Christianity gave Eros poison to drink: he did not die of it but degenerated - into vice.
Nietzsche
A commentator on my previous post made the following remark.
At least to this social conservative, you're going to have to work harder to sell the idea that hypergamy, as it is generally expressed, is not a vice. Here's a piece I wish I'd written, that does a splendid job of pointing out the trouble with 'alpha' behavior. I cannot believe that it is right and proper for women to select for that. It strikes me as something akin to men fetishizing breasts to the point of liking implants - it's a particularly unnatural and dangerous form of superficiality. If that is what it is, not only should it not be pandered to; it should be denounced left and right as the character defect, the symptom of the Fall, that it is.The commentator links to a website which gives a good critical assessment of "Bad Boy" alpha-behaviour. From the link:
Who can provide for and defend the community. That is the one and only thing that will matter to anyone. For the men, they need to know that their fellow survivors can count on them to fight should the need arise. For the women, they need to know that the men they're now relying on can defend them. In today's world, the ability to provide is not valued at all; men that can provide for a family are a dime a dozen in the eyes of, well, everyone. There is no need, it's implied, for the providers anymore. What there is a need (nay, a desire) for are men that really can't provide, but can only push all the right buttons.and,
The "jerk" is merely a man that says and does the right things that make a woman attracted to him. What is interpreted as "jerk behavior" is really a casual disregard for the opinions of others, a willingness to do what one wants, and a lack of fear when saying what's on one's mind. This comes across as "strong, capable provider", but women can be much more easily deceived than men in this respect: beauty is harder to change than behavior. Whereas a woman can easily attract a man with her beauty, a man must use his personality and charisma to attract a woman. Women, however, can be fooled into thinking a man is an Alpha when he is nothing more than a jobless tool because what attracts them is not based on appearances, but on actions. A man may change his behavior to hide who he really is, but to the worldly woman this is undetectable and irrelevant: "he just feels right."I think what horrifies many Social Conservatives with regard to Game is that it would appear to advocate behaviours which are immoral, corrupting and exploitative. Furthermore, the sight of a nice young girl throwing herself with abandon and at "bad boy" whilst a "nice boy" is ignored intuitively strikes them as wrong. Social Conservatives operate within a moral universe where virtue should be rewarded and vice punished, and to them there seems to be something perversely wrong with a young girl physically giving herself to a man with attributes which seem so totally contrary to the Christian teaching and even prudent common sense. The SoCon intuits that there is something wrong with this picture, and indeed there is, but his intellectual foundations preclude him from coming to an accurate diagnosis. Their only explanation seems to be that the girl was either manipulated or that she lacked moral agency. Game then, is seen as a manipulative technique or something that works on women who aren't quite right; for example, women with low self esteem.
And then there is this:
Hello everyone, i have been married to my husband just over a year but we have been together for around about six years. I love my husband a lot and care for him so much. But unfortunately when we get intimate i am not turned on or even want to have sex. We used to be so passionate and the sex has been fantastic! But the last half year has just suddenly fizzled. And when we discuss it, it's obvious it's not him but me. We find it hard to talk about, as he is normally really upset about it so we normally just ignore the issue. My husband is 10 years older than me, i am in my mid 20's. He is very handsome, intelligent and very loyal to me, so i am not sure why this is happening. I am not at all interested in other men or sex with anyone else. My libido must be so low! I have been hanging around my uni friends (females) a lot more than usual and going out (as we are all graduating), but this is not because i want to meet anyone but more because i just want to get out and away from the situation. Any advice or help or discussion would be very much appreciated as i feel really lost at the moment.This is not an atypical case, and a cursory search of the internet will find many similar stories. In fact, one of the more common problems seen in General Practice (Family medicine) is that of the woman who presents because of a low libido, and who feels guilty about it. These women have husbands who are hard working, loyal and treat them well, They want to be able to sexually satisfy and feel a desire for them and don't know why they can't. They are not hoping to hop onto the carousel, rather, what they want is for their sex drive to return to normal.
Now, it's quite true that in some cases circumstantial stressors such as financial difficulties, young children, illness, etc. can be contributory factors towards a diminished libido, however in many instances no cause is found. (In my experience, biochemical factors are rarely at play). On the other hand, how do you explain this?
Now, if there were an organic cause to this lady's problem then there should be a universal reduction in libido, instead, what we find is a specific reduction which is directed toward her husband but not toward other men. Note too, that the woman is herself totally perplexed by this state of affairs; she has no insight into her condition and does not want to ride the carousel. (Note to MRA advocates, the women here aren't consciously lying). Why is she--despite wanting to--not attracted to her romantically perfect husband and yet is still attracted to other men?
The terminology of love has been mangled quite a bit so what I want to make some clear definitions.
Conjugal love: The romantic and sexual love for a member of the opposite sex.
Eros: Contemporary use of term has sexual connotations, but here I'm using it in the philosophical sense where Eros referred to a type of love where the lover both wanted union and took delight in the object of his affections. Unlike our modern usage of it, Eros was a type of love that could apply to non-sexual matters. For example, Plato felt that the love of philosophy was erotic since the philosopher both desired knowledge and took delight in it. The important aspect of the concept here is that Eros recognises and delights in the inner beauty of the object comprehended. From the Wiki Link above:
Ultimately, Plato considers Eros to be a longing for wholeness or completeness, a daemon whose aim is to reach wisdom without ever owning her. In that sense Eros is synonymous with philosophy, which literally means the love or desire of wisdom. And since wisdom is the greatest of virtues, Eros is therefore the desire for the greatest of goods. However, it is important to note that for Plato, the object of love does not necessarily have to be physically beautiful. In fact the greatest of goods will be eternal, and physical beauty is in no way eternal. If he achieves possession of the beloved's inner beauty and goodness, the lover's need for happiness will be fulfilled, because happiness is the experience of knowing that you are participating in the Good.The conceptually broad nature of Eros doesn't really help us when it comes to conjugal love. Since conjugal love deals with a particular type of Eros; an Eros directed towards a specific person which is meant to ultimately result in a physical sexual fleshy consummation. C.S. Lewis, in his "The Four Loves", describes this love as erotic(conjugal) love as being comprised of both Eros and Venus (the sexual appetite). I think a far better description of it would be to describe Erotic love as being composed of both Eros and Libido.
Now Libido needs to be understood as the sexual appetite: the desire to have sex. It is an appetite who's origin is in our biology; our flesh. It is an involuntary subconscious physiological response to the appropriate stimuli. To put it crudely, given the appropriate signals, it's what makes us horny.
Therefore: Conjugal Love= Eros + Libido.
To understand what is fundamentally wrong with the romantic conception of love, and how it injures conjugal love, it needs to be recognised that our modern conception of it has been strongly influenced by the ascetic religious traditions of the West. A tradition which denigrated the sinful nature of the body whilst elevating the spiritual nature of it. The Pagan and Christian ascetics were constantly warring against the flesh, seeing it as an impediment to sanctity, and many of them wanted to deny it its legitimacy. Fasting, flagellation and chastity were considered signs of an elevated spiritual nature, and over time, an association between goodness and bodily denial permeated into high western culture and our traditional conception of romantic love was formed. Romantic love is Sexual Love stripped of Libido: it's all Eros, in the philosophical sense. To quote C.S. Lewis again:
It has been widely held in the past, and is perhaps held by many unsophisticated people to-day, that the spiritual danger of Eros arises almost entirely from the carnal element within it; that Eros is " noblest " or " purest " when Venus[Libido:Ed] is reduced to the minimum The older moral theologians certainly seem to have thought that the danger we chiefly had to guard against in marriage was that of a soul-destroying surrender to the senses. It will be noticed, however, that this is not the Scriptural approach. St. Paul, dissuading his converts from marriage, says nothing about that side of the matter except to discourage prolonged abstinence from Venus (I Cor. vii,5)
C.S. Lewis. The Four Loves.
This is what Nietzsche meant by his comment. He recognised that ascetic Christianity hadn't killed Eros(Conjugal love) completely, rather the sexual element of it, Libido, was turned into a vice. What was considered legitimate by the ascetics was an anaemic version of conjugal love: Romantic love. It was lots of "contemplation" of the other's beauty with hardly any legitimate sexual desire. Legitimate love was something far less fleshy and far more platonic. And the whole subject of sexual desire was consigned to the filthy habits of the morally corrupt and was not a subject worthy of serious thought. And so whilst the West was well aquainted with vice it was rather ignorant of libido especially the female component as the feminine was considered higher and more pure than the masculine. Traditionalists use this conceptual framework when it comes to approaching sexual relationship matters.
Take the following situation. Our nice Taylor Swift girl-next-door is standing next to Tommy the thug and is feeling a fire in her loins. She knows that he is not good for her yet she is incredibly attracted to him. She knows he is bad but doesn't know why he makes her feel really, really good. She doesn't register that her attraction to him is not a choice but a physiological response: It is flesh speaking to spirit. A battle ensures between her reason which knows Tommy is bad, and her flesh, which knows Tommy is good. If the Rationalisation Hamster is strong, within a few minutes, Tommy has his hand up Taylor's skirt.
Taylor's in heaven; it's her five minutes of alpha.
Pushing aside the moral considerations of the act, Taylor's actions mystify the Tradtionalists. Tommy is clearly not a good friend to Taylor, and his abusive behaviour in no way follows the romantic script. Two seconds of rational calculation will show that Tommy is not interested in any long term relationship, so why is Taylor apparently acting against her own self interest? Taylor's actions are a mystery to them. Their only explanation is that Taylor either lacks moral agency( low self esteem, low IQ, depressed, intoxicated, etc) or is morally deficient. The are so invested in their delegtimisation of libido that it never occurs to them to consider that libidinous aspect of Taylor's actions, so invested are they in their romantic model.
The problem with the ascetic romantic conception of love is that it's premised on the fact that consummation will occur given sufficient platonic contemplation by the lovers and the importance of sexual characteristics and behaviour as a prelude to consummation are dismissed. An understanding of what it takes to get "horny" or even conjugally interested, is effectively discouraged as a subject of polite conversation. The net result of this cultural practice is that Western society cannot rationally assess female sexuality preferring to work with a conceptual model that ignores the reality of female sexual desire. Now this is is the mainstream Kool Aid that is sold to young men through the media and through the Conservative religious institutions. The meme traps timid guys into thinking that it gives them a chance with a woman without needing to display some overt masculine qualities, whilst religious guys who have a pair, "are struggling to behave like nice gentlemen" on the advice of their religious leaders. It's a double poison since it stops the beta male from "alpha-ing" up and emasculates the religious guy who is naturally alpha. The winners are the rakes. The losers are the good guys and the women.
Furthermore, operating within the frame of romantic love automatically subverts the woman's libido by making the man a supplicant of her affections. Sure, a woman may be quite flattered by all the romantic attention she is getting, but after a while the libido kicks in and the desire for a man emerges. Romantic love subverts the natural power dynamic which fires a woman's libido as the man is told he must be supplicant to gain her affections; she gets to be in charge. Contrary to Christian teaching, she has assumed headship of the man. You can't make this stuff up.
The fact that women get hot and horny for alpha males is not because of any deficiency in moral reasoning, it's because their libido's are "wired up" that way. The strongly arousing feelings of attraction are not an aberrations but are a pre-determined physiological response. Now, when "Gamers" say that "attraction is not a choice" they are basically asserting two millenia of Christian teaching on the subject of appetite:
It means the inclination of a thing to that which is in accord with its nature, without any knowledge of the reason why such a thing is appetible.[ED] This tendency originates immediately in the nature of each being, and remotely in God, the author of that nature (Quæst. disp., De veritate, Q. xxv, art. 1). The appetitus elicitus follows knowledge. Knowledge is the possession by the mind of an object in its ideal form, whereas appetite is the tendency towards the thing thus known, but considered in its objective reality (Quæst. disp., De veritate, Q. xxii, a. 10).Libido is the sexual appetite. What this passage implies is that God himself has implanted the hypergamous nature of a woman's libido. This does not mean that God permits adultery or fornication, rather, their sexual response is designed to be elicited in the presence of alpha behaviour. No alpha, no libido it's as simple as that. Blaming women for being sexually attracted to bad boys is just like feminists blaming men for being attracted to beautiful feminine women.
This is what I think horrifies the SoCons and the Feminists; in that the flesh is indifferent to their own conceptions of virtue. Now it's one thing to say that the appetites need to be controlled, but it's another thing to deny the appetites the legitimacy of their natures. SoCons think that their is something wrong with a woman who starts feeling sexual around a bad boy ( I used to think the same), the problem here is that SoCon's conflate moral beauty with sexual beauty. The problem with the girl who runs off with the bad boy is not the nature of her sexual desire, but in her self control; she is imprudent. Being attracted to him is not wrong, it just is. Running away with him is the wrong thing to do from a moral point of view, but it's perfectly understandable from a sexual gratification one.
Biology is not destiny (Something SoCons seem to forget) and human beings can exercise control over themselves. Whilst attraction is not a choice, choosing whether to follow through on the impulse is. What makes the woman a good Christian is that she resists her desires, not that she has them. But what also needs to be remembered is that the Good Christian woman can't will her desire ex nihilo in the absence of a hypergamous mate, and the sexual anaemia of many marriages is due to too much romance and not enough hypergamy.
But the other issue that doesn't get far enough mention in the manosphere is just how much happier women are when they are in a hypergamous relationship. Women who were cranky and miserable are suddenly much more fun to be around with. The beneficiaries of "Game" aren't just men.
The task then for today's Christian thinkers is how to incorporate the insights of hypergamy within the context biblical marriage. The SoCons will say that can't be done and they point to the hedonism of many of many of Games practitioners. I think commentator Thursday was absolutely correct in his view that many of Game's critics are "associationist" thinkers; conflating the lifestyle with the knowledge. These would have been the same people who would have denied Plato and Aristotle any influence in Christian thought since they were Pagans. Men like Keoni Galt and Dalrock have shown that it is possible to be hypergamous whilst remaining in a stable marriage with benefits for both parties.
(Hat tip to Robert Brockman II who directed me to the artist, Alex Gray, who painted the image.
Here is a NSFW image which I think is highly pertinent to our discussion. Yeah, I know it's New Age but it helps with the conceptualisation.)
60 comments:
"He is great he sends me flowers, writes me love notes, talks to me all day while we work, we are true soul mates in every way, he is a great husband & father, but for some reason when it comes to intimacy I just don't want it with him. I know I have what it seems to me is the perfect husband and I'm not attracted to him, he hasn't let himself go we are best friends and do everything together"
That's the problem, he is too perfect. She has it all handed to her on a platter.. Anything that comes too easy is not appreciated..
My husband never sends me flowers. Nor writes notes.. He is often preoccuppied.. He has a business to run.. Soulmates? Don't believe in that namby pamby stuff.
On the other hand, we do have frequent hot sex. And to think he is just an upper beta..Tsk tsk tsk..
Hey who'da thunk it?
Not all women want Alphas SP.
I love my husband.. He never tried to be something that he was not. Always honest.
Perhaps I am fortunate to have been blessed with such a high libido.
I have never wanted another man.. My husband knows this. I don't play games where that is concerned
He has never had to put in the hard yards for sex(in our marriage) because I have always been available.. Have always wanted him.
Have even ravished him when he has been tired. Woken him in the middle of the night. And he has always risen to the occasion with never a complaint.. What a guy..lol.
It's a comforting thought for a man I think, especially when he is out working hard to provide for his family, to know that his wife is waiting at home ready and willing to perform her conjugal duty.. With love..
In what way is he beta Kathy?
As a Catholic you know that the only legitimate way to prevent pregnancy is periodic abstinence. Is it really a good idea for marriages to be anymore libidinous when chastity is so difficult even within the context of marriage?
Considering just how easy it is to sin through unchastity couldn't we consider a non-erotic marriage to be a blessing?
Well, SP, he has never been that cocky overly confident brash type with women.. In fact perhaps a little on the shy side that way.. (I like 'em shy)
Confident though, with people and in his abilities, which has stood him in good stead and as a result he has a flourishing business. He's a quiet achiever.
I found his honesty and down to earth manner very appealing.. Sure he had nice blue eyes but not a classic handsome kind of a guy.
There was no subterfuge..
On our first date he invited me to his house for dinner.
He baked and stuffed a fish (coral trout ) which he had caught himself. Served it with some jacket potatoes, salad and a nice bottle of wine.. It was wonderful!
We talked and talked. Had common interests. Not once did he try to put the hard word on me.. Towards the end of the evening when it was nearly time to go, he offered me the spare room as I had had a few glasses of wine (not drunk but a little tipsy).. I accepted. At the entrance to the bedroom he smiled and gave me a kiss on the cheek before retreating to his own room.
It was the beginning of the end for me.. I was hooked! (And he still cooks fish for me to this day..)
He has never changed. Always been the same. What you see is what you get with him. I like that. He never brags or flirts with other women.. I like that too. I want him all to myself. I could care less if other women found him attractive or not. I do and that's what counts.
Now, he has never had to use game on me, but I believe this is because I have a high libido.(And gaming a wife is good if it gets results-I don't see a problem with it in marriage)
However at one stage when he was cranking up the business and we were going through a rough patch (as you know I have an autistic son) I gamed him.. I started to send risque text messages (and I still do that) Made sure I gave him a back rub more regularly when he came home from work. Whispered things in his ear.. Grabbed him when the kids were not looking.. Now I hasten to add that what I was doing was not out of character for me. I am a touchy feely affectionate kind of woman anyway.. But somewhere along the line we sort of fell out of sync there for awhile.
He was so busy with the fledgling business and the kids were driving me nuts.. Sex was not as frequent.
So, Someone had to do something to turn it all around.. Besides, I will be honest, I wanted more sex.(but only with my husband) It was a driving force..
So when I focused on our relationship and devoted more attention to my husband everything changed. He reciprocated.. We have never looked back
He is just a really nice guy. I don't get the flowers..Nor does he gush.. And when I am having a PMS moment he just ignores my irrational behaviour..
I love him for who he is.. He is not an Alpha .. He is more along the lines of a Dalrock or a Keoni Galt..
He just never had to use game because I got in first ;)
Incidentally when we do argue I am always the first to come crawling back.. He knows it too, and doesn't even have to say or do anything.
He holds the power, you see.
It's called penis power... Lol..
If you can get your wife's respect, that does give you the power Kathy mentions. My wife wants affection. If I want sex, I just make my affection contingent on sex.
"She knows he is bad but doesn't know why he makes her feel really, really good. She doesn't register that her attraction to him is not a choice but a physiological response: "
I just don't buy that SP. I think it is more a case of nurture not nature.
In other words it has to do with upbringing..
My own father was(is) a nice guy too. Very affectionate towards my mother. Although my parents were good Catholics(and still are) I never grew up with this feeling that sex was dirty. I had frank talks with my mother who was not averse to sex in marriage. But that it should occur ONLY in marriage.
Hence I grew up with a healthy libido understanding that wanting sex with my husband was normal... I had very good role models in my parents.
It's probably why I don't have any hangups about sex, and also part of the reason I am so bonded to my husband..
I don't care how bad the "bad boys" are I was never attracted to any of them. Nor was my sister who was also a virgin when she married..
Mum has also said to me over the years that unless a couple are having sex there is generally a problem within the marriage, as sex was very important and the glue that holds the marriage together.
@Kathy
I think it needs to be remembered that the "Bad boy" is one extreme of alpha behavior that is used to illustrate alpha traits.
I agree that lots of women don't like the overt "bad boy"; Dan Draper is totally different from Tucker Max yet both display alpha behaviour. What becomes apparent after studying women for a while, is that some women like overt alpha whilst others prefer more subtle expressions.
I tend to look at women as either psychologically "coarse" or "fine". Domineering, aggressive, low-impulse-control women being at the coarse end of the spectrum. The "coarser" the woman the more overt the display of alpha.
Men like Keoni and Athol illustrate this '"fine" alpha quite well. Keoni's embrace of the particulars of game well illustrates what happens when a nice guy embraces game: he doesn't become a prick. Rather, he is a nice guy who has become more masculine.
The thing is could you experience desire if your man was a wuss? Or if you had to constantly orginise and make the big decisions at home? Would you find your man sexually attractive if cried at the drop of a hat if something went wrong, or was needy? Many women find such behaviour increadibly off putting.
I just don't buy that SP. I think it is more a case of nurture not nature.
Disagree Kathy. I used to think the same but the job and life experience has disabused me of this notion. I've seen lots of well behaved good girls do really, really bad things. I think that breeding and education make a woman more discreet and concious of other factors in the decsion of a mate, but the biological imperatives are still there.
As they say; the stuff I've seen.
"The thing is could you experience desire if your man was a wuss? Or if you had to constantly orginise and make the big decisions at home? Would you find your man sexually attractive if cried at the drop of a hat if something went wrong, or was needy?"
Yes, I agree with what you are saying here. My husband is none of the above.
"I've seen lots of well behaved good girls do really, really bad things."
So have I , this does not mean however that they were necessarily brought up the right way, though.
Many mothers do not discuss sex with their daughters.. REALLY discuss it I mean..
My daughter who is fifteen asked me some months ago what an orgasm felt like.. I answered her question honestly. She also brought up the subject of oral versus penetrative sex...Someone at school had said that oral sex was not as bad as having intercourse(before marriage) So we talked about that too. I also bring God and religion into the equation. (for a balance..)
I also tell her how good sex is with the man you love(in the context of marriage) I have told her how women are the gatekeepers, that sleeping with many men has stopped women from bonding with their husbands. That the best sex comes from saving it for marriage with the one that she loves.
She knows that her father and I have a very good sexual relationship.. I have told her that I would like it to be that way for her too when she marries.
To be honest(and I say this without any smugness) I do not know of one mother, not one, who has been so forthcoming and honest in discussing sex with their daughters. Nor explaining what happens when poor choices are made. Or how God made sex exclusively for marriage etc..
Most are too embarrased to get down to the nitty gritty of it all.
Not me, I want it to be quite clear to my daughter what is right and what is wrong. What works and what does not.
I really do want her to have the kind of relationship I have with my husband, her father.
Kathy, what SP is saying is that even nice girls can do the weirdest things. Men are used to having strong sexual desire; and we learn to handle it. But women get blind-sided. I have seen it myself. They get overwhelmed. That is why we all agree that even a gentleman needs some alpha. The way you write about your husband shows that he is alpha enough.
@DC
The way you write about your husband shows that he is alpha enough.
Agreed.
Oh, alright, I give up. I am outnumbered.
How about this..My husband is not an Alpha Asshole.. He's just a mighty fine Alpha.
Will you blokes accept that? :D
Kathy, a man only has to be alpha enough for his woman. I don't do anything very dramatic. I don't chase other women, for example. Most people think I am a good bloke. I just "maintain frame" as they say. Your husband is alpha enough and I am alpha enough for our respective wives.
Seriously though, thanks SP.. and David.. I have a better understanding of what an Alpha is now. It's like a spectrum.. I guess ..I always thought that a true Alpha was more or less an Asshole. Been reading too many mra sites.. Lol..Which was why I was at pains to point out that my husband was not "like that."
He is who he is .. I guess the difference between my husband and say Keoni or Dalrock is that he never had to consciously make any changes in order to enhance our relationship..and change my behaviour .... This was probably because I had a high sex drive. In the end though as I said, sex at one point had started to diminish.. He was involved in establishing the business.. Which was challenging.. and very time consuming.. I supported him of course..Me, I was stuck with the kids, and was becoming (sexually) frustrated.. It was a different kind of challenge.. Draining .. No satisfaction there..
As I said to you once before SP I found motherhood a hard slog..(still do) I was adequate at best...
So I initiated the change.
@Kathy
As I said to you once before SP I found motherhood a hard slog..(still do) I was adequate at best...
Adequate is good enough.
I am dubious that many of the truly betaized men that SoCons respect would actually do well in a survival scenario. Most of the more betaized men I've ever known in the US are the type of men who are more inclined to treat a loaded handgun like it is a hunk of a radioactive isotope of heavy metal than a mere weapon. In terms of actual ability to protect their wives and children, I'm very unconvinced.
What SoCons rarely realize is that the sort of men who actually can keep the genuine evil-dooers at bay are "hard men." No disrespect to him, but they're not Jim Bob Duggar, but rather the sort of hard-edged, rough man who would likely be written off as a "bad boy" for superficial reasons by most SoCons.
Hyperagamy and appetites may have worked in a village but on a globally networked scale it is a disaster.
This:
The problem with the ascetic romantic conception of love is that it's premised on the fact that consummation will occur given sufficient platonic contemplation by the lovers and the importance of sexual characteristics and behaviour as a prelude to consummation are dismissed. An understanding of what it takes to get "horny" or even conjugally interested, is effectively discouraged as a subject of polite conversation. The net result of this cultural practice is that Western society cannot rationally assess female sexuality preferring to work with a conceptual model that ignores the reality of female sexual desire.
Says it all. This was an excellent post. Nothing to quibble with here.
It's a shame that the world isn't filled with more nice and understanding women like yourself Kathy.
So the question is: Can a man be both a gentleman and still alpha?
@Roger
Of course, actually the civilized gentlemen alpha tend to be do better in modern society than brute alphas of the jungle.
Examples:
Bill Clinton
The picture looks like it was stolen from a body in motion exhibit.
It does condense the romance of sex into scientific exchange of bodily fluids and chemical reactions.
Old Slick Willie?
Haha you can call him many things but gentleman aint one.
I think commentator Thursday was absolutely correct in his view that many of Game's critics are "associationist" thinkers; conflating the lifestyle with the knowledge. These would have been the same people who would have denied Plato and Aristotle any influence in Christian thought since they were Pagans.
It should be acknowledged that most of the knowledge of game was aquired through some experimentation involving extremely immoral behaviour, while one can't really say the same for Greek philosophy.
@Mike T
I'm sorry that I can't provide you with a reference, but back during the Korean war, the U.S Army was testing the theory that the hard men who had done "time" in prison would make better soldiers that the standard wimpy recruit. What the studies showed was that your average beta bourgeois was a better soldier than your average "bad boy".
These beta boys were more likely to fight to death than your average "tough" guy who bugged. In fact, a very good contemporary example of this was a Bear Grylls' Eescape to the Legion". The "Bad Boys" did really, really badly.
I think this is what is most disconcerting when it comes to an understanding of Game: that beautiful women will pass over the good men of society for its socially destructive elements. The solution is not to compete against a natural appetite but co-opt it. The good men must have alpha.
Is it possible for a good man to have alpha? Yes. The physical features are easy, work out at the gym, keep the weight within reasonable limits and dress well. The moral/social characteristics are harder to master. Firstly he must have resolution, he must have "non negotiable" demands in his mate, he must have social skills and drive. More importantly he must manners. Not in the foppish sense, but more in the Sean Connery type of manners. Were politeness is seen as willed deference rather than submission.
@Thursday.
while one can't really say the same for Greek philosophy.
True that.
I have been thinking about this Alpha business SP. There are just so many variations that I have come to the conclusion that Alpha is in the eyes of the beholder..
Athol Kay is no Alpha to me.. Sorry, that guy leaves me cold.
He will take his wife on a shopping spree, out to dinner at a fancy restaurant.. Just about anything really in order to get a bit of action..
I dunno, when you have to work so hard for it like he does, just does not seem Alpha to me.. (And lets be honest sex IS all he is after)
He also posts quite a bit of stupid and contrived nonsense.. He's a braggart as well..
"Because the husband controls the frame, it's important to frame the relationship correctly. So for the husbands making the demand that the wife lay him like tile and generally be his personal sex toy (Alpha), that should always be balanced with her being made to feel very secure in the relationship, genuinely loved and wanted (Beta).
So as long as she holds up her end of the marriage, she should have complete assurance that you will hold up yours. If she starts slacking off on her end, she should have an expectation that you will have a problem with it. So it's the old Tit for Tat thing. But you're the one that sets that frame."
See, I think that piece from Athol is just total rubbish..
It implies that the wife is sexing the husband out of a sense of duty( and I think that Jennnifer probably is) and not desire, but that is not the case in my marriage.
If my husband is frequently having sex with me (which he is) then that tells me that he loves me.. I feel secure.. Sated.. It's all I need.
Another point.... My husband does not have to take me out on shopping sprees or fancy restaurants in order to get into my pants..
The attraction I have for him is not dependent on cajoling or bribing..
I think we're talking about two different views of what constitutes "hard men." I'm talking more about the sort of men who pushed the frontiers in this country or built it from the ground up (in my family's case, as my ancestors were colonists centuries ago). They're not the sort of inoffensive, perfectly egalitarian, part husband-part helpmate working schlubs that many modern anglosphere men are.
Part of my prejudice comes from the fact that so many men today recoil like little girls being told to grab a tarantula at the thought of possessing, let alone being competent with, a weapon capable of defending their homes vigorously from attack. American men were once composed of much harder, grittier stuff.
"What SoCons rarely realize is that the sort of men who actually can keep the genuine evil-dooers at bay are "hard men." No disrespect to him, but they're not Jim Bob Duggar, but rather the sort of hard-edged, rough man who would likely be written off as a "bad boy" for superficial reasons by most SoCons."
Indeed, just like John Wayne in "The Searchers" or "Big Jake".
And the reason why men (outside of inner city thugs and criminals) are not hard edged today are because they are brought up in the pussified, feminized,wimpy, overly comfortable, and overcivilized domanins of urban and suburban modernity. Modernity of the last 60 years and its comforts have castrated the modern man. Where the boys who stormed Normandy Beach or retook the Pacific like this? Hell no. Many of them were tough, capable farm kids who where raised in an agrarian culture. Society once produced men and women. Now it produces manginas and bitches.
@Brandon
You think it's a coincidence that the American water is purposely infused with high levels of fluoride, which has been scientifically proven to lower testosterone?
The steady general decline in levels of testosterone is by direct implementation of public policy, designed on creating a docile populace for grater social control, either through mercury containing vaccines, cocktail of prescription drugs starting at age 5, mind numbing brainwashing and pushing HFCS loaded food supply to create obesity, which again lowers testosterone by discouraging exercise.
The American elite does know how to contain and regulate the behavior of the majority by media propaganda and lobbying.
Further the elite wants a steady decline in overall population, which is accomplished by men having lower sperm counts and testosterone.
@Lexus Liberal
Yes, I'm sure certain artificial enviromental factors, whether instituted by design or not, have played their part in male emasculation as well.
@Anon
The picture looks like it was stolen from a body in motion exhibit.
That was my entire point. We are not just spirits but flesh and blood and as well.
@Kathy
I have been thinking about this Alpha business SP. There are just so many variations that I have come to the conclusion that Alpha is in the eyes of the beholder..
There is an element of truth to what you're saying Kathy, but not entirely. Alpha needs to be considered as an ingredient in male mix. Just as their is variation in the preference for salt in a food, so there is a variation in preference of alpha in males. Still there must be some alpha.
Now, I don't approach the subject from Athol's perspective. I don't see game as something I do to my wife to get sex; rather, they are qualities I need to poses in order for my wife to find me both psychologically and physically attractive. If my wife is happy with who I am then the sex will flow naturally. To me, it's about being the complement of my partner's needs.
Therefore the type of alpha I must be is dependent on the woman I have. So yes, there is a variation, and I think it's the flexible/protean nature of alpha is that is difficult for people to grasp.
See, I think that piece from Athol is just total rubbish..
Hmmm.....I don't know Kathy. You see, many women just don't appreciate how important sex is for a man. No Seriously. You have no idea how dismissive many women are with regard to it. Now I know that you may appreciate it, but I can assure you I've had lots of discussions with women who are mystified at why men find it so important.
Our society is very good at stressing to men the importance of a good emotional relationship with the wife but very poor at stressing the importance of a physical relationship to women. This lulls many women into thinking that there isn't a problem with the relationship if there isn't any sex life. Or worse, many women think that there is a problem with the husband for wanting it when she doesn't feel like it. I think the medievals, in stressing the concept of the "marital debt", saw sex as part'n'parcel of marriage, had a far healthier view of it. For many men, sex is how they experience love. The ascetics stuffed this all up though.
For a long while I held the concept that the lack of libido issue was a problem in women, it's only after meeting a lot of their men that I felt maybe the problem wasn't with the women. A lot of these guys were took no pride in their appearance, and to put it bluntly, had no psychological resilience. Shit, if I were a woman I wouldn't be that keen on them either. I have considerable sympathy with the "man up" crowd ( I don't think that they should marry skanks) , since many of today's men lack simple masculinity; the women have more balls than the men. This is where alpha is important, it's a self improvement program for men.
@MikeT & Brandon
Part of my prejudice comes from the fact that so many men today recoil like little girls being told to grab a tarantula at the thought of possessing, let alone being competent with, a weapon capable of defending their homes vigorously from attack.
See my comment to Kathy.
I quite honsetly think there is a failure of masculinity in the West and I don't think it is due to organic factors. Some of the biggest "girls" I have met have been athletes and gym junkies( High T): Zero psychological resilience when things go wrong. These guys are physically hard but mentally soft. I mean really soft. They obsess about their bodies like some mother with her newborn, living in terror that something might go wrong. In their pursuit of health, they have a pharmacy-full of supplements at home.
Thursday has suggested that wealth is indirectly responsible for the corrosion of Western Society. I think he is right to a point, but I think the far more corrosive element is of not recongising the importance of a masculine ideal. The smarter ancients were always worried about going "soft", the question then is how do you preserve the masculine ideal.
The aim is to try and be rich and masculine. I think that traditional farming societies did indirectly encourage masculinity. The problem as a country becomes richer the proportion employed in agriculture becomes smaller. That's why I'd probably re-introduce compulsory military service, luxury taxes--(including an obesity levy)--and try to engineer society to have a greater acceptance of accidental death. A molly-coddled society produces feminised men.
Kathy, you have a high sex drive. My wife has about average only, I think. I have to build respect, which makes her want affection. To get sex, of the kind and frequency I want, I sometimes bargain affection for sex.
The problem for a lot of men seems to be that their wives don't respect them and therefore find them unattractive. They may have sex out of duty, but many women choose not to. Actually, I think my wife has done a bit of this too, but it is much nicer if she has real motivation.
Athol Kay has a high sex drive, even for a man. I don't like some aspects of his tone, although his idea of mixing alpha and beta is good advice.
Kathy, you have a high sex drive. My wife has about average only, I think. I have to build respect, which makes her want affection. To get sex, of the kind and frequency I want, I sometimes bargain affection for sex.
The problem for a lot of men seems to be that their wives don't respect them and therefore find them unattractive. They may have sex out of duty, but many women choose not to. Actually, I think my wife has done a bit of this too, but it is much nicer if she has real motivation.
Athol Kay has a high sex drive, even for a man. I don't like some aspects of his tone, although his idea of mixing alpha and beta is good advice.
Sorry Mike and Brandon
That last paragraph should be:
The aim is to try and be rich and masculine. I think that traditional farming societies did indirectly encourage masculinity through the combination of self-responsibility, physical work a the dynamics of small community. The problem is, as a country becomes richer, the proportion employed in agriculture becomes smaller and the corrosive effect of luxury city living becomes more prevalent. That's why I'd probably re-introduce compulsory military service, luxury taxes--(including an obesity levy)--and try to engineer society to have a greater acceptance of accidental death. A molly-coddled society produces feminised men.
@SP
why should having a rich society be such a positive aim? Wealth leads to decadence. I don't think any social engineering or legalistic measures will overcome the pull of the decadent.
@ Brandon
Wealth doesn't just lead to decadence. I also leads to MRI's, CT's, good plumbing, advanced pharmaceuticals, clean water, GPS and so on.
Yes, you are correct. However, I think you should give up any thought of having a religious and/or conservative society that is modern and wealthy. All these comforts and conveniences bring out the worst in people. If you want modernity, then you must accept that God is dead, and all the pathologies you see on a daily basis are the price we must pay for "progress".
I thought I left this comment earlier. I came onto your blog via a random post and I've read most of it. I've never heard of Game before but I strongly believe that alpha behavior is important. Anything else is actually more than a little gnostic. We are souls and bodies as humans and _always_ will be. Such is the most ancient of liturgical traditions.
However having read your site and trying to find others about the same thing I find most of them to be hedonistic. This is bad and falsely male. Other than yours is their a good site/book about this? I know I'm not alpha enough and wouldn't mind improvement. It will help me everywhere (work and at home).
It seems that my ID wasn't saved, and it seems to refuse to use my Google ID. I'm leaving this comment so that I will receive follow ups.
Unknown, thanks for dropping by.
Off hand, I'm not sure of anyone who specifically tries to fuse "Game" with Christianity, though there are many good commentators on the web who are very sympathetic to the fusion, (and a lot that aren't).
I still reckon that the two best places to start are:
Roissy and Roosh V. I would especially read some of Roissy's early stuff and the commentary, as the comments thread were very good in the early days.
Particularly look for Thurdsay's comments, PA, Dave from Hawaii(Hawaiian Libertarian), Whiskey, Doug1, Dave Collard, who has commented on this post though not at Roissy's is also worth reading.
I think the important thing is to read about game, even from a hedonists point of view, and retain what is compatible with Christianity. The problem is with most Christian blogs is that they find Game abhorrent because of it's association with pick-up-artists and their wicked ways.
Ferdinand Bardamu has a good link here.
Good luck. If you need any more help let me know.
Oh yes, Athol Kay (Married Man Sex Life blog) has a book out. Athol has a different focus (as mentioned before) but he does provide some interesting practical tips. Roosh V does as well.
@SP
Yes, you are correct. However, I think you should give up any thought of having a religious and/or conservative society that is modern and wealthy. All these comforts and conveniences bring out the worst in people. If you want modernity, then you must accept that God is dead, and all the pathologies you see on a daily basis are the price we must pay for "progress".
I have occasionally commented at RoIssy. But most of my comments have been at Dalrock and Alte's various blogs, including her current blog Traditional Christianity. I also have my own "blog" with a few random thoughts. I am a Catholic, usually attending the Latin Mass, who has found Game helpful in his marriage.
BTW, I made an accidental repost above.
@ Brandon
If you want modernity, then you must accept that God is dead
There are alternative modernities to this one. The world as is as we know it because it is built around certain anti-Christian ideas. It is a world that is coming to an end. I know that you're not, but I am hopeful of a prosperous and moral world.
@SP
Eh, you could be right. I'm a young man of 23, but I've seen way too much pain, misery, suffering, and general brokeness result from this current incarnation of modernity to have much hope for the near future. If any good does come, I imagine it will be long after my great grandchildren have passed.
Also, has there every been an actual living example of an "alternate modernity"? If so, what is it?
Brandon, I'm inclined to agree with SP. Science itself is catching up to the truths of Scripture in various ways. Brain scans using MRI and PET have already revealed physical differences between the brains of men and women in important ways. It is highly likely that science in the next 10 years or sooner will show us why promiscuous women are less likely to be faithful wives, and it will have to do with such things as dopamine, oxytocin and other compounds. That in turn will provide scientific proof that chastity before marriage and fidelity afterwards is the best path for the average women's happiness.
Some models of artificial intelligence have already shown us that the best way for a "new" brain to learn is via exposure to a controlled set of inputs and much repetition. Anyone who has raised children has been told by some "expert" that rote memorization damages creativity. But the AI experiments tell me that memorizing patterns makes them easy to recognize; see any good music teacher for where that leads. So I think that much of the modern "knowledge" about how children learn best is wrong, and science is in the process of disproving it.
Now, Brandon, imagine a world in which the time-tested maxims such as "chaste before marriage, faithful afterwards" and "teach the child to memorize good texts and he will remember them always" are not just quaint, old fashioned notions, but scientifically proven. The secular world has made a god of science. But when science verifies the wisdom of the Psalms, secularists will be in the uncomfortable position of having their god agreeing with God.
Much of the "modern" thought is really just a collection 19th century notions, in a modern wrapper. When that "modern" thought collides with real modern science, i.e. brain studies, then secularists will have to either change their thinking, or reject science. They'll be on the horns of a dilemma.
Again, I do not see any reason why we can not have some kind of modernity and faith in the same society. The West is still in the grip of the fever of Marxism, and many of the things you see around you are side effects of that "mental disease". They are not permanent things.
I am "unknown". I'll posit that the name doesn't help. "Game" implies negative manipulation.
If applied in a Christian context it isn't (from reading here anyway). It simply means that men should pay attention to their archetype to help women do the same. That's not manipulation, that's just being a nice person. The trick is there is a certain brusqueness that can lend itself to being "an asshole".
I was thinking about Kathy's comments last night and I think part of the problem is that alpha traits can be exhibited both negatively and positively. A "Kirk" is an alpha but he's not a jerk. Kirk will complement you, man or woman, but your not going to get a _bunch_ of compliments and the woman is going to get the devilish smile to boot.
I've also met what I will call "quiet" (introverted?) Alphas. They don't talk much but when they do everyone in the room goes silent and listens. After they are done normal business resumes at the Alpha's previous direction.
Loud obnoxious behavior is the easiest to imitate. That's why people who lie strike angry poses. "Game" since its a technique seems to be stressing white belt type moves "Angry Loud Alpha" rather than the more complicated ones for what are probably very practical reasons. However that also won't endear them to my ilk.
BTW can I have any links? There's a certain assumption on the blogs that I've found that everyone should know key names (it seems to be a rather small community). I don't.
@GKC
Loud obnoxious behavior is the easiest to imitate. That's why people who lie strike angry poses. "Game" since its a technique seems to be stressing white belt type moves "Angry Loud Alpha" rather than the more complicated ones for what are probably very practical reasons. However that also won't endear them to my ilk.
I think that is a caricature of it. The good guys stress the importance of internal "frame". I'll try an post a few links over the next few days. I've got to go off to work now.
I was just introduced to your article and getting into it when I was stopped at your use of the term "young girl" and wanted to mention my thoughts on it.
First of all, it's an oxymoron. All girls are young (being children) and young girls are younger than older girls. And those girls cease being strictly girls once they are young women, aka teenagers. What age range in your context is a "young girl"? 3, 6, 10?
This may seem trivial to most people but this is a common use problem in our language. Young girls with young men is commonly used in the same sentence, but rarely if ever do you hear the term "young boys" referring to males of a young but sexually mature age—it's always "young man/men" if the word young is used at all.
Btw, I've also seen this sentence: "For young kids up to 18" BAH!
Ok, back to reading... Cheers.
...actually, I guess oxymoron isn't the right term, more like redundant.
… Unbelievable , but I just found software which can do all hard work promoting your socialpathology.blogspot.com website on complete autopilot - building backlinks and getting your website on top of Google and other search engines 1st pages, so your site finally can get laser targeted qualified traffic, and so you can get lot more visitors for your website.
YEP, that’s right, there’s this little known website which shows you how to get to the top 10 of Google and other search engines guaranteed.
I used it and in just 7 days… got floods of traffic to my site...
…Well check out the incredible results for yourself -
http://autopilot-traffic-software.com
I’m not trying to be rude here, but I believe when you find something that finally works you should share it…
…so that’s what I’m doing today, sharing it with you:
http://autopilot-traffic-software.com
Take care - your friend George
If you want to take a great deal from this post
then you have to apply such strategies to your won website.
My blog ; sell your annuity payments
Great web site you have got here.. It's difficult to find high-quality writing like yours these days. I seriously appreciate individuals like you! Take care!!
Here is my web-site; cash for structured settlement
Hmm is anyone else encountering problems with the images on this blog loading?
I'm trying to figure out if its a problem on my end or if it's the blog.
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
My site: selling structured settlem
Amazing blog! Do you have any tips for aspiring writers?
I'm hoping to start my own blog soon but I'm a
little lost on everything. Would you suggest starting with a free platform like Wordpress or
go for a paid option? There are so many choices out there that I'm completely overwhelmed .. Any suggestions? Many thanks!
My homepage: structured Settlement loan advances procedure
Oh my goodness! Incredible article dude! Thank you, However I am having problems with your RSS.
I don't understand the reason why I can't subscribe to it.
Is there anyone else having similar RSS issues?
Anybody who knows the answer can you kindly
respond? Thanx!!
Look at my weblog :: baños de vapor
An outstanding share! I have just forwarded this onto a colleague who had been conducting a little research on this.
And he in fact bought me lunch due to the fact that I stumbled upon
it for him... lol. So allow me to reword this.... Thanks for the meal!
! But yeah, thanks for spending some time to talk about this topic here on your website.
My page ways to make money online
Highly energetic post, I loved that bit.
Will there be a part 2?
my webpage; embarazo de 25 semanas
Post a Comment