Red Pill and Game

As per Keoni’s previous posts on God, Game & The shape of the “men’s movement” and The Great Unlearning, I think there’s two separate things going on here. Though I also think there will almost inevitably be an impasse.

There’s two separate things that we must consider when we discuss “game.”

  1. The Red Pill
  2. Game

The Red Pill is about taking the blinders off and being able to see human nature, as opposed to the lies about men and women that are fed to everyone from the media, society, churches, and other people. The Bible is naturally red pill when you read it to understand human nature — see Adam and Eve first and foremost.

Game, on the other hand, I’ve always referred to as the “utilization of red pill knowledge in action.”

As I wrote in to game or not to game, I wrote about the 4 respective positions that most take on what “game” is which are,

  • The first crowd believes that “game” is a specific set of codified techniques that were “pioneered” by the PUAs in order to improve your relative attractiveness to a woman’s in order to use other techniques to get a woman into bed.
  • The second crowd believes that “game” is a toolbox insomuch that a tool such as a hammer can be used to do constructive things such as building furniture whereas it can also be used as a weapon to bash someone over the head.
  • The third crowd believes that “game” is fundamentally about “charisma” or “self improvement” because masculinity is about building a man who is not just respect by women but by other men, children, colleagues in the workplace, etc. It is the ability to weild influence.
  • Finally, there is a fourth depiction of game that Leap has been commenting on which is the one I most agree with having studied the Scripture more in depth. This is the depiction of game that it is inherently worldly in nature, and that mascunlity of the positive variety comes from being a masculine man of God as the Scripture define it.

As one of the people who would classify themselves as “anti-game”, my conclusion has always been that knowledge by itself is not sinful as long as the knowledge isn’t gained through actions which may incite or incur sin into your life. For example, in no uncertain terms would I say that watching pornography is OK even if you give me the explanation  that you’re just doing it learn what to do during sex. Fueling your lusts is inevitably going to be sinful.

That’s why both pyramids have knowledge of human nature and lusts of the flesh:


Now, actions are born of intentions, and it is the heart that matters as well as the actions. In terms of game there’s two categories that I would place things in. Things that game says to do, and things that game says not to do.

As I’ve stated in previous posts, what game says not to do is indeed good — e.g. don’t pedestalize women, don’t be nice, don’t be needy, don’t seek validation, etc. — as those are definitely concepts that you can see modeled by many of the great masculine men in the Bible and not modeled when they sin. Whether you have learned them from the Bible, or your father, or a masculine mentor, or game you should thank God for that.

My biggest issue has always been the implementation of game in terms of techniques that may seem innocuous but are, in actuality, spiritually of the flesh such as dread game. Clearly, borrowing techniques born of the dark triad traits as a Christian is just not a good thing to do for you as a man both for your own soul and for hers.

The feminists and white knights actually are correct in their assessment of some of game’s techniques such as dread which do play with the emotions of women. As Christians, we know that it is much easier to sin when we are emotional and not thinking logically, so we know that it is never justified to use any “game technique” that intentionally plays on emotions as a Christian. Why would you throw a temptation in front of your sister in Christ, even if she’s your wife and is not attracted to you?

This is what Chad, Donal, Cane, and everyone else mean in terms of the implementation of game is not of Christ but of the flesh. We see that certain techniques, even born of good intentions, may cause both men, women, husbands, and wives to fall into sin because of the inherent selfish nature of such techniques. Thus, we condemn the “dos” of game, while we might not necessarily condemn the “don’ts” of game.

I can indeed see how this disctinction of “knowledge” vs “implementation” and “dos” vs “don’ts” does indeed seem like a toolbox. However, the divide that you miss when you see things just as a toolbox is that spiritual component of temptation — am I drawing myself and women closer to God or not?

In most cases with the “dos” of game you are not. That’s why the heart matters because you want to see where the heart’s underlying motivation is. If you see that many of the game “dos” are indeed evil inasmuch as the dark triad traits are not of God but of the flesh, then you see why you shouldn’t use them.

Game is not a tool because by the same analogy a tool is not imbued with any spiritual righteousness or evil at all. A tool does not take on the characteristics of its weilder, nor does it influence them. But with game it does as manipulative techniques corrupt totally just as sin does.

If someone could tell me how “dread game” and other emotionally manipulative techniques are not spiritually bankrupt then I would consider seeing game as a toolbox. But indeed I don’t see it.

This entry was posted in Game debate and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Red Pill and Game

  1. donalgraeme says:

    Real quick comment-

    One of the major reasons why I dropped the “Game as a Toolbox” analogy is because Game also requires that a man change something in himself. This isn’t the case when you pull out a hammer or a screwdriver. But Game, successful Game, requires that a man mold himself into a tool of sorts, and this invites disaster if a man isn’t disciplined enough to maintain his moral core. My intentions behind exploring an alternative was to create a framework to achieve the desire results without facing the risks that come with a seemingly amoral Game. Because it isn’t actually amoral in practice, although it may be in theory. This is because humans are moral agents, and nothing we do ever exists in a moral vacuum.

  2. @ Donal

    Good insight.

    I think most of the “anti-gamers” agree that game may be LIKE a toolbox, but it definitely is not a toolbox for the reasons in my post and yours.

    It’s the same analogy with nutrition and exercise. For example, just as we see “game” as a “tool” we could see “food” as just “fuel”, but it’s also intimately connected to your health and well being. You can’t separate the innate characteristic of “food” as just “fuel” from its impact on “health”, and the same for “game” in its impact on “spiritual health.”

  3. Anyway, like Keoni I’m not discuss this topic anymore rather write more on Christian masculinity.

  4. Padre99 says:

    Hmm, suspect one is missing the obvious DS, the ultimate Red Pill deriving from Game is a successful marriage, that last, with a Man being happy with the state of affairs for that marriage and produces offspring that exhibit the values of the parents rather than society as a whole.

    Think of it this way, the Best way to expose the flaws in societal programing is produce offspring who have the same pov on the misinformation etc, and that would also mean winning the “genetic arms race”.

    Where “Game” proponents fall down is they fail to realize they are evolutionary dead ends

    I’ve YET to see a Game proponent deal with that inconvenient fact, the only manner they approach with is “you will get mugged in court for child support after the divorce”, taking that to it’s logical conclusion, from their pov means, “have no children”.

    This is genetic legacy that leads to a culture in the family that champions the family worldview over the societies is the highest form of Red Pill/Game and what Christianity is designed to do, IF proper adherence is used.

  5. Chad says:

    Game proponents find their rationalizations in the end results, rather than on whether any of the actions in and of themselves would be deemed Godly. Thus, whether someone should comfort their wife or not is not framed in a “Would it be the right thing to comfort her now because it will lead her to God?” but rather they frame the question in a “Would she be placed in a more vulnerable position in which she needs my support and seeks it through a strengthening in our relationship if I do or don’t comfort her?”

    God doesn’t come into the second question at all, and then they’ll try and justify the action based on whether it worked for their own selfish desires of a comfortable (for the man) marriage.

    If one were applying this logic to Justice or Mercy it would be similar to asking what would be the easiest verdict for society (keeping order out of chaos) rather than what God commands us to do. They’re applying subjective arguments to objective realities.

    One must put God first, and not thyself or thy wife.

  6. @ Chad

    Have you read 2 Corinthians 10?

    Probably the most anti-game passage I’ve seen in the Bible yet. It’s quoted on my about page:

  7. Chad says:

    I hadn’t read it before now (guess I missed the about page) but I definitely see the anti-game tones. Really, it seems to be clearly against any desires of the flesh, of which Lust has been the downfall of the vast majority of men.

  8. deti says:

    “If someone could tell me how “dread game” and other emotionally manipulative techniques are not spiritually bankrupt then I would consider seeing game as a toolbox. But indeed I don’t see it.”

    I believe “Dread” isn’t spiritually bankrupt and can be used in a relationship or marriage appropriately. But it wouldn’t be “dread” as commonly understood. Bear with me and hear me out.

    Dread is really little more than imposing consequences on a woman or wife for unwanted behavior. It’s a method of correcting poor behavior.

    “Wife, if you do X, then Y will happen.”

    If you cheat on me, I will divorce you.

    If you refuse to submit, I will exert ever tighter control over certain things.

    If you refuse to submit to my budgeting and insist on overspending, I will take this away.

    If you show me disrespect in public, I will correct it right there and/or leave the situation, and return when I am ready to do so.

  9. @ Deti

    Maintenance of boundaries like the above examples are definitely good.

    Going out and flirting with other women or disappearing for lengths of time with no explanations to make your wife jealous is questionable at best. I would personally say it’s spiritually bankrupt. I wouldn’t even get the appearance of impropriety on the husband’s end.

    Of course, maintanence of boundaries can also cause a rebellious woman to fall into sin. For example, a husband standing up for himself in his marriage if it’s gone too far downhill may lead her to divorce him. A husband cannot control his wife’s actions even when doing the right thing.

    The difference is the way in which you set the boundaries. If they are coming off with the appearance of impropriety or putting your wife in a situation where her anger, jealousy, etc can explode into sin then it’s more likely of the dark triad heart (heart of the flesh) rather than in a loving from of what God calls a husband to do (heart with the Spirit).

    The difference can often be subtle which is why there are those in the Christian manosphere who eschew game completely. Even if you have a good heart, you may not come off the right way either. The key like I said in the end of the game debate is to consider how this affects both myself and others in regard to building God honoring relationships:

  10. deti says:


    I didn’t say anything about flirting openly. Disappearing for hours on end wouldn’t be to “make her jealous”, but to show her in no uncertain terms what life would be like without him – because that could be a consequence of her sin.

    Husbands represent God to wives. Sin has consequences. God imposes consequences on men for sin. Husbands must impose consequences on wives for sin.

    “Of course, maintanence of boundaries can also cause a rebellious woman to fall into sin. For example, a husband standing up for himself in his marriage if it’s gone too far downhill may lead her to divorce him. A husband cannot control his wife’s actions even when doing the right thing.”

    Disagree that a husband’s standing up for himself will cause a wife to divorce. If he is standing up for himself via speaking truth in love, there’s nothing wrong with that, even if she divorces him. If the marriage has gone too far downhill, divorce may be a foregone conclusion. He may as well stand up for himself anyway. He is not responsible for her sin. She has full moral agency and is fully responsible for her conduct, good or bad, righteous or sinful.

  11. @ Deti

    I slightly disagree with your first example, and I think you will agree with my example. I don’t think disappearing for hours without explanation of why is being considerate or loving. To say that actions have consequences you need to inform a wife of her actions and the consequences.

    For example, I would agree with a husband going off for some hours at a time if he said something such as: “You’re nagging and I don’t like being around you when you’re nagging. I’m going to leave for a couple hours.” That’s a good boundary to set and in line with Scriptures. I think we both agree on this… how you implement it is key.

    As for the divorce example I agree with you. The husband should stand up for himself in that situation and allow her to make her own decision whether to sin or not. I was giving two separate examples in my above post, one which was not acceptable (dread example — flirting with other women, disappearing without saying why) and one which was a good example (divorce example and the most recent one above).

    The key in each of these scenarios is maintaining boundaries but also explaining why you are maintaining the boundaries.

    If you just maintain boundaries without saying why then she won’t know why and get more frustrated and emotional in many cases.

  12. “If you just maintain boundaries without saying why then she won’t know why and get more frustrated and emotional in many cases.”

    This is dependent on your mindset. A lot of people forget why they call it game. Games are meant to be fun and light-hearted. Many times, you don’t have to explain things like this to her because she already knows. What she is getting aggravated about is how you approached it. Approach it with a sense of humor (like you would with a small child throwing a tantrum or telling you that you are going to do something because they said so). This often completely changes the encounter to something fun and ultimately will get you points.

  13. @ JoJ

    Good point. I think it’s dependent on other factors too.

    There are some things women naturally get about social interactions that are oblivious to men. That’s why a playful/teasing atmosphere is important.

    On the other hand, for more serious discussions providing a reasoning may be important if you sense a woman start to slip off the rails.

    I think that’s one of the things that confuses many men about social interactions. When to do something and when not to do it since they’re fluid and it’s hard to tell.

  14. @ JoJ

    Actually, it’s probably better put this way:

    Keeping a playful attitude of mastery is better once boundaries are already established.

    If you’ve been a supplicative nice guy for a long time and you’re trying to break that habit it’s probably a better idea to iterate what your boundaries are. That’s what you see when many men take the red pill, and tell women they’re not going to be their beta orbiter anymore.

  15. Pingback: Understanding Attraction | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere

  16. Pingback: Lightning Round -2014/02/05 | Free Northerner

  17. Good points.

    Is the following a typo?
    “For example, in no uncertain terms would I say that watching pornography is OK even if you give me the explanation that you’re just doing it learn what to do during sex.”

  18. @ Michael

    No, it’s just poorly worded. It basically says watching porn isn’t OK even if it’s just a “learning experience” because you’re indulging the flesh.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s