A core understanding of game, and its interactions with our purpose and sanctification

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.

Attraction

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:

Christianity
        \/
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:

  1. As I’ve stated before, game may turn an inverted relationship to the correct model, but it does not bring about sanctification
  2. 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.

Conclusion

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.

This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to A core understanding of game, and its interactions with our purpose and sanctification

  1. Sharkly says:

    I’ll copy and paste my response to Jack’s post. Since I thought it was excellent:

    Please pay attention, I’ll try to make this concept simple:
    1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
    Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

    Notice the gods will die like men and princes, not women and princesses. Jesus Himself quotes and reaffirms this truth, that men are gods:
    John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

    Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another; 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

    The unchurched “Gentiles” have figured out by nature(the “Red-Pill”) what works. That when men act supremely confident in their creation, like they are gods(called “Game” or slanderously called Narcissism from the Dark-Triad) that women react with admiration of, and desire for men rightly possessing their divine birthright, the image and glory of God and their dominion over all the earth, including women who are to be their subjects.

    The correctly actualized man knows himself to be a god created to reign with Christ, in Jesus Christ’s Kingdom, and to even judge the angels. But for now we need to rule these women well. With understanding, honoring the fact that they too may also become heirs of the grace of God.

    Now “Game” may not negate poor looks or disabilities, with women. Women are not, by nature,(hypergamy) inclined to submit to the less fortunate. But compounding such things with self-denigration will likely just make you downright repellant to them. Just remember that in Christ’s Kingdom:
    Luke 13:30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.
    You may not have been given ten talents, only one, but don’t go bury the one. Take what you’ve got and reign with it! So you will be rewarded in heaven for it. Much more is expected of those of us who got more talents.

    Addendum: You mentioned weightlifting. I have been doing natural bodybuilding and strength training off and on for over 40 years, and have deeply studied supplements and nutrition and invested a lot of time and money in testing them on myself, and using them to improve the health of my family. I feel this is a noble pursuit, like the pursuit of wisdom, as we are to keep up the “temple of the Holy Spirit” which both men and women are designed to be. God jealously desires His Spirit to dwell in us all. Don’t leave His temple shabby by your individual sloth.

  2. Ichaelmae says:

    It seems to me that a crude analogy of product and marketing could be used. So called “passive game” – improving oneself through working out, doing difficult but worthwhile things etc is an improvement on your product, whereas so-called “active game” is an attempt at improving your marketing. If you have great marketing but a poor product, you will have dissatisfied customers. I’m sure there’s such a thing as improving one’s social skills with women righteously, as you’ve written about extensively on your blog and in your book.

    Acknowledged that you think calling the self-development side of things “passive game” is dumb. I tend to agree. As a Christian I dislike using the language of sexually immoral people to describe my aims of making myself a more attractive prospect for dating and then marriage.

  3. @ Ichaelmae

    It seems to me that a crude analogy of product and marketing could be used. So called “passive game” – improving oneself through working out, doing difficult but worthwhile things etc is an improvement on your product, whereas so-called “active game” is an attempt at improving your marketing. If you have great marketing but a poor product, you will have dissatisfied customers. I’m sure there’s such a thing as improving one’s social skills with women righteously, as you’ve written about extensively on your blog and in your book.

    Yup, that’s also a good analogy.

    Good marketing on a poor product can only do so much.

    It’s also true that excellent products will tend to sell themselves without much marketing.

    Acknowledged that you think calling the self-development side of things “passive game” is dumb. I tend to agree. As a Christian I dislike using the language of sexually immoral people to describe my aims of making myself a more attractive prospect for dating and then marriage.

    Yes, it’s basically guilt by association. It’s false, but that’s what people see.

    As it says in 1 Thess 5, we’re supposed to abstain from every form of evil, so why associate when it’s not necessary.

  4. theasdgamer says:

    It would be nice to see a post on where game fits in to being obedient to God. Game actually is part of nurturing and loving a wife.

  5. Paul says:

    Just my opinion: I agree with DS that it’s all about looking at God’s Word; if your wife does not acknowledge you as head, she is sinning, and need to repent. You need to call out her sin. Problem is, you probably won’t find an elder who agree with you and who would consider it a sin too, which makes going the Mat 18 way nearly impossible

  6. Paul says:

    John MacArthur responds to the recent Beth Moore “Go Home” controversy in a one hour sermon. Much recommended!

  7. theasdgamer says:

    “if your wife does not acknowledge you as head, she is sinning, and need to repent. You need to call out her sin. Problem is, you probably won’t find an elder who agree with you”

    Problem is, you are inventing this out of whole cloth. Nowhere in the Bible is this even suggested, nor are there any examples of this.

  8. theasdgamer says:

    “As a Christian I dislike using the language of sexually immoral people”

    Self righteous virtue signalling, much?

  9. Paul says:

    @tag you are inventing this out of whole cloth. Nowhere in the Bible is this even suggested

    Say what?

    Eph 5 “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

    And elders disagreeing: look at all the stories of Christian men trying to get their wives back in line when they find their wives divorcing them for no fault at all.

  10. info says:

    The coming about of “Game” seem to be the result of divine providence. After many years of the West deteriorating in sex roles.

  11. info says:

    @Paul
    Better version:

  12. theasdgamer says:

    @Paul

    Lol @ distraction. The issue isn’t whether wives should repent from a lack of submission, but whether the Bible tells husbands to call out wives on this issue.

    Women aren’t men, similar to how cats aren’t dogs. You don’t call out cats on their issues, but you do call out dogs. You train cats differently than dogs. You don’t call out women for a lack of submission. That’s nonproductive. You figure out why they aren’t submitting. Women typically submit if a man is masculine. If a woman isn’t submitting, maybe a man needs to look at himself.

    And thinking that ordinary sh*t tests are a lack of submission is very foolish.

  13. Joe2 says:

    @Paul

    As I understand John MacArthur, the lack of submission is the result of the curse along with pain in childbearing. It occurs in all marriages to some extent. And the role of the husband is to rule over the wife.

    In a sense, the husband is continually calling his wife out on this behavior through the exercise of his authority to rule over the wife. It’s up to the wife to change or keep the lack of submission in check. The church should help women in this regard through bible study / teaching, such as provided by John MacArthur in the video. Likewise, the men in the church need to be instructed in what it means to rule over the wife and how that authority is applied in specific situations.

    I was surprised in hearing how quickly the evangelical churches have capitulated to allowing the culture to interpret the bible. The evangelical churches have fallen and when combined with no fault divorce, there is little hope for men today.

  14. theasdgamer says:

    ” The evangelical churches have fallen and when combined with no fault divorce, there is little hope for men today.”

    The evangelical churches have fallen and when combined with no fault divorce and the dumbing down and feminization of men, there is little hope for men today.

    fify

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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