Saturday, August 22, 2009
"Game", Marriage and Football
"Game"
It seems that "game" is a hot topic in many of the blogs I read lately. Anakin, Novaseeker, and Amir and others have written posts about "game" and PUAs (pick up artists) recently. This is not a subject that I know much about but I have recently done a little reading on the subject to try and understand it a bit more. It sounds to me like "game" is like many philosophies (does it qualify as a "philosophy"?) in that people will argue "it doesn't have to be like that" about the seedier or more objectionable elements. This "don't throw the baby out with the bath water" sort of approach can be seen in various situations such as when people argue that feminism is simply the "radical notion that women are human beings" and reject or down play the radical parts such as the belief that men are scum. Or, when people vilify Christianity because of the Crusades or because Hitler was supposedly a nominal christian.
In this way, Novaseeker writes that "Game is a way for generations of men who have been feminized to become more masculine again." I think it is very true that most women are attracted to men who are competent/confident and who understand their role as the leader and behave accordingly. If "game" helps men learn how to do that I don't think it is a bad thing. But, a lot of what is called "game" on the Internet seems to not just be about being masculine.
Some of the elements that I have read about are quite distasteful to me. For example, one well known blog on the subject of "game" put forth the idea that women are turned on by being afraid of their husbands. I find the idea repulsive. I have experienced very real fear of a man in a romantic relationship and it certainly did nothing to attract me to him and in reality resulted in only bad. I do think there is such a thing as a healthy "fear" for a leader that is about respect for the leader and concern about not displeasing the leader per se. But, I don't think it is good for that respect and "fear" to be a fear of physical violence.
So, I think when more "conservative" people (including yours truly) look at blogs about "game" that all of the distasteful parts are pretty tough to weed through to recognize whatever value there may be in some of the ideas. If there are ideas of merit for men who want to live a life that is pleasing to God in the philosophy of "game" it seems to me that it needs to be presented in a context that eliminates the godless elements.
Marriage: then and now.
I went to see the movie Julie and Julia today. I quite enjoyed it though perhaps many men would consider it a "chick flick" (there were 2 men in the theater with their wives/girlfriends). It was funny and touching and was about a subject interesting to me (and Meryl Streep was fantastic as Julia Child and had the most wonderful period wardrobe). It is a film about Julia Child, iconic American chef, cookbook author and pioneer cooking show host, and Julie Powell, a young woman who blogged her way through cooking all of the recipes in Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking in one year. I have loved Julia Child since I was a child for some reason. Maybe it was because I found her quite funny and she really was a marvelous teacher (I learned to make a fabulous brioche from one of her cookbooks among other things.....very user friendly). And, I read through the archives of Julie Powel's blog back in 2003 . So, I wanted to see this movie when it came out.
In the movie both Julia and Julie are married and their relationships play a large part in their stories. Both relationships are portrayed as good ones in the film and the husbands are portrayed positively for the most part. But, I noticed definite differences in the relationships of the two couples. Julia Child willingly accepts her husband's advice and help while Julie Powell states she does not need her husband's help yet runs to him when a lobster needs killin'. Julia Child is never portrayed as putting her interest in cooking and writing in front of her husband's work. Rather she moves from diplomatic post to diplomatic post across Europe with him and conforms the work on her cookbook to the needs of his career. Julia and her husband Paul Child are portrayed as having a very loving, playful, and sexually fulfilling relationship where Julia is always shown as welcoming of and enthusiastic about her husband's advances. Julie Powell complains that between her full time job and her blogging project that she doesn't have time for her marriage. In effect she puts a blog before her husband to the point that he complains about the lack of sex in their relationship and she is seen rebuffing his advances in order to cook recipes for the blog.
So perhaps it is not surprising that in the movie Julie Powell's husband walks out on her for a day because she is an admitted "bitch" (and apparently Powell has written another book called Cleaving: a Story of Marriage, Meat, and Obsession to be published later this year about an affair she had after her book about her blogging experience was published). I found the juxtaposition of these two marriages interesting though I doubt that the film makers (the film was produced by Nora Ephron) intended to present the picture they did. I think perhaps Julia Child's marriage would be viewed by many as more confining, however her more traditional model of marriage was "happier" than the "modern" version for both the men and women involved.
Preseason football
I would just like to say that I don't care how many pre-season games the Steelers lose now that they have beaten the Cardinals once again in a Super Bowl rematch. :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
55 comments:
I've been following the discussions, and even read an hour's with at a PUA blog.
Observation; We are descending; like the animals in Narnia who lost their powers of speech. I found an interesting slip, perhaps Freudian, where the PUA talked about the "cognitive dissonance" he dealt with (he was talking about how he would feel if he had a daughter being targeted by PUA).
Reaction: Have you ever heard of a church - or a family - where the young man is taught how to flirt with women? WHy not, do you suppose?
REcently I frizbeed a Christian romance novel across the room in a physical manifestation of disgust at the portrayal of the male character.
Yeah whatever...more on that in a sec.
I take issue with a couple of aspects of "game." (That's a very loose term that everyone defines a little differently, but I think of it as behaviors taken on for the specific purpose of becoming more attractive to the opposite sex.) For one, it seems fake to me and always has. Anyone utilizing it is trying to present a certain impression of himself that isn't natural--otherwise it would already be there. It's an attempt to substitute faux confidence for real confidence, faux authority for real authority, etc. Now perhaps there are some aspects of game that help build that confidence over time, but at what cost? It appears that said confidence is the real issue at hand, and I'm not convinced practicing game is the best way to get there from here.
Also, it simply caters to the debased desires and instincts of people these days who have very little maturity or self-control in such matters. It puts women (and therefore, by necessity, not God) in a position of authority in such matters. I don't see where that's helpful. Both men and women should be trying to be the best person they can be according to absolute standards, not trying to put on a facade for as long as they can to pull off the "hit" or "hook" or whatever it is they're after.
I can remember friends and I discussing this in years gone by, having all observed women's behaviors and having all come to the obvious conclusion that women (even Christian women, more so in some cases) go for "bad boys" at an alarmingly reliable rate. The "hey, if I do that then maybe they'll dig me" idea was pondered a bit, and, yes, it was quite tempting to hone our "skills" to make us more attractive in the marketplace. But for the most part we were in agreement that one must draw the line somewhere for how seriously he takes his convictions, and if those convictions require that one not be a "bad boy" and leave oneself wide open to the possibility of flying solo for life then so be it. Yes, some Christians can disagree, and they have their reasons; I won't get into that here. But to me, game is a large step in the wrong direction that I simply don't want to take. Temptation is enough of a struggle already for some of us; if I actually did gain the skills to do the PUA thing then I'm not sure what kind of person I'd become. Some things are better left alone methinks.
Overall, Anakin made several good points I thought. I'm not sure I'm 100% in agreement with all of them but I don't really disagree with any either. And his rebuttal was as good. He makes a lot of solid arguments, to which lots of folks have come back with the "but it works response. We can smell that ends-justify-the-means approach from miles away.
That's a condensed version of my thoughts, but suffice it to say that I'm not a fan of game. Such selfish practices only serve to continue the downward plunge of relationships, dating, marriage, and society as a whole that we're seeing today.
Finally...football. I didn't watch the Cards game, but for one, they really had nothing to prove. After all, they showed last year that they were the better team, even if they were robbed of the bling to show for it. It was up to that team from Pittsburgh to prove their heist of the Lombardi trophy as a result of a couple of freakish plays was legit, and in a preseason game they can't do that anyway. Also, weren't the mighty Lions 4-0 in the preseason last year? How'd that work out for them?
I must admit though, I never really hated the Steelers (I just don't like seeing the best team lose!) but I've begun to like them more ever since that b*tch went public with that laughable attempt to extort money from Roethlisberger. I would enjoy seeing him raise the Super Bowl MVP trophy this winter just to prove himself to be above such petty distractions. He seems like a decent guy, and even if he isn't I would still support anyone falsely accused. And everthing I've seen indicates that's what's going on.
If there are ideas of merit for men who want to live a life that is pleasing to God in the philosophy of "game" it seems to me that it needs to be presented in a context that eliminates the godless elements.
Playing the devil's advocate here, I wonder if 'game' does away with "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth"? In many regards, it would appear on the surface that having 'game' (in the Christian community, at least} negates the 'passive virtues' that Christ taught of meekness and humility.
In addition, I agree with Jesse's comments. Game, in many respects, is mostly about seeking approval and validation to gain a Lothario mentality. It's like the ole Serpent in the Garden all over. Once again, the devil has interpreted a lie to the women. The women have eaten this fruit and are now passing the fruit onto the men.
What is the Lie this time? Well, for a great majority of women today, seeing Christ's passive virtues in Christian men (those who are actually saved) are in no way perceived as having attractive, strong, leadership qualities.
I believe Christ would disagree on this matter.
NITA,
No, I have never heard of a church where men were taught how to flirt with women. Whay that is I am not sure. Perhaps it is another example of the vilification of men, as in "flirting is bad because it unleashed men on poor unsuspecting women". But, honest;y I am not sure why. Why do you think it is NITA?
What about the character in the novel did you not like?
The character, as drawn in the narrative, felt guilty about being attracted emotionally to the heroine of this Christian novel. The story line had him coming to grips with this thing that was embarrassing to him. Whiskey tango foxtrot? I.e. this story line, I suppose, is either supposed to appeal to women or toe some kind of politically correct evangelical orthodoxy about how men feel about women.
I like women. I like the way they look, their cat like strangeness, and some of them I feel attracted to. and I am not sinning in this . It's part of what makes a man rather than a boy.
Interesting obiter: Adultery and fornication are separate notions, right? Both sexual sin. Is a man committing adultery by being physically attracted to a non -married woman? (this is a kind of koan or riddle to make you stop and think.
(I don't think this "adultery of the eyes and heart" is = physical adultery, btw. If you do think this, do you think a man can divorce a woman because he suspects she has "eyed" someone?
We can't imagine a church mentor teaching a man how to talk to a lady because we have lost sight of manhood beyond the 'purity" and 'provider" bits.
Some people in my circle have kittens when I suggest teaching martial arts and prayer to grade school boys. This relates to the current topic only in that it is a thread in the larger tapestry about Christian manhood. -->But a man is a defender as well; those martial arts kata, if they give pause to some ladies who think men are supposed to be tame, should be thought of as external rituals reflecting an inner reality, the way, say, raising one's hands in worship (or in some traditions, genuflecting) are representations of what is on the inside. Binding up Christian virtue with physical defensive arts is an excellent idea for many reasons, and some of them even have to do with the future of the church.
I have some sci-fi brewing in which men are taught an art called adoro. Adoro is a bit of a pun in Spanish, since it is close to the idea of "adoracion" - worship -- and "adorno" -- Adornments - which are a kind of dance step. Adoro (in this fiction...and indeed it is fiction to suppose that masculine men will be valued so widespreadly in some kinds of churches) is a set of exertions and movements that can either be used as a martial art; or with some modifications, as a kind of social dance with ladies. (in real life, for example, the footwork for a roundhouse kick is the same as for a dance floor manuever called an enrosque - a spin about one's axis - the difference being the amount of energy and where the leg and attached foot go).
Jesse,
I really am not sure about the whole game thing at all. I am inclined to dismiss it out of hand because of the shady and godless practitioners that seem to be so popular on the internet. But, some people whose opinions I value have a different point of view.
I didn't watch the Cards game, but for one, they really had nothing to prove. After all, they showed last year that they were the better team, even if they were robbed of the bling to show for it.
Better team? By what standard? Regular season records?
Cards 9-7
Steelers 12-4
Nope.
Strength of regular season schedule rank then?
Cards 21
Steelers 1
Hmm...not that either.
Record against the same teams?
Cards and Steelers played 5 teams in common (PHI, NYG, WAS, NE, DAL). Both lost to PHI and NYG, both won against DAL, but the Steelers beat both NE and WAS when the Cards lost to both of those teams.
Not that either then....
The Cards were a good team, but the Steelers were better both in the regular season and when it counted in the Super Bowl. Let it go bro...it's not good for you to harbor such bitterness.... ;)
Yeah, I agree that it sure seems like a false accusation against Roethlisberger.
Knightswatch,
I am in no position to offer an appologetic for "game" but I don't think meekness and humility are the opposite of leadership at all. After all Christ displayed all of those qualities as well as confidence (ie; let your yes mean yes and your no mean no).
I wonder if part of the current debate is because of a disagreement about what certain terms mean (such as confidence....is it cockiness of just not presenting in a wishy washy manner?) Perhaps the discussion would be better served by discussing examples of specific behaviors rather than vague characteristics?
Whether or not all or even most christian women are capable of recognizing and esteeming characteristics such as meekness or humility in a man is another question entirely.
NITA,
Guilty about feeling attraction for an available woman? That is rather legalistic and off.
We can't imagine a church mentor teaching a man how to talk to a lady because we have lost sight of manhood beyond the 'purity" and 'provider" bits.
Interesting and I think true.
Interesting idea for your book as well.
Re: game.
I think it is important to separate the tool from the user.
Any tool can be perverted into something dreadful by an unscrupulous person. A firearm can be turned into a weapon of defense and of safety into a weapon of misery, oppression and death. Same with a car, a knife, the internet, and a telephone. What matters most I think is the person employing the methodology or technique.
I think there are some aspects of game that are useful and helpful to the faithful. Things like awareness of how one dresses and acts. Of knowing what turns a woman on, and what does not. And a reminder that supplicating, inoffensive, jellyfish men are not likely to garner a woman's respect nor keep it. Men are to be warriors for God, not footstools for Eve and her out of control sisters.
For certain, there are more mercenary and distasteful things about game and the game culture, and some downright evil too. The trick is I think is to accept truth when it is presented as such.
God delights in sex between men and women, in the proper context. Game unabashedly equips men, be they moral or not, to secure it. Yet it seems to me that the furor over game is because men are re-discovering it. We seem to have forgotten that the female counterpart to men's game is so ubiquitous as to be barely noticeable except during its most egregious excesses.
Result? Our society has not lost the knowledge of what turns men on. Yet there is quite a bit of mythology surrounding women and women's sexuality, some truths and a much larger proportion of falsehoods, and I see men's "game" as tearing away that false edifice.
All this is not to say that I'm entirely comfortable with it all. As Jesse said, it seems a tad artificial. And as I queried over at Josh Xiong's place, is a woman who responds to obvious game worthy as a marriage partner? I'm not altogether sold on the affirmative answer to that question.
Gotta run now. Mrs Wapiti is applying her brand of game to me at this very moment--jealous of Blogger, she is--and I must respond appropriately :)
I am in no position to offer an apologetic for "game" but I don't think meekness and humility are the opposite of leadership at all.
No, and I do not want send out that message. What I'm trying to get across is that on a comparative or metaphorical basis -- male 'passive virtues' today are to many women what "white coat syndrome" is to patients.
Seeing as how the propriety of (so-called) “Game” is being called into question, I’d like to ask a serious question to those who have decided that they are dead-set against it’s use.
First, to get the proper context, let me point out one of the most prominent aspects of “Game” – the understanding of female sexual desires so as to be able to act in ways to manipulate women.
Now, the fact that it is unabashedly about manipulating another person seems to be, on it’s face, highly objectionable, and I’d agree.
But, getting back towards my question, I sure that virtually everyone is well aware that women have for ages (all throughout written history) been able of use their understanding of men’s sexual desires in order to manipulate men into all manner of action – all the way from going to war (and sacrificing thousands of lives), right down to threatening to withhold it to manipulate the outcome of everyday domestic disagreements. (Does anyone deny this has happened?)
Then, for you anti-”Game” folks, let me pose this question (finally):
How do you feel about women “Gaming” men in the way they do?
EW,
Thanks for your input.
And a reminder that supplicating, inoffensive, jellyfish men are not likely to garner a woman's respect nor keep it.
I agree that this is very true. It also seems to me that those characteristics are also pleasing to God in the right circumstances. For example we are all called to bring our supplications to the Lord while also being called on to not depend on others to validate us or meet our needs. In the same way christians are taught that the Gospel is an offense to those who do not believe and also to not offend out weaker brother.
It seems to me the key is balance and appropriate context. Unfortunately all of the examples of "game" (meaning anecdotes) that I have run across online (admittedly not many to begin with) do not seem to find this balance because they are from an extremely secular perspective.
So on one hand we have the (forgive the simplification) "anti-game" guys saying saying things like game is antithetical to the humility and meekness that Christ demands from men etc. and the "pro-game" guys rebutt that game is a useful tool that is neither good nor evil in and of itself or that women game men when they put on dresses or make up. It doesn't seem to me that either side is doing a very good job of really addressing the "other side's" points directly or with concrete examples.
I applaud your wisdom at ensuring your Mrs. is not blogger widow :)
Knightswatch,
How do you see qualities such as meekness and humility mixing or balancing with strength or masculinity?
slwerner,
Interesting question. I hope some of the guys answer.
swlearner,
How do you know a woman is manipulating you? When she's being NICE to you-ha!
MarkyMark
How do you know a woman is manipulating you? When she's being NICE to you-ha!
That's certainly the truth.
First things first...
Just give it up? I'm only defending the truth!
I'm not sure what game was showing out there in Steelers-land, but the Super Bowl I watched left me with the impression that the Cards actually played a better game, or at worst were evenly matched. (Each team had some big plays that by themselves changed the course of the game, so there's room for debate there.) The Steelers got a gift TD at the end of the half and were given a bunch of yards when Francisco took a seat on the turf and ended up chasing Ward almost into the end zone instead of staying with him. Take away either of those and the outcome is different. I suppose one could argue similarly about the Cards--the Fitz long TD comes to mind--but I thought the Cards played a better game overall. And if it matters in the grand scheme of things (doesn't to me), Arizona had better marquis players.
It was a great game, and Pittsburgh earned it, but I'll never be convinced that they actually played a better 60 minutes of football. So yes, I intend to take that bitterness with me to the grave...
What MarkyMark said. That's awesome!
I sure that virtually everyone is well aware that women have for ages (all throughout written history) been able of use their understanding of men’s sexual desires in order to manipulate men into all manner of action – all the way from going to war (and sacrificing thousands of lives), right down to threatening to withhold it to manipulate the outcome of everyday domestic disagreements. (Does anyone deny this has happened?) ...
How do you feel about women “Gaming” men in the way they do?
The way the question is presented, it seems to me there's only one rational answer. Of course I'd disagree with the sorts of actions you describe in the quoted paragraph; I can't see why anyone would argue that's good behavior. So I suspect I'm missing the thrust of your question.
As far as more subtle aspects such as dress and whatnot...that's a little trickier I think. I'll still stick to my guns on that one and point to a higher standard than "what the other sex wants" as what I hope would guide behavior. And for the record, the "but it works" excuse is still as lame a response as it was when I previously posted--not that you're (slwerner) saying that but I can almost hear someone responding with it. I'm not talking simple pragmatics here, I'm talking standards and where our real focus is (which is ultimately the most pragmatic approach anyway, but that's neither here nor there).
The way I think of game, though, there is a bit of "overlap" if you can call it that. For example, if a man stands his ground on beliefs or takes control of unexpected situations then to me that's not necessarily game. He could simply be showing good character and caring for a woman as best he knows how. But if he does so simply to impress her or get in her head, then that's trying to "game" her and in my opinion is uncalled for.
So sure, some aspects of game may overlap with aspects of maturity and good character. Does that mean game is the best way to get those traits? Or would some (but of course not all) behaviors that often get lumped in with game be there as a result of trying to develop one's own godly character as well? Seems best to me to pursue becoming the kind of men (women) we are called to be for the purpose of being better men (women), not for the purpose of impressing women or anyone else around us. And no, a superior ability to pick up chicks by no means makes one a better man.
Jesse - "So I suspect I'm missing the thrust of your question."
It was really more of a rhetorical question, with the not so hidden intend to pointing out that “gaming” another person based on an understanding of their sexuality (or, emotional state, etc.) is neither new, nor specific to any one gender.
I would have expected, given the higher level of intelligence of those who read such blogs that, as a matter of intellectual honesty, most everyone would conclude that, in general, manipulation is manipulation – and, as such, not something we should generally seek to do to someone else.
And yet, I also suspect that most people can easily reason that there are exceptions, and instance when manipulating someone isn’t necessarily a negative. Just for a quick example, if a woman appealed to he husbands sexual desires, and, in so doing, kept him from, say, going out, getting drunk, and killing someone in an accident – then such a blatant manipulation would not have been a bad thing to do. Obviously, the examples could be endless.
What I would hope would be the “take home” here is that women are not without faults (sexually speaking), and that they also use their knowledge to manipulate men in evil ways.
Also, for men, if they take the time to better understand female sexuality, Christian men need not use that ability to manipulate women in exclusively evils ways. [I use my own knowledge to manipulate my wife’s emotions (positively) and to arouse her sexual urges on a regular basis – much to her delight. She knows full well that this is exactly what I am doing, and that I have only good intentions in doing so. But, just as “Game” does for so many, the term “manipulate” causes a reflexive negative reaction not always deserved].
I do agree with the position that the term “Game” is a poor choice, both because what the word itself might suggest, as well as the way some have corrupted the core ideas upon which it is based.
But, until a better term emerges in common use, we’ll all continue to read about “Game”.
How do you see qualities such as meekness and humility mixing or balancing with strength or masculinity?
I think they're all equally important.
Jesse,
It was a great game, and Pittsburgh earned it, but I'll never be convinced that they actually played a better 60 minutes of football.
You keep thinking that if it makes you feel better bro ;)
I think the subject of the Superbowl does the same thing for my enjoyment as the subject of age does for your enjoyment. :)
Knightswatch,
"How do you see qualities such as meekness and humility mixing or balancing with strength or masculinity?
I think they're all equally important."
Perhaps I am wrong but I don't think the Christian men who are advocating game would disagree with that.
This was related in the context of a woman being turned on by a situation where she was afraid her husband would hit her. Not only do I have a hard time believing this is accurate about most women, I find the idea repulsive. I have experienced very real fear of a man in a romantic relationship and it certainly did nothing to attract me to him and in reality resulted in only bad.
This is taking the anecdote way out of context...as I was the guy that related this experience.
First of all: I have never hit my wife. I have never been abusive towards her. In 11 years of marriage, that is the ONE instance my wife would say she was ever afraid of me.
The main point is that up until I began to study "game" which is really a focus on the biological function of attraction between the sexes, I was a totally spineless "beta."
I deferred to my wife in all things, I let her make all the important decisions, and I continually tried to appease her, supplicate her, and placate her.
If she were mad at me and yelling at me, I would try to pacify her, apologize profusely and just try to "make things better" by giving in, regardless of what the issue was.
This almost ALWAYS made her full of contempt for the spineless wimp of a pussy that I had become...thanks to the cultural indoctrination that had programmed me to worship women as a goddess...that women were superior beings of morality, and that a way to make a woman happy is to avoid power struggles with her. To try and have "equality."
This was a recipe for disaster...and "game" was the antidote that opened my eyes to the lies that feminist mainstream culture has indoctrinated us all with.
In the instance for which you are referring to, my wife was screaming at me because she was extremely distraught.
The 'old' me would have tried to calm her down, appease her and placate her emotional outburst.
But "game" made me realize something...I needed to take my balls back.
And the fact is, as wrong as I was in what resulted in making her so upset, she also had no business ranting and raving at me like that either.
So I responded in the same manner. I stood my ground. I yelled at her back (something I hadn't done in 7 years of marriage up to that point).
It literally shocked the shit out of her.
And we ended up getting things out, and "making it up" later.
I had finally stood up and was no longer afraid of her anger and emotional outbursts. Finally, she has begun to respect me as a man...rather than a cowering beta afraid of my wife's emotional state.
Prior to that...I had no clue what that "makeup sex" was a real phenomena.
I thought people just made that up.
I was one of those pathetic husbands that got banished to the couch whenever she got mad.
I would get days of silent treatment from her.
All because I was a simpering wimp, begging her to just "let it go" and "can't we all just get along?"
No woman wants to be married to a man without a spine.
The study of "Game" made me realize precisely what was making our relationship hell.
Learner,
Fair enough. I can see where the cases are similar, in that we're both in denial in a sense: me in that I am getting older and will (God willing) eventually have to wear any age jokes I throw around, and you in that you remain convinced that the Cards somehow did not outplay the Steelers in the Super Bowl...
slwerner,
Thanks for the clarification, I was a bit slow in grasping the rhetorical nature of that but it makes sense.
Good points about manipulation too. I don't think all manipulation is outright bad in and of itself. The crux is the motivation behind it. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that if I do get married I hope my wife will manipulate me to good ends, to help me become a better man. That is one of the huge advantages of a godly marriage I think, and I can think of marriages even within my own family in which that is the case. But again, the context I'm presenting precludes the use of fem-game to somehow gain control over me or pursue her own selfish ends by trying to "trick" me.
This context implies the use of manipulation (note I'm not using the term "game" here because I don't think of this as game) in the pursuit of a higher standard than one's own desires to get laid or gain control or what have you. Not that I'm going Gnostic here and saying our desires are always bad, because they're not. Oftentimes they are rooted in righteous character. But that's just it: IMO manipulation should only be used in the right ways and to good (i.e. godly) ends. To manipulate someone else, man or woman, for selfish gain is simply wrong in my book, and thus I aspire to avoid doing that. (Not that I'm great at it, ideal vs. real and all...)
Something I'm realizing in trying to keep up with all of these discussions across various blogs is that some working out of definitions and terminology would be good. I don't think a lot of us are as far apart on this whole issue as we appear to be. Others have claimed as "game" behaviors I would find perfectly acceptable given the circumstances and apparent motivation put forth. Take seduction within marriage, for example, for the purpose of strengthening the marriage. I don't call that "game" but rather being a good husband/man and doing what's right not for personal gain but to serve and build up the other and the union. Of course there's personal motivation and personal gain involved, but that's not the end-all.
So much of it is a matter of the heart. And in that respect I think I actually agree, to some extent at least, with the pro-"game" crowd that equates game with guns, money, etc.
Dave,
My apologies for taking you out of context. It was not my intention to misrepresent you. I could not have told you who related the anecdote because it was one of many things I read over a day or two about "game", a subject which I was not very familiar with. When I wrote the post I recalled reading the idea that women should "be afraid" of their men in more than one place and that is a subject that my past experience will not sit easily with. I recalled the story as one example of "fear" among others. I did not go back to directly quote or check sources but rather wrote from general impressions and I should know better. I will remove the example from my post.
No woman wants to be married to a man without a spine.
very true
LOL Jesse
Learner - no need to edit it out...just wanted to set the record straight.
Understand that the context of that discussion came under the topic of men who are absolutely baffled why so many women choose violent and abusive men for relationships. This is rather common.
It's no accident that a murderer like Scott Peterson receives marriage proposals from women while he's in jail...
...there is no doubt something that resides in the female id that is attracted to violent masculinity.
And that...is just one aspect of understanding just what "GAME" is. It's really nothing but a group of men comparing notes on various attitudes, behaviors and actions that men do that many women find attractive. Some are positive...some negative...but they are all based on real life observations.
Would you deny that there are indeed plenty of women that are attracted to violent men?
Dave,
I did opt to edit it out because I don't want to misrepresent others. Thank you for setting the record straight.
Would you deny that there are indeed plenty of women that are attracted to violent men?
I do not deny that these women exist, and even that there are more than a few of them. I just have a hard time believing that is a characteristic that is common to most women. Of all of the women I am well enough acquainted with to know their husband or bf I have 2 friends who were married to men I would say are "bad boys" though not because they were violent. I did have a student last year whose boyfriend was regularly bruising her up who took several months and much encouragement to break up with him. So, most of the women I know are not in relationships with violent guys.
I think it is just difficult for me to understand as well. I could never be with a man who I was afraid would be violent with me. But perhaps these women don't think violent types of men will hurt them? I don't know, I just know it is hard for me to fathom.
"I do not deny that these women exist, and even that there are more than a few of them. I just have a hard time believing that is a characteristic that is common to most women."
I agree completely L.
In my experience, I have never come across a woman who is attracted to a violent man.
My husband does not have a violent bone in his body.
I have a hard time getting my head around all this alpha beta nonsense, too.
Pigeon holing people(male or female)is detrimental demoralizing and unhelpful for people wishing to establish a a meaningful relationship with a view to marriage.
My husband is quieter more subdued than I. I am quite talkative, passionate and effusive. My mother has always said that I am just like my (Italian) father. It's true, our personalities are very similar.
On the face of it you would say that my husband is a beta and I am an alpha. Oh shoot! why didn't some one tell me this 14 years ago before I married him.(shakes head.)
Too much navel gazing going on here.
The real problem today is selfishness lack of respect and greed. People marry and don't want to work at the marriage.They get caught up in the material whilst foregoing the spiritual. Self sacrifice- dying to self is abhorrent to many.
There are three parties in my marriage Hubby, me and God.
Mind you, the odd suggestive text message to hubby while he is working goes down a treat too!
"Whether or not all or even most christian women are capable of recognizing and esteeming characteristics such as meekness or humility in a man is another question entirely."
ThankyouThankyouThankyou.
Yes.
This is exactly what needed to be said.
Whether we like it or not, WOMEN ARE THE ONLY VOTERS in the great campaign of human sexuality.
Men are the candidates.
Men will do whatever it takes to earn a woman's love (for better or worse, demonstrated by sexual access to her).
Women have, in recent years, cast their vote for creeps.
Even the Christian women have often done so.
It is time that the Christian voters (women) started voting for Godly men, even if they are not alpha males.
Thanks, Learner-
You are one beacon in a stormy sea of female foolishness.
Kathy-
So what it basically amounts to is that we can say that if a person is really operating correctly as a Christian, they will not be attracted to or susceptible to the ways of the world.
Your view is as one who is Godly, and probably most of your friends are as well. I do know lots of women who have stayed with verbally and physically abusive men, and no matter how bad it got, just kept shrieking "But I LOVE him!!!"
Again, they mistake attraction, the prideful need to assert control, and lust for love.
It takes the Spirit to turn a man into a person who will not take advantage of the opportunity for sexual conquest, and it takes the Spirit to turn a woman into a person who will not be seduced by such a man.
Without God, the natural (sin) state of men is to use women sexually, and the natural state of women is to yield to that use, while seeking validation from those men.
Whether we like it or not, WOMEN ARE THE ONLY VOTERS in the great campaign of human sexuality.
Men are the candidates.
SA, how I wish this was the whole truth. Certainly it is true to an extent, but you cannot vote for a candidate if they are not running in your election. Candidates do not run in every election...he only runs in those he chooses to. There are women voters who have no candidates to vote for. We often get forgotten in this disccussion.
Perhaps no one knows that there is an election in which to run.
Many times, nice yet low-profile women give off the vibe that they are not approachable.
When guys sense that the "Closed, please call again" sign is hung on the door, they generally won't approach.
Again, the feminization of the Church has driven out most of the men except for the most socially doughy of them. These men have been so thoroughly rejected that won't approach unless you are more aggressively flirtatious with them.
SA
SA - "Whether we like it or not, WOMEN ARE THE ONLY VOTERS in the great campaign of human sexuality."
Learner - "Candidates do not run in every election...he only runs in those he chooses to. There are women voters who have no candidates to vote for."
Bravo to the both of you. In two short posts you've managed to lay the ground work for what may well be the best analogy to describe modern sexual "politics".
Thank you.
Just a thought, slwerner:
Would you say that a man and woman working on keeping their marriage passionate and alive were in fact engaging in a mutually beneficial form of game?
Having read what you said about your own marriage and how you improved upon it(over at Nova's)got me to thinking.
Sometimes a marriage can get into a rut. Kids are demanding.. etc.
My hubby works very hard, so rather than leave the initiating of intimacy mostly up to him, I decided to take the matter into my own hands(in a manner of speaking:)..)
What this did, was have an mmensely positive and invigorating effect on our marriage.
Sending him suggestive text messages, whispering in his ear.Grabbing him as he walked past. Deliberately brushing up against him.. etc.
He reciprocated VERY enthusiastically.. In fact it blew me away!!!! Still does.
Now, more often than not he will be the initiator..
Perhaps you would call this "game"?
I would call it working at preventing stagnation and ennui in a marriage.
Same thing different name.
"Perhaps you would call this "game"?
I would call it working at preventing stagnation and ennui in a marriage.
Same thing different name."
In my marriage, it is actually my wife who is the busier one – she a prosecutor in a large and (criminally) busy jurisdiction. A BIG part of MY Game IS constantly reminding my wife how attractive she is and not only how much I love her, but how much I physically desire her.
It works wonders, and it is often she who initiates. She thoroughly enjoys our passionate lovemaking, and (unlike what I’ve heard is typical) we do it 8-10/week in a normal week.
Another big part of my Game is making the effort to see that she is also sexually satisfied in out lovemaking (I won’t get into details here since this isn’t that kind of blog).
But, to wind back to the late eighties, it wasn’t always this way, since I wasn’t the way I am now with regard to my wife and my marriage.
We started out hot-n-heavy, but after our second daughter was born, things started to cool off. We were both working hard, not just to support our family, but we were looking to buy a bigger house. Most evenings became decompressing watching TV, going to bed, and forgetting about sex – gee, just like so many other couples we hear about.
In my family, real estate was a big deal. So, my view for our new home was a larger, more opulent house in a prime neighborhood (faster equity growth, and all that). To help make MY dreams a reality, I started cutting back on expenditures – well, actually, going overboard, and acting like a selfish idiot about it. One thing I did was to start buying cheap (and, cheap looking) clothes. Now, this in-and-of-itself might not have been so bad if not for what was to happen.
My wife got a nice promotion into a business insurance sales position. The manager of her department was the man who was to become my rival for her.
I think that in talking about “Game” a lot has gone unmentioned about the very important portion regarding demonstrating Social Dominance. To much focus has been placed on being a jerk to a woman, but one way to establish such social dominance ids to be disrespectful towards other men.
Now, I was quite impressed with my future rival (E). Imagine a quintessential GQ-looking financially successful man, and you’ll have a good idea of his public persona.
Now, I was had always been a guy who got along well with other guys, and who could readily connect with them. So, I though I might be E’s friend, but I quickly became like that dweeb who wants so badly to hang out with the cool kid that he makes himself into a joke. And, given my cheap clothes, and excessive frugality, I had made myself the perfect target for a more alpha man to establish HIS social dominance by putting down other men. I found myself the constant butt of his oh-so smooth mockery, much to the laughing delight of others (including my wife). But, as I had no “Game” myself, I didn’t understand how to respond so as to deflect his put-downs. I was embarrassed, even humiliated, and all I could manage to do was leave mad.
Then, as I started to realize my wife responded so well to him, I became increasingly angry and jealous (showing jealousy is a huge mistake in the game of Game). It wasn’t just that I didn’t have “Game”, I actually displayed traits that are the exact opposite of “Game”. I had “anti-Game”, if you will.
I would point out for some of those so opposed to game that perhaps the biggest pitfall to eschewing game is that other guys will not. And, the women they are interested in, be they potential girlfriends, current girl friends, or ( as I can attest to) their wives, are NOT immune to being “Gamed” by other men who do have a bad intent. The best, and perhaps only truly effective way to respond to another man’s Gaming is to have so Game of your own. So, if you have, or have your eyes on a woman who’s out and about in the world, learn so Game for yourself. (to be continued…)
(cont) Any guy who’s looking to get and keep that special lady needs to understand that he’s likely to have to be “competitive” with other men, plenty of whom are going to have Game.
I say this because, as man without Game, I was at a huge disadvantage to my rival. I was quite fortunate that, as much out of a sense of desperation as anything else, I was able to make use of another aspect of Game – the masculinity expressed by aggressively taking control to regain my wife’s respect and head off her completely falling for another man.
But, even though see resigned her position, and wasn’t going to have any further contact with that particular man, she was still a beautiful and vivacious woman.
While she elected to stay home and be wife and mother, and after a couple of years, have another child, our now 17 year-old son; we both knew that she would eventually return to the working world. Having come way too close to loosing her, I knew I had to make some changes so that when she did, there would not be any repeats.
If only I could have gotten the information regarding Game then, I’d have had an easier time.
Not pulling a high salary at that time, it was obvious I wasn’t going to be able to compete financially (which I mistook as THE most important aspect of attracting women), was had to figure out other things to do. Some things were fairly obvious – dress better, get back into shape, and being more assertive.
To my great and pleasant surprise, these simple things worked wonders on my wife’s attitude toward me. Where I had once sought to avoid conflict by meekly acquiescing to my wife’s demands, feeling better about myself (or, to be more honest, because she now wasn’t around other men, into who’s arms I had to fear driving her), I started to find the courage to challenge her.
Again, to by surprise, rather than the big, ugly fights I expected, my wife responded with respect – and, better still, increased sex. It was the exact opposite of what I expected to happen, and until I recently came to learn about Game, I had no way to explain why doing the exact opposite of the things I had learned would make me a good husband, seemed to have worked out so well.
I know this is all running quite long at this point, so I’ll skip quite a bit, and get back to the positive, and quite fun aspects of Game that has also worked well on my wife (and now, knowing about Game, I tell her up front that I’m Gaming her) has been to be sexually aggressive. Apparently, acting like a man (base, and sexual as we naturally are) helps to exude masculinity and confidence that sparks a sexual reciprocity in women.
There’s more (much more) that can be a part of a man’s Game. I cannot say what might work for any given man, with a given woman. But, even if guys are put off with the hedonist’s version of Game, I believe they would be well advised to learn about the things that women respond to, and how they can be more of the type of man women really want (even thought they typically say that they want something else).
I’ll end with this: one can use the put-downs as a part of game without being a jerk to a woman.
As an example, yesterday, I forgot to stop by a store and pick up a prescription that I had told I would when she asked me to.
I apologized for forgetting, but she start in with lecturing me about how I (supposedly) “never do the things” she ask – especially the “really important” stuff.
As a beta at heart, I began to apologize more profusely, promising I would remember to do so.
But, when she continued on about how I needed to “listen to her better”, I finally responded saying, “Hey, you talk so much no one could possibly process it all”.
She turned an shot me an angry look – for about two seconds, then she busted out laughing, gave me a kiss, told me how much she loved me, tried to look stern in reminding me that I’d have to go (today) and get it; then, well let’s just say, she initiated…
The long and short of it is, I truly believe Game works – needs a new name though.
SA,
I understand what you are saying and agree that men experience "active" rejection. Women experience rejection too, though perhaps it is more the rejection of indifference or being passed over repeatedly. Both kinds of rejection can wound and lead members of both sexes to feel thoroughly rejected. Perhaps this is part of a nice women's unapproachable "vibe", a sort of defense mechanism against the repeated rejection via indifference.
In two short posts you've managed to lay the ground work for what may well be the best analogy to describe modern sexual "politics".
Thanks slwerner
Any guy who’s looking to get and keep that special lady needs to understand that he’s likely to have to be “competitive” with other men, plenty of whom are going to have Game.
I think in a way this is part of what kind of bothers me about the assumptions of game. I understand and agree that women DO NOT want a man they can walk all over and that it is important to continue doing things that please your mate and attract them to you throughout your marriage. But, I wonder at the assumption that unless you game your wife (and again I am not saying this is a bad thing the way many of you married men describe it) that you may lose her to another man. What of the woman's responsibility to her vows? Is it not also her responsibility to keep herself to her husband emotionally as well as sexually? Where is the balance?
Learner - "But, I wonder at the assumption that unless you game your wife that you may lose her to another man."
Game isn't just about using manipulative tricks on a woman (wife or otherwise). Roissy et. al definitely overemphasize that aspect.
A big part of a man's "Game" is his ability to either establish him self as a socially dominant male (if pursuing a woman), or to show that he can hold his own with aggressive socially dominant men.
A man needs not only establish that his wife can walk all over him, but also that other men (potential rivals) cannot either.
I know it gets under the skin of a lot of Believers, but, in my mind, there is just no denying that there are certain aspects of deeply ingrained biology which shape the way in which we behave.
As Christians, women ought to answer to a higher standard than mere biological urges (men as well, of course). Yet, if we remain willfully ignorant of those nature underlying complex human urges, we are more likely to fall victim to them.
As happened with my wife, I had made certain assumptions based on faith. We were married, and we were practicing Christian's. I naively (or, perhaps, arrogantly) believed that this would protect a marriage, and that I could therefore get away with being "lazy" in that relationship.
Had I known about some of the biological realities that we are still subject to, like the tendency fro women to become dissatisfied periodically in their monogamous relationships, I'd have known better to work harder at keeping up the attraction and intimacy between us.
Had I known about the aspects of Game, especially the part about establishing oneself with a social dominance hierarchy so that women would have greater respect and attraction for a socially stronger man, I'd have been better able to blunt my rivals efforts to socially shame me and diminish me in my wife's eyes.
As I mentioned earlier, I think that the establishment of social dominance via "Game" has been under stated, and thus it's true import not adequately conveyed.
Given my own experience, dispute what others may make of the potential negatives of Game, and lack of a Scriptural grounding, I simply cannot be convinced that men are not disadvantaged by not at least understanding the tenants thereof - even if one chooses not to utilize them. Should the need arise, having some Game of one's own is the only truly effective way to be competitive with those men who are actively trying to utilize it.
Or, maybe we could bring back Dueling instead?
Learner - "What of the woman's responsibility to her vows? Is it not also her responsibility to keep herself to her husband emotionally as well as sexually? Where is the balance?"
Oops! I meant to address this as well.
It is the ideal that both men and women should honor their vows. Ultimately, each of us must answer for our own sins.
The thing is, during the time we must live in this flawed human world, in are flawed human bodies, unable to fully disconnect from our instinctive biological directives, it would be wise for both men and women to not rely solely on the mates ability to always do the right thing; nor should rely on cultural, religious, or legal guidelines to keep them in line - all three are failing us these days.
Instead, I believe it wise for each of us to be proactive in maintaining the health of our relationships. To me, this definitely includes making oneself good mate material.
Throwing in a little bit of Game now and then helps a man keep his wifes interest.
Comedian Bill Engval once joked about the difference between newly weds and older married couples, noting that (something to the effect of) "When your young, you pick a fight with your spouse just so you can have make-up sex".
I hate to admit it, but...
What makes that make-up sex so desirable is the added passion which arises from anger. Seeking to try to work up just a bit of anger so as to up the passion is also a part of Game. It's most definitely not Scriptural, but anyone who's had hot make-up sex can understand the underlying principle.
If I had to venture a guess, I'd speculate that there are more than a few married men who've been reading and/or involved in these debates about "Game", who've found themselves a becoming bit heated - but who've also been having some good sex.
Just my guess. Anyone want to tell me if I'm right or wrong?
"What of the woman's responsibility to her vows? Is it not also her responsibility to keep herself to her husband emotionally as well as sexually? Where is the balance?"
You are quite right there L, however as slwerner points out we are flawed human beings.So, it's just not that simple.
For example, a married woman I know is having an affair. Of course it's wrong, but I can understand why it has happened. The husband is a good man, just neglected his wife over the years. Too busy working.. Then in his free time he would play golf and go fishing, then off to a bar with the boys.
After twenty years of this behaviour the wife finally found someone who paid her attention.. Took her out to lunch. Played tennis with her... Went for walks.. The wife was at pains to point out that it was not for the sex that she strayed, (and I believe her)
If only her husband had shown an interest not taken her for granted..The man she is having an affair with, belongs to the same tennis club. She has known him for many years. The affair started a year ago...
All human beings crave love and affection...Without it a marriage will deteriorate..
To put it another way, if you do not tend your garden the plants will eventually wither and die...
She knows what she is doing is wrong. She still has a great fondness for her husband. However nothing she could do or say would make him listen or take notice.
I was at her place a couple of weeks ago. I noticed a picture of her and hubby in a bookshelf. She picked it up when I made a comment. It was taken years ago before they were married.
"We were so in love" she recalled smiling at the photograph..Tears were streaming down her cheeks.
So sad.. SO.. SO.. VERY SAD.
What could I say? "Let he who is without sin".....went through my mind..
"A BIG part of MY Game IS constantly reminding my wife how attractive she is and not only how much I love her, but how much I physically desire her."
slwerner, you are right on target, there.
Nothing turns me on more,than my husband telling me that he wants me, and desires me.. and how much I turn him on.
Hubby and I have a wonderful flourishing garden, because we are constantly tending it.
I am ever mindful, though, that one can never be complacent..
slwerner's story is quite well taken. I had seen summary versions of it before, but not this long version -- very worthwhile reading, I think.
I see the situation as a combination of what Kathy and slw have said. In some cases, as Kathy points out, there are marriages that "die on the vine" because one or the other spouse just gets complacent and stops acting like a spouse, and more like a housemate/co-parent. It's so very tempting to do so today, in particular, because of how busy our lives are, how filled they are with other things that need doing, and how little energy we can have left for our baseline relationship. I honestly think that unless couples actively work to prevent this from happening, it can kind of become the path of least resistance for many.
On the other hand, I do agree with slw that the world today is filled with unscrupulous people. It's true that women shouldn't get off the hook for having affairs. Not in the least. But the practical aspect of how husbands combat that in a world where many women are going to have a lot of contact with other, desirable, men on a daily basis, and the reality that many of these men have no qualms about approaching another man's wife (another casualty of the sexual revolution has been a nearly complete breakdown of the "Guy Code" when it comes to such things), men need to find a way to "compete" effectively with these other guys, so that women are more immunized to responding to their approaches.
From a traditional point of view, it seems to "suck" that men need to compete with other men for their wives' attentions (or to head off straying) and so on, but such is the contemporary reality. Men need to know that if their wife is attractive, other men whom she works with also find her that way, and some of them without scruples *will* make passes. It just happens. Whether your wife responds or not depends on a variety of factors, including her own moral compass .. but husbands *can* impact that calculus too, as slw has well described.
slwerner,
Thanks for sharing your input. I am happy for you that you were able to save your marriage and that you and your wife enjoy such a good relationship now.
Hi Kathy,
I think it is hard for me to put myself in your friend's shoes because I have never been married. I just think it is sad that when people say for better or for worse they don't seem to really mean it anymore.
Nova,
You were up mighty early this morning. Thanks for your thoughts on the subject.
I don't think I would want my husband to always be worrying that I would not be true to my vows to him. I would want him to work on our relationship so that we have a good relationship, just not with the motivation being fear of losing me. Perhaps that is picking nits, but I think those two scenarios have different implications. I dunno, do we as human beings have to fear losing our spouse to care enough to work on the relationship?
I was up very early this morning -- I slept earlier than usual and so woke earlier as well -- it's good for posting blog comments at odd hours!
It's a good point that you raise. Maybe an analogy, based on this post, is football? There's offense and defense. Offense would be the regular working on the relationship to make sure it works, and defense would be what I described above. The degree to which you need to play "defense" depends greatly on the circumstances, I think.
"I dunno, do we as human beings have to fear losing our spouse to care enough to work on the relationship?"
Good question L.
I can only speak for myself.My husband and I take our vows very seriously. Because we are committed to one another for life, the prospect of either one of us straying would, I believe, be remote.So, I guess I could become complacent and smug about the marriage, knowing that my spouse will always be there.
That's not the kind of marriage I want, though. Many people stay together for the sake of the kids, having long fallen out of love with their spouse.
I (we) strive to keep that spark alive in our marriage.
As Nova says:
" because one or the other spouse just gets complacent and stops acting like a spouse, and more like a housemate/co-parent. It's so very tempting to do so today, in particular, because of how busy our lives are, how filled they are with other things that need doing, and how little energy we can have left for our baseline relationship"
Put simply, I want a marriage filled with love, passion and sex! (I most definitely don't want a disinterested housemate/co- parent!)
Nova,
Football analogies work well for me :)
Kathy,
It sounds like both you and your husband are blessed in your marriage.
The difference between Julia and Julie is that the latter lives in an era when female infidelity is celebrated.
Let's review -- the blogger writes a BOOK about how hot her affair was with an old flame bad boy, further humilitating her "nice guy" supportive husband.
The practical effect is men bailing on marriage and cohabitation, and simply joining the PUA/bad boy group. If there is enough risk, enough "bad currency" it drives out the good. Given that it's more like 60% or higher of women of marriageable age/attractiveness that will engage in infidelity at the drop of a hat, without any social condemnation (indeed women find it "hot" and celebrate it) the practical effect is that few if any women going forward will find supportive husbands. The best they can get is a temporary bad boy who will move onto other things, and a woman not very attractive (Julia Child) will get no male attention at all. Period.
Clearly, this is where society is headed, and I think most women are quite happy about it. Powell's marriage will dissolve as soon as her husband can extract the maximum amount of alimony from her -- almost no man is eager for "Kitchen Bitch" status (ala Sandra Tsing Loh's dismissal of supportive style husbands). Again, I think MOST women are quite happy with this
Whiskey,
I agree that cultural changes were definitely a large part of the difference between Julia Child's and Julie Powell's marriages and that female infidelity is not scorned now as it used to be. However, I am not following your reasoning why men will become "bad boys" or ignore the Julia Child's of the world because 60% of women would cheat. Can you explain? I mean I understand risk avoidance, but I don't understand how risk avoidance would cause an otherwise "good" man to become a "bad boy".
Post a Comment