Thursday, March 29, 2012

Alpha Mail: the awakening

EO belatedly realizes that he has been lied to by the Church:
As a 28 year old Christian man who just now stumbled across the concept of "game," I feel like I've been lead astray. I now look at those that surround me in my local church and see them as the Gamma/Delta men that they are. It's a disappointing thing to see. Since it dawned on me that I wouldn't follow any of them. As for relationships, it's funny to see the same old advice of "just be yourself" or "be that nice Christian doormat." My personal favorite is of course "Just wait for the Lord to reveal the 'perfect one' for you." Since I'm just touching the surface of all this (sadly) I was wondering where one should go next in regards to developing this? I will admit to not caring much for the PUA community since it comes against my beliefs. Sleeping around for instance. I'm not sure if that even matters or not since your view of game isn't at odds with the Christian way of life from what I have been reading.

Honestly I wish I would have found out about this years ago. Would have stopped a cycle of loneliness and anger towards a system I didn't even know existed a long time ago. Thanks for shining a light on a difficult subject.
Churchianity is as evil and far more pernicious than the worst Dark Game played by the most sinister sigma. As EO notes, how can these church-neutered half-men claim to be imitators of Jesus Christ when they are manifestly unworthy of being followed, either by men or by women.

Game is one of the many aspects of the truth, and as such, it is intrinsically a part of the Christian perspective on the fallen world we inhabit. And one need not take my word at face value to accept that Game is far more than pick-up artistry, as the Prophet of the Crimson Arts himself has declared that Game is even more important for relationships than it is for casual sexual gratification.

EO needs to learn to distinguish between the principles of Game and the tactical application of those principles. One can learn the former from even the most pick-up oriented Game theorist while making no use of those applications which are not in keeping with your religious faith. Since even the most secular Game theorists carve out an exception to their definition of ALPHA out of respect for the religious-minded, it should be readily apparent that there is no good reason to dismiss whatever wisdom they possess. Truth is truth, regardless of the source, and after all, it is said that God works in mysterious ways.


MountainMan said...

As a Christian who learned about game I can tell you that it will change your life and relationships. You don't have to use game to pick up women, but be warned, if you struggle with being chaste game will challenge you. You will see many opportunities to get some strange (from women inside and outside of the church). However, when those opportunities come you will actually get some real spiritual growth as you learn to stand firm in your faith and believe rather than just blind your eyes to the struggle completely.

Prepare to be somewhat of an outcast at church if you continue to go there. I'm not saying they will kick you out but you will likely be viewed as not spiritual enough when you stop swallowing whole-sale what they feed you and their elevation of women to some super-spiritual status. Of course, if you are like me, once you grow some spine and learn to be a leader you will have trouble spending time with people who are so spineless and passive-aggressive.

Eric S. Mueller said...

In the church I go to, men seem to be men. I don't see a whole lot of gammas there.

In Wild At Heart, John Eldgredge points out the main message of Churchianity is to be a "really nice guy". I know he takes heat from some segments of the church, but I think he's on the right track.

LibertyPortraits said...

I have had a similar revelation as EO (and I'm the same age) on the church's, and private Christian college's, feminization of men. It's sort of like taking the Red pill and seeing the world for what it is, like when you become Anarcho-Capitalist in your views and start seeing how thoroughly the State has propagandized people.

I listen to Stefan Molyneux from time to time and the other day he had a young male call in who was having girls problems (they kept disappearing!). Stefan, who I respect for his Anarchist and parenting views, starting questioning the kid's childhood and his relationship with his mother and father, etc. It was a waste of time and breath since none of it connected with the kid who just needed a few lessons from Game to understand why he was scaring off girls. I think some (otherwise intelligent) people are too caught up in good old Ad Hominem directed towards PUA's themselves and become blind to the principles Vox mentions.

LibertyPortraits said...

As a digression, I should add that every time I have discussed or debated Game/PUA with men they have seemingly knee-jerk Gamma reactions, it goes like this:

Me: "If he's having trouble attracting girls he should go to X,Y,and Z blogs and learn a little about Game to get an idea of what's going wrong and to understand the nature of women better."

Gamma: "PUA is bullshit nonsense coming from psychopaths, snake-oil salesmen, social engineers, and nerds who think you need to create a science to get girls, all you have to do is be yourself."

Me: "Well... no, you're missing my point entirely, average men would probably do better to know something of woman's nature from the PUA Game theorist because those men are successful and have recognized patterns of behavior. There is literally no reason to attack the PUA per se."

Mike M. said...

Game is a tool, nothing more. It can be used for PUA...or to get and maintain a solid LTR.

I've seen a lot of Alpha men who have no interest in playing the playboy. But they have solid marriages.

Mike M. said...

I'll add that I'm not terribly impressed with the modern Church Feminist. The old Church Militant positively reeked of Alpha Game. You don't go on a Crusade to retake the Holy Land without a generous portion of faith...and courage, determination, and skill.

Elioenai said...

My circumstances are remarkably similar to EO's, and if anyone has one, I'm still very interested in hearing an answer(s) to what I thought was his central question: What next? Where do I go from here?

"Since I'm just touching the surface of all this (sadly) I was wondering where one should go next in regards to developing this?"

Like him, I am a 28-year-old unmarried male Christian, and I only recently became aware of this whole community and school of thought, and of this blog (through a link, when I was reading about the Rush Limbaugh controversy, of all things!) and Chateau Heartiste. I won't say that all the men in my church are wimps, or that I feel totally lied to—I've definitely gotten some politically incorrect teaching about manliness and husbands' loving their wives and wives' submitting to their husbands before this point, and I've read Wild at Heart (mentioned above) and I think I agree that it's mostly good stuff—but even for me, Game claims to overturn a lot of conventional wisdom.

So, I'm still not sure I totally buy it—Game theory, or whatever I should call it—but I don't suppose I should ask you to talk me into it. Instead, supposing I already believed: What should I do to begin learning the theory and changing my behavior? I've read a bunch of entries here and at Chateau Heartiste, but other than its "Sixteen Commandments", I haven't found much in the way of an introduction or guide for beginners. (My attempts at Internet searches for PUA beginner or Game beginner or whatever were even less fruitful.)

To the extent that I have found advice for beginners, say, at the Chateau, I'm not sure how to translate it for a practicing Christian, and I wonder whether you could expand on that. E.g., Roissy or Heartiste or someone somewhere advises sleeping with as many beautiful girls as possible, to build confidence etc. A lot of the advice also seems to revolve around picking up girls in bars or at parties. Being Christian, God willing, I won't have any sex outside of marriage (which means I'm interested in getting married as soon as possible, naturally!); so I'm not sure how to apply the same Game principles in my life. I doubt that going into bars full of generally fornication-oriented women and trying to initiate a chaste courtship with one of them would be any good for me or her. And if bars are for hooking up for sex, and Heartiste thinks online dating is worthless, too, where should I even be going?

Daniel said...

If you're having game trouble, I feel bad for you, son.
I got 99 problems but the Church ain't one.

As a contributing member to the Church, EO has the God-given power to abide against whatever chaff is poisoning his immediate band of worshipers. Game is intrinsic to that. I find it impossible to even read the teachings on church conduct in the books of John, Jude, Peter, James, etc. without a fairly straightforward acceptance and understanding of Game. Half the teachings don't make any sense at all if you don't understand the very natural truths such as (but not limited to):

There is an intrinsic order to things.
The devil creates a counterfeit order.
Learning to ID the difference is critical.
Women are hypergamous.
Men are built to lead them.
Saved people's hearts and minds are still dark.
Lack of industry is a cancer.


Ian Ironwood said...

Christianity has been the silent partner in the attack on masculinity, and has been since WWII, if not before. Faced with the combined horrors of the 20th century -- mechanized total warfare, the Holocaust, and the Atomic Bomb -- they turned their back on the moral responsibility they shared (and I lump all churches into this one, with a few possible exceptions) with those men who brought those terrors to life and instead focused on the immaterial issues of theology, dogma, and bullshit social issues.

It's main problem is that Christianity is essentially a religion designed for use in the Agricultural Age, where the stability it provides keeps the crops coming in and the families producing plenty of kids. Protestantism was an attempt to adapt the religion to the Industrial Age, which it was just starting to get the hang of when the Post-Industrial Age came along and made it largely obsolete.

When a religion no longer fits the age in which it finds itself, it must adapt or die. With the post-industrial Information Age, we're seeing this happen as individuals explore their spirituality with all the resources of human history at their disposal on the internet. While the neighborhood church will still exist as a focal point for social and cultural affairs, the decline in service attendance will continue, until there is a re-adaption of Christianity's church culture to fit the socio-economic needs of the community.

And then there's the problem that despite the wild rationalizations of clergy through the ages, there are elements of Scripture that just do not work for us anymore, but were perfectly appropriate at the time they were written. An adherence to archaic cultural laws is one of the many reasons Christianity is shedding parishioners at an alarming rate. One of these issues is, of course, the role of sex and the family in our society.

The essential message of salvation in the Gospels won't change, of course, but the current structure, organization, and purpose of the average Christian church is the reason why that's often the last place you'll find it. The truth is, people have gotten very choosy about how they take their spirituality, and it's far easier to boot up a computer than to put on itchy church pants at an unreasonable hour on Sunday.

Just my observations -- I don't have a dog in this fight.

PC Geek said... the early and medieval church to the "precious moments" figurines, 'filly angel/cherub' artwork (did any of the angels in the Bible seem like they would be wearing frilly lace to you?) and "Jesus is my magical boyfriend" worship songs and the contrast simply couidn't be clearer.

It takes serious cajones to willingly march to a brutal execution (and even joke about it, as some martyrs did) from refusing to renounce your faith or to go and retake the Holy Land.

I couldn;t imagine the people filling today's church pews doing that - they would probably faint and get the vapors at the very mention of such things.

rycamor said...

Well Ian... your astute analysis at the beginning of your post provides the answer to the grave mistake about the nature of Christianity in the following 4 paragraphs. Yes, the Christian leadership got too sidetracked into the minutiae of theology while ignoring many of the quite obvious teachings about which there can be no dispute. Its attempts to appease the secular culture around it are actually a perfect picture of gamma supplication which only led to being despised by the greater culture in exactly the same way a gamma is despised by the very women he tries to please.

The Church should either be a driving force in the culture or a painful thorn it its side. Whenever the Church tries to find a comfortable "niche" in the culture, it fails.

And while some of the Old Testament's specific laws are aimed at an agrarian society, the central message has no such restriction. New Testament Christianity applies precisely zero weight to the sort of society to which one belongs. Its message and truths about human nature are ever applicable, and will be so even if humankind navigates the stars one day.

Daniel said...

There's a big difference between not wanting to actually pick up girls and being able to pick them up. A good Christian ought to be able to pick up women even if he never exercises that ability for carnal or sinful purposes.

Why? Because that ability stems from an understanding of the truth of the social order. It stems from being as excellent a man - as wise, as strong, as successful and faithful (Marines faithful, not my wife will be mad at me faithful) - as possible.

If you think a lot of girls didn't want to bed Jesus, you don't understand women.

If you want to get married, go find the good (younger) woman you want to marry, and ask her out. She'll know within a few minutes of meeting you whether or not she's attracted to you. If it doesn't take, move on to the next one.

Game is about social hierarchy, but it is also about love. And if a Christian, of all things, isn't schooled in love, he's missing out on his only two commandments! If he's missing out on those, then he's failing in his commission.

In other words, what good is a Christian if he doesn't understand Game?

So toss out this notion of "chaste courtship," first and foremost. Our Savior didn't enter into a chaste courtship with you, after all, but a brutal, bloody one. We are, after all, his bride, not his sweetheart. Get down to the hot and passionate business of getting a wife by getting fanatical about your mission (hint: your mission isn't getting a wife) and finding someone to lead through that.

Just be a man about it, and don't bang her before the wedding day.

Anonymous said...

I'm in your shoes, except 29 and married with kids.

A good book to read is "no more Christian nice guy." The author talks about how Christ was not a pushover, many of the more raw experiences/expressions in the bible have been glossed over by translators and how nice guys are bad for women/children/society but good guys (who often aren't nice) are what Christ was and Christ intended.

A more technical/subtle book is Leon Podles' "The church impotent" which is free to read on his website (

I'm Lutheran (Wisconsin Synod) and I feel our church does a pretty good job of avoiding most of the feminist/nice guy stuff but it's still in there.

blessings, -e.p.

Daniel said...

P.S. - If you are looking for the place to find your wife, it is right in front of you. Your church is a fine place to look - remember, ultimately, as you conform your mind to truth, you will also be preparing to mold your wife. One of the first things you'll figure out in Game is that all women are irrational and nearly all don't understand the social order, even as they navigate it naturally better than most men.

In other words, your wife is very likely a deluded church-goer who knows she is supposed to be attracted to a nice guy provider type, but actually desires to be dominated. She's caught between a false dichotomy of what seems like two worlds - God's and the Devil's.

Trust me, every churchgoing man who does "good" while remaining "dominant" is a rare, rare cat, and has plenty of churchgoing women (both good and bad), interested in them. You'll take flak, but only from your weaker brothers and sisters.

Be willing to take the flak, and you are halfway there.

Daniel said...

That brings up a good point: a husband with good Game is critical to a happy, faithful marriage. Because he's got his mission, and doesn't crumple into her (seemingly) idiotic, insecure tests of his manhood, and has a lot of sex, she naturally nurtures the bond - it just gets better and better.

Wives liked to be picked up. A lot. It is best for society, for the family and for the man if it is the husband that is skillfully performing that important emotional function.

Dreadpiratk said...

One of the most salient things John Eldridge says in Wild at Heart is this: Women don't want to be the adventure, they want a man who is on an adventure and will invite her along for the ride...

Forget devoting your life to your future wife, devote your life to something far bigger, and find a woman who will go with you on that adventure.

BTW, read the rest of John's books, especially Waking the Dead, they are excellent.

Daniel said...

Amen to that. I remember initially rejecting John Eldredge because he was published by one of the big Christian publishers. I assumed it was a bunch of nonsense about how "real men" are "wild" because, you know, they love their wives or something.

Then I heard that some insane (but successful) Mexican drug gang was using "Wild at Heart" as an operations manual.

That's when I got interested.

Anonymous said...

A reply to MountainMan:
Perhaps rather than view his fellows at his church as those that can outcast him or otherwise hostile to his (newfound) postition towards Game, if his view of those said fellows is accurately Gamma/Delta then he can step up and be a leader of said fellows; why vacate his church when it can be reformed from within? It just might be his calling.

Anonymous said...

How religion has effected my game:

I wanted a virgin, period.

I remained a virgin until marrying her. She assumes this is because I wouldn't hold her to a standard I don't hold myself to. And this is mostly true, even though I don't think I knew it at the time.

Dreadpiratk said...

Question for Vox and others here: What do you think a Red Pill church would look like? I have been given increasing responsibility in a local non-denominational church which is controlled by men and has more men in attendance then women. Very unusual I know, but that's what attracted me to it. Even so I've stepped on some toes of people who think we should cater to women more.

We are seeing quite a few young couples come through the door these days and it is my desire to minister to them effectively. Past experience in other churches has taught me that no matter how enthusiastic they are to start, in a few weeks or months the wives will continue to come, but the husbands will find better things to do.

The answer of course is to reject a feminized gospel and embrace a true image of how God ordered relationships and the church. But how will that show in day to day operations?

rycamor said...

I'll throw out one major clue to single Christian guys in their late 20s:

Yes, you ideally want to search out a mate with less sexual experience than yours.

Unfortunately, the clubs and secular social events which tend to have all the hot girls will usually have the expectation of hookups and short-term relationships.

Even among Christian circles you will have a hard time finding girls in your age group who are virgins or have some degree of chastity. That's the key: stop looking for girls in your age group.

Think about it: you have been conditioned to look for girls your age, and confess--you will feel somewhat guilty even flirting with a girl 8 years your junior (I actually felt a little guilty once as a 27-year-old dating a 21-year-old -- how stupid is that?). The whole "what could you two have in common?" phrase is a complete sellout to popular culture. Serious interests are universal.

Don't be too concerned about censurious attitudes of church leaders and parents. The problem is not the age difference, but the sex rank difference, which people unconsciously rewrite into being a maturity-related thing. In other words, a girl aged 18-24 is at her sexual peak and is a perfect match for an *attractive* man in his late 20s or even early 30s (I don't mean in terms of looks but all the right male qualities). Most men in their late 20s are stuck in the supplicating Delta/Beta world. You will find that if you get yourself together, especially physically, and project a more alpha attitude, parents of younger daughters (and church authority figures) will unconsciously be much more tolerant of their daughters' interest in you. However, you have to walk a fine line of cool alpha to attract the girls and mature provider to reassure the parents. Yes, this is the tough line Christian young men have to walk. You can't compete in the same playing field as the unshackled non-Christian alpha, so you have to be *better* than him in other areas: maturity, confidence, physical condition, skills and self-discipline. Don't measure yourself against the world. Make the world measure itself against you.

So, young man: go thou and be better.

Actually, Christian husbands too; it's time to get with it.

Daniel said...

I agree with a lot of this, but disagree that there is a dichotomy between being alpha and being self-controlled. They are the same thing. In other words, a man who is properly self-controlled is able to not have sex, even when he wants to and especially when she wants to. He isn't chaste by default or insecurity, he's chaste by choice in the face of opportunity. That is alpha.

You don't need to "project" anything. You just need to be alpha. i.e. Make your choices and stand by them. Pursue your interests and be open to others joining you. Approach women with the confidence of knowing that a) she's not there to qualify you for anything and b) if you are interested a relationship with her, there are a hundred more waiting if she's not interested. Enjoy your mission and stay on it.

Sean said...

Wow, as a Christian man in my 30s (recently attached), I also experienced the same thing. Society conditioned me to a feminine perspective which is at odds with what God intended.

I was fortunate to have the examples of fellow brothers and sisters which helped me change from my former beta self. I discovered game blogs about 6 months earlier and realised how "game techniques" are in-line with God's intentions.

Of course, game is very powerful and it's bad reputation is a result of PUAs bedding as many women as possible. However, game itself is good, but the misuse of it is not.

Unknown said...

Relationship game:

I wondered if I was giving up on God when I left the church. Turns out, that's when I actually found Christianity. If you can keep your faith while surrounded by the hypocrisy of Churchianity, you have great leadership potential. You might consider what you can do with that.

Daniel said...

It shows in a commitment to keeping nearly all women's ministries within the fold and supportive to the mission. Once women segregate into their own ministries, without any direct larger connection to overall mission, you will show symptoms of gender-splintering.

Men's missions should be active and completable - building, demolishing, or measurable. The women should be able to contribute to that direction, potentially keeping something with ongoing duties going.

In other words, figure out what the better things the men are doing, then inspire them to do something even better in the church (hint: it isn't ushering or helping out in the nursery, but you already know that!)

Develop hard labors that can be done for the benefit of the church. Have them split wood for the church to sell.

rycamor said...

I didn't say it was a dichotomy. I'm saying the Christian man needs to be better at the positive alpha traits because he is obliged to avoid the negative ones.

NC Dad said...

Back in the day (I'm 54 now) I was a fairly highly recruited defensive tackle in HS because I liked to hit people. The most fun part of the position was going head to head with someone else who showed some determination and see who would give in first. I never lost because I was never afraid of getting hurt. To say I did end up with some injuries would be an understatement. I broke over 20 bones and had 2 major surgeries during the 4 years of HS. When the time came to choose a college, I declined them all. I did not want to play anymore, partly due to the injuries (I knew I would pay a price later in life, and I am) and partly due to the fact I no longer wanted to be told what to do by a coach.

In hindsight, I now wish I had played, because you can't hit people like that without going to jail. But I digress.

I became a Christian at age 15 before I could start bagging the girls on my hitlist, and it stuck. Jesus was (and still is) everything to me, and when girls hit on me the choice was easy. In fact, there was no choice to be made. I was a virgin when I married at 27 because of Him, who He was to me, what He had done for me.

My wife has told me over the years that I am "not a nice guy". The mentors I had over the years as a young man tried to get that "mean streak" out of me, telling me not to be so aggressive in my demeanor. I was told that Jesus was meek and mild, I should be also. Never really bought into this. In the Charismatic movement in the '70s and '80s there was something called the "shepherdship movement", and their expressed intent was to mold men into sheep. They tried hard to get me to submit.

I have been told I intimidate people, and this has even been put on my employee reviews within the last year. I have never threatened anyone and have been nothing but a leader to the engineers who work for me.

I listen to the songs in church today call Jesus "the darling of heaven crucified" and I know immediately they were written by a woman.

I am teaching my son he is a man, not a nice guy. God made him as a man, not a woman who urinates while standing. I introduced him to Vox, and he has learned a lot through the posts and discussions such as this.

Good job guys, good job Vox.

DrTorch said...

You guys are spot on, IMO. That excerpt from Wild at Heart is exactly the one I think of when the subject of Game comes up.

The church has been so feminized and so corrupted, it does nothing to help men find their mission, so that's where EO and Eli will have to start. Career books help b/c they call it a "vocation" for a reason.

Once you find your passion, don't expect it to be easy. That's why you need a helpmate. She's not the mission, so anyone who is high-mantenance is out. Anyone who thinks you should help w/ her mission is out. Anyone who thinks that her mission is to "serve Jesus" and you're an afterthought, is OUT.

VD said...

The answer of course is to reject a feminized gospel and embrace a true image of how God ordered relationships and the church. But how will that show in day to day operations?

Step on those toes. Hard. Repeatedly. And if they cry, complain, or attempt to go around your back, stomp on them harder.

New Hombre said...

Great post. I think this topic dovetails with the Calvinism posts over at Vox Day. Personally, I think the topic of Christianity vs Chruchianity could evolve into its own site.

Jehu said...

In terms of preaching style, a church that is actually Christian rather than Churchian usually uses the scriptural exposition style---that is, it picks a book from the Bible that it hasn't gone through yet, preaches a series straight through the book, no skipping uncomfortable topics, and then goes on to the next book, cycling only once the entire Bible has been covered in depth. Doing this tends to seriously rein in the worst tendencies of pastors.

TimP said...

"The whole "what could you two have in common?" phrase is a complete sellout to popular culture. Serious interests are universal."

Oh, yeah. If the majority of your interests are things people eight years your senior (or junior in most cases) can't possible relate to, you are either a child or as immature as one.

MountainMan said...

I think this is a good idea if the church hasn't been inculcated with the idea that modern chivalric notions and white knighting = biblical masculinity. At my church much of what the leadership preaches is antithetical to game, even the aspects of game that aren't counter to clear biblical teachings. The culture is hip deep in these antithetical ideas. A large majority of the men believe that white knighting and overt self sacrifice for any woman is cornerstone of being a Godly man. One would not only have to counter what the preachers teach but what the church society pressures you to believe. It would be a long row to hoe.

Any whiff that the ideas being proffered are derived from game and you'd be immediately discredited. It would have to be a stealth operation. A true alpha who can lead men might be able to get away with the frontal assault on the church teachings but it would be tough and I'm not that guy. My method is a one-on-one approach with people I know and I never mention the word 'game'. I simply explain the underlying principles and how the principles line up with the Bible. A few people have heard me but it isn't enough to change the culture especially when the leadership has an unwavering commitment to white knighting.

Mr. Scott said...

Absolutely. I went to college late, and so ended up dating girls a decade or more younger. There was little, if any, difference in interests between my 19-year-old dates and my friends' 29-year-old girlfriends or 39-year-old wives, so the "nothing in common" argument doesn't fly.

EO said...

I think part of the problem is that I'm part of a church of 3000 attendees. It makes things rather difficult to topple things over. I have to start small with one on one stuff as well. Never mind the fact that it seems I'm fighting a gigantic well oiled machine. It's infuriating to see guys who are in leadership positions but have traits of the delta/gamma variety. Only a couple if any I would consider Beta. It's almost as if a massive indoctrination has taken place many years ago across America. I'm just now starting to see it for what it is. With that I'm just now in the process of changing myself. Hopefully with bettering myself I'll also be able to combat it.

EO said...

This is why I think Vox is a breath of fresh air. He expands on the concepts of game and it makes complete sense. In my short time of reading up on Game as Vox explains it, I've been able to see the Gamma or Delta traits in some of my friends. I just wish Vox would write a book on the subject. Even if it was just in a .pdf formant.

Samson J. said...

be warned, if you struggle with being chaste game will challenge you.

I want to agree with this, to the point where there are now times when I wonder whether I wouldn't be better off if I had never heard of Game. (Answer: no, but...) Probably all married men, even those like me who really love their wives, have periods of wondering "What if... I had married someone else..." but knowing that you actually could have married someone else if you had only known Game several years earlier can be very trying on the heart and will. Even if you don't really wish you had married someone else, the "What if?" thoughts still come sometimes.

DaveD said...

As far as Game sites, try Its a game site more aimed at guys looking for relationships than pump and dumps. It has a lot of good, basic articles on it.


EO said...

This is another thing that bothers me. Especially since I do tend to go for much younger than me women as well. It's like some thing that the culture has decided to look down upon suddenly despite the fact that it's been how men and women operated since the beginning. I guess I'm just tired of all the shaming done to all of us guys that do prefer younger women as opposed to our peers (who almost seem more bitter by the day.) The good thing that I've gained out of this is that I'm starting to not care what other people think or say.

TLM said...


In the past 5 years I left one church because the "puss" factor in the male leadership just screamed at me conscientiously as being wrong. I didnt want to emulate these men in any way, shape, or form. My family just started attending another church with 2 different pastors. The younger one is coming alive with the truth. He's recently told an 18,000 plus congregation that Christians are too nice and need to start taking a stand for Truth. It was awesome to witness a man breaking free from the chains of "churchianity". On the other hand, the other older pastor I can barely stomach. In a month's time this guy gave a sermon on the Fall and made it clear that Adam failed to protect his wife and essentially said that he was rrsponsible for sin in the world. I darn near fell out of my chair and walked out. Later, he proudly told the congregation that his wife turned him down the 1st "2" times he proposed to her! He said she had reservations about marrying a pastor. I cry BS, as anyone that knows Game, knows that's garbage. I feel for ya. As a Christian for a decade now, I'm completely put off by the manginas that are legion within the modern American church. As bad as it may sound, I still prefer the company of my "manly unsaved friends" than I do that of these folks that consider themselves men of God, but bend and kneel at every illogical whim of women and feminism in general.

jwshell said...

I've run into WAY too many men who either want to apply to "submit to one another idea" (Eph. 5:22) to marriage, which clearly does violence to the context of the passage, or will quote that stupid "taken from his side to be equal" quote or whatever it is from that 18th century commentary whose author escapes me at this minute...too many whipped men in the church who are in thrall to feminism...their views on childrearing are almost as bad, unsurprisingly...these men will ignore the plain language of Scripture to propogate these ideas...they are lost causes, I'm afraid...

Brad Andrews said...

Adam definitely did fail to protect his wife. That doesn't lessen her sin, but reading it indicates he was "there with her" and that sounds like a failure to me. It almost seemed like a beta moment where he let her take the lead in the wrong direction.

The woman was deceived but the man willfully sinned, as it is written. This definitely has implications for our lives.

Brad Andrews said...

The linked posts has a good point, but many (most?) of the comments and many other recent posts are completely aimed at "getting all the sex possible" and kind of work against the point.

That is the big flaw I still see in much of this - the heavy focus on going the worlds way to get sex, not to use good principles to properly live life.

Yes, game isn't all about sex, but griping at those who get that impression is rather shortsighted when so much of the material is all about that.

I have no doubt many of the principles work, but too many are focused on the wrong things for a long term stable society. They may get their immediate goal, but the long term picture is very bleak, from both male and female actions.

John Robie said...

What I'm wondering is how mentally shaking up the hierarchy of dudes in church (ie, I'm an 'alpha,' unlike that 'beta' over there and that 'gamma' over there) helps any given guy find a woman with a great attitude who is totally into him, who makes him happy and who helps him live a higher quality life?

MountainMan said...

TLM, Your pastor's statement about Adam being responsible for the sin in the world is not far from the mark. I won't say he is right or wrong because I don't know exactly what he means by responsible but the idea is supported by Romans 5:12-20. 5:12 specifically: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned."

Elioenai said...

Thank you all for your encouragement and advice! I'll see how it goes.

DrTorch said...

Three answers:

1. If a guy gets a good gal, he will refrain from his LTB tendancies, which can lead to him losing her, or at least straining their marriage.

2. If a guy is a perpetual gamma, delta or beta, and then recognizes how he can change, he will, by definition, get more attention from women. And they will be into "him".

3. Part of game is recognizing you need a mission, a purpose. It's part of why Roissey has to tell men to "be interesting." Young men need that lesson, it's Biblican, and empirically verified. And IMO, it's not taught well at most churches (except for telling them they need to be evangelizing all the time, which is of course flawed).

Daniel said...

You are missing something. Getting sex is about getting a goal in a social context, not necessarily about sinning against the body. The fact that some people use a very effective social goal setting/getting mechanism for sinful purposes should be no surprise.

But failing to learn from it on moral grounds is a little like a tank commander refusing to study Rommel because he was a Nazi.

Anonymous said...

Married Man Sex Life should be his next stop.

Anonymous said...

Amen. The Church is Christ and his people, with or without priestly mediation depending on what side of the Catholic/Protestant divide you fall on. But churches are just human operated administrative bodies, operated on administrative principles that are subject to varying degrees of Godly inspiration.

Churches tend to reflect society, and the elite in our society are chick'ing up our institutions, so it's no shock that the religious administrative bodies are heading in this direction. I can't blame God or religion for that; it's a strictly human failing and perhaps it's even in that sinful category of putting too much stock in the opinion of the world. I never saw anything about Christ demanding that we become something less than men in order to follow Him, and the Old Testament actually demands that men behave in a manly fashion. I do remember, hoever, a few passages in which Christ shouts at the devil, beats money changers out of the temple, and stares down gangs.

And yes, this sure does make it hard to raise a son these days. It is hard explaining to my young son that despite what the teachers say, he has my permission to smack a bully or defend a friend, and I will stand behind him even if he gets in trouble for it.

TLM said...

To the guys that weren't there for the sermon. It was a beta doing what they do without realizing how putting eve or women in general on high ground only strengthens their resolve to not taking responsibility for their actions. For this pastor, it was about scoring point with women in the pews. It appears he needs to do this every time he preaches. Spare me thesunday school lesson unless you've. Observed this guys style for some time.

RC said...

Your senior pastor may be a magina but on this point he's right. An Alpha would have thrown his wife behind him and beheaded the serpent. It was Adam's fault. He was the man, he had direct instructions from God, and he allowed it to happen. He also ate of it himself.

There are other places in Scripture that are consistent with this statement. Numbers 30 is one example.

NU 30:6 "If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself 7 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.

RC said...

A Christian man enjoys sex too. The more the better. Game works in a Christian marriage just as well as trolling for tramps.

Giraffe said...

My pastor actually mentioned Twilight in a negative light on Sunday. Probably didn't score many points with the ladies there.

Fred Mok said...

Beta-tude is characterized by passivity, supplication, and a heightened sensitivity to others’ feelings. As R. Bradley Andrews comments, Adam evidenced classic beta behavior. He should have spoken up to protect himself and his wife. Only he was charged with God’s command not to eat from the forbidden tree. Only he was charged to tend and care for the garden of Eden. And only he was made directly from the dirt that he was entrusted to cultivate. God’s purpose for mankind belonged solely to Adam. Woman was designed to support man. Being a helpmeet is a subordinate but not inferior position. In fact, God refers himself as the helpmeet of Israel. In God’s economy, value is not dependent on function.

God’s curse came on Adam because he listened to his wife instead of the giver of life.
The fall of man is the regression of the alpha male into beta-tude and the rise of women’s hypergamy. The curse is that people suffer loss in their intended function. Man endures pain from his function – work and execute his purpose. Woman endures pain from her function – relationships; loving people. The curse poisons her relationship with her husband so that she wants to control him through unrestrained hypergamy but instead he dominates her through self-centered game.

Jesus Christ redeems the effect of the curse. The cross and resurrection is a paradox of alpha confidence, commitment and initiative achieved through beta sacrifice, submission, and suffering. As Mark Driscoll, classic alpha male and megachurch pastor, puts it – Jesus is both tough AND tender. His strategic act of redemption frees men to pursue a purpose greater than their own selfish desires. Jesus enables men to work because their value is based on his completed work on the cross. Jesus enables women to love because he loved them first and unconditionally. Game, in it’s truest form, is the restoration of both men and women’s identity in Christ.

Fred Mok said...

EO (and other "unawakened" Christian men) your problem isn't about game. It's that you don't understand Christianity. Game is Christian. Jesus redeems men from beta-tude. See my comment below. If you have a church of 3000 people, look at the top and you will undoubtedly find men who exhibit alpha qualities. You cannot be a a Christ-like leader and be completely alpha. Christian leaders may act like jerks but it's always for a greater purpose. The same is true when leaders exercise gentleness and sensitivity.

CL said...

I did a short commentary on Wild At Heart here: Valiant, Vulnerable, and Scandalous.

Although the passage I picked out deals with women rather nicely too, I think the message on masculinity in the book is sound and it was refreshing to read a Christian author talking about in in the way he does.

Brad Andrews said...

I was not referring to the comments here, but those at the linked site. I read through them all and did still found the "sex now with anything hot that moves" idea to be strongly present. The discussion in this blog is generall more relaxed. I still see minimal focus on the proper balance, tho the MMSL site does have some, though from a slightly different worldview.

Brad Andrews said...

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, as the saying goes. The guy may have been a full beta, but pinning all the blame on Eve is still not correct. She certainly messed up pretty royally, but we are in our mess now because of Adam's sin, not hers.

BTW, my comment also came because I had just read and pondered that passage the day before. I had noted again that Adam was "there with her," not someplace away. That pins a strong element of responsibility on him in my view, which is consistent with the rest of the Scriptures. You are free to do it, but it is not productive to be so against one preacher that you vary from Biblical truth.

TLM said...

Please dont put words in my mouth. I never mentioned anything about all blame belonging to Eve. Im not against him so much as I am against his constant pandering to the chick base of the congregation. They, betas, literally canot help themselves. A major problem with middle aged pastors and especially the younger ones.

FHL said...

I think Mr. Andrews has a valid point though. Don't people who promote Game usually label guys "alpha, beta, etc." based on how much women they've hooked up with?

And even if they didn't, they still would base it on how much women want to hook up with you.

But what about St. Paul? Wasn't he celibate? And didn't he urge many of us to be celibate? On the basis that those who do can focus more of their attention on God?

Is St. Paul a "gamma?"

Didn't Jesus claim that marriage is difficult due to the requirement of monogamy, and that many of us would not be able to accept it? Is Jesus a "gamma?" Or perhaps a "sigma?" Hard to tell: gammas never get laid, alphas sleep with multiple women, sigmas are out of the loop but get blowjobs every once in a while... where do Jesus and St. Paul fit?

And what about the responsibilities St. Paul handed out? Wives are to be submissive and husbands are to love their wives. Nothing is said about husbands making their wives love them, or that the wife even has to love the husband at all; and nothing is said of the husband being responsible for a cheating wife, or a wife who is not sexually attracted to him.

I have yet to see a verse that claims a husband is responsible for creating sexual attraction... in almost all cases, a cheating wife is directly blamed, and so is the man she cheated with. So if an alpha hooks up with a beta's wife, if we are to follow biblical standards, the alpha and the woman would be condemned, but not the beta husband. A man is required to be strong- but in issues relating to God and goodness, not attracting women. It seems that if a man loves God, His laws, teachings, and the Church; then not passing a shit test is of no concern. Why would it concern him? He has God. If he falls out of favor with her, it's her sin and dilemma.

There are many verses which show that men should occupy a dominant role... but no verses claim men are responsible for their wives not loving them. Rather, men should show a dominant role because they hold responsibility to God. A man's glory is God, while a woman's is man. But a man's glory is certainly not a woman.

"Wise as serpents, innocent as doves."

Sure, you should know the state of affairs, but what you do in response is a completely separate question.

Did the Lord Jesus Christ mean to say that those who abuse you are in the right by teaching that you should turn the other cheek? And are those who sue you for your tunic justified in their actions when you give them your cloak? Do not call that which is bitter sweet, and that which is sweet bitter.

If all Game consisted of was tips for those seeking marriage (or those already in marriage) to build better relations with their wives, then I would have no problem with it. But it seems like a cohesive world-view... you're in it, whether you like it or not. Brad Pitt in bed with Angelina is a beta, monks attending Liturgy are gammas/sigmas.

Thankfully, the monks could care less. They're monks.

If you have God, what else do you need? Didn't people use to sing hymns in prison? And when the angel set them free, didn't St. Paul and his group stay behind to stop the guard from suicide? What has happened since then, that we are so quick to justify our natural desires, which we share even with the pagans, as worth orienting our life towards?

Anyways, sorry for the length and chaotic nature of this comment, I'm writing in a stream-of-consciousness style. I don't necessary disagree with Vox, I'm still thinking about this, still contemplating, and I haven't come to a conclusion yet.

Brad Andrews said...

I would agree that the wife is responsible if she "falls," but a wise husband will still do things to captivate his wife, even if they are the opposite of what many teach.

That said, I am still not comfortable with much of game in the light of the Scriptures. I cannot flirt with other women in good consciousness. I also know both my father and grandfather were womenizers and I would just as soon not develop that in me even if it gets me labeled as a gamma.

I am applying some things of course with reasonable results, but I doubt I will ever push things even as far as the MMSL book suggests.

Brad Andrews said...

I never said that was good. Your comment implied that his blaming Adam was wrong. I was commenting that it was not, which in no ways requires putting women on a pedestal.

Though whatever.

FHL said...

I agree with everything you said. I cannot remember it off the top of my head, but there is a part in the gospels where Jesus speaks of the worldly having wisdom, shouldn't the godly also have this wisdom?

Like I said, I'm not against Game as a practice in keeping a relationship stable. A flee-from-Egypt-through-the-Red-Sea, but take-their-silver-sort-of-thing...
But it can get to a point where it seems like you are just asking for trouble, spiritually that is. You can't build your entire worldview around this sole idea of attraction, going so far as to call Jesus, the Pantocreator, who spoke the Universe into existence ("Let there be light" and there was light), as an "alpha male" to satisfy a crude desire to elevate yourself through worldly gain. This is something much higher and much deeper.

I don't see the point in placing yourself and someone else into temptation. Doesn't the Lord's prayer say: "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil"? I can't say I haven't done it or that I will never do it again, but it is bound to end very badly, perhaps in worldly terms but definitely in regards to eternity.

What is MMSL? I tried to google it, found nothing related to this topic.

PC Geek said...


Absolutely fantastic post. I don't have much intelligent to say about it right now (it is late in my corner of the world) but I just wanted to say that this is a really good tying together of game and Christianity, and a good indictment of the pussification of the modern church.

*stifles yawn* - I gotta get off to bed.

FHL said...

Also, to what you said about your father and your grandfather, my own father cheated on my mother frequently, and this did affect my views. It would take a long leap of rationalizations to claim that she deserved it.

It seems that most of the time, this discussion ends up being men vs. women- but the way I see it is in terms of good vs. evil. If you cheat, you are in the wrong. For any reason.

Of course, the Lord forgives, I don't mean to take away anyone's hope, but that doesn't mean that what happened was right.

PC Geek said...


Too tired to write much now, but that whole advice 'against marriage; thing in Paul was a specific, not general, command given in very specific context. (Plus it was referring to a husband and wife abstaining from intercourse, not remaining unmarried.)

see for a good write-up on it.

this is a very common Scripture interpretation error and I have been guilty of it on numerous occasions as well.

Regarding the 'turn the other cheek' and pacifism stuff, well that is a much deeper topic, but your understanding is pretty off the mark. But this is not a theological debating blog so I will not elaborate.

Regarding the natural desires stuff, that has already been covered by commenters on this very post.

Definitely spend some time reading this blog and VD's 'main blog' as a lot of these issues are dealt with there need to reinvent the wheel.

The site I linked to above is one of many that could clear up the heavily feminized Churchianity and pietism that I see in your posts above.

But again, this is not a theology blog so that is all I am saying on the matter. No point in stirring up a big debate and others have addressed this stuff better than I could anyway.

dice said...

Vox, could you, at some point, address some of the most oft-cited arguments against game? You can find a summary on

Desert Cat said...

FHL, MMSL = Married Man Sex Life. On the right sidebar under "aspects of game" click on "Athol Kay".

Athol writes about game specifically as applied within a marriage relationship. He is not Christian, but his general principles are essentially Christian compatible.

Desert Cat said...

FHL, MMSL = Married Man Sex Life. On the right sidebar under "aspects of game" click on "Athol Kay".

Athol writes about game specifically as applied within a marriage relationship. He is not Christian, but his general principles are essentially Christian compatible.

PC Geek said...


This is not a theological debate site so I will be quick (although this stuff does touch on the subject matter of the post.)

Regarding the whole marriage issue you brought up above (1 corinthians 7) - you are misunderstanding this passage by taking a special instruction for one period of time and saying that it applies to everybody everywhere - it is a very common mistake for people to not realize that Paul was talking about a very specific circumstance (a food shortage in Corinth) and not a general instruction for all time.

If you are curious, here is a good write-up on this:

Also, you said:

"Did the Lord Jesus Christ mean to say that those who abuse you are in the right by teaching that you should turn the other cheek? And are those who sue you for your tunic justified in their actions when you give them your cloak? Do not call that which is bitter sweet, and that which is sweet bitter. "

This had nothing to do with pacifism and letting yourself be a doormat.

salient quote: "Taken in their social context, these commands require no such things. "Resist not evil" is a well-known Jewish proverb (Ps. 37:1, 8; Prov. 24:19) and actually means, do not compete with evildoers by trying to outdo them in terms of getting back at them. Three examples for the teaching follow: Turn the other cheek; if someone sues you for your cloak, also give them your tunic; if you are forced to go one mile, go two. All three of these things refer to what amount to inconvenient, but nevertheless perfectly legal, impositions on the person. The "slap on the cheek" is a type of personal insult, so that the command to turn the other cheek is essentially a command not to start trading insults, but take the higher ground and turn away from the exchange."

I am calling those two issues out specifically, but overall you seem to be trapped in a very highly feminized Churchianity. Reading this site, VP, as well as the site I linked to should be a great way to start escaping from that and into a much more substantive faith.

Anyway, that is all I have to say on the matter. Hopefully this post is considered sufficiently 'on topic'...

Brad Andrews said...

A key question is also if it is appropriate for someone who seeks to please God with their life, or rather which parts are.

Whether it works or not is separate from whether it is the proper thing to do. Murder works, at least for a while, but is not proper. (See any number of thugs that have ruled for periods.)

I have yet to see a good Biblical discussion of a wide range of game, though a few things have been touched on.

FHL said...

Thank you for your replies, Desert Cat and PC Geek. I don't think I am in a feminized Christianity. I think I'm in a very cynical one, where real loving relationship are near impossible, so there is no need to bother. I realize I may have been too strong and come off as attempting to refute game theory. I am not. It seems perfectly legitimate, and I have seen that it "works." It is the "hookup culture" that was bothering me. I am in the process of trying to figure out how to balance it in a Christian life without dragging myself into needless sin.

I think the only solution from here on is to accept Game theory as the reality (which is no trouble to me, I realized this several years ago), but now I must figure out what parts of Game I should actively use and which parts I should not utilize. Like Mr. Andrews had mentioned, I cannot think that flirting with other women can come to any good. Unless you are of strong enough character where you actually won't commit adultery (or fantasize about it, for that matter).

FHL said...

And an additional note: one of my problems is that it seems by refusing to participate in some aspects of Game culture, one is denying Game theory. This seems to always be the view by those vocal in this group. If you aren't using game, you are somehow a liberal feminist with no grasp on reality.

I don't think that's the case. I think everything Roissy and Vox say on this subject is quite accurate in terms of the nature of reality. I used to use it (and still do, to an extent). But once I have rules placed into my head by my religion, such as "do not covet your neighbor's wife" and "the Lord hates divorce," I cannot fully connect with these people anymore. Their values are much different than mine.

This is what I meant by quoting the passage "wise as serpents, harmless as doves." (I misquoted it the first time; saying 'innocent' instead of 'harmless.')

FHL said...

Oh, and I third note (sorry... like I said, I'm still thinking about this. And another apology for leading back into theology; I think it's relevant, ignore or reply if you wish...):

When I brought up "turn the other cheek" and the rest, the intention was not to say that a person should be a doormat or a pacifist, but rather that a person should realize what was important. I assumed that these rules do not apply to all times and all situations. But I did take these passages to indicate that being a good and godly person was of greater worth than simple material value.

Game culture seems to treat those who have spouses who are of a low "attraction value" as insignificant, and thus they seem to encourage (by slight-of-hand mockery and whatnot) that a person value that which is material over that which is spiritual. And no, I am not saying fat chicks are more spiritual, or women can provide you with spiritual goods; I am saying that the spiritual route would be to value God and His laws above material and social concerns.

What is the difference between marrying a 6 or a 9? Inconvenience? Yet oftentimes, Game proponents will label anyone who gets with an unattractive chick as being on a lower social scale- which may be true- but they go further then and claim that they are evil, and they are anti-Christian, and whatnot!

This is also why I brought up the issue of those who were celibate, such as St. Paul and monks. Game proponents would call them "gammas." They would then say that the "gammas" were evil. They would say St. Paul was evil. And I know you could probably identify areas where they are not gammas, but would anyone take a deeper look than their numbers if they weren't named "Saints" in the first place?

I am not sure if any here would agree with me (hell, I don't even know if I agree with me!), maybe they would, maybe even Vox would, maybe they wouldn't. Hard for me to tell sometimes, as Vox will often affirm Game theory, but then leave Game culture up for grabs (all the while participating in it and legitimizing it).

PC Geek said...

"What has happened since then, that we are so quick to justify our natural desires, which we share even with the pagans, as worth orienting our life towards?"

Our desires are not always wrong - the issue is when they conflict with God's Will. A redeemed heart, although still subject to the weakness of human nature, does have righteous desires in there. And in any event, if a pagan was really hungry they would desire food, as would a Christian. How is going ahead and eat that food equate to (sinful) "natural desires" that we are somehow orienting our lives towards?

The writings of that John Eldredge guy who keeps popping up on this form goes into this rather well. This issue has been brought up here and on VP as well several times so I won't elaborate on it here.

No one is saying that you are a liberal feminist because you deny some aspects of Game theory, I said you appear to be a feminized Churchian based on the statements that you made earlier appearing to incorrectly state pacifism and the superiority of celibacy as the proper Christian stances and implied that simply acting like a man as opposed to a pussified wimp is somehow 'satisfying natural desires'.

You seem to confuse any desire for anything with 'sinful natural desires' - a typical pussified beta/Churchian belief.

You can disagree with game if you want and not be a feminized male, and no one is saying otherwise, just make sure that you are disagreeing with game itself as opposed to how some people use it - that seems to me to be what you are doing here.

FHL said...

Ok, thank you for your answer. I'll keep this comment short by simply saying I made several errors in my comments, as well as probably still having issues I need to work through, and you have pointed them out. May God bless you.

PC Geek said...

Thanks. I hope I don't come off as a tool (I am a bit of an aspie, I suspect) - it's just that I myself have really struggled with these issues and when I see others dealing with the same thing somewhere else I tend to pounce on it aggressively. Hopefully I was still helpful despite my aspie tendencies.

God bless you as well.

PC Geek said...


One last thing...

I think it was Martin Luther that said something like (paraphrasing) "humanity is like a drunk man who, if he stumbles to one side of the road, and you push him back on the road stumbles to the other side." Basically, it is very easy to fall to either extreme - very effeminate, or very hyper-uber-masculine he-man, whereas Christianity prescribes a third way, which has *some* flavors of walking a middle ground (leaning toward the masculine side). However, it is so easy for all of us, fallen as we are, to go to one extreme side or the other. Being both tough and tender simultaneously is much easier said (or typed) than done.

I gotta get back to my homework, but it was nice talking to you, even if I am a bit of a sperg.

LP2021 Bank of LP Work in Progress said...

No, you simply gave up on that particular church. You didn't give up on God. When I found that the RCC's sisterhood nun life and church history was not for me, I left. When I visited churches (RCC or protestant) that were clearly questionable, emo, homo, fatalistic (rapture churches) or gossipy, I leave.

Consider psalm 1, if you continue your walk with Christ that is all that matters.

FHL said...

I didn't want to reply, mostly because I didn't want this to turn into a sort of strange, you-hang-up-the-phone-first bromance ("Thank you." "Thank you!" "No- thank you!").

But I felt guilty to leave you at that, and I need to say that you didn't come out "aspie" at all. I don't really know what asperger's is like in reality- but you most certainly did not come out as a "tool."

You were helpful; at the very least in showing me how I need to portray my views (I forgot, not all Christian churches approve of monks, nuns, and celibacy...).

I don't think you've fully understood what I meant to say (and that is mostly my fault in forgetting my audience and failing to present the ideas properly), but the conversation would have ultimately led into a theological debate, and like you said, this isn't the place to discuss it. Plus, it could possibly go on forever (based on past experience- the one who "wins" an internet debate is the one who decides he can spend the rest of his years continuously checking the same the message board...).

Anonymous said...

I don't see anything improper about using game in an LTR or otherwise, provided the woman is not married. I never had to use game, women came to me, but I wasn't interested, since I had bought into the churchian, yet unbiblical "no sex without marriage" line.


Anonymous said...

That's not churchian though Caballarius. You are now buying into a wordly concept.

Anonymous said...

I'm getting a bit confused with all this talk about game & Christianity. Can someone please point out to me the verses in the Bible where it prohibits sex before marriage? I know that adultery is out of the questions, but is it true that a Christian is not allowed sex before marriage? And is that also a concept still held to be valid in our times, because I know that some concepts in the Bible are not treated the same now as then.

Dreadpiratk said...

The Bible does not specifically prohibit pre-marital sex simply because it essentially didn't exist at that time. Sex was marriage. If you had sex with a woman and you were both virgin, you were married to her, Period. The simplest form of marriage was in fact to have sex with a woman, no ceremony needed. If you had sex with a woman who wasn't a virgin, you were committing adultery. Hence the many verses dealing with adultery and few dealing directly with pre-marital sex. The overall message of the Bible is that sex is to be enjoyed within a married relationship, not outside. Sadly parts of the church have corrupted this to mean that sex is bad, but slightly less bad if you're married which is complete nonsense.

What I find fascinating is that so many of the statistics and observations on Married Game sites confirm that the Biblical model for sexuality is in fact the best way to enjoy a successful marriage and have the best sex life possible (Athol's virgin strategy). Maybe God isn't just trying to spoil our fun after all? Maybe He is telling us how to maximize it, having created our sex drive and all.

Elioenai said...

Where's the "Like" button?

Mike C said...

Just a random thought... and maybe I'm repeating something, but isn't the story of Adam and Eve essentially a story about a massive shit-test, and the penalties for failing that shit test and abdicating leadership about doing the right thing and capitulating to the emotion of the moment?

Post a Comment