Random Musings- #1

This brief post is a short collection of some random thoughts that I’ve had lately. Reader input is encouraged.

Balance

One thing that I have noticed in myself is a tendency to favor “balance” in certain situations.  One of the more common ones is when I am writing something critical of women- I instinctively think of something to include which is critical of men in order to balance it out. Having noticed this tendency, I am doing my best to quash it, but it has proven remarkably difficult to suppress. Still, the fact that I know its a problem is probably the biggest step in its correction, because most men don’t even realize that they have this problem.

This leads to an interesting point- are most Churchian leaders aware of this particular flaw? I believe it qualifies as a flaw because it often serves to detract or undermine any point they are making. Such leaders are quite prone to this; they will criticize men whenever they criticize women, and they will praise women whenever they praise men. My belief is that some of them know full well what they are doing- they are protecting their interests by not angering the most vocal and involved members of their “flock.” Others, however, I think are so deluded and conditioned that they don’t realize what they are doing. Whether it is a desire to be fair or non-judgmental or whatever, they have made it a habit to seek “balance” whenever women are concerned.

Anyone else have this tendency?

[This segment was motivated by this post by Cail Corishev.]

Being a King

For some time I have been trying to perfect the following phrase:

I will treat you like a Queen… so long as you recognize that I am your King.

It is a pet project of mine- a ready-made quip when dealing with a woman I’m investigating for marriage potential who shows signs of being a “princess.”  The idea being that I would ask her if she would expect to be treated like a queen when we marry. If she says yes, I would mention this. It could also apply if her parents said something similar as well.

So far it doesn’t seem quite perfect, but I haven’t been able to tweak it to that Goldilocks level of “just right.” Perhaps some of my readers would feel like adding their thoughts.

Removing the Mask

Rollo’s most recent post, Controlling Interests, got me thinking about two different things. The first is how brazen many women now are when it comes to living their lives they way they want to. And the second is how a fight is likely brewing between the female “haves” and “have-nots”.

The basic strategy which many (most?) women employ right now, which is regularly known as AF/BB (see Rollo’s post for more), is one that requires two distinct elements to pull off: deceit and desperation. Many, if not most, men would not be content to marry a woman whom they realize is choosing to marry them solely as a meal ticket, and effectively a sperm donor as well. It should surprise no one that men don’t like to be used in that way, and will balk at it if they realize that is what is happening. Hence the importance of hiding what is going on from them.

On the other hand, this repulsion at being used is mitigated/countered by a sense of desperation in many men in the West. Owing to the nature of the SMP, they have limited options when it comes to female companionship. Naturally, this makes them desperate, and they are willing to take on women they wouldn’t otherwise if it gets them at least some measure of opportunity with them.

What seems to be happening is that many women are now certain that male desperation in the future will be greater than any sense of male self-respect, and so they can do whatever they want and not have to hide it. Part of me wonders if women see the ability to be open about their intentions/strategy as a status symbol- a woman who can act that way is a woman of value, and therefore a woman to be envied. The problem with this strategy, though, is that it relies on male desperation not having any limits. I suspect this to be a grave mistake. This is because the average quality of women in the West has been dropping fast, perhaps even faster than male desperation has been rising. If that is the case, we will soon reach a point where most men will simply not accept the (Western) women who are available, no matter how desperate they might have become.

All of this plays into part of this subject- the looming fight between women. Women at the margins of “value” will start to feel the pinch first. The “where have all the good men gone?” articles out there seem to indicate that this has already begun. It will only increase in tempo over time as more and more women drop below the acceptable rate for most men. Combine this with many men being burned or realizing what a danger most Western women are, and you get a huge disparity in outcome between the female “haves” and “have-nots”.

What I am uncertain of, and curious about, is what shape this fight will take. Women are already starting to question the dominant paradigm in numerous ways, one example being the delaying of childbirth. Perhaps a similar reaction will take place, where women attack their brazen sisters from the margins, discouraging them from “painting women in a bad light”, or some such. Or they could always latch onto the tried-and-true method of “fixing” the problem by attacking men as insecure pigs.

So, what do my readers think of this matter? Will women “price themselves out of the market” faster than male desperation can compensate for? And how will women on the margins react to more and more men becoming aware of the con that is being pulled on them?

 

More Random Thoughts

Today’s Post is going to be a bit of a (semi-)random link dump, with some commentary thrown in. You might notice a common theme or two.

I.

The Truth will set you free… but lies will get you thrown in the slammer. At least, it will get you thrown in jail if you lie to the police and waste their resources:

AN ENNISKILLEN mother-of-two who lied to police about being gang raped by three Lithuanian men because she didn’t want her husband to find out she was having an affair has been jailed for three months.

33-year-old Magdalena Brojek told police and her husband that she was abducted by three foreign men and raped at an unknown address.

Brojek, of The Sidings, Breandrum, Enniskillen, pleaded guilty to a single charge of wasting police time by making a false report when she appeared before Enniskillen Magistrates Court.

While part of me is glad to know this woman is being punished for her lies, another part realizes that it isn’t the nature of her lie which got her in trouble with the police, but the fact that her lie cost the police money. Of course, if you are a minor then you get away with just a slap on the wrist. Because she was only 15, and because the article hints at some serious problems she had, I suppose I can live with her receiving such a pathetic punishment.

However, that would change entirely if someone innocent had been named as the rapist. If you are old enough to know how to allege a rape against someone on your own, then you are old enough to pay the price. And if you falsely accuse a specific individual of raping you, then as far as I’m concerned you should spend as much time in prison as the victim of your fraud would have if convicted.

II.

Lots of folks are getting ready in Brazil for the World Cup. Prostitutes are no exception to this.

So what are Brazil’s sex workers doing to prepare for increased traffic during the World Cup? At the top of the list: learning English. There will be six matches played at the city’s Mineirão stadium, and according to Laura Mario Do Espirito Santo — a founding member of Aprosmig, a union for prostitutes within the state of Minas Gerais — “[English] gets you ahead.”

…

For Santo and the members of Aprosmig, pride is huge. They are proud of their profession and the independence it provides them. They can pay their bills and support their children with the money they make, and they don’t have to rely on anybody else. “I never asked anyone for anything,” says Santos, “…why should I be ashamed? Why should any of us?” There is even an annual Miss Prostitute pageant that Santos hopes will aid in diminishing prejudice against the profession. However, she says, “There is still much prejudice though, especially from housewives because their husbands come to us.”

This topic can lend itself to all sorts of discussion, which I’m sure will surprise no one. Prostitution has had an interesting history throughout Christianity. Many of the early fathers of the Church argued against outlawing it, stating that to do so would risk social upheaval. They knew that without an outlet, the male sex drive can be a dangerous thing. Of course, there is a lot to be said about why it wouldn’t be checked otherwise, but that is a topic of another day. Anyways, in most Christian countries, until the last century or two, prostitution wasn’t illegal. Oftentimes it was permitted for the tax revenues it brought to local authorities. And it was also quite common and prolific as well. With all of that established, there are two things I want to focus on.

The first concerns the last line that I quoted from the article, about husbands visiting prostitutes and housewives being angered by this. Since this seems to be an issue or a source of contention I suspect that it is common for married men to visit prostitutes in Brazil. This suggests several things- wives letting themselves go, older couples were the husband wants a younger lover, and sexual denial by wives. But most of all, it hints at the strong possibility of an active Madonna/Whore complex down in Brazil.

Which makes me wonder if prostitution is a key component of any society suffering from that complex. I would note that the M/W complex used to be prevalent in the West, and even here in America. But it died out long ago. And it seems to have died out at the same time that prostitution started to be cracked down upon, especially here in the US. If there is a causal link between the two, then I think it represents a strong argument against decriminalizing prostitution. I suppose the law could be set up so that it isn’t legal for married men, such as was done in much of medieval  Europe, but I don’t think that really fixes the problem. After all, the problem isn’t that they visit prostitutes after they marry, it is that they want to visit prostitutes after they marry.

The second thing that concerns me are these two lines:

They are proud of their profession and the independence it provides them. They can pay their bills and support their children with the money they make, and they don’t have to rely on anybody else.

There are a number of men around the ‘sphere who argue that decriminalizing prostitution will be a major step towards combating feminism. I’m not so certain of this. Prostitution provides women with independence from any kind of lasting obligation to men. In fact, in some respects it is a great escape- they only need fleeting contacts/contracts with men, and after that they are own their own. Why would you need a husband when you can pay your own bills and support yourself? Why have the hassle of legal ties with another man? You certainly don’t need a husband for children, heck, your clients can satisfy that demand.

As far as I can tell prostitution “empowers” women in a manner that will support feminist tendencies. I suppose it would be possible to construct a system around the institution to control that influence, mostly by restricting the kind of influence prostitutes and their money would have outside that respective field. But absent such a system, I see nothing but trouble. The problem with idea of decriminalizing prostitution now is that no such system is in place. And no such system is likely to be formed at the same time, either. Counting on prostitution to weaken feminism to the point where you can then build a system to contain the feminism it creates just doesn’t quite work out. Meaning that there might be other, valid reasons to decriminalize prostitution, but fighting feminism is not one of them.

III.

Some of you might have heard of the rash of articles by feminists lately arguing that women need to stop putting off having children. This piece by Kirstie Allsopp is one of them.  Lest anyone get any ideas that women, feminists even, are starting to wise up to the faults in their beliefs, think again. Yes, there is a lot of sense in what they have to say. An example:

“Women are being let down by the system. We should speak honestly and frankly about fertility and the fact it falls off a cliff when you’re 35. We should talk openly about university and whether going when you’re young, when we live so much longer, is really the way forward.

“At the moment, women have 15 years to go to university, get their career on track, try and buy a home and have a baby. That is a hell of a lot to ask someone. As a passionate feminist, I feel we have not been honest enough with women about this issue.”

Allsopp is fully aware that there are people who will find her opinions grating, preaching as she is from a fabulous central London home. “But I don’t say it from a position of smugness. I only whistled in there by a miracle when it came to children. This isn’t something I’ve just decided in an arbitrary way. [Fertility] is the one thing we can’t change. Some of the greatest pain that I have seen among friends is the struggle to have a child. It wasn’t all people who couldn’t start early enough because they hadn’t met the right person.

This is a lot more sense that you normally find in a feminist, but don’t be fooled. There is nothing traditional minded about this at all. Another snippet:

“I don’t have a girl, but if I did I’d be saying ‘Darling, do you know what? Don’t go to university. Start work straight after school, stay at home, save up your deposit – I’ll help you, let’s get you into a flat. And then we can find you a nice boyfriend and you can have a baby by the time you’re 27.”

Notice how marriage has no place in that nice little life plan. Nor anything resembling a stable family household or the like. Nope this is pure, unadultered female entitlement at work. Oh there is room for romance, and for experiencing life to the fullest later on, and for children. But you won’t find any room for female obligations to men. Far from it. Ms. Allsop, and yes, she isn’t married (and has had two bastard children with her “partner”), is merely trying to preserve female primacy. She knows that women are at a huge disadvantage compared to men in terms of fertility, something which offends her delicate feminist sensibilities. So even as she argues for women to start having children sooner, she wants to make men pay for their biological advantage:

“But there is a huge inequality, which is that women have this time pressure that men don’t have. And I think if you’re a man of 25 and you’re with a woman of 25, and you really love her, then you have a responsibility to say: ‘Let’s do it now.’ I was lucky with Ben that he absolutely wanted more children immediately and he was very committed to that. But men need to know, men need to be taught in school that there is a responsibility, that if you love someone, decide if you want to have a child with that person or not.”

Note that we have, as is the norm in the present age, female privilege and male responsibility. The man here has responsibility, but does he gain anything in return? Well, children, of course. That he is now financially responsible for. Oh wait, that’s more responsibility on the man. Women love to decry men for “objectifying women.” But that is mere projection. The truth is that it is women who do most of the objectifying- seeing men as walking ATMs or walking sperm banks, and sometimes both if they are lucky. Not to mention that they secretly long to be objectified in return.

Don’t be fooled by this sudden “change of heart” on the part of feminists. It isn’t a sudden epiphany on their part. They still acknowledge only as much reality as they are forced to. Rather, this is an attempt to  preserve the feminist system that has been built in the West. After all, if all the strong, proud, independent women out there aren’t having children, then who is? Why, those pesky religious folks who stand for everything feminism is against. We can’t have them overturning the system now, can? Setting that aside, delaying children creates a risk that too many women won’t be able to have it all. And, as Ms. Allsop points out, that is letting women down. Preserving society? Not important. Making sure that women can live out their perfect life script? The core value of Western Society.

IV.

Mrs. ktc helpfully reminded me of Robert Frost’s take on diplomacy:

A diplomat is a man who always remembers a woman’s birthday but never remembers her age

This got me thinking (yes, I know, a dangerous thing), and I applied some Game concepts to create a corollary to this:

A player is a man who always forgets a woman’s birthday but never forgets her age

I’m sure that someone else has already created something similar, or even exactly the same, but I wanted to express this nonetheless. Some personal observations I have made recently have reminded me of the stark truth that attractiveness trumps all else when it comes to women interacting with me. For “players” it is often the case that they know only what matters to them about a woman -such as her age- and know nothing (and don’t care to find out) about what doesn’t matter- such as her birthday. And why not? As long as he is attractive to her, pretty much all other failings are simply ignored by the woman. In an interesting twist of fate, the female Hamster and the male player are often in agreement. Fancy that.

Fin

A Complex Problem

I.

This post is something of a follow-up to Complex and Reflected, wherein I examined and discussed the Madonna/Whore complex in men. Since I have more questions than answers when it comes to the topics of this post (more on those later), this post will end up looking quite a bit different from the original. Not only will it be shorter, but it is going to be filled with unanswered questions, which I hope my readers will take a stab at answering. So expect some major rambling.

What I want to explore in this post is the “Madonna” part of the Madonna/Whore complex.  I am curious about a few things:

• Why Christians will at times promote the idea that women, at least the “good” ones, are not sexual creatures
• What kind of impact does the complex have on the “good” women living in a culture where it exists
• Are “good” women in some way responsible for promoting or sustaining the complex, and if so, how

I am going to address each in its own section, mostly for ease of organization. This post won’t be long enough to really require it, but my OCD demands as much.

II.

In this section I want to delve into why Christians, including theologians, will sometimes promote the idea that good Christian women are asexual, or are supposed to be.

I should start by saying that I never grew up hearing this, but then again, I didn’t hear a whole lot about sexuality from the Church growing up. Most of what I know, including back then, about the Church’s stance on sex is what I found out for myself.Perhaps some other Catholics were taught that women were asexual angelic creatures while growing up, but I wasn’t. However, some of the Protestant men who populate the ‘sphere have indicated in the past that they did grow up hearing that kind of lesson.  I would appreciate it if they could fill in exactly what they heard along those lines.

One possible reason I could see for this kind of thinking to have developed arises from the original Madonna herself, Mary the mother of Jesus. In Catholic and Orthodox circles she is greatly venerated, and held up as the paragon example of womanhood. Furthermore, Tradition holds that she was always a virgin, and goes even further to say that through Grace she was born without sin (a doctrine known as the Immaculate Conception). I can see where holding up as the paragon of womanhood a woman who was a virgin could lead to the impression that an absence of sexuality is essential in a “good” woman.

Of course, that doesn’t apply to Protestant sects, who don’t hold Mary in such high regard. So something else is at play there. My suspicion for them is that Victorian impulses might have moved from cultural/social lines of thought to religious lines of thought without people giving it much consideration, or fully realizing what was happening.

If anyone has any thoughts of their own, do tell.

III.

Another interesting question is the impact that the Madonna/Whore complex has on “good” women.

The most obvious effect on them would of course be sexual frustration. Women are sexual creatures, after all, even “good” ones. Not being a woman, I can only imagine the kind of frustration they feel. Perhaps if there are any bold female readers here who might have experienced it at some point they could fill in. Or if they know women who have experienced it, if they could speak for them.

I know that on SSM’s blog there were several posts which covered the health benefits of sex for women, so that is another obvious loss. I suspect that “good” women who are married in these cultures suffer from higher rates of depression and anxiety because of their minimal sex lives.

Perhaps most insidious is the emotional wall of separation between husbands and wives. While the exact manner is different, women bond emotionally through sex just as men do. Without regular sex with their husbands, I imagine that wives won’t feel as connected to their husbands as they could be. This distance can only harm the marriage.

IV.

Lastly, I wonder what role “good” women might have in perpetrating and promoting the Madonna/Whore complex in men.

One thing I don’t understand is why more mother’s don’t try and teach their sons to avoid this mentality. If they have suffered from it, surely they realize how unhealthy it is for men to have this complex. So why not try and influence their sons in another direction? Are they unwilling to acknowledge its a problem? Do they not care for their daughters-in-law well-being? Barring that, what about their sons? Do they not care for them? This is all something I just don’t understand.

Perhaps the mothering instinct of the “good” women is also to blame. They go overboard in taking care of their men, and so men stop looking at them as mates and more as a mother figure. I don’t think I need to go into detail about how they could interfere with a man’s desire to be sexually drawn to a woman. Maybe if women were more inclined to adopt behaviors and attitudes different from a man’s mother the complex wouldn’t be so much of a problem.

Another thing that helps keep this cycle going is the silence of many of the “good” women. They don’t speak up against this complex, or at least don’t seem to. Instead, most of its opponents are the “whore” part of the complex, those women who men will sleep with but not marry. Is it fear that drives them to silence? Shame? I truly don’t understand this. Are they so submissive that they won’t, can’t voice their despondency? Or is it pride, an unwillingness to void aloud a deep felt desire because they don’t want to appear weak?

V.

That brings this post to an end. If anyone wants to take a stab at answering any of the questions I raised, or even those that I didn’t, feel free to do so in the comments. A topic like this lends itself better to an ongoing discussion than a detailed post anyways.

Complex and Reflected

I.

One of the subjects that has interested me for a while is the so-called “Madonna/Whore Complex.” A number of male bloggers have covered it in the past, including me, in large part because it connects with a number of “red pill truths.” Several recent discussions that I’ve had with a few “red pill” aware individuals has made me wonder about its origins or source, and if it has a female counter-part. Some further discussions has led me to believe that there is indeed a female counter-part, and it is surprisingly similar in its origin to the male equivalent. Before I talk about the female version of the complex, I will explain some thoughts on how men develop it.

II.

One of the striking things about the Madonna whore complex is how it strictly divides women into two camps: one sexualized and one de-sexualized. It is striking in that there isn’t really any room for a grey area- women are mentally forced into one category or the other. I think this binary division is connected to the natural male filter for determining the investment quality of a woman.

Men have an innate instinct to divide (attractive) women into two groups: (attractive) women who are worthy of long-term investment, and (attractive) women who aren’t. Now, neither group is de-sexualized in either way- rather, it is that the women in the second group, while regarded as possible sexual partners, are not considered worth investing time or resources in. To use the vernacular of the modern day Pick-Up Artist, they are only good for a “pump’n’dump.” For men, sex may be cheap, but investment/commitment is not. Hence the need for an ability and inclination to assess women as being commitment worthy or not.

What I theorize, and others may have done the same before me, is that the Madonna/Whore complex involves a corruption of this natural filter. Whereas the normal filter includes women who are possible sexual partners on both sides, the filter is distorted so that you get sexual women who aren’t worthy of commitment on one side, and non-sexual women who are worthy of commitment on the other. I believe that this complex develops as a result of environmental triggers, specifically involving a man’s interaction with women. The Madonna/Whore complex seems to develop the most frequently amongst cultures and environments where men spend a long time unmarried and around loose women. It can occur in other situations, but that seems to be the most common.

What I think happens is that men who spend a long time with loose women come to associate female sexuality with unworthiness of commitment. This is because slutty behavior is one of the hallmark indicators that a woman isn’t worthy of commitment. Over time, men will be conditioned to associate them together, and eventually they will become inseparable. Since loose women tend to be fast paced and “exciting”, this association is intensified and exacerbated because of the strong emotions that men will develop during their time with such women. Men will have a fun, exciting time, and yet the filter doesn’t go away. It will be sending constant messages to these men that the women they are with are unworthy of commitment. For men, this manifests in a feeling of disgust and repulsion hinders the development of any lasting emotional bond. Over time, this disgust and repulsion will probably take on moral qualities, and so men will see loose women as disgusting (and maybe even evil) harlots.

Commitment worthy women, on the other hand, will be mentally associated with the opposite kind of emotions and sentiments. They, not being harlots, will be good and pure and wholesome. Men will instinctively assign to them all the positive traits that loose women lack, and none of the negative traits that loose women have. The problem for such women is that men will instinctively de-sexualize them. Partly this is because “good women” don’t act the same way as loose women do, and so don’t generate the same kind of excitement and “fun” that men with the complex associate with loose, and thereby sexual, women. The other part of it is that men instinctively recoil against thinking of “good women,” Or “Madonna’s,” as sexual. This is because their minds associate female sexuality with a whole host of traits that make women unworthy of commitment. So when a man considers a good women in a sexual way, it threatens to shake his mental image of her as a good or commitment worthy woman. Since he know she isn’t like that, he is apt to react by rejecting any sexual behavior or attitudes on her part. In fact, it is likely that if she acts that way he will react forcefully, in an angry or possibly even violent manner. His own sense of security and order and mental image of the woman in question would demand as much.

III.

This brings us to the female counter-part. I think that the basis is much the same, although the mechanic is a bit different. This is because women don’t divide men into the categories of commitment worthy and non-commitment worthy. Of course, women don’t give commitment in the way that a man does (via resources/time), but rather receive those. Instead, female commitment is expressed by having a man’s children. The primary characteristic women use to assess a man as a mate is whether a man is attractive or not, not whether she will give commitment, or even receive it from him. In fact women seem to be inclined to try and receive as much investment from as many men as possible (sensible in terms of helping her offspring survive). Certainly any man who she considers attractive is one that she would want to receive commitment from. This would seem to suggest that women wouldn’t fall into their own version of the complex.

Things get somewhat complicated, though, when we consider the phenomenon known as “Alpha F—s, Beta Bucks”, or AFBB. This seems, at first glance, to be a female behavior wherein women will sleep with one sort of man and seek commitment from another. However, this isn’t a full picture of what AFBB is. AFBB is a strategy that women adopt as a result of male behaviorisms; it is reactive in nature. It isn’t what women really want, at least, not as their first choice. What they want is commitment from the guys that they sleep with (and want to sleep with). However, the simple fact of the matter is that  without significant social pressures the most attractive male members of a social group (“Alpha’s”) will not offer exclusive commitment to a woman. Instead, because of the copious attention they receive from women, such men have the power position in any relationship and will offer little to no commitment to women.  Thus women, if they want to have a relationship with such men (which they do), have to comply with their rules. However, women still need male commitment in order to support themselves (especially during pregnancy) and their offspring. So they will seek out men who are more likely to offer commitment (“Beta’s”), and offer a relationship with them in exchange for commitment in return. Such relationships are merely a matter of convenience, though, on the part of women.

AFBB is a coping mechanism, if it were. I think the fact that it is reactive, and not active like the male binary perception of women means that it has less of an impact on female behavior. However, the same kind of environmental factors which might precipitate a man acquiring the Madonna/whore complex might also create a similar effect in women, even without that kind of base.

For example, take women who spend a lot of time in the company of exciting, handsome men, with whom they have sexual relationships. Have this last a number of years, the length of which is determined by how well the women age and what their relative beauty is. Over time, their minds will associate positive (as in desirable) male sexuality with men who display those traits. These impressions will be very potent, because the female brain is more emotionally connected than the male brain. With enough time and conditioning, women will only be able to associate male sexuality in a positive way coming from these kinds of men. Less exciting, “safer” men won’t generate the same kind of emotional responses in women with this kind of background, and so women will de-sexualize them. And if the men do act sexual, then because it isn’t associated with a positive form of male sexuality, women will see it in a negative light, which we around these parts refer to as “creepy.”

I was originally planning on calling this the Bad Boy/Nice Guy complex, but that isn’t really accurate. After all, it isn’t a binary division because the men who aren’t Bad Boys fall into two groups themselves: sexual and therefore creepy, and non-sexual and therefore safe. The latter are basically resource dispensers in the eyes of affected women, sad to say. So its more of a Stud/Creep/Drone complex than anything else. Not a great name, I know. If someone can think of a better one please feel free to mention it.

 IV.

I’m curious what some of my readers think of this theorizing on my part. Taken together, both versions of this problem stem from prolonged lifestyles that are hedonistic and promiscuous. Over time the brain is re-wired to the point where healthy long-term relationships become difficult, if not impossible.

Something I didn’t talk about in this post, but am curious about, is the reaction that people have to those who live these kinds of lives. What kind of impact is there on good women and nice guys living in a system where this is commonplace?

One thing that I am sure of is that this kind of sickness in society is what we can expect when sexual immorality is the norm.  Now, if only we have some kind of guide-book which would help us as a society to avoid perils like this….

Looking in the Mirror

This posts will be a collection of different thoughts and ideas that have been bouncing around in my head for a while. Most are the product of some self-reflection, hence the title.  I should warn folks that this post is more stream of consciousness than anything else. Apologies for any typos.

Hostile Environment

During the many months that I have been blogging I’ve corresponded with a number of people via e-mail. Some men, some women. Some comment on this blog and others, and some don’t. A fairly constant refrain that I have heard from a number of women who comment here or have reached me via e-mail is that the manosphere is a cruel, harsh place. Often times in that exact language. They complain that they don’t feel welcome here, or that they feel targeted , or that they feel depressed reading things here.

Women who find their way here need to understand that the manosphere is a male space. Yes, women are welcome, but this part of the web was created by men, for men. Men talk in blunt terms. We don’t generally sugarcoat things. We talk in broad abstractions. If we feel like saying something, we say it, without worrying about hurting someone’s feelings. Most importantly, we say what we think is true, and if that hurts someone, well, too bad. The manosphere is a harsh place. As a general rule punches aren’t pulled around here. We are men. This is the way we are. And we are not going to change it to make women feel better. Women have already corrupted nearly all of the male spaces out there in the West, we have no intention of letting them do the same here.

[DG: To understand this idea of male spaces and language better, I suggest the following two posts by Deep Strength:

http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/the-socialization-of-men-and-women/

http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/the-selfish-and-unselfish-socialization-of-men/ ]

If a woman finds that this place is too cruel or heartless or unsympathetic for her, then she should leave. That’s the best advice that I can give. Now, that is a problem because there really isn’t a place that helps women out like this part of the web can. Frankly, a female oriented Red Pill site is overdue. TempestTcup helps with the Red Pill Woman Subreddit, and that is close, but its not quite the same thing. There is especially a dearth of sites for Christian women looking for real, honest Titus 2 type advice.  April over at Peaceful Single Girl is the closest approximate. But as much as I like the Peaceful Wife, she doesn’t quite have that perspective. Yet however much that might be needed, that manosphere is not here for that. If you as a woman cannot stomach it, then I’m sorry but that’s life.

This is a male space, and it is going to stay a male space. And that means it will be uncomfortable for most women for the foreseeable future.

A Lack of Love?

A similar accusation that has also been thrown around, often accompanying the argument about the manosphere in general, is that the Christian manosphere is not a loving place. This accusation has some merit in my view. A number of of commenters, and some bloggers, who identify as Christians have engaged in what I think is best described as cruelty. Some revel in unnecessary suffering, or look forward to it or call for it. This is not the kind of attitude that Christian’s should adopt:

⁷ Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God. ⁸ He who does not love does not know God; for God is love.

(1 John 4:7-8)

We should pity those who have fallen off the path, not despise them. Nor should we gloat at their suffering. It doesn’t matter if they curse us, wish us ill, or otherwise harm us. We are not to be cruel, even towards our enemies:

⁴³ “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ ⁴⁴ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵ so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. ⁴⁶ For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? ⁴⁷ And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? ⁴⁸ You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

(Matthew 5:43-48)

This extends even to feminists and their ilk. Yes, this is a hard calling. But its not like we weren’t warned or anything by Jesus.

Name Calling

On a related note certain words with negative connotations are another source of complaints about the manosphere. Some of these charges are well founded, and some are not. What matters are the words used and the context in which they are used.

Lets take Sunshine Mary’s post titled “Delusional teen-aged whores and useless kitchen gadgetry.”  That post generated some complaints about the language used. My response is this: there is nothing objectively wrong with the title of that post. Or even the commentary within the post. The word delusional is a descriptive word applied to the young woman who is the subject of the post. If it sounds harsh, that is only because the state of being delusional is one that a sane person wouldn’t want to be described as. She was of course a teenager, so that part is accurate. And lets face it, pornography and prostitution are so similar as to be essentially interchangeable. What is wrong with calling her a whore? That is exactly what that woman was. There is nothing wrong, or even unloving, about pointing out the truth like that. A whore is a prostitute is a hooker. All are words describing the same thing. If you object to one over the other, then why? Because it sounds more harsh? That is only because you, the reader, treat it differently. The concept is still the same.

The key, in my view, is how we use words. If we use words to describe, then that is acceptable. But if we use words to demean, then we are in potentially troublesome territory. I will use the word harlot to create an example. If I were to tell a woman “You are a harlot” then I am being descriptive- I am describing her as a harlot. On the other hand, if I were to tell a woman “You are nothing but a harlot”, then I am being demeaning, and not merely descriptive- I am assigning a place, a value to her as a human being. There is nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade, so long as that is what we are actually doing.

Judgment

I was going to talk about this subject, but then Sunshine Mary beat me to the punch. I agree with most of what she has to say, so I will leave her response to substitute for my thoughts on the subject for the time being. There are, however, several good comments worth singling out.

One comment is by superslaviswife. Another comment is by Denise. FuzzieWuzzie also had a good comment.

This passage from 1 Corinthians is important to keep in mind here:

⁹ I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— ¹⁰ not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. ¹¹ But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. ¹² For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? ¹³ God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

(1 Cor 5: 9-13)

As I pointed out earlier, there is nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. But judgment we should reserve for those who call themselves Christians but don’t act like it. That means Churchians and Christo-Feminists, to name a few. In fact, the language Paul uses makes it nearly a duty for us to do so, so long as we aren’t hypocrites about it.

What a Shame

There seems to be some real confusion about what is known as “slut shaming”, so I will try and clear that up a little. Slut shaming is not about punishing women who engage in sexual immorality. Yes, there is social ostracism for such women unless and until they repent. But that is not the goal or purpose. Instead, slut shaming is really about creating a social environment which discourages women from engaging in sexual immorality. The truth is, shaming those women who fall astray isn’t really the way to bring them back. In his ministry Jesus would call out sinners (for example the Samaritan woman at the well), but not shame them. The singular exception was those who publically pretended to be virtuous but were not (the Sadducees and the Pharisees). So shaming is appropriate for those who make their sins public, but not so much for private sins, or those who don’t flaunt them, anyways.

I think that people get mixed up because they look at slut shaming and think of it from the individual perspective of how we should act. This isn’t right. Slut shaming is a community measure, done for the good of the community. It is about preserving social order. St. Paul’s words in the first letter to Timothy shed some light here:

⁸ Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, ⁹ understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, ¹⁰ the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sounddoctrine, ¹¹ in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

(1 Tim 1:8-11)

Slut shaming isn’t direct towards the just but the disobedient. It is designed to keep them in line, because women who engage in social immorality harm not merely themselves but the whole community (the spread of STDs is but one example). It isn’t about making women act morally, but convincing them not to act immorally. Since women are highly social creatures, this is best done through social pressures. For men, and their behaviors destructive to the community, more direct methods are required.

Excuses, Excuses

Something that bothers a lot is when Christians make excuses for sinners. The most common refrain is that “so and so had a hard life, how can you judge them for what they did?” Whatever the specific language used, however, it all comes down to the same thing: finding a way to excuse someone for their sins. My response to those who engage in this is to point out that Jesus never excused sinners from their sin. In fact, only once does he really make any mention of how someone’s life history might affect how they will be judged on the Day of the Lord:

⁴³ Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. ⁴⁴ Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. ⁴⁵ But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, ⁴⁶ the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful. ⁴⁷ And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. ⁴⁸ But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.

Those who were not raised right, those who were ignorant of God’s laws will be shown leniency only so far as punishment is concerned. But they still sinned, no matter their life story, and so will still be held to account. Jesus didn’t care for excuses. What he cared about was that sinners repented of their sins. That is what matters to Him.

Guard Your Strength

I. Introduction

This post has had a interesting history. It started, almost two months ago, as a post about Biblical advice on finding/attracting/taking a wife. Then  it morphed into a post about the qualities that a man should look for in a wife. I wasn’t entirely satisfied with the end result, so I shelved it. Last month I started to modify it so that it was a post about what to look for and what to avoid in women when screening for a wife. But even that didn’t seem right.

Then, over the last few weeks, I read a number of comments in various blog which all said, to some degree or another, that male chastity was of little to no importance. Seeing a number of men, including some self-professed Christians, dismiss the sin of fornication (but only in men) triggered something in me. Inspired, I went back to this post and re-wrote it to respond to those who think chastity is only a female concern. Of course, being me, I had to take the post further than that, and so it encompasses some other related subjects as well.

I should mention that this post is written from a Christian perspective. It will contain a lot of quotes and passages, from both the Old and New Testaments. Non-believers are of course entitled to simply ignore this post. I have organized this post into 5 sections, starting with this introduction. Following that is section two, which directly addresses fornication and chastity in men. Section 3 looks at marriage and section 4 at female chastity and how it relates to male chastity. Finally there is the conclusion.

II. The Destroyers of Kings

The Old and New Testament approach chastity and fornication by men in a different fashion. In fact, one of the more common pieces of “evidence” offered by those who disregard chastity in men is that the Old Testament doesn’t flat out say fornication by men is a sin. Of course, if you actually look at the Pentateuch (or the other parts of the OT), female fornication isn’t explicitly called a sin either. Deuteronomy’s punishment of stoning for a woman who wasn’t a virgin when she married was for instances of fraud (a woman holding herself out as a virgin but she wasn’t), although the clear implication was that her fornication was a sin as well. There are a number of reasons why the OT was silent about fornication per se, and a big one is that it almost always involved prostitution. Outside adultery and a man lying with a virgin, most extra-marital sex centered around prostitutes. The distinction between harlot and whore in OT times was razor thin, “loose” women were usually prostitutes; the modern concept of a “slut” just didn’t exist back then.

As a result of this, what you find in the Old Testament regarding chastity is usually declamations against prostitution. Although some general advice against “loose” and “foreign” women can be found as well. Another major difference is that the OT couches most of its teaching to men in the form of self-interest. Since I will start with the Old Testament, this will be evident quickly. Here are some of the more poignant passages:

¹⁴ The mouth of a loose woman is a deep pit;
he with whom the Lord is angry falls into it.

(Proverbs 22:14)

²⁶ My child, give me your heart,
and let your eyes observe my ways.
²⁷ For a prostitute is a deep pit;
an adulteress is a narrow well.
²⁸ She lies in wait like a robber
and increases the number of the faithless.

(Proverbs 23:26-28)

² Do not give yourself to a woman
so that she gains mastery over your strength.
³ Do not go to meet a loose woman,
lest you fall into her snares.
⁴ Do not associate with a woman singer,
lest you be caught in her intrigues.
^…
6 Do not give yourself to harlots
lest you lose your inheritance.
⁷ Do not look around in the streets of a city,
nor wander about in its deserted sections.
⁸ Turn away your eyes from a shapely woman,
and do not look intently at beauty belonging to another;
many have been misled by a woman’s beauty,
and by it passion is kindled like a fire.

(Sirach 9:2-4, 6-8)

² Wine and women lead intelligent men astray,
and the man who consorts with prostitutes is reckless.
³ Decay and worms will take possession of him,
and the reckless person will be snatched away.

(Sirach 19:2-3)

¹⁹ My child, keep sound the bloom of your youth,
and do not give your strength to strangers.

(Sirach 26:19)

² No, my son! No, son of my womb!
No, son of my vows!
³ Do not give your strength to women,
your ways to those who destroy kings.

(Proverbs 31:2-3)

Some Old Testament teaching addresses chastity in a different form, focusing on a man’s dignity.

¹⁵ Drink water from your own cistern,
flowing water from your own well.
¹⁶ Should your springs be scattered abroad,
streams of water in the streets?
¹⁷ Let them be for yourself alone,
and not for sharing with strangers.

(Proverbs 5:15-17)

After a reading like that, I couldn’t help but think of this:

Leaving that aside, as a bit of information for those having trouble with the last passage, water and water sources often had strong sexual connotations in the Old Testament. I will leave it to my individual readers to actually put the pieces together, of course.

All together, the Old Testament advocates that men avoid harlots and those with whom they could commit fornication (or adultery, for that matter). The appeal to self-interest and a sense of dignity is chosen out of effectiveness, however, not because there isn’t sin involved. The Old Testament is very clear about it being a sin for the men of Israel to associate with foreign women. Since that is largely where promiscuity as we would understand it would have been found, the inference that fornication is a sin is easy to make. Of course, the New Testament makes this inference unnecessary, as it directly deals with this subject:

⁹ Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

(1 Cor 6:9-10)

¹³ “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. ¹⁴ And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. ¹⁵ Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! ¹⁶ Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” ¹⁷ But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. ¹⁸ Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sina person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

(1 Cor 6:13-18)

⁴ Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.

(Heb 13:4)

¹⁹ Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, ²⁰ idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, ²¹ envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

(Gal 5:19-21)

⁹ I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— ¹⁰ not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. ¹¹ But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. ¹² For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? ¹³ God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

(1 Cor 5 9-13)

³ But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. ⁴ Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. ⁵ For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

(Eph 5:3-5)

The references to sexual immorality in all of these passages and verses come from the classical Greek word, Porneia. It refers to illicit sexual intercourse, which includes fornication amongst other sins (see here for more). Couple that with the admonitions against the works of the flesh and warnings against sensuality, and it is clear that the New Testament teaches that fornication is a sin that Christian men are to avoid.

Combine the New Testament and Old Testament teachings together, and you can see that men shouldn’t be associating with, much less having intercourse with, loose women or prostitutes. What I find fascinating is the emphasis on a man protecting himself from women. I was only half-joking above by including that clip from Dr. Strangelove. There is some truth to the title of this section, a man can lose his strength, power and dignity to women. Given the stories of “player burnout” being told of certain Pick-Up Artists, it shouldn’t seem far-fetched that promiscuity harms men just as it harms women. With this understanding, we can see that chastity for men isn’t solely about being “a good Christian boy”, but about a man protecting himself from harm.

III. The Blessed Fountain

The previous section contained a lot of Thou Shalt Not’s, but not as much teaching on what should be done. This section will correct that. I don’t think it will come as a surprise to anyone to learn that the intended avenue by which men of the faith can protect themselves and meet their needs is marriage:

¹⁸ Let your fountain be blessed,
and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
¹⁹     a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
May her breasts satisfy you at all times;
may you be intoxicated always by her love.

(Proverbs 5:18-19)

²⁰ Seek a fertile field within the whole plain,
and sow it with your own seed, trusting in your fine stock.
²¹ So your offspring will prosper,
and, having confidence in their good descent, will grow great.

(Sirach 26:19-21)

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” ² But because of the temptation to 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 limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

⁶ Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. ⁷ I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

⁸ To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. ⁹ But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

(1 Cor 7:1-9)

³ For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; ⁴ that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor

(1 Thess 4:3-4)

Unlike with harlots and whores, a man’s relations with his wife do not drain or weaken him. Whereas loose women will take money and strength from him and give him only fleeting pleasure in return, a man who invests in his wife will be repaid many times over. In fact, scripture tells us that there is nothing of this world more valuable than a good wife:

²⁷ A woman’s beauty lights up a man’s face,
and there is nothing he desires more.
²⁸ If kindness and humility mark her speech,
her husband is more fortunate than other men.
²⁹ He who acquires a wife gets his best possession,
a helper fit for him and a pillar of support.

(Sirach 36:27-29)

¹⁹ Children and the building of a city establish one’s name,
but better than either is the one who finds wisdom.
Cattle and orchards make one prosperous;
but a blameless wife is accounted better than either.

…

²³ A friend or companion is always welcome,
but a sensible wife is better than either.

(Sirach 40:19, 23)

¹⁰ A good wife who can find?
She is far more precious than jewels.
¹¹ The heart of her husband trusts in her,
and he will have no lack of gain.
¹² She does him good, and not harm,
all the days of her life.

(Proverbs 31:10-12)

Marriage isn’t necessary for a Christian man, of course. Both Jesus and St. Paul tell us that it isn’t necessary to be married in order to walk the hard path. I already quoted from 1 Corinthians 7 before, where Paul explains that a man who can control himself need not marry. As he points out:

³² I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; ³³ but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,

(1 Cor 7:32-33)

If a man can control his passions, and not fall into sexual immorality, then he needn’t marry. Instead he can focus entirely on pleasing the Lord. A wife and family is a distraction from this. Our Savior also talked of how “there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”. But all of this only applies to those with that level of self-control, of which men there are few. A man without that level of control should marry.

IV. A Well of Your Own

Having covered the importance of male chastity, of avoiding sexual immorality and the value of marriage for men, it is only appropriate that I turn this post towards women. After all, teaching men that they should avoid sexual immorality and should marry is only half the battle, as it were. The matter of what type of woman a man should marry cannot be ignored. Proverbs 31 provides some measure of insight, and other parts of scripture also give some idea. St. Paul, throughout his letters, tells us about the fruits of the Spirit, which are signs to look for in a wife candidate.  Since the overall topic of this post is chastity though, that will be the point of discussion in this section.

Those who are familiar with my blog and my online persona know that I am very particular when it comes to a potential wife candidate. Specifically, I am looking to marry a woman who is a virgin. Not a “born-again virgin”, or a woman on her “second-virginity”. An actual, real, hasn’t “known a man” virgin. Needless to say, this position has garnered a not insubstantial amount of negative responses over the many months that I have been blogging. Much of it has even come from self-identified Christians. Unsurprisingly, the responses from men and women have been very different.

With only one or two exceptions, most of the men who have criticized my position do so from the perspective that I am being unrealistic. They tell me that in the present environment I can’t reasonably hope to find what I am looking for. My usual response is to tell them that I do have a realistic understanding of my “chances.” I have been around this part of the web long enough to learn how things really work; I have taken the Red Pill, put on the Sunglasses. This world of ours is not a Disney fairy tale: there is no happily every after, the Ingenue doesn’t choose the Hero, and good doesn’t always triumph over evil. Trust me, I know how bleak the odds are.

As for how women respond, it ranges from simple condescending shaming to outright hatred. [See here for an example]. As I alluded to earlier, Christian women join in this, and frankly, their responses aren’t much better than those of their secular sisters.  The most common attack is that I am “unforgiving”, followed closely by “I shouldn’t judge women who aren’t virgins.” Of course, as I point out time and time again, it isn’t a matter of forgiveness, because women excluded by my filter haven’t wronged me. And 1 Corinthians (which I quoted in part II) makes it clear that we are to judge our fellow Christians on such matters. Those are easy enough to dismiss. The ones that really get to me though, are the more subtle attacks, the insinuations that it isn’t Christian to consider a woman’s sexual past if she has truly repented, and looking upon me as a lesser and “weaker” man for insisting that any woman I marry be a virgin.

For those Christians holding such views I direct your attention to these verses, which I have already quoted before:

¹⁵ Drink water from your own cistern,
flowing water from your own well.
¹⁶ Should your springs be scattered abroad,
streams of water in the streets?
¹⁷ Let them be for yourself alone,
and not for sharing with strangers.
¹⁸ Let your fountain be blessed,
and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
¹⁹     a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
May her breasts satisfy you at all times;
may you be intoxicated always by her love.

(Proverbs 5:15-19)

¹⁹ My child, keep sound the bloom of your youth,
and do not give your strength to strangers.
²⁰ Seek a fertile field within the whole plain,
and sow it with your own seed, trusting in your fine stock.
²¹ So your offspring will prosper,
and, having confidence in their good descent, will grow great.

(Sirach 26:19-21)

I highlighted several parts in bold because they are particularly meaningful here. Proverbs especially makes it clear that a man shouldn’t have sexual relations with any woman but his woman, aka- his wife. His attentions should only be directed towards his wife, and hers towards him. There is a clear implication here that a husband and wife should only have, and ever had, relations with each other and no one else. Likewise, Sirach advises a man to seek out a fertile field, which in context here is an untapped land ripe for planting. Translated, a man should not give his strength to (have sex with) strange women (women other than his wife) but instead acquire (marry) an untapped, fertile field (a virgin woman) and sow his seed to produce great stock (have lots of children).

I would be remiss at this point to fail to mention one of Cane Caldo’s great quotes:

Men are like farmers, and place a higher value on rich virgin soil, smooth slopes, easy irrigation, and a decided lack of plow-shattering stones.

What I am looking for is nothing more than what Scripture recommends to me. I have done exactly as Scripture advises me to do: I have guarded my strength, and not given it away to women. To any woman. All I am doing is looking for a woman who has guarded herself accordingly. A man who has guarded his strength, who has kept himself pure, has every right to ask the same of any woman who would be his wife. Not only does he have the right to seek such women, but Scripture says that he should seek out such women.

If that offends anyone, well, too bad. I am not saying that a non-virgin woman can’t or shouldn’t marry, only that she isn’t acceptable to me. There are plenty of other men out there in the world, including Christian men who themselves walked in sin in the past. Seek them out; it shouldn’t be hard, as they are far more common than someone like myself.

Not all Christian men who are in a position similar to mine have to follow this advice. It is a choice that each Christian man who has maintained his strength has to make for himself. If you find it acceptable to marry a non-virgin woman, then that is your right. I add only this: make that choice because it is what you have decided for yourself, not because you have been shamed or guilted into it by others.

V. Conclusion

And so this post comes to its (long overdue) end.

Men are not given a pass by God to engage in fornication or other forms of sexual immorality. Female chastity receives more attention in the Bible, but that doesn’t mean men aren’t held to a high standard themselves. There is now, and has always been, only one appropriate medium for human sexuality, and that is inside marriage.

Yes, marriage is a “bum deal” for men now in the West. The Law and the Culture are hostile to married men, and frankly, so is the Church in many instances. But that doesn’t change how we as Christians are to act. The world has always hated God, and therefore will always hate us as well. Christian men have two choices: take their chances in marriage, or life a celibate life in the model of Paul. More than a few Christian men in these parts have started down that latter path, and I wish them well. For those of us who don’t want to, or can’t, walk that path, then we must try to find the best possible candidate and marry her. We may end up walking that lonely path anyways, if our efforts to find a suitable wife prove fruitless. Either way, we all have a difficult journey ahead of us. But its not like we weren’t warned.

A Word Of Advice… or An Inadvertent Admission

Today’s post is inspired by an article that was linked over at Dalrock‘s blog. The article, found at a website called Girls Ask Guys, is a real gem. Without further ado:

I see a TON of guys on here who are so depressed over not having a girlfriend and are so pissed at the guys who seem to get all the girls. the reality is, you will find some one, most of you are young and you have SO much time before you actually find “the one.” Also, the guys you are all jealous of are generally not good guys. I have generally dated “bad boy” types that I am always attracted to because they’re really attractive, exciting, and don’t fawn all over me. Unfortunately, the majority of them have lied, cheated, and manipulated the shit out of our relationships. I have no doubt that I will end up with a “nice guy” and I can tell you with a fair amount of confidence that most girls will because no girl with self respect sticks around with a “bad boy” in less he reforms himself. I have to say I hope for the reformed bad boy, but he is a rare bird and once he’s reformed, who’s to say he’ll be exciting anymore? Anyway, keep hope alive you guys, most of you sound like very caring, kind, and interesting guys who have a lot to offer.

Update: update: you guys are hard to please. I am trying to say girls make mistakes with ‘bad boys” but the good guys win out in the end. I thought that got through, but for some of you I guess it didn’t and I’m sorry. I was trying to encourage you to be good to women.    3 days ago

Update: I really hit a nerve! I apologize! I would also like to clarify though: I am not a gold digger, I am not a liar, and I am not trying to change any guy that I date from the person who he is. I guess I am drawn to guys who are a little edgy and that can be tough, but hopefully I’ll end up with a guy who suits that and is also a mature and loving human being.    2 days ago

Update: YIKES.    Yesterday

I must admit, my initial reaction was pleasant surprise. It is rare to see such honesty these days, especially from a woman in the context of relationships. Even though I am revolted by her actions and her philosophy, I have to respect the chutzpah that leads her to pull back the curtain and let guys know what is really going on. One of the chief problems with women playing the AFBB (Alpha F—-, Beta Bucks) game is that they usually deny doing it. That kind of deception can sucker in and deceive naive but otherwise good men who think that these women really care for them. Honesty like this can save a lot of men from making what would probably be the worst decision of their life by marrying a former carousel rider. She is doing a public service by warning men about what is really going on in the “dating” world.

On a related note, women like this put me in a difficult position. As Denise noted here, we should be careful about confusing subjective evaluations into objective statements about another person’s worth. I believe in repentance and redemption. I believe, no, I know that people can turn their lives around. Yet I don’t see how I could ever recommend that any man ever marry this woman. As in ever. The risks associated with this woman, and those like her, are astronomical. Yes, I know she could honestly and earnestly repent. But how can any man ever know this to any reasonable degree of certainty? When a woman’s avowed life strategy is to dupe some “nice guy” into marrying her after the Bad Boys are done with her, I don’t see how she could ever be trusted in this respect. At least, not in the present environment. Perhaps a “reformed Bad Boy” would fare alright, but given her statement about him possibly no longer being exciting, even that is suspect.

So, how out of line is my thinking here? Am I being too fearful? Does it make me a hypocritical Christian? Or is this just a necessary precaution in today’s world?

Thoughts on Pair Bonding

TempestTCup has a new blog post up exploring “The Making of an Alpha Widow.” Her post covers (naturally enough) Alpha Widows, a subject that I have covered before, and also does some theorizing about pair bonding in general. The essence of her position can be summed up in these two paragraphs:

Dana and I both think that the Alpha Widow is caused by very strong feelings associated with sex and the breakup. These strong feelings might come from a woman being infatuated with a guy for a while and then finally having sex with her infatuation. If this leads to a longer relationship, she has other memories of him and if the relationship putters out, no Alpha Widow is made.

But, if a man and woman start dating and she develops strong feelings for him, and then at the height of her emotions towards him, he dumps her or quits talking to her, this is what creates an Alpha Widow: The one who got away.

Before I address Tempest’s theory I would like to briefly cover pair bonding in general. I have never really devoted a post to it specifically, so I would say it is about time.

The exact nature of female pair bonding is unknown right now, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. For one, I rather doubt you will see scientists delve into the topic, given how politically charged it is. In addition, brain scan technology is still developing, and at the moment very expensive. An effective and detailed study will require a broad sample size of women with varying levels of N’s, which further complicates matters. So for now I think it will be up to amateurs here in this part of the web to provide any thoughts and theories on the matter.

I should mention that while the exact cause is unknown, the results of broken female pair bonding are known. The most commonly cited reference is here. As for the mechanisms that create this kind of effect, here are some potential candidates:

1) The Alpha Widow Effect- This theory states that the results the Social Pathologist has uncovered are solely as a result of women becoming Alpha Widows. The reason why the risk of divorce increases the higher a woman’s N is because the odds of her becoming an Alpha Widow increase the more partners she has. Under this theory, a woman’s pair bonding mechanism doesn’t break, rather she simply has set the bar so high few men can ever hope to reach it. It is important to keep in mind that it isn’t a man’s placement (which N he is) that matters in whether he becomes the “one that got away”, it is the strength of the emotional connection that he establishes in the woman. This is the theory which Tempest and Dana advocate.

2) The Battery Effect- This theory states that woman have a certain amount of emotional attachment that they can establish with a individual man. The first man she mates with gets the full amount of attachment, or a 100% “charge”. After him though, she must “recharge” her emotional battery for every other man that she sleeps with. Unfortunately, each time she recharges the battery doesn’t go back to full capacity. Instead, the maximum amount of emotional bonding she can experience/provided diminishes, with the first “recharge” being the most dramatic.  So her first lover might get 100%, and the 2nd 80%, and the 3rd 75%, and so on. Eventually, the battery “breaks” and she can no longer emotionally connect with a man.

3) The Canvas Effect- This theory operates as something of a mix of the two previous theories. It treats the female pair bonding ability as a sort of canvas upon which men can “paint” themselves.  The skill and vigor with which the man paints himself upon the canvas determines the strength of the bond. The canvas has a limited ability to hold paint, however, and the more “painters”, the worse and worse each picture gets. This leads to a weaker ability to bond. Eventually the canvas simply no longer works as such. Furthermore, a painter who uses especially bright, vivid colors and bold strokes will leave such an impression that those who come after will not be able to paint the picture they want.

I suppose there might be other theories out there, but I have either never seen them or have forgotten about them. As for which one is right, well, they all have flaws with them. Women like Sarahsdaughter, who had very high N’s, but are still able to pair bond with their husbands, would seem to support the first theory. SD has said that she never really bonded strongly with the men before her husband, and thus never established the kind of emotional attachment which leads to Alpha Widowing. On the other hand, you have the fact that there is an obvious effect of a high H upon women, such that it is noticeable for those who know what to look for. The so-called “Thousand Cock Stare” (which involves a term I wouldn’t use in normal conversation) is an example of how women seem to “break” after enough sexual partners.

Personally, I am inclined towards the third theory. The Alpha Widow effect clearly exists, so we know that mechanic is in play. And there is enough evidence of a “number” effect to suggest that it can’t be Alpha Widowhood alone which affects female pair bonding. I should note that each theory has its advantages and disadvantages if true. The first theory is good news for women with high N’s, as it means they can still bond if their previous partners didn’t “leave a mark.” On the other hand, it also means that a man should be wary of a woman with an N of one, if that previous partner was a type likely to strongly imprint on the woman. The second theory has the opposite result: its awful for women with high N’s and far, far better for women with very low N’s. These advantages and disadvantages are important to keep in mind, if only because when women support different theories, their own personal experiences might incline them towards a theory which has a better outcome for them.

Lastly, I wanted to address Tempest’s final paragraphs:

Whereas I do believe that PUAs are creating a lot of Alpha Widows, I also believe that if you can make a woman feel those incredible highs and lows early on in a relationship, in accordance with all of the bonding chemicals of sex, you can become the exciting alpha that she ultimately bonds to.

You can become her new emotional high water mark and therefore cause yourself to replace the alpha she was widowed to. There have to be emotional highs and lows: a veritable roller-coaster of emotions. She needs the soaring highs and the depths of despair to make her bond fully if she is an Alpha Widow.

Sure, it would be great to stumble upon a nice fresh-faced woman with no previous experience or emotional distress, but these days of sex with and without relationships, it might be good insurance against the possibility of her inability to pair bond. This all sounds like a pain in the butt, but if it could possibly save a world of hurt in the future, it might all be worth it.

Also, women shouldn’t give men advice about women, so YMMV

Fortunately for Tempest, she ends her post with a reminder that a man shouldn’t listen to women for such advice. Otherwise, I would point out that she is engaged in a popular female tactic- shifting the burden of bad decision made by women from women onto men. As it is, her “suggestion” is worth addressing. Much of the way that society is structured now is set up to do just that: to shift the burden of errors and a lack of personal responsibility onto men. So my advice to men is to not let them get away with it. You are not responsible for the poor choices made by women. If a woman has gone and messed up her pair bonding ability, that is her problem, not yours.

Further Ruminations on Game

I. Introduction

This post is a continuation of my series on Game. It is motivated in part by a desire to continue the discussion started in my previous posts on the subject here and here, and also in response to Deep Strength’s first post and second post on the subject. [In case folks weren’t aware, Deep Strength, a regular commenter here and elsewhere in the ‘sphere, has started his own blog. You can find it here.] This post is going to meander a bit, mostly because I have scattered thoughts and not so much a coherent argument to bring forth on the subject. Everything adds up to reach an overall conclusion, but it won’t be as polished as is my norm. You’ve been warned.

II. What’s in a Name?

One problem that consistently plagues any discussion of Game is what it bloody well means. You know its bad when you realize you’ve said something along the lines of that sentence many times before. Definition is a serious problem, because it sets the scope of debate. It is usually easier to agree on what Game is than what it isn’t. What Roosh does is obviously Game, and no one contests that. I think that most would agree that the various methods employed by Roissy to keep a STR going would also be considered Game. But when someone like Joseph of Jackson adopts some of the things he learned to find a potential wife, is that Game? When Dalrock, Keoni Galt and SAM (Elspeth‘s husband) put their respective wives in their place, is that Game? This is far from clear. Some would argue yes, and others no.

These distinctions are important, because depending on what falls outside the scope of Game, a moral defense of its can become easier or impossible. I think that Deep Strength provided a good summary of some of the different definitions in his first post:

• The first crowd believes that “game” is a specific set of codified techniques that were “pioneered” by the PUAs in order to improve your relative attractiveness to a woman’s in order to use other techniques to get a woman into bed.

• The second crowd believes that “game” is a toolbox insomuch that a tool such as a hammer can be used to do constructive things such as building furniture whereas it can also be used as a weapon to bash someone over the head.

• The third crowd believes that “game” is fundamentally about “charisma” or “self improvement” because masculinity is about building a man who is not just respect by women but by other men, children, colleagues in the workplace, etc. It is the ability to wield influence.

• Finally, there is a fourth depiction of game that Leap has been commenting on which is the one I most agree with having studied the Scripture more in depth. This is the depiction of game that it is inherently worldly in nature, and that masculinity of the positive variety comes from being a masculine man of God as the Scripture define it.

Deep Strength takes the same position as Leap of a Beta, that Game is a worldly thing. My own take has varied since I found the manosphere. For the longest time I held to the “toolbox” view. I saw Game as a series of tools that could be used, like all tools, for Good or for Evil. But Leap’s comments about how Pride is at the heart of Game have caused me to reevaluate this approach.

[I should note that under the first categorization, there are plenty of types of Pick-up Game out there- “fast game” and “slow game”, “day game” and “night game”, “direct game” and “indirect game”, etc.]

In my second post in the series, “Godly Masculinity versus Game”, I considered several different models which tried to explain what Game was. I think that they represented real progress in defining Game, but were still incomplete. My biggest problem was how they treated the base of both systems, “Masculine Frame.” I gave both the same base, but this didn’t set well with me and I explained that I thought there were differences between the two. This is where Leap’s comment on Pride comes into play.

You see, part of the reason why I waited so long before writing this follow-up post is because I wanted to become more familiar with Game. I knew some things about it, but had never really dived into it before in depth. So I did some digging. OK, a lot of digging. And in the process realized that Leap was quite right about the role that Pride plays. Pretty much every Game practitioner that I found, from Heartiste on down, emphasizes the importance of confidence to Game. More than even the importance, the centrality of it. Heartiste has as one of his “16 Commandments” the development of an irrational self-confidence in oneself. And Pride is at the heart of this confidence in self. But past the Pride, past the self-confidence, past even “Frame” you find the real core, the base or foundation of what Game is all about: The elevation and advancement of self above all else.  Or otherwise stated, the Idolatry of Self.

This new understanding leads to another definition of Game: A philosophy grounded in Idolatry of Self that frames itself around prideful self-confidence and revolves around creating a toolbox of methods to advance one’s self-interest in all walks of life.

So Game is not a Toolbox, but rather a toolbox is what Game seeks to go about creating. It is a step in the process of advancing oneself. This leads to a new model for Game:

Idolatry of Self forms the base or foundation of the pyramid, which is the core guiding principle.  This foundation is not visible, you have to dig beneath the surface to find it, which is why many (including myself) fail(ed) to realize it. Above it we find self-confidence, which is the core of the “Frame” that a man carries himself about in. This is visible, and is the basic manifestation of a man’s character. Above that is the Toolkit, a combination of knowledge and skills developed to achieve whatever goal is sought. And at the top is Temptation, the end result of successful Game in a specific endeavor: to bed a woman.

With all of this in mind, the concept of Game being a “way of life” doesn’t seem nearly as far-fetched. When people talks about applying Game to other aspects of their life besides

III. The Placebo Effect

One Game related topic that is getting talked about a lot right now in certain quarters is the “conversion” or success rate of Pick-up Game. A good example of this debate can be found at ZippyCatholic’s blog, in his post How About Earning a Living Playing Slots? His whole post can be summed up as-

Game is a placebo, which is “better than doing nothing at all: there is quantifiable benefit, in general, in just putting in an effort.” The low success rate proves it doesn’t work as advertised.

I agree with Zippy that most Game does in fact provide a placebo effect. Although not quite in the same way that I think he does. The key thing to keep in mind is that a placebo only works when you don’t know that it is a placebo. [Wrong. See here for a better description of the Placebo effect. Thanks to Deep Strength and Zippy for pointing this out to me.]

Most of what Game does for the majority of its practitioners is to bolster their confidence. The various tricks and gimmicks that they use (and they are just that)  to “generate attraction” or “provide comfort” (or the other components of whatever Game system is being used) don’t actually work like that. Let me explain by example: When a PUA thinks up some great new “opener” to approach a woman with that he is certain will work, and it does in fact work, it isn’t the opener that is the reason for his success. Rather, it is his certainty, his confidence that the opener will work that makes it work. This is because the woman isn’t really listening to what he says, but how he says it and the rest of his overall body language.

The placebo effect occurs when the idea is implanted into a player’s mind that if he can use the right moves, then he is guaranteed success. This false impression can give him the self-confidence he needs to act more attractive, rather than generate it through silly gimmicks like clever openers and wearing silly hats.

IV. Lies, Damned Lies and…

This is of course the perfect time to address conversion rates. I’ve seen a lot of people make assumptions when they shouldn’t, and misinterpret the numbers given out by PUAs. So I will take the time to clear a few things up. I will be repeating myself and a few others here, but I think the repetition will be valuable.

When a Player talks about how he has a 2.7% conversion rate, what that means is this: Approximately 2.7% of the women he approached had sex with him. It does not mean that Game works on 2.7% of the female population. It doesn’t even mean that Game works on 2.7% of the women he approached. It means simply that 2.7% of the women that the individual player approached responded by having sex with him.

A different player might have a higher conversion rate. Or a lower one. And he might have success with entirely different women. While female preferences don’t vary as much as male preferences, they do have them.

But why such a low number?

Well, that is just one example. Other PUAs have higher (and lower) numbers. Of course, most of them never really get conversion rates which are terribly high (such as over 10%). There are two main reasons for this, one of which is a short answer that I will get out of the way.

The 2.7% number comes from a guy practicing “Day Game” that sounds pretty direct. Also, he was almost certainly using “Fast Game” as well. For those who don’t understand those terms, a brief explanation: Day Game means using Game on women outside of nightclubs or other hotspots, basically, everyday locations like malls, grocery stores or just walking on the street. This is difficult because women rarely want to be approached in this way while going about their business. Direct Game is where you make your intentions and interest obvious from the very start. Indirect Game, on the other hand, involves hiding or couching your initial interest and attempting to get inside a woman’s comfort zone before escalating. Direct Game is high-risk, high-reward; it is very easy for it to blow up in your face. And “Fast Game” is a technique that includes a very rapid-paced Direct Game that is built towards quickly assessing whether a woman might respond positively to the approach or not.

What this means is that the approaches the PUA was engaging in were difficult, and they were quick paced. So he didn’t actually spend a whole lot of time (or money) to get what he wanted. And apparently he was only approaching very attractive women who were much younger than he was. Under these circumstances, from the perspective of someone wrapped in sin, this isn’t bad at all. I should mention at this point that Cane Caldo has written several excellent responses to Zippy’s various arguments. I would start here, and then read this.

V. A House Built on Sand

²⁴ “Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; ²⁵ and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. ²⁶ And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; ²⁷ and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it.”

(Matthew 7:24-27)

This brings us to the second reason why most PUA success or conversion rates are so low: they have built their houses on sand.

As I explained above, Game builds up an artificial confidence in would-be PUAs through a sort of placebo effect. As a result of this, their  self-confidence is hollow and unsteady. This, combined with another weakness I will cover shortly, leaves their Frame weak. If something should go wrong with their approach, then their confidence will wane, and their frame will start to fall apart. If that happens often enough or if they make a serious mistake then the whole approach risk collapse.  In which case they get rejected.  Not to mention, many women will see right through the illusion that is their “masculine” frame and turn them down.

The hollowness comes about because many PUA types advocate a “fake it until you make it” philosophy when it comes to confidence and frame. But the truth is that few, if any, ever truly make it. After their initial foray into Game, most of their confidence is founded on their success with women. But if they should have a dry spell where they enjoy little to no success, then they will begin to question themselves. This of course only increases their angst and further weakens their chances.

It isn’t surprising that for many the pinnacle of Game, tempting women into their beds, becomes the center point of their lives. You can see this in statements like “Every man must learn Game” and in the way that many PUAs pull more and more women, just to be certain that they can. Their Frame, the concept of self they present to the world, demands it.

Another reason for this hollowness is found in the often effeminate nature of much of Games. In his latest post Cane Caldo dissects Game and its origins, focusing on how many Game advocates started to drum up the manliness of it over time:

Wounded by the charge of effeminism (as men should be) the PUAs started to respond with more sophisticated evo-psych nonsense about Game being a covert, esoteric, and ancient manliness. Covert so as not to upset PC sensibilities during the performance of Game; esoteric so as to explain why their knowledge about such tactics aren’t common (When they are by all accounts procreationally necessary, and even genetic! How did all those Alphas spawn all these Betas?) ; ancient so as to cast a glamour over those susceptible to the trappings of tradition.

It should be noted that not all Game practitioners are effeminate. But many are, including a lot of the leading lights. I theorize that the reason for this is found in the gimmicks and tricks that they use. Many of them are quite passive-aggressive in nature. Cane’s description of the Neg (as practiced by PUA’s) as “cattiness with plausible deniability” is spot on. Essentially, using these methods to tempt women is to play their own “game” against them. Passive-aggressive tactics are the go-to weapon for women. And Game as practiced by PUAs is full of passive-aggressive tactics meant to get inside a woman’s head.  The way I see it, if a man uses feminine tactics long enough, it starts to effect him. As he practices female techniques, he starts to become more feminine.

Natural players don’t tend to be like this at all. They are also usually more successful than Game using players. Why? It is because the naturals had to build up their own Frame, isolated from the precepts of Game. And that frame is usually very masculine in nature, because that is what women are looking for in a man. Naturals often end up using many of the same tools, but they acquire theirs through trial and error. Game practitioners never develop this sense of masculinity because their Frame isn’t something they build on their own over time. Instead, it is something that is sort of built for them by whomever teaches them Game. With only the concept of irrational self-confidence to guide their Frame, users of Game are themselves susceptible to the manipulative forces they seek to unleash on women.

V. An Alternative

Given what have I said so far in this post, it is obvious that Game is incompatible with Christianity. Christians worship God, not ourselves; yet that is the central premise of Game. So what is a married Christian man, or a Christian man looking to marry, to do then? Free Northerner has just created a post asking for an alternative to Game for Christians. Why? Because there is none at the moment. And one is badly needed.

The current MMP is a disaster for Christians. Good men and women cannot find one another. And even when they do find one another, neither knows how to go about the process of courtship. Women don’t know how to signal and men cannot recognize the signals that do get made. For decades Christian men and women have been fed misinformation about the opposite sex. Married Christian men are in an especially delicate position, because they face a hostile culture and legal system that has empowered and encouraged their wives to detonate their marriages on a whim.

I have some ideas that I want to work out to create this alternative. Others are already trying to figure this out, including Leap of a Beta and Deep Strength. One of my commenters is working on a guest post with his own thoughts and I like some of what I have heard already. My ideas are by no means complete, but I will voice what I have at the moment.

To begin with, I think that the same kind of model that I applied to Game would work to understand this system (which I don’t even have a name for right now). That means a pyramid.

At the base of the pyramid, the Foundation, is masculine Godliness (as compared to Godly Masculinity). Essentially, a deep-abiding faith in the Almighty which also fully embraces the masculine nature that God intended for men to posses and express.

On top of this foundation we have the Frame, which is built around sophroneo, soundness of mind or sensibility (see here for more). This is what Titus 2:6 urges that young men be taught. Self-control is the name of the game here. Rather than suppress our masculine instincts, we learn to control and harness them. The goal is to manifest a certain kind of unflappability  and sense of control in our lives. To be the rock that women naturally want to cling to.

Above the foundation we have the Toolkit. This is similar in many respects to its counter-part in Game, but is not exactly the same. Game teaches three main things: 1) Behaviors and Attitudes to drop because women find them unattractive; 2) Behaviors and Attitudes to adopt because women find them attractive; 3) Specific techniques to use in order to attract women and tempt them. This Christian alternative Toolkit will use most of #1, a good chunk of #2 and very little of #3.

Lastly, at the pinnacle or cap-stone of the pyramid, we have Adoration. This is the sentiment that we want to kindle in God-fearing women. Attraction by itself is nice and good, but the goal is to become the kind of man that Christian women look up to, the kind of man that they would willingly join their lives to.

That is the graphic representation of it. I think that most of the work on this project will be focused on the Frame aspect, what I currently refer to as Sophroneo (thanks to Lyn87 for cluing me in to that). Creating a foundation of Masculine Godliness is mostly a personal venture that will take time and effort, but not be all that difficult. A good understanding of how feminism has corrupted Christianity will go a long way. The Toolkit aspect is mostly combing through Game teaching and the Classics to find out what is valuable and what isn’t when it comes to attracting women, then sifting for what is compatible with Christianity and weaving it all together. Adoration should come naturally enough when everything else is put together.

If done right, this system should help Christian men who are already married, as well as those looking to marry. It should be especially helpful for the former, because Game as a means of keeping a wife attracted/interested in marriage is rife with problems. As Seriouslypleasedropit notes in his latest post, PUAs (and Game itself) is a short term endeavor. It isn’t built to sustain things in the long run. Running Game in a marriage will grow to be a tiring affair that is likely to make a husband question its worth. Not to mention possibly fall apart in the end because of the possible feminizing nature of Game in the long run.

VI. Conclusion

As I warned earlier, not exactly a focused post. But hopefully one that has some merit somewhere, and can keep the discussion moving.

Godly Masculinity Versus Game

In the comment section of my latest post Leap of Beta, who makes his home at Staged Reality, left what I thought was an insightful comment. Reading it helped solidify some thoughts that I hadn’t been able to settle enough that I could include them in that post. Given how long it already was, I’ve decided to write a new post to lay them out. I am going to track his comment somewhat through my post, so lets begin with this paragraph:

The problem where semantics come in is that there is a very, VERY big difference between Godly Masculinity and Game, yet Dalrock and Vox lump them together. Heartiste does not. I’ve written before about the difference between temptation vs attraction. Temptation is the heart of Game, attraction is the heart of Christian Masculinity; though I actually would go farther and call it Adoration. My reason for this is that the reactions I’ve seen of women to Christian masculinity is a strong mirroring of the adoration a Christian woman will give to God.

One way of reading Leap’s comment is that Godly Masculinity and Game are two very different things. Here is a visual representation of this:

In this model, the two have nothing in common. This is the preferred model of most opponents of Game around the manosphere.

Leap then followed up that paragraph with this sentence:

It should be noted that many, -MANY- of the things game advocates fall in line with those patriarchal teachings.

This provides a different potential visual representation of the two:

Under this model, there is a certain amount of commonality between the two. The graphic itself isn’t exact, the overlap I included (the part in green) was merely to show that there were some areas of compatibility. This model is the one which Christian advocates of Game seem to have adopted.

Much of the debate from my last post centers around which model is correct. If Model 1 is correct, then Christians should have nothing to do with Game. If Model 2 is is correct, then Christians should be trying to determine just where the “green zone” is located. Before trying to resolve this debate, I want to go back to Leap’s comment. The part that I initially overlooked, but has intrigued me since, is this:

I’ve written before about the difference between temptation vs attraction. Temptation is the heart of Game, attraction is the heart of Christian Masculinity; though I actually would go farther and call it Adoration. My reason for this is that the reactions I’ve seen of women to Christian masculinity is a strong mirroring of the adoration a Christian woman will give to God.

I initially dismissed Leap’s thoughts here because Attraction is a critical component of Game, not just Christian Masculinity. Because of this, I didn’t give his ideas on Temptation any real thought. But as I was writing this response, I realized that he was on to something. I don’t think his initial statement was correct for the reason I mentioned above, but it provides the kernel of thought necessary to germinate a full concept. You see, both Attraction and Temptation lie at the heart of Game. Not one or the other. Both reside there, although in different ways (as I will explain shortly). As for Christian or Godly Masculinity, Attraction and Adoration are to be found at its heart. [The concept of Adoration seems fairly similar to my thoughts on Desire, although I don’t think that they are an exact match.]

For Game, Temptation is the second step. The first step is to generate Attraction. Once a woman is attracted, then you can tempt her. Or perhaps a different word is appropriate: seduce. Many Game advocates in fact recommend a three stage model:

1) The Attraction Phase

2) The Comfort Phase

3) The Seduction Phase

(One example is found here.)

To tie this in what what I and Leap have mentioned before, “Step 1” is a combination of the Attraction Phase and the Comfort Phase. Personally, I think that they are an unnecessary attempt to distinguish between the two. Both involve attraction, with the nature of the attraction moving from more appearance or status based to more emotion based over time. Once Attraction is taken care of, then you can move to the Seduction phase, or what Leap deemed Temptation.

As for Godly Masculinity, you start off in a similar way: by building Attraction. Once you have established Attraction, then you can lead things towards Adoration. Unlike the unbridled lust or the lure of the forbidden fruit found in Game’s seduction/temptation, Adoration is based off a God-fearing woman’s acknowledgment of a man’s righteous character and her respect of him for it. Whereas a woman who is tempted with Game merely wants to sleep with the man tempting her, a Godly woman who adores a man wants to follow him, to join herself to him and his mission/cause.

From this perspective we can see where Game and Godly Masculinity are “compatible”: the generation of attraction. However, both take very divergent paths once you have achieved the necessary level of attraction. Although I think that they actually may share an even earlier frame of reference, if you will. By that I mean that “Frame” is something that is a component of both Game and Godly Masculinity at an even more base level than attraction. Perhaps the best way of visualizing this is as a pyramid. Lets start with Game:

Masculine Frame forms the base of pyramid. Everything starts with that; forming a Dominant Masculine Frame is the first step in the whole process. In fact, it is so elemental it must be established before a man even approaches a woman. After Frame is established a man can approach a woman and begin step two, which is the building of Attraction. After sufficiently building Attraction, a man can then move to the third and final step, Temptation. Moving on to Godly Masculinity, we can see that it looks fairly similar:

The only obvious differences is the pinnacle of the pyramid. Temptation has been replaced by adoration. However, I think there are probably some base differences (no pun intended) in how Masculine Frame works between the two. Even if there aren’t, these two new models provide us with a better understanding of how Game and Godly Masculinity interact. We can see that the intersection between the two is found in generating attraction, and in some measure in Masculine Frame.

All of which leads to the major question waiting to be resolved:

Is it possible to separate the Attraction aspects of Game from its Temptation aspects?

In other words, are the tools which are designed to generate Attraction so intrinsically linked to Temptation that they cannot be used apart from those purposes? If this is the case, then Great Books For Men and other opponents of Game are correct- it has no place in Christian circles. On the other hand, if the tools to generate Attraction and Temptation are different, then it stands to reason that Christians who wish to advance Godly Masculinity can appropriate the tools to generate Attraction for their own, holier ends. A similar analysis can also be applied to Masculine Frame as well, although I think that it is sufficiently different from the two stages that the same ethical concerns are not implicated.

As a final thought, if one uses Leap’s definitions for Game and Godly Masculinity, or at least his understanding of how they work, then there really isn’t any room for Christian men to “Game their wives”. Temptation has no place in marriage, and since Game inherently involves Temptation, Christians must eschew it. Of course, that just gets us back to the original point of Leap’s comment, which is that much of our struggle here is over semantics. So rather than argue over what is and isn’t game, we can instead direct our efforts to answering the question I raised above.