Here‘s the best argument I’ve yet read for the MRM: it’s a way to disprove androgynism via reducio ad absurdum:
Richard T. Ford’s new article, Rights Gone Wrong, laments the Alinskyite strategy increasingly deployed by White males of forcing the Civil Rights hustle to live up to its own rhetoric. He drips with contempt for his fellow males, appealing to his warped notion of “common sense”. For him, common sense boils down to the unspoken premise of the Civil Rights Movement: It’s a weapon to bludgeon White males. It’s inappropriate and nonsensical to apply the statutes as written, because the intention is the opposite of what’s written. It’s a fig leaf of universal rhetoric over the giant throbbing obscenity of anti-White and anti-male zero-sum identity politics.
Ford’s leopard-print thong is in a bunch because a man alleged sexual discrimination in a Mother’s Day contest. Of course he was sexually discriminated against for being a man, it was a Mother’s Day contest. Ford echoes the popular sentiment which is that the man should shut up and “man-up”. In a sane world, I would concur. However, there’s only one way to fight a social and legal system which is half-retarded and throws the retarded half in your lap: go full retard.
As for “Game”, I’m still struggling to find a good thing to say about it. It’s not just that the central idea–that women are amoral automata driven totally by their sex drives and social pressure, that they possess neither consciences nor self-awareness–is offensive and obnoxious. If an idea is true, then the fault for offensiveness lies with he who takes offense. But that’s just it: this claim is completely ridiculous. The game model of women doesn’t describe any woman I’ve ever met. It’s a male fantasy. Would it do society good if women were taken down a peg, if their misbehavior were noted and criticized? Sure, but let’s not fight the lie of feminism with an even more obvious falsehood.
The truth of the matter is peculiar, but it lies right before our eyes. Our culture encourages women to be selfish, to regard career as “self-actualization” rather than service, to put career before family, to engage in reckless promiscuity without censor, to show unwarranted contempt for their husbands, to frivolously abandon their husbands and deprive their children of fathers, to murder their children. If you don’t believe me, go over to Dalrock‘s page for a couple of hours, and you’ll be fully convinced. One might expect that such a culture would turn women into immoral monsters. It has indeed produced more than a few who’ve been lionized by the feminist media. On the other hand, we see with out very eyes that most women continue to live responsible lives. If you ask them, they will no doubt repeat the lines they’ve been told about “empowerment” and being “sex positive” being such good things. But if you watch what they do, you’ll see most of them show great kindness to their families (including the men), sometimes even making real sacrifices for them. They’re like the brother in the parable who said he wouldn’t help his father, but later did–hypocrites, but in a good way.
Filed under: Gender roles |
Throne and Altar 
The truth seems to lie about half way between what is expressed here and what Gamers say. My experience is that the average modern woman is an “amoral automata driven totally by their sex drives and social pressure, that they possess neither consciences nor self-awareness”. When a woman grows up being told that she can do no wrong, that she is perfect just as she is, then she grows up to be a narcissistic bitch incapable of introspection, and so becomes just what Gamers describe. When I look at American women, this is exactly what I see. Most American women do not lead responsible lives. Most divorce their husbands which is harmful to their children and is totally irresponsible. That is if they even bother getting married before having children.
Traditional men should defend traditional women, but should recognize that modern women are not traditional and are not worth defending. Let the Gamers manipulate these women. These women are just vermin, not worthy of any decent man’s thought. Just forget them.
Hi fschmidt,
Your exasperation with American female decadence is certainly understandable, but this is surely an exaggeration. I’m pretty sure that women who divorce their husbands are a large minority, but not a majority. The real wonder is that, given their evil upbringing, so many women don’t end up like the Gamers’ picture of them.
I think there is cause to believe that human females conscious minds are completely disconnected from the urgings coming from their hind-brains.
1. In all of recorded history, no mother or sister or any female relative of a young man – for whom she wishes the best in life – has told anything close to the truth about what really makes a woman want to f ck one guy and not the other. It is always, “be nice” , “be yourself” ad nausem when in fact that is only applicable in cases where her hind brain actually wants the guy to go for her. 99.99 % of men should never bother being nice or honest to them as far as sexual interest is concerned. That skipped over, but all important, attraction phase is never spoken of in any helpful way by human females. They appear incapable of honestly describing it, even when they try. Contrast that to a young man talking with dead accuracy about turns him on, even from a young age
2. A famous experiment was done recently in which female subjects were hooking with a vagina moisture-meter and then shown a series of various porno images. Some scenes set them off and some did not. The thing is, their conscious answers revealed zero correlation with the findings of the tingle-ometer. Much theorizing followed. Much of it was the routine, ritualistic need to put the blame on the patriarchy. It seems to be off limits in that world to point to the obvious – which is that the poor dears lack the neurological wiring to consciously access the truth of what their pussies really want.
Bonald, I have to disagree about modern women. I’ve heard it from too many guys that they envy my husband for having a wife like myself, which indicates to me that the majority of men are whipped and homeless in their own homes. You may consider it a jaded point of view, but as a woman picking up on the nuances of another woman’s self-deceit, I can tell you that many women are “kind” “nice” “caring” “considerate” blah, blah, blah, primarily because they feel guilty about not being the mothers they know they should be. There is a natural affection which will play out in how they care for their children, but this affection is subject to the greater desire to be a “fulfilled woman” as society has told them they should be. They are pulled both ways, to be both the domestic, and the bread-winner, and they become mediocre at both, feel unfulfilled as a bread-winner, and guilty for not doing the duty as a domestic. In the meantime, the father’s arms are strapped – they have no voice in saying how the children should be disciplined (mommy doesn’t want to do it, she feels guilty, remember?) So instead she gives them stuff, spoils them, and doesn’t allow father to be the authority figures that he should be because it would point the finger at her. I’m disgusted with modern women, and at the same time I pity them because they just have no clue how much damage they are doing (except for those that genuinely know what they are doing and continue doing it).
True the gamers have got it all wrong about female sex drive – but for initial attraction. i think when it comes to initial attraction it’s more sweeping in females than it is in males. males can categorize it more easily – this is my body desiring this woman, but with a woman, it’s all consuming, which is also why they are completely broken up when the guy just leaves. my problem with gamers is that they support irresponsible citizenry; in essence they just don’t give a crap about society as a whole, just about whether or not they get laid.
I’m rather Cartesian about such claims myself. I don’t see how it’s meaningful to say that someone is sexually aroused and doesn’t know it. A more sensible conclusion might be that vaginal moisture isn’t a reliable indicator of arousal.
Bonald
Of course you cannot imagine being aroused and not be conscious of it. You are a guy. Nor can you really not know what you find to be most pleasing.
Of course it is unimaginably strange to you that females would not operate this way. Especially since they cannot explain any of this – themselves truthfully. So, how are guys supposed to figure this out?
If this continues to play out the way it seems the Roissisphere will be up there is Einstein and Newton for seeing below the surface of things.
Vaginal engorgement/wetness is pretty much an exact parallel with having an erection. It does not speak to the intention to act in a certain way but it means what it means.
Women have responded to this study by saying, “Maybe vaginal engorgement is not the same thing as being turned on?” They ask it as a question. A guy could be forgiven for asking this; but the owner of a vagina? The implications are interesting, to say the least.
I don’t have any trouble finding good things to say about game. It taught me to stop engaging in dozens of behaviors that are sexually repulsive to women and were utterly preventing any possibility of ever having an intimate relationship with one. It taught me that extreme niceness and obsequiousness smack of desperation, whereas I had presumed that the problem was my not being nice and giving enough. It taught me not to reveal my sexual interest in the nauseating “tell her how much you feel about her” model of the movies. It taught me that everything feminists had taught me about how men should behave was making me feminine and unattractive. It taught me not to obviously try to impress women. It taught me that I was mistaken in thinking I needed to make my conversation more “interesting,” by which I meant intellectual and erudite. It taught me that women can sense when you’re thinking through every word you say like you’re solving a social math puzzle, or when you’re thinking about what you’ll say next while they’re talking, and they don’t like either one. It taught me not to filter every single action I did by first asking myself whether she’d like it.
On the positive side, I learned that women instinctively sense your connection with your body, and that developing that connection makes you more attractive, especially if you started as an in-your-head carrying case for a brain like me. I learned about “vibe” and how the comfort, ease, humor, and masculinity you lend to a conversation is much more important than any words you say. I learned the importance of breathing deeply, feeling the sensation in my groin, relaxing my eyes, and being present in my body. I learned to keep my mind uncluttered and spontaneous during conversation. I was utterly shocked and flabbergasted to learn that women are attracted to men who stand up for themselves, have standards, and don’t do everything the women want. (I really can’t convey how radically that inverted EVERYTHING I knew about the world.) I learned to lead and not always look to them for direction and approval. I learned conversation topics that are a lot more fun than the cerebral ones I was using before. I learned how to be playful and how to tease affectionately. I learned that most of the behaviors that turn women on were things I thought only assholes did. I learned that it’s my job to make a move and her job to worry about whether to accept or reject it. I learned that it’s okay to touch people, and how to do it without causing discomfort. Perhaps the single most important thing I learned was to convey my sexual interest through touch and indirection (the casual hand-holding test is the single most awesome move in all of game) rather than just verbalizing it like a trivia fact. And I learned that when I do verbalize interest, it’s better to make it sexual than to make it lovey-dovey. I could go on and on…I’m barely scratching the surface here.
This is the stuff I think of as Game, though maybe some of it could simply be called social skills. But these are truths largely banned from discussion in polite society, though I don’t believe a single thing I listed is manipulative. I didn’t learn any of them from parents, society, school, books, or the media…in fact, all these sources taught me the OPPOSITE of what’s written above. Every time I saw a woman slapping a man on TV or in a movie, it was for some act that turns out to be alluring in real life when the circumstances are right and the man is right. I learned every single thing I’ve listed above from the seduction community, and I don’t know where else a man today can learn any of it.
Bonald, I understand your skepticism. But I think the deepest wisdom from the game community is a wealth of observation that there is a huge disconnect between what women say/believe they want and how their bodies/behavior respond to what men actually do, with vaginal moisture being merely one manifestation among hundreds. If you spend enough time reading the best, most perceptive writers in game, you realize that it’s the collective story of one man after another who came to game, doubted as you are doubting, did the recommended experiments, and discovered (often to his horror) that women really do respond as advertised, sometimes at the very same instant as they’re articulating the opposite.
The inability of women to observe cause and effect in their own sexuality seems to be built in to the neurology. It makes sense if you presume that nature/God designed sexual arousal mechanisms to be extremely difficult to fool. Because those mechanisms depend primarily on a man’s behavior (and much less on his beauty), it improves women’s discrimination to send false signals about what arouses them. And self-deception is an important defense against jealous men. But these are just speculative explanations for what is, at bottom, an empirical fact that’s been carefully verified by many men.
(P.S. I agree with everything Rum said. Yes, women can be sexually aroused and not know it. Women can be sexually aroused while believing they hate you. If Rum’s talk about Einstein and Newton sounds hyperbolic, I believe the seduction community has made insights into human nature of Dovstoyevskian profundity.)
Modern Christian Traditionalists have no problem, at all, in describing male sexuality as a thing deeply fallen into the pit of carnality, waywardness, and shame such that the only cure is to reform it, by force if necessary, in order to sustain social health and hygeine.
For reasons never found in scripture these same blind idiots hold up feral female sexuality as a thing to be deferred to and expedited in all instances.
If they get away with this, your grandkids will live in grass huts and have no knowledge of any tradition.
I’m quite willing to believe that the Game guys are mostly correct when they claim that X, Y or Z tends to sexually arouse women. They aren’t plumbing new Dostoyevskian depths of the human soul, they’re just systematising and writing down what millions of womanisers and lotharios have known very well for tens of thousands of years. It’s no more and no less than psychological manipulation – it’s not new, it’s not clever, and it’s nothing to be very proud of.
My problem with “Game” is twofold.
Firstly, as with all gender generalisations, what they claim is only true up to a point. It’s a demonstrable fact that different women and men are attracted to different behaviours/people. Sure, you can see some general trends – and a man who understands those trends is going to get laid a lot more than a man who doesn’t – but there are just too many exceptions and grey areas in human psychology. The pseudoscientific terminology – “alphas”, “dating market value”, and so on – just disguises this. Sexuality is a notoriously difficult area to generalise about (just consider the prevalence of unusual fetishes and bi- and homosexuality).
That argument probably won’t appeal to you because I get the impression (if I may say so) that you share with these guys a pretty black-and-white view of gender. However, I think we can both agree on the second reason why “Game” is a really bad thing, and that is that it is based on selfishness and manipulation. At worst, it’s a form of bullying (just see some of the passive-aggressive tactics that are recommended to keep women interested – whether they work is *so* not the point). It degrades everyone who’s involved in it. When I was living in Ireland, I had a friend who was deeply into it and just couldn’t understand why I wouldn’t want to sleep with every hot girl (or every girl, period) that I met. But at the end of the day, some of us just don’t want to buy into this sort of thing – either because we think it’s immoral in ethical/religious terms, or because we just don’t want to live like animals.
Bingo
I can tell you that many women are “kind” “nice” “caring” “considerate” blah, blah, blah, primarily because they feel guilty about not being the mothers they know they should be.
A lot of these girls do it out of a social duty instead of innate desire. Likewise, many of the “sluts” are also doing what they are doing out of social expectation not out of innate promiscuity.
Bonald, men and women are not cognitively the same.
True the gamers have got it all wrong about female sex drive
Disagree. Some of the gamers are “reductionist”, in purely reducing relationships to the dimension of sexual attraction. The more sophisticated “gamists” recognise that it is one, but very important, dimension with regard to relationship dynamics. The problem with traditionalists is that they seem to regard this dimension as irrelevant or “impure”. The dismissal of this dimension by traditionalists left traditionalism open to attack by the Left. An attack which cumulated with the sexual revolution.
We have carnal natures, and marital relationships legitimate expression of this carnality. The thing is, a woman can’t just switch her desire on by “platonic love”, rather it’s stimulated by virile masculinity. Lubby-dubbiness or unmasculine behaviour kills it. Game is a rediscovery of virility.
I think you make the most important point in the last paragraph. I’d guess that a lot of what you’re talking about is simply good, practical advice about how to make yourself more attractive to women and avoid behaviours that have the opposite effect – emphasising dominant, “masculine” behaviours and avoiding coming across as a needy wuss (speaking as a happily married wuss myself). If you say that you needed to know this because Hollywood movies etc misinformed you, fair enough. But I get the impression that most people in the “Game” community aren’t just in it to learn more effective dating techniques. The ones I’ve come across are buying into a whole lifestyle that’s based on hedonism and manipuation, and I have a problem with that.
Right, and Justin at “The Truth Shall Set You Free” made a similar point a while back. Game advocates try to present the least objectionable parts of their program as being representative of the whole, like cultivating personal confidence and becoming an engaging conversationalist, and then declare that anyone who opposes game must think men ought to be spineless, boring beta males to be subordinated to women. But of course one doesn’t follow from the other: if game were merely instruction in making oneself more attractive and interesting, we’d be all for it. It’s the worldview that accompanies game that we object to: the thoughtless atheism, consequentialism, hedonism, and crudity.
You’re not going to find anyone on this blog who’s sympathetic to Christian feminists.
This is the kind of thing that bothers about me gamers, the fact that they have absolutely zero perspective on this issue (although I guess it’s unfair to suppose anyone’s ever accused them of an overabundance of perspective). They present our only options as lifeless Puritanical asceticism or else modern utilitarian hedonism (with or without the feminist glean, corresponding to feminists’ and gamers’ respective desires). Nowhere is the prospect considered that we might try to restore the dignity and nobility of traditional sexual roles, with all the duties and obligations they require.
“We have carnal natures, and marital relationships legitimate expression of this carnality. The thing is, a woman can’t just switch her desire on by “platonic love”, rather it’s stimulated by virile masculinity. Lubby-dubbiness or unmasculine behaviour kills it.”
I definitely agree with this.
“Game is a rediscovery of virility.”
Were game theory presented as a much needed part of moral and legitimate relationships, a re-teaching of men on how to be men and how women should be treated in order to facilitate a healthier relationship, and not focus primarily on sex as the end, disregarding whether or not that sex takes place within legitimate relationships, I would agree.
Unfortunately, it’s not presented in such a fashion. While it can accidentally provide improvement for the lives of married men, and those men would rightfully see such improvement as necessary to the continued happiness of their marriage and be grateful to “game” for its influence, the primary intent of “game” is not to improve marriages but to teach men how to satisfy their sexual desires with no strings attached. It is a rediscovery of virility, but if the end is immoral, which it by and large is, the virility discovered offers nothing elevating for society, but that men get more sex more easily. It is virility at the service of a bestial act, unraised to anything more, rather than at the service of common society.
@ Proph and Reggie: exactly
“the primary intent of “game” is not to improve marriages but to teach men how to satisfy their sexual desires with no strings attached. It is a rediscovery of virility, but if the end is immoral, which it by and large is, the virility discovered offers nothing elevating for society, but that men get more sex more easily. It is virility at the service of a bestial act, unraised to anything more, rather than at the service of common society.”
I suspect that, in a traditional society, the insights of “Game” would be transmitted organically – the older males of the tribe would teach the younger men how to deal with women (and the women would do likewise), or maybe older brothers would pass on their experience to younger brothers. But this would all take place within the parameters of the community’s customs and values.
The problem is that “Game” is now a marketable commodity, divorced from any social or moral context. Sex seems to be the only objective.
I also have a problem with the prescriptive nature of “Game” – i.e. *all* women behave/think like this, and *all* men should therefore do this. Well, actually, no, we’re not all the same.
As a Catholic, I worry about where all this is headed, but as a liberal I don’t have any straightforward answers. The only thing I’m pretty sure of is that a top-down, governmental or semi-governmental solution will almost certainly make the problem worse.
My favorite explanation for womens inability to deal consciously with their own sexual desires is built on the notion that their hind-brain sexual turn-on module is a simple, primitive thing inherited from the deep past. It picks up on, enjoys, and responds to signs of strength and dominance in the male just like it is with their fore-sisters – female mice, goats, or crocadiles. At that deep level, attraction is not based on anything but the appearance of genetic fitness. At the deep level, they do not care how you treat them because relationships with males are almost universally very short term and the female will raise her young without any help from a male. That describes how it is for virtually all of nature.
For an evolutionary eye blink of time, human females have needed lots of help from males to raise her kids. In that sudden eye blink it became necessary for her to convince men that her children to be raised were the spawn of a particular man. However, given the virtual 50:50 sex ratio this human females must get commitment from a guy for whom she has little to no real attraction (because of her raging hypergamy and the shortage of dominant males).
Since no male would make a binding, lifetime commitment to a female who told him upfront that she found him to be repellant sexually because of his lack of dominance/social rank/brute strength/etc. she needs to keep the urgings of her authentic sexual attraction module a deep secret. And since deception is inherently easier when the deceiver has no awareness of the truth being hidden, nature strongly punishes women with self awareness regarding their sexual feelings. Unless they snagged and alpha for commitment they were destined to go without male investment.
I don’t know about other posters here, but I regard most evolutionary speculations about human mating behaviour as being both unproven and unprovable.
At best, they are more or less plausible. At worst, they are on a par with Kipling’s “Just So” stories. A person of faith will also have an additonal perpsective on this issue.
But then, I guess I would say that, being a humanities graduate – and I guess the desire to find a simple, scientific explanatory key to the range and diversity human behaviour is a quintessentially male attribute.
I should have added to “she needs to keep the urgings of her authentic sexual attraction module a deep secret” – “while simultaneously telling him convincingly that she is turned on by him doing things that enrich her.” Lke gift giving or acting nice, etc.
R. Perrin
So, why are human females so prone to say one thing and do another in their choice of sexual partners in this free form sexual marketplace?
It is no good saying they are not doing this.
Something like this, I think. The details will always be obscure, of course, but the broad contours are not.
I don’t know why people of faith are troubled by this. Urges are not destiny to people who have moral agency. People with moral agency who are aware of their “wired/base” urges have a choice as to whether or not to indulge them. However, if these base/wired urges remain obscure, remain denied, and remain hidden from the moral agent, then of course they have a greater tendency to become destiny. Therefore, awareness is *key*. The male tendencies/foibles are well recognized, whereas the female ones are largely not, and this is most notably the case among conservatives of all stripes, including trads — mostly because they do not *wish* them to be so. In taking that approach, they create an atmosphere of continued denial, and continued obfuscation, which precisely undermines the moral agency of the women whose basic decency they so long to defend.
It’s a true paradox, really, and a sad one.
Hello, Rum.
I actually don’t deny most of the “Game” insights on a general level…. I just object to the sweeping nature of the claims that are made, and the uses to which they are put.
Look at it this way. Insurance companies know that women are more careful drivers than men. They adjust their premiums and benefits accordingly. But this insight isn’t going to be a reliable guide to whether you should be accepting a lift home from a particular man or woman on a particular occasion.
I don’t agree with the radical feminist claim that men and women are blank slates, but I also don’t agree with the “Game” assumption that men and women’s behaviour is necessarily defined by gender norms. To me, that’s pseudoscience – or, just possibly, my prejudices as a humanities grad.
Brendan
Exactly.
Religious folks have never had a problem with looking the problematic nature of male sexuality straight in the eye. Recognizing the sheer earthiness of the source of these problems and the need for direct, conscious dealing with them never threatened to over turn the foundations of their faith in the spiritual nature of Man.
The problem is that they often mistake the way women have behaved in the past in traditional societies with how women would behave if the old restraints were not there. Since it seemed like women did not have to struggle as hard as men to avoid sexual waywardness the trads assumed their inherent, feral natures were more towards monagmous, stable pairing. In fairness to them, they were never shown any thing different than that by women.
Now, in the space of a few decades, women have for the first time ever, been freed from the need to please one man or even one family to get all the support she needs plus now the freedom from unwanted pregnancy. So they start living sexual lives like a bonobo or a chimp.Like they were ANIMALS! Who could guessed that they were animals in the same way men have always been understood as animals? Gasp!
In the past, they could not afford to express that side of themselves. Now they think they can. That is all there is to say about the deep issues here.
But none of this should be seen as a new issue for ontology.
I don’t particularly dispute any of Game’s claims about what the average woman finds attractive. Believe it or not, I’m not particularly interested. The details of people’s carnal temptations is a lot less interesting to me than their social roles and self-understanding. I do think it’s a bit ironic that one big Game insight is that you’re not supposed to act too interested in attracting women, but Game itself is a body of lore developed by and for people who are obsessed with the subject. Now that I’ve successfully reproduced, I don’t give a rat’s ass anymore what turns women on. I expect that it will be more practical to suppress women’s sexual desires than to find a licit way to fulfill them. That’s how it is with men, after all.
No, what I object to about Game is this idea that women have no other side than their carnal side, that they have no free will, no sense of duty, and no capacity for self-sacrificial love. This is what is obviously false, heretical, and inimical to public morals. Gamers may not intend it, but they are actually helping make excuses for cheating women. They actually agree that the “poor dear” couldn’t help herself, that her husband wasn’t “meeting her needs” by being dominant enough. If women are not free, spiritual beings, then they can have no responsibility. I would say that Game (at least this deterministic aspect of it, which is all that I’m interested in) is more incompatible with MRM than traditionalism is. The latter has always taught that female adultery and fornication are sinful. Yes, that’s right, we’ve *always believed this*. I have no idea where you guys are getting this idea that we traditionalists have now or ever thought that female sexual expression is always above reproach.
Rum you have swallowed hook and sinker the dogma of the gamers. I’m a Christian and I never learned that men’s sexuality was evil and that women’s was good. If anything I learned how sexuality as a whole in humans should be controlled and repressed. I learned that both men and women are sinful because humans are sinful. Now if you’re talking about liberal ‘Christians’, lukewarm ‘Christians’ and heretics that’s another issue.
I agree, Bonald. I would add:
“No, what I object to about Game is this idea that men have no other side than their carnal side, that they have no free will, no sense of duty, and no capacity for self-sacrificial love. This is what is obviously false, heretical, and inimical to public morals. Gamers may not intend it, but they are actually helping make excuses for cheating men. They actually agree that “I couldn’t help it because I’m a man and my brains were in my dick at the time” and the wife wasn’t “meeting his needs” by being a Victoria’s Secret model. If men are not free, spiritual beings, then they can have no responsibility.”
Actually, to short-circuit this whole debate, I suspect that we pretty much agree about the moral principles involved here. The issue is what practical prescriptions can be applied, and how far Big Church and Big Government have a role to play. I suspect that that’s where the real weight of the traditionalist conservative agenda lies.
I don’t believe sexuality is inherently an evil, something which should be repressed, but that it is a good – like food is a good, within boundaries. The boundaries for sex are marriage. It was created for a good purpose, but its abuse should be objected to. Sex is more of an earthly consideration in that we are satisfying our desires – and those who sacrifice it by celibacy should be lauded for it, but it seems highly anti-Christian to suggest that God would be so contradictory as to command humanity to multiply, but then to say (through revealed religion supposedly) that human sexuality is in itself an evil. That’s entirely un-scriptural. It’s like St. Paul said regarding it is better to be celibate, but if you find that you cannot, then marry.
I’m afraid you are sorely mislead. The nature of mankind, male or female, hasn’t changed because we are modern and have restraints removed. As regards female sexuality, some time ago I read another’s post which drew attention to the fact that women are not as sexual as modern society likes to pretend they are. Case in point, modern women’s magazines talk about having better sex, not more sex.
The unenthusiastic woman is not a myth or something which occurred back then and they didn’t have a problem with, it just is. But women today are told by the feminist culture that they are supposed to be these highly-sexed creatures; something which in essence is a perversion of their natural state. In order to achieve such a state they must do certain things: watch highly-sexed movies or porn, “feel sexy,” talk dirty, etc.
The idea that women at base are as highly sexed as men are is a complete myth with no real foundation. It’s not expressing a side of themselves which was previously repressed. Women at that time still made sex for love, and they still make sex for love – the difference between then and now is that they are allowed to do it outside of marriage, meaning that the obligations that would have normally followed on the sexual act are not there, so naturally, when the prospective lover takes off, they must try again with someone else. Typically sluts are sluts because they are under the impression that this is the way to get a guy that will stay around.
I’ve studied and blogged a lot about traditional Christian attitudes towards sexuality. I admit that I’m coming from a progressive Chrsitian (or a liberal “Christian” as alcestiseshtemoa would put it) perspective, but I have to say that it is absolutely not true that the Christian theological tradition has seen sex as being “fallen into the pit of carnality, waywardness, and shame”.
The orthodox theological tradition has affirmed that sex is something that is inherently good in itself, provided that it is carried on within marriage, and that a sexually active life, as opposed to the celibate life of a priest, monk or nun (which may be spiritually superior), is a perfectly valid means of attaining sanctity. Groups that have disparaged sex as being innately sinful have invariably been branded as heretical and cut off from the body of the church.
From a strict, conservative Catholic perspective, the proposition that sex (within marriage) is carnal, wayward and shameful is heretical.
Like Slumlord and Rum, I must disagree with your characterization of the female sex drive.
trent13
No one here has even addressed the question of females overall drive for sex in comparison with mens drive for the same.
The question is, what guy of guy is most likely to get lucky? Since most men want more of that kind of luck, the subject is not going to go away.
Ordinary nice guys in todays world can easily go their entire lives without experiencing what a woman is like when they are suitably turned on by alpha traits. Thus, they might be susceptible to the convenient cover story that women are not so interested in sex. That is WAY better than to absorb the knowledge that she is only slightly (or worse) interested in sex with a guy like him; but that for a certain bartender with tatoos and a couple of felony convictions she begs to fellate in the mens room while Mr. Nice Guy goes to bring the car around so she will not need to walk in the rain.
In other words, lots of guys like me have spent time on both sides of the alpha/beta dichotomy and we know something women would rather we not know – that is, any given womans sexual drive is hugely influenced by her perception of the value of the male she is with. Just because she is not feeling sexual with one guy does not mean she could not turn into an uninhibited, multi-orgasming naked cowgirl with another.
Like I said, learning how to become one kind of guy and not the other will continue to of interest to most guys, our sober host notwithstanding..
but I have to say that it is absolutely not true that the Christian theological tradition has seen sex as being “fallen into the pit of carnality, waywardness, and shame”.
Pretty much. Sex according to the Bible is sinful outside of matrimony between a man and a woman. But isn’t procreative sex good? I was taught that recreative sex wasn’t such a moral thing.
According to traditional (i.e. pre-Vatican 2) theology, there are 3 circumstances in which a married couple can have sex:
1. For the purpose of procreation. I can provide detailed references, but enough said.
2. In order to nurture love between the husband and wife. Again, this should be blindingly obvious, so I make no comment.
3. In order to negate the desire to look for sexual satisfaction elsewhere. This would cover off the idea of the guy who’s tempted to look to (e.g.) his secretary for sexual satisfaction – I’m sure we can all think of examples of this from our own knowledge.
Uhmm….No.
I’d urge all of you who deny this claim go buy a medical textbook with the title, “Hamilton Baileys Physical Signs”, It’s a medical textbook used in the Commonwealth countries which makes for sober philosophical reflection. Women would not go to the doctor to examine their breasts or genitals out of a fear of shame and prudery to the point of self destruction. Breast tumours the size of grapefruit which were rotting on the flesh, uterine and rectal prolapses suffered for years, if not decades, due to “embarrassment”. It’s a revisionism worthy of Stalin which denies that western culture had a “problem” with the non procreative nature of sex. In fact, when the fundamental biology of the menstrual cycle was worked out, many theologians did not know whether it was even permissible to have sex during the non-fertile window of it. It’s my understanding that the Lefebvrists still hold that it is immoral to have sex during the non-fertile period.
The legitimacy of our fleshy desires always seems to be justified in the context of their procreative dimension, never as goods themselves.
I quite agree that it’s good to go to the primary sources before making pronouncements about these issues. I have blogged at length about traditional Catholic teachings on sexuality. In fact, I have gone to the trouble of translating, from Latin, the actual textbooks that priests were trained from in the pre-V2 days.
I will hear many criticisms of the pre-V2 Catholic Church – really, I will – and its teachings on human sexuality, but it is very unfortunate that anyone would compare those teachings to Stalinist communism.
As to the prospect of untreated tumours and prolapses and the like, I am horrified by the idea of such human suffering being caused by Christian teaching. I can only agree with you that such suffering is absolutely abhorrent.
and this explains why I had vaginal-only orgasms with my husband for the first 3-4 years together, and none in the 25 years since. The alpha behavior is gone.
I have clitoral orgasms, but no longer have vaginal only, because I no longer become that readily aroused any more.
Rum, I don’t think women are more “secretive” in their thinking, rather they are more associative.
Consider the statement, “Does my rear look big in this dress”?
A man will instinctively provide an objective answer based on the frame of reference defined in the question. On the other hand a woman will answer the question based on a frame of reference which is much, much wider. Issues about how the woman feels about herself, what has recently been happening in her life, whether see’s the other as a competitor will all influence the answer.
So when a woman says she want a “nice” guy, what she is saying she wants an nice guy who is sexually attractive, has high social status and is materially well provided for. She is not being secretive, rather her frame of reference is much larger.
#1..agree with that
#2. I’ve read that experiment. I think arousal is a function of what a woman has not yet seen or imagined; or in other words, she’ll be aroused by progressive porny images, but not those that she’s seen many times prior. That’s the weakness of that method.
Sex according to the Bible is sinful outside of matrimony between a man and a woman. But isn’t procreative sex good? I was taught that recreative sex wasn’t such a moral thing/
Does it follow then that sex between a married man and woman where one is infertile is immoral? Of course not!
As for the female sex drive: I agree and disagree with much of what has been said here. I think that trent13 is right: a good percentage of women have sex in the hopes of achieving love with the man in question.
I also think they make the terrible mistake of choosing men who arouse them greatly but who are unworthy of their love and devotion. But because the unitive nature of sex creates an emotional bond for them, they assume it will do the same for him and are saddened when it doesn’t. Instead of getting a clue, they make the same mistake again and again. The definition of insanity, someone once said.
Reggie, it’s not the pre-V2 teachings of the Church that are akin to Stalinist revisionism, rather, it’s the position held by traditionalists–that pre- V2 society was OK about sex even in marriage that’s the problem. I’m assuming that you’ve made an honest mistake in rephrasing my argument, otherwise it’s a cheap shot.
@Elspeth
I think that trent13 is right: a good percentage of women have sex in the hopes of achieving love with the man in question
The question is not why women have sex it’s why this particular man and not another. There’s lots of good Christian men, from a male perspective at least, who don’t even get a second look, much less a chance to mate.
you bring up the medical issues in order to prove that traditionalists today think the Church didn’t portray sexuality, even within marriage, as a good thing. 1. I don’t see how the one has to do with proving the other 2. as a traditional Catholic woman, I understand the sentiment – my body belongs to my husband exclusively – I now have the option to have female ob/gyn dr.s, but if I didn’t, I also NOW have the knowledge that things such as breast tumors should absolutely be looked at and removed. The horror of the fact that women would not get themselves looked at under such circumstances is understandable, but they lived in a different age where medical knowledge was still very much in the early phases (see how much we have progressed – now they just cut the breast off or kill with chemo and radiation! yay) and (you think unfortunately) women still had a sense of modesty. Nevertheless, women avoiding male doctors, even to the point that they would not have cancer diagnosed (much good it would have done them), doesn’t prove that the Church taught as doctrine that human sexuality is an evil.
the question of “game”? game isn’t concerned with female sexuality beyond how it serves for the fulfillment of male sexuality. The question you raise is a valid and interesting one, but IMO game doesn’t focus on answering that question. IMO the primary question of game is, “how do I get laid more?” – and that question from bachelors and married men (in which my response regarding the sexuality of married women dealt with married men).
Slumlord,
It takes a lot of nerve to equate we few traditionalists who are standing up for chastity and modesty with Stalinism and to blame us for the stupidity of a few women from generations past and then accuse Reggie of taking a cheap shot at you. Reggie is a liberal, not a traditionalist of any kind, but he’s shown far more fairness and civility on this blog than you have. And he’s consulted the actual relevant documents instead of just recycling stereotypes.
Since you have now provoked me, I’ll go ahead and say it: I think the idea that people need to be told to enjoy sex is ludicrous. It’s like saying that babies need to be told to crap in their diapers. It is WE TRADITIONALISTS, and no one else, who are upholding the sacrality of sex by treating it like something holy. Holy things should be shrouded in mystery, and they shouldn’t be described in frivolous terms like “fun” and “pleasure”.
Now, may I ask you, what do you think will be accomplished by attacking us? Assuming you are an orthodox Catholic, you can’t believe that we are very far wrong. Even if you think disapproval of NFP is unnecessarily strict, shouldn’t you respect it as an ascetic practice engaged by some people who are trying their best to please God? It’s the nature of love to go to excess. The post-VII “what’s the bare minimum God expects from us?” attitude seems far less healthy to me.
No Trent. Game is about how to become more attractive to women, period. It can be used to behave hedonistically. It can also be used to attract women to avoid the issue that slumlord mentions of men being overlooked by women. It can also be used to maintain attraction in marriage. It’s versatile in that way.
trent13
The only way I can think whereof a man could “get laid” without being “concerned with female sexuality” is if he paid a prostitute. That is, by definition, being a man with zero game.
The concept of being unable to get any physical affection from any member of the opposite sex – no matter what they do – without paying money for it is simply un-imaginable to human females. As far as that goes, all but the ugliest girls are born on home plate and cannot even grasp how things are for most men for most of their lives.
It’s versitile, but not morally neutral. One learns to attract women by thinking of them in a subpersonal way. As Martin Buber would put it, it involves thinking of your woman as an “It” rather than a “Thou”. Even if you do use Game to get a girl into a Christian marriage with you, all of this “stimulate the hind-brain automatic reflexes” attitude has got to hurt the relationship.
It’s versitile, but not morally neutral. One learns to attract women by thinking of them in a subpersonal way. As Martin Buber would put it, it involves thinking of your woman as an “It” rather than a “Thou”. Even if you do use Game to get a girl into a Christian marriage with you, all of this “stimulate the hind-brain automatic reflexes” attitude has got to hurt the relationship.
Bonald
This is your blog, and all, so I will always be polite when I speak to you.
But dude, saying that doing things that correctly stroke her hindbrain to produce attraction to you will hurt the relationship is the wrongest thing written I have ever seen in my entire life.
One learns to attract women by thinking of them in a subpersonal way.
I don’t get this. How is game any different than a woman putting on a dress that emphasizes her nice figure? Or indeed anything that draws attention to her looks? This can be done in a tasteful and modest way, or a crass and slutty way, but they are both intended on some level to appeal to a man’s animal reflexes.
Well, there is a some danger that a man will reduce relationships with women to button pushing. But game does not necessarily entail such pure reductionism.
A great article:
http://www.thepointmag.com/2010/essays/love-in-the-age-of-the-pickup-artist
@ Bonald.
“stimulate the hind-brain automatic reflexes” attitude has got to hurt the relationship.
This is precisely what I mean about the denial of our carnality. We are both flesh and spirit, and the potential mate must appeal to both the spirit and the flesh. The hind brain has to be taken account of in any meaningful marital relationship, even Christian ones. For too long, Churchy types have sort of argued that the flesh does not matter, and that being good Christians is enough to find each other attractive. It’s a denial of the reality of sexual attraction.
isn’t concerned with female sexuality beyond how it serves for the fulfillment of male sexuality
No, that’s hedonism. Game is concerned with making oneself attractive to a female. The question game answers,”is what do women find attractive (as a group)”, and one of its powerful insights, confirmed by everyday experience, is what women say they like and who they end up sleeping with are two different things. What game answers is why particular men gain surfeit of female attraction and others are completely ignored.
The thing is trent13, once a man recognises what his partner finds attractive, then he does get laid more, usually at the woman’s initiation. Women become more sexual beings in the presence of alpha behaviour. Now if sex is mean to promote the unitive aspect of a marriage, then getting laid more is obviously good for a marriage.
initial attraction is necessary in order for anything to happen, and I can see how game would be necessary for that, at the very least. But after initial attraction (infatuation) dies down in the context of a marriage, the basis for love relies less on the fleshly side and more on the spiritual side. It becomes a choice of the will. Of course, I don’t have a problem with a man trying to have great sex with his wife, no matter how long they have been married, but it’s not wrong not to either. Is great sex or frequent sex, fundamental to the happiness of a marriage? Theoretically it would be an indicator, but I know too many couples who are unhappy with each other that say, “No, the sex isn’t a problem, it’s this, this, and this.” My point is that it does matter, just not to the degree that you think it does.
My point though is that a gamers concern for female sexuality is only in so far as it services their own sexuality, rather then both male and sexuality (in itself a good) being at the service of God.
Is great sex or frequent sex, fundamental to the happiness of a marriage?
Good enough sex and reasonably frequent sex are fundamental to a healthy relationship. After all the need for sex was one the things the institution of marriage was designed to alleviate. An institution that requires the constant heroic sacrifice on the part of large numbers of people is probably not going to last.
So you would say it is a misnomer that game is directed towards getting laid? Or that if a man is able to get laid more often, it is an accident, a by-product of what is learned through game rather than the intention of game itself? (the intention of game being, as you say, to teach men how to be attractive)
“heroic sacrifice” see, I don’t know, I just think that places almost unreasonable expectations on men – that they should do all sorts of things in order to have good enough and reasonably frequent sex, but at the same time, point taken, the institution of marriage is meant to alleviate the need for sex. I have to say I think “heroic sacrifice” is a bit of a stretch (unless maybe you are referring to the guy?) – there’s not much sacrifice involved on the part of the woman in that sense. If you are referring to men, would a guy consider sex worth having if it wasn’t good enough and reasonably frequent?
@ Trent13
No one is arguing that sex is the totality of marriage, but it’s a very important part, something a lot of women seem to dismiss quite too easily.
I’m sorry if you think it’s a cheap shot, slumlord. All I can say is that the evidence is there if anyone wants to look at it, in the form of the pre-V2 theological textbooks that were used to train priests. Judge for yourself if there has been any revisionism, comrade.
The orthodox position was that sex was immoral if indulged in for pleasure *alone* – i.e. for purely selfish reasons, without the aim of nurturing one’s love for one’s husband or wife. But that’s a claim that would still be accepted even by very liberal Christians (including me). It was never the case that *only* procreative sex was regarded as legitimate.
Thanks, Bonald.
And trent is right. If you bring in medical evidence, you have to consider the whole context of the times, which goes a long way beyond what Father O’Malley at the local church was teaching.
Just one more thing, as Columbo would say. There is no need to be scrupulous about NFP according to traditional (pre-V2) Catholic teaching. Here is an article from a traditionalist seminary professor, reprimanding lay traditionalists for spreading anti-NFP ideas:
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=6&catname=9
Or that if a man is able to get laid more often, it is an accident, a by-product of what is learned through game rather than the intention of game itself
Correct.
@Bonald
I’m not attacking you, it’s the subject I’m debating. Even though you find me objectionable, a word of advice: you’re sawing away at the branch that you’re sitting on.
I see the ruin about me and try to understand it. The liberals have destroyed much but the trads have unwittingly helped them.
@Reggie
A good book on the subject is Contraception: A History of its Treatment by Catholic Theologians and Canonists by Noonan is worth a read. The book is very weak in its conclusions but the historical scholarship is widely acknowledged as first rate. The church has had an uneasy relationship with man’s carnality.
also,
1) I have made no comments with regard to NFP.
2) I haven’t criticised anyone for wanting to practice NFP
Thanks for the recommendation. I agree about the “uneasy relationship” point.
If it’s of interest, my excerpts and translations of traditional theological sources can be accessed from this link:
http://religiousstudiesblog.blogspot.com/p/gender-and-sexuality.html
Re the NFP issue, I was picking up on Bonald’s comment.
It seems to me that a lot of this is about terminology.
To me, a basic understanding of what women (generally) find attractive isn’t “Game”. It’s just good practical advice. Nor is it very new – I don’t think we needed the likes of Roissy to tell us that women tend to be attracted to virile, strong-willed men rather than wusses. I guess the difference is that in the old days the elders of the tribe would have explained this to the younger men on reaching manhood without them having to look it up on the internet.
To me (and I don’t think I’m alone in this) “Game” is a loaded term which connotes not just sensible, practical advice about how to attract women, but a whole mindset and culture based on manipulation and self-gratification.
As has already been noted, this doesn’t make a lot of sense, from the moral perspective, unless you are willing to agree that female clothing, makeup, heels, hairstyling and the like are also not morally neutral, because (at least some of the time), these are engaged in by women to appeal to your male hindbrain. I suppose that hurts the relationship too, then, yes?
It’s just good practical advice. Nor is it very new – I don’t think we needed the likes of Roissy to tell us that women tend to be attracted to virile, strong-willed men rather than wusses.,
This is mostly incorrect:
1. Just being a man used to work, because a man had superior social status over a woman merely by being a man. If she wanted that status, she had to get married.
2. Just being a provider used to work, because women were barred from most careers and could not make much money on their own. If she wanted money, she had to marry to get it.
Most traditional advice was to make money and be chivalrous, as was becoming in a social superior. That doesn’t work anymore, because women can make their own money and are the social equals of men.
Anyway, from that article I linked to:
And even if this practice can still be criticized, precisely because it is hyperbole, there are many cases in which the pickup artists end up on top plain and simple: pursuing the same ends as the rest of us, just doing it better. When two people have met each other and enjoyed each other’s company, when should they call each other again? What should their emails and text messages say? Should they go to dinner? Try to run into each other? The pickup artist knows the answers to these questions, knows how to act in each of these situations in a way that is more elegant, more confident, and more advanced than the ways we act—in a way that is, simply put, more effective.
The problem with the “just be a virile man” type of advice is that it is only part of the solution and will only get you so far. Dealing with women properly is a highly specific skill set, one that you’re going to have to learn anyway, either by trial and error or by studying game material. Women love men who understand women, and for most men that understanding is not intuitive.
Men should do all that they reasonably can, and then it is up to the wife to fulfill her duties: to remain faithful etc.
Also, women do not desire sex less than men, they are only pickier about who they desire it with. Women’s apparent indifference to sex is only the result of their sexual indifference to most men, and should not be relied upon as a guarantor of their fidelity.
That wasn’t quite my point. I’m all in favour of men developing an understanding of women, and I completely agree that “just be a virile man” is only one element of attractiveness. I absolutely believe that men need to have emotional intelligence too – I only wish more of them understood that! It’s possible that “Game” theorists can help in this regard, even if (in my experience) their insights often don’t turn out to be very surprising or profound. I also suspect that you underestimate how far men in traditional societies needed to know this stuff too: the difference is that insights into female psychology would have been passed down by the tribal elders through word of mouth rather than being systematised and marketed as a commodity.
My point was really that “Game” usually means more than just a good, practical understanding of female/human psychology. From what I can tell, “Game” guys aren’t just emotionally intelligent men who understand how women think, they’re men with a specific worldview and approach to life that I find quite unappealing.
Hello Brendan,
You read a lot of these Game websites. Ask yourself: is this the way a lover talks about his beloved, or the way a scientist describes his subject? If women tried to systemetize their ways of sensually appealing to us, writing blogs and books about what sorts of visual stimuli will automatically produce what responses in any man, and reducing male-female dynamics to a matter of just hitting the right stimuli at the right times, then yes, this would very much damage womens’ ability to have an I-Thou relationship with a man.
Ask yourself: is this the way a lover talks about his beloved, or the way a scientist describes his subject?
Does a poet love poetry less for writing a technical manual on versification?
“women do not desire sex less than men, they are only pickier about who they desire it with. Women’s apparent indifference to sex is only the result of their sexual indifference to most men, and should not be relied upon as a guarantor of their fidelity.”
in-love stage aside, I have to disagree
Again from the Belknap article:
Clélia and Fabrizio show that the most earnest love can go hand in hand with the most cunning eroticism. Even if the pickup artists have developed the craft of seduction to a degree of refinement not yet seen under the sun, they still cannot claim the erotic arts for themselves. The pleasure and duty of restraint belong just as much to love as they do to mere seduction. And so the proper antidote to the poison of the pickup artists is not a staid, predictable courtship absent of vitality, followed by an equally staid and predictable relationship. The antidote is rather to have the best of both worlds, love and eroticism. In an important sense, “the game” belongs to the lover much more even than it belongs to the pickup artists, because with the lover the game is redeemed and heightened. The lover’s eroticism is always subject to a greater end, an end greater than himself: it is flirtation in the service of commitment, complication in the service of sincerity, playfulness in the service of seriousness.
There seem to be two issues here:
1. Associational. Game was discovered by men whose aim was pretty selfish, to get as much sex out of women as possible.
2. Philosophical. Viewing women as purely mechanical beings.
To the first, I would say that immoral methods and aims of those who discovered game do not mean that the knowledge discovered is false, nor that is can only be used to achieve similarly selfish aims.
To the second, I would acknowledge that viewing relationships with women in a purely mechanical way is a danger in studying game, but it is in no way a necessary endpoint of such study.
“The church has had an uneasy relationship with man’s carnality.”
But isn’t that the correct attitude to have, given man’s Fallen state?
Noonan was a heretic writing to advocate sexual sin; as you hinted, he can hardly be regarded as a fair judge of the Christian tradition.
But isn’t that the correct attitude to have, given man’s Fallen state?
No. The correct attitude to have is one of objectivity. Being biased for or against something is inimical to the truth.
he can hardly be regarded as a fair judge of the Christian tradition.
The value of his book lays in it being a good, and presumably objective record, of the Church on the matter. The book becomes weak once he deviates from objective history into personal philosophy.
The Christian aims to subdue the flesh, not kill it, since it is a gift from God. It’s needs must be taken into account consistent with revealed truth, not ignored. Game simply recognises that there is a carnal dimension to the feminine which needs to be acknowledged. Being in shape, confident, decisive and a snappy dresser is not contrary to the will of God. Beige is not the colour of Catholicism.
I don’t see how it’s meaningful to say that someone is sexually aroused and doesn’t know it.
One could link the physiological response to other signs of arousal, e.g. a statistically greater vulnerability to seduction.
If this were done, one would still have to investigate whether the mismatch is due to lack of awareness or lack of honesty in the self-reports.
Whether this has actually been done, I haven’t the least notion. But I do think the claim is clearly meaningful. Heck, I’ve seen things that aren’t too dissimilar: for instance, someone claiming that they’re not angry when in fact they clearly were.
But that’s just problematizing the male version of it for being done in a, well, male way. I certainly don’t see a moral difference there at all.
If women tried to systemetize their ways of sensually appealing to us, writing blogs and books about what sorts of visual stimuli will automatically produce what responses in any man
Uh, dude, they do this all the time. There are so many examples, I wouldn’t know where to start.
reducing male-female dynamics to a matter of just hitting the right stimuli at the right times, then yes, this would very much damage womens’ ability to have an I-Thou relationship with a man.
This is a straw man. No one here is advocating the reduction of relationships between men and women to sexual attraction, nor does improving one’s attractiveness through learning some “game” entail such a reduction.