Top 10 Astronomy Pictures of 2009: "Colorful stars, wispy, ethereal nebulae, galactic vistas sprawling out across our telescopes… it’s art no matter how you look at it."
When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite: "A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men. Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself?...Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone…Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.”
Universal Uchitel: “Here’s one big obvious lesson to be learned from Tiger Woods: Sex makes people stupid…This is why we need a little thing called ‘civilization’ to intervene between people and sexual passion, so we don’t leave the young-uns to rely on their own genius to figure out certain enduring truths.”
'Tea party' Polls Better Than GOP:"Should the 'Tea Party' movement organize itself to run congressional candidates across the country, it would poll better than the Republican Party, according to a new survey by Rasmussen Reports. In the national telephone poll of 1,000 likely voters released Monday, 23% said they preferred to vote for a candidate from the yet unformed “Tea Party” for Congress in 2010. The Republican Party trailed the non-existent political organization by 5 percentage points, getting the support of 18% of respondents."
The Fiction Of Climate Science: "In 1974, the National Science Board announced: 'During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age'…From the witch doctors of old to the elected officials today, scaring the bejesus out of the populace maintains their status.
Vive La Différence! But How Did It Begin?: "If we accept evolutionary theory we are required to imagine that each animal that today reproduces sexually, in the distant past was going about its business of reproducing asexually, dividing and budding away, when all of a sudden it accidentally produced an egg and at the same time, in the same locale, another animal of the same species just happened to make a sperm cell. Also, simultaneously and independently they each accidentally acquired the apparatus to get the egg and sperm together so they could produce offspring with a full set of genes. Are you buying this?… To my mind, the very fact of sexual differentiation necessitates, yes, demands a plan. And a plan demands a planner."
"Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself." – Ayn Rand
Ladies, if you think it’s unfair that we get to determine what we find attractive in you, keep in mind that it’s also unfair that you get to determine what you find attractive in us. We can’t help our dicks any more then you can help your pussies. This is the Age of Flesh, where the desires of the loins rule all. I don’t make the rules, I just point them out.
"We can't help our dicks!" cry the Gamers. So why fight it?!
Cue the soundtrack to The Wizard of Oz, and instead of singing "Just Follow the Yellow Brick Road," sing the phrase "Just Follow Your Penis and Balls!"
"Just Follow Your Penis and Balls!"
Come on, it's catchy. Besides, you won't have to waste any more time on Game websites, because whenever you need advice, you can just hum to yourself, "Just Follow Your Penis and Balls! Just Follow Your Penis and Balls!..."
I teach at a large university in a conservative part of the country...The conservative youth group "Young Life" is very active where we live (high schools and college), and I cannot tell you how many young people (18-21) I know who have gotten married because they simply cannot hold out sexually any longer. They get married in order to have sex…
I also have known quite a number of people in their late 20s and early 30s (students) who are now divorced (or unhappily married), who tell me that that is exactly why they got married 10 or whatever years ago -- and they are now stuck with two or three kids, trapped in a marriage they recognize was entered based on an immature idea of what "love" is and pressure from their families and conservative churches to, no matter what, NOT have sex before marriage.
This is not to say that many of those young couples can't make their marriages work, but to point out that the pressure -- and the conflation of sex with marriage -- is intense.
**UPDATE, NOV. 10, 2009**
Per Justin's comment, I should probably clarify that I think this is an example of why the stigma of pre-marital sex in religious families and communities should be relaxed significantly.
If young people are getting married just to have sex...well...that just strikes me as incredibly dumb, and it should be no surprise that such marriages have a habit of breaking down.
Hence, the need to start using "common sense" when it comes to sex and marriage.
Today, the pro-Game blogger Obsidian invited me to a debate about Game and related subjects. I accepted, of course. And here is my first post...
A4_Press_Release
Obsidian: In this post, I’ll try to summarize my position on Game succinctly (knowing in advance that the short length of the post won’t make it very persuasive). Even so, maybe it can serve as the basis for a deeper dialogue.
Let me begin by expressing a few things that I’m pretty sure we can agree on.
1) While “feminism” (i.e., the women’s movement) may have served a useful function in the past (suffrage, anti-discrimination policies, etc.), today it is a counterproductive force that hurts men and women on an individual level and harms society at large. We should oppose radical feminism.
2) Because of feminism and other ideologies, men are facing an “identity crisis.” The qualities that defined men for thousands of years are labeled as either “wrong” or “irrelevant.” We – as men – need to define what it means to be a man (instead of delegating that role to feminists and others who don’t have our best interests at heart).
3) The dating/sexual landscape is wrapped in confusion. The goals are still the same (having sex, marriage, and children), but the way to go about achieving them (and how to establish priorities between them) is unknown to most folks. For example, most women want to have a sprawling sex life until the age of 28 or so, have a successful career, a strong alpha male husband (who also meets her emotional/spiritual needs), and eventually raise 2.5 kids. Obviously, this is a recipe for failure and depression. The need to re-establish logic and common sense to the dating/sexual landscape is urgent.
4) For men, in particular, sex is an important “higher need” which is a vital ingredient in his self-esteem. Any program which encourages men to remain celibate until marriage is doomed to failure. For that reason alone, social conservatives are almost irrelevant to this discussion.
But does this mean we need “Game?” No. Let me give 3 criticisms of “Game” (and please note that I don’t mean “Game” as in “tools to pick up chicks;” I mean “Game” as an overarching life philosophy which seems to be the modus operandi of the online Game community.
1) The foundation of Game (as described by Roissy, Ferdinand, The Fifth Horseman, and others too numerous to count) is “evolutionary psychology.” “Evo psych” is basically the ideology of E.O. Wilson, Robert Wright, and many others which states – and I’m paraphrasing here – that men and women – despite many years of living in “civilization” – are still – on a mental/moral level – chimps living in the savannahs of Africa. We have not “evolved.” The goal of men is to impregnate as many women as possible and the goal of women is to secure an “alpha male” with the “resources” to care for her offspring. What’s my complaint? While there is some truth to Evo Pysch, much of it is false, and even the stuff that IS true has a habit of being misunderstood and abused (as we’ve seen many times in the Game community). To deny the “human” aspect to human life (or to relegate it into the dungeon) is grossly counterproductive. There is a critical role for things like shared interests, shared values, emotional depth, a spiritual connection, etc. These are the true building blocks of a successful relationship.
2) By adopting the “Evo Psych” philosophy, Game encourages men to see themselves (and women) as “animals” and thus, it is much easier to hold women in contempt and to justify using them to gratify our sexual needs and then disposing of them quickly. Needless to say, such a view of women is darkening, and prevents men from expressing the love and commitment necessary for a healthy, happy relationship.
3) The online Game community has chosen to adopt Roissy as not only a member of their movement, but also a leader of it. I find this mind-boggling because Roissy is a hedonist and a nihilist who finds pleasure in the grossest things in life. The fact that Gamers “deify” Roissy (to use your words) shows that Game is a chauvinistic pseudo-religion, in my humble opinion. Any attempt to turn Game into a positive force for men should include – as a first step – a very easy assignment which is to ostracize Roissy from the community and to say “Roissy’s nihilism and genuine contempt for women is not something we can, or will, support.”
Back to you, Sir…
Obsidian's response is here.I'll reply later today.
***UPDATE, NOV. 6, 2009*** And here's my latest...
I’m going to clip the highlights of your essay, and respond to them one-by-one. Please see below.
OBS: “No Man gets to define what an Alpha Male is-Females define that. The only choice we have is to whether we wish to be that for her or not.”
TW: This strikes me as a questionable assertion. If Men are the leaders of society – as Game claims – then men should have the ability to influence what women view as “desirable” or “undesirable.” For example, in Indian society, the Brahmin (the religious caste) are the elite of society, whereas in a commercial republic, like the United States, wealthy businessmen represent the elite. The decision to choose religion over wealth or vice versa was a decision made by men in each culture, would you agree? At the very least, I would say that waving our hands and saying “we can’t help ourselves; the women are in control” is very “unGame-like.” I would wager that Men can be a major factor in improving the situation – maybe up to 50% of the solution. Maybe even more.
OBS: Please see my Open Letter to the Ladies of “Girl Game”…
TW: I will in a little bit. Scout’s honor. But let me address your other points first.
OBS: “Specifically tell me what EP got right, then tell me what it got wrong? I need specific examples, because I can then relate that directly to what you say is wrong about Game, OK?”
TW: E.P. strikes me as a useful (but not proven) paradigm for understanding how our ancestors lived millions of years ago. As it pertains to the year 2009, E.P. can give us some genuine insights as to what human “instincts” are. And – for those among us who are – to put it unkindly – “dumb and primitive”- it can also give us some useful insights as to understanding their behavior (basically, a lot of sex and violence).
For the rest of us, though – I’m referring to civilized folks – E.P. strikes me as at least 80% worthless, and if Gamers are using it as the foundation for understanding romantic relationships, then it becomes 100% worthless. Why? Because we are not animals; we are human beings. We have logic. We have values. We have morality. And all of those things shape our motivations and behavior. To believe – as E.P. does – that the secret desire of all men is to sleep around and impregnate as many women as possible – is absurd. I can’t think of any man I know who lives that way. Most men I know want to get married and have 2-3 kids with one woman. And the evidence backs me: Birth rates have declined over the last 40 years or so – not just in the West, but throughout the world. E.P. can’t explain that.
OBS [on my assertion that Gamers deny the importance of emotional/spiritual connections]: “I don’t recall any writer on Game saying otherwise, Todd-and if you have, please provide the direct quote.”
TW: In early September, I asked Chuck Ross, “What does Game have to offer men and women who want a deeper emotional/spiritual connection?”
He wrote back, “Todd, you always assume that every facet of a male/female relationship has to have some emotional/spiritual connection. These can be fostered by Game in that healthy physical attraction has spillover effects into the other realms even though Game doesn’t necessarily have direct spiritual/emotional ties.”
I responded, “Chuck: Basically this is your answer: Focus on the physical stuff and eventually the emotional/spiritual stuff will work itself out later. Sigh. I don’t think I’m being unfair when I say that’s not a compelling answer at all.”
OBS: “I’ve openly and vociferously disagreed with Roissy on a whole host of issues and points, from his views of Race to his views of what constitutes Feminine Beauty, you name it. Having said that, I also give him a heck of a lot of credit not only for making Game principles accessible to the Common Man, but for also giving a much needed commentary on some of the very things you mention at the outset of your post here.”
TW: I think it’s interesting you brought up the issue of race because it seems to me that most members of the Game community have an attitude toward rare relations that seems to be…how can I put this nicely?… “primitive.” Note their love for Steve Sailer and “Human Bio-Diversity.” And what is the basis of Sailer’s race views? Evolutionary psychology. And what is the foundation of Game? Evolutionary psychology. Put it all together, and it seems to me that anyone who cares about racial justice should be highly dubious of Evolutionary Psychology, and thus Game itself.
Also, if you have “vociferously disagreed with Roissy,” I applaud you for doing that. As far as I know, you’re the only member of the Game community who’s done that.
OBS: “Moreover and in fairness to R, he’s said on more than one occasion that one need not be an Atheistic Hedonist in order to reap the benefits of Game.”
TW: I can imagine Roissy saying something like that, but that doesn’t change the fact that Roissyism is the logical destination for Game as a life philosophy.
As I wrote on Aug. 26: “Once you accept that evolutionary psychology and biology are the only ways to meet women and have women fill your physical needs, its only a hop, skip, and a jump to the proud nihilism and boastful hedonism of Roissy. Is it possible that Roissy might be the only Gamer who truly understands Game?”
OBS: If not Game, then…what? Your detailed, and field-tested response?
TW: Instead of adopting a system (such as Game) in which we allow other people (in this case, loose women) to change who we are for questionable goals (casual sex), we should find happiness from within. No man should judge his worth by how much “gina tingling” he elicits in the opposite sex. That is a recipe for anxiety at best or despair at worst.
The alternative to Game is to take ownership of your life. Everything you need to build a happy and successful life is inside you – inside your mind. The power to think – and by that, I mean the power to think rationally – is the power to grow, and to be everything you wish to be. A rational man is a competent man…and a competent man is a confident man…. and a confident man is a happy man. A man with those qualities (competent, confident, and happy) is extremely desirable to other women (or at least those women who are worthy of his love). And that man can give an incredible amount of love because he is complete on the inside. There are no guarantees in life, but I’m confident that nearly every man who applied my principles would find more love and happiness than he would through Game. I can say that from experience.
**UPDATE, DEC. 9, 2009**
As Obsidian requested, I read through his essay, An Open Letter to Girl Game, and what I found most interesting about it was its numerous attempts to justify Game through evolution: "the truths of evolutionary psychology," "extensive evolutionary hardwiring," "evolutionarily speaking," "passing on a genetic legacy," etc.
Sex is fraught with moral implications. There are significant ethical underpinnings, intricate complications and tremendous psychic impacts to sex. Yet few modern ethicists and philosophers can agree on what constitutes ethical sex. Conservative religions have a carte blanche ban on premarital sex, and in an increasing secular world which often delays marriage, there exists scant guidance for how to behave when it comes to sex…
In-depth understanding of human biology, psychology and evolutionary forces has given people even more excuse to engage in casual sex. Some now openly advocate that “men should sleep around because they can sire multiple offspring with multiple women.” In this new world view, humans are seen as robots and automatons, programmed by great evolutionary forces to perform certain actions…
Few see anything wrong with this situation except to bemoan that they are not able to take full advantage of the sexual free-for-all. They learn “game” and try to get in on the action, to try to get that feeling of high off another person. The men and women who are engaging in casual sex are answering to the siren calls of their baser natures, blindly, like children…
They shed their clothes and open themselves physically but still wall themselves in emotionally. They give this gift of trust and spiritual release to someone they do not really know or trust. They refuse to allow themselves to bond from sex due to fear and jadedness. They may be materially satisfied, but they suffer from spiritual poverty…
Sex is a reverent thing, a sacred thing, something to be treated carefully and with respect. It can be a powerful spiritual experience if both people are able to experience a great depth of emotion through their physical expression of love…
Game is about provoking the initial lustful feelings, e.g. negging, being mysterious, and seeming cocky and arrogant. What strengthens real love? Not negging, but support. Not being mysterious, but being open. Not being cocky, but the humility to admit to wrongdoings… Human relations will never be perfect, and expecting perfection from flawed human beings is unrealistic. Behaving ethically in sex will not create utopias, but it is a step towards greater spiritual and moral growth.
I responded…
Hope: Once again, you are injecting some much-needed wisdom into a very important discussion. The Game/PUA community sees sex as a purely physical activity. They ignore the emotional and spiritual needs of both women AND men. And that's a shame. They will never experience the peak of sexuality because they will never have a partner with whom they can connect withphysically, emotionally, AND spiritually.
Of course, on some level, I'm sympathetic to their mindset. Our culture has done a horrible job of preparing young people to think rationally about sexual matters.
The hedonistic ethic of consumerism plus the puritan ethic of Christian fundamentalism have distorted the minds of millions of people. We must reclaim sex as a spiritual experience (although separate from the dogmas of organized religion) in order to create a healthy sexual culture in the 21st century.
When it comes to sexual ethics, I took a stab at a solution in The Mustard Seed.
Almost half of those questioned said they preferred sex while under the influence of alcohol because it helped them to lose their inhibitions and be more adventurous...
The average woman has slept with eight men, but was drunk with at least five of them.
On two of these occasions they couldn't even remember the man's name the next day.
Four out of ten have 'always' been a bit tipsy when they have slept with a partner for the first time. But astonishingly 48.5 per cent said they preferred sex while under the influence.
The study also found that 75 per cent of women said they liked to drink before getting into bed with their husband or boyfriend. Some 6 per cent of women have never had sex while sober.
More than half of women polled claimed drinking with a prospective partner was 'part of the dating process' so they were bound to be a bit drunk when they had sex.
It was also revealed 14 per cent of women in a relationship can't face sleeping with their partner unless they had a couple of glasses of wine beforehand.
All very fascinating. But I'm not sure what any of it has to do with "body confidence." It just seems like stupidity to me.
The facts of life for 20-somethings are challenging…It doesn't seem realistic to expect most men and women to delay sex until marriage at 26 or 28. Such virtue is both admirable and possible -- but it can hardly be a general social expectation. So religious institutions, for example, often avoid this thorny topic, content to live with silence, hypocrisy and active singles groups.
The age of first marriage is important to marital survival and happiness. Teen marriage is generally a bad idea, with much higher rates of divorce. Romeo and Juliet were, in fact, young fools. Later marriage has been one of the reasons for declining national divorce rates. But this does not mean the later the better. Divorce rates trend downward until leveling off in the early 20s. But people who marry after 27 tend to have less happy marriages -- perhaps because partners are set in their ways or have unrealistically high standards. The marital sweet spot seems to be in the early to mid-20s.
Yes, this is sound logic. I made a similar observation here.
High school romances which turn into marriage are extremely vulnerable to divorce. In these types of relationships, both women and men are likely to feel - 7,10, 12 years later - that they didn't "play the field" enough and that "better opportunities" are out there. Somewhere.
With very few exceptions, I think people should wait until at least the age of 24 to get married. And you should be married at least 2 years before having children.
There's no rush. And since most couples these days only want 1-2 kids, you can't even use the fertility argument, anymore.
My advice to young people: Be smart. And be prudent. Always let your mind guide your heart, and not the other way around.
Having a series of low-commitment relationships does not bode well for later marital commitment. Some of this expresses preexisting traits -- people who already have a "nontraditional" view of commitment are less likely to be committed in marriage. But there is also evidence, according to Wilcox, that multiple failed relationships can "poison one's view of the opposite sex." Serial cohabitation trains people for divorce. In contrast, cohabitation by engaged couples seems to have no adverse effect on eventual marriage.
I've tried to avoid psychoanalyzing my opponents in the Game debate, but I've long believed that most of them (perhaps 80% or more) suffered from continuous rejection at a young age (teens/early twenties), felt a growing contempt for women, and then turned to "Game" as a way to intellectually justify their contempt for women while morally justifying their new lifestyle of casual sex.
As a sequel to my essay, Requiem for a Nightmare, here is more evidence of how Reductionist philosophy really can harm a person's life and the health of society overall.
Yesterday, I discovered a wonderful article, Love in the Age of Neuroscience, written by Professors Mickey Craig and Jon Fennell of Hillsdale College. Their article - published in the Fall 2005 issue of The New Atlantis - explores the philosophical implications of Tom Wolfe's novel, I Am Charlotte Simmons.As we saw in my previous essay, Mr. Wolfe is fascinated by how Reductionist Science is quietly underming American values - with nary anyone bothering to notice. In his latest novel, Mr. Wolfe uses an elite college as the setting for his morality tale.
Professor Craig takes it from there...
As John Derbyshire wrote in National Review, I AmCharlotte Simmons is a reminder of the “darker side” of recent discoveries in the human sciences, especially in neuroscience and genetics. At stake is the “metaphysic” which provides sense and direction to our lives, including the complicated encounter between men and women. The novel invites us to ask: Is love possible in the age of neuroscience? Or have we unmasked human beings only to discover that love is an illusion?… [TW note: I've withessed that first-hand]
Charlotte’s experiences at the fictional Dupont University shed light on these questions, as the ambitious girl from backwater North Carolina is transformed by her sophisticated and salacious surroundings. Far from being the path to higher civilization and refinement of character, Dupont is a toxic impediment to the yearning for higher things, built on a dogmatic denial that higher civilization and refinement of character are even possible. Where, in a former age, the impressionable young student might have aspired to religious salvation or genuine wisdom, today’s typical college student lives more for entertainment, sensation, and release, all the while demanding and largely getting immediate gratification. The individual still seeks status and recognition. But the marks of distinction are all too often inebriation, “hooking up,” expertise at sarcasm (“sarc one,” “sarc two,” and “sarc three”), and insouciance toward matters intellectual and moral. As students learn about and fall into this new ethic, the university not only fails to stand in opposition, it accelerates the process. Dupont, that composite of Duke, Stanford, Yale, and the University of Michigan, corrupts the promising young Charlotte...
The teaching of Dupont University is precisely that the soul and the moral dimension of being are illusions. In the past, the university (at its best and in principle) sought to cultivate the human soul toward completion or excellence. The modern university, as Wolfe portrays it, denies that there are truthful distinctions between higher and lower; it teaches that the soul is not real, and that perfection of the soul is thus a thing of the past.
The setting of I Am Charlotte Simmons is truly “postmodern”—a world dominated by Nietzsche and neuroscience, a world which has jettisoned the moral imagination of the past. Not only is God dead, but so is reason, once understood as the characteristic that distinguishes man from the rest of nature. We now understand ourselves by studying the behavior of other animals, rather than understanding the behavior of other animals in light of human reason and human difference. We learn that it is embarrassing for any educated person to be considered religious or even moral. Darwin’s key insight that man is just another animal, now updated with the tools and discoveries of modern biology, has liberated us from two Kingdoms of Darkness. Post-faith and post-reason, we can now turn to neuroscience to understand the human condition, a path that leads to or simply ratifies the governing nihilism of the students, both the ambitious and apathetic alike.
The task of neuroscience is to understand human behavior as it really is, without illusions…Human beings think they have free will and that their choices have meaning. But this is one of the comforting myths of the past that neuroscience is proud to overcome. As Dr. Starling explains, this time with a thought experiment borrowed from a fellow neuroscientist:
Let’s say you pick up a rock and you throw it. And in mid-flight you give that rock consciousness and a rational mind. That little rock will think it has free will and will give you a highly rational account of why it has decided to take the route it’s taking.
In other words: Human beings are simply rocks. Neuroscientists are rocks who know they are rocks. Human beings are bodies in motion, bodies that falsely believe they have free will. But neuroscience, armed with tools like fMRIs and PET scans, promises a true description of human behavior, a final lifting of man’s religious and moral illusions. And that life without illusions may amount to nothing more than the joyless quest for joy or the soulless interactions of the soulless. The consequences of this shift in human self-understanding are enormous.
This dogma of soullessness is the sub-text for the entire novel. The administration, faculty, students, athletes, and fans are so immersed in this postmodern world that they cannot imagine anything else…
Aristotle teaches that every human being has a natural desire for happiness coupled with a natural lack of self-sufficiency, which results in natural partnerships (family, friends, fellow-citizens). These partnerships, when guided by moral and intellectual virtue, constitute true human happiness. But if the soul and free will are illusions, then friendship and love are illusions as well, or mere words based on illusions…
According to the principles of neuroscience…interaction, at least among humans, results in a competition guided by nothing beyond the desire for recognition, which seemingly overcomes the loneliness of the mere individual. The competition for recognition at Dupont manifests itself as an interminable battle of wits and sexual conquests…
This desire for recognition, shaped by the interplay between Charlotte’s desperate loneliness and desperate desire to belong, is central to the novel…She wants to be recognized. She is animated by amour propre. Her main concern seems to be what she thinks other people are thinking of her. While she says she wants the life of the mind, what she really wants is to be recognized as the best…
Even at the moment when Charlotte has attained what she seeks, she is still miserable. Despite her victory in the battle for recognition, she is still alone in the world, struggling to maintain the appearance of happiness for her crowd of onlookers…
If Wolfe’s description of Dupont accurately portrays the character of our elite universities, then the dissolution of the American way of life is nearly complete.Our ancient faith is no longer a vibrant and effective part of the education of future leaders.Our ability to perpetuate our culture and our constitutional soul will wither alongside our belief in the soul itself. As Lincoln understood, once it loses its ancient faith, the Republic cannot long endure. Perhaps our situation is not as dire as the metamorphosis of Charlotte Simmons makes it seem. But if the portrayal is right, only time will tell whether Wolfe’s diagnosis of our condition can help effect a recovery.
I read Tom Wolfe's book earlier this year, and I really loved it. Heck, I like almost any novel that gives serious attention to the power of ideas to shape and control our destiny (Atlas Shrugged is another example).
If you share my taste in books, I humbly recommend The Mustard Seed.
After ignoring the Game debate for a few weeks, I re-entered it with full fury today.
I started off at Chuck Ross' blog, where he posted an essay, A Weasel Word Tale... I asked Chuck, "What does Game have to offer men and women who want a deeper emotional/spiritual connection?"
He wrote back...
Todd,you always assume that every facet of a male/female relationship has to have some emotional/spiritual connection. These can be fostered by Game in that healthy physical attraction has spillover effects into the other realms even though Game doesn't necessarily have direct spiritual/emotional ties.
I responded...
Chuck: Basically this is your answer: Focus on the physical stuff and eventually the emotional/spiritual stuff will work itself out later.Sigh. I don't think I'm being unfair when I say that's not a compelling answer at all.
To date, Chuck hasn't replied. If he does, I'll update this post.
After my exchange with Chuck, things started to get amusing. Novaseeker (a pro-Game blogger) wrote...
I agree that [emotional availability] is important, but for many men it is a chore and an effort and is done solely to please the woman, really."
I responded...
I don't know whether you intended it or not, but you're actually backing me up in my argument against Keoni Galt and Slwener.Keoni wrote about men: "The more he tries to supplicate her upset emotional state, the MORE unhappy she gets. And Slwener: "The OBVIOUS answer to this problem is that a man needs to step up his Game - which will, in turn, refocus him on his wife."If women find emotional availability "pleasing" (as Nova declares), then by definition, Slwerner and Keoni are wrong, and their advice is counterproductive.
I don’t want to rehash an old argument (we covered a lot of ground last month), but when I see the Game community breathlessly pass around essays titled How to ‘Use Your Penis to Show Her Who is the Boss,’ I have to stand by my earlier position that Game is not a “butcher’s knife that can be used many different ways;” it’s a chauvinistic pseudo-religion.
If y’all are interesting in meeting and marrying good women, those women – by definition – are not going to want a man who “uses his penis to show her whose boss.” Yes, there are some women who are into that kind of stuff, but not the good ones. And we want the good ones, right?
When Tarl replied, "Good women still want you to be the boss in the bedroom," I answered back...
You’re missing the point. Jack Lover’s essay is using a pornographic term to advance an overarching relationship philosophy of dubious utility. He writes: “You need to mentally overpower and dominate her. I believe that in order for woman to reach sexual satisfaction, she needs to be mentally dominated.”
This is the heart of the issue.
Nobody bothered to respond to me.
From there, I began a correspondence with "Obsidian."
To him, I stated...
You wrote: “Game is merely a tool. It is up to the individual as to how he will use it.” If that’s true, fine. But then why is the first question that new Gamers are asked is: “How many women have you had sex with?” Yes, I understand the important link between sex and “knowing a woman” (especially for younger people). But the question itself is still revealing. You wrote, “Those with little experience” in sex “need to listen to those who have more experience.” Again, the question for me, is flawed.
Why is the number of women you’ve slept with (2, 5, 15, 50, whatever) so critical? And what would a man who HAD slept with 50 women be able to teach…except…well…how to sleep with 50 women?!” What could such a man teach a younger guy about relationships, including marriage? Obviously, nothing. And that’s the point.
That’s why I keep saying that Game – once you gently scratch the surface – is really about sex. A lot of sex. With a lot of women. Game has nothing (or very little) to offer the man who wants to find happiness in a loving, committed relationship with a woman. And since that’s the overwhelming majority of men, we have a problem.
To "Vino," I wrote...
Vino: I disagree with a lot of what you said, but I give you credit (I guess) for confining Game to the parameter of sex. I don’t have a major problem with men using Game for sex (whether it’s having more sex or becoming better at sex). Just be honest about it. My problem comes when guys use Game as an all-encompassing theory of how men should treat women, how men should treat their girlfriend/wife, and even (in their grander movements) how men can save Western civilization itself. That’s when my BS button starts going off.
Obsidian replied...
"Yes, you’re 100% correct-Game is about Sex. But not quite in the way you make it seem."
That made me smile. I wrote...
I give you credit for acknowledging that Game is almost entirely about sex (and yes, I know you said that Game also applies to other realms, but the fact that 95% of your post was about sex reinforces my initial point).
In addition, I will say that I certainly agree with you that sexual enjoyment is a major component of any healthy relationship, and it is certainly advisable for every man to strive to be the best lover he can be.
I’m not a prude, ya know ;)
So what's the bottom line? Basically everything I wrote about Game last month (which was a lot) still stands today. On August 25, I wrote...
I feel comfortable stating that Game is not the answer because it fosters an attitude in which men objectify women, casual sex is excused or even encouraged, and as it pertains to married couples, it doesn't facilitate the emotional, spiritual connection that is the key to true happiness. Of course, knowledge is power, and it is worth knowing what makes women “tick” inside. But that’s independent of Game, which has – for whatever reason – morphed into a chauvinistic pseudo-religion among the men who preach its gospel. The bottom line is: There are better alternatives to Game.
Today's blog debate validates my conclusion. And that's why I will continue to oppose Game.
I’ll throw one idea against the wall and see if it sticks…
The “Game movement” is a manifestation of the breakdown of elite authority and trust in America’s defining institutions (government, mass media, organized religion, universities, Wall Street, etc.)
I once called the year 2006 “The Year of Shattered Illusions” because there were so many news events that undermined faith in our leaders and crippled hope in our future. You date the emergence of “men’s liberation” to “2 years ago.” That aligns with my theory that 2006/2007 was a critical point in time.
And now, in 2009, those trends are accelerating. With Obama in charge, those of us who are conservative/libertarian are becoming more radicalized, less willing to work within established institutions, and more eager to find our own path.
If what I’m suggesting has any degree of truth, the Game/Men’s Movement has major room for growth. And it might grow quite rapidly.
What Roissy has done is take the demented conditions of modern, hyper sexually liberated society and treat them as though they were natural. What bothers me is not Roissy himself, but the fact that so many conservatives find truth and value in him. They claim they can separate the ugly and false from the true and useful. I don't believe it. People who sign onto Roissy, who recommend his thoughts to others, are helping spread vile nihilism.
The discussion surrounding "game" is not just about extramarital sex: it contains an unseemly degree of self-pity, spite, and the ludicrous conceit that sleeping around has something to do with saving western civilization. It is as if some of these people want to stretch or break rules while having others hold their hands and tell them it's ok while they do. The first thing these guys need to learn is that MEN don't behave this way.
Novaseeker: You wrote, "Game is rather empirical – people use it because it works." Works? In what sense? In terms of having more dates with women? Sure, that makes sense. In terms of having more casual sex? Oh, certainly. In terms of increasing a man's happiness?...Err...Look, that's what I care about. The happiness of men. I honestly do not believe that Game can increase a man's happiness because it rests on a philosophic assumption that men and women are animals and that the best way to have a relationship is to treat her like an animal too. The best relationships are those in which both the man and woman are unified by shared values and interests and treat each other with utmost respect as transcendent individuals I can almost people laughing at me when I say that, but it's true. I'm a witness to it.
Whiskey: Your points are well-taken, but I'm not interested in "negging" my wife or pretending there's a chance I'll cheat on her with another woman. There's better ways to keep romance and love alive.
Novaseeker: I posted this on my own blog, but it's worth posting here, as well.
Like in many times in life, we have a problem of language...You, I, and a lot of folks here are using the same word ("Game") to refer to many different things. I am 100% in favor of helping men bolster their self-confidence around women, and teaching them "tools of the trade" to meet and date women. Perhaps that was Straus' purpose when he wrote his book. I don't know; I didn't read it. What I do know about "Game" is through my Internet research and discussions with other folks over the last few days - and they are talking about a form of "Game" in which women are casually perceived as animals, men are encouraged to be alpha dogs or perish, and the idea of true love between a man and a woman based on MUTUAL respect is considered a passe illusion. I don't know where you stand on THIS form of Game, but this is the form of Game that has drawn my attention and my sword.
Novaseeker, you wrote: "My own interest in Game is not in that vein. I realize it can be used in that vein. I do not believe that simply because it can be used in that vein, that it is therefore useless. Guns, for example, can be used to kill people, yet most conservatives don't seem to think guns are useless for other purposes." My concern with Game is based on the fact that many men seem to be using it to kill people (metaphorically speaking).
Novaseeker said...
My concern with Game is based in the fact that many men seem to be using it to kill people (metaphorically speaking).
Then we should ban guns, pornography, alcohol and so on. Game is a neutral tool. It can be used for mischief or for benefit. Like many other things.
Todd White said...
Novaseeker: Is there any chance you and your friends can reply to what I WROTE, instead of projecting onto me? When did I say we should ban Game? My position is that there are better alternatives to Game. This religion of Game - and yes, I'm starting to think it's a religion based on the impassioned way some people are talking about it - is, in most cases, not helpful to men or women.
One STDV: Whether on purpose or not, you raise an interesting issue. You casually state, "many betas would be fully satisfied with 3-5 sexual partners/year (a reasonable sum for an average Gamer). Game gives betas the tools to avoid marriage and reproduction." In my discussion with Gamers, they insist to me that Game is NOT about getting laid. But it sounds like it is. What value does Game have for men who want a successful, happy marriage?
I'm sure I'm not the first person to notice that about 90% of popular culture is a cesspool. But how bad is it? And what does it have to do with "Game?"
Last week, Peter Suderman deconstructed the love that many women have for Don Draper, a character on the hit TV show Mad Men.
Draper isn't sexy so much because he's a cad or a lout or a sexist; he's sexy because he's a fictionalized, idealized fantasy of an iconic form of masculinity.
Draper's womanizing and crude beliefs aren't what make him appealing so much as his impeccable suits -- always carefully pressed and form fitting -- and his posed cigarette smoking, his immaculately lit surroundings and the elegant way he holds a glass of scotch. As a fictional dreamboat, Draper never has to participate in the unsexy realities of life: He doesn't change diapers, or use the restroom, or spill coffee on his shirt on the way to work. Thanks to a team of screenwriters, he always has the right words to say, or not say, and those around him always provide him with opportunities for pregnant pauses and dramatic silences. We never see Draper except when he's at his most posed and perfect.
Your average cheating, borderline alcoholic sexist doesn't have these luxuries, and thus isn't nearly as charming or magnetic. Draper, on the other hand, is sexy and cool because he doesn't have to deal with any of the real world's un-sexy, un-cool realities. In other words, he's a product of TV's image-making process -- deeply and truly attractive, but in large part because he's made to be.
What does this have to do with Game? Well, for many young men, pornography (and especially Internet porn) is ubiquitous. Without getting into a long debate as to whether porn is moral or immoral, can we at least consider the possibility that porn may have distorted our opinions of women (in the same way Mad Men - and other shows - distort the opinion of men)?
Over time, porn may hinder a man's ability to distinguish between what's real and isn't real. We may begin to think it's normal for beautiful women to throw themselves at "the boy next door" (obviously the target for most porn) and fulfill his sexual desires. And that's where Game comes in. The proponents of Game are tapping into an anxiety felt in the hearts of many young men. The message is, "If your life isn't regularly filled with scenes from a 2-minute Internet porn clip, then there's something wrong with you. You need Game. And we can help."
Chlamydia Helps Young Men Feel More Manly:“Young men who contract sexually transmitted diseases often view their afflictions as an affirmation of their manhood, a new Swedish study shows…With other male friends slapping on the shoulders and offering encouraging comments about 'success with the ladies,' young men who contract diseases such as chlamydia or genital warts can come to view their infection as a badge of honour, rather than a serious health problem.”
These kids feel that they have their hands on the truth, the truth that no humans before them have ever seen--the truth of female sexuality. They lay great stress on the idea that social conservatives are on the wrong side, because the "SoCons," as they call them, see men as beasts and women as refined beings whose job it is to civilize the men. Now it's true that such a view is fairly common among today's social conservatives and Christians, and I agree with the Gamers that it is a sentimental and destructive delusion. But what the Gamers don't see is that the Christianity they are accusing of naivete on this score is the contemporary, emotion-based brand of evangelical Christianity… They don't seem to be aware that historical Christianity and conservatism put human sinfulness first and foremost in its picture of human nature--including an understanding of female sexuality in its evil aspects [...]
But a more fundamental flaw than their cultural and historical ignorance and their ideological arrogance is their biological reductionism and determinism. Thus they treat the female attraction to dangerous and irresponsible men…as a fundamental and unchangeable truth of existenceon which society must be built, not realizing that this "truth" is itself the result of contingent cultural factors. In Christian terms, it would be like translating the idea that "man is inclined to evil but capable of good," into "man is biologically determined to be evil." Of course, some things are biologically determined; but the Gamers seem to think that everything is biologically determined.
I'll quote some comments from In Mala Fide to give a flavor of the discussion.
A commenter named Rum wrote:
Saving Western Civilization is still the ultimate Right Thing to Do, it is just that this will have to be done without putting women on much of a pedestal, and with the awareness that most womens' deepest sexual instincts are no different than a chimp's--they only want to mate with elite males and will hook up with ordinary nice guys if they have no choice. The hind-brain-vagina connection always lights up brightest in response to the type of man that is unlikely to be an ideal, stable provider.
To which I replied:
If you think that this is true, and if you think that speaking about human beings in this way can be the basis of any politics at all, let alone of some alliance between bio-cons and social conservatives, let alone of saving Western civilization, you're living in a fantasy.
Look at what you're saying. You're saying that the way to save Western civilization is to regard women as the equivalents of chimpanzees.
The Beta Revolution errs in assuming these betas will act in the manner which supports societal reform and not in the manner that motivated them to pursue Game in the first place. With the success of Game, their sexual desire and confidence will only increase, making them increasingly unlikely to settle down with a rapidly aging baby-maker. Thus, the Beta Revolution ultimately fails because it converts a class of productive men potentially satisfied with a traditional family existence into a cohort of productive men who shirk the duties of stability and reproduction. The Beta Revolution will depress the reproduction of betas by inviting them into a world of sexual gratification and excess. Thus, the beta foundation of society will reproduce even less and the proposed solution fails.
“The Mystery-Neil Strauss conception of game, the view that is by far the most popular, bases its precepts on a quack pseudoscience called “neuro-linguistic programming."
This is not entirely true. In his book “The Mystery Method,” Mystery says that the philosophical basis of game is biology. He states that women are attracted to men who the women’s instincts indicate have high “S+R value,” survival and replication value. I don’t know whether he mentions Darwin by name, but his statement that women are attracted to men based on their biologically programmed antennae for replication value is clearly Darwinian in ethic.
You are giving NLP more credit than it deserves as the historical basis for game. NLP proved that women had certain attraction switches that could be turned on through words and behaviors. This truth caused Mystery to do a trial and error study of female attraction, using himself as the test subject. What he came up with was largely the Evo-Psych based theory we see today.
There is an element of truth in Roissy's advice...But it's mixed up with something false and negative. To say that men need to be strong, that they need to be the leader in the relationship, and that that is what women want, is not the same thing as the deliberate manipulation that Roissy counsels. What he says is not good. The badness of Roissy simply radiates from everything he writes. And frankly, not intending disrespect to anyone, I feel that people who do not see this about Roissy have gone astray.
Evil always comes mixed with good, otherwise it would have no power to attract. So Roissy offers some things that seem helpful. But (1) Roissy is evil; and (2) whatever truly valid element there is in Roissy's advice could be found and practiced without Roissy and his baggage.
The men asserting that they can't find wives because the women "don't want nice guys" are engaging in self-justification and/or self-delusion. What is actually happening is that the women whom they consider sufficiently attractive to pursue don't find them sufficiently attractive and/or interesting in return. Women who fail to measure up to their standards of beauty won't get the time of day from these "nice guys."
Roissy's purpose is not to exalt readers with truth, but rather--like a successful pornographer--to foment anger and misogyny in men who want to luxuriate in their sexual frustration. Like all propaganda, his message is based on partial truth, but he also slanders and denigrates all women for effect. In fact, there are plenty of good women out there...For any refined man, hedonism is nihilistic despair, and as such, has nothing to do with saving Western civilization. In fact, it is just another exponent of its decline.
Even apart from the sophomoric, ludicrous notion that the Game could ever be the driving force to produce a higher civilization, it doesn't take profound insight to see that it will eventually prove to be destructive on the personal level for everyone involved in it. And it is the women in such relationships who will first come to realize just how distasteful and unacceptable a counterfeit it really is. For a woman's strongest desires--to feel specially loved and cherished and to have the deepest possible emotional connection to her mate--are exactly what Roissy's desperate, addicted, game-playing "lost boys" will be constitutionally incapable of fulfilling.
Game is an excuse for sinful behavior under the pretense of altering or undermining the current sexual license that prevails in our society. As we know, it is in our nature to use any justification we might devise in order to fulfill our own desires as well as to justify why we should not be adhering to moral principles. Game is nothing less than arrant evil in disguise.
