Jack posted a really good analysis of his understanding of where “game” may fit into the role of the sanctification of a wife. I highly suggest reading that post before this one as it provides some background on some of my assertions and so you won’t be confused about the topics I’m going to go over.
I want to address this topic from a deductive angle because I think that mainly drives home the points the best.
In the last few posts, including the one on creeps and romantics, we understand that the same action by an unattractive man vs an attractive man garner different results.
The creep and romantic dynamic is thus:
- If an unattractive man gives a woman flowers, he is a creep
- If an attractive man gives a woman flowers, he is romantic
The same could be understood for jokes:
- If an unattractive man tells a woman a joke, it has to be really funny to make a woman laugh
- If an attractive man tells a woman a joke, it only has to be marginally funny (sometimes even not) for a woman to laugh
The underlying theme is that when a man is attractive, that gives him a lot more leeway with women. This is not something that is universal to just attractive men. Both attractive men and women have this social benefit of the doubt as there have been studies done in professional business settings on these particular topics such as getting raises, looked on favorably by superiors, less blame when something goes wrong, and and things like these.
Anti-chivalry and anti-feminism
In Christianity, chivalry, feminism, game, complementarianism, and egalitarianism, we explored the themes of each of these matching up. H/T Dalrock and Cane Caldo for exploring all these themes prior.
- Christianity is the originator of the headship-submission model
- Chivalry is the inversion of the this model (knight serves the lady) which has been passed off as Christianity by most Churches nowadays.
- Complementarianism is essentially chivalry in the Church. Headship in name only but the husband serves the wife.
- Feminism is a direct rebellion against Christianity.
- Egalitarianism is overt feminism relationships in the Church.
So we have chivalry = complementarianism (masked inverted marital structure) and feminism = egalitarianism (overt inverted marital structure). This is how Christianity was perverted by the seeping in of different things into the Church:
Chivalry –> Complementarianism (attempt to justify chivalry biblically)
Feminism –> Egalitarianism (attempt to justify feminism biblically)
Game (works against chivalry, complementarianism, feminism, and egalitarianism)
Game at it’s core is both anti-chivalry and anti-feminism which is why it works against the Christian variants (complementarianism and egalitarianism) in Christian marriages. Yet it’s only a band-aid on the actual problem as noted in previous posts: it usually covers up sin with a feel-good situation because it does not target sanctification.
Unification of understanding
To circle back, the reason why the PUAs/players shared notes on what worked and what didn’t was because they were men who were traditionally unsuccessful with women. In other words, they were men who were traditionally unattractive. Thus, to succeed with women they needed the social acumen to demonstrate to women that they were attractive and not unattractive.
This is obviously met with varying success: subsequent game worked for some and for others it didn’t which has led to widespread misunderstandings (this is where I can agree with jason that game may often times just not work and part of the reason why I am anti-game).
By unifying these two topics, we can come to the understanding that game at the core is about tearing down an inverted role relationship through social acumen.
Here’s an example. Any man that women consider traditionally unattractive (e.g. 80% of men via the OKCupid sample) are already placed in the friend zone upon meeting and interacting for the first time. Therefore, any girl who categorizes a man like this is assuming that he is just a friend (or beta orbiter). If that “friend” has good enough social acumen or game, he can possibly become more attractive to her that she may consider him for a relationship.
Thus, what is really happening is that perhaps a man has good enough social dominance to flip a woman’s attitude on him from unattractive to attractive. Or from herself controlling the situation (inverted role relationship with her as the leader and him the follower) to him controlling the situation (headship-submission dynamic where he is the leader and she is the follower). Instead of him orbiting her, she orbits him.
The failings of game
There are two core problems with this:
- As I’ve stated before, game may turn an inverted relationship to the correct model, but it does not bring about sanctification
- If social acumen wavers or fails or if the man’s life does not match up with his social acumen or charisma, the relationship will ultimately fail.
I’ve discussed the first before, so let’s discuss the second in more detail.
The social acumen and charisma of game is mimicking the way in which a natural leader would interact with women. The natural leader has no problem with being attractive, and he knows he is in charge in any relationship. Fundamentally, this is expressed through both attitude (confidence, unflappableness, masculinity, humor, etc.) and action (decisiveness, ambition, leadership, etc.).
Because game only mimics the social dominance of a natural leader, it is bound to fail if that is not reflected in the other parts of a man’s life. This is called “congruence.” If the outward and the inward don’t match up, women get suspicious and ultimately will walk away.
Perhaps the perfect analogy for this is women’s make up. The things women can do with make-up can make any woman extremely attractive now, but most men know that sometimes this is a facade. What is underneath? Does she have natural beauty or is she not that physically beautiful and covering it up? The same is true with game in that sense. Game makes a man look attractive but is the underneath also attractive?
This is the same reason that much of the newer stuff after about 2013 or so has gone the way that both “passive game” (e.g. lifting, style, mission, etc.) and “active game” (e.g. social acumen, charisma, etc.) are required. There must be congruence between who a man is on the inside versus who he is on the outside.
This is also why there is a lot of confusion about what “game” is because some refer to both as game but others refer to just the social techniques. If I had to call it, I’d say the latter is game while the former is being a man, at least as traditionally understood by the PUAs/players.
The gospel and sanctification
The gospel of Jesus is simple: we are sinners in need of a savior. We accept, believe, and confess that Jesus is Lord and repent of our former ways. The Holy Spirit comes into our lives, and our lives undergo a radical transformation from the inside out. We take off the old and put on the new to become more like Jesus, and this is manifest in good works, fruit of the Spirit, generosity, and so forth.
To accurately pinpoint why I think social game is a complete failure is that it attempts to work the system in reverse. It attempts to demonstrate outward change usually without or at least minimal inward change. It’s an attempted shortcut that has the capacity to blow up spectacularly because once the charade is found out the hypocrisy is evident. It’s akin to false bravado.
A husband can agree and amplify his wife all he likes or try to demonstrate confidence and masculinity, but if there is no inward transformation to be and act the head of the marriage as God commands or to lead by example then all there is will be make-up covering up the ugliness of the husband not following God’s commands.
Mission, identity, and purpose flow from God our Creator, and who wants us to obey Him. Out of these fundamental things flow the traits that many so desire. A man/husband who is secure in his identity in Christ, and following God’s mission (e.g. gifts of the Spirit, loving others, his own marital roles and responsibilities) is confident that he is walking rightly with God and that he has nothing to fear from anyone else. If they disagree or rebel, they are not disagreeing with him but God.
Now that we’ve worked through everything, I can say that I am anti-game for a few reasons which I can now accurately discern clearly aside from the initial first point of sanctification.
- Game (social acumen, various techniques, etc.) does not lead to sanctification. Only focusing on obeying God does, and obeying God’s commands to love your wife for the purpose of sanctification.
- Game has a noble cause (destroying inverted relationships dynamic which include both complementarianism and egalitarianism), but it attempts to do it in an inverted way itself by trying to talk or mimic a natural leader to success instead of lead by example. If viewed as false bravado or faking it, it may only increases resentment and strengthens the inverted relationship. The noble cause is why many Christians are split into the pro-game and anti-game camps.
- The purpose of game is to try to change your woman/wife which may or may not work. Yes, it may work in some cases which is one of the reasons for confusion among Christians, and the reason it works is not that social techniques work but because the husband implicitly starts acting as leader again. The goal should be to focus on fulfilling your own Biblical marital roles and responsibilities and allow God to use your transformation to influence your wife.
- The gospel and its message of inside-out transformation is the true way to be the head and lead by example. Not only will this not viewed as false bravado, but the inside-out change has the advantage of the creep-romantic dynamic. A more attractive husband at the core (not superficially with make-up) has greater influence and benefit of the doubt. The flowers are suddenly not catering to her but romantic to her. The jokes that weren’t funny are now funny. The “game techniques” or social acumen that maybe only worked sometimes or didn’t work before now work. Funny that right. It’s not that “game” helped that much if any, but the underlying dynamic already changed. If the dynamic has already changed, then game is simply superfluous.
A single man is the leader of one. Single men should cultivate an excellent life in his mission for God which includes all facets of his being: spiritually, physically, emotionally, mentally, etc. If a man marries, he becomes a leader of two, and so on with children and extended family.
If someone calls these things “passive game” or “game” then that’s dumb. It’s simply obeying God. Calling it game is just a knockoff of how God wants us to live and buying into some secular misrepresentation of the true meaning of life.