguments to be a circle of contentions. My apologies.

    Thank you. After considering this I realize that you are correct; I was trying to steer the discussion away from your intended discussion. I mistakenly assumed that the continued discussion on “what is Game” was a roadblock preventing us from moving to a more concrete level. I now understand that “What is Game” and “What is seduction” are very much the discussions you want to have. Had I realized this sooner I would have stepped out of the way; it was rude of me to attempt to shift the topic as I did. Just because I don’t want to continue discussing the meaning of the terms, doesn’t mean others aren’t profiting from it, or that once you and your readers come to some resolution on this I won’t ultimately profit from your diligence as well.

  41. @Dalrock

    I appreciate you saying so. I view you as a friend and mentor, and so I maintain hope that at some point you do want to have this conversation with me.

  42. @Cane

    I view you as a friend and mentor, and so I maintain hope that at some point you do want to have this conversation with me.

    As I hope you already know, the sentiment is entirely mutual.

    As for my participation, I will certainly continue commenting on your blog. However, I’ve shared my own thoughts on the definition of Game, but I don’t see where I can be of any help in defining how others (you, Zippy, etc) would use the term. With that said, I do look forward to understanding the latter definition, especially since it is critical to understanding what you are warning against when you warn Christian men against Game.

  43. Pingback: Game in Hobbiton, or, Bilbo demonstrates the neg | Zippy Catholic

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s