Bah, Humbug.

I'm in a curmudgeonly mood tonight. I've had a bad day at work. Too many stupid people in the world.

I've been rather gloomy of late, reflecting on the decline of what was once the pre-eminent civilisation on this earth. And like others, I sense a profound unease about me. That something is wrong, that something malevolent lurks, and that our wealth, prosperity and comfort is all illusory. In the book of Ecclesiastes there is this comment:

5 There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as an error which proceedeth from the ruler: 6 Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place. 7 I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth.

Today we had this article in the local paper; it reminded me of that passage. Typical union blackmail and thuggery. I know many professionals who have studied for years who will not be making that kind of money: ever. Scientists, engineers, teachers etc. It appears that in Australia at least, the benefits of an education certainly aren't material. The average "tradie" in Australia is apprenticed at 16 and on his own at 20. There is no educational debt and frequently much of the money they earn is undeclared.

Now it may appear that I'm just have a case of the sour grapes. Personally I couldn't care less how much these people earn. But in a society where this kind of thing happens it becomes a society that corrodes the value of an education. In the short term it really is no big deal but in the long term it kills the society. Taking a bigger picture view of things, across the board, our politicians have created a system of governance which rewards folly and in turn punishes virtue, not just here in Australia but in all of the West.

How did we get this way? The cause of the West's demise is multifactorial, but if I were to try to reduce it to its bare essence it would be as follows:

1)Bad philosophy or in other words the rejection of traditional morality and epistemology.
2)Uncritical Media: The transmission media of bad ideas. Philosphers influence the media which in turn influences the public.
3)Democracy: The granting of the vote to people by virtue of having a pulse. Take a look at this site. Although it mocks the average citizen who shops at Walmart it bears reflecting that each of these citizens (with such evident good judgement) is entitled to same share of political power as the most prudent and virtuous citizen. They vote like they dress. They are the voting block which bad philosophers rely on to bring their political ambitions to fruition. The left hand side of the Bell curve is the Devil's.

Thinking about it really gets a man down. I mean really down. So many stupid people It would appear that the odds of reversing the trend are insurmountable. Yet there is hope.

As Christopher Dawson once said, If we were to put ourselves in Ancient Rome and ask ourselves where the world's next big idea would come from, no one in their right mind would suggest that the next big thing was brewing in the far off province of Palestine. Still that's what happened. Everything was stacked up against the early Christians, and I mean everything.

Still in the end, they kicked arse. they took over Rome and produced the World's greatest civilisation. No one sane sitting in those Ancient Roman forums would have predicted it. I have this strange feeling, and though it is totally without any logical basis at all, that it will soon be time for round two of Christianity vs the world. And based on past performance I've got a pretty good hunch who s going to win.

With that in mind. I'd like to wish all of my small band of readers a Merry Christmas. Notice, I did not say Happy Holidays, Seasons Greetings or any other crap. And note as well: Merry Christmas, not Xmas. I don't give a flying fig about the Greek Chi. Peace and Good Will to all men and if you get offended by these sentiments then piss off.

Your Great Grandmother wasn't a Ho.

Following up on the previous post and its implication that the First World War was the time when the rot set in with regard to Western Civilisation, the following data from the research of Mr Lewis T Terman seems appropriate.

Sex research existed before Kinsey and while limited in scope, seemed to be more objective and of higher quality than nearly all of it that followed it. One of the few researchers in the field at that time, Lewis P Terman, published a book in 1938, The Psychological Factors in Marital Happiness. This was a wide ranging study looking at what made marriages happy and it involved 792 couples. It is of interest because it was one of the first studies to ask about premarital sex. He found the following rates of premarital sex amongst women in the following cohorts.

Before 1890: 13.6%
1890-1899: 23.6% (This is the generation that reached young adulthood about WW1)
1900-1910: 48%
Post 1910: 66%

Now admittedly most of the women who did have premarital sex did so with their future fiancee, and sleeping around did not really gain societal traction till the 50's, but what really stands out is the change post WW1. Then as in now, it was the lower classes that lost their virginity first, whilst the better educated and higher classes kept chaste till later. Still the big changes seemed to have happened about the time of the First World War. It really was a different world back then.

1914 and all that.

Unlike most people, I don't think the Sixties were a big deal. In my mind the great change in the West occurred with the First World War. In the intellectual sphere everything changed then. Central Europe died, Russia(Communism) was born, Tradition in the arts was put aside and modernity embraced. The rot of Western Civilisation set in.

Now whilst I agree that the Sixties were a period of great change, I always had the impression that it was more a time when the veil came off rather than anything new was dreamed up. People's habits did not change as a result of the Sixties, the habits had changed long before; rather a veneer of respectability covered everything and until the Sixties people still paid lip service to traditional ideals.

The profound changes in the Catholic Church were more probably a reflection on the fact that the faith was in reality for most a socially conditioned habit rather than the result of an active faith, and so when it became socially acceptable to leave, people did. Likewise the great sexual liberation of the Sixties was not so much a liberation as an acknowledgment of what was really going on behind the veneer of domestic respectability.

With that in mind this paper should make for interesting reading. This article is also of some worth.

I Live in Bedford Falls

One of my favourite movies is, It's a Wonderful Life. I'm sure many of you have seen it but for those who haven't, its a story about a man who gets to see what the world would of been like had he not been born. George Bailey, played by Jimmy Stewart, is a good man who runs a savings an loan, and basically through small acts of sacrifice, helps build up the community in which he lives(interestingly its a good tale on the merits of responsible banking).The town he lives in is Bedford Falls, a picture of what we would like to think is small town America. Clean, decent and neighbourly. Shakespeare had a great term for the feeling that Capra evoked in his image of Bedford Falls, "domestic awe".

In the movie, George has an evil competitor, Mr Potter, who would surely find a place on the board of Goldman Sachs today. When George gets to see what Bedford falls would be like if he had not been born, it becomes Pottersville, a sleazy, "exciting" town of violence, booze and sex. Where everyone is in it for themselves. George, seeing what the world has become without him realises his life is not worthless and gains a new appreaciation for it.

I never watch the ending of the movie, because I sob like a baby.

Now the person who most inspired me to start blogging was Theodore Dalrymple. I had accidentally stumbled onto him whilst surfing on the Internet and found what he said was the mirror of my professional experience. Whilst he has spent much of his professional career working in the British psychiatric system, I have spent a lot of my profession career working with the lower classes of Australia, and can vouch for their similarities with the British proletariat.

My own childhood resembled pretty much life in Bedford falls. My parents were working class. They were frugal but lived their life with dignity. We always had enough to eat, our houses(and gardens) were spotless and we lived in a community where people looked out for one another. Even my parents, whom I resented on many occasions, never game me the impression that they did not care for me. Even if I wanted to, I could not have been neglected and in my youth, I could remember my parents keeping the door of the house unlocked when they went to the neighbours. I thought everyone lived this way.

I was of course wrong. Although I had inklings that there were working class people that lived differently to ourselves I had not really encountered them in large numbers till I started working in my professional career. Spend any time with the bottom rung of society and the you realise that it assumes the visage of Hobb's world: nasty, brutish and short. Violence is random, sudden and without explanation. Social atomism and personal responsibility are absent. Self-gratification is the sole motive of their existence. Rudeness, outright lying and aggressive self assertion are commonplace , and after a while one becomes desensitised to them. The world of the underclass is not just materially deprived, it's different. It's horrible. The concepts of permanence and restraint are lost and human beings are motivated by their animal urgings. One can never be "at ease" with these people since they are constantly evaluating you for any potential advantage they can gain from you. Relationships are viewed from a point of potential advantage. Its every man for himself. Alliances rather than friendships. Hookups rather than love. Turn your back, they'll steal your stethoscope. Every medical history of tinged with the realisation that they may not be entirely truthful. Every relationship, an act of potential manipulation. They are the citizens of Pottersville.

Working in this environment crushes the spirit. There is a kafka-esque quality to it, to which the social services(and the Law) contribute no end. Any attempt at virtue is systematically crushed, vice encouraged. Acts of kindness, decency and self restraint are the exception and not the norm. You do literally become hard-boiled and cynical. One becomes so used and desensitised to evil, that what shocks are not acts of depravity but acts of goodness. The psychological effect of working in such an environment is "spiritual drainage, and as I have followed Dalrymple's writings for the past few years I have noted in him, like in myself, a weariness, and a revulsion at the spiritually toxic environment that makes up the life of those in the bottom(and the very top). It makes me ever grateful for the life that I have and it's also why I could profoundly sympathise with him in this post. I too know that feeling.

The problem is now that this prole culture is drifting into "respectable" society. When I read sites like Roissy in DC and The Errant Wife, I feel like I'm breathing the air of Pottersville. Prole habits are pushing aside the traditional bourgeoisie virtues and indeed many of the middle class now resemble "gilded proles": middle class incomes with untermensch habits. The bourgeoisie are dying.

Now you would imagine that given a choice between Pottersville and Bedford Falls the choice would be easy. This article in Salon illustrates the depth of our corruption. Still this reply to the article is worth quoting:

When George was in Bedford Falls he called it a “crummy little town” and is one of the down sides of being from Bedford Falls—having the capacity of visualizing a different reality--the counter factual--in which one can live free from desperation, tragedy, and tyranny. You know that you’re really in Pottersville when it starts looking good and the only difference that is meaningful is the quality of the bars.

Still pockets of decency remain, and coming home from work there's been many a time when I've felt like George Bailey, grateful for the friends and family that I have. Grateful for the life that I have and the simple pleasures. Grateful for an oasis of goodness in a sea of self-inflicted evil. I know that life can be so much worse.

I work in Pottersville. I live in Bedford Falls.

A Happy Thanksgiving to My U.S. readers.

Zen

For what its worth, I've written this post for young Christian men. Hedonists simply won't understand.

As a man who is naturally Hedonistic, I'll be the first to agree that virginity is one those things that hasn't got much going for it. The pleasures of the flesh have much more worldly allure than the distant heavenly rewards of the ascetic virtue of virginity. The problem is though, the prohibition of fornication, comes from the mouth of God himself, and a man who wants the live the faith has gotta get on board. My conversion to the faith happened in my college years. (The details are irrelevant, it's proof that God has a sense of humour) and in that environment of plentiful supply of sex and social encouragement to partake, I got religion.....Lucky me : (

Now, one of the misconceptions that non-Christians are frequently guilty of, is the assumption that when a man becomes converted to the faith he ceases being a man. People seem to think that when a man begins to worship God, he ceases to have any interest in sex. Nothing could be further from the truth. As many a TV Evangelist shown, that a man with an interest in God frequently has an unhealthy interest in sex.

As a result of my conversion I took my religion seriously though reluctantly, and while the flesh always remained willing, my conscience was pretty effective at stopping me giving in to temptation. That is not to say I still did not go out with women or try push it to the absolute limit. But I imagine many must have thought me gay(If they only knew, I kept my religion personal), when I rebuffed their sexual advances. I thought my faith was a curse. Here I was in ocean of women, in their prime, but not allowed to touch. But a curious thing happens to a man when he goes out with women which he cannot have sex with, the nature of his relationship with women changes.

As the nice beta I had thoroughly imbibed the contemporary romantic ideation with regard to women. They were sugar and spice and all things nice. Now, I am naturally of a genuine and courteous nature and acted the part of the chivalrous male. As any man with even the slightest knowledge of Game could have predicted , I got rejected many times, despite doing all the supposedly right things. The psychological consequences were predictable. Repeated sexual and romantic frustration had destroyed my self-confidence around women. In your teenage years, whilst all about you are wallowing in lust, nothing more thoroughly confirms your undesirability than, when everyone else is paired, you are alone. Partnering was a way of self validation.

The other issue was of course the way I looked at women.

I don't think women really appreciate the effect of beauty on a man. It really does cast a spell over a man. When in love, a man can literally so no fault in his beloved. Women in their prime years are simply amazing. I imagine that it's why artists are painting young naked women all the time. They are simply incredible. And it's not just in their sexual allure. It's in the little things. The way they move, their smell, the feel of their skin, the way the hair falls around their shoulders and so on. It consumes a man while at the same time overwhelmingly sabotaging a man's critical faculties. The beautiful woman becomes the good woman. It is said that a woman with many faults will be forgiven if she is beautiful, it's not that she is forgiven, it's just that beauty blots out the faults. A man's brain simply stops working. I was no different.

It was with this mindset that Christianity struck me like a thunderbolt. Religion became a real and meaningful thing, not something you paid lip service to. I was compelled to live the faith, including the prohibition of fornication. Which of course meant that you could pick up and go out with a girl but you couldn't have sex with her until you were married. Bummer...... or so I thought.

However, this created a curious state of affairs in me. I was caught between two opposing forces. The flesh which wanted to be sated, and the soul which wanted to be good. My response to this dilemma was to push sex into the back of my mind whilst out on a date. Indeed, in order the keep the libido in check I would tend to concentrate on a woman's other features, the further back I pushed the beauty and sexual allure, the more pronounced her other features became. What I found was a revelation.

Stripped of their sexual allure, many women had nothing else to offer. Women whom I hung around with because of a potential sexual interest, suddenly became uninteresting; no actually repulsive. Not just that, many were down right mean, manipulative and self absorbed, some desperate social climbers, some obvious gold diggers, others seriously psychologically disturbed, and far too many coarse and undignified. Indeed, it came slowly as a revelation, that stripped of their sex appeal, a huge proportion of women(not all) were unattractive as human beings. Had my male friends possessed the moral characteristics of some of these women, they would not have been my friends.

But it also lead to a further realisation. That I was a better; much, much better person than many of the women that I wanted to bed. It slowly dawned upon me. I........ was........quality. The urge for female validation evaporated, and female qualification assumed its place.

I met so many women that disappointed, that I seriously began to wonder if there wasn't something wrong with me. I began not to give a damn about their opinion of me. Instead of being the needy beta seeking female validation, I started not rejecting women because they repulsed me. Before I would let a women into my life they were going to have prove themselves to me. Women who knew how to use their sexual allure to manipulate, were shocked when I didn't respond. Beautiful women perplexed when I spent the evening talking to her plainer friend. The perplexed look on their face proof that the world was definitely unpredictable. If I was going to commit to a woman, I wasn't going to settle for second best and many women were deeply flawed.

Being able to tame the sexual beast bought other benefits. I initiated when I pleased, the gnawing sexual urge, there, but not forcing my moves. If she became tiresome, I left. Insulting, she was put down. I maintained control at all times. Shit tests were not an issue, since if she didn't like response, I couldn't care less if she walked. The girls that met me thought I was arrogant. I had reached a point where I really didn't care at all if a woman liked me. But not feeding the sexual beast kept me hungry. I never became apathetic. What had happened is that I had inadvertently developed strong inner game. I had achieved the Zen state.

My disqualifiers of women were both looks and character. She had to be feminine, a hottie and good natured.. I like people who are nice, polite and honest. A woman who lacked grace or class fell in her desirability to me. Many a hot 9 or 10 would on closer inspection drop to a 3 when she opened her mouth or after she had a few drinks. I would be lying if I said the converse was true (for myself at least), 4's may of become 6's with good character but they would not have moved up to 10's.

This did not mean that every woman I met, liked me. Nor did women magically flock to me. In fact I'm certain I would have picked up much more had I cared more for my appearance. But my success rate went up, way up. I still got rejected, but because I was never in awe of a girl's beauty and had not invested much time in her the loss was small and the injury slight. Move on.

The practice of sexual self-control whilst restraining my libido opened my eyes and inadvertently gave me strength of character. It allowed me to appreciate a woman's beauty without being a slave to it. When the dangling carrot of sex ceases to be an incitement, you begin to judge women by other assets. Many had nothing. It seems strange and such an elementary insight, but while brain was down below I could not see it. But more importantly this change in me wasn't conscious, it sort of happened by accident.

Now it is possible to gain this insight through disciplined Hedonism. Roissy too, wrote of this insight, in one of his "Sixteen Commandments of Poon":

The man who trains his mind to subdue the reward centers of his brain when reflecting upon a beautiful female face will magically transform his interactions with women. His apprehension and self-consciousness will melt away, paving the path for more honest and self-possessed interactions with the objects of his desire. This is one reason why the greatest lotharios drown in more love than they can handle — through positive experiences with so many beautiful women they lose their awe of beauty and, in turn, their powerlessness under its spell. It will help you acquire the right frame of mind to stop using the words hot, cute, gorgeous, or beautiful to describe girls who turn you on. Instead, say to yourself “she’s interesting” or “she might be worth getting to know”............

(My bold type)

Now it would appear that that Alphadom can be approached from many directions. And it would appear that the Zen like state of the two approaches is the same. But that would be wrong. For the Hedonistic Alpha a beautiful woman's spell is neutralised by sexual satiety. Whilst the Christian Alpha neutralises through sexual self control. Is there a difference?

Well in terms of picking up women I doubt it. I think both approaches will work just as effectively, but in the longer term, especially when looking for a long term mate, I think the two methods lead to quite different outcomes.

Firstly the hedonistic approach is aimed towards easy sex and plentiful sex, the Christian approach toward finding a mate. The hedonistic approach is directed towards the sexual quality of the partner, the Christian approach to both the sexual quality and the character of the partner.
Christian men want hotties as well, but good hotties.

Commentator Roosh V has written two excellent posts on dealing with the psychological consequences of Hedonistic game. It's interesting that the men who are most practiced at game seem to despise the women who most easily give them what they want. The girls they seem to value the most are the girls who have not slept around, but as the gamesters write off a girl if she hasn't provided the goods after the third or fourth date, they're actually screening for unsatisfactory women. The predictable effect is that the women that they score are low quality. No, that does not mean that they score unnatractive women, it's just that their attractive women are of low quality. The imperative in their mindset is sexual satisfaction. The girl that doesn't provide the goods (in other words the girl that doesn't sleep around) is the one they're going to pass over. The joy of hedonism is that you get to enjoy the company of the low hanging fruit of female virtue.

The Christian approach superficially has little to recommend it. The barren desert of abstinence vs the lush oasis of sated lust: The Spartan approach vs the Persian. But it seems to toughen a man up in the way hedonism doesn't. If you can tame the beast in your pants then there's a good chance that you can beat other vices as well. The other advantage is that without the distraction of sex, a man can choose more based on character,something that is more enduring than beauty. Beauty's spell is neutralised. That's not to say that a man can't appreciate beauty but he learns to see past it, he gains the skill of seeing the woman behind the mask.Indeed the man can be more selective for the traits which mark quality in a woman. Instead of trying to have sex with her, he's trying to get to know her and then have sex with her.

When I read the HBD and game blogs and see an author say that men choose women solely on the basis of their beauty, they're using a different metric to me. I don't think many of these commentators actually realise just how distasteful a woman with bad behaviour is. But then again they can't see it. What matters when I look at a woman is both looks and the ephemeral qualities that make up "class". If there is none of that, then no matter good how she looks, she doesn't matter. After a while you really do develop a highly attuned skank filter. You learn to recognise the flakes, the disturbed, the manipulative and the easy. The problem with this though is, that your moving a much smaller pool of women, albeit it is of a higher quality. (That's the other thing, I started to avoid the the declasse and became known as a snob). It's a consequence of like being attracted to like.

And before anyone thinks I had excessively high standards, I did. I was playing for keeps, this wasn't a game. My treasure, my good name and my future children (and all that frustrated hedonism) had a vested interest in the choice of my mate. She had to be exceptional. She is.

It needs to be remembered that while sex is an act, love is a state of being, the two are correllated, not conditional. You can have all the sex in the world but not be in love. The converse is true as well, you can love passionately even without the sex. Love by its nature is other focused, it is conditional on the qualities of the other person. The other interesting thing about about it is that love is not chosen, it's an involuntary reaction to the other person, you just can't will yourself to do it. Exceptional men will only be inspired by exceptional women. The Zen master realises that skill is not just in being able to attract, but in being able to attract the right ones.

Few Good Men.

This post is inspired by a post last week over at The Obsidian Files. Obsidian, whom I've found to be a very perceptive social commentator, noted how hard it is for a woman to find a good man. Good men being definitely in short supply.

And I concur; I do think it is difficult for a woman to find a good man. As I alluded to in one of my very early posts on the subject, I've been quite amazed at the number of, what I would consider high quality women, who have presented to my rooms with reactive depression secondary to loneliness. I don't think many men realise just how crushing this is to a woman's self esteem and sense of self worth. Unlike the posse of misogynists that make up most of some of the less salubrious Game discussion forums, I don't think women are in general evil, misandric or hypersexual. Most of the girls that I met in life or in my professional capacity have seemed to me to be normal girls who want to find a good man and settle down. Now don't get me wrong, there are downright mean and nasty specimens of womanhood out there, but they probably in the same proportion as they are in men.

Now many men may think that women's expectations are too high, but I disagree. Women are hard wired to marry at least equal or up, so the higher up a woman is in the world, the higher the man she desires. And for a moment put yourself in the woman's perspective. Suppose you are an average guy, can you make yourself attracted to fat, classless, ho? A woman has to satisfy certain criteria before you start feeling attracted to her. As many of the game commentators have mentioned, many of the Anglo-cultured women have ceased to be attractive. Their manners, grooming, attitude and weight all repulse normal male nature. As men our "hard wiring" finds them unattractive.

I believe the the reason for the "good man shortage" is mainly due to the "success" of of several cultural factors. The widespread uptake of tertiary education by women, the prole drift of culture, particularly male culture and the change in the nature of our tertiary level education: The emphasis of this education shifting from a broad based knowledge, to a high degree of specialisation from the outset.

Now one of the unintended consequences of educating women is that we have raised the bar of what a female considers attractive in a man. In this post I discussed that triggers of sexual and emotional approval in a woman are displays of dominance in a male. Now dominance is a relative thing, for a man to be attractive he must be more dominant than the woman, hence the problem for the super alpha female is that there are actually very few men who are more dominant than her. Her dating pool is actually much smaller than that of her less dominant sister. Now dominance is a multifaceted things composed of what would would consider broadly as masculinity. It tends to encompass a whole concept of virtues, including perseverance, intelligence, strength and so on. Now a man may display levels of dominance but he needs to display them with intelligence, and if this is lacking, then he will be unattractive to an intelligent woman. Himbos are good for short term flings but are not long term committal material.

The "problem" is however, that at the moment, females outnumber males at college. We are doing a better job educating women than men and currently int the U.S. 43% of college students are males and 57% female. Assuming that women don't want to marry down, that means for every female college graduate there is only 0.75 males. Of course the picture is more complicated than this, but just on the basis of the difference in the numbers of the educated, there are going to be a lot of deeply unsatisfied and single female college graduates.

The other issue of course is not just the numbers enrolled but the quality of the education and the differing experiences the different sexes have through college. Universities have ceased to be places of generalised learning, instead they have become institutions of advanced trade, especially in the more scientific degrees. And it's in these courses that the men tend to congregate. On the other hand, the Arts degree's tend still encourage a wider range of learning(at least within the Arts) and the atmosphere of the Arts faculties tends to encourage at least the development of some kind of aesthetic sense. So what we get at graduation is extremely practically skilled but mono-dimensional males, and generally educated( but with limited practicality) women with a cultivated aesthetic sense: Skilled bores vs aesthetic belles; Nerdy/Jock Guy, Arty Chick. Of course, these are broad generalisations, but anyone who has been through the university system will recognise the stereotypes.

In our Westernised "Woman's Nations", our societies are now producing more broadly educated and smarter women than men. But given that women prefer to marry either equal or up due to their nature,it's obvious that there is going to be a severe shortage of men who will satisfy them at the psychosocial level. More and more women will assume power in our societies, but they will rule with lonely hearts. Good men will be hard to find for a long time to come.

The Dominant Female.

Continuing on the theme of the alpha submissive female, I thought I'd make a few comments on the alpha dominant female.

Like all Alphas, these individuals are able to impose their will on others and are in control of their lives. They characters posses a combination of both psychological strength and will power. These are the women, who in their most benign, compel through manners and intelligence, and in their malignant form, assume the guise of the office bitch. They are the women the media laud and they posses the characteristics of success, discipline, intelligence and drive.

Now the Alpha Dominant female is the person who calls the shots in the relationship. She dictates the terms. When challenged, she will not defend but attack. Insulted, she knows no limit in reply. Slighted, she will seek her vengeance. If the relationship is not to her liking she walks. What we have in such an individual is akin to Nietzsche's "will to power ". These women have incredible psychological strength.

This is the type of woman that is able to triumph against adversity alone. They are incredibly successful in nearly everything they undertake ........................except their personal lives.

In dealing with these women, one of the recurring themes that comes up is of their inability to find a worthy mate. Firstly, there is the problem of finding an equal and not partnering "down" and secondly there is the problem that a lot of men are quite simply frightened off by this type of dominant woman. Admittedly a lot of these women actually end up being married; they're smart enough to know that the biological clock is ticking and that they need a father for the child, and unlike their less intelligent sisters, are prepared to accept a less than perfect man . This immediate solution does however lead to long term problems.

Slowly, but surely, over time they start to show contempt to the man. "I have to make all the decisions", "He's always making mistakes", "I can't trust him with anything". Her intellectual and character superiority become self-evident to her and she begins to despise her spouse.

This is an interesting phenomena and one that really hasn't been explored much. I mean why does a woman find a man that she can boss around contemptible? Why, in the age of Feminism, does leadership of a relationship produce unhappiness in the female leader? Why is emotional weakness, lack of ambition, etc. a turn off to women? It seems to be a universal trait and it's not something that seems to happen naturally to a man.

Why are weakness, indecision and lack of ambition so off putting to women?

Personally I don't believe that there is a contingent explanation. I believe that women are wired up that way and this response is part and parcel of a feminine nature. It's in their nature to recoil when these traits are displayed in a man, furthermore these non-masculine traits seem to switch off sexual desire.(Speculation:Presumably a helpless man resembles a child and triggers off a mothering response in a woman. The mothering response is however asexual with regard to the object of its intention. i.e women don't want to have sex with children)

Recent research looking into how the brain responds to erotic images indicates that a fair amount of subconscious erotic recognition processing occurs even before a person is aware of it. Our response to the erotic is not a conscious willed activity. Or in other words, if you lack the features that switch on the sexual response, there will be no erotic attraction. Being nice to a woman in the absence of triggering the cerebral erotic response will not get a man love or sex.(Fortunately men can learn Game)

Link 1:

"In this study, we demonstrate that information that has not entered observers' consciousness, such as [invisible] erotic pictures, can direct the distribution of spatial attention.

Link 2:

As subjects looked at the slides, electrodes on their scalps measured changes in the brain's electrical activity called event-related potentials (ERPs). The researchers learned that regardless of a picture's content, the brain acts very quickly to classify the visual image. The ERPs begin firing in the brain's cortex long before a person is conscious of whether they are seeing a picture that is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral.

But when the picture is erotic, ERPs begin firing within 160 milliseconds, about 20 percent faster than occurred with any of the other pictures. Soon after, the ERPs begin to diverge, with processing taking place in different brain structures for erotic pictures than those that process the other images.

Now if a woman is genetically programmed to positively erotically respond to dominant male traits this raises some interesting issues. Firstly social conditioning is going to have a limited impact in modifying the response. Secondly, the more a man defers to a woman, lets her take control and seeks her approval by trying to please her, the less he appears a man and the more he appears the child: the less erotically inclined she will be towards him. Men who accept the gospel of radical feminism become less sexually attractive to their wives.

Now I believe in what might be called "Thomistic psychology". That is, men and women have different natures and needs, and that acting contrary to one's nature or having one's natural needs unsatisfied will lead to unhappiness. This idea of a "predictable female nature" was of the things that provoked my interest in the Game community. Furthermore, both St Thomas and the Gaming community taught that you can't escape nature, it forms the core essence of who you are. Your gender is not a social construct, it's innate.

Now, if you take this "natural" approach to female psychology a lot of things begin to make sense. Men who display decision, dominance, intelligence and ambition are going to trigger switches in a woman which will facilitate sexual attraction. Women with poor self control are going to follow their instincts while women with greater self-control are going to cognitively evaluate their mate with regard to his suitability. A lot of girls have poor self-control; especially when alcohol is involved and consequently a lot of regretted sexual activity occurs after drinking.

Now, one of those natural needs which people seek is a mate and the Alpha dominant woman is in a non-enviable position in this regard. Without a mate her life is empty, and she is saddened by this state of affairs. On one hand she wants to be loved, but on the other, her character and strength overpower nearly all men, so its very difficult to find a mate as her subconscious erotic buttons only get pushed in the presence of an even more strong willed person than herself. As she exceptional, her pool of mates will be very small, declining in proportion to her intelligence and strength of will. On the other hand if she chooses a man less "psychologically strong" than herself, she is going to find her mate erotically repulsive to the degree in which she can dominate him. At best it ends up being a marriage of friendly convenience, at worst, she will eventually leave.

This is why the only happy Alpha woman is the woman who has found a more assertive man than herself. The only happy Alpha woman is the Alpha submissive; the Alpha dominant travels alone.

The Sex Diaries

I've often felt that you can judge the quality of a man not only by the character of his friends but also by the character of his enemies. I generally operate on the assumption that if the Left hates you, then your likely to be alright till proven otherwise. With that in mind the hatred that the feminists directed towards the book The Sex Diaries by Bettina Arndt piqued my interest.

It is a shame that Australia is such small blip on the world cultural radar, because sometimes we do produce individuals which deserve a wider audience and I feel that Ms Arndt deserves more airtime than she has been currently given.

It also needs to be understood that Ms Arndt is in no way a politically or culturally conservative, she was in the forefront of the sexual revolution here in Australia and I can remember as a child here name being bandied about derogatively by sexual conservatives and she was one of Australia's first sex therapists.

Her book The Sex Diaries was the result of her research looking into the sex lives of 98 Australian couples. It's an easily readable book, with excerpts from the diaries which the participants were asked to keep about their sex lives. While the research is anecdotal and has its flaws, I feel it has some merit and is an accurate gauge of state of marriage in Australia: It makes for depressing reading. In reality the book is not a book about sex, but a book about relationships, and the sad fact is that many relationships are clearly dysfunctional.

The biggest message that has come from the book is how sexually starved the majority of men are in their relationships and how totally uncaring many of their wives are. It needs to be noted that she also deals with sexually unsatisfied women and happy couples but as other reviewers have noted it's the sexually and emotionally starved man which makes the biggest impression.

As Arndt documents; in most cases the wife starts of with a high libido but over time her libido diminishes and her response to this is to shut of sex supply to her husband. What comes across as most disconcerting however is how just callously indifferent a lot (not all) of the women are to the husband's situation. Indeed what is really off putting is how so many men try so hard to please the woman with progressively diminishing returns.(Game advocates will recognise the fallacy of the approach)

What also seems to come across in Arndt's book is how our modern culture seems to have belittled men's sexual desire while at the same time inflating the importance of women's. Women have been taught by our feminist culture that having sex when you don't feel like it is wrong. Men have to learn to accept it: And men are. Apart from the callousness of the women what struck me was just how hard men were trying to keep the marriage going.

The book isn't all moans and groans and Arndt illustrates that some marriages are are full of sex. They also tend to be the most intimate and the partners seem the most "connected". What struck me about these relationship was that each of the partners were "other focused" while in the sexless marriages one or both of the partners was completely self-focused.

Ms Arndt is a intensely pragmatic woman who can actually empathise with the situation that the men are in. She also seems to go to pains to explain how sex is important to men on an emotional level and how men perceive sexual refusal as emotional refusal as well. Her solution to the problem of a woman with low libido is for her to " just do it" for the sake of the marriage.
Her rationale being, that even if a woman is uninterested initially, she will be interested and enjoying herself in the end.

The feminist response was as predictable. Ms Arndt was accused of being an apologist for rape, sexual assault and was denigrating women, blah, blah, blah: We've heard it all before.

Here are two book reviews that are worth a read. Link 1. Link 2
Also worth reading are some of the articles which can be found at her site. She has some very good articles on divorce and the law's current anti-male prejudice.

Ms Ardnt also talks about the diminishing female libido and how to treat it. Personally I found this the weakest part of the book, but then again Mrs Arndt has not heard about Game.

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.