This felt appropriate for today.

Warning: Gore.





... but nothing the God of biomechanics wouldn't let you in heaven for.

Game and its limitations.

I am a deeply conservative. I am Catholic. I believe there is an objective right and wrong. I believe in the principles of "Game".

Though I had not heard of the term "Game" until a couple of years ago, I had come to the same conclusions, both through personal experience and through clinical practice. I stumbled onto the "Gaming Community" while trawling through the net. The best writers of the group articulated what I too thought, and had informally, on the net, developed a body of knowledge on the subject.

By nature I'm both a cynic and an empiricist. I cut through the bullshit. I believe in Game because it explains human nature and the other theories with the exception of one don't. Thomistic philosophy also asserts the existence of an human observable nature which is different for both men and women. Men and women are different, not because of programming or evolutionary biology or whatever other shit: Men and women are different in their core, their essence. Anyone who can synapse two neurones and who does not have pus in his eyes and shit in his ears can see this as self-evident truth. Feminism is a lie.

It is a lie that has caused immense suffering. Suffering to both men and women, and it is one of the reasons that I am gainfully employed. I dish out the anti-depressants for a psychotic world where both men and women sob to me about their loneliness and insecurities but are unprepared to change. Their culturally conditioned behaviour the cause of their problems.

No shit. A woman finds you unattractive because you don't I have a pair. I don't either. No Shit. Men find you unattractive because your a manipulative bitch and your constantly asserting your "rights" whenever any challenges you. I find you unattractive as well. Fuck, how hard is it to understand that men should act like men and women like women. But my two cents of advice gets drowned out in culture that the preaches the opposite. Our culture wants people to act unnaturally.

While Game has a good deal of truth to it, it also lives with the matrix of this culture. It's most articulate proponents are immersed in the matrix. Many of the lesser proponents are psychologically unbalanced and suffer from the man with a hammer syndrome. To the man with a hammer, every problem is a nail. They believe game can fix everything. It can't. Game's only utility is that it is an antidote to militant Feminism, otherwise it's pussy worship.

If you think about it, unrestrained game is actually feministic. Most of the gaming community measure their "Alphaness" by the amount of pussy that they can get. And as pussy has to be freely given, therefore a woman has to approve of her mate. Game is all about gaining pussy through female approval. It's making yourself pleasing to women.

If you want to live for that, that's fine by me. I've got other stuff to do.

Now don't get me wrong. The ability to attract women is a virtue that needs to be cultivated and it has many uses, but it's not the only virtue. A man has to live by others as well.

Game can't fix up corporate greed, military incompetence, divorce laws etc. I can't fix up low brow culture, American Idol or bad architecture. In fact, game untrammelled by other restraining forces will only amplify the problems. Hedonistic game directs the will to satisfaction of self above all else. It is the same philosophy that drives the corporate bankers, the muck raking journalists, sleazy politicians, pole dancers and slutty wives. It's the philosophy of the ugly people.

I have great respect for Roissy as the Game theorist if not the man. His knowledge and ability to express the intricacies of the female psyche are unsurpassed. I've met lots of super intelligent people in my life and he towers above most of them. Seriously, if you can see past the "decoration" and the "hedonism", there is profundity that you will not find in any psychological textbook. I would honestly give him a professorship. The problem is that his philosophy of life is destructive to Western Culture. He freely admits it. knowing how to attract women should not be a man's sole imperative in life.

Parasites and Lovers.

A while ago I posted some musings on the nature of modern love. I think one of the reasons divorce is so high at the moment and relationships so transient is that the approach that people take when it comes to marriage. Presently, lots of people enter marriage selfishly, seeing it as a beneficial institution and that their partner a source of utility. In fact, one of the most off putting things about the evo-bio community is that their understanding of marriage is formulated along these lines. Their justification for marriage being an "exchange" of goods. At the time I was grasping for a terminology which would adequately express what I saw as the pathology in modern relationships. A few days ago I was browsing through Poetry of The Flesh's blog and stumbled on this quote which seemed to be what I was looking for.

I see a lot of glorifying of feminity, of women encouraging others to take control of the relationship they are in, the use their feminine games and wiles, to withhold, until they get what they want. And these things work on most men.

Rules like the man should always pay for the date.
Rules like until he proposes, you're allowed to date and sleep with whoever you want.
Things that tell you it's okay to pout, to withhold sex, to expect him to read your mind and grovel.
To throw a fit if he doesn't remember your two month anniversary.
Lessons on how to get him to pay for everything.
On behaviors you should expect from a man.
To know if you're in a good relationship.
And those Cosmo articles that make me want to use the glossy edges of the magazine to slice open my own wrists before I would suffer through reading them.

These things make being female sound like being cattle at an auction, where instead of checking health, they check feminity expressed through how much a woman can beta-bitch her man.

It's not a partnership, only a symbiotic relationship between different kinds of parasites, if the man is lucky. If he's not, it's more like he's got a growth of mistletoe on his branches, and it's not looking for a kiss. (My emphasis)

Parasites live off their hosts, without regard to the host's well being. The only interest of a parasite is its self-interest. When the host stops giving it what it wants, it leaves; or if the parasite is particularly malignant, it will suck the life out of the hosts without any regard to it.(Modern woman in divorce). The psychological outlook of the parasite is simply what is in it for me.

A lot of "love" is this type of love. The benefit that this type of parasite gets from a relationship is the hedonistic pleasures derived from the host. When the host stops being pleasing the relationship stops. It's important to understand that this type of person's love is the love of what they can get from you, not the love of you. It's a selfish love. One can see how two such people can get together. Initially, both see qualities in each other from which each derives pleasure, and as men are drawn to pleasure, both are attracted to each other. There is proximity but no bond. But over time the as the pleasures are habituated their intensity is lost. Slowly the attraction fades, and the parasite moves on till it can find someone else to feed its hedonistic appetite. Two strangers in a one night stand are proximate yet alone, there is no connection. Together yet apart.

Contrast this with the behaviour of a symbiote. This type of organism sees its well being as directly aligned with the well being of the host. This type of organism does derive pleasure directly from the host, but more importantly it derives pleasure from the well being of the host as well . A symbiote not only "consumes" it also "gives" to the host. Indeed what the symbiote gives may be out of all proportion to what it gets from the host. In a mutually symbiotic relationship each is linked to the other by the very nature of the relationship. Indeed they are obligated to each other. They may be oceans apart but they are together, since their well being is conditional on the other. Without one the other fades, they are united by their very existences.

Since symbiotic love requires at least a recognition that we have obligations to another, it is no surprise that in a culture that preaches rampant individualism it is rare. We are training our children to be selfish. The world's future lovers are going to be parasites.

Five Stars.

A few weeks ago commentator Thursday wrote an interesting piece on How Social Conservatives and Traditionalists Got It Wrong About Female Sexuality. The Thinking Housewife seems to be thinking along broadly similar lines. The Unfaithful Wife makes for good reading.

BTW, She has a very good site. Very, very Good.

Alpha Submission.

Trawling through the pabulum of the blogosphere yields usually not much more that the inane ramblings of the inane, but every now and then you hit an iceberg which stops you dead in your tracks. One such post, by commentatrix Aoefe, deserves high praise. Read it here.

I've got to admire Aoefe for "coming out" and admitting that she likes being submissive. In these days of enforced behavioural androgyny masquerading as equality, I found it refreshing to hear from someone who does not feel the need to boss someone around and is quite happy to let someone else take control. The comments box makes for interesting reading and it got me thinking, what exactly is submissivity? Or, more importantly, what is feminine submissivity? I got the impression the Aoefe had some trouble articulating the type of submissivity that she had in mind. I hope this helps.

As we are trying to understand the male female dynamic, our understanding needs to be relational and distinctive. I propose to look at this from the male perspective, and define femininity as it is understood in the real world, as the features present in a woman that make her attractive to a man. Some may quibble with this definition but the attraction a man feels towards a woman can be pretty much predicted on the basis of on the universally recognised qualities that a woman can possess. It also needs to be recognised that there will be a degree of variance in the perception of femininity dependant upon the particular tastes of the male, but common sense tells us that there are certain self-evident norms which can be distinguished.

Assuming we are not asking the simian end of the bell curve, we begin by asking ourselves what qualities man finds pleasing in women. Factors such as high intelligence and orginsationa skills are qualities that a man may find attractive in both sexes so they really aren't to be considered feminine. What we are interested in the qualities that are particular to women. The list, though by no means exhaustive, would include things like physical beauty, refinement in speech and action, a certain delicacy of being, emotion, cleanliness and so on. These features are the the ones which attract men to women, men consider them feminine, men find them pleasing.

Femininity also tends to be a bit of all or nothing affair. A woman who looks great, speaks politely in public and is gracious, does not have it if she farts in public. Likewise, a woman may have good manners and girly emotions, but if she is morbidly obese she is not really considered feminine. A woman who yells and argues at her husband, even if justified, in public is not considered feminine. Femininity tends to be a quality that requires a certain amount of self-control to achieve and hence femininity is a choice; an act of the will.

This line of thinking is confirmed in women who choose to act in ways that is considered unfeminine. Many porn stars are physically attractive but most men do not consider them feminine. Many feminists usually act in ways which are deliberately masculine and are said to be feminine only in their physical sex and are devoid of any femininity.

Now what the will does is determined by the nature of the person; an evil man does ill, a good man good, a rude and brutish man will perform rude and brutish acts and so on. A woman then with a feminine nature feminine way and since we have said that our definition of femininity are the qualities of a woman which a man finds attractive, a consciously choose to be feminine will deliberately act in a way which pleases men; it's in her nature. I think Aoefe is right, that a feminine woman wants to act in a way that appears superficially submissive; the femine woman wants to be pleasing to her man.

Now the important point here is to consider why she is acting in this way. What are her psychic drives? What motivates her to this course of action?

Well in the first instance, a woman may chose to act in this way because she wants to. In other words, her actions are not forced by external pressure or internal psychological factors. This woman is content with herself and her actions. She retains what psychiatrists would call an "internal locus of control"

Eternal observers of this woman's relationship with a man would view the woman's relationship as submissive. The woman in this relationship would aim to please her man and may appear to be making many sacrifices for him. But they would fail to recognise that the woman is doing this out of choice and not coercion and that there is no submission at all. Thus your traditional woman who freely chooses to stay at home and live the Stepford wife lifestyle, is pilloried by her feminist sisters who mock her "submissive" lifestyle. The feminists are the one's who have got it wrong. The woman and the man in this type of relationship have complemented each other and they are actually psychological equals, this is a relationship of equality. The feminists, through social opprobrium are the ones trying to get the woman to accept their ideology; they are the coercives.

Many people who have astutely observed the nature of many Mediterranean marriages will recognise this woman. She has her man, she looks after him through her marriage and regards feminists, particularly Anglo-feminists, with contempt. In no way is she coerced by her husband to do anything, she runs the house and he whatever else. Labour is not divided according to negotiation but through natural adaptation.

It also needs to recognised that the "externalities" of the relationship don't really matter. A woman may have a highly successful career and the husband may stay at home. The point being that the husband and wife have both achieved a mutually satisfying relationship within the context of her feminine nature. They complement each other. But the important point here is that she hasn't negotiated the position like a business partner or an "equal", rather she has found a man who both compliments her femininity and her ability; a sort of lock and key relationship. So, for instance, a traditional woman of this type marries a traditional man, while a more modern type of woman will marry a man with more modern views but within a traditional framework. This woman's mate is her complement, not her equal.

Aoefe is Alpha feminine. She wants an worthy man whom she can please. Note that the important point here is a worthy man (something I wish to get into at a later post), her "submission" is only to her man of her choosing. Paradoxically, she is still in control when she submits. To men whom she does not feel a romantic attachment to, there is no submission.

The next type of relationship is the one that is commonly seen in women from the Protestant influenced countries(they are the ones most strongly influenced by Feminism), these are the beta females. This is a woman who, through social conditioning, has developed traits which are disagreeable to men but who still wants a relationship with a man. This type of woman is torn between living a life that she wants and getting a man to love her. Her socially conditioned repugnance is at odds with her desire to find a mate and her adaption to this situation is one of internal submissively. She has some control over her life but lives in mortal dread of spinsterhood and this dread compels her to do whatever is appropriate to find a mate. This type of woman wears femininity like a mask, using it as a useful expedient and dropping it once she is psychologically secure in a relationship.

This is the type of woman who "changes" after marriage. Prior to getting married her femininity is proportional to the degree in which she wants to get married. After she is married "the inner beauty within" comes out and the woman which the man has married becomes the disagreeable and unfeminine woman that she is. The other victim of course in this type of marriage is the man, who thought he was purchasing one bill of goods and instead ended up with another. The fun loving beautiful sexual woman he thought he was marrying becames a emotionally cold asexual shrew. When the inevitable divorce happens, she assumes her mask again till the cycle is repeated. It is from this cohort of women that the feminists come from. They want men to love them even when they are unlovable, and believe that the problem is with men for this state of affairs. Men need to change they say. They constantly blame other factors for their unhappiness beside themselves, the classic behaviour of those with an "external locus of control".

In their instance their external locus of control is actually internal. Their culturally conditioned behaviour is at war with their natural desire to find a mate. This type of woman is the beta submissive: Submissive to her fear of loneliness. The "betaness" of these women is in proportion to both their absence of feminine traits and their desire to get married. The more beta, the less happy. Some of the women never drop the mask, such is their fear of loneliness, instead living their years in the "comfortable concentration camp" of marriage. These women chafe at the situation that they are in, and as such are miserable and asexual. Universalising from her own particular situation she believes that all marriages are like hers and pillories both the institution, the women who find happiness in it and men who find her unattractive.

The greater beta's of this group of women are those who allow their men to "rule" over them, fearing a loss of love if they do not submit. They follow their masters orders out of fear of rejection, not love and chafe at their loss of dignity. The alpha submissive has usually picked a mate whom she knows will probably not ask her something stupid and who will value her advice when she disagrees with him. He will consult with her rather than rule over her though every now and then he will put his foot down, but this will be the rare exception rather than the rule.
She will submit. Frequently he will be right, and when he is wrong he will admit it.

Finally, at the bottom of the list are the omega women. These women are so devoid of femininity and normal norms of human behaviour that men treat them with utter contempt. There is no degradation that they will not submit to in order gain some form of masculine approval. These women will turn a blind eye to child sexual abuse by their partner, pimp out their bodies and are willing to be the subject of any abuse. These women usually settle for the utter dregs of society. Sluts with a known reputation, aged hookers, drug users, etc. form this bottom rung of society. Their life is miserable and a warning to the observant.

The whole point about the submissisivenss that Aoefe advocates, is that it is the submissiveness of a woman in control of herself and happy in her relationship, this is the submissiveness of femininity. Aoefe wants to be no one's chattel, she wants to be their complementary mate. She is to be commended for swimming against the tide.

Gladiators and Pansies.

Continuing our analysis of Game and its relation to Aristotlean/Thomistic tradition, I want to raise the issue of something I've been musing about over the past few days. Now,to recap, according to this tradition a thing is good insofar as it conforms to the way it is is meant to be. For example, a perfect car has no faults, but a car that has a few minor scratches and dents is deficient in someway to the perfect car and is said to be privated with respect to the ideal; it's got some faults. Now that car can still be good enough to buy even though it's got a few faults( such as the scratches) but the more faults that the car accumulates the "less good" the car becomes. Finally the point is reached were the car is deficient in some way that makes it a bad car. Faulty gear box, cracked cylinder head and so on.

Now according to Christian tradition we are good insofar as we are free from sin. Our acceptability to God is in many ways like the acceptability of a car. We will still accept the car with minor faults, but will reject it if the faults are grievous. The faults of human beings are our "sins" and the Christian tradition classifies these faults pretty much along acceptable and unacceptable lines. Venial sins are like the scratches on a car and while rendering us imperfect, God still finds us acceptable if we posses them. Mortal sins on the other hand are faults so severe that God rejects the possessor of them outright.

Now our habits, behaviours and internal dispositions are the features which make up a man's character. Now a man's spirit is reflected in his character so therefore the behaviours and characteristics a man has render him either acceptable or non acceptable to God.

St Paul, the ever helpful fellow, wishing to save as many Christians as possible and his letter to the Corinthians lists a few faults which render a man unacceptable:

9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9

Pretty comprehensive list. Now the fault here that I wish to concentrate on is effeminacy. The actual Greek word from which it was derive was malakia, which literally means "softness" and various different translators have interpreted it differently. A cursory Internet search will reveal how wide and varied the interpretations have been, frequently to conform to the interpreters own personal agenda.

I think its fairly reasonable to assume that in order to understand the meaning of a word it is important to know how the word was used and so a brief understanding the ancient world's concept of "softness" is needed.

The ancient world placed a great emphasis on a man's moral strength, his ability to do the right thing no matter what the circumstance. Indeed, in St Thomas's reply to the objections(in the malakia link) he mentions that failing a test under heavy tribulation is pardonable while failing to put up any sort of effort is morally repugnant. It's interesting too, that in that bloodthirsty arena that made the ancient world, too much sex was seen was seen as a sign of weakness and a hedonist who practiced too much heterosexual sex was seen as malakoi. Perhaps its most accurate translation lays in the concept of sacrificing principle for pleasure. The Ancients thought that inappropriate amounts of pleasure seeking was as just as much a sign of weakness as was an inability to bear a certain amount of emotional pain. Hedonists were given short shift in the ancient world.

The ancient concept of manhood associated itself with a sense of dominance and control; not only of one's enemies and family, but of one's self. The man who couldn't control himself and who surrendered himself to emotion or circumstance was seen as weak and effeminate. Masculinity was not so much an anatomic fact but a psychological state of being. Female prostitutes and seductresses were seen as manly since they behaved like men in that they were actively seeking sex. Today's homosexual community thinks along the same line assigning partners in a homosexual relationship either a "butch" or "femme" role.

The morality of the Romans, who were pretty liberal even by today's standards, was pretty harsh when transgressed. Roman men were on the top of the social heap and as such he was expected to take the dominant role in sexual relations. To a certain degree it really didn't matter whom a Roman took to bed, what mattered was the position one assumed in the sexual act. Romans did not feel that homosexual acts compromised a mans masculinity, what compromised it was assuming the receptive position, or in other words, assuming the feminine role in the sexual act. They tended to view sexuality in terms of social structure and power dynamics and the Roman citizen who assumed the role of the receptive or submissive partner in the sexual act was seen with utter contempt. Submission was the vice of the weak; mastery, the virtue of the strong. Since the Roman male was meant to be strong, voluntary submission was seen to be a repudiation of manhood.

A Roman male could not have homosexual sex with another male since as a "giver" he would be subjugating his fellow Roman, which was banned, but should a man choose to be a "receiver" he would earn societies contempt mainly because he would have allowed himself to be subjugated by another man, which was contrary to the Roman ideal.

It should not be thought that this concept of psychological dominance only applied to the sexual arena. The Romans like the Greeks also believed that giving in to your fears or pleasures made you "soft." A man who fled in battle was not only a coward, but soft. So was a man who failed to attend his duties due to an inordinate love of pleasure. He had yielded to his sensuality. He failed.

The Romans had many slurs for this type of man but the Roman and Greek words for this type of "softness" were Molles and Malakia. They seemed to have the same connotations as in today's use of the terms: "pansy" ,"fag", "mummy's boy" or "wuss". The terms conveyed the idea of a man without masculinity. It's also interesting to note, that the Romans thought that a man who pursued normal heterosexual pleasure excessively part of this group. Today's players would have been considered "fags": Beta's in Roman society.

The man weak( as women are weak) in self control, in resisting pleasures, will be pathic:the texts reveal a complex of overindulgence in wine food and sex. Thus, paradoxically from our point of view; the man obsessed with women is passive; hence the well-known picture of the cultus adulterer, for whom we have our own curiously ambiguous phrase "ladies man".

Roman sexualities By Judith P. Hallett, Marilyn B. Skinner p58

Now the Greek term for "softness" from which the English translation "effeminacy" is derived is Malakia. is Now some translators of the Bible--and it really is quite interesting to see just how many different interpretations there are--have translated the term malakia as "receptive male partner"or "male prostitute". I'm not so sure about these translations since the Greeks and Romans already had a specific terms for that type of individual; cinaedi and pathici (Gk. kinadoi--literally meaning arse shaker), why use a general term when a more specific term was available? St Thomas's commentaries on the passage also seem to indicate a moral weakness rather than a specific sexual act. Why is this important?

What I think Paul(And St Thomas) were getting at was the condemnation of the common characteristic which characterised these deviants. Not only was the act despicable but so was the moral quality quality which allowed the man to perform the act. Paul was condemning "softness" of character. A man was meant to resist vices and not placing demands upon yourself to live according to the ideals of masculinity was a sin which excluded you from the kingdom of heaven. (Note too, that what Paul wasn't condemning was the desires, only the choice of not resisting them) Trying to translate the term into a specific instance of "softness" missed the point.

Paul was condemning men who don't act like men but he seemed to be condemning it within at least some of the ideals of classical masculinity and by doing so condemned a whole host of "deviancies" in one stroke. St Paul would have viewed a man who subscribed to the modern feminist inspired ideals of masculinity as having the same moral fault as assuming the man submissive position in the sexual act. (For those of you who think Paul was happy with men assuming the dominant position in any sexual act the next term in his list of condemnation specifically condemns male same sex acts. He was consistent) For a man to be a proper man he had to live according to the ideal and not sacrifice the ideal for any supposed comfort.

The man who sacrificed his dignity for regular access to sex, "marital harmony" or an attempt to make his wife happy all the time would have been as contemptuous to him as to the Romans; the man would be considered "weak". The man who let the woman wear the pants for whatever reason was malakia or molles.

This did not mean that within the Christian vision that the man was meant to arbitrarily lord over his family and that the woman was some chattel which he could use as he wished, rather it meant that he was in control of the marriage all the time even if it meant lots of work or responsibility was delegated to other parties. The Christian man was quite happy to let his wife run the family affairs but it was his duty to step in and take command if things started to go wrong. He did not cede power in a relationship, he delegated it. Moreover, this power over the household was given in the context that the man was responsible for the psychological, moral and material well being of the family. A man was given power in order adequately serve the interests of his family, not himself: all the while maintaining his dignity and masculinity. The Christan man had inner strength as so as not to yield to his passions and do the right thing always. The term used by the Seduction community for this type of virtue is "inner game", a moral quality self-control over ones emotions, to the extent that one will not sacrifice their dignity for the sake of female pleasure.

The current problem however is that western culture has been profoundly influenced by Feminism and limp wrist versions of Humanism and Christianity. Furthermore, with the effective banishment of the transcendental from the contemporary culture, the imperative in life is hedonistic. Men have become slaves to their sensuality, with the result being that many men today are devoid of masculinity. (This topic is worthy of a whole post which will be done later) Simple markers of masculinity are devoid in many men: the ability to fix and do things, hold down a regular job, be emotionally continent(When did crying and hugging become acceptable?), excessive concern about their appearance and engagement in the civic life are all absent. Instead the average western male devotes his time to "looking good", screwing around and spending days on X Box. We don't need to guess what St Paul would have thought of such men.

Words fail me.

Just when you thing the world can't get any worse, it does.

Unbelievable.

I imagine every one of the 15 abortions was a "traumatising and agonising decision."

Thomistic Game.

The great glory of St Thomas was that he was able to form a synthesis between Christian Theology and Greek Philosophy, with that in mind we will now attempt to look at Game through the Christian light and within the spirit of Thomism.

And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself. Gen 2:18

It is a small passage from the Bible but viewed in light of Greek philosophy full of profound significance.

The fact that it was "not good" for a man to be alone would, according to Aristotlean philosophy, imply that a man was in some way privated by being alone; a man was in some way deficient. Being deficient of a good of which a man was supposed to possess would, according to Aristotle, lead to unhappiness. Lonely people are unhappy: a self-evident truth.

Now a Christian man is supposed to possess Charity. In the Aristotlean sense, Charity is directed toward the perfection of things. Charity seeks to "un-private" the thing to which it is directed. Now Charity in a man is not only directed to things outside himself but to himself as well. Therefore a Charitable man will seek the ridding of his imperfections.. Hence it would imply that activities directed towards finding a mate are a good, since the remedy of a privation is a good.

It also follows that the "goodness" of a remedy is in proportion to the degree in which it is restorative of the privation. Now as traditional dating advice has pretty much been a dismal failure when it comes to finding a mate, whilst Game has been enourmously successfull, the Christian interpretation of Game is that it is a moral good.

Now the Christian commandments do not permit fornication. For the simple, that means pre-marital sex. Picking up girls is a moral good, taking them to bed outside of the context of mariage is not. It follows therefore that Game is permissible insofar that it facillitates male female interactions withing the context of the Christian moral norms.

Game however should not be thought of as a "pickup technique", rather as an applied knowledge of the understanding of the female psyche when it comes to what women regard as sexually and emotionally attractivenes. Attractiveness being the trait that draws one to the thing which possess it, it follows that a quality which maintains attractiveness are traits which are going to strengthen the marriage. The Christian perspective of marriage is that it is institution which has both a unitive and procreative purpose through which man finds happiness. An unhappy marriage is a marriage that is privated and hence things which "un-private" the marriage are to be considered moral goods. Game practiced to strengthen the marriage is a moral good.

Comment 1: Now a man may remedy his privation by companionship with others rather than females but we know that there are enough biblical injunctions against homosexuality to know that is not an option. So a man is left with two choices:

1) Either find a woman.
2) Find God. i.e live the consecrated life.Note it should be noted that only deliberate celibacy is meritorious since it chosen state in which a man seeks to come closer to God. Not getting any because you can't is not celibacy, it's famine.

Comment 2: It also follows that a man who is not looking for a mate is somewhere deficient in Charity, since that man is lacking in the remedial impreative to of his privation. MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) men who have renounced the companionship of women could be seen as acting without charity. In a Christian sense they could be said to be sinning.

Comment 3:Since the remedy of a privation is a good thing in itself, since it restores the defect to its perfected in nature, it follows that human companionship is a good; especially female companionship. The Misogynists view that is contrary to nature and hence sinful. Criticism of sex specific morally repugnant behaviour is not Misogyny. Misogyny is the hatred of women, not the hatred of sex specific moral failures.

Comment 4: Since a mate must come to us voluntarily, it follows that a man infused with charity will act in such a way to make himself attractive to a mate, failure to do so shows a lack of charity.

Nicomanchean Game.

Aristotle's book, The Nicomanchean ethics, deals with the fundamental question of how to lead a happy life. Aristotle's answer to the problem was that by living "virtuously"men would be able to find happiness.. Now virtue, in the Aristotilean sense, should not be confused with Christian concepts of virtue, rather it should be more thought of having the skills to live "correctly". This correct living was necessary if men were to find happiness, and while Aristotle realised that a happy life was also dependant on certain externalites, the main factor in the achievement of human happinesss was the cultivation of the "correct life skills" or virtues.

According to Aristotle, a deficiency of a virtue would make happiness unattainable. For example, courage was needed if a man were to fight off his adversaries and maintain a certain independance of action. People who were too cowardly to stand up for themselves were unhappy people and Aristotle argued that what a man needed to remedy the situation was the virtue of "courage". Aristotle also realised that the virtues had to be "harmonised". Courage had to be tempered by prudence, generosity by prudence and thrift. Virtues then were then a package of traits which gave happiness. The Nichomanchean ethics then goes on at length to discuss the nature of these traits.

Aristotle also argued that should a man be deficient in one or more of these virtues, it was possible to acquire them through practice until they became habituated. A man became just, by performing just acts, couragous by acting bravely and so on. The habituated practice did more than just give the appearance of virtue, but was transformative of the man's character itself. While the initialy attempts to practice the virtue would be poor and forced, with practice the virtue would be come habituated and the it become "natural". The man practicing good acts, became good. The couragous acts transformed a coward into a brave man, so that in the end, given a threatening situation, he could be counted on to act bravely. Furthermore, this transformation of character resulted in the man being happier

As mentioned before, Aritsotle also realised that virtue was not enough and that a man needed certain "externalities" outside of his character in order to find happiness. A certain amount of wealth, friendship and luck and so on were also required. However these externalities were wasted if the character was deficient. A man who inherited wealth would loose it if imprudent, friends would be lost if untrustworthy and so on. It also followed that the achievement of these externalities were facilitated by certain virtues of character. Wealth could be enlarged by industriousness and social standing by good character. In essences a man's fortune with regard to these externalities was dependent on his virtues.

It could also be demonstrated that individual human beings possessed the virtues in various degrees. Some men were "naturally" industrious, other naturally brave and so on. Most men seemed to have a mixture of the virtues and were absent in others. In order to be happy, the role of the reflective man was then to honestly examine himself, identify his deficiencies and then set about through practice to remedy them. Failure to do so, was a culpable vice against a man's own self.

Now one of the externalities which seem to be self-evidently necessary for the happiness of man is the companionship of the opposite sex. Therefore character traits which facilitate this companionship are a virtue. A man possessing these virtues would attract members of the opposite sex in the degree to which he posseses them. In a man these characteristics may be thought of as the masculine virtues; in a woman, the feminine. Some men through good luck will possess these virtues naturally but others will not. In order to be happy, men deficient in these virtues are obligated to cultivate them if they wish to be happy. As alluded to before, not only does a man become more attractive by practicing these virtues to the opposite sex, but by practicing the virtue he becomes more masculine and happier. His "outer Game" builds his "inner Game". An example of this can be found here.

It also needs to be remembered that without practice, the virtue becomes atrophied and with regard to game, a man who doesn't practice it will loose it. His attractiveness to the opposite sex will diminish with time. The hen-pecked husband is contemptible to his peers and to his partner as well. Therefore just as a man cultivates piety by attending Church regularly, so too does a man build up his game by its regular exercise. A husband seeking to maintain the attractiveness of his wife needs to practice it regularly.

Game fits withing the Aristotilean understanding human character and is a virtue which needs to be cultivate if a man is to be happy. As any lonely person will attest, the misery of loneliness is a self-evident truth. Therefore a man "owes it to himself" to practice the virtue in order to find a partner, failure to do so is a vice.

Game Theory.

Many of the readers who frequent this blog would no doubt be familiar with the concept of "Game". For those of you who are not, check "here"

Several Social Conservatives have voiced their disapproval of game, particularly religious types seeing it as nothing more that a manipulative technique to get women into bed. Curiously, Feminists too believe this as well. They point to Game's most eloquent proponent, Roissy, to show how it is a deeply immoral lifestyle which is contrary to Christian teaching. Indeed a superficial analysis of the phenomena of Game gives the appearance of a totally immoral system of male/female relations(from a Christian point of view). This view I think is profoundly mistaken.

Firstly what exactly is Game? Broadly speaking, it is the capacity to successfully attract and seduce women. A man who has Game is successful with women while a man who has not isn't

It can thought of as a body of applied knowledge that was developed over time by men who were initially unsuccessful with women, and who through trial and experiment, developed consistent techniques which made them successful. Game is a skill based upon an empirical knowledge of what works when it comes to the seduction of women.

Aristotle had a name for this type of knowledge, it was called Techne, a form of knowledge that produced practical results. The complement of Techne was Episteme, which can be defined as:

Pure science, in the strict sense disinterested, objective, without "telos" meaning without further aim, hence the meaning "knowing for its own sake". This form of knowledge stands in contrast to techne which is knowing with purpose, i.e. practical knowledge. Episteme may also be translated as theoretical science.

In modern parlance with reference to Game, techne is the practical skill of seducing women, episteme is the body of knowledge upon which that skill is based: Episteme is theory, Techne is practice. The important point here is that what intellectually underpins Game--Game's Episteme--is certain empirically validated notions about the nature of women. Furthermore Episteme is non-imperative and like all knowledge is morally neutral.

Now it is important to recognise what these notions are. This is not an exhaustive list but the important points are:

1) Women have a nature that is different to men's.
2) This difference is innate and hardwired.
3) Women think differently to men.
4) Women aim to choose the best mate possible.
5) Female mate selection is based on sexual attraction.
6) Women have sexual urges which seek gratification.
7) What women find sexually attractive is different to men but is discernible and predictable.
8) It has been repeatedly observed that what women find sexually attractive in a man are:

a) High relative social status.
b) Psychological dominance
c) The ability to elicit positive emotions in a woman
d) Superficial physical appearance.
e) The appearance of sexual satisfaction (i.e that the man does not appear to be sexually needy but can walk away from the deal if not on his terms)

9) Moral qualities generally rank low on the list of features which a woman finds sexually attractive.
10) Women are much more affected by their emotions than men and that women will gravitate towards positive emotional experiences.
11) The female emotional state is intrinsically intertwined with her thinking. Her rationalisations align with her emotional state. Emotional congruence is superior to intellectual consistence. " I know he is bad for me but he makes me feel good."
12) A woman who chooses a mate that does not satisfy her nature(beta) will become unhappy.

These observations may be considered as the axioms of Game theory which are at the core of Game's episteme.

Now for the pedants out there, these are broadly applicable "Rules of thumb". Some women will have preferences and act in a way that is different to the mean, but these are the exceptions and not the norm. Statistical outliers do not negate the validity of the mean.

Now while many Christians may recoil at the concept of Game, the episteme of Game or "Game theory" would be consistent with the Christian weltanshauung as espoused by St Thomas. Firstly, Game asserts the existence of a female nature or "essence". It recognises that the difference between men and women is more than just physical but lay in the natures of the sexes. It asserts that these natures are intrinsic to the being and not just "social constructs", and that by acting contrary to our nature human beings will become unhappy . The axioms of Game are Christian axioms. The basis of this congruence between the principles of Game and the Christian understanding of the sexes is the epistimology in which both systems of thought were developed, namely in a desire to understand reality.

As such, game theory is intrinsically opposed to the vision of Feminism. The more radical versions of Feminism, which see sex as a social construct, are repudiated by the Game's episteme
which sees the differences betwen the sexes as innate. Furthermore Game also poses a challenge to the more moderate versions of Feminism, which views spousal "equality in all facets of the marriage" as a precondition to marital bliss. Even these milder variants of Feminism are fundamentally flawed with regard to the nature of women, since they propose an idealised man who fails the psychological needs of a woman. For a woman's nature to be satisfied, she needs a partner whom she cannot subordinate and whom she can defer to. This too is consistent with the Christian vision which places the husband at the "head" of the family. A woman who "wears the pants" is acting contrary to her nature . Sensitve New Age Guys are deeply unsatisfying. As many beta divorcees will attest to, trying to keep a woman happy all the time will only earn her contempt and fuel her desire for a more dominant man.

Christian and Social Conservatives have also voiced their criticism of Game because of the Hedonistic lifestyle its practitioners espouse. But it is my opinion that their criticism is ill founded and based on a very superficial analysis of the Headonists. Many commentators have confused the Hedonistic lifestyle as practiced by Game's most eloquent proponents with the body of knowledge that is Game itself. Game is non imperative. It is a techne or episteme which can be used for good or evil. The hedonism which is associated with its most eloquent proponents is a more a consequence our current irreligious cultural climate which effectively denies a moral dimension on human acts.

It should be remembered that the greatest Christian theologians saw no problem in incorporating the insights of ancient Greek philosophy into Christianity despite the fact that the knowledge was proposed and promulgated by Pagans. Likewise conservatives should not be afraid of Game's episteme and techne despite the fact that its most eloquent champions are hedonists. I would propose that the knowledge of Game is a moral good since its insights are congruent with reality.

There is no doubt that there is currently a very serious and deep problem with relationship between the sexes. The years of Feminism have not yet delivered the promised Nirvana of female happiness. Indeed, there seems to be evidence that women were happier before the feminisation of the Western male and masculinisation of the female. This state of affairs would have been on no suprise to St Thomas or any of the modern proponents of Game. Men and women have been taught to act contrary to their natures with the predictable consequences.

The Christian male can profit from Game's episteme and techne in his relations with women. Firstly, in developing the skills to attract women he can be more selective about his mate. Secondly, by understanding the operating principles of female psychology he can endeavor to operate and act in such a way as to satisfy his partner and strengthen his marriage. Thirdly he can learn to recognise problems in his relationship well before they become irreparable. Fourthly, it will serve as an armour against feminist imperatives with regard to male behaviour which make him act contrary to his nature and render him therefore less attractive to women. Game is knowing how to be a man around women.

Some of the critics of Game suggest that it presents an unflattering and inaccurate view of women. Once again I think it is the critics who are wrong with this view. Firstly, many men from different cultures and social strata have found that once they have incorporated the principles of game in their lives, their relationship with women has drastically improved. The cross cultural/social extent and breadth of the reported change validates the underlying epistime. A theory is validated by demonstration.

Secondly, perhaps the Games relatively unflattering view of female nature may be as a result of the unrealistic or unnatural view of women that critics, especially social conservatives have of them. It is not that Game is unflattering to women its that some the of the conservative views with regard to women are unrealistic. Game puts a strong emphasis on the carnal reality of women, something traditional society has been loathe to admit. Supporting evidence of this comes from males who have tried traditional approaches with regard to attracting women and been rewarded with nothing but failure. ( I think commentator Thursday alluded to here. It is something I wish to write more about in the near future.) The

What needs to be understood is that Game serves to facilitate sexual promiscuity because of current society places no limitations on sexual behaviour. A man without moral limits, who understands how to attract and seduce women will exploit this to the full. His success being proportionate to the perfection of his Game. Likewise a Christian man, operating within a moral framework which places limits on his behavior, can use game to improve his relationships with women within that moral framework, benefiting both the man and the woman, since what Game ultimately teaches is what makes women happy. Game is not pro-promiscuous, that's Hedonism; rather Game is based on an accurate understanding of female nature. It is not just a techne on how to seduce women, but an episteme with regard to female nature. The fact that its practitioners are enjoying enormous success suggests that they're onto something.

Apologies

Firstly, I wish to apologise to my few long suffering readers who have been checking in on the blog. The reason that I have not been posting for the past two months is that I have been on holidays with My family in Europe and during that time I made a promise to myself and family to stay away from the computer. Haphazard transmission will now resume as per normal.