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.
Chesterton warns against the leaving off of “the heavy task of making good men successful.” Is this heavy task not what Vox is speaking of when he talks of artificially simulating naturally successful actions? We must continue to make good men successful. You call this husbandry, which I think is fair. Vox calls it game. The fact that he calls it something else does not make it any less a task that should not be left off.
On this blog I have praised Vox for when he promotes others. Those endeavors are awesome, and good. And I do believe that he desires to do the heavy tasks, but his foundation is totally wrong. I think he wants to do good, but he’s not; at least with AGP.
Making good men successful is not the task of telling other men to be like successful men, but investing what we have in them to make them better. I think this will be more clear when the second part comes out, but here’s an illustration of the difference:
1. Tell a man to get a good job if he wants to earn more money.
2. Give a man a job.
Which of those is the heavy task?
My point isn’t that Vox isn’t doing enough (I honestly have no idea. He’s certainly doing some.) but that we Chsristians must NOT make worldly success a goal, and that the pursuit of wealth, hot women, etc. is to literally miss the point; to miss the mark; to be outside the goal–which is the definition of sin. Christians getting rich or acquiring a critical mass of good looking women isn’t going to be the sign of goodness, but coming judgment.
The other part of that is that those men who have been mistreated by women are not deserving of disrespect. It is not necessarily a matter of their failure that their wives or ex-wives are harpies. Their misfortune is not a sign that they did something wrong, or that we should not be like them, or shame them.
We couldn’t, for example say:
1. Be attractive
2. Don’t be unattractive.
as a revelatory truth of which we need to be mindful.
Rather, it is often likely that we should be upholding them as someone who was wronged.
If Game were a Christian concept, it would look like “Be Beta”. This is in fact what has happened because Christians have adopted the world’s measure of success; that is: Game, i.e, “What I find attractive is good.” The Christian worldview is, “I know I am attracted to things that are bad, so attraction is my last concern. What is good?”
Sometimes this is easier for a man to see when he looks at women objectively: Sure, she looks good, but what is actually good about make-up, heel, Spanx, control-top pantyhose, mini-skirts, low-cut shirts, dyed hair, jewelry, bikinis, and being a flirt?
This criticism brings Christians exploding out of the woodwork to say that I have no right to call out this overt seduction. After all: Their grandma said it was fine, and she went to church every Sunday of her ever-lovin’ life. I always wonder if they’re daring me to call their grandma a slut. Most of them were, you know. That’s what you get when you let people follow their desires. We’re just more obvious now.
“Pro-Game folks hate that phrase”
Strawman. A man argues in good faith. He doesn’t lie. So what are you?
You are what you are. I know you can’t help it, but why aren’t you ashamed of yourself?
Vox isn’t telling women what to be attracted to, and the women of America don’t even know he exists.
He’s telling men how to lead. Why does that make you so angry and defensive? What is it about male leadership that so threatens you?
Think about the fact that every argument you have against game is a lie and/or a fallacy. You’re the idiot here. You’re That Guy, and if you have half the brains God gave a skunk, you know it. You’re acting dumber than Bob Wallace. Think about that!
[CC: This was stuck in my spam folder because you used a bogus email address.]
Interesting point regarding Heartiste’s Beta of the Month.
I was at a teaching workshop earlier this month and the presenter have an interpretation of the Parable of the Prodigal Son that I hadn’t considered before. The buffoonish father is a stock figure in comedy since the new plays of Menander in 3rd or 4th century BC Greece. What is more buffoonish than a son asking his father for his full inheritance now. And the father gives it to him. More buffoonish than an old man racing down the road to embrace a son probably covered in the filth of pigs. Like all the other parables, Jesus is using familiar images, this time the characters from a play. The ways of God look like foolishness to us. He appears like the dimwitted dad in a stock comedy from Plautus. Which just goes to show us the value of worldly wisdom.
I think I read you, but I would posit that neither of the examples you gave are truly analogous to the heavy task. Rather, I posit a third possibility: Teach a man a trade or skill with which he can support his family. Telling him to get a job doesn’t help him much, but giving him a job out of charity isn’t much better–now you’ve made him dependent on you. This third option of teaching him a trade is what is needed. To use your word from the post, we need older men to apprentice younger men in the art of husbandry. If the point of AGP is to teach young men how to best land a hot piece of ass, then I agree that such a goal misses the mark. If, however, the goal is to inform and educate young men as to the nature of women in order to empower them to better husband (using the word as a verb here), then I think such a goal is right on the money.
Similarly, a financial blog may have as its goal to teach men how to become rich. This would miss the mark. However, another blog may teach the same principles with the goal of enabling men to live on less, support his family even in sparse times, be a good steward of the gifts God has entrusted, and support the Lord’s work. This blog may teach the same principles as the first, but does not fall short of the mark like the first blog.
It seems that the impression you have developed of the goal of AGP is different than the one I have developed.
…saw the email for your second reply while typing this, and I don’t disagree with anything in it. The one thing I would expand on though, is your statement that “men who have been mistreated by women are not deserving of disrespect. It is not necessarily a matter of their failure that their wives or ex-wives are harpies. Their misfortune is not a sign that they did something wrong, or that we should not be like them, or shame them.” You’re dead right, of course. However, the fact that they were wronged does not mean that we should not try to learn how to prevent ourselves from falling victim to the same wrong if we can avoid it while staying within the bounds of Biblical behavior. It’s not your fault if you get beat up and a thug takes your wallet, but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t take a boxing class if thugs run rampant in your neighborhood, or start packing a gun.
Many, many men have fallen victim around us. It would be irresponsible to send them out on the streets and not to attempt to arm them. This is what I see as Vox’s aim. He’s not telling men that they should get a job, or should fight when attacked, but rather is teaching them a trade, teaching them how to fight. And that I think is the third option, the truly heavy task.
Giving him the job is the heavier task precisely because you’re not only training him, but assuming responsibility for him; paying him; grooming him. as a joint heir of your business.
Now that you’re picking up what I’m putting down, let’s move this back into the realm of marriage. Which is the heavier task: Teach a a man about women, or to give him your daughter?
Man, what I’m talking about is taking men into our own homes, and living in better neighborhoods.
“Now that you’re picking up what I’m putting down, let’s move this back into the realm of marriage. Which is the heavier task: Teach a man about women, or to give him your daughter?”
For the father, it is obviously the second, hopefully combined with the first, as would be implied in your example of not only giving a man a job, but teaching him how to take over the business.
However, looking at it from the perspective of a mid-twenties single man, I’m looking for both, and ideally they would come from the same source. Remarkably, there are many older men who are willing to give me the second (the daughter) but not the first (the teaching). I recognize the need for both and if all the older Christian men are going to abnegate their matchmaking responsibility to the very daughters they are supposed to exercise it over and refuse to engage in teaching, then I am left in the curious position of having a harder time finding the teaching (the easier task to provide) than the daughter (the heavier task).
This is the second time I’ve read that quote from Chesterton. Thanks for bringing this up again.
I would like to know what is your definition of success. Everyone has a different definition, even among Christians. And while we get bombarded with sermons, books, articles and teachings about how the Christian view of success can be vastly different from the secular (world) view, we don’t internalise it. We gloss over it.
The society I live in is highly materialistic. A fair bit of it is due to the high cost of living. After being on the “dating” circuit for the past two years, I can safely say that 9 out of 10 women I meet pose the first questions to me about my career. It’s a thinly veiled attempt at sussing out where I stand financially and as a potential provider. The account of Job, among Christian women I dated, simply does not register in their mind.
To find a woman who does not place most secular definitions of success highly in terms of their prospective partners is rare here. It makes it an uphill task as a Christian man seeking a wife (because I burn). I don’t want to resort to game or manipulation but since women can be easily deceived and manipulated, the search for a wife will need a special set of tools even if manipulation may be frowned upon in God’s kingdom.
Success is success. I’m not trying to be obtuse, but my suspicion is you’re over-analysing it. So, if you’re looking for a wife, success would be finding one.
You and MNM (like Vox, like most preachers, like most of society) are under the impression that the trick is to become proficient (at handling women, at being attractive, whatever) and then you’ll get a woman, and that the better you are at those things, the better a woman you will get.
I’m saying that is NOT the Christian way. The Christian way is for us to look for good men (not proficient, not successful, but those who exhibit fruits of the spirit) and make it our responsibility to make them successful, and that we should do this across all the human experience; to find wives; to find jobs; to find wisdom…everything.
If and when God grants you wives, and after you become accustomed to that state, you’ll find–just like every other man–that a wife is just as much a pain as a pleasure; sometimes more.
Like I said the other day: You either believe wives are from God like the Bible says, or you don’t. That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t look for one. In the same way the Bible says “seek and ye shall find”, and whatever you find is from God; whether a blessing or a discipline, or both.
Very soon I’m going to write posts about the advice I will and do give my son. I think a lot of people are going to scoff, but…who cares? None of the “actionable items” will be Earth-shattering, but the reasoning and spirit is different, and I think that makes the difference.
Vox Day says he is a Christian but supports the Satanic Dark Triad. What does that say about how deluded he is?
It seems to me that understanding women (including your wife) is important for fulfilling a husband’s task of loving his wife. Game proponents have put a lot of effort into understanding women, so the knowledge about women which they have produced can help Christian husbands. Here I separate the baby (knowledge) from the bathwater (methods of seduction).
However, the methods of seduction can be very handy in marriage when applied to your wife. Wives like to see their husbands work to seduce them; it makes the wives feel more valuable and they like the engagement with their husbands. Part of love is valuing the object of love; “love” equals “dear” in this case.
Sometimes a wife forgets why her husband is high value and begins to lose attraction for him and to disrespect him. This hurts a marriage. When a wife forgets why she valued her husband sexually, the husband can demonstrate his value by flirting with other women (and getting them to flirt back) and remind her of his value to other women by talking about old girlfriends. The husband can use the dread game in extreme circumstances by telling his wife that he will be looking for a girlfriend and go out at night.
What was the courtship cultural context that Paul experienced? Was there dating in the modern sense? How did men and women go about seeking marriage during Paul’s era?
I can remember a time when women seemed to be much less sexually aware and they disciplined each other for slutty behavior. Now, it seems that the younger women encourage slutty behavior. So, it seems to me that the manosphere assumption that evolution is responsible for slutty behavior is clearly wrong; it ignores history and the recent changes in female culture. I think that the increase in slutty behavior can be explained by a cultural acceptance (and encouragement) of sluttiness. This culture manifests itself on slutty forums, in the media (e.g., Sex in the City) and in the conversation of women friends.
It seems to me that the church has a role in confronting sin and creating its own unique culture which exposes and discourages sin. Are pastors even aware of what is going on in the female culture? Do they know what their female congregants are stuffing their minds with? If so, what are they doing about it? Are there a lot of Christian women active in slutty forums? Do they have a lot of slutty friends? Do they keep in contact with ex-es on fb or by phone?
“You and MNM (like Vox, like most preachers, like most of society) are under the impression that the trick is to become proficient (at handling women, at being attractive, whatever) and then you’ll get a woman, and that the better you are at those things, the better a woman you will get.”
Not sure how I gave that impression. In actuality, my experience and observations lead me to believe that it is easy to get a woman, but difficult to keep one. After watching several dedicated Christian friends deserted by their wives, I came to the conclusion that I ought not look for a wife until I can learn how to keep one.
@ mnm: A secret sub basement is often very useful in keeping a wife.(joke) Honor your father and mother, the first commandment with promise ,that it might go well with you and you may live long upon the land. Be a man submitted to Christ and committed to doing the will of God. Marry a woman who is submitted to Christ and committed to doing the will of God. Learn how to recognize such a person(being one will help) and understand that you have very limited control over anything.(James 4:13-15) The woman submitted to God will stay with you when you lose your job, get cancer, break your legs, or even just get old and fat. Will you do the same ? will you stay under those adverse conditions. Have you even thought about such things. People submitted and committed to God tend to do what is right in the sight of God, no matter the circumstances. People not submitted and committed to God tend to do that which is right in their own eyes. When push comes to shove, you can not control a wife, a husband, a child. Each will decide for them self.
“Marry a woman who is submitted to Christ and committed to doing the will of God. Learn how to recognize such a person…”
That’s what I’m working on, learning to recognize. In the cases of many of my friends, I knew the women fairly well, and was under the impression that they were submitted to Christ. They certainly talked a good game, but their later actions belied their words.
As to whether I have thought about whether I would stay in adverse conditions, the answer is no. There is nothing to think about. God hates putting away (Malachi 2:16). That makes it pretty clear to me that the Christian man has only one option in marriage: to stay and to love no matter the adversity.
You just repeated the impression I spoke of. The impression in the part I bolded is two-fold.
1) That women get into marriage and stay in marriage because the man has a certain knowledge, or talent.
2) That your friends were stupid to get married because they lacked the knowledge or talent and the proof is that their wives left them.
This is it. Whatever your friends may have done wrong, or however they may have turned off their wives, their wives obviously did not hate divorce. What we should deduce then is not that your friends lacked Game, but that their ex-wives did not love God. Those women should be treated as such.
I’d say this is about exactly right.
@mnm:” They certainly talked a good game” Yes, you have to look and see what they do, not what they say. A harder task. A girl that willingly helps her parents with chores around the house with a smile is a good sign. Very rare also. Keep your commitment to God first, it’s valuable, like a birthright.
“You just repeated the impression I spoke of. The impression in the part I bolded is two-fold.
1) That women get into marriage and stay in marriage because the man has a certain knowledge, or talent.
2) That your friends were stupid to get married because they lacked the knowledge or talent and the proof is that their wives left them.”
The knowledge or talent I’m looking for is the ability to determine whether a woman truly loves God and hates divorce, or is only a talented play-actor. The actions of my friends wives is not proof of the friends stupidity as much as the wives talent for deception.
“This is it. Whatever your friends may have done wrong, or however they may have turned off their wives, their wives obviously did not hate divorce. What we should deduce then is not that your friends lacked Game, but that their ex-wives did not love God. Those women should be treated as such.”
When they got married, those men (and myself as an observer) thought that their wives loved God and hated divorce. They were deceived. I’d prefer not to be deceived in the same way.
So then you need to keep an eye out for deception, and a lack of signs of submission, right? Does she obey her father? Does she honor her parents? Does she wear a lot of make-up, or dye her hair? Are her clothes seductive? Is her hair short? Does she gossip? Is she concerned with the lives of celebrities? Is she chaste?
All those warnings and more are in the Bible. That wisdom and the credit due that wisdom don’t belong to psychology, or Game, or anything else besides God.
“All those warnings and more are in the Bible. That wisdom and the credit due that wisdom don’t belong to psychology, or Game, or anything else besides God.”
This is true not just of that nugget of wisdom but of all good things (James 1:17). My financial strategy is based on the Bible. However, that doesn’t mean I don’t read non-Christian financial materials sometimes for new perspectives I may not have thought of. The key is that I take these new perspectives and compare them to Scripture to see how they hold up before I decide to implement them. I’m not sure why I would take a different approach to marriage than I do to finances.
Ty for your props.
My single adult daughters give all the outward signs of good behavior, except for sometimes challenging me about obedience, which is probably normal even for godly offspring. They don’t live at home, so they aren’t as obligated to obedience, except for benefits done them in the past. They honor their parents, don’t wear a lot of makeup or dye their hair, dress modestly, don’t gossip, don’t care about popular culture (including celebrities), don’t have slutty friends, and speak disapprovingly without prompting of slutty behavior.
So how should a woman express to a man that she finds him attractive? Can she sexualize a conversation to some small degree? And what should a Christian man do? Should he push for sex or sexualize a conversation appropriately? And should a Christian woman push for marriage?
“So then you need to keep an eye out for deception, and a lack of signs of submission, right? Does she obey her father? Does she honor her parents? Does she wear a lot of make-up, or dye her hair? Are her clothes seductive? Is her hair short? Does she gossip? Is she concerned with the lives of celebrities? Is she chaste?”
Going by what you said, at least two among the 12 women I met today at a speed dating event would not be a suitable candidate for a wife. They showed their cleavage. And this was a speed dating thing for Christian and Catholic singles.
As for the questions you mentioned, it’s an extremely strict criteria. And it’s discouraging because there aren’t that many women who can answer “no” to many of your questions.
She should give him her phone number and tell him to call her sometime. Then, if he is interested, he should call her. There doesn’t need to be attempts to sexualize the conversation. It will come out. Pretty much, if they want to kiss each other, they should be thinking about marriage.
A good general rule about behavior is: Don’t do anything that you wouldn’t do to your grandma. Would you hold your grandma’s hand? Sure, but not all day. Would you give your grandma a kiss on the lips. Sure, but you wouldn’t French kiss her, and you wouldn’t do it all the time. Kisses, hugs, holding hands is how we show affection, but we reserve actions according to the relationship.
Well, the world spends all day every day telling them how important it is to be themselves, right? What time is left for them to remember they are under your stewardship; that they belong to God? And what fun is there for them in that?
It is bad out there. Dalrock has described it as a forest of dead trees just waiting for a lightning strike. It’s just a matter of time.
If you pick one of those women who fail to meet the criteria, and if God joins you in marriage, then you can know you’re in for some serious work. You will, in fact, be manning up and marrying the sluts.
@ CRP: I would suggest that you have to observe behavior, not ask. People lie. That means you have to ‘hang around’ with the girl and observe how she acts, and learn from others how she acts when not with you.
Virtues are their own reward.
That doesn’t mean the world looks upon them as rewarding.
“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.”
Full stop mate. Jesus didn’t talk about family formation much because the Jews had arranged marriages and low status virginal women . Things were already in order. Paul encountered the messed up roman family life and laid down simple rules to reduce the status of women and tie them to their husbands.
Today we have high status women and nothing forcing women to be faithful. Women need to believe their husbands are higher status than them in order to feel desire. Thus because the old patriarchal system is dead and it takes an entire community to foster such system men are left with raising their status with women through artificial means, I.E. game. Restore the patriarchal and lower women status and the need for game would disappear.
I find the people who attack game to be quite dishonest because the christian alternative to game is quite clear: Keep your daughter chastity intact, arrange their marriages, and return to the biblical practice of keeping women at a lower status level than all men. Christians who are upset about game refuse to change their communities back to the biblical model and instead attack men trying to make the best of crappy situation. Fix your own god damn church communities and give men an alternative instead of attacking the only currently working method of generating female desire.
Hey Cane, Vox responded to you on Alpha Game. I’d be interested in your response.
…Well, I’ve seen a bit of it in the original thread. Vox isn’t kindly disposed to you.
I find this exchange interesting.
newtonsfoot: The problem with game is that you are falsifying yourself towards someone else for the purpose of getting a reaction you deem as ‘good’.
Vox: Then you just be yourself. Be a good little Churchian. See how that works for you. It’s not as if anyone ever said that we should judge the truth of things by their consequences, right?
What sort of response is that? He never said act like a Churchian, number one. Number two, he doesn’t even respond to the point, which is that falsifying yourself to get what you want is immoral. All he said was “Well telling the truth doesn’t work”. Which is besides the point.
@ Red: I think you have it all upsidedown, calling good evil, and evil good. Who is a high status woman? Paris Hilton? And the low status woman? Mary the mother of Jesus? Do you even pretend to be a follower of Jesus, who would state directly to Jesus’ face that His momma is low status?
” Christians who are upset about game refuse to change their communities back to the biblical model and instead attack men trying to make the best of crappy situation. Fix your own god damn church communities and give men an alternative instead of attacking the only currently working method of generating female desire”
This is false. There are those of us who are doing just that – changing our communities and ourselves so that all are alignrd with God’s will and His plan.
They’re just as rare as a good Christian wifr these days because most would rather lament the situation than forcefully take control of their lives. They, correctly, intuit that doing so will be hard and painful. When your mold as a man has already set, and it is set poorly, you must break yourself to remake yourself in God’s image of thr best man you can be.
Doing so, however, is not glamorous and brings a great deal of strife into your life. Places like heartiste and AGP will always be mpre popular because they appeal more to mens fallen nature with enough truth to entice.
Nice catch malcolmthecynic: sure Game (especially Game viewed as a whole subculture) teaches you to lie; but hey, you aren’t gonna get any by telling the truth.
What Bob Wallace said.
Vox seems to want things a variety of ways. He considers himself holier than the Pope, more learned than the Magisterium, and more forgiven than the average human, all at once.
The Truth cannot lie – and “game”, as I’ve read of it, teaches men to lie, to deceive – and teaches women to respond to that lie, which can only result in fruit of a poisoned tree. I have no doubt that women and men both suffer for the failure of Eve, but she was not co-opted by the lack of “Game” by Adam, only by the maleficence of the serpent. He lied, deceived, appealed to her “nature”…it was entirely predictable that she would succumb to his wiles. So how is appealing to that same nature a better path for men who seek more than women’s lowest behavior? I think those stories are meant as lessons, not necessarily examples to follow. Like using Abraham and Sarah as an example of a healthy marriage – uh, no. Re-read, plz.
Yeah Zippy. Somebody else in the thread also disagreed, but at least they cited a Bible verse to justify their opinion and tried to respond to the actual comment in question. Vox didn’t even bother.
Vox has some really odd ideas about morality. Like “black knighting”. I don’t care what women do to us, black knighting is immoral. Visiting consequences on women that aren’t just and that they don’t deserve is immoral, regardless of what womenkind in general CAN do to men through the law.
Just because a woman CAN sue me for sexual harassment if I hit on them at work does not make it right for me to sue a random woman for sexual harassment because she hit on me and I don’t really like her.
Red, I feel certain you have not read what I write. If you had, I think you’d find that we largely agree.
Which of Vox’s responses would you like to see me address? The one that ignored not only what I wrote, but what he wrote? The one where he refuses to admit that saying Game is good is in fact saying Game is good?
Vox sees what he wants to see. Newtonsfoot had several really good comments, and even if I’m wrong in some way (I’m not) it was worth it to see Newtonsfoot’s comments.
I could be wrong, but Vox strikes me as a giant nerd who happened to have a moneyed background. This combination of introversion, a love of systems, and some chance (Ecclesiastes 9:11) have been jumbled over and over in his head until he has convinced himself that he deserves the life he has; that by and large most men deserve the life they have.
Let’s see: Solomon and Chesterton, or Vox and Heartiste? Decisions, decisions…
In addition, it is very easy to confuse a debator with his supporters. Someone brought up “fake it ’til you make it” as an example of a lie. That’s not a lie, that’s practice. The lie is believing that because some people get what they want by doing evil things, we are wise to practice that evil.
I guess I’m just going to have to go through the 16 Commandments of Poon–what Vox claims as the “16 Core Maxims of Game”, aka, 16 Truths of Truth, and knock them down one by one.
[CC: Re-reading this it sounds as if I am being aggressive towards you, but that was not my intent.]
Black-knighting is not righteous; that’s all there is to it.
He relishes in being called an Award Winning Cruelty Artist. For those of you playing along at home: That’s a bad thing to hear of a Christian.
He spends an inordinate amount of time ridiculing non-Christians and telling others to do the same. That goes against several clear verses of the Bible; 1 Corinthians 5:12 and Matthew 5:44; off the top of my head.
Conversely: All of that is of-a-piece with Game.
Thank you Velvet.”an example of a healthy marriage” Not Abe and Sarah? Peter cited it. But examples of what we would call healthy marriages? Ruth and Boaz, Joseph and Mary. Esther? God didn’t think it important enough to put a bunch of examples in. Bad, unhealthy, toxic marriages. We have them going out our ears, including God’s own disastrous marriage to Israel. Guess God wants to focus on what not to do. But God also has lots of positive teachings of how to reap God’s blessings. Maybe God’s point of view is that two individuals, male and female, who are each submitted and committed to God, cleave together as one flesh, live, raise children while walking humbley with God are what in fact constitutes a healthy marriage. By golly, I think all needed info is in fact in the Bible, just not arranged the way we spoiled,lazy Americans want it spoon-fed to us.
By golly, I think all needed info is in fact in the Bible, just not arranged the way we spoiled,lazy Americans want it spoon-fed to us.
Vox operates behind the magical invisible shield of his own brilliant awesomeness.
He doesn’t care what people say, but will make a post in response. Because he doesn’t care.
I believe in real life, Vox Day is a published writer of science fiction and also an erstwhile musician and computer game designer. (Source: quick Wikipedia search) I suppose that would qualify as giant nerd, although a productive one in the sense that his hobbies are not merely personal obsessions but creative endeavors.
We are all fallen. If he is preaching a false gospel, it should be corrected and vigorously. But I don’t think going after his personality is helpful. Giant nerds who love systems wrote things like the Summa Theologica. It’s a useful enough trait so long as one doesn’t let pride get in the way.
“Thank you Velvet.”an example of a healthy marriage” Not Abe and Sarah? Peter cited it. But examples of what we would call healthy marriages? Ruth and Boaz, Joseph and Mary. Esther? God didn’t think it important enough to put a bunch of examples in. Bad, unhealthy, toxic marriages. We have them going out our ears, including God’s own disastrous marriage to Israel. Guess God wants to focus on what not to do. But God also has lots of positive teachings of how to reap God’s blessings. Maybe God’s point of view is that two individuals, male and female, who are each submitted and committed to God, cleave together as one flesh, live, raise children while walking humbley with God are what in fact constitutes a healthy marriage. By golly, I think all needed info is in fact in the Bible, just not arranged the way we spoiled,lazy Americans want it spoon-fed to us.”
Good point. It reminds me of a sermon I listened to this weekend. The pastor said the Bible is perfectly sufficient for us, but it doesn’t read a like a dictionary or how-to manual. Instead, it’s filled with stories — often very messy stories.
You say that as if his personality isn’t largely a result of the choices he has made. If there is one thing that can be taken out of this whole discussion, it is that we ought not be precious about our personalities; how we present ourselves to the world.
“@ Red: I think you have it all upsidedown, calling good evil, and evil good. Who is a high status woman? Paris Hilton? And the low status woman? Mary the mother of Jesus? Do you even pretend to be a follower of Jesus, who would state directly to Jesus’ face that His momma is low status?”
His mother was lower status than any man of the community. The natural order is God->Man->Women->Child. We’ve reversed that to Women->God->Man->Children.
I’m glad that christen men are working to fix their families. It’s a sign of hope for the future. But the problem isn’t the family, the problem is the church. The church needs to provide the community needed for proper family life. When the church removes sinful women(sluts, whores, single mothers, divorcees), lowers the status of all women in the church below that of the men(see Paul’s letters), and gives men their proper place the family life of Christians will right themselves. No man and no man’s family is a mountain unto themselves. He and his family must swim in the sea with other believers and if that sea is pouted his own family will never be truly whole.
Aw, Velvet. You read my mind, sister. I’ve been ruminating on your points ever since our mutual friend noted that Abraham and Sarah had nothing resembling our definition of an ideal marriage.
We are addicted to success we are, and the world’s definition of it. What is that to God, our comfort without any corresponding holiness?
Changing the modern/current church culture is a daunting task. With all that you’ve written in some of your replies to comments here, not many Christian women qualify as wives of Christian men who do not want to use “game”.
I know it starts with Christian families, particularly fathers. I can now appreciate the stories you’ve told about how you discipline your girls. I am heartened by your comment about helping good men find success in all aspects of their lives. I understand now that unless God wills it that I become her husband, it is not my responsibility fully to have to disciple a woman such that she becomes a good wife.
I look forward to your posts about advice you’ll give to your son. My desire is to be a man who can and has nurtured a family that fear and love God, including sons and daughters. But it’s highly unlikely now, given the culture of today and the state of Christianity today.
There’s a lot to respond to in your comment, and I don’t think I can do most of it justice right now, but I’ll give it a shot. You did, however, remind me that I needed to add the category “To My Son”; which has been done, and now contains the post “This is How We Shall Live”.
1. I am not the lone voice of sanity. There are others, and some of them have daughters, too. I don’t think there is anything at all wrong with online dating, and there’s no reason you could not arrange things in such a way as to approach courtship if you found a woman you liked. Many haven’t really thought about these things. You can be the one to introduce the concept; say by structuring dates that involve her family and friends, and your family and friends. That’s part of the absurdity: That it there is literally nothing keeping Christians from practicing this except pride, lust, and rebelliousness.
2. Don’t make a checklist of signals; just keep them in mind.
3. My argument about Game is not that there are no skills to dealing with women, or that Christian men can’t or shouldn’t learn those skills. They can, and they should, but that Game should not just be accepted whole. Instead it should be melted down and remade into a better tool. Contrary to the marketing: Game is not new. It’s simply “worldliness” rebranded. Worldliness has always had some common sense in it. The concept of using a carrot and a stick is not a new insight.
There’s actually very little learned useful knowledge in Game. You can see that in the questions-as-quarrels that get thrown at me. Things like, “So men shouldn’t lift weights and gain muscle because it’s sinful? Dur-hur-hur: Gotcha!” I tried to get that across in my post on the Jew and the Assyrian. All the Assyrian did was confirm what the Jew already knew.
Now, if I told said, “Christians are not to be worldly; even if being worldly will make you rich, famous, or happy.”, you’d understand what I was talking about, and it wouldn’t cause you think that I’m saying we ought not learn anything from patterns of behavior. Quite the opposite, actually.
1. Keep in mind that the disciples and Paul said that it is better not to marry.
2. Remember that what is or is not “highly unlikely” is none of our business. You don’t know what God will have for you, and you might change your mind about marriage if you did! Today’s troubles are enough.
We’re here because we have no desire to be of the world. But most of us don’t have the luxury of not being in it. Hence that search for something in the proper context that will help us deal with women and still be Godly … among many other aspects of being in this world.
Note Paul also said it was better to marry than to burn.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/01/29 | Free Northerner
The point in both verses was self-control. You burn because you choose to. Do you fast by chance?
One way to estimate how a girl is really going to behave and what she really thinks is to listen to her talking about her circle of friends, listen to what she says her friends are doing, and then pointing out GENTLY if any of those things are ungodly. Then see how she reacts. If she acts like you’ve attacked her personally, RUN AWAY.
Spot on. Moreover, he has learned that bad boys get what they want, and can still be “in Christ”, so why not have the best of both worlds? That way, he can get over on everyone.
Yes, it is a technology. As a technology, it can be evaluated on its usefulness and modified accordingly. Then, the one who masters the technology becomes a master at manipulating others, both men and women, as demonstrated in the Gospels. His name will be legion.
Since it is a technology, it is not natural, it does not have purposes, and it does not embody truth. However, it does have a culture that has grown up around its idolization.
This reminded me of a C.S. Lewis quote. I can’t recall it exactly, but he was talking about how contraception and artificial human conception isn’t power over life in general, but power over those particular people; a form of technological slavery over them. Meanwhile: the mystery of life continues working as it always has and utterly free of the restraints of technology. I believe it is in Mere Christianity.
Perhaps you mean this: In chapter 3 of The Abolition of Man, Lewis writes, “what we call Man’s power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument.”
I suppose that is similar to what I meant.
I meant that Game is a tool which could be adapted to any particular purpose. Nevertheless, it is fundamentally a matter of behavioral manipulation. Some people call that “leadership”, while others call it “domination”.
Selling it as an effective tool with no moral implications, however, is deceptive; it is like trying to sell pagan statuary with saints’ names on them, or selling Christian “spiritual powers” to unbelieving sorcerers. One must choose between trusting in the flesh or not.
I know I’m late to the discussion, but I didn’t even know this blog existed until someone at Black Pill’s blog told me about it. Frankly, call me a blind-faith Christian, but if a man is focused upon God and what God wants out of him as a result of the loving faith that the man bears for our Savior, then in the end that godly character will win out. Does that mean that the individual person will be able to get married…maybe, maybe not. But a Christian, by very definition, carries that cross in order to follow Jesus.
“I’m saying that is NOT the Christian way. The Christian way is for us to look for good men (not proficient, not successful, but those who exhibit fruits of the spirit) and make it our responsibility to make them successful, and that we should do this across all the human experience; to find wives; to find jobs; to find wisdom…everything.”
Many think that teaching men “Game” is considered making good men successful, but rather it is denying their goodness to make them more worldly to make it appear as if they are successful. Suffice to say that the most successful in God’s economy look like “filthy bums” in the eyes of the world. I’m not admonishing people to living an ascetic life nor am I adhering to a mystical Gnostic gospel. What I am saying is that marriage is a potential sacrifice that many men in the current generation may have to forfeit for the sin’s of the current generation of women. Recall that albeit God’s everlasting love for His people, even Moses was denied entry into the Promised Land amongst the generation of Hebrews that rebelled against God in the Wilderness. Hence, an entire generation (40 years) had to expend their lives in the unforgiving Wilderness before a new generation arose led by Joshua and Caleb to enter and conquer the Promised Land. The same could be said for women in this day and age, whereby we would have to look upon painfully as we have to suffer in portion because of the sin’s of women, including going without. That’s the destructive nature of sin, none are immune to its destructive consequences. Part of being in the Body of Christ is setting apart that which will cause us personal pain and loss in this world for the promise of true freedom and redemption in active faith in Christ. The loving Christian thing is to take the initiative to look past our personal pains and doing that which CC suggested, ensuring to the best of our personal ability that we serve others the way Christ served.
I think that you’re a feminist heretic.
If you want to see righteous “Game,” look at the example of Jesus conversing with the Samaritan woman at the well.. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+4
Exegeting the details of the passage is outside of the scope of this post
How is what Crimson Viceroy, heretical? He is completely right in that although sins are forgiven by God, they have worldly consequences to those around them.
“Frankly, call me a blind-faith Christian, but if a man is focused upon God and what God wants out of him as a result of the loving faith that the man bears for our Savior, then in the end that godly character will win out. Does that mean that the individual person will be able to get married…maybe, maybe not. But a Christian, by very definition, carries that cross in order to follow Jesus.”
I agree with this very much.
While you’re entitled to your opinion, thankfully my eternal destiny doesn’t reside on your opinion of me, but what Christ thinks of me. I don’t give a bean what you think of me. These hit-and-run guerilla Gamer tactics are petulant at best, and annoyingly distracting at worst. Don’t you have a slutty single mom to hit up at the local watering hole?
“He is completely right in that although sins are forgiven by God, they have worldly consequences to those around them. ”
Absolutely correct and totally irrelevant to the discussion.
“Frankly, call me a blind-faith Christian, but if a man is focused upon God and what God wants out of him as a result of the loving faith that the man bears for our Savior, then in the end that godly character will win out. Does that mean that the individual person will be able to get married…maybe, maybe not. But a Christian, by very definition, carries that cross in order to follow Jesus.”
Scripture never calls lifetime singleness a cross. Rather, it is referred to as a spiritual gift. You know you have it if you have it and you will be happy having it. Otoh, marriage is the default for most people, per Paul. I think that you’re very confused if you agree with Crimson’s rubbish.
“Don’t you have a slutty single mom to hit up at the local watering hole?”
No, been banging my wife. Don’t have much use for skanks. But you’re welcome to them. Or maybe you prefer the masturbatorium.
I know Christ. Not sure that you know Christ from a cucumber.
Welcome, and it’s my pleasure.
First things first:
Wives are not paper targets to be waived around blogs as proof of straight shooting. Yours may not care, but I do. I interpret such statements as evidence of a lack of character; which will have a deleterious effect on the rest of our interactions.
If you can’t speak honorably of your own wife, I can’t trust you to be loose on my blog.
“If you can’t speak honorably of your own wife”
“Been banging my wife” = “been having sex with my wife” From your comment, to claim to have sex with your wife is to speak dishonorably of her. From my pov, my wife is living up to her marriage vows and I am bearing witness of that, so I find your claim to be specious.
However, CV spoke dishonorably of me and you failed to reprimand him; furthermore, you dishonored me with a false accusation. I find you to be dishonorable and will not comment here again. Problem solved. Delete my comments as you will.
You’re not grasping the fullness of my criticism. You invoked the holiest part of your marriage (sex) for the basest reason of belittling an anonymous person on the Internet who is of no consequence to you. A joke I would have let pass, but you’re just being a jerk about your wife so you can be a further jerk to someone else–CV. A someone else, I’ll add, whom you initially addressed by insult, and only insult.
Nothing CV said smacked of “feminist heresy”, yet you let that rip. Perhaps you two have history and you believe you know where CV’s arguments are going to go. I don’t know, and I don’t care. I didn’t reprimand you for that either.
People (me) can be pretty brusque here. But using and talking about your wife like that lets me know that there is a high probability that the word “sacred” means nothing to you. I don’t object to you banging your wife. I object to wasting time reading the thoughts of the pointlessly profane.
If this still confuses you, then imagine that I now see you as a 14yo boy who puts down his 12yo sister simply to impress his older brother’s friends. That approaches my view.
“You invoked the holiest part of your marriage (sex) for the basest reason of belittling an anonymous person on the Internet who is of no consequence to you”
Totally wrong. CV accused me of being a PUA and wanting to seek illicit sex. My response was defensive, indicating that I was not a PUA (currently) and in fact didn’t need to seek illicit sex, since I was getting sex from my wife (our marriage bed is still holy and my comment didn’t affect that in the slightest). You missed the point of the entire exchange. Furthermore, you piled on.
“Nothing CV said smacked of “feminist heresy””
Oh? Let’s have a look:
“marriage is a potential sacrifice that many men in the current generation may have to forfeit for the sin’s of the current generation of women.”
Translation: All you betas may have to man up and stay single. This, of course, feeds straight into the FI, which aims to keep betas from reproducing. Boom!
CV’s initial comment is just re-packaged feminist churchianity.
I always enjoy when skermishes in the Game wars break out
Thanks for the kudos, brother. I’ve dealt with these folks and the best thing I can think of in dealing with them is shaking the dust off of my feet of their utter “marriage mandate theology” and “game” rhetoric and moving on. To that regard, I want to apologize for slipping out the insult. I know better than to sink to insulting and instead arguing and letting the validity of my arguments win or lose the battle. For that, I apologize for being a poor guest and letting pride enter the picture. As for past history, I don’t know asdgamer, but he sounds no different than many of the other gamer’s who have mistook me for a feminist, or Churchian feminist, or blue-pill mangina. Apparently insinuating that in this culture and age, for many men, marriage might be a sacrifice that they potentially may have to make for God (not speaking specifically about becoming Paul’s – though in true respect, we should all strive for that measure of perpetual sanctification regardless of our marital status), is considered a sin in the eye’s of gamer’s. It’s not my intention to get men “out of the race” or to trivialize what they go through by being sanctimonious about solitude, but to tell them that often times we have to set aside those who are sinning, out of love for them and for God, until they are repentant and ready to receive correction through grace.
Does it not say in the Epistles how the church is to set aside sinner’s in the congregation that continue sinning until they are repentant and ready to receive God’s redeeming Word to correct their wrong’s? Then why, if the reader’s on here are Christian and part of the Body of Christ, and therefore His Church, would it be considered blasphemous to suggest that we set aside the women of this generation (whom we’ve concluded pretty well the vast majority are not ready for marriage in their own rights) until they are ready to come to repentance of their own true feminist heresies…the actual heresies that cause division, rebellion, sedition, and ultimately destruction of the family? To suggest that we invite such sin into our own lives, is to deny what the Gospel says about being wary and vigilant against such leaven. Am I saying that we stay away from sinner’s? Certainly NOT. What I am saying is that we remain open and loving in our acts and speech, but that we remain firm in our bibilical convictions and protective that we do not fall into the same sin’s or fall into prideful thinking that we ourselves won’t fall into those sin’s should we continue to indulge them. I’m not saying shun them completely and cast them out like lepers, but I am saying that we are also not doing the loving thing by binding ourselves in holy matrimony to them.
I am humbled at how honorably you hold the sacredness of marriage, insofar as to hold someone else’s wife in higher esteem and respect as being a wife than her husband. It demonstrates that you truly honor and hold sacred God’s creation of marriage. Anyways, I like your thoughts on Chesterton and am eager to see what you write next.
There are few safe places to openly question game. One of the quickest ways to get comments is to use the word game in a post title, the amateur philosophers, not to mention the arm chair zoologists and evolutionists and psychologists and sociologists all come with their flavor of game definition.
I would feel the same about game even sans Christian values. I find men want to invent things they can be a part of, and keep the membership low by never letting anyone really understand their invention.
You don’t even get my blog.
I find men want to invent things they can be a part of, and keep the membership low by never letting anyone really understand their invention.
This TV show shows the error of such thinking. http://www.tv.com/shows/leave-it-to-beaver/larrys-club-81097/
You know you have it if you have it and you will be happy having it.
When is this promised?
Excluding talk of the end times it is very, very rare for happiness to be promised to somebody in the New Testament.
He’s mostly blowing hot air. It’s the same with most gamer’s who like to minimize or trivialize the Providence of God’s Word or the promise God gives to those who follow Him in faith. God never gives us more than we can handle, including periods of isolation and solitude. When gamer’s talk about solitude and singleness as special gifts, what they are doing is basically dissuading believer’s from truly seeking out God’s Will in regards to such an important decision in their life. In effect, what they are saying is that marriage is an automatic for most every man so there’s no point really praying about it, studying it over thru Scripture, and asking God what His Will is for them. They are advising most men to make a gut-judgement call and in effect they are robbing the Gospel of its power to guide our lives and to provide us provisions to live a holy life, regardless of marital status. Most of them are bitter at the church, so pretty much anyone who calls men to holiness for their own benefit is called a “feminist heretic” or “Churchian mangina”.
Paul exhorts all believers to such a life but makes concessions about the practicality of everyone leading such a life. However, who is able to live such a life and who is not is a matter of statistical semantics. What I want to make sure happens is that the 3rd party ready who is on the fence when it comes to what they see regarding modern relationships are pointed back to Scripture to understand what they should do and then provide them a full and clear picture of what it really means to be married, INCLUDING the statistics they will run into such as the national divorce statistic as well as percentage of men who get to retain custody of their children in the modern family law system. Doing so is fulfilling our Christian duty of speaking Truth and to being our brothers’ keepers from walking into a minefield. Admonishing men to “count the cost” before they take up the cross of marriage (and yes, it is both a blessing and a burden and the Bible says so, just as believing and having active faith in Christ is both an undeserved blessing but a service and yolk as well).
He mistakes joy for happiness..a very serious misgiving and misunderstanding of Scripture.
No….actually Cane I dont get your blog
“God never gives us more than we can handle, including periods of isolation and solitude. ”
This assumes God micromanages our lives. I believe He will provide a way to escape out of things that are more than we can handle, but that is a different perspective than just living a “Que Sera, Sera” life.
Many who wallow in crud do so out of their own choice. And errant doctrine reinforces that instead of focusing on their own involvement in their situation.
“Excluding talk of the end times it is very, very rare for happiness to be promised to somebody in the New Testament.”
I would disagree. I may try to pull some Scriptures later, but the key idea is that contentment is in the heart, not based on your circumstances.
[Jhn 16:33 NKJV] 33 “These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”
Being of good cheer requires some happiness. Not what the world sees as happy, but happy nonetheless.
Being of good cheers means finding balance, acceptance, and grace in our circumstances. Not necessarily running around in circles attempting to achieve the acceptance of those who are long since bereft of any inclination of following Christ. Certainly we have responsibility of our choices and consequences for our sin’s and the circumstances that befall us. But there are things that are outside of our internal locus of control and to deny that aspect is to fall into the same level of error as the “que sera sera”.