The Necessity Of Suffering

I have been meaning to write a follow-up to Ace’s post “To feel the pain that spurs you on” “To feel the pain that spurs you on” for over a week now, but various matters intruded and kept me from it. It intrigued me for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that it explores critical difference in how men and women think- a pet issue of mine.

His post is in many respects a follow up to one he wrote almost a year ago- “That’s why I cut you just to heal you.” That post is one I also responded to, with The Misery Of Too Much Comfort. So in a way, this post is a double follow-up, in that it addresses posts both old and new.

In my old post I offered a theory as to why women these days are so quick to go out and do things that will make them suffer:

Women expect suffering in their life- it is the natural thing. [Think about the vast majority of human history- filled with suffering for pretty much everyone.] When women are too comfortable, when suffering is absent from their life, then it sends a message to their unconscious mind that something is wrong, that what they are living is an unnatural life. That message of unnaturalness will only be repeated over the years as they grow up. They will know, somewhere deep down inside, that something is wrong. Unfortunately, because this is unconscious, they won’t know what it is, exactly, that is wrong.

This will, naturally enough, lead them to feel miserable. The misery is only made worse because they won’t understand it. It will gnaw on their mind incessantly, like an itch you can’t quite reach.

I suspect that part of the reason that women act so crazy in the west today is because of this. Using that itch analogy I just mentioned- women act crazy because they are trying to scratch that itch. Only they don’t quite know how- so they do so in extreme ways. Again, deep down inside they know they should be suffering, so they go out and make themselves suffer (without every truly understanding that is what they are doing).

Ace, in his own far more concise way, offers an alternate explanation:

[W]omen use suffering (subconsciously, at least) to demonstrate resilience.

…

In fact, more often than not, women’s complaints are (at heart) actually backhanded boasts of how much suffering they can take.

Now, as interesting as these theories are, they aren’t the key matter I want to examine in this post. Instead, I was fascinated by this (in hindsight obvious) point Ace made:

In fairy tales, the most desirable/marriageable women

had terrible & harsh lives [“childhoods”].

This is not a coincidence but a lesson.

This got me thinking about the role that suffering plays in the rearing/raising of children. More specifically, the different roles that it plays for men and women.

You see, I think that enduring a certain amount of suffering is necessary for the healthy growth and maturity of both men and women. However, the way that the suffering should be experienced/handled is different between them.

For men, suffering should be a tool that is used to strengthen them. They should be exposed to trials and challenges and then forced to overcome those challenges. In that overcoming of obstacles they will be forced to break down the old self, the boy, and build up a new self- the man. This process is repeated over and over as a boy grows up into a man. If successful, he comes out as a strong, tested and confident man who can tackles whatever life throws his way.

For women, on the other hand, suffering is a tool that is used to remove weaknesses and flaws. While that might seem similar to what men undergo, it isn’t. They aren’t put through trials and challenges in the same way. The reason why is simple- the goal isn’t to break the girl down and then build her up as a woman. Instead, the goal is to raise her right from the beginning, and over time to wear down any and all negative traits.

Let me try to explain this further with an agricultural analogy-

For both men and women you have a field that represents them and their character. In the beginning it is sown with wheat. As they get older, however, weeds creep up throughout the field. The wheat represents ideal traits, the weeds negative traits.

For women, the way to deal with this problem is to get on your hands and knees and pull up those weeds. Start in one corner and work your way throughout the field. It will likely be necessary to double-back at some point to deal with any new weeds that sprouted in already cleared parts of the field. As a result, this is a long, continuous process that won’t end for a long, long time (until the woman is that wizened grandmother).

For men, the way to deal with this problem is to cordon off parts of the field. Then, once it is in sections, turn to the first one. Tear everything up. Leave that section as a bare field. Then plant and sow new seed. Water it. Let it grow. Remove any weeds that start to sprout. Then move to the next section, and repeat the process. Do this section by section until the whole field has been attended to.

Tying all of this back to the title of the post, I am arguing here (as I have in the past) that suffering is necessary for healthy character development of both men and women. However, the way that suffering should play out is very between between the two sexes. One of the many problems with our present age is that we have forgotten this, and all too often children are raised alike, irrespective of whether they are boys and girls. And of course, all too often their lives contain far too much comfort, and far too little suffering.

This theory has been bouncing around in my head for almost two weeks now, and I am curious what my readers think about it. Please leave your own thoughts in the comments below. Tell me where I am right, where I am wrong, and where else you think all of this can go.

 

 

 

The Necessity Of A Secret Identity

Post full title: Superheroes And The Necessity Of A Secret Identity From A “Red Pill” Perspective

 

[I enjoyed my last comic book post so much I decided to write another one. It should go without saying that this might be less than entirely serious.]

Not too long ago I had a conversation with a friend wherein the subject of superheroes came up. One of the things we talked about, that was interesting from a sociological perspective, was the effect that the presence of superheroes would have on general society. But what really got me thinking was to wonder what it would be like to actually be a superhero.

Oh, I’m not talking about what it would feel like to be able to fly, or have super strength or speed. No, what I was wondering about was the effects that superpowers and a superhero persona would have on someone’s everyday life. Would an everyday life be even possible? Maybe, but it might not be ordinary. Guess it depends.

There is one area of life, however, that would be dramatically affected by one’s superpowers and super-heroic persona: romance.

As I was pondering the impacts that being a super would have on one’s love life, I came to the realization that any hero, male or female, who wanted to marry would need a secret identity. I would go so far as to argue that in today’s climate a secret identity would be a necessity, even.

Why? Well, lets examine it for men and for women separately.

For men who don’t want to marry, and who otherwise don’t care about the possible benefits of a secret identity, then being an “open” Super would be quite a perk. The PSALM/LAMPS boost that a man would enjoy from being a super would have to be enormous. The Status alone would push you into the very top tier of men (unless powers were super-plentiful, I suppose). Then throw in a likely boost to Masculine Power from the confidence of super-powers, and possible athleticism boosts, and yeah… you are set. Oh, and you could probably make bank with endorsements, too. You would be the ultimate player.

But what if you want to marry? Well, here is the problem- that huge PSALM/LAMPS boost from being an open Super would make you a huge target for gold diggers and ultra-hypergamous women. [I imagine that female Supers would fall here.] Sure you might be able to get a 10… but will she stick by you? The thing about Supers is that their Status would probably fluctuate. Just like sports teams, some Supers might be seen as more “hot” at one time than at another. If your “stock” as a Super goes down then your attractiveness will drop (and your bankroll as well re: endorsements). This risks your wife leaving you if she is ultra-hypergamous and thinks she can find greener/fresher pastures elsewhere.

Besides all of the regular problems with divorce, any Supervillain foes you might have could possibly use that ex-wife as a source of info. She might blab all kinds of secrets that you don’t want out. Whether that is any kind of weakness (like kryponite), or merely something embarrassing, it could really hinder your heroics. Even if she didn’t leave you, she would be an obvious target for seduction. And lets face it, if anyone could pull off “Game”, it would be a Supervillain.

Heck, even if she doesn’t leave you, you might still need to constantly “game” her if she is “needy.” Since super-heroism is probably pretty demanding all the time, is that really worth it? I would say not.

Given all of this, a secret identity makes perfect sense. Setting aside all the other benefits, it means you can woo women without the danger they are marrying you just because of your powers. It also makes her less likely to blab your secrets, and reduces the potential of her being targeted for seduction by a foe.

Now on to women…

As a female Super, you would have a number of things to worry about as well. One thing worth mentioning is that the status of being a Super won’t be a boost to your attractiveness like it is with men. Since female attractiveness/beauty is nearly all physical, unless your powers affect your looks, it is a wash- at best.

The first issue that I can think of is that some male Super would marry you just to have super-powered children. That assumes it is genetic, of course. But if it is, then you risk being used as a breeder. Maybe it isn’t so malevolent, but still, there is always the possibility that he marries you just to marry a female super. Perhaps it is a family dynasty thing, like race can be.

Another issue is the concern over being perceived as an Alpha Widow. An open female Super who dated male Supers in the past will have trouble with non-Super men. And I mean trouble aside from her own hypergamy. The problem is that non-Super men might worry (reasonably, I might add) that they would have trouble competing with a male Super, either in terms of memories or future faithfulness.

A secret identity would protect against both problems. Men looking for genetic mothers of super-powered kids would skip you by. At the same time female Supers would be mostly insulated from the association of uber-Alphaness with male Supers and being able to compete.

I am sure there are more reasons to use a secret identity for both male and female super-heroes, so if my readers think of any feel free to add them below. Also feel free to critique my thoughts to your heart’s desire.

Something Else

Today’s post is a Masculine Monday post. Male commenters only, please. Also, somewhat stream of consciousness as well.

Rollo has a new post up titled “The Something Else.”

If you want to sum up Rollo’s post, it would be in this simple phrase:

If it wasn’t X-Box it would be something else.

The reality of male/female relations these days is driving more and more men to seek out “something else” to occupy their life.

For some it is escapism- merely an attempt to drone out the overwhelming meaninglessness they feel marks their lives.Whether it is porn or video games or something else, they want to blur out reality. There is no drive for something more, something greater. Merely something to distract.

For others it is a genuine desire to find something of meaning and value. To obtain a purpose for life. Some Red Pill sites call this “your mission.” As a Catholic, I recognize that the word they are searching for is vocation. These men are looking for a calling that they can hold fast to and make their own.

Unfortunately, for many the vocation that most will be called to, marriage, seems mostly out of grasp. And for most probably will be (if they are smart, anyways). The problem, from the Church’s perspective, is that there is nothing in place to really help men who find themselves so frustrated. They will instinctively search of that “something” to replace their vocation, but how much is really there for them? Just among Catholics many will not be called to be priests, or monks (in the traditional sense).

It seems to me that the Church needs to adapt to the change in the Marriage Marketplace. There needs to be something for all the young men who will not be able to marry in the years ahead. And probably something as well for the men who find themselves divorced. I’m talking more than some support group. Rather, something more akin to a community, a brotherhood. Something that provides support and doesn’t leave all these men discrete individuals adrift in the modern world.

I suppose some sort of urban monastery might be in order. Not a place for contemplatives, but a communal home where everyone is a “roomie” and can uplift and support his fellow men. I invite my readers to offer their thoughts on the matter. All the same, I am sure that something is needed to help devout men find that something. Many men are drifting away from the faith, and given the cold shoulder the Church is basically giving them these days, it is hard to blame them. Furthermore, creating a place for men without a home might help secular men who are also adrift in the same ocean.

Men are looking for something else, and the Church needs to help them find it.

 

Ordering Deception

A short post today.

In my most recent Musings post I made the assertion that women were more prone to being deceived than men. A brief debate ensued, and after some study and careful thought I came to reconsider my original position. Here is what I expressed later:

I think that what might account for susceptibility to deception might in fact be primarily a result of deception from the other sex. I suspect that it might be that women are susceptible to men deceiving them. And the reverse definitely seems to be true based on many accounts from these parts.

In other words, women seem prone to deception, at least to men, because women are more susceptible to being deceived by men. And the reverse is also true- that men are prone to being deceived by women. A possible implication of this is that men are less susceptible to being deceived by other men, and women are less susceptible to being deceived by other women.

I think that the principal reason this might be the case is that men tend to be less knowledgeable about women. They don’t know how they think, or what they think, or what they value, or why, to the degree that they do with men. And of course vice-verse. There are plenty of anecdotal stories from the manosphere which would back up that men can be deceived, easily even, by women. While the reverse has tended to be a predominate view, or at least was for a long time, that might be because most of the authors of such advice were men. Women might have, and probably did, have other ideas about how easy men were to deceive.

Seeing as I love to categorize, I see four different scenarios when individual deception is concerned (that is, individuals deceiving other individuals). They are:

• A man deceiving a woman
• A man deceiving another man
• A woman deceiving a man
• A woman deceiving another woman

What I wonder about is the order of susceptibility. By that I mean, which scenario is the most potent? Or are they the same between the opposites? That is, are men just as good at deceiving women as women are at deceiving men? I would invite my readers to contribute their thoughts on these questions, and the order of the specific scenarios from easiest to hardest.

A Warning And A Lesson

Today’s post is inspired by the comments of this post over at Dalrock’s. It will be divided into two parts, the first of which responds to a comment by “Bee”, while the second features some of my thoughts and commentary concerning a comment left by “stringtheory.”

I.

Here is part of what commenter Bee said in response to Deti talking about the incorrect, inaccurate and often outright deceptive teaching in church on the nature of men and women:

What would you teach a class of teenage, Christian men to give them the correct perspective?

Would you encourage the young men to marry young?

(Link to comment here)

I’m going to address them in order, starting with the question of “What would you teach a class of teenage, Christian men to give them the correct perspective?”

Well, the first thing I would do is advise that they read the Wisdom Books in the Bible. Proverbs, Sirach and Song of Songs especially. I know that most Protestant Bibles don’t have the Book of Sirach, which I think is a tragic loss for those who have never read it. Fortunately there are plenty of online resources where Sirach can be read in several different translations. So if you don’t want to buy a new Bible that would be a viable alternative. Both Sirach and Proverbs mesh well together in terms of explaining positive and negative traits in women. They warn men about the consequences of choosing a wife poorly and can help keep women off a pedestal. Song of Songs is useful for disabusing men of the notion that women are asexual creatures, which can again help keep away the pedestalization. All of that makes for a good, solid foundation.

Other passages in the Bible provide good lessons as well. Genesis has valuable insights of course. Potiphar’s wife’s advances on Joseph provide stark warning about female nature. Samson provides all kinds of object lessons. Both the story of David and Solomon have great value as well. All of these will tie in to what will be taught later about female nature.

Before going any further, I would tell these young Christian men that male sexuality is not inherently evil or twisted or anything of that sort. God created us as sexual creatures (save perhaps those with St. Paul’s gift), and that is a good thing. Teach them that sex is both proper and good inside of marriage- for it unites man and woman together as one flesh and is the avenue by which offspring come about- which is what God desires.

With that taken care of, I would explain to those teenage men what women find attractive in men. Help them understand the differences between Attraction traits and Desirability traits. Then I would explain to them why women find those traits attractive. Make it clear to them that most people out there, Christian or non-Christian, don’t understand this. Consequently, they will need to be suspicious of anything else they’ve been taught before which clashes with this. Inform them that there is a lot of bad teaching out there, and they need to be able to distinguish the truth from lies.

Then I would move on to explain other aspects of female nature. Some important examples include:

• Hypergamy
• The Good Genes/Good Provider dichotomy and how that plays out
• Fitness Tests
• The impact of a woman’s sexual history on marital stability
• The inability to negotiate desire
• The differences in how women communicate as compared to men

The Feminine Imperative (an ephemeral concept if there ever was one) would also be something that would need to be explained to them. While difficult to describe, it has a huge impact on nearly all aspects of our culture, and learning it is critical for men to understand why the present culture (within and without the Church) is what it is.

By the end of all these lessons, these young men should be able to see women for what they are: fallen, sinful creatures… just like men. This brings us to the second question- “Would you encourage the young men to marry young?”

The short answer to this is yes, I would. I’ve explained before why young marriage is a good thing. Young marriage would (or to be more accurate, could) help these young men avoid sexual immorality. However, that would be an incomplete answer. Because at the same time I would also encourage the young men to prepare for marrying young. That means getting serious about their life right away. If they pursue an education, don’t waste time on needless classes. Take what they need, and only what they need. Finish as swiftly as possible, so as to minimize debt and get into the workforce as soon as possible. Consider trade school if not looking at college or university. Also consider community college combined with a full or part-time job.

At the same time, it would also be necessary to encourage the parents of the young men to support their sons marrying young. Most Christians these days, parents especially are opposed to young marriage, on a variety of grounds- none of them really good. Expect a lot of resistance here. And that leads into the real problem with all of this. You see, encouraging young men to marry young is rather pointless unless you can encourage young women to marry young. Right now that isn’t happening, in fact it is the exact opposite. This provides the perfect lead-up to part two-

II.

Commenter Stringtheory left the following comments:

On a recent camping trip, one of the guys was telling us about how his 28 year old son had started taking antidepressants. His son has never suffered from depression but told his dad he was able to say the right things and get a prescription. He’s taking them to try and kill his sex drive because he’s simply tired of pursing women with no success. The dad is upset and angry. His son is reasonably attractive, a working professional with a decent income, but all the girls he asks out turn him down, or if he does go out they want to have sex right away and his son wants to wait until marriage. So instead of being tempted with porn or fornication he’s cutting out the source of his temptation. We were all talking about the morality of this. Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid marriage or immorality?

(Link here)

I should correct my above statement. The question wasn’t “Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid marriage or immorality?” but rather to avoid immorality. I want to make clear that my friend’s son wants to get married, but he simply can’t find any non-virgins and doesn’t think his prospects are going to get better any time soon. About six months ago he did strike up a friendship with an 19 year old who was (presumably) a virgin and things seemed to be moving along but it got quashed by the girl’s parents and church elders who thought that his interest was inappropriate given the age difference. After that he had had enough and started down the chemically eunuch route.

(Link here)

Most of my regular readers will likely understand why I sympathize with that young man. He sounds like a slightly younger version of myself, trying to clear much the same hurdles. Before answering stringtheory’s question, I want to continue where I left off- how young women are not encouraged to marry young.

I don’t recall if it was Novaseeker or Cail Corishev who once said something along the lines that there are few things that Christians fear these days so much as a young women with potential marrying young. Whether or not that accusation is true (I think it is for many),  stringtheory’s account, and that of other Christians in this part of the web, does demonstrate that many if not most Christians do not want young, attractive virgin women to marry good, virtuous men. They just don’t. If there was no age gap, as there was here, then another reason would have been given for why the relationship should not have been. As for why so many Christians act in this manner, there are two different forces working together here- one relating to women and one relating to men.

When it comes to women, most Christians oppose on principle the idea of a young, (attractive) virgin marrying. Of course, if one or more of those traits is not present, then the opposition tends to melt away. She’s no longer young? Why then, of course she should marry. She’s not attractive? Well, it won’t be such a loss if that man, older or not, marries her (although this is still not favored- its just tolerated more). She’s no longer a virgin? Well, it would be good for that men to marry her and “save her” from her past mistakes.  So for those young men that Bee was asking about… well, it really doesn’t matter if you encourage them to marry young or not. Because everyone else in church is encouraging the women the men want to marry (and should marry) to not marry. At least, not right away. Not until they get more “life experience” and other such nonsense. This really is one of the great tragedies of our age- the Christian women who should marry, and would make (all other things being equal) the best wives- those who are young and virgins, are for the large part essentially commanded that they shouldn’t marry until they are no longer young.

This brings us to the men. Based on what I have seen, and what others have relayed to me, it appears as though many Christians don’t want good, virtuous Christian men to marry well. Oh, they would never admit to it and would instead deny the accusation vociferously. They would protest and say that of course they want those nice men to marry well. But the women they want to marry, those young (hopefully attractive) virgins from the paragraph before, are basically off-limits to them. As for what women they are “allowed” to marry, that is, to court without scandal or reprisal? Yeah….  Honestly, sometimes I get the impression that a lot of Christians see good, virtuous men as janitors or sanitation workers who are expected to pick up the “trash” in church. If you continue to follow stringtheory’s comments in that thread he basically describes that exact phenomenon in action. Undoubtedly it is one of the major reasons why so many men are leaving the church right now. These men are essentially being punished for their virtue, which sure doesn’t help encourage it any, as incentives matter.

Before I close I also want to address the question of “Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid [sexual] immorality?” I know that I have read some of the works of the early Church Fathers who discussed physical castration, and they made it clear that it was a sin. One’s body is holy, a gift from God, and is not to be disfigured. I think that the same reasoning would apply to chemical castration as well. Your brain is part of your body, and using chemicals to alter your brain chemistry to suppress, hinder or eliminate certain brain functions is harmful. Yes, the intent might be good, but the action itself is not just or ordered. Jesus was not being literal when he said we should cut off our hand if it caused us to be sin- he was applying a metaphor, as per his usual style. However, reasonable minds might differ and I am curious what my readers think about the subject. Is is acceptable to use chemicals to suppress one’s sex drive so as to avoid sexual immorality? Let me know in the comments.

Making It Worth The Investment

TempestTcup, who helps run the Red Pill Women Reddit, posted a comment some woman left there not too long ago. It is short, but I will post only the central paragraph:

I am a very lazy person, and that makes it hard for me when it comes to most things feminine, because being traditionally feminine requires so much effort: I don’t cook anything from a recipe, I never bake, I don’t wear make-up, I don’t decorate, I don’t knit or sew or do crafts, I put minimal effort into my outfits, and I dislike shopping with a passion. However, I don’t really have any traditionally masculine interests, either – I can’t be bothered about sports, I don’t play videogames, I don’t read comic books, I don’t hunt/shoot etc etc.
I am interested in some of these things, I have a passing knowledge of many of them, but I don’t really care very much. Because of this I sometimes find it hard to converse with women on either end of the spectrum (and with men, sometimes) because I am rarely passionate about the things they are passionate about.

This doesn’t exactly paint a flattering picture of this (young?) woman now, does it? But her response is only the catalyst here. What interested me more than her indulgence of the sin of sloth were a couple of the comments made in response to the post. Commenter Cadders left this:

Ummm…..craving leadership…..male leadership perhaps?

Tempest followed up with a comment of her own:

True, but what male leader wants to put up with someone that catatonic? I bet it’d take a crowbar to wrench her out of her chair

And here Tempest gets to something very, very important. Few, if any, men would be interested in trying to lead that woman to a better state of life. It would be a major investment of time, and probably money. And for what gain? What kind of personality do you think that this woman possesses? I imagine it isn’t particularly endearing. What we are talking about here is a total make-over for this woman- nothing else will do.  Essentially, she has to become someone else entirely for any man worth his salt to want to be with her for the long term.

I’ve covered the subject of “training” a woman to be wife material before, in my post Some Assembly Required. In it I discussed what I could, and could not “train” in a woman to make her wife material. I also explained that I would, in fact, be willing to do that kind of “training”, and invest in a woman who shows potential. The thing is, I’m only going to invest in a woman if she makes it relatively easy and inviting for me to do so. [Edit: And I would only do so in areas where I am really just helping her change herself- like losing weight, for example] Dalrock’s metaphor of the Two Beaches is appropriate here, I think. A woman who makes it easy for me to “train” her, who doesn’t put up obstacles and fights me along the way? I’m willing to chance that. But a woman who turns this from a chore into a battle? Pass. [Edit: Not only would I not want to endure that kind of battle, but it would show she is beyond my ability to help/influence anyways.]

I mention all of this because the comment that Tempest highlighted reminded me of a young woman I  worked with a few months back. For a while I considered whether I could, and should, “train” her towards being wife material.  I knew she and I shared some similar views on life, and that she was a Christian.  She did give off some Christo-Feminist warning signs, however, and that gave me pause. On the other hand I thought I  could probably correct her in a relatively short time frame, and if that didn’t work out then I could always leave before having invested too much time and effort. I also had reason to believe she was a virgin. Of course, much of the reason for that is that she was quite overweight. Enough so to easily push her out of the acceptable category, at least as she was. What she had going for her was the fact that she still had something of a pretty face, which hinted at good genes. I suspected she would actually be quite attractive if she lose the excess weight.

Given all of this, I was tempted to “train” her up. I didn’t though, because she presented me with (to keep the previous metaphor going) an Omaha Beach like environment. Her personality was atrocious. She was extraordinarily difficult to work with, as she was flighty and controlling at the same time. She couldn’t take orders or follow them, and yet couldn’t lead at the same time. All in all, she thoroughly disabused me of the notion of trying to “train” her to be wife material. [Edit: Not only did I not want to “train” her, I knew that I couldn’t.]

As Tempest alluded to before, I didn’t [Edit: and don’t] want to put up with someone like her. There were simply too many barriers in my ways to make it worthwhile. “Training” her was a long-term project that I rationally concluded was a bad bet- I had no assurance of success, while at the same time I was assured of a high cost. A woman has to want to change, and be willing to change, in order for a man, or me at least, to consider “training” her to be wife material. That young woman showed neither inclination. In short, she didn’t make it worth the investment.

Signal to Noise Ratio

I.

Today’s short post is a response to a compound question asked by April (otherwise known as peacefulwife) over at Peaceful Single Girl:

What is it that women can do to signal interest, and what is it that women are doing to prevent signaling interest?

The question, asked in comment thread of this post, was in response to the following comment by myself:

It really isn’t true that men initiate first, or are supposed to initiate first. Women do through signalling a willingness to be approached by a man, or men. And this is where a lot of women, Christian women especially, fail. They send out the wrong signals, and instead of demonstrating that they are willing to be approached, indicate that they want nothing to do with the Christian men around them.

I will probably expand on what I raised in my comment at some later point, but today I will focus on the two questions which April asks. Fortunately, they lend themselves well to easy organization.

II.

The key thing for a woman to understand is that she needs to maintain a positive signal-to-noise ratio. Life is full of distractions, or noise, that will interfere with a man’s ability to detect a woman’s interest in him. The more distractions, the more powerful her signal will have to be. Which translates into her needing to be more overt in making her feelings clear.

Additionally, women face several problems when it comes to signaling interest. The first is that it can be difficult to determine how much noise there is. What may be distracting to a man may not phase a woman. Another problem is that some men don’t like it when a woman is too overt. Myself, I don’t have a problem with this, but for some guys this seems to be a real bother or turn-off. Lastly, men and women communicate in very different ways, so a man may completely miss what a woman thinks is obvious.

Given all of this, I suggest a strategy of slowly ratcheting up signaling interest to a man. So, what ways can a woman signal her interest? Here are a few that I have thought of:

1) Smile. Smile a lot. This may seem simple, and it is. But smiling is a good way of showing a man that you don’t mind his presence.

2) Compliment him. Find something you like about him and let him know.

3) Ask him what his favorite color is, or if he likes a particular color pattern. Then, wear a dress or outfit with those colors or that pattern to an event that you know he will be present at.

4) Serve him. When you are at a dinner or other event where food will be served, ask him if if you can bring him anything.

5) Flirt. That’s right, flirt. There is nothing wrong with some light-flirting and teasing with a man. It is one of the surest ways to express interest.

III.

Now to address the second question. What things should a woman avoid which interfere with her signaling interest to a man? Some thoughts:

A) A cold demeanor. A woman who isn’t pleasant and shows no warmth will come across as uninterested in a man. Smile and have a welcoming expression on your face. Make it clear that talking with you won’t be a painful experience for a man.

B) Rigid body language. A lot of our communication isn’t in what we say, but how we say it. If your body language is closed and rigid, you are sending a message that you don’t want to be approached. Relax and let your motions flow. Don’t give the appearance of not wanting to be there.

C) Nuclear rejections. If you are approached by a man who doesn’t interest you, don’t blow up on him. Reject him politely and quietly. Don’t make a scene. And don’t gossip or talk about it. Your goal is to make it so that men don’t see approaching you as a costly endeavor. This way, any man you are signalling will think to himself that even if he is wrong about your feelings, he won’t regret approaching you.

IV.

Those are a few ideas that I have to answer the peacefulwife’s question. As I think of more I will update the post. In the meantime, I invite my readers to offer their own thoughts on what women should and shouldn’t do to help signal their interest.

Thoughts on Marriage and Game

I. Introduction

I don’t talk about Game much on this blog, as I consider this to be more of a “Red Pill” Christian blog. Game, in all of its various forms, tends to be centered on specific behaviors and actions; whereas I tend to focus on the bigger picture, primarily the general nature of men and women. In a way my blog is more “Macro” whereas Game blogs tend to be more “Micro”. I bring this up to provide some measure of understanding, because I will be talking about Game in this post, although from that “Macro” perspective that is my usual style. In particular, I will be talking about Game and how it relates to Christian marriage. Also, I will spend some time talking about how Christian marriage and the legal system interact.

[Note: Game is a multi-faceted subject. When I talk about it, I am being inclusive, ie., I mean the overall field. Some types of Game are necessarily not going to be included here. ]

II. Game

While I have been meaning to write a post like this for a while, I was spurred to do so by a recent post by Great Books For Men, True Christian Women Do Not Need To Be Gamed By Men (Warning: link is NSFW, profanity and obscenity abound). GBFM takes the position that Vox Day and Dalrock are preaching falsehoods when they expound the value of Game in Christian marriages. In GBFM’s view:

A true Christian woman does not need to be gamed.  A true Christian woman follows the Law of Moses which Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfill…

There is more, of course, but rather than simply quote the profane and often all but unreadable language of GBFM, I will translate some of his major arguments. They include:

-1) Women no longer follow God but rather their primal instincts.

2) Instead of trying to “resurrect the Christian Soul in the churches, schools, universities, and family court system and reform women”, men like Dalrock and Vox instead advocate that men Game women.

3) Game necessarily involves men becoming slaves to the primal instincts of women.

4) Serving the primal instincts of women above the laws of God is the heart and soul of Game.

I agree with GBFM that #1 is the case with most women these days. When it comes to #2, I’m not sure that is the position that Dalrock and Vox take, but I will let them account for themselves on that. As for #3 and #4, I disagree strongly with GBFM. I think that he misunderstands Game, and much more besides.

The first error that GBFM makes is failing to understand the true nature of women. To begin with, his argument that “A true Christian woman does not need to be gamed” gives every appearance of being a variant of the “No True Scotsman Fallacy”. He is trying to create a distinction where none exists. What GBFM does not appear to acknowledge or understand is that Christian women, “True” or not, are still women. And no amount of proper parenting, instruction or wishing really hard will ever change that. There is a certain base set of behaviors and instincts that all women possess. A woman embracing the message of Jesus who becomes a Christian will still have those base set of behaviors and instincts. The only difference between her and a secular woman is that the Christian woman is instructed to restrain those primal behaviors, and has an incentive to do so. Those instincts and behaviors do not disappear after she becomes a Christian. For as Jesus explained:

Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

This weakness in women is a weakness of the flesh. Though a woman might be a “True Christian”, she is still a flesh and blood woman, and thus prone to weakness. When you consider all of the negatives influences which are pressing upon Christian women these days, it becomes very easy for them to give in to temptation. Of course, Christian women should avoid these influences, but often don’t because they fail to realize them for what they are.

GBFM’s second error lies in declaring that Game is all about men becoming slaves to the primal instincts of women. The foundation of this argument seems to be that when a man Games a woman he is in fact catering to her selfish wants and is effectively making himself subservient to the woman. The thing to understand here is that Game is all about manipulating women (through controlling their attraction to a man). While doing so involves giving women attention, which is something that they do want (and often selfishly so), it is only a byproduct of the manipulation process. And manipulation, as any Red Pill aware man should know, is merely one form of exercising control. Here the control is over the woman’s perception of the man: Game makes him more attractive in her eyes, which gives him greater power over her, and thus more control over her. Knowing this, we can see how Game is not about serving women per se, but about controlling them.

What seems to confuse a lot of people (GBFM apparently being one of them) is that controlling a woman also involves serving her. This is because women need and want to be controlled. Now, this probably seems counter-intuitive to most folks who haven’t really delved into the quixotic nature of the female mind, so bear with me for a bit.

A key thing to understand about women is that what they want and what they think they want can be, and often are, two very different things. Such is the case for women and control. Perhaps the easiest way to understand this is to separate female wants into conscious wants and unconscious/subconscious wants. Consciously a woman might want to be “strong, proud and independent.” She might think that she wants to dominate a man, and buck any form of control of her actions. But her subconscious has another idea: it wants her to be submissive to a man and for her behavior to be fiercely controlled. This split between the conscious and unconscious of a woman’s brain is why it is so essential to watch what a woman does, and not listen to what she says. It also explains the War Bride phenomenon.

To summarize, Game is a form of manipulation. Manipulation is a form of control. Women want to be controlled, although they do not consciously recognize this and may consciously reject it. So when you Game a woman, you manipulate her, and when you manipulate her, you control her, and when you control her, you give her want she wants. From just this perspective, GBFM’s argument that when you control a woman you become a slave to her primal instincts seems rather silly. After all, it amounts to an assertion that when you control a woman you become her slave. But there is more.

GBFM’s central argument is, after all, that “True Christian Women” don’t need to be Gamed. This assessment is based in large part on an implied assumption that Game is a recent invention (it isn’t) and that it wasn’t necessary to Game Christian women in the past to get them to honor their marriage vows. While his initial assumption is incorrect, GBFM is correct that Christian wives didn’t need to be Gamed in the past in order for (most of them) to honor their vows. Of course, that is not because women (Christian or otherwise) were any different back then (they weren’t), but because the environment they lived in was very, very different.

Since GBFM loves to talk about the law of Moses, lets discuss it briefly. The law of Moses set up an impressive amount of social and legal controls over women. Women were in most cases under the authority of their father or husband, they had limited legal standing outside of the men in their family. A woman who committed adultery was stoned to death, and a woman who fornicated but pretended to be a virgin, likewise. In short, women were soundly controlled by general society, and prevented from acting up their primal instincts.

Those laws were not unique. In most civilizations women faced significant legal and social restraints that controlled their behavior. As for those civilizations which failed to establish that kind of order and structure for women, they usually didn’t last very long. Or never became civilizations in the first place. America was no exception to this. For a good part of our early history women were subject to an array of controls, some social, some legal. Divorce was especially difficult to go through. The doctrine of standing consent meant that a husband couldn’t rape his wife; furthermore a wife denying a husband sex was actually one of few things which permitted divorce. Women got little to nothing out of divorce unless the husband was grievously at fault, and they still faced huge socials costs. Because the consequences to women of misbehavior were so drastic, they were compelled in most instances to behave. As such, men could live a married life without having to Game their wives into staying married.

This is all gone now. The social and legal restraints that used to exist, the various controls in place that kept women in check, have been removed. A man who is married can no longer rely upon the mechanisms of the past to protect his marriage, he must do so himself. In fact, the situation is even worse that that. You see, the social and legal climate is such that it encourages women to act destructively in marriage, a complete reversal of how things used to be. The State, which used to have a man’s back, now has the woman’s back. And she, by her very nature, is inclined to use that authority when convenient.

In case that wasn’t clear enough: True Christian Women didn’t need to be Gamed in the past and followed the Law of Moses because we actually had laws that matched up with the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was obeyed because it was the Law of Moses. It was designed to keep women in line, and largely succeeded at that task. Remove those kinds of laws, and women will revert to their feral selves. If a wife has no checks at all on her behavior, if there are no controls in place on her, then the odds are good that she will blow things up; that is simply her nature as a woman. Women need to be controlled. Few, if any, can do this themselves. They need social, religious and legal restraints on their behavior if they are to behave.

Hence the need for Game. Game is perhaps the only method available to most married men to bring some measure of control to their marriage. The State no longer provides that control. The general culture no longer provides that control. And increasingly religion, Christianity itself, no longer provides that control. Married men (most of them anyways) need Game in order to combat an environment that encourages self-destructive behavior in women. Should they need it? No, of course not. If our civilization was sane Game wouldn’t be necessary. But it isn’t sane, and men need every tool at their disposal to make marriage work. This includes Game.

Not everything that is included under the umbrella of Game is necessarily proper in marriage, mind you. “Negs” are an example of something that might run afoul of several commands in scripture. But other ideas, like “Agree and Amplify”, would be fine.

The reason why the early Fathers of the Church never talked about this is because they lived in a culture where the notion of giving women the kind of power they enjoy now would have been considered madness. In the Roman Empire women could divorce men (hence Mark 10:12), but the encouragement of divorce we see now is unprecedented. We tread new ground now, and must find our own path now.

I should also point out at this point that Game, as we understand it, is merely a modern version of what we could call “masculine wiles.” The art of seduction and manipulating women is an old one, probably as old as humanity itself. In the past it largely wasn’t necessary to ensure that a marriage stayed together. Indeed, when it came to marriage early Game was probably mostly employed by men to get married in the first place. However, Game was still valuable because it helped make marriage more tolerable for men, even enjoyable.

III. Marriage

I also wanted to briefly talk about Christian marriage and how it relates to legal marriage. Many folks around the sphere use the term Marriage 1.0 to describe traditional marriage, before the changes in divorce law, and Marriage 2.0 to describe what marriage is like today. I happen to like these terms, as I think they help differentiate the legal development of marriage in the West. Something I have noticed, though, is that some bloggers and commenters confuse Marriage 1.0 with Christian Marriage (or Biblical Marriage).

Marriage 1.0 is not Christian Marriage, it was a legal regime which established how the State treated and recognized marriage back in the day. Christian Marriage is an ideal, a spiritual construct, something that exists outside of any legal context. The various “versions” of Marriage, starting with Marriage 1.0, moving on to Marriage 2.0 and now with a nascent Marriage 3.o in development, provide a background and context for Christian Marriage, they do not set it. For example, the State could theoretically outlaw marriage all together. Under those circumstances, Christians could still marry, because marriage is set by God, not by earthly authorities. Yes, it would make you a criminal to go ahead and marry anyways, but isn’t that a consummately Christian thing to do? Certainly it is in keeping with the spirit of the earliest Christians in the Roman Empire, who suffered persecution and death for their beliefs.

The confusion probably arises from the fact that Marriage 1.0 was the state of affairs for so long that bloggers/commenters in the ‘sphere mistake it for having been the background for all of Christian Marriage. But it wasn’t. For example, in the time of Jesus “Christian Marriage” was not a legal reality. And Jesus makes note of this:

³ And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” ⁴ He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, ⁵ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? ⁶ So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” ⁷ They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” ⁸ He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. ⁹ And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.”

Here is an example of the law of man and the law of God not matching up. However, it was still possible to live in accordance with God’s laws under the system at the time. How? Simple: a husband could refuse to make use of the legal tools at his disposal to put away his wife. When St. Paul was instructing Christian communities in the Roman empire during his evangelical missions he faced a legal regime that also didn’t match up with God’s laws. In that time period both men and women could often initiate divorce, and it was usually a fairly simple affair to manage. Just like Jesus, Paul was teaching people that their obligations to God required them to set aside the power given to them by the existing legal authorities. As Christians, we are required to live our lives in accordance with God’s will, and that often involves us living under a legal regime that doesn’t match up with our beliefs.

That doesn’t mean that we should ignore the legal environment. But it does mean that we need to learn to accept that living as Christians entails living in a world which hates God and His laws, and consequently, us as well. Because of this, the “system”, the legal and social environment in which we must live, will often be against us. And the sad truth is that when the system is as bad as our is, then marriage is a huge risk. It empowers the worst of female behaviors, and cripples the most necessary of male ones. Given all of this, it might indeed be better for many Christian men to not marry. Unless they are willing to assume the risk, or buck the system and possibly become an outlaw in order to adhere to their faith, marriage may just not be in the cards for most Christian men right now.

I mention outlaw because we still don’t know where Marriage 3.0 will end up. At this point it seems all but certain that same-sex marriage is going to happen across the country, and polygamy is probably only a decade or so away as well. I don’t imagine that laws against incest will survive either. In all of this, part of me is concerned that feminists will seek to criminalize patriarchal marriage as well. The exact mechanics of how they would do this are uncertain, but I can think of several possibilities. The first, and perhaps easiest, would be to change DV laws so that abuse includes anything resembling male headship, for example any attempt by a man to get his wife to submit to his authority. Another might be to require that those who file for a marriage license swear an oath to live an egalitarian marriage. However it turns out, I wouldn’t be shocked to see this coming in the near future.

Ultimately, I think that for Christian men the choice comes down to two things:

1) Which path is the least likely to lead to sin

2) What are the results of a cost/benefit analysis of the non-spiritual aspects of marriage

There is no universal answer, Christian men will need to decide for themselves. A man who is able to control himself and avoid sexual sins, and sees little benefit to marriage, or that the costs are too high, would do well to not marry. But a man who has trouble controlling himself, and who might see the costs of marriage as bearable, would do well to marry. Wisdom, discernment and prayer should all be relied upon.

As for myself, I know that I am constantly evaluating where I stand. Right now my position is peculiar- I am reasonably confident I can avoid most forms of sexual immorality without having to marry, reducing my “need” for marriage, but on the other hand I very much would like the various benefits that come along with a healthy/happy marriage. All of which means that I am near a tipping point of sorts, and therefore very particular when it comes to a potential wife. In fact, I may write a post in the next few days giving some insight into my thought process on how I evaluate a woman as “wife material.” [A short post.]

IV. Conclusion

It cannot be denied that before the advent of Marriage 2.0, it wasn’t necessary for Christian men to have to Game their wives. Nor did they face an environment which was set up to ruin marriage as much as possible. Unfortunately, we do live in the Marriage 2.0 regime now, and Christian men must adapt to the times. For some men, that means a decision on their part not to marry. For others, that means marrying and accepting the possibility that their wives may blow up their marriages at any time, and they have no means of recourse. Those Christian men who take their chances in marriage must use whatever methods of maintaining control in their marriage are available, with Game being one of the few things still left in the toolbox.  Should any of this be necessary? Of course not. But these are evil and desperate times, and desperate times call for desperate measures.

[I realize that this post could have been more comprehensive. However, the length would have been too great to provide for a practical discussion and debate if I really let myself go. As is its one of my longer posts. I suspect that I will flesh out some of the gaps in further posts in the subject down the line.]

Update: The debate continues in my next post- Godly Masculinity Versus Game

Smashing Pottery

I was taken aback recently by something Vox Day wrote over at Alpha Game, in his post “What to do when a girl hits you.” Before reading further into my post, I strongly encourage everyone to read the story that Vox links. Its a rather long one, and context is critical. Done reading it? Ok, here is the line that struck me (pun intended), and probably also caught your attention as well:

The solution is simple. It is very simple and it’s very effective. If a woman physically attacks you in a manner that indicates her serious intent to harm you, then you beat the living shit out of her. Beat her so badly, so painfully, that she fears for her life.

The severity of what Vox argues for here stunned me. Before any kind of  legal consideration, I remembered that Vox is, or at least claims to be, a Christian. And that the women whom this advice applies to are often wives. All of which appears to me to run in stark contrast to these words by St. Peter:

⁷ Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with youof the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

I am having trouble in my mind reconciling these two statements. Yes, I understand that Vox is talking about a specific circumstance here: a woman trying to actively hurt a man. But I fail to see how beating a women to the point where she is worried that you will kill her is acceptable under even that circumstance.

Frankly, the whole topic of men striking women leaves me deeply uncomfortable. I have always been aware of my greater power when interacting women, and have instinctively known that I must restrain myself in order to keep from harming them. This has been especially true in intramural sports, where I, on several occasions, was too aggressive when playing with female colleagues.

So, given all of this, I think that what we have here is a good topic for discussion. Several questions present themselves, and I invite my readers to offer their thoughts on the matter. If there is a question that belongs her but isn’t, feel free to mention it as well.

1) When is it permissible for a man to strike a woman? Or perhaps better put: When can a man deliberately hurt a woman?

2) What kind of force can a man use when he needs to be violent towards a women?

3) In the context of marriage, when it is permissible for a husband to use force against his wife? And what level of force can he use?

The Married Prostitute

No, I am not talking about the wife of Hosea here:

² When the Lord first spoke through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, “Go, take for yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord.” ³ So he went and took Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son.

Instead, I am talking about something else: married women who use sex as a source of power over their husbands. The problem of wives denying their husbands sex is a rather common topic in the manosphere. Some prominent bloggers have asked why Christian women won’t have sex with their husbands. Others have addressed this situation as well recently. I suspect there are several reasons why this topic keeps coming up:

1) Many of the members of the manosphere experience or have experienced it.

2)  Many members of the manosphere have heard of other men being cut off by their wives.

3) Many members of the manosphere are worried that if they marry they too would be the subject of a wife’s sexual denial.

4) This topic is one that is largely ignored by most of society, and when it is addressed the results are not helpful.

Bad advice and commentary is especially prevalent in Christian circles, where husbands are usually advised to love their wives more, as if that will fix the problem. Unfortunately, most Christians in the West have adopted a whole lot of foolish narratives and beliefs about sex and women which get in the way of the truth. This is especially troubling in light of the fact that the New Testament has pretty specific guidelines about sexual denial:

 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” ² But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. ³ The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. ⁴ For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. ⁵ Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Of course, this set of guidelines is usually ignored or disregarded in Churchian circles, and even more sound congregations and denominations will often skip over it. However, every now and then you will find those who are willing to call out this sexual denial for what it is: sin. Somewhere in my travels across the internet landscape I came across the websites Acts 17:11. Therein I found a particularly powerful and direct attack on this particular sin. It was so potent that I couldn’t help but blog about it. Bolded parts are mine:

As to frequency, I suppose people differ. But it is not for an outsider to say in any case. If one partner wants sex, then God’s command for marriage is clear enough: “no refusal” is permitted unless mutually agreed to for a time of prayer. That is the command of scripture. Your body belongs to her, and vice versa.

First, search your own heart and see if you have not “destroyed your own household” (Pv 14:1) in terms of normal sexual response and desire. We deal with this in another posting, but for our purposes here you must honestly ask yourself the question if you have contributed to her frigidity. Have you brought pornography into your marriage bed, for example, or thoughts of another woman? Have you been a lover or just a user of your wife’s body? In other words, if you have been sinning and are just reaping the harvest of your ways, then there is no time like the present to repent, ask for forgiveness, and seek God for healing. But if your conscience is clear, and she is sinning by “holding out”, this is also a grievous sin that directly disobeys the word of God, and she must be confronted about it.

Practically, this needs to be worked out some other way than by the letter of the law; but the law has its “ministry” (of condemnation). The law won’t change her, in other words, but will serve to bring proper conviction into her life. Confront her with the word, in private, as commanded by Jesus Himself. If this does not work, bring two or three to confront her of her sin. Hopefully, she will see her sin and repent. Perhaps the shame of having her secret sin exposed will goad her to take seriously her covenantal responsibilities. God has told you what to do if you find your brother (or sister, in this case) in sin (Mt 18:15-17). Go to her, just the two of you, and confront her. If she does not repent, then go with two or three. This is the command of your Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

More than a few women have a problem in this area. Not to be overly dramatic, but these women are prostituting themselves within marriage. For one reason or another, such women like to have their husbands sex starved so they can blackmail them, control them, humiliate them, dole out the favors on their terms, get what they want, etc. They are prostitutes, in other words, who happened to be married. Husbands can do the same thing, and have, as a form of control; but it is more often women who fall into this pathology of sin. Of course, there is always the excuses and contingencies, as with any sin. But God looks to the heart of the matter, to what is really going on. Whenever sex is bartered, it is prostitution; and no money need change hands. Married people belong to each other. A wife in disobedience has become a married prostitute with a single customer. God is not mocked. Such is a great offense and thus the warnings of the scriptures above.

While at first this article seems to possibly go the Churchian route, the impression doesn’t last for long. For one, the author clearly establishes that it is “your” conscience which matters, not hers. This is good, because submitting yourself to your wife’s judgment about your conduct is a sure fire way to always fail to measure up to her standards. Rather than loving your wife, you end up trying to find ways to make her feel loved. This is guaranteed to fail. Thankfully this article avoids that folly. Now, I am not sure about the rest of the site; it could be Churchian everywhere else. But it doesn’t even buy into the servant leadership nonsense.  Instead, it doesn’t pull any punches. Really, there isn’t much to say that it doesn’t already say.

A singular exception might be the unusual awareness of the mercenary nature of women which this article displays. That attitude is something which I suspect comes as a bit of a shock to most men when they first take the Red Pill. The truth depth of it can be both highly disturbing and highly difficult to accept.  Which is why it is rare to see this kind of admission, or something like it, from a Christian perspective. Far more common is the idea that women are all sugar and spice and all things nice. While I hope that this kind of message will become more prevalent as time passes, part of me knows this is unlikely, as the cancer of feminism continues to spread its tentacles throughout Western Christianity.

[I thinking about working on a companion post that addresses this issue from the perspective of the husband, not sure when it will be completed though]