Eumaios, Svar and I discussed in some emails, having an online discussion here, between us, and others who may wish to join in, on what Game means to us, as traditionalist Christian men; I thought I’d bring in the Red Pill as well, since Game and the Red Pill can be thought of as two pillars of the manosphere, of which we are a part. Game, of course, refers, in essence, to the science / art of understanding female psychology, and the application of knowledge of such to the pursuit of, or maintenance of, romantic relationships with women. The Red Pill metaphor, oft evoked in the manosphere, is borrowed from the scene in the movie The Matrix where Neo is confronted with a choice to learn the truth about the world he lives in, or stay ignorant in the delusions that most people are under; in taking the Red Pill, Neo’s eyes are opened, and he sees the truth in all its hellishness. In the manosphere, the Red Pill metaphor is used to refer to the process of having one’s eyes opened to the truth of Game and all the various, myriad manifestations of societal misandry (whether in false rape accusations, and the treatment of men accused of rape versus that of women who falsely make such claims; the huge rates of divorce, intiated mostly by women, who are given preferential treatment by the law, which comes down hard on the men who are divorced, extracting all their resources for child support and alimony, etc.; double standards in general between the treatment of the sexes; and much more).
Eumaios suggested that rather than separate essays and separate posts, we do it like an open forum, discussing such things in the comments.
So, to get the ball rolling, my questions are: as a traditionalist Christian man, what do Game and the Red Pill mean to you? How do you view them in the light of your faith? How does understanding Game, and taking the Red Pill, impact the working out of your faith in this world? Have they impacted your life; if so, how? How did you come to your current understandings of Game and the Red Pill?
Patriactionary 
Svar
October 30, 2011 at 2:30 am
For me, it helped me move away from the neo-“con” view of the world towards a Roissy-style alt-right nihilism and eventually towards traditional Christianity.
Will S.
October 30, 2011 at 2:45 am
How did it do that for you, Svar?
Svar
October 30, 2011 at 3:26 am
Well, you do know how Neo-Cons tend to pedestalize women and promote egalitarianism/mild feminism, right? And at the same time, they put all of the blame on men and none, whatsoever on women when it comes to the horrid relations between the sexes that we have today. Well, when I was a young kid and obviously due to my youth, apolitical, I never, ever thought that men and women are the same, nor did I think that they were equal. However, when I started to get into politics and became a Republican, I started to buy into Neo-Con/Trotskyist lies about feminism. I started to pedestalize women and believe in “gender equality” and I actually believed that women were horribly oppressed in the Bad Ol Days.
Then I came upon The Spearhead, about two years ago when I was 16. Then Roissy and In Mala Fide. It all started crumbling down before my eyes. I learned that everything that I had been taught was a complete and utter load of shit. In my anger towards the Neo-Cons(but still not the rest of the GOP; I was still a conservative libertarian of sorts), I started to get deeper into the alt-right and the darker parts of the gameosphere. There was a time when I’d read Roissy and Ferd every single day. I started to get paranoid of women and I started to believe that they were all a bunch of stupid whores. I had a very reductionist view of the world at that time. I had hit a low.
Then, out of nowhere, I was set on the path to Faith. I had been reading the Christians of the Manosphere(Brendan, Anakin, Silas, Thursday, Samson, Eumaios, Alte, Vox, David Collard) but it didn’t really clicked for me until recently(7-10 months ago, I can’t really pinpoint it when exactly I started to believe). When I realized that the situation between men and women wasn’t completely hopeless(and that there were good women out there) and that game can be used to have a successful marriage, that’s when I became a traditionalist.
My path to faith is slightly independent of this and was probably set off by me meeting some Catholic families and sensing a certain kind of goodness to them. Then I starting reading some Christian material(i.e. the logic behind the faith) and that’s how I got to where I am today.
Game backs up the faith, in my eyes, because of how it reaffirms God’s ideal model of male-female relations: complementarianism as well as God’s ideal model of society: patriarchy.
Will S.
October 30, 2011 at 4:13 am
Interesting how Game and Red Pill thinking influenced both your political understandings and your faith, as well, Svar.
I have always been Christian, i.e. I was raised in a Christian home, taught to believe, and I went through confirmation of this in my late teens, at my church. However, I have evolved, over the years, from a mainline Protestant church (the United Church of Canada; roughly similar to the American United Church of Christ, Australia’s Uniting Church, and other syncretic mainline Protestant denominations), to evangelical churches of different kinds, to a traditionalist, confessionally Reformed church. The development of my politics did, to some extent, mirror this; when I left the United Church, I began questioning the political liberalism that had been engrained in me; I started reading National Review, and suddenly, not only was I an evangelical, but also a neo-conservative. However, I wasn’t fully neo-conservative; I also read paleoconservative publications like The New American and Chronicles, and in time, I found I had become a paleoconservative.
But my chivalrous, pedestalizing ways of thinking continued for a long time, because not only had neo-cons promoted such ways of thinking, but unfortunately, so did and do, the likes of various traditionalist conservatives (not only the paleos like Thomas Fleming, but also Larry Auster at VFR, who isn’t paleo, but is part-way between paleo and neo).
However, a bunch of things happened around the same time, roughly; somewhere between ten and five years ago or so, I came to read about Ladder Theory, and understand the key difference in how women view men from how men view women, with regards to relationship prospects (men can and usually on some level do view any non-ugly, non-grossly-obese woman they meet as potential relationship material; women however do not, and instead immediately put any man they meet into one of two mental categories, “Ooh, I could get with him, if everything lined up just right!” or “Never in a million years! Why, he’s like a brother to me!” i.e. not someone she wants to have sex with, let alone marry. The first widely-spread public recognition of this was probably expressed by Billy Crystal’s character in “When Harry Met Sally”; the aforelinked Ladder Theory site shows the dialogue.). I also read an article at McSweeney’s which held up a mirror to me; I’d been the “guy friend”, someone who’d been “friend-zoned“, by many a young woman, and never profited thereby; not one of those friendships ever morphed into an actual relationship, despite my continuous hopes they might. Around the same period, I read, somewhere, some writings by a PUA guru whose name escapes me, who pointed out the pointlessness of pedestalization, using the example of the nice-guys who will move furniture for a girl when she asks them, whom she ignores in favour of the jerk who refuses to, saying he has better things to do – who gets her favours… All these things had an impact on me – and then I came across some writings of F. Roger Devlin – as well as Roissy – and all the scales fell from my eyes, especially after new blog after new blog popped up, each affirming the other’s tales… I became an avid reader of pretty much all of the manosphere, but especially liking and learning from the Social Pathologist, Brendan / Novaseeker, Anakin Niceguy, Keoni… Since then, I have been a Red Pill taker, and one who believes in Game – and I’ve applied some of its principles fairly self-consciously, and seen it work – for example, I’ve done the negs, and gotten positive rather than negative results; I’ve conscientiously been more bold and decisive and not asking a girl where she wants to go eat on a date, for example; instead saying where I’m going, would she care to join me, or just saying boldly, “We’re doing this”, and I’ve seen positive responses, that have backed up things Keoni and Athol have been saying. And everything I’ve seen in those around me, even in Christian circles such as my own church communities, e.g. ‘good girls’ chasing ‘bad boys’, has confirmed the truth of Game. Like you said, the principles behind game affirm what Scripture teaches us, about the sinfulness of both halves of humanity, not just the male.
Game and the Red Pill have allowed me to stand in a much more critical regard towards the social conservatism to which I still hold, because of the fact that most of my fellow so-cons, whether neo-con or paleo-cons, sadly don’t ‘get it’, and as a result, I find them wanting, where their critiques of our society and proposed remedies, could be more powerful, and more spot-on, had they the understandings we do. I think Game and the Red Pill + paleo-conservatism + traditional Christianity, are foundational for correctly understanding society today, how we got from where we were to where we are now, and some ideas as to finding our way out of it.
Game and the Red Pill have also helped me stand in a much more critical regard towards other Christians, even in my own circles, who sadly don’t ‘get it’, and as a result, are useless where they could be salt and light. Nevertheless, as my brethren and sisters, I am called to exercise charity and understanding, and have humility, knowing my own weaknesses and errors, in other things if not exactly in the same areas as them. And that ties into politics, too; I don’t get taken in by neo-cons like my fellow so-cons do, seeing how worthless they are on gender relations in addition to everything else… I don’t get politically seduced by the Sarah Palins of the world, just because they say some right things, and look good while doing it – when they clearly buy into much of feminist thinking themselves, other than on the subject of abortion.
Also, I find I look at everything I read about in the media, every music video, every song lyric I hear, etc., in the light of my Red Pill knowledge, and accordingly evaluate my response to them, in light of that. Where once I liked movies like ‘Tank Girl’, today I laugh or sneer at such ‘grrl power’ fantasies, the only right responses. And I see misandry where I’d missed it before… I won’t see ‘Christian’ movies like ‘Fireproof’, while everyone else in my church circle rushes to see them… Tis an eye-opener, indeed…
Thus, my Game and Red Pill, er, testimony, and my thoughts on such matters.
David Collard
October 30, 2011 at 12:03 pm
I never pedestalised women. I have always seen women in an unsentimental way. But “game” theory confirmed my suspicions about what really motivates women, and it has helped me handle my wife much better. And realise that she is pretty normal in her reactions.
Because of Game, my wife has lost some serious weight and I still get the sex I want. And she keeps house well.
I was influenced by Roger Devlin, the Englishman Steve Moxon, the Australian domestic violence expert John Coochey, Alte, The Spearhead, Roissy, and others. For classical antecedents, the teachings of St Paul and the brilliant observation of Shakespeare in The Taming of the Shrew are highly relevant. I also had some strange experiences with women that Game explained in retrospect.
Ulysses
October 30, 2011 at 5:27 pm
I stumbled onto game and the red pill via experience. I believed the lie that girls wanted nice, sensitive men. I wasn’t a blathering squish, but I was too “respectful” when the situation called for the opposite. When you realize you’re talking your way out of girls’ bedrooms, after finding yourself there, you realize that girls want to be lead and taken.
Personally, I no longer consider any of it that revolutionary; it’s more like an unearthing of a previously lost manuscript. Game and red pill used to be the norms. From a faith perspective, it’s the same. The design is for duality. Like poles repel like. Therefore, it seems that red pill and game are natural and thus consistent with Christianity.
Svar
October 30, 2011 at 5:58 pm
@ Will S.
It is true that many/most paleos as well as in-betweens like Larry Auster have a marriage 1.0 and can not or will not understand the modern Sexual Marketplace. My politics have been heavily influenced by red-pill thinking and I absolutely do not trust the Neo-Cons. If I read Chronicles before I had taken the red-pill, I probably would have been Shocked and Offended. Well, I decided to use red-pill knowledge to regrow the dick that God gave me.
Before I learned about game, I was completely clueless. My father, unfortunately, did not teach me anything about women. It would have taken me years to get to this point without the red pill. Years.
I’m not as optimistic as you. I do not think that paleoconservatism + redpill + traditional Christianity will save society. It will save those of us willing to listen, but it won’t save society. This is a decline; degenerative cycles of history after all.
@ Ulysses
“Personally, I no longer consider any of it that revolutionary; it’s more like an unearthing of a previously lost manuscript. Game and red pill used to be the norms. From a faith perspective, it’s the same. The design is for duality. Like poles repel like. Therefore, it seems that red pill and game are natural and thus consistent with Christianity.”
I agree with this one hundred percent. Game is just another way of saying “classic male behaviors” and the “red pill” is another way of saying “traditional worldview”. I wish the paleos could get this, so that they could extend their knowledge and wisdom to future generations of men.
Svar
October 30, 2011 at 7:13 pm
“the brilliant observation of Shakespeare in The Taming of the Shrew are highly relevant. ”
This is very true, David Collard.
Matthew, Will, that reminds me, have you guys seen this article?: http://alpha-status.blogspot.com/2009/04/shakespeare-game.html
That is definitely foundational reading. I think I’ll browse through Chronicles, the rest of the paleosphere, and the Manosphere/Alt-Right and add to that page. There is some very good material out there.
Will S.
October 30, 2011 at 11:00 pm
@ Svar: I didn’t say they’d save society; I said they’re critical to understanding, and providing some clues as to a way out. Doesn’t mean society will be fixed – it may be that our civilization must perish; God will preserve His remnant regardless – but if it is to be fixed, we need to understand how we got here. And yeah, it will allow some of us to save ourselves much trouble.
Ulysses
October 30, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Svar – I had some fun with Cyrano a while back. More about game than red pill, but the classics are a great source of material. There just isn’t that much new under the sun.
pb
October 30, 2011 at 11:55 pm
I can’t say that I’ve used Game now in trying to meet with women, but I do think it explains why I haven’t had “much success with women” in the past decade — just the nice guy who ends up LJBFed. There may be more significant reasons, but I think that the betatude is part of it. I think Game just amplifies that need for men to step up as leaders, to be confident, and to assert themselves, not just in relationships with women but in general. I may write more later.
7man
October 31, 2011 at 1:13 am
Game assists me in my objestive:
I do not want to love a false ideal of a woman. I will love the real thing. I will bear responsibility for my actions. I offer her unlimited influence, I will assume unlimited leadership. Neither has control of the other. She will share a portion of the the influence with me and I will share a portion of the leadership with her. I will be as moral as I can, but I value my integrity as a more definable ideal.
In order to find this I have to have an accurate understanding of what a woman is.
Will S.
October 31, 2011 at 1:20 am
@ Svar: I hadn’t seen that Shakespeare analysis; I’ll have to take a look; looks interesting.
Svar
October 31, 2011 at 3:19 am
@ Ulysses
Nice article, Ulysses. You know, Matthew, Will, and I all like having you around. If you want to contribute, feel free.
@ PB
Thanks for dropping by PB. Do you not use game in your interactions with women?
Will S.
October 31, 2011 at 3:38 am
Yes, thanks Ulysses, PB, 7Man, David Collard, for all coming and contributing to the discussion.
@ Ulysses: “Personally, I no longer consider any of it that revolutionary; it’s more like an unearthing of a previously lost manuscript. Game and red pill used to be the norms.”
Agree completely.
@ DC: You are most fortunate in never having made the mistake of pedestalization. How did you manage that, to always see women in unsentimental terms? Upbringing? Knowledge of female nature imparted to you by your parents? Or just empirical observation?
@ 7Man: “I will be as moral as I can, but I value my integrity as a more definable ideal.
In order to find this I have to have an accurate understanding of what a woman is.” Well said.
@ PB: Are you beginning to use Game, even with women you meet in non-dating situations, e.g. at the checkout in a store, in an elevator, etc? I’ve been trying to practice a bit, and I’ve gotten some interesting results. For example, a while back, I negged a girl in my apartment elevator who wasn’t appropriately dressed for the weather, the sort of girl previously I wouldn’t ever talk to, because clearly out of my league. I got her to laugh and smile and make a joke out of it, and say goodbye to me, where she otherwise would have – and IIRC previously had – simply ignored me completely.
Chris
October 31, 2011 at 5:54 am
I think the main move in the last few years has been to call women on their sense that they are entitled to a pedestal. From experience, they hate living on one.
pb
October 31, 2011 at 6:13 am
Will and Svar — I tend to be a recluse these days, so I keep my interactions with people short and to the point for the most part… I have tended to use Game to some degree when dealing with female friends. The problem is that I didn’t think in those terms when making a serious attempt to date a woman, I was stuck thinking as a beta, doing those things that men are told to do to win a woman, etc. As I don’t meet many people, I haven’t had the opportunity to try it in a “dating” situation yet.
Will S.
October 31, 2011 at 11:04 am
@ Chris: Really? You think so? I’ve thought their feminine egos love it, even as they look down on the men who put them on those pedestals…
Will S.
October 31, 2011 at 11:09 am
@ pb: Ah. Well, I haven’t put a whole lot of effort into meeting young women, of suitable disposition etc., for dating purposes, so I haven’t had lots of opportunities to use my knowledge acquired over the last half-decade, but when I get the chance, I do, and I practice. Because of my beliefs, my potential dating pool is already more limited than that of others with different standards; further, the general lower standard of young women today is also a difficulty. I think if I ever decide to make such a search a higher priority in my life, I’ll have to cast my net wider, so to speak. But in any case, the little experience that I have, in applying Game knowledge, tends to, in my mind at least, confirm what others have taught.
Ulysses
October 31, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Thanks for the offer to contribute, Gentlemen. I shall probably take you up on that.
CAB
October 31, 2011 at 3:31 pm
I suppose I encountered Game and the like 1.5 – 2 years ago… I think Instapundit linked to Vox Day, and it all followed from there. A first, I read the typical sites (Roissy, IMF, The Spearhead, etc.) regularly, but almost never touch them these days, unless someone at another blog links to a particular post. For the most part, I stick to TC, occasionally reading others (Dalrock, Samson, Haley), but almost never commenting. I try stay away from the secular blogs now, as they have far too much of an ends-justifies-means mentality, and the end is usually just getting laid.
For me, Game’s only really been useful thus far in recognizing what I’ve done wrong in the past, as I’m also basically a recluse at the moment and don’t see that changing unless (until) I change jobs and move. To the extent that I’ve “practiced”, it’s been mostly on a former (now married) love interest (prime example of past mistakes there… oy) and on my mom, and mostly consists of turning off my anti-snark/pro-polite filters and occasionally being more cocky. I actually just visited the former the weekend before last, and having her comment multiple times that I’ve “changed” resulted in the mental equivalent of a wry smile.
I’m not really trying to push myself all that far with this stuff, though; I’m reserved enough by temperament that a lot of Game stuff would either come off as try-hard or simply be impossible to keep up, and I don’t think it’s a good idea to push yourself to do things that are just an act (and thus you couldn’t maintain in a serious relationship). The little bits of teasing/role-playing that come easily or naturally, and turning off some of your filters, are fine; trying to practically rework your personality is foolhardy.
As for the relationship between my faith and these concepts, well, they mesh fairly well. I grew up a Christian and went to a private Christian school in the Reformed tradition through eighth grade, so I’m not sure my religious beliefs have changed all that much over time. Having always been pretty orthodox, belief in original sin, coupled with the commonly observed appeal of “bad boys”, makes the Red Pill / Game stuff seem pretty obvious in retrospect. Yet I think a lot of it is overplayed in the Manosphere, as I suggested above; it isn’t necessary and is foolish to try to turn into a wholly different person to attract women, but simply letting through the brusqueness that society (in particular schooling) suppresses in men is the big thing. Too many Christian + Manosphere blogs strike me as Manosphere “must be alpha” first and Christian second, which is very concerning.
CL
October 31, 2011 at 4:23 pm
I’ll just add that, as a woman, I have found learning this stuff a good education. I have also moved away from neo-con politics as a result of this as well as converting to Catholicism. Then there’s the fact that I am raising two daughters, so it is helpful from that perspective to not be operating on mistaken notions of how men and women work together or the realities of the world as it is, which I didn’t fully understand. I know my own nature better and therefore, will be more useful in helping my daughters navigate their way through life. This has been my main motivation in all my seeking in the last few years.
I came across Roissy and the manosphere via Dr Helen several years back but only really got into it a little over a year ago, starting mainly at the Spearhead (where I posted as Thag Jones, as you all probably know at this point). Anyway, looking forward to the discussions here and I’ll do my best not to mention cupcakes.
Will S.
October 31, 2011 at 5:14 pm
@ CAB: Yes, I think you still have to be yourself, i.e. you can’t pretend to be someone else. For me, it has been more a matter of simply deciding to be a little bolder, and not so interested in trying to cater to women, as much as doing my thing, and inviting them to join me, if they wish to.
@ CL: Welcome to our He-Man Tree-Fort Boyz Club! We don’t have a “No Gurlz Aloud!” sign on it, however, so the welcome is genuine; certainly, women like yourself who ‘get it’ are more than welcome to be our ‘ladies auxiliary’, so to speak (j/k); to contribute your thoughts. Cheers!
The internet provides a great opportunity for members of each sex to truly learn more about both the opposite one and indeed their own – if they’re open-minded and willing to learn…
BTW, are you familiar with Nilk? She’s an Aussie chick who’s not around much, any more, but was a couple years ago or so; she’s a single mom, right of centre politically, and Christian (though neo-con, and Baptist, in her case), who ‘gets it’, too, as regards the Red Pill and Game. Her blog is Right-Wing Death Bogan (‘bogan’ is like ‘redneck’ / ‘white trash’ / ‘chav’ in England).
David Collard
October 31, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Oh, CL, you were Thag Jones. I thought so, but I wasn’t sure.
There were other influences on me I had forgotten, including Vox Day. Nobody will care, but there was a really old reference to “game” (about 1990) in an Australian magazine (maybe Fatal Visions, maybe Mean Streets, both small fanzines), which I now understand.
As to the question of why I never pedestalised women, I am not sure. I think I tend to think cool and I see what is there, not what I am told is there. Also, the Australia I grew up in was sane about sex roles, and Australia is still a fairly nice place for men. We have fairer laws, such as joint custody, and much less AA. It has always been more male-dominated than a lot of Western countries, and we never pedestalised women as much. At my blog, I have an article attempting to expain why Australia is fairly socially conservative, based on the ethnic groups who migrated here.
Game just works in my marriage. If my wife acts like a nut, I mostly ignore it until she is happy again. I tease her, and so on. There are other techniques. The only problem is that it means more mental effort, though less outer turmoil. But it is becoming second nature. I think I always had natural game. Also, I have realised of late that I have not really been quite the nice guy of my self-image. I suspect now that I have always been a rather difficult husband with high standards.
I am not macho, but I have always been happy and proud to be a man.
Will S.
October 31, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Interesting, DC. I’m Canadian, and I think our legal culture is a little different from that of America’s, but not by much; many of the same injustices one hears about in America, also happen to men here in Canada; I think we must be more like America than Australia is. Then again, we’re also more like Europe, not only with our one-quarter French-Canadian populace, but also with massive immigration from there, historically, though not so much lately…
David Collard
October 31, 2011 at 10:39 pm
I should add, FWIW, that we have had a lot of trouble with our children (three children, two on the autism spectrum), and I have had to toughen up a lot to keep the family as emotionally stable as possible.
Will S.
October 31, 2011 at 10:40 pm
No doubt, that must be a challenge, of course.
David Collard
October 31, 2011 at 11:08 pm
7man, exactly. I like my wife more now that I understand her behaviour. And I have more conscious control. CAB, good husbanding does require good “inner game”, but the resuts are very desirable and worth the effort. Contrary to what we are mostly told, a wife is happiest when she is in her place.
CAB
October 31, 2011 at 11:52 pm
Yes, DC, I’d say I’m much more interested in developing “inner game” (to my understanding, you mean developing emotional stability, learning not to be swayed by capricious changes of one’s wife’s mood, being harsh when necessary, etc.) than anything else. That strikes me as simply growing in mature masculinity rather than “Game” as typically discussed by the manosphere, though. The LTR-oriented blogs are good at this sometimes, but they often have such a secular/paranoid/hedonistic nature that I try to avoid reading them much.
Svar
October 31, 2011 at 11:52 pm
“Contrary to what we are mostly told, a wife is happiest when she is in her place.”
But, but, Daviiiid, I thought women liked if you bring them roses and chocolate, hold their hands, and treat them ekwalie!!!
David Collard
November 1, 2011 at 12:59 am
Yes, it used to be what men were taught to do, either from watching a successful father, or from literature or the media. I am old enough to remember some amazing stuff in the media which was very positive about men being men and women loving it.
I don’t run routines on my wife. I do tease her, interrupt her, ignore her (especially any silly feminine rants). I do discount a lot of what she says as “noise” and look at her actions.
Svar, once you have her respect, you should break out the nice. All alpha, all the time, can also cause problems. Remember, she is your wife and she probably basically wants to be with you and beside you. And under you, if you are doing it right …
CL
November 1, 2011 at 3:22 am
Svar, once you have her respect, you should break out the nice. All alpha, all the time, can also cause problems. Remember, she is your wife and she probably basically wants to be with you and beside you. And under you, if you are doing it right …
This. Meet her emotions.
Matthew (eumaios)
November 1, 2011 at 3:31 am
“Nice” is a dirty word. I’ll accept “kindness”.
Be careful not to be predictably kind, though. It’s most effective when unexpected. To be clear, the default pattern of behavior should be characterizable as “harsh, but fair”, not cruel and heartless.
Will S.
November 1, 2011 at 3:40 am
So, Eumaios, how about you? Re: the questions in the post itself…
John Robie
October 31, 2011 at 10:45 pm
“the huge rates of divorce, intiated mostly by women, who are given preferential treatment by the law”
One positive application of this is whenever a guy talks to a woman who gives him the ‘tude in the first couple seconds, he can smile, walk away, think to himself, “Wow, just saved half my money by not marrying her!” and then go talk to the next attractive woman.
David Collard
November 1, 2011 at 3:58 am
Yes, women are “made for tough times” to paraphrase Alte. They often rather like firm treatment. My wife probably more than most.
If they like a man, they will tolerate a lot of crap. I even see this on the Internet.
I want to be kind to my wife, but not weak.
As I get older, being unpredictable and short-tempered is not that hard. It sort of comes naturally. The funny thing I have long noticed is that my wife almost never minds when I get angry with her, unless she is already angry herself. It is almost as if she expects a bit of “punishment”. It probably feels like attention, which is what women want.
She says I am basically easy-going. Maybe that is why my occasional outbursts don’t lead to resentment.
Unpredictable is good. It is hard for me as a man to understand, but I think women do like a bit of drama and uncertainty. Keep her guessing. Give her less than she expects. Or more. You have to mix it up.
Matthew (eumaios)
November 1, 2011 at 4:24 am
Long ago I wrote a small bit about how Game had affected my marriage:
http://eumaios.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/my-marriage-and-my-discovery-of-game/
My life is very different now, so different that I have trouble remembering accurately, connecting all the dots of the narrative. “That there, that’s not me.” A few months ago I posted a pictorial of my wife’s transition from plump teenager to post-partum fat-ass, then astonishing transformation to appealing, if a little aged, housewench:
http://eumaios.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/visual-proof-of-how-game-restores-wives/
It shows some of the proof to be found in the pudding. But pictures are simple, and stories are not. My story is tangled with family, food, NLP, and the Holy Spirit. I don’t quite know how to tease out the coherent threads. I’ll give it a go tomorrow.
David Collard
November 1, 2011 at 4:55 am
Yes, my wife was cute with a neat figure for a long time but she put on a lot of weight, especially after our third child. I think my improved approach has helped her to shift most of it. She is not a bad looking woman for her age; I still want to have sex with her; and she still puts out.
Steve Nicoloso
November 1, 2011 at 5:24 pm
One major red pill moment for me was Phillip Longman’s Foreign Policy article: The Return of Patriarchy. Instantly, it all came together: traditional Christian teaching (on marriage, on divorce, contraception, abortion, gender, sex) was rooted in biology. And why (doh!!) would it not be if God created the order we live in out of primordial chaos? Order is not ours to make so much as it a sheer given that submit to. Patriarchy iss (is and only is) civilization. With that identity in mind, one can make reliable sense about who is on the side of civilization, and who… erm… isn’t.
Ergo…
Unleashing anyone to pursue their natural animal desires is disastrous: often for individuals, always for societies. In particular, the unleashing of women from their traditional roles, roles many millenia in the making, and most particularly that of gatekeepers for sex, has been, for society, an unmitigated disaster; one which, guys like Roissy have exploited to their own advantage, but, by their own admission, only to the profound detriment of wider society.
The window that game provides into female psychology is a valuable one, no doubt. At its root I think that it simply affirms that men should be men, and if they are, they’re likely to be rewarded for it.
Will S.
November 1, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Indeed, Steve.
OffTheCuff
November 3, 2011 at 11:25 am
I grew up Lutheran, confirmed, acolyte, choir, all that stuff. The red-pill was the final nail in the coffin that forced me to shit or get off the pot. However, it just pushed me in the opposite direction as you.
So why am I here? First, I suppose we’re more alike than different. I happen agree with a lot of what you have to say, if not most. Second, I feel more a lot more qualified to understand religion from the outside than the inside.
infowarrior1
February 2, 2013 at 3:57 am
I was seeking truth and seeking truth I discovered God. So I was for a while a Christian but a socialist due to my sources of information being socialist news outlets like sunrise morning news high school indoctrination. Until my bro discovered game and Gary Brodsky: CIA tactics for seducing women.
As well the damage feminism has done to men written by Gary Brodsky in that ebook.
The internet search on those topics led me down the rabbit hole along with my bro. And those bible passages that always make me so uncomfortable now made sense. Its like putting on the sunglasses and seeing the real world(reference from the movie “They Live”).
Will S.
February 2, 2013 at 8:28 am
Thanks infowarrior1.
I grew up in that kind of socialist Christian environment; thank God He eventually led me to true doctrine.
Will S.
February 2, 2013 at 8:32 am
That John Carpenter movie was even more fun than Matrix, and like Keoni and you, I think it’s another good metaphor.
infowarrior1
February 2, 2013 at 6:23 pm
Yep here is the most iconic scene from that movie:
infowarrior1
February 2, 2013 at 8:49 pm
@Will S.
I think Barbarosssaaa noted the gynocentrism of so called: “Traditionalism”(the video is pretty long but if you have the time please watch it):
Jb
December 16, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Late to the conversation, but I’m an evangelical pastor, and the game/red pill/alpha stuff saved my marriage lately. I’ve been a complementation for years because I believed the Bible taught it, but my upbringing in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, only taught me the beta man, feminist paradigm. I believe my wife has suffered the health, and emotional effects of leading me for nearly 20 years. Now that I’m learning to be “unplugged”, she smiles – a lot.
Will S.
December 16, 2013 at 3:39 pm
Hello Pastor, glad to hear from you. And glad to hear it has helped you; I hope and pray it will continue to do so. I praise God that Game has helped you; so many disparage it, because they do not understand / are fearful of it. When all it is is old-fashioned ‘common sense’ about female psychology that alas isn’t so common any more.
Jb
December 17, 2013 at 5:41 am
Well, I have a whole church full of men who need this stuff. It will be easy to teach the Bible on it, as there is so much red pill truth in both testaments.
Will S.
December 17, 2013 at 9:26 am
Great! All the best; I know you might face some fierce opposition, though, in preaching the truth on these matters in a modern-day church, alas. Women today don’t want to hear certain passages emphasized, and have been known to try to stir up opposition in churches against such; sometimes, successfully, sometimes not.
MaxxWiskers
November 30, 2014 at 2:49 pm
Christianity or Pentecostalism is still spreading in Africa, Latin America and Asia. The modern highly gynocentric version that is in America has hit the wall, it absolutely toxic to guys. Its very corrupt (some of these churches are more like criminal enterprises) and openly anti male. If I had to make a long term bet I would say Christianity will get replaced by a different religion. Sort of like the old Roman religions of ancient Rome, they were obsolete and replaced by the Jewish sect called Christians.