Why People Choose Insanity

In a comment on yesterday’s post, Greenmantlehoyos wrote:

Man, thanks for being sane.

Hey man, my pleasure. It’s no sweat to be sane on the Internet while writing under a nom de guerre to a self-selected group of like-minded people . Sanity is a more difficult trick to pull in real life. It takes guts because there are risks. People–coworkers, friends, even family–might stop talking to you.

Or the reverse: Maybe you get surrounded by people (a group of coworkers, for example) who want to know why you have such wrong thoughts. Then you have to explain yourself, and then maybe also you find out that you don’t know how to explain yourself because you haven’t really thought these things through as far as you should have.

Maybe you were just going off intuition; which is another way of saying that you once had a glimpse of a true observation before you closed your eyes and went back to work; even though that glimpse has stuck with you. But a glimpse is no foundation for an argument. You’ve got to take a good hard look at the world in front of you to make an argument. Then you have to question yourself–take a good hard look at yourself–to try to know whether what you are now seeing for the first time is real, or if you have imagined it.

The latter–imagining things–becomes a real possibility. If what you see now is real, and if it conflicts with what you’ve always thought to be real, then you must accept that all your life up until now you have been imagining what you saw rather than really seeing it. At first this seems like a complication and a pain in the ass. But if you are brave then it’s an opportunity to elevate yourself above your peers. That’s a good thing. It’s also often lonesome.

Loneliness is tough. Years ago I was at a party. We were laughing and drinking and having a good time. Then my best friend said to me, laughing, “You are a lot more fun when you drink!” I got angry, but he was right. Later, looking at it with open eyes I understood that I got angry because he was right, and I had interpreted it as wholly derogatory of me. But it wasn’t. The thing about alcohol is that it slows down the brain. After a couple drinks I am within actual talking distance of others.

Excellence, by its nature, separates.

Though, It Would Explain “Pro-Lifers”

Unwanted pregnancies do pose serious problems for expectant mothers even in the best of cases. The birth of a child is itself physically painful, and–in some ways–it gets worse from there. The mother will be materially poorer than before. If she has a husband, his attentions will be further divided. If she doesn’t, her attentions will be less diverted. And these are only a small sampling of heart-aching issues pregnant women will face of which we can be sure. In truth, there are a great many terrible, unknown, and unknowable heartaches in the life of a mother. Some children develop disease later. Some refuse to be disciplined. Some children simply die.

It has been said that these burdens are so overwhelming that, combined (and added to the mother’s presence in the midst of a society that permits abortion; and also without the benefit of a medical license so to know whether or not human offspring are actually human) a woman has lost her ability to make a choice to abort. She is but a marionette and everyone around her (and whatever is in her that she can’t determine) cruelly pull her strings.

Lydia McGrew at Something’s Wrong with that Girl went so far as to imply that the death penalty is not too harsh for abortionists (doctors) because it would teach women that abortion is wrong. Yet, she says, it would be wrong to apply any punishment to a woman who earns, begs, borrows, or steals the financing for an abortion because dead doctors are enough to teach any woman that life is precious. From the post:

A legal situation with harsh penalties for abortionists and zero penalties for the procuring woman would be just another such rough-cut distinction made by law, based on considerations like the difficulty of proving the woman’s state of knowledge or intent, information about the prevalence of mitigating pressure and even coercion on the woman, the widespread deception practiced upon pregnant women, the fact that the woman is not confronted with the humanity of the victim in the same way that the abortionist is, and so forth.

Check out what Lydia McGrew, PhD wrote next:

(Abortion is unique in that the victim is physically hidden, and can remain hidden, from one of the people who is complicit in the victim’s destruction.)

So much for the special mother-child bond and so much for the Tender Years doctrine. I sure as hell don’t want to hear a word about women’s intuition. Women can’t know what they can’t see, you see. Swelling and hunger and sickness and kicking and all those other sensations that brought her accidentally to the abortion clinic instead of accidentally to the dentist’s office, are irrelevant.

As with Doug Wilson, it must be amazing to McGrew that any of us are here at all! How did women cope before the sonogram? What is that in there? Is it a scared ostrich? Is it a weasel?

But it gets worse…

Sidestep and Snatch them Baldheaded

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

If a woman walks onto a stage and says that God told her something, isn’t that prophesy? If, in a Bible study, she says the Holy Spirit whispered to her some direction on how to spend less money, isn’t that prophesy? If she blogs that Jesus spoke to her heart about envy, or her personal growth, isn’t that prophesy?

Where are the coverings? And if there are no coverings, why haven’t they been snatched baldheaded?

Last year I meant to write this post. It was to be long and sophisticated and insightful and so I put it off until those traits descended upon me at some future point. The trouble for me was that the topic is, despite my schemes, very clear and concise. I felt the need for specific insight and a “strength-in-numerous-arguments” because I was fighting through the utter mess of female vanity that my culture and my churches have heaped in front of Paul’s teaching; which is itself simple, flawless, and immensely valuable. Precious stones are better appreciated by sight rather than description.

Where was I…Ah, yes: Why Graft?

Here I wrote about how marriage is very like grafting when it is done right (or done at all, really) and here I wrote about some considerations surrounding that. What I didn’t write about was why one has a woman grafted onto him; why one marries in the first place. What does the cut branch bring to the rootstock?

Fruit and beauty, but mostly fruit. What a gardner wants in a fruit garden is lots of good tasty fruit. There’s something to be said for beautiful foliage, too and the shade thrown[1] by lush foliage is full bloom is wonderful for its own sake.

Fruit in marriage is children, of course. And because marriage is also a fundamentally spiritual affair, then fruits are also love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. All these things are must-haves for consideration in marriage. Any branches who do not bear these fruits are a waste to the gardener so close inspection of the woman before marriage for these traits is essential.

Beauty is important, but not always in the way we think. We think we know what beauty when we see it, but usually we’re just telling ourselves stories about what we like rather than recognizing objective beauty. Objective beauty has a physical and spiritual fullness which is absent in things we merely like in our various and subjective attractions.

[1] Not to be confused with throwing shade; which is unpleasant, but sadly more common.

Donkey Talk

King Solomon, ~300 B.C.

25 I turned my heart to know and to search out and to seek wisdom and the scheme of things, and to know the wickedness of folly and the foolishness that is madness. 26 And I find something more bitter than death: the woman whose heart is snares and nets, and whose hands are fetters. He who pleases God escapes her, but the sinner is taken by her.27 Behold, this is what I found, says the Preacher, while adding one thing to another to find the scheme of things— 28 which my soul has sought repeatedly, but I have not found. One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found. 29 See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.

Mom, ~last month

You know, Cane: Women lie a lot; especially when they’re young. All the time. I really hate to say that, but… If they think it will get them something, or get them out of trouble, or, make them look better, yeah, just get their way…women will just lie to everyone and even themselves. Haha! Yeah…especially themselves…

This truth about women (mothers, wives, sisters, daughters…all of them) is the one thing that men dealing with women need to know. The temptation for them to lie is very powerful; in no small way because their nature is to desire more than it is to discern. I suspect this has always been true, but I also think it must be even more difficult to resist in our current culture than in some previous ones. The permeation of relativism in our culture means that their grasp of the truth (when spoken, written, heard, etc.) is more tenuous

Along with that: I cannot imagine that there have ever been more systems for a person to skip between; each more beguiling than the last in its explanation of how to cure what ails a woman. Buy this. Move here. Grow that. Eat this. Pray this. Do these… Men are susceptible to such systematic ruses also, but as women will (and do!) follow, men falling to such sorceries only adds to women’s burden.

Nor can we forget that the laws, traditions, and sentiments of our era force men into the service of women without a reciprocal service, or even gratitude.

So, if this is true, can a man trust a woman? He can, but that trust must be based on watching what she does. A submissive wife, or daughter (or son for that matter) is known by her obedience; not by her lip-service. Let me put St. Peter’s admonition to wives’ obedience under a different light: Her words, even grumblings, are meaningless if she is respectful and has pure conduct; which is submission. Therefore, husbands with obedient wives must not let their own sentimentality get in the way of work. There is plowing to be done. Enjoy (as in: “bring joy into”) it, for there is no plowing in the grave.

Not Even Sexual Abuse is Egalitarian

Generally speaking: The male form of sexual abuse is when a man abuses his power (usually some combination of money, respect, or strength), against a woman, to gratify his sexual desires. This is well-noted and agreed upon by everyone.

The female form of sexual abuse is: When a woman abuses her sexuality, against a man, to gratify her desire for power (usually some combination of money, respect, or strength). This is not usually acknowledged, and never fully.

I say it is not fully acknowledged because while it is sometimes frowned upon, the incidents are treated lightly. “Well, she shouldn’t have done so,” we tsk, “but he should have known better.” Which is a good bit different from the fiery condemnation that is heaped on male transgressors. Where is the movement to outlaw gold-digging? Who is creating a safe space from women?

Which church advocates custody of the eyes as a wardrobe selection strategy for women to employ rather than as a stick with which to beat men into being blind of their surroundings??

Every so often a female will imitate male patterns of sexual abuse. Those incidents don’t rise above the level of talking points. The occasion of a female teacher seducing a male student causes us to ask, “What is going on with that woman?”, as if she’s diseased or ensorcelled; rather than acknowledging that she chose evil because she liked it. A college op-ed about a man who surrenders to the protestations and physical manipulations of a college woman is a mere thought experiment. Crichton’s book Disclosure was a fictionalized story, but it was based on true events which failed to make the news and outraged no one. Why? Because we don’t get emotionally involved. Well why is that? Because our experience tells us that it’s not a pattern of which to be wary.

The first reason these thought experiment stories are ever reported are the novelty of “man bites dog”. But the important reason is that they give cover to the idea that we are striving for equality under the law; that our laws against males forms of sexual abuse constitute a full spectrum of justice to which men and woman can be held.

It’s a lie.

Another Example of Harmful Risk-Aversion

More on Mr. Doug Phillips soon, but a discussion at Dalrock’s prompted me to respond because I’ve written on it before.

My friend Empath wrote this:

[I] am not defending CTS’s behaviors. I’m not wanting them left alone, unchallenged. Maybe I want to know what the label is for the Christians who remain after the CTS’s offenders are stricken from the list. What are we? What group(s) do we share the most values with? Are there really so few of us special Christian snowflakes that we have a clique here in these parts and thats it, because we have sorted all of what SHOULD BE natural allies out and away? Worse, when we see the secular AMEN! chorus from soulless left, or the overtly libertine, whatever group that represents values diametrically opposite what ours should be….but they eloquently wax in agreement about that bloody CTS’s do we not get it that we too are held in derision by them, but like a ManBoobs type association with feminists, they tolerate us because it feels really cool to hear what to them is us running us down.

This is a problem of conservative-minded people. It may be intractable.

Similar problems are what drove Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle first to shut up, and then to start attacking whites in the media even though it was whites paying them.They meant to tell revealing and thoughtful jokes about black people to black people. When too many white people started laughing too loud…they got nervous. I’m sympathetic, but I think they should have continued. It would have been better to ban whites from the audience than for them to crawdad the way they did.

In hindsight: Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle traded their jokes on a conservative understanding of the world because they are (unknowingly) conservatives. So fundamental is their conservatism that as penance for causing whites to laugh at blacks they both took back-to-basics trips to Africa; that they might be cleansed.

On commented blogs, the problem can be exacerbated because while laughter is hard to measure, comments are easy. To my mind, Dalrock speaks as a challenger to his own group to get them to wake up; preaching truths his own hostile choir. He is not an outsider, but one of them. It remains that unless he is more ruthless in moderating comments then his message gets confused with the rabble’s. He starts to sound like Chris Rock telling black jokes at an impromptu meeting of Kinists. Yet if he does start moderating or banning people, then he will surely (if inadvertently) ban others who are like himself; preaching truths to a hostile choir.

What’s to be done? The only solution is for those convicted by Dalrock to get louder; to challenge those in their own little midsts. Sounds like the liberal response, doesn’t it? Fists in the air; rock the vote; we won’t be silenced; etc.

Let’s notice who is on the offensive; who is taking dog-tags off dead conservatives. Which brings us back to the point of why this is a problem of conservative minded people; because we just prefer to take our balls and go home.

The Sacrifice of the Canaanites

When a grim post at a downstairs blog such as mine gets hits from the ironically-named upstairs blog “What’s Wrong with the World”[1], I wonder if, in some small way, it is not a bit less wrong now than it was the day before.

If you follow the link to the comment and from there back the the original post, you’ll find another link to the actual argument under discussion. She writes:

I have no solution to the slaughter of the Canaanites. It’s that simple. I don’t know. As far as I can tell, the text of Old Testament Scripture indicates that God ordered the Israelites to kill children down to and including infants, and this is a problem. (Women as well, but at least one can conjecture that maybe all of the people from the age of reason on up had committed crimes worthy of death. Not the babies, though.) Prima facie, this is in direct conflict with the commandment to do no murder. Any attempt to answer the problem by saying that original sin means that no one is really innocent proves far too much, for it removes the rationale for regarding the killing of infants generally as murder.

There is no particular textual reason to take the problem passages to have been added later. It helps a little bit if one is not a strict inerrantist. But even then, what one is left with, at most, is something like, “Maybe God didn’t really order that, but my only reason for thinking that is that, as far as I can tell, it is completely incompatible with divine goodness. I’ll hope to have this clarified when I get to heaven.” One piece of good news, as far as it goes, is that there is nothing about the slaughter of the Canaanite children that is theologically necessary to the truth of Christianity. Unlike, say, the historical existence of Adam, the killing of Canaanite children is not woven into the warp and woof of Christian theology, doctrine, or ethics. Very much to the contrary.

And then she writes a whole bunch more that you don’t have to read because I’ve already quoted authoress McGrew sending herself astray…which I’ll come back to.

Let me state right away that the text is clear: The slaughter of the Canaanites was commanded by God. It’s not a translation issue. It’s not a euphemism. It’s not a parable. It’s not a myth. It is history, and the command to slaughter gentile (and Israelite) infants, children, and women is encountered multiple times in the OT testament. Here is the command from God; when the Israelites are instructed in how to conquer Canaan.

10 “When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. 11 And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. 12 But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. 13 And when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, 14 but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lordyour God has given you. 15 Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. 16 But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17 but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded, 18 that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God.

“Devote them to destruction”; as in “sacrifice them”. This passage has the context of an offering about it. The “Slaughter of the Canaanites” is a holy endeavor to its core, and in all its facets. It is a direct command from God. It cleanses the land of abominations. It preserves the Israelites from abomination. It performs the spiritual alchemy of turning abominable meat into a pure sacrifice worthy of the Most High God and gives even them a place to honor Him. It is also an opportunity for the Israelites to participate in God’s plan, and share in His holiness. I think even referring to is as the “Slaughter of the Canaanites” is a slander. I call it the Sacrifice of the Canaanites.

And it requires the shedding of innocent blood.

Children, especially infants, are innocent. However; they are not perfect. They are not sinless. They are not selfless, or even aware of others. They are not worthy and they have no worthy works. Innocent means they are not accountable; not that they do not offend, or that they are good. They are also signs of innocence, and that important for us and for our instruction.

It is upon this last that McGrew’s consternation turns. She thinks that if she knows anything, then she knows that infants are innocent. Alongside that, she thinks she knows that killing innocents is murder and always wrong; unless it is God himself actually doing the killing.[2] Lydia McGrew is wrong, and what follows is how we know she wrong.

She wrote:

One piece of good news, as far as it goes, is that there is nothing about the slaughter of the Canaanite children that is theologically necessary to the truth of Christianity. Unlike, say, the historical existence of Adam, the killing of Canaanite children is not woven into the warp and woof of Christian theology, doctrine, or ethics. Very much to the contrary.

It is bad to punish innocents, but punishment is not what God commanded. He commanded they be sacrificed. We’ll see this again later when the Lord of Hosts sends His only begotten Son to live as Himself and as us, and explicitly to be sacrificed to satisfy His own holiness, and for us and our salvation.

“Yes, but they were babies–”

Let me explain that you should shut up. Jesus is more than innocent. He is the Christ who chose to take on mere flesh. He is the only begotten Son of God. Unlike an untested infant, Jesus was tested in the refiner’s fire and found flawless, and a worker of many and marvelous good works; perfect as His Father in Heaven is perfect.  He is unique, flawless, utterly selfless, and very God of very God.

Did you ever wonder what it might be like to think about that? To not only think, but prepare the world for it? Since at least Adam, God has been planning  and moving to send His Son to be sacrificed to reconcile an adulterous people…humiliatingly, naked, painfully, on a cross, by Gentiles at the request of His own flesh and blood because they were cowards. That is INFINITELY more strange, startling, and inexplicable than the Sacrifice of the Canaanites by the Israelites.

Fretting over children sacrificed to a just and holy God who is the Lord of life is a mental walk in the park by comparison. Those who cannot see that have made idols of the flesh and their own wooden theologies, doctrines, ethics. That is to say: They’ve made idols of themselves, and that is very easy for us to do.

It gets back to the eye being the lamp of the whole body, and if our eye is dark (say, by being blasé about the mystery of the death and resurrection of Christ) then the darkness in our body will be great. We will stupidly disconnect Him from other stories of sacrificed innocents, and from ourselves who are made innocent by His sacrifice, yet still die.

26 “So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. 28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered.31 Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. 32 So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, 33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Weren’t they family; the descendants of Noah who alone survived God’s extinction of all other human life? Are innocents not valuable that God would abandon them in death? Isn’t taking up your cross doing what is distasteful and painful to follow God? Was Jesus not deadly serious (even when not literal) when He spoke of a sword? This is the lamp that should light your eyes.

There’s a lot more to say on the topic. I haven’t even touched on God having a soft-spot for those who intercede but which the Jews consistently refused to do, or the real reasons the Israelites balked at killing, or why they didn’t balk when they did kill, or why the prohibition against murder is more about the murderer being separated from God than the murdered being separated from life…lots of stuff.

[1]By the bye: The answer is “us”.

[2]Without getting too derailed: Suffice it to say that this is a foolish train of thought headed for God is Unjust station, and carrying murderous angels as passengers; among others.

A Snowflake’s Chance in Hell

There is a type of conversation that I keep having over and over in the comments of various blogs of Christians. They immediately irritate me and I often respond before I remember that this is the Internet, and that I can just leave…

Perhaps I should go about this differently.

There are a lot of people–a lot of people–out there (and especially in the Men’s Sphere) who have been really mistreated by others in our modern exercise of marriage. They are the reason I still persevere to write this blog. Not because I’m going to fix them, but so that they know they are not forgotten; so that they know they are not alone in their misery; to help them keep in mind that we are not hopeless.

But I can’t keep up hope for them on my own. They have grasp it for themselves. Others can be a light, and others can help carry their load, but but we can’t walk for them. We can’t will their spiritual legs to put one foot in front of the other. People get divorced, or cheated on, and they lose their faith. They say haven’t because they still believe in Jesus…but what do they mean by the word believe? Belief without action–faith without works–is dead.

Sometimes the most painful work is just accepting that what we have been taught by Christ and the prophets–through the Bible, and upheld by the Church–is actually true, and measuring our thoughts and behaviors against those truths. Doing so reveals that one thought after another behavior falls pathetically short of the goal. That beats us down.

When you add to that our imperfect and compassionless perception of others who seem so much worse than ourselves, then we are lulled into a miserable self-righteousness that we’re not that bad, or that for those few people we for whom we can find a smidgen of compassion because we sympathize or empathize with their suffering…well they’re not so bad. The really bad people are those other perpetrators out there; the ones who did what we pretend we could never do.

What ends up happening is, because of that self-righteousness, we drop our standards; we abandon those truths and begin to make excuse for what we have done on the basis of another’s sin. An example would be: “In the real world, sometimes people deserve to be divorced. It’s not my fault she had an affair, and I see no reason why I should be punished by not being allowed to remarry.” Another would be: “I know the Bible says divorce is wrong, but really our marriage was over long ago. In our hearts we been divorced for years. This is just a formality.”

That’s where I reflexively argue that, no, we do not get to do whatever makes us feel better just because someone has wronged us; and if you do then you’re as bad as they are.

They respond poorly to this because often times the truth was not in their excuses for their behavior. If they said what they wanted to say it would sound more like: “That bitch ripped my guts out and I’m supposed to forgive her for being a giant slut; for ruining our marriage? I know I should be sorry for divorcing her, but I’m not.” Or: “For the last ten years he’s taken me for granted. He has no concern except that he’s comfortable, and shows the barest concern about me, his supposed wife! He can go to Hell for all I care.”

Unless they’re in the likeminded company they don’t say that because they know it’s wrong, and they don’t want to confront it. But, man, it would be so much better if they did. Such people can be forgiven, comforted, encouraged, and aided. That’s the business we Christians are supposed to be about. That’s the difference of bitter darkness from salt and light.

People who make excuse and justify their own actions against the faith as merely reactions to other’s evil…there’s no help for them.

Sham-rocks and Other Fables

Well I stopped posting for a bit, and found that I liked it. Alas! All good things must come to an end and so it’s back to the mind-stone. My plan was to continue my series on how things like TV shows, swimwear, and pop songs affect women, why they affect women, and how women actually prefer to be affected by them; that licentiousness is not something merely foisted upon them, but actually desired by them. (It’s an important bit of knowledge for a man who desires to lovingly wash a woman with the water of the word; as his own.)

Yet I was happily diverted from the specifics by a post Zippy made about the mathematical illiteracy often present in discussions about Game; i.e., how to “get” women. While Zippy’s intent is to explain a general truth, I found his statement to be precisely true, but actually inaccurate. It’s a short post, so with apologies to Zippy I’m going to copy the whole thing here.[1]

Suppose a group of men hunts four-leaf clovers.  With time and persistence they learn intuitively where to go, how to scan for them, etc.  It gets to the point where these men are each collecting many four-leaf clovers in a given year.

Because of their success in collecting four leaf clovers these men go around pronouncing that most clovers have four leaves.  For some reason lots of other men – men who, rather ironically, especially pride themselves on dispassionate logic and rational thinking – believe them.

I’ve made the same charge myself…with one important difference.

Zippy’s choice of the four-leafed clover as sluts in his metaphor is backwards both numerically and aesthetically. C’mon: Four-leafed clovers are lucky! They are a good and difficult thing to find. The Author of Proverbs says

Who can find a virtuous woman?
for her price is far above rubies.

WHO can find! As in it takes skill, perseverance, and diligence. Sounds like a four-leafed clover to me. The alternative meaning would be: She does not exist; at least not as found.

I assume Zippy’s choice to equate sluts with fortune and rarity was probably more an (ironically) unfortunate result of haste than deliberation, but it appears to reveal that manly bias (In the sense that men seem to be born with it; not that it’s good and desirable.) to assume most women are fine the way they are; instead of  sin-full creatures who are each informed by a heart that is deceitful above all things…just like the rest of us. In Game parlance: It’s a form of pedestalization of women.

The truth is that four-leafed clovers don’t occur in the human wilds, and by human I mean spiritual. They are never found, but only cultivated…that is: lovingly washed. Roman Catholics celebrate the Immaculate Conception[2] precisely for the fact that it took the Original, Ultimate, and Only Maker of Perfect Gardens to produce[3] the Blessed Virgin Mary[3].

In one of his comments, Zippy opines on some of the tactics and signals a cad or pick-up artist would use to hunt for four-leafed three-leafed clovers, and how Game math works (or doesn’t).

[W]e know that PUAs don’t hit on all women. They have various explicit (tattoos, dress, makeup, venue, companions, etc) and implicit (many of which they are probably not aware of themselves) ways of deciding which specific women to target – much as the clover-hunter has his implicit and explicit ways of deciding where to look for four-leaf clovers. While we don’t know what the PUA’s preselection filter is formally, we do know that the set of preselected women is a subset of all women. Another way to say this is that PUA use Game on a sample of women which represents less than 100% of all women.

We know from the self-reported data of PUA that out of all preselected women  upon whom PUA attempt to apply Game, they succeed some small percentage of the time – 2.7% in the report linked in the previous post.

Given all that, we know that the set of women upon whom the PUA’s process – which we have labeled “Game” – actually works is something substantially smaller than 2.7% of all women. Given the preselection bias – because lets face it, he is going to approach the girl in tats and miniskirt before he approaches the modestly dressed woman, and the preselection function probably whittles down the pool by at least 10x – it is likely substantially less than 1%. [ed: some math redacted, but I have kept the meat of the excerpt. Follow the link above for the full text.]

What Zippy does not address (and what ties this back to my series on cultural detritus) is that virtually all women–even modestly dressed housewives–are imbibing fourth-leaf preventative; by TV show, after advertisement, after magazine article, after song, after movie, after TV show, after advertisement… each one dosing women to choose narcissism and sin while rejecting repentance and righteousness. The result is to prefer licentiousness and cads. Yes, I mean in most women, even among Christians.

The result is that we are both born into and confirmed towards a world brimming with three-leafed clovers, and so three-leafed clover tactics often work. Often especially on churched women with a modest appearance who are bolstered by that manly bias to pedestalize women; to assume innocence and goodness on no basis whatsoever. This is even more true once we admit that most men can’t differentiate a modest woman from a hole in the ground. More on that below.

The perversity of so much Game discussion is not a mathematical illiteracy which will not produce results; if by results we mean get a woman’s attentions. Game is reliable because the cultivation of four-leafed clovers is outlawed by our natures from birth, and by the tastes of our day..by the course of this age (some translations say “spirit of this age”).

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

The perversity (of many Game discussions) is actually two-fold. First, that the intent of the the great majority of Game discussions is how to prevent clovers from ever flowering that fourth leaf. It’s second intent is it’s Satanic twin: To condemn three-leafed clovers for their poverty.

The root of these foliage fooleries is best summed up by the blogger Rollo Tomassi, who accidentally struck gold while mining for pyrite:

The problem with your [Zippy’s] math is that everyone still wants a four leaf clover.

He meant to say that men want women of high value, but when we untangle the analogy, we see that what he said was entirely different, but more true: Most men believe sluts to be of high value, and do want them. It’s not surprising to me, but nevertheless still astounding because it not only flies in the face of the Scriptures, but–somewhat more stupefyingly–in the face of the evidence of our own eyes, and what the Game writers themselves preach!

From another angle: In contrast to the natural bias of most men to pedestalize women generally; to see them only as they ought to have been; never as they are. The bias of those who are enthralled with Game (as opposed to consider it, or even study it) is to see them as the sinful creatures they are; never as what they are meant to be. It is to confirm and retard women as sluts. As I said: Satanic. Christ came to redeem them.

While not all topics and discussions that are given the label Game is or has to be such, they largely are.

[1]If this post interests you, it is definitely worth your time to follow the link to Zippy’s to read both the comments, and his immediately preceding (and also short) post.

[2] Not a subscriber, myself.

[3] To both of which I am most definitely subscribed.