It took a long time to realize that what you all were saying it's true. One person had it right up there - this is a lot of stuff to sort through, and it wasn't going to be an overnight change considering the angle from which it came. After giving it lots of thought and consideration, this angle appears to be the correct angle and one which fits the bill having sorted the good (which is the majority) from the bad (which is the minority).It's always good to see that despite being subject to years of brainwashing by Church, family, and State, young men are still capable of observing the difference between the propaganda to which they've been mercilessly subjected and the way people actually behave. It's actually testimony to the power of the truth, that a single exposure to it is enough to trigger that "I KNEW something was wrong with what I was being told" reaction that we have all had at one point or another.
I went back through all of the above posts and noticed that yes - there is a distinct difference between PUA game and Christian "game". This was my initial problem. Christian "game" is a different game - it's just taking the Bible seriously. But in a sense, it functions as "game". There were a lot of people on here that had some really good things to say, but it took letting go of the PUA context that so many of these types of places revolve around and actually seeing that this is a matter of faith and of biblical wisdom, which can be generated a lot of times simply by seeing what happens around you.
So my question is this. I am the young gun here - perhaps a little fiery and defensive sometimes. But I want to learn. What are your recommendations for becoming a part of this community? How does one get involved to learn more? It is clear that I could benefit from learning from a steady community of stability-minded people.
Thank you all for your comments and input. You have broken my walls down. I am here to learn, as it appears the majority of the people who have commented are trustworthy and *do* have the long-term in mind.
The important thing for Shaun to realize is that pretty much every single person on this or any other Game-related blog has been through precisely the same intellectual struggle he is going through now. As The Matrix showed in such an effective manner, reality is not necessarily comfortable, in fact, it is usually less comfortable than lying back and closing your eyes, safely cocooned in the lies.
So what to do? Where to begin? I would encourage him to read through the archives here, as well as at Dalrock's, Roissy's, and Athol's blogs. They all have their different focuses, but they are all focusing on different facets of the same observable reality. He won't get much practical advice here, since I am more interested in the abstract issues, but because of its more theoretical approach, Alpha Game often serves as a useful starting point for understanding the framework upon which one can build one's approach to intersexual relations.
Above all, I would encourage Shaun to simply keep his eyes open. Observe. Pay attention to the dichotomy between what women say and what they do. Pay attention to the lives lived by those who would attempt to advise you. If you don't want to live like they do, you probably don't want follow their advice. Because he is opinionated, it will be difficult, but this is a good time to simply watch, listen, and learn. He should give himself time to gather data and compare it against the various conceptual models on offer before leaping to any conclusions.
Jesus Christ said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life". One must understand what is true and what is not before one can decide if one's actions are in line with the Truth or not. Game is not Christianity, but because it is based in truth, it is intrinsically part of the Christian worldview. Can it be misused? Certainly. But consider: the fact that the existence of demons is an intrinsic part of the Christian worldview does not mean that Christians should worship them. In like manner, the fact that women behave in certain predictable patterns does not mean that the Christian man is justified in every potential use of those patterns.
74 comments:
Besides the reading, on a practical level, since you are not currently in a relationship, work on your confidence in approaching women. It doesn't have to be full-on Game. Just approach women and ask them the time. Obviously wearing a watch or cell phone in this exercise not only doesn't matter, it might even be BETTER. Do this over and over.
Don't ever feel you have to placate a woman's emotions or feelings. At the same time, work on listening without reacting. Just let them speak. Be comfortable with long pauses.
Husbands love your wives as Christ loves the Church. Wives, submit to your husbands. Within the confines of marriage, or when a man is looking to build a relationship leading to marriage, that is the gold standard. Man is to lead and to love, the woman is to submit to her husband, and implicitly to return his love.
There's nothing in scripture about how you get there - scripture contains a lot of standards, end states, goals, but it doesn't give a long list of action steps needed to achieve the goals. It's up to us to figure out how to apply the principles in daily life. I suppose you can get to that model relationship through straight up religious observance. I have a number of friends going back to childhood who have very good, lasting marriages that fit this model. They are very traditional, highly faithful, and overall solid people. They are also the sort of folks ridiculed by the media and much of society, and probably more than a few folks in the big megachurches, as fundamentalists.
If you aren't taking that route to get there - and believe me the route of simple, solid piety isn't walkable by all people, I will be the first to admit that I am incapable of it - then you need to figure out another way to get there in order to build that quality relationship.
Game is another way to get there, to achieve the proper sort of relationship we are told to have. It is consistent with Christianity because it is taking what is natural, men's and women's biological reactions to each other, and harnessing them. Game isn't an road map any more than Paul's words in 1 Corinthians are a road map; Game is just a means to an end, a skill, and nobody has the market cornered on good advice. Read around, figure out which bloggers speak to your situation, and go from there. Be discerning...
Agree totally with Shimshon: don't just read, practice and observe. That said, Vox's list of blogs is good, but for sure I'd add Rollo's (Rational Male). And maybe Badger Hut, too, once you'd made your way through the others.
Try these:
1 - Have a goal and focus on it. And this goal should be the one that you chose for yourself. If you want to be a preacher then focus on that.
2 - Never let any woman get you derailed from your goal, even is she is a smoking hot solid 10. Always remind yourself that she is not your priority. It is normal to get distracted. But stay in control.
But if you want a more elaborate guide read this.
My personal experience is that a "coach" helps. In my case, I had read Vox's posts at his other site on female nature for years. I never had a problem with his statements. However, the thought had never crossed my mind to actually apply anything to my own failing marriage. It was only after turning on a friend to Game that things changed. He had several WTF moments before swallowing the red pill hard himself. His own marriage was in reasonable shape (Game has since improved it tremendously as well) and he, in effect, became my coach. He helped me work through every pitfall, setback, success, etc. It's certainly possible to do this solo and rely on the cornucopia of knowledge on the sites Vox and others suggest. Dalrock especially seems to be very thorough on linking one page to many others. Meander. Read. Absorb.
It's like trying a bungee jump for the first time. It is so difficult since it is hard to muster the guts to jump from such a high place even when you have seen many before you do it and not end up dead.
My favorite is Dalrock. Especially because there are always lot of comments, read them and observe the patterns of the females. Especially the ones that disagree. It definitely helps that he doesn't moderate much.
Practice disagreeing with women. If you don't want to alienate women you know, find strangers to do it with. It may be easier if they are lower SMV than you. Most women aren't used to being told they straight-up that they are wrong, and it's incredibly informative to be able to sit through one of their emotional tirades, anchored in your original position, and when the storm passes watch them come to your side so quickly that you would never know they had ever disagreed.
Bravo Shaun.
Remember that what will attract the kind of women you're looking to attract is having strong inner game: a sense of identity that's firmly rooted in your core.
Also, an aloof attitude, detached amusement at women, and proper body language (search heartiste for body language).
When I was first learning about game I personally found it very hard to get things from these blogs. There is a lot of assumed knowledge, and getting at the bed rock principles being explicitly stated can take some time. So what I did was to actually get two books on the subject. The Mystery Method was the best. It's not Christian and can be crass at points, but it will give you quite a bit of raw theory.
I'm impressed by Shaun's openness, as well as the class of the commenters here, who were able to reach out to him with the truth without driving him away.
He points up a problem that a lot of good men have when first encountering Game: to a large extent, the techniques that you need to apply to get a good woman to marry you and stay with you are the same techniques you would use to get strippers to come over to your place for threesomes. The good (especially Christian) man looks at that and figures there must be something wrong with methods that could be used in such a sinful way, and rejects the whole thing. He declares that God wouldn't want us using techniques which can also be used to sin, therefore the whole thing must be false -- or if it's true, it can't be the only way, and there must be some other Christian-safe method for attracting a mate.
We've been trained to think that women are inherently good, so when they do something hurtful to themselves or others, it's because they're ill, confused, misled, abused, etc. This is behind the, "If not for feminism, we wouldn't need game," argument, among others. An unspoiled Good Girl would have no interest in Bad Boys, and would happily settle down with the nicest Christian provider who comes along. So if he can just find a woman who hasn't been corrupted by her environment -- or if he can figure out how to fix one that's messed up, probably by being super-nice to her -- then she'll be attracted to his niceness without needing to be "manipulated" by Game.
Another problem is, let's face it: there *is* a lot of anger and crudeness toward women that shows up on many Game sites of the PUA/MGTOW variety. If he's read about Game in the mainstream, he's been told that it's a bunch of guys who either hate women, or just want to get laid, or both. If he's curious enough to check it out, a lot of sites out there will only confirm those suspicions before he digs deep enough to see what's under the surface.
That's a lot to get past, so it's encouraging to see it happen here.
This is only tangentically related, but I've read so many times a major critique of game being that a guy fakes it till he makes it and fools the girl into liking him, making game a deceit. But this misses the point. Those who need game need to first unlearn and relearn everything they have been taught about women and relationships. Relearning new patterns take time, practice, and observation. It's like relearning things after a head injury, refining a golf swing with a flaw, or learning a new language. Practicing those things isn't deceit so why would game be considered so? And one can relapse into the faulty golf swing if one doesn't keep practicing right and playing, so what's the difference with game? It's not a deceit because it's not like the guys intend to go back to old behavior patterns, even though they might if they get complacent.
So no, "be yourself" isn't good advice. Good game advice is "be the best you that you can be".
A warning to Shaun - girls are good at faking if it will get them what they want (or what they think they want). That includes faking their faith. Be wary and watch carefully for consistency and what kind of fruit they bear, not just what they say. Yeah, women have their own game and it's way more deceitful than Game will ever be.
Shaun,
As a former teacher and disciple of the "man up" Churchianity world, where the fairer sex is held blameless for their decisions and men were blamed for everything from broken families to their own deaths at the hands of a woman, I say you've made a wise choice.
First piece of advice: kill the one-itis with every ounce of testosterone you have. Often, it is the first obstacle as you sniff your initial success.
Against my instinct, I have broken off communication with the few women who LJBF'd me. One of them actually wept when I did it to her. The shock and outrage over not getting another blue ball to orbit her poon was amusing.
Second piece of advice: build your harem. I have found that 3-5 women is optimal, and each are useful for your one or many of your needs -- friendship, fun, empathy, boner moments, etc. And let them (with a delicate charm) know that they are in the harem. They love this, and their innate drive to compete for your affection reaps innumerable benefits for you.
After a year of harem-building, I've now landed a smoking hot, godly woman that I'm going exclusive with. Trial and error, triumph and failure, and the steady march on the path of Biblical manhood -- the unshakeable faith that God has called us to lead, charm and love the ladies with all the alpha we fuckin' got -- has transformed this man into one who can truly say he doesn't need 'em, but he wants 'em, and pretty much gets what he wants, thanks to Game.
Finally, work on your walk. Not with the Lord. Your actual walk. Women dig dudes with intentional strides.
A good launch point, for Shaun in particular is here:
The Training of Delta
One of the worst "churchy" but not Christ-centered things that most men are taught is that sex can't be in the picture, and then, only in her control. This is in direct contradiction to scripture:
It violates the wisdom of the proverbs. A man who cedes his self-control to anyone other than himself is like a broken city without walls.
By emphasizing the "taking away," it violates the supplementation ("adding to") of faith with virtue, the supplementation of virtue with self-control, and so on, through steadfastness, godliness, brotherly love and then love. Each one of these things are to be added to faith. By telling young men that their faith is improved by subtracting virtue, self-control and steadfastness, you can just forget about godliness and any sort of love.
We don't have a spirit of fear ("what if she says, 'no?'") but of power and self-control.
Yes, the Christian is to flee from sexual immorality, but that doesn't mean he should ever cede sexual morality to another person. Yet that is what most churched young men are taught to do precisely.
Women dig dudes with intentional strides.
As Dubya said, when asked about his saunter, said, "in Texas we call that walkin'"
Women dig dudes with intentional strides.
We certainly do. How a man moves is a big factor in his attractiveness. I'd guess that most women share my preference for a man who is even a bit menacing in the way he carries himself.
I'm working on this project and will be releasing a Christian game guide, so to speak. It's a step-by-step style guide, as opposed to general observations.
First section covers an intro to Red Pill, feminism, game, etc.
Second section is about committing to God and finding the masculine frame of game-practitioners in Scripture (with references). I also tackle how to develop your own spirituality and build a Christian household. I go over basics, from writing your own prayers using a good format (based off the Lord's Prayer) to how to lead nightly devotions in your house.
Third section is about raising sons to be God centered men who are better prepared for the new dating scene, Marriage 2.0, and their roles as future husbands and fathers.
First and second section are being rewritten. Third is researched and mapped out, with sections written. I intend to release it to the manosphere within the next month.
I've been working this for a couple weeks. I think a good number of us have been mentally moving toward answering this problem recently.
So there's no initial confusion, I don't suggest true game and Christianity can co-exist. I lay it out and ask the reader to go with God and place His Word above all. I did look to take what I learned and show that there is a masculine Christianity and it does not ask you to serve your wife.
It is interesting to see how the more recent translations of this verse have been formulated. The KJV is the realest of them all. Others, including popular translations have even gone as far as to change it from "man who rules over his own spirit" to "man without without restraint".
http://bible.cc/proverbs/25-28.htm
It is like in the Matrix - once you take the pill, you cannot go back. You can try - but it doesn't work.
I think Game and Christianity do co-exist. Considering the amount of emphasis that Biblical Christianity puts on keeping marriages together, and the fact that Game is in fact, a way to make this happen and to keep a marriage running strong as ever, I am not at will to rule it out of God's favor.
As the first anon above (stride-rite guy), I think Game and Christianity can co-exist. But, like David slaying Goliath, you can't wear another man's armor. Tailor to fit. I play to my strength, which is humor, and pushing the boundaries of decorum. Example: on the first night with my aforementioned Christian babe, I said, "Your ass is nice. In Jesus' name."
When she asked me how many women I'd been with, I knew there wasn't a right answer. I said, "490" and paused, with a grin. Then followed with "Jesus said to forgive 70x70."
70*70 = 4900
Typo. Thx
1. Never respect a woman automatically
2. Always treat women as somewhat childish
3. Remember they are irrational
4. They are fallen
5. They are culpable
6. Never trust what they say, only what they do
7. Preface anything a woman says with "Right now i feel like. . ."
Meant to add:
8. Always like her less than she likes you
9. Quickly identify her flaws and focus on them
10. Stay single
9. Quickly identify her flaws and focus on them
10. Stay single
---------
I don't think you'll have to work much on #10 if you put enough emphasis on #9.
The lack of the practical here and the links (and their comments) with a strong focus on the PUA aspect is what I had trouble with here at first. I still don't buy the exploit angle, but knowing about Dalrock's blog adds a better perspective. Altol's site is reasonable, but he at least claims to reject the Christian view. (Though it clearly still has more influence on him than may be apparent.).
I do think considering how Jesus dealt with people has some merit. He was far from the standard definition of meek and mild in many cases.
Athol's a pastor's kid adult atheist, so, at the very least, still operates in the churchian shadow. 1st Gen "residue" atheist.
"Second piece of advice: build your harem."
This was the chief advice given to me by an elderly alpha, back when I was in my early twenties. I was too clueless to comprehend it then.
"They love this, and their innate drive to compete for your affection reaps innumerable benefits for you."
Words of wisdom. Hypergamy can work for you or against you.
This happened to a good friend of mine. Just before leaving him, his wife admitted that she was never really a Christian (just as she was never really homeschooling the boys while he was pulling long hours at work). The experience burned him so badly that when he heard I was engaged, he telephoned me and repeatedly asked concerning my fiancee, "Are you sure about her? Are you SURE?"
The trick to Christian game is controlling your dick. It is the path to Christian Zen and neutralises the power of the pussy. Chastity is the virtue that effectively negates a woman's sexuality, and many women when stripped of their sexuality have nothing else to offer. When you stop looking at women as potential lays and start looking at them as friends, you suddenly see that many women have zero qualities as friends.
The hedonic alpha achieves this affect through a surfeit of pussy and thus his hunger is satisfied. The Christian man is starving and yet does not eat.
It is a hard teaching.
SP is wise. I have a non-negotiable "no women for friends" philosophy that cured one-itis and killed LJBFing in my life. That's not to say I'm not friendly to co-workers and friends of friends. I have grandfathered in old friends and acquaintances as well. But I can't recall the last time I gave my ear to a gal who needed someone to blubber to, if we weren't physically engaged on some level.
Some pros suggest this isn't good, and it's ok to have women as friends, as long as you control the frame. And simply being around the creatures keeps one in constant learning mode for forays into the wild.
I dunno. I may modify. Yeah, I'll be your buddy, but only because Mr. Happy down there is indifferent.
What you're saying is that attraction should not be based on who the person is. Do you agree with that?
The difference between performing actions to move a ball to an intended spot and performing actions to trigger someone's attraction cues is that in the second case the object is to get them to form an impression of you that you would not have otherwise been able to get them to do by just behaving naturally.
Where do you draw the line? How much make up is enough? If game is congruent with Christianity breast implants and botox is too.
We certainly do. How a man moves is a big factor in his attractiveness. I'd guess that most women share my preference for a man who is even a bit menacing in the way he carries himself.
Men aim to elevate mankind to a plain of moral justice. Women instinctively pull him back down to the law of the jungle.
For all of you who have accepted the notion that game is compatible with Christianity, where do you stand on the corollary to that: that girl game also is. How far are you willing to maintain it? Do you draw the line at a little make-up, a lot of make up, breast implants, butt implants, mini dresses that expose ass cheek? All of these serve to perform the exact same function that "Game" is intended to: to trigger attraction cues in the opposite sex.
Since he said true game, as opposed to just game, I'm guessing he means game as originally defined by Neil Strauss. If so, he is right; by that definition, Game is a methodology to get maximum amounts of sex from maximally beautiful women.
What Christianity-compatible Game does is to take the reasons why that worked for the original PUA's, and apply them to getting the best marriage that you can. In other words, generate attraction in the same way, but for a different end.
Correct on both, Markku.
The problem of game in the manosphere is that of trying to square the circle. You guys are taking a set of prescriptions that clearly work to create the desired effect and trying to anchor it in a set of values that you can respect.
The worst offenders are those who think that game can be extracted from age old behaviours rooted in "masculinity". Honour, courage, steadfastness, strength. Christian game advocates belong in this group.
What you fail to see is that women are not actually attracted to those traits. Bad boys are not courageous in the same sense as a soldier might be. They are much more like mercenaries. Women think a man who lays his life down for an ideal stupid.
This divide runs through every discussion of game. Essentially what people are trying to do is to square the notion of successful Machiavellianism with a noble ideal.
The true analogy for girl game has to do with behavior, as it does for men, and historically it has been called "coyness". I approve of that.
But as for your questions:
-Little make-up: Approve
-A lot of make-up: Approve as in not sinful, but has the opposite effect on me than intended.
-Breast & butt implants: Probably not sin. Would make me uncomfortable, but not a deal-breaker.
-Ass cheeks exposed: Probably sinful; would write the woman off as slutty.
You have no idea what you are talking about. None.
Machiavelli didn't invent Game. He acknowledged it. Because Thucydides and Herodotus differed on the moral component of the study of history, did that mean Herodotus was "squaring the circle" for abusing history by seeking moral lessons from it?
You are suffering from the Binary Delusion of Differences.
But it would help if you Ann Onymous understood what Game was first, but she can't help her solipsism.
Wear as much make up as you like Ann. It isn't Game. Go naked, if you like. Still not Game.
The true analogy for girl game has to do with behavior, as it does for men, and historically it has been called "coyness". I approve of that.
Err, the "true" analogy has been made time an again, see Roissy for numerous examples. An ugly girl doesn't become attractive by acting coy.
The worst offenders are those who think that game can be extracted from age old behaviours rooted in "masculinity". Honour, courage, steadfastness, strength. Christian game advocates belong in this group. What you fail to see is that women are not actually attracted to those traits.
You have literally no idea what you are talking about here. It is incredibly stupid for you to say I fail to see something that I not only have never claimed - you will search this blog in vain for any such claims - but have expressly pointed myself!
The Christian aspect of Game has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that women are attracted to "age old behaviors", but rather, underlining "the sinful nature of Eve" for more than two thousand years.
Men aim to elevate mankind to a plain of moral justice. Women instinctively pull him back down to the law of the jungle.
"Menacing" was a poor choice of word. I don't want a brute who commits pointless violence, I want a man who looks like he's willing to defend himself and his family with physical violence if necessary. I'm thinking of something analogous to Aslan, who is good, but not safe.
Bruce Bawer describes this sort of body language in his book, While Europe Slept. Bawer was at one time an American expat living in Europe, and he commented on how he could always tell an American man from a European man simply by the way the man walked. European men typically walk in a way that conveys capitulation. Such body language invites attack. American men, he said, typically carry themselves in such a way that they look as though they are willing to defend themselves at any moment. Such body language makes attack less likely. So, it's precisely the opposite of what you are claiming. I don't want a man who looks like he's up for mindless mayhem. I want a man who carries himself in such a manner that makes violence less likely to occur, because his body language conveys danger to anyone who would be foolish enough to attack.
An ugly girl doesn't become attractive by acting coy.
That would be because life isn't fair. Men primarily value looks, women primarily value personality. A man dealt a bad hand in life can do something about it. A woman can't.
She can only make it worse by letting everyone know she has it. So, there ain't a scenario where showcasing your fat ass is a good idea. However, a woman with a mediocre hand can get bonus points with coyness.
You don't even understand what I'm talking about but thanks for playing.
They are not even taking game and trying to draw moral lessons from it. They are distorting game on it's face to square it with their preexisting moral conceptions. Studies have shown that people exhibiting the "dark triad" traits are more successful sexually and all the serious game bloggers have admitted as much. What people here do is ignore that part and distort it into their own little make believe feel good story to square it with their Christian beliefs. "Leading" and being strong is a part of game, but so is deception cynicism.
How do you square the dark triad traits with Christian morality?
You have literally no idea what you are talking about here. It is incredibly stupid for you to say I fail to see something that I not only have never claimed - you will search this blog in vain for any such claims - but have expressly pointed myself!
The Christian aspect of Game has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that women are attracted to "age old behaviors", but rather, underlining "the sinful nature of Eve" for more than two thousand years.
I was directing the first part mainly to many of the commenters here who seem to imagine that because the Bible directs a man to lead his woman, game can be derived from it.
As for the second part, what's the difference? Yes, the Bible highlights the sinful nature of Eve. What are you adding by pointing it out? What does the Bible say about DHVing, last minute resistance, push-pull, etc? Game is a lot deeper than could be extracted from the Bible.
I keep spelling his name wrong too. I like some of his ideas, but I am not sure about others. I am not going to encourage my wife to take "private" pictures on her cell. Electronic information has a dangerous way of leaking.... Not sure if that is my prudishness or information security concerns (my field). It could be both.
Ugly girls make themselves attractive by wearing make up. Men make themselves attractive by the principles of game. That's all the analogy you need.
Incidentally you contradicted yourself. First, you said, "The true analogy for girl game has to do with behavior", then you said, "Men primarily value looks". It would follow that if men primarily values looks, girl game would primarily focus on improving that.
I am still uncomfortable with the "build your harem" idea. My father and grandfather were both "players" and I see that as a danger for me (aiming to be a Godly Christian man) as much as concerns about alcoholism was earlier in my life. (I avoided alcohol partially for this reason.)
A married man has no point with a harem outside of his wife. Look at the wonderful things it did for Solomon.
The modern situation is really messed up, but I am not convinced that jumping into the world's ways is the productive thing, whether it is a full blown PUA lifestyle or a more limited "harem."
I may be missing something, so I am happy to learn, though I will not abandon Scriptural principles to do so.
Anon, why don't you pick a name? You don't need an account, but that makes you more real.
"When you stop looking at women as potential lays and start looking at them as friends, you suddenly see that many women have zero qualities as friends."
Zero? Not accurate. They are certainly not males, but God did make Even for a reason. Not being alone is a good thing many times. This is only a partial message.
I am not saying to go for the LJBF message, but that you definitely should be a friend to your wife and the other way around.
Part of the problem is that you are putting "lots of sex" as the goal, not success in our male-female relationships. The latter is a valid target, the former is not, from a moral Christian perspective.
I was referring to anon. Why can't people pick a name?
"I am still uncomfortable with the "build your harem" idea."
Rightly so, given the full spectrum of needs listed by Anon: "friendship, fun, empathy, boner moments, etc." The fourth is impermissible for a Christian outside of marriage. In the case of the older alpha's advice to me, the so-called harem would only service the first three needs while one seeks for the highest quality woman to marry.
As interesting and useful as this strategy might be, I probably couldn't have employed it as a bachelor. I'm too introverted to desire that degree and complexity of socializing. And it's not as if men are stuck with a binary choice between harem-building and oneitis.
Just didn't see it as important at the time.
Second section is complete.
Honour, courage, steadfastness, strength.
None of those are the characteristics I think are helpful for a masculine frame, though. I didn't include them in my guide.
Test
Anonymous, I can't expect a typical girl like you to comprehend a principal like Game, but please prattle on. It is genuinely amusing to me to read what you think you are thinking.
Egads, Ann. Are you the one writing questions for the new SAT?
Some ladies are way too obsessed with make-up. Ann - it isn't working.
@Anon
How do you square the dark triad traits with Christian morality?
Start by reading Chesterton's Orthodoxy.
Paganism declared that virtue was in a balance; Christianity declared it was in a conflict: the collision of two passions apparently opposite.
and
It is constantly assured, especially in our Tolstoyan tendencies, that when the lion lies down with the lamb the lion becomes lamb-like. But that is brutal annexation and imperialism on the part of the lamb. That is simply the lamb absorbing the lion instead of the lion eating the lamb. The real problem is--Can the lion lie down with the lamb and still retain his royal ferocity? THAT is the problem the Church attempted; THAT is the miracle she achieved.
The Christian man has to attain the skills of a player and the morality of the saint.
Look, I don't know if you're a troll or what, but assuming that you're here in good faith then game is about acknowledging the reality of female sexuality. Modern Churchianity in its war against the flesh pretends that sexuality does not matter, and the problem for most good Christian men is that they have been taught that they will be attractive to the opposite sex if they behave asexually.
Women can get turned on just as much as men. It's not part of their fallen nature (that implies that a good woman is asexual) it's part of their designed nature. God has designed females in such a way that they will be naturally attracted to the charismatic, fit and socially competent. Asexual Churchianity can't change this fact.
The aim then is to be a charismatic, fit and socially competent Christian male. Not a man slut.
@RBA
You missed the point.
When you stop looking at women as beings from whom you can obtain sexual advantage you start looking at them just like everyone else. Roissy says the same thing about being indifferent to a woman's beauty. Once you achieve this Zen state then your relationship with women changes from, "How can I get into her pants?" to "Is she fun to be around with?" Then her other "qualities" shine through. Roissy put up an interesting post today about how a woman beauty at an early age spoils her personality. I totally agree with this.
Looking at women as human beings instead of potential sexual mates allows you to evaluate them as human beings. Too many of them are vain, vapid, overly ambitious, domineering and superficial. Instead of making the Faustian bargain of "I'll put up with her shit because she puts out" the relationship becomes one, I won't put up with any of your shit. The point is that there are good girls out there and what you end up doing by taking fornication out of the equation is hanging around with girls who have good personality. The trick then is to pick the best looker out of this bunch.
Game is, by definition, behavior. It doesn't matter, as far as the definition goes, that it works better for men than for women. Make-up isn't game, it's a different approach.
Besides, since I already approved of make-up, it doesn't help your case even if it were the analogue for male game.
How do you square the dark triad traits with Christian morality?
We are optimizing two factors (the quality of women we want to attract, and pleasing God). Nihilists only need to optimize one factor. They can play stronger Game. But it doesn't matter much in Hell.
Further, a slow step is thought proper to the proud man, a deep voice, and a level utterance; for the man who takes few things seriously is not likely to be hurried, nor the man who thinks nothing great to be excited, while a shrill voice and a rapid gait are the results of hurry and excitement.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book IV, Chapter 3
How are breasted implants or botox not congruent with Christianity?
How are breast implants and botox not congruent with Christianity?
You said you ceased looking to them as friends. That seems to be the opposite message of what you say here.
I know Roissy claims to ignore their beauty, but is he really no longer aiming higher on the scale? I think it sounds a little hypocritical to claim that. Not being awed by it is fine, but not noting it is highly unlikely at the least.
Pick a name, anon. That should be easy if you can spout your ignorance so easily.
They're a form of vanity, obviously.
You are looking for the word "principle". Mispeled words invalidate your logical thrust.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.