Wednesday, March 16, 2011

The church of delta

When I was a younger delta, I believed I had strong convictions about waiting for marriage for sexual intimacy. This was the result of my many years of churchianity morality training. Some of it was Biblically correct... other parts not so much. What I have come to understand is that this was more than a belief, it was a convenient mask for my delta ways.

I am reminded of a specific church affiliated camp experience with exciting speakers. They pounded home the idea that monogamy was inherently good and waiting till marriage was equally important. Made perfect sense to me, I was shy with girls and waiting was good, because those cool guys up front didn't wait and later regretted it. This and other experiences helped me create what I thought was a solid fact based conviction in sex is best saved for marriage.

Conviction: a fixed or firm belief. Convictions are not so easily tossed aside when a tasty opportunity comes along. They also contribute to the makeup of ones backbone which is necessary for manhood. You will see from this account that two root causes of my young deltahood were self-deception about what I believed, and having Jell-O for a backbone.

When the first opportunity came along to break this "conviction" everything that had been driven into my head was conveniently forgotten. That high school relationship with a train wreck ended two years later. Fast forward to the next opportunity, I am dating my now ex-wife. Magically my strong conviction disappeared again but with the following additional twist.

Early on while dating, the discussion of number of partners came up. In typical style I was honest, on the other hand she...due to a hamster impaired rounding error arrived at the same exact number. Tied to this discussion I mentioned how I wanted to wait for marriage. In case some of you readers missed it I will repeat in clear uncertain terms:

As the male party in a relationship I clearly defined and communicated my decision to remain celibate till ring swap ceremony had taken place at a church of our unified choice complete with the socially required family members delivering wrapped things from Target in exchange for dinner.

Because this discussion happened before we were intimate, it changed the dynamic. Sexual intimacy had now became a s-test. I had purposefully drawn a line in the sand which now stood as a signpost of male spiritual and household leadership. She crossed that line flippantly. Was I a willing participant? Absolutely! It was not date rape. However, I set a standard and didn't hold to it breaking both IV and XV of the 16 core game maxims. As I look back at the years and how my marriage unraveled in terms of game, this was the first big s-test I failed.

In my journey to understand game I have come to believe that sex with ones spouse is designed by our maker to be a "gimmie" in natural manhood. (my take on core maxim XIV) When a man marries and beds his wife he gains certain alpha credibility free of effort with her. Even greater cred. if she hasn't spent years riding the ALPHA carousel. In a perfect world, even the weakest of married men would receive this gift on his wedding day.

Certain observations now lead me to believe that I am not alone. When I look around church on Sunday morning I see a large contingent of BETA men married to whales. (a majority of these women were not bloated when they donned the expensive white dress) Tie that observation to the statistics on premarital sex among American churchgoers: while many believe it is wrong to have sex before marriage they also continue to do so in large numbers. These statistics and my personal observations point to a reality that I am not the only one who has created and failed this specific s-test. Coupled with this loss of status for the husband is the additional burden of guilt laid on by the social organization of the church which I will not go into detail here. Suffice it to say, a very damaging one two punch for the church attending married man.

If you failed this s-test but are still trying to be an honorable husband my advice is simple, learn game and save your marriage. As for me, my old understanding of churchianity marriage has been replaced with a Genesis 24:67 definition. In a tent, without a rubber chicken dinner, and most importantly, lacking any government licensing fee.
- DJ


Anonymous said...

I love it... tent optional.

Markku said...

In colloquial Finnish, naida means both "to have sex with someone" and "to marry someone". Finnish is very Biblical.

VD said...

DJ, did you notice any change in her interest in premarital sex before and after the public celibacy ceremony? I'm curious about whether she came to see it as a challenge or whether she just wasn't interested in it in the first place.

DJ said...

@Vox, We had a 'honeymoon" period with plenty of sex after the marriage. I am hesitant to put an exact number of months on it because the grinding reality of the last 4 years of our wedded contract have blurred it from my memory. In retrospect I did plenty of BETA things to successfuly eliminate her desire for me. After the last 4 years we can safely change her moniker from blushing bride to "Dr. No".
I don't believe her sex drive disappeared, since she had an affair which may be a subject of future posts.

DJ said...

OOPS Grammar Fail
Replace "After..." with "During the last 4 years we can safely change her..."

Nate said...

I tend to think people make a far bigger deal about the effects of premarital sex on a marriage than is actually warranted.

It must be made clear that the problem isn't that you hit it. The problem is you demonstrated that you had no backbone.

Orville said...

I also believe the tent theory of marriage, and also it's flip side...refusal of sex constitutes a divorce, hence 1Cor 7's don't withhold rule.

Yet I still get the wobblies on the whole "pre-marital" sex thing. Particularly when I'm telling my son to keep it zipped. I probably need to revisit this topic with him.

Anonymous said...

Nate... what is your attitude on extra-marital sex for a man?

Let's say I want to build a patriarchal harem.

I can probably expect to lose some girls along the way.

How does one look at that, from a Biblical perspective?

Anonymous said...

In related news... Charlie Sheen's Goddess #2 is back at the Sober Valley Lodge.

DJ said...

@Orville Bingo: refusal of sex constitutes a divorce
I was joking with an friend from India a couple years ago about "No not meaning NO, but everyone knows what a headache means" He laughed and said not for Indian men. It is understood that a wife that doesn't put out goes home to live with Mom and Dad.
All things about American Culture are obviously superior in every way.

Andrew Terry said...

Are you still a Christian? Just curious. I would like see a Married Christian man's interpretation of the maxims. How should one use game to keep his wife? Maybe some other post?

Timothy Webster said...

Drew, are you looking for advice from a mainstream Christian, or from a man who follows Christ? Because if a man follows Christ, he will be roundly condemned and ostracised from every official government sanctioned church on the continent.

DJ said...

@Drew, yes I am. I am happily Divorced so I cannot at this moment give a Married mans interpretation. Think of the maxims as keys to display a better social position, and see how many you can come up with Christian equivilents for. 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, & 16 should be the easy ones for you to translate and put into play. Share this site with your mens bible study group for discussion and hope Tim Webster is wrong.

dreadpiratk said...

very true, which is why the Bible has so little to say about pre-marital sex, and so much to say about adultery. Pre-marital sex was literally not possible for Jews. Of course by this definition most people today, having had prior sex with others, are committing adultery with their spouse.

dreadpiratk said...

"In my journey to understand game I have come to believe that sex with ones spouse is designed by our maker to be a "gimmie" in natural manhood."

I have never understood how this could not be the case. No manly Alpha I, nor is my marriage perfect, but sex is such a fundamental part of our relationship that it is simply not open to negotiation. For either of us. It cannot be used as leverage or as a weapon, it's a given. Used the proper way sex is the greatest of binding agents, not one more hill to battle over.

And yet I know men whom I otherwise respect who seem to have to beg for the smallest sexual crumb their wife deigns to throw them. How can anyone be happy in such a marriage?

mmaier2112 said...

Interesting thoughts.

My feelings on the matter lean towards a Biblical understanding of "Do the broad, she's now your wife".

But some folks (The O.C. included, IIRC) have stated that telling a woman "I'm waiting for marriage" is a major challenge for her to take you down sexually. Which, I'm guessing, don't include her considering herself a bride after boning you.

I've yet to nail a broad (I'm such a hopeless romantic) after asking Jesus to be my savior. (Yes, it's been a while.)

So how should I approach any romantic interests while 1) wanting not fornicate and 2) simultaneously wanting to generate lots of attraction?

Josh said...


As the man, you should be the leader in the relationship. Set the ground rules, set the boundaries. It's what she wants you to do.

Generating attraction doesn't mean you have to have sex with her. After all, alphas don't bang every chick that looks at them with glassy eyes, weak knees, moist panties, and a hyperactive spinning hamster.

Timothy Webster said...

Most game blogs speak of banging her as quckly as possible to generate attraction. A lot of the game tactics/techniques are said to only work AFTER you bang her. So, I second Indy's complaint; where is the game for those of us who don't want to fornicate?

I guess you could call it "pre-game".

Also, to you guys that say sex makes you wed, that is Biblically FALSE. If you fuck her, you have an obligation to provide the dowry of virgins, which generally allows a woman to get started in life; a tent, a few goats, some ready spending cash for capital, and a lifetime contract for food, clothing, and sex. You have to provide this, BUT her father can still say he doesn't like your face, and not let you marry her.

So, sex before marriage DOESN'T make an automatic marriage. It just makes you morally on the hook for financial obligations, with no reciprocal obligation for sex and affection from the girl.

This is a very important point for you guys here that want to get Biblical.

Why? Because if you stay in the Word and follow the Word through the Red Sea of Baptism, YOU can have a REAL harem, more-so than those PUA's that speak of their revolving door-whorehouses as harems.

Anonymous said...

Timothy, check out for game that is adaptable to a non-fornication policy.

If you read that and want more, I have more.

Any citation on your interpretation of Biblical marriage?

I'd be interested to know how it goes if you try the harem idea.

DJ said...

Mention the Bible and everyone starts talking about their interpretation.... Argh! @Everybody, try to keep focused on GAME instead of Bible interpretations.

@ Indy "Generating attraction without banging every chick" Think Billy Graham there is a very specific reason he never met with any woman alone after he started his ministry. He realized early on that their hamsters would throw themselves at him because he was a natural alpha. Look at how he generated that attraction in terms of game. Billy nailed Maxim Number III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority.

Nate said...

"Nate... what is your attitude on extra-marital sex for a man? "

I think with sex comes life long commitment to care for the female... harems in no way contradict this. A man is just committed to caring for more than 1 woman's needs.

So... I can accumulate wives or lesser-wives (what they used to call concubines) but I cannot shed any of them. If I do send them away all the sex I had with them becomes fornication ex-post facto.

Nate said...

And to be clear...

I would never... never advise someone to marry a girl without inspecting the goods.

You don't buy a car without test driving it...

I'm not saying you have to actually hit it... but you damned well better poke around under the hood.

So to speak.

Nate said...

Harems by the way are perfectly biblical. Its laughable to suggest otherwise. Its just that biblical harems required lifelong commitment. You accumulate wives over time. Once in the harem... always in the harem.

raggededge said...

But, if you inspect the goods, you're in for life, so what's the point?

The Deuce said...

I think official harems and concubinage should be legal... so long as it's legal for other men to kill harem-owners and take their women. It's the natural and inevitable flipside of the equation after all!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for giving your opinion on harems, Nate... it lines up with what I was thinking.

There are still some thorny ethical questions I'm thinking about.

1. I'm not going to lie, but do I need to be completely forthcoming about everything?
2. If a girl gets unhappy with it and leaves... how culpable am I?

To give a hypothetical scenario... let's say I start actively collecting again... bang a new girl, figure out she's not a virgin, relegate her to lesser-wife status, she gets dissatisfied and leaves...

Fine. I can accept that once or twice. But making it a pattern seems no different than pagan dating.

Anonymous said...

I'll probably just feel it out and mature a lot in the process.

I have to keep checking myself, though... I don't want to step deliberately into sin.

It's a confusing path... very poorly defined, few contemporary examples. I'm not sure how I'm going to go about it.

But I'm definitely not settling for one girl... and not just for my personal satisfaction. Christianity has been bound to monogamy too long... it's costing us too many men. Time for a change.

Timothy Webster said...

Nate: polygamy is allowed because you CAN'T inspect the goods before marriage. If the goods are misrepresented, you get your money back, the girl goes back home to papa.

If the girl later becomes rebellious and is mucking up the dynamics of your household, that is also Biblical cause for divorce. It fits the definition of "uncleanness" that Moses said was legitimate cause of divorce.

Anonymous said...

Here are some articles on divorce, relevant to men who are in the Word and wanting to achieve Godly things:

Divorce is much easier than modern Christians think. And for VERY good reasons. Part of that "instill dread" maxim of Roissy.

Remember, Samuel said "rebellion is like the sin of witchcraft". Witchcraft was one of two sins that called for death by burning at the stake. The other one was whoredom. Would God expect you to keep a witch or a whore in your house? Then certainly not a rebel.

The whole purpose of the bride price was to make the girl expensive; you'd think long and hard before deciding she was rebellious and kicking her out of the tent-city.

Nate said...

nonsense. Inspecting the goods /= sex.. nor does it equal fornication.

Timothy Webster said...

Well yes, visual inspection is fine. Paul Bowman wrote an excellent book called "Nakedness and the Bible"

Anonymous said...

And do couples dancing with the girl; that will reveal tons about how well she leads/submits, and if the way her body wiggles, turns you on.

DmL said...

@Timothy - Crank the engine, put it in gear. You don't have to drive it out of the lot or put gas in it... ...

Guys, don't forget that G-d's plan for marriage is one man and one woman. He may have tolerated different scenarios in the past, but I wouldn't count on it.

Anonymous said...

Look at the Jew (DmL), telling Christians they are limited to only one wife. Hah! Yes, that is right dumb goyim, keep hitting yourself in the head, and chopping your cocks off. It will make life so much nicer for us Jews who don't have your hangups and restrictions!

Nate said...

DmL... you have no idea what God's plan was. You're putting words into His mouth.

spare us your genesis based conclusions... they are illogical and unsupportable... and off topic.

Anonymous said...

I just have to say that I think all of this talk of "Game" is ridiculous in terms of honest Biblical Christianity. I have no idea what category you guys would put me in. I do know my wife thinks I'm an Alpha or a Sigma. But whatever. I married a woman 12 years my junior. Our relationship works because I love and respect her the way the Bible commands. I serve her. She reciprocates by staying at home, raising our children, and in turn serving me. She was a virgin when we where married. I was not. I had 2 other partners previously. But my wife is nowhere near wanting to divorce me for those past sins. I repented and Christ forgave me. End of story.

You people can wax philosophical all you want about this Game theory but know that all of you will have to give account to God for your attitudes and behavior. I just don't understand the secularization of it. We are accountable to God and that's what should be driving our behavior in every area of life, especially in our relationships with women.

Christopher said...

Forgot to put my name on the previous post: Christopher

Anonymous said...

My PUA instincts, such as they are, are honed to always be closing. Then it gradually shifts into LTR game.

Collecting a harem presents different challenges. Fast times to lay prevent careful quality vetting. And you can't build momentum off of a string of fresh conquests.

I've learned to reverse the provider dynamic in an LTR. But I expect to do the harem collection right, I'd have to reverse the sexual chasing dynamic during the initial seduction.

Now I'm beginning to see the picture. The solution is not a less ruthless pursuit of seduction, but one that is maximally psychologically devastating, with withholding sex as one component of the total mindfuck.

And necessarily girls who wash out on quality will be discarded along the way, pre-sex.

Finally I see the way clearly. My enthusiasm is fired to start immediately.

Anonymous said...

I'm thinking of the hot/cold physical escalation then takeaway that the alpha ballet instructor employed on Natalie Portman during Black Swan as my canonical script.

PETA said...

Nate: "Harems by the way are perfectly biblical. Its laughable to suggest otherwise. Its just that biblical harems required lifelong commitment. You accumulate wives over time. Once in the harem... always in the harem."

True, there are many examples of polygamy in the Bible, but it's difficult to find one that didn't end in grief.

raggededge said...

Nate: "DmL... you have no idea what God's plan was. You're putting words into His mouth.

spare us your genesis based conclusions... they are illogical and unsupportable... and off topic."

Bullshit. Why would God demand that Elders and Deacons be the husband of ONE wife? God's plan was one man, one woman. Of course man fucked it up, it's what we do best.

Duke of Earl said...

Jesus himself endorsed the "a man leaves his father and mother, joins with his wife, and they become one flesh" line too.

I've had the fiancée throw herself at me. I'm not sure if it's a test, or if she really is that into me. Maybe it was one of Athol's lines. "Everything is a test."

Timothy Webster said...

Joseph Dante thank you, now I have an excuse to watch Black Swan.

Timothy Webster said...

raggededge: you are wrong. Elders and deacons have to be husband of AT LEAST one wife.

I highly recommend the book "Man and Woman in Biblical Law" by Tom Shipley

Anonymous said...

And thanks for the book recommendation, Timothy... feel free to throw any more like that my way.

Anonymous said...

The "Biblical polygamy ends in grief" argument is specious because most everything either isn't discussed or ends in grief in the Bible.

raggededge said...

Timothy Webster: "raggededge: you are wrong. Elders and deacons have to be husband of AT LEAST one wife."

Oh Puhlease...think about that statement for a second, why did Paul not say that a Bishop needs to be married? "AT LEAST one wife"? No shit Sherlock, if you're married, I hope we can at least assume that you have ONE wife. Why make the qualification at all, if marriage was the only thing that mattered in order to be a Bishop or a Deacon?

Nate said...

Raggededge... you don't read well. God did not make that qualification. Paul did. Also, it was not the only qualification PAUL made. The fact that you don't know the other off the top of your head, and we do, should give you pause.

I suggest you read a little more carefully.

We have hashed this out 1000 times at VP and it always ends the same. You lose, because you are taking the side of Man's teachings against the clear Word of God. Polygamy was practiced and supported in the Christian Church for centuries until MEN decided it should not be.

This is off topic. Lick your wounds, and tell yourself how right you are if you wish.

Christopher said...

I'm still new to VP. I know this is off topic, but I need someone to explain this to me. I can't quite figure out where VP is coming from. I've read the initial background and the 16 maxims of Game. They don't seem very Christian or Christ-honoring. I'm wondering why VP identifies himself as Christian? Is he actually Mormon? Mormons are the only group I know that openly supported polygamy in recent times. Your distinction of Paul said vs. God said leads me to believe that this group does not accept the established New Testament Canon. Paul wasn't speaking, God (the Holy Spirit) did through Paul. If this group doesn't accept the entire New Testament, then by definition you are a cult. Does this group also advocate for the Apocrypha? For the Book of Enoch?
Seventh Day Adventist perhaps? Or is it Jehovah's Witness? Is this group and VP a renewal of Gnosticism? What is motivating all of these posts that, while addressing the letter of the law in the New Testament, go against the spirit of love toward women? I don't think the Holy Spirit would approve of manipulation of this sort. It goes against God's character.

Someone please catch me up and post some links that will help me trace how you began to arrive at these conclusions, which I consider to be heretical and lacking of real biblical support.

DJ said...

@Christopher, The 16 maxims are written in a very crass and NSFW manner, true. Do they also contain an element of truth? Absolutely! Why? Do they work? Yes! Why?
Why...because women are fallen just like men, but they are wired differently. If you are a US church attending male, you have been subjected to feminist indoctrination. 12yrs of Public Screwals, and weak sauce preaching that condemns male sins (lust, etc.) and ignores female sins (gossip, etc.)
To the extent that this indoctrination was successful you have been emasculated. Game can be a tool to help you identify your feminist foolhardiness and learn to behave like a man.

If you want to learn what Vox believes take the red pill and read the archives at
use search terms like women Christianity and game If your beliefs are challenged and are true they will only gain strength. Seek for Truth like the treasure it is, wherever it rests.

DmL said...

First of all I'm not Jewish. Secondly, even the Genesis account supports one man and one woman. Now, you can get all butt-hurt and pissy if you think I'm shooting down your favored method of relating to the opposite sex, but that's no concern of mine. Like buggery and homo-sex I really don't care what you do in your bedroom, and G-d might even put up with it! Lucky for you if he does. Lighten up.

Anonymous said...

Nice save, DmL. If you aren't racially Jewish, you are mentally Jewish. What kind of sick, twisted, Egyptian magic are you practicing when you butcher English words by hyphenating them? G-d indeed! You aren't fooling us.

Tigger4Christ said...

Christopher: to save yourself time, spend the $10 and read Tom Shipleys book. He does NOT reject any of Paul's writings (or any of the New Testament). He shows how the New Testament has been mistranslated by sexual deviants who Paul warned us against, those who "forbid to marry".

DmL said...

@Anon - I'm just trying to avoid angering the violent dude upstairs with the white beard.

Much like Genghis Khan, true Alphas kill and eat the Betas. (Nate could learn a lesson or two from them : )

Christopher said...

I know I'm showing my ignorance, but I don't know who Tom Shipley is. But I'll look it up around here and find the book. Sounds like an interesting read. And I thought I was the only closet misogynist in the world! I went to a Service Academy and resented the hell out of the women who competed under a different standard. I went out of my way not to hold the doors for them or treat them like a lady. Their mere presence stated loud and clear that they wanted to be treated like equals. So that's what I did.

Okay, enough of my off topic posting. Thanks to those who pointed me toward some source material.

Eli said...

I would like to see some evidence of this early christian practicing polygamy for centuries.

Lovely Singh said...

Call: 09781405926

We Provide High Class Escorts Service and Call girls in India | Amritsar, Chandigarh, Ludhiana, Jalandhar, Nagpur, Mumbai, Pune, New Delhi, Agra, Bangalore, Goa, Lucknow, Kanpur, Hyderabad, Jaipur.

Amritsar escorts service

Call girl in Amritsar

Amritsar Escorts

Amritsar Call girls

Escort in Amritsar

Independent Escort in Amritsar

Amritsar independent escorts

Escorts service Amritsar

Amritsar Escorts Agency

Amritsar Female Escorts

Amritsar independent Escorts

Post a Comment