As much as physical beauty can be objectively quantified – as in, how much a person’s proportions conform to a mathematically-crunched aesthetic ideal – it is not synonymous with “hot.” “Hot,” to me, is a confusing, vague term that, at least when used by men, seems to indicate anything from “not fat” to “younger than 23” to “conforms to the ideal woman in my head” to “old but I’d still hit it” to “facially beautiful” to “not wearing very much clothing.” Because of the breadth of meanings of the term, I am never quite sure what men mean when they say something like, “I went to the Squiggly Piggly with my bros on Saturday night, and there were all these hot girls there!” Does it mean that the majority of women had beautiful faces? Does it mean they were only attractive from the neck down? Does it mean they were non-blubbery and wearing very little? Does it mean they were all young? Does it mean they had good hair? (When I was in high school, all of the “hot girls” spent a lot of time styling their hair. Their facial beauty seemed kind of optional.) It’s confusing, because when I think of “hot girls,” I think of women who are clearly in the 9-10 range, who have beautiful faces, stunning hair, and bodies that most women would kill to have. But it seems like in the real world, men are much more lax with their definition.
As for women and their definition of “hot”:
Usually a “hot” man falls into one of two categories:
- He has a precision-toned body.
- He is confident and dominant.
Occasionally a man will be confident and dominant and have a great body. Those guys are too good to be true. If he’s confident and dominant and has a great body AND has a great face, then he’s just scary to all but the most brazen of women.
Haley's Halo 
Lol, this is what happens when you write about matters in which you have no direct experience.
Hot is an inborn male category. It refers to raw fertility signals, i.e. the probability of conception and high quality childbearing. It is independent of status and refinement.
Beauty is more of a long term mate indicator, which has much more to do with refinement and faithfulness indicators. It’s more culturally malleable.
Since men prefer pretty faces for long term mates but get strongly aroused by hot bodies, there’s an element of face vs. body, but that’s not all of it.
“Hot”… now there’s a word I’ve not used in a long time… a long time. Maturity, marriage and kids do wonders for a man’s sense of how to appropriately relate to the other sex.
Joseph Dantes offers a great explanation. I would add that in my youth, “hot” generally carried a connotation of sexual availability; it meant something like a combination of attractiveness and apparent easiness. To put it another way: as a rule, things that make you look sluttier make you look “hotter”, and vice versa. Mediocre-looking chicks can be “hot” if they dress like whores.
So:
Because of the breadth of meanings of the term, I am never quite sure what men mean when they say something like, “I went to the Squiggly Piggly with my bros on Saturday night, and there were all these hot girls there!” Does it mean that the majority of women had beautiful faces? Etc.
It means there were a lot of women there who were reasonably attractive and looked like they enjoy, and want, sex.
This, by the bye, helps explain the dilemma that certain young Christian women find themselves in: “How come all the church guys ignore us in favour of the ‘hot’ heathen girls?” Because it can be hard for chaste, modest women to be “hot” if “hot” means a certain amount of sexual suggestion.
It’s real simple: “hot” means “I’d like to have sex with them”.
Cane Caldo hit the nail on the head.
I would add the provisio that while “hot” means “I’d like to have sex with her,” it simultaneously means, or at least implies, “plus, I think she’s easy” — usually because “I’m easy” is the signal she is blatantly giving off.
“Hot is an inborn male category. It refers to raw fertility signals, i.e. the probability of conception and high quality childbearing.”
Riiiight!
The sort of guy who says, “She’s hot!” has no desire to mate with the she in question. “She’s hot!” does not mean “I want to dedicate my life to making and rearing babies with her.”
Yeah. Context counts. If you saw an attractive woman at the opera, done up to the nines, you would say she was beautiful. But if she was wearing booty shorts and was drunk at a college football game, you would say she was hot.
There are also girls who fake “hot”, but who aren’t actually hot. Think of a chick at a nightclub wearing tons of makeup, hair extensions, fake tits and a miniskirt, but is genetically not that great looking. I much prefer the plain jane/sexy librarian look, but the girl at the nightclub is going to be the one described as hot.
“I much prefer the plain jane/sexy librarian look, but the girl at the nightclub is going to be the one described as hot.”
I’ve never in my life said “She’s hot!” … because the sort of women for whom and the context in which it is fitting repulse me.
Looks like you’ve got your answer, Haley. Let me turn the tables on you:
Usually a “hot” man falls into one of two categories:
1. He has a precision-toned body.
2. He is confident and dominant.
What does “confident and dominant” mean in the mouth of a woman?
Yeah, I’ve read Roissy. I know what I think it means. But I want to hear it from Haley.
Because it can be hard for chaste, modest women to be “hot” if “hot” means a certain amount of sexual suggestion.
This is where Candice Watters shows up to tell Christian men that they need to start seeking God’s standard of beauty, not man’s.
“Yeah, I’ve read Roissy. I know what I think it means. But I want to hear it from Haley.”
Wait a minute!. As I understand that … hmmm, interesting gentleman … nothing out of the mouth of a woman means *anything* at all.
I much prefer the plain jane/sexy librarian look
Glasses: +1?
The sexy librarian is kind of a mythical figure, though, isn’t she? Whenever I go to the library, the librarians are almost always plump, middle-aged moms, dowagers who have been in the system forever, or somewhat effeminate men.
And?
A Christian man is not looking for “hot” … and, for that matter, even the non-Christian men are looking for “hot” only for “fun,” never for anything they think of as “real” or “serious.” Though, men being men, they do frequently — by inertia — marry those (formerly) “hot babes.” And then everyone is miserable for several years, or for life.
Generally. But I once knew a young and shapely librarian. Though, sadly, she did have a terrible complexion.
What does “confident and dominant” mean in the mouth of a woman?
Generally, a man who is comfortable with who he is, is greatly respected by others, and is not cowed into submission by peers.
I really like the look of glasses, but part of me says “She has bad eyesight. Your kids will need glasses too!”
I’ve never seen a sexy librarian, but apparently there are some in Sweden. Maybe they will become the frumpy librarians of tomorrow :
http://www.viceland.com/int/v13n12/htdocs/fashion_uk.php
For the record, my ratings are:
1)Cute, but a little dark for me
2)Not bad
3)I would need a few (dozen) drinks
4)Man jaw, nice boobs
5)Not bad
6)Another man jaw, but she pulls it off somehow.
“1)Cute, but a little dark for me”
She has a good face and hair … but, sadly, she’s built like a brick (period, full stop). And her get-up says, “I’m intentionally trying for the ‘sexy librarian’ look, and I want there to be no mistake that that’s what I’m trying for.”
I married a sexy librarian.
Here in Australia, the Australian Library Association put out a sexy libarian calendar. It had one girl naked in a book trolley covered in books.
It was mostly for fun.
I think that’s false. I’d describe both and attainable and and unattainable girl as “hot”, and I would describe a pious woman who–nevertheless–stirred my desires, and the skank who revved me up both as “hot”. Whether she’s easy or not is neither here nor there for most men. That’s not to say that you, Ilion, don’t perform a calisthenics of the mind, and purposefully (piously) keep yourself from “hot-ing” a woman of good repute. Most of us dub women by reflex.
Which makes my point that “hot” is not necessarily related to “easy”.
The clubgirl scenario produces another good issue: women can mimic cues that will provoke most men to claiming she is hot, under low-wattage lights. In this particular case she is indeed showing herself to be easy, and that by itself can be attractive on a purely sexual level–provided the underlying materials aren’t awful.
Note that I said “can be attractive”, and not “is worthy”, or “is a good idea”.
Well so is the good woman, but we don’t stop searching for her.
Ecclesiastes 7:28
Lol. I think you should make “A Christian man is not looking for ‘hot'” your sig file so everyone knows to ignore your ‘insights.’
Audrey Hepburn in A Roman Holiday was beautiful, not hot, by today’s standards and I still certainly want to have sex with her. Ergo you’re wrong.
Then you don’t understand. About like reading books on programming without ever having done it, and then pointing out the contradictions on the internet in an attempt to disprove programming.
I understand perfectly: the man is moral scum. As are his followers.
And yet, “she’s hot!” seems never to be said of a beautiful woman who is dressed modestly and conducting herself decorously.
As in the example given by Mr Rossey’s disciple, Audrey Hepburn – whose beauty could make a man weak in the knees – would not be called “hot.” On the other hand, a Madonna (who was only of middling looks) or a Britney Spears (not much better) were, in their primes, the epitome of “hot.”
And perhaps you should make your sig line something like, “I’m a nice guy — really I am! — but I *have* to act (and think) like an asshole with respect to women, because only the assholes get laid by multiple women.“
Well, female mammals are fertile only some days of the month, when they are ovulating. They modify their body to signal that they are sexually receptive (in some species, the labia are reddened) so the males can come and inseminate. This is called “estrus”.
Female humans have “hidden estrus” or “concealed ovulation”, that is, their body doesn’t signal when they are ovulating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_ovulation). Furthermore, they don’t only have sex while ovulating but throughout the month.
This way, they must give signals of sexual receptivity that are voluntary (to dress with scant clothes, to paint their lips, to move in a sensual way). They can give sexual receptivity signals even if they are not sexually receptive, to get bonus from men.
So I think “she is hot” means:
1. Her body is at least moderately attractive (her face is less important).
2. She dresses and/or moves in a way that signals sexual receptivity (scant clothes, provocative dresses, sensual movements).
It is not that she is easy, it is that she dresses and/or moves in a way that makes you think you can get laid with her if you do the right moves.
But these signals are often fake. Women often signal sexual receptivity when they are not sexual receptive to get attention, drinks from men or envy from other women.
This is why a girl in a church cannot be “hot”. She cannot dress and move this way in a sacred place.
No, he is an unusually honest sinner and unbeliever. Judge not, lest ye also be judged. Nor am I his follower.
I’m not nice.
” because only the assholes get laid by multiple women.“”
Clearly you don’t understand the importance of cruelty and indifference in an LTR.
Carry on, I do enjoy watching an estrogenic beta get his dander up.
We’re dating semantics in a debate that presumes that the word has different meaning to different people. There’s going to be some difference in the definition because the question is one of personal or local-cultural opinion, rather than an objective standard.
This is why a girl in a church cannot be “hot”. She cannot dress and move this way in a sacred place.
Clearly you’ve not been to the same churches I have…
While the use of the vocabulary may signal such a demographic – i.e. “hot” is more overtly sexual – it’s also more contemporary and informal, and I’m not convinced that it’s exclusive to the love-them-and-leave-them group.
Desire between the sexes is a good thing, and as a good thing needs to be used properly. When we lose sight of that, we get all the behaviors we observe today, from the cad/slut hookups to the lonely and hurting singles.
1)Cute, but a little dark for me
You don’t like brunettes?
Also, I don’t understand the obsession with manjaws. Most women who are criticized (on the internet) for having manjaws are (a) still attractive and (b) not actually mannish-looking.
I like blue eyes. Brown hair is ok.
As far an man-jaws go, you are right. Most of the girls that people jump on for it are fine looking. Number 4 had a real lantern jaw going on though. I pointed out that number 6 had a strong jaw, but still looked attractive.
Hot is more about raw sex appeal — it tends to favor the younger, the sexier, the tighter bodies and do on. And, yes, clothing/deportment/makeup matters because it can increase/decrease the raw sex appeal. Hotness is a visceral thing.
Beauty is more varied and nuanced. There are many more women in the world who are beautiful than there are who are hot.
“Judge not, lest ye also be judged.”
Are you a fool … or just an ignoramus?
“Carry on, I do enjoy watching an estrogenic beta get his dander up.”
Ah! I see … you’re a liar. You claim to not be a disciple of Roissy (despite that anyone can see that you are) (*) — and then you follow it up with a sad attempted Roissyesque “insult.”
Oh! Boo-Hoo! A loser who despises all woman-kind, and yet imagines he can up his worth-as-a-man by getting loose women to bed him, has called ne a womanly “beta.”
Oh! Boo-Hoo! Whatever shall I do? How can I carry on, now? Is there any point in living a minute longer?
(*) But, perhaps you’re not a disciple because you’re sock-puppet for the fool himself.
“It is not that she is easy, it is that she dresses and/or moves in a way that makes you think you can get laid with her if you do the right moves.”
Which is to say, whether or not she *is* easy, her behavior says, “I’m easy.” Which is what I said.
Easy Sunshine.
If I’m the disciple of any Game author, it would be Narciso Babaero. Not that you have a clue who that is.
If it’s any consolation, I despise all mankind too.
If you are a holy roller who doesn’t believe in evolution, then you won’t believe in the scientific underpinnings of game.
Game in its simplest form states that women evolved to appreciate (relative) dominance in a mate, and that everybody seeks what they can’t have. Game merely seeks to re-imbue men with dominance, where 40 years of egalitarian brainwashing has made them wusses around women. It also teaches them not to appear needy.
There is nothing morally wrong with that, and a Christian can use it to make his wife lust for him and otherwise keep her in line as much as his secular counterpart uses it at the bar for less noble ends.
This.
Personally, I’m a catastrophist aprevistan who disbelieves the gradual Earth evolution narrative but posits it anyway for HBD and Game.
Even better than not appearing needy is actually not being needy. Unfortunately for our hostess, the men who have mastered that secret aren’t out playing head games with church girls (or bar girls), they are doing something with their lives. On weekends, they hang out with friends in activities and parties.
Joseph Dantes
You wrote:
“Clearly you don’t understand the importance of cruelty and indifference in an LTR.”
I am in an LTR (married) and genuinely curious. What have you specifically done to be cruel and indifferent in an LTR? It bothers me that I think you may be correct, but what is a moral man to do? I suspect I have been cruel and indifferent, but not on purpose so to speak.
On the question of brunettes, they are my favourite. Dark hair, blue eyes, fair skin. Perfect.
Hot is sexual attraction, and that is true for the Christian and non-Christian women. However, there is an added dimension for the Christian women that even Roissy (who I read) understands I think. A women who is ‘easy’ and has been intimate with a lot of men (contradiction in terms?) loses a certain hard-to-define attractiveness. As Roissy noted in one post, who can almost tell how many men a woman has been with by looking in her eyes. A woman who is attractive and is not going to be swayed no matter how good a guys game is, is both a challenge and alot more commanding of a guy’s attention.
Roissy and his epigones and acolytes overanalyse and claim to know more about women than they do. Roissy is right on a few major topics, but they read too much into a woman’s every little gesture. The recent post on the engaged girl showing off her ring was a particularly bad case of this. I frequent The Spearhead and Roissy. The denizens of the latter tend to have more success with women but there is a certain resentment among the men at both sites (and there seems to be a competition at Roissy as to who can report the most brutal sexual mistreatment of women).
As for knowing a slut by her look. I will give an anecdote. I fancied a cute, Irish-looking girl in college, years ago. She looked like the sweetest little virgin. No “thousand cock stare”. I later learned, from a reliable source, that she was quite the little tart.
Appearances can deceive.
A woman who is attractive and is not going to be swayed no matter how good a guys game is, is both a challenge and alot more commanding of a guy’s attention.
Unless they give up on her right away because she won’t put out.
(and there seems to be a competition at Roissy as to who can report the most brutal sexual mistreatment of women)
Many of Roissy’s regular commenters live in a world (of their own imagination) where every woman alive is evil, fat, and incapable of having a genuine loving emotion, and who only marries so she can get a divorce and ruin her ex-husband’s life by taking all of his money and cuckolding him. I don’t suppose this is very surprising, though, given the subject matter of the blog. Why would a happy, content man in a loving LTR want to read a blog like Roissy’s? It’s the unhappy and angry men who haven’t had success with women who devour his writings, and negativity is always louder than positivity.
I think your reaction is spot-on.
The most important skill for an LTR, in my opinion, is the ability to pass sh*t tests with the cold shoulder, or else eliminate them entirely with Narciso’s 3/5 beta/alpha strategy. (Alpha traits include elements of cruelty.)
You will find the best description of the cold shoulder in Iceberg Slim’s Story of My Life. You will find Narciso’s thoughts here: hvren.wordpress.com
You can also read my thoughts on Game at my blog. I’ll be adding more as time goes on.
Essentially, instead of getting into it with my girlfriend when she’s tetchy, I ice her down for 20 minutes to 3 hours by ignoring her. It always works, and attempting to employ any other solution always backfires.
I suspect that ignoring the woman for a while works because it is what players call a DHV. Being a woman, she will eventually come to you, physically or emotionally. She will break the silence, or join you in the room you have gone to.
The subordinate goes to the boss. She waits on him. She attends him. The submissive woman likewise goes to her husband. She makes a play for his attention. A good trick with a wife is to make her repeat a question. Make her work for your attention. Message: your time and attention is more valuable than hers.
If the woman wants closeness and affection and attention more than the man (and she typically does), the husband potentially has the upper hand.
” Why would a happy, content man in a loving LTR want to read a blog like Roissy’s?”
To learn more about women, society and PUAs.
Just because your relationship is happy doesn’t mean it can’t be improved by game. You fail to see the limitless potential for improvement.
You have to try this to understand it.
It’s like putting a shiv into her soul. It’s pure cruelty, but all subtextual.
Women communicate by subtextual rapport breaks. She’ll get the message loud and clear.
Huh? I would definitely call (young) Audrey Hepburn hot. I’d call her beautiful, too. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, and thank the Lord for that!
ASDF: “If you are a holy roller who doesn’t believe in evolution[ism], then you won’t believe in the scientific underpinnings of game.”
I am an educated, and more importantly, a rational, man who knows, rational, that evolutionism is false. I know that however old the universe is, and however it is that men came to be, evolutionism, being illogical and irrational, can never offer the correct explanation.
And you, having obviously surrendered you mind to illogical and irrational scientism have no clue as to what I just said.
“… who knows, rational[ly], …”
Uh, because although he is happy & content his wife is expressing that she is not happy, and the usual “christian” relationship teachings that call for even more obsequious behavior seem to be having the opposite effect…?
“Why would a happy, content man in a loving LTR want to read a blog like Roissy’s?”
What I don’t understand is why you so frequently approvingly reference the fool.
… which includes when you criticize the Boundless people while standing in his perspective.
Y81: “Even better than not appearing needy is actually not being needy.”
Indeed. And “Game” can never address this.
“Game” sissifies its devotees, it makes them un-men. It also makes them even more “pussy-whipped” than they were already (this is a different issue from the sissification, but it is related to unmanliness).
That’s because you’re from an older generation. By your generation’s standards, she was hot. By my generation’s standards, she’s a beauty, not hot.
By my absolute standards, she was a slut.
I disagree with this.
Roissy’s blog is frankly one of the more entertainingly written and culturally perceptive blogs out there. He also was the first to have a significant presence which combined (1) practical advice about women in the current sexual marketplace (which is generally accurate, as far as it goes, in terms of the goals set forth there) with (2) socio-cultural commentary that goes along with the SMP developments and helps to explain them.
There are quite a few married men in successful LTRs at Roissy’s blog. And, frankly, some of the techniques used in the kind of Game he espouses can also be fruitfully used in a marriage or LTR to maintain attraction — hence the appeal of the blog. Plus, at his best, Roissy is a very funny writer. Sadistic, of course, but funny.
@ASDF – you might gently point that creationist to Genesis 3:16. (to Eve)”…Yet your desire shall be for your husband. And he shall rule over you.”
He is a terrific writer. But his commenters can be such Debbie Downers…why a happily married man would want to imbibe their sour, angry attitudes about women seems counterproductive.
Sounds like backpedaling. Admitting he’s a terrific writer is reason enough to read him.
I don’t read the commenters anymore. So I kind of have to agree with you there. It’s a morass of stupidity.
Ilion: “Indeed. And “Game” can never address [neediness]”
You couldn’t be more wrong.
““Game” sissifies its devotees, it makes them un-men. It also makes them even more “pussy-whipped””
Wrong again.
Your critiques would be valid when applied to certain subsets of Game and certain phases of the typical PUA’s developmental path.
The PUA movement, while plagued with error like all bodies of knowledge, is quite self aware.
Or more simply: You’re embarrassing yourself by criticizing what you know nothing about.
You’d think this was a Polish market with all the sausage flying around here.
Novaseeker is basically correct. I read and comment on Roissy because a) I am interested in people, especially women and b) I am in a fairly happy, long marriage but I want to make it happier. A husband can learn some good things from these blogs. I take the good advice, and ignore the evil stuff, and some of it IS evil. I am not sure I shall continue, because some of it is a bit morally distracting for me. Also, I try, believe it or not, to present the perspective of a man who has had a bit of experience, but is also religious and trying to live a moral life.
Men and women are honest, or at least frank, on the Roissy site. I have learned a lot about women, from the men and the women who comment there. A lot you will not get in the textbooks, so to speak.
A lot of the truth about women is counterintuitive. A man needs constant reminders of this. Once you find out, for example, that being cold or obnoxious actually turns a lot of women on, it is very illuminating.
Like any really good idea, the female hypergamy theory (“game”) has many ramifications. It has helped me to look back on my life, and understand a lot of social and sexual phenomena I never did before. Like, why did the only cute girl in my old computing group fancy the most obnoxious man in our circle?
I was married, happily for a while. However my wife became increasingly cold and disrespectful as time went on, and I had no idea why. I was a classic beta husband (sounds like a 12-step confession). I did not demand her respect, and tolerated the behavior, thinking I was ‘saving’ the marriage. Now that the marriage is gone, I have stumbled onto Roissy and other game theory blogs, and have learned enough to change my life. Of course, if you are Christian, some of Roissy’s conclusions have to be sifted out, but I am convinced game theory is correct in its assumptions about today’s women. You can’t, even in a marriage, assume that being caring and a nice guy is going to cut it.
J.Dantes: “You couldn’t be more wrong.”
But I’ve already *seen* that you’re intellectually dishonest — which is to say, you’re worse than a liar.
“Wrong again.
Your critiques would be valid when applied to certain subsets of Game and certain phases of the typical PUA’s developmental path.
The PUA movement, while plagued with error like all bodies of knowledge, is quite self aware.”
Shall I translate that for you?
What you asserted is that I’m right … but wrong.
“Or more simply: You’re embarrassing yourself by criticizing what you know nothing about.”
Like I worry myself when persons I can clearly see are intellectually dishonest assert that I’m “embarrassing myself” because I criticize what they wish to protect from criticism.
Dex: “@ASDF – you might gently point that creationist to Genesis 3:16. (to Eve)”…Yet your desire shall be for your husband. And he shall rule over you.”
Don’t that just beat all? A ‘Science! worshipper — which is to say, someone who doesn’t understand the first damned thing about science (*) — and one who apparently has already willingly bent the knee to the empty little god of the atheists, has called me *GASP* a ‘creationist.’ Oh, my!
(*) The first damned thing about science is this: you can’t *get* from ‘this is scientific’ to ‘this is true’ via science. Science isn’t that robust.
knepper
You can’t demand a woman’s respect. The only times my wife has ever shown me anything like contempt have been when I have actually voiced a demand for her respect. Women like to be pulled along by their unspoken respect for you, not pushed along by a querulous husband.
A husband needs alpha and beta behaviour. Most modern husbands should up the alpha.
“You can’t, even in a marriage, assume that being caring and a nice guy is going to cut it.”
Whoa! Hold on: Game’s point is nothing but catering to women’s cares. What you should be discovering is that being caring doesn’t mean what you thought it meant. Vox Day had a good post on this yesterday.
The best lies (from the point of view of he who wishes to advance the lie) always contain some element of truth — the more individually true statements which can be bundled into the total lie, better the lie.
Thus, one should *expect* that “Game” contains some number of true statements.
Now, if/since one must sift out some “Game” conclusions as being false, that means:
1) some of the assumptions of “Game” are false;
2) the logic of “Game,” the reasoning by which one generates its conclusions from its assumptions is false;
3) both of the above.
I’d pick door 3).
“I was a classic beta husband …”
“Game” will not really help you to understand what happened. There is something seriously false built into “Game,” none of its statements can be trusted.
“You can’t demand a woman’s respect. … Women like to be pulled along by their unspoken respect for you, not pushed along by a querulous husband.”
Of course a man demands his woman’s respect — just as a woman demands her man’s respect.
Demanding respect is not done with “querulous” plea.
It’s pretty much like that every day here, though, isn’t it?
Agreed with the men above. I continue to read Roissy mostly out of habit, because I read him before I was married. However, nowadays I skip most of the commenters, only stopping for ones with proven track records like Thursday, and I mainly only read the political pieces.
For what it’s worth, I sorely wish that there were an equivalent Christian site that taught Game (Vox Day comes close at times) without the nihilism and sexual immorality, but there isn’t as far as I know.
“Game” will not really help you to understand what happened
For most men in this culture, this is not right.
Many marriages, including my own former one, collapsed in large degree due to too much betaness, not being masculine enough, and catering too much. It isn’t as simple as some make it out to be, but I would certainly say that most men of my generation and younger (I’m 43) need more alpha and not less. The whole nurturing/caring/cooperative/helpful schtick turns you into “the guy I love like my brother, but not the guy I’m in love with”. That doesn’t mean a husband should be unhelpful, uncooperative and so on, but that it all needs to be done in an alpha/lover frame. It’s way too easy for guys operating on cruise control in this culture to lose that frame, and when they do, boy do their wives just crucify them, mercilessly in many cases.
I should not have used the term ‘demanded her respect’. If I had known about game years ago, I might have changed my behavior to a more alpha-like state in time to save the marriage (or perhaps not). As far as what I discard from Roissy’s site, I am still working on that (and I agree with Novaseeker that a Christian Alpha website is crying out to be done). Just because Roissy is an atheist and I am not, doesn’t mean that I have to disagree with all of his conclusions. Truth is truth, and I believe it is true that the male behavior we call alpha works to attract females, just as its opposite works to repel them. This is true, despite the fact that ‘conventional wisdom’ as well as some mis-guided Christian teaching says that young men need to be sensitive, caring, good listeners, etc. in their relations with women.
Ilion is getting louder and crazier than a dozen yowling cats stitched into a corset.
“You can’t demand a woman’s respect. The only times my wife has ever shown me anything like contempt have been when I have actually voiced a demand for her respect.”
That’s part 1 of the lesson. Part 2 is learning to demand respect subtextually.
A husband should be like Christ. Like He really was. If your wife needs comfort, comfort her. If she is just being a silly woman, tell her so.
I have been “gaming” my wife all day (it’s Saturday here). It gets easier with time, and is actually less work than being a “nice guy”. I am happy. So is she. Women really do not want weak, supplicating men.
My earlier point was that women see spoken demands for respect as an admission of weakness. Which they are, when you think about it. Just assume she will comply. Generally, she will.
Samson
There are a few, small Christian alpha husband sites -and I try to push that perspective constantly in comments on various blogs I frequent. Maybe because I am older (55) and an Australian, I grew up in a more masculine friendly environment; and I now suspect that I have a fair bit of natural “game”, which I can impart. Even just expressing my opinions and attitudes frankly seems to convey a clear message.
Anonymity helps of course. “David Collard” is not my real name.
If you go on a blog and just give your genuine opinion and feelings, you will anger some people (I have had some really bad reactions of late), but I feel I am doing good on balance. And I like doing it. I also present a rare view – very alpha but very traditional – which should be heard. Many men are beta and traditional OR alpha and libertine. My take is unusual.
As I said, there are some Christian male alpha blogs, but they are small beer. I have thought of starting one myself, but I am too busy in ordinary life. Your best bet might be to try some of the “ladies auxiliary”. Full of Grace, Seasoned with Salt is run by Laura, who has very traditional views. The Thinking Housewife is good but very strait-laced. I have an Internet friend, a woman, who goes by various pennames including Alte and Cecilia. She is good value, but has no blog at present. She does have a website, but I can’t seem to open it at present. It is called Complementarian Marriage, and is a distillation of her opinions. She has traditional views on marriage, but she is a real red-blooded woman, so I think she writes with special force.
Of course, you have to behave yourself a bit at such lady sites. (Although Alte/Cecilia didn’t mind a bit of male bravado). All three ladies are Christians.
The Coming Night is another blog written by a female and like The Lost Art of Self-Preservation (for Women) is fairly traditional.
Samson, you may already know all this. The thing is too that the manosphere is dominated by a few big sites (The Spearhead, Roissy, In Mala Fide), and none of them is explicitly Christian.
Vox Day knows about game. But he seems to be a natural, and does not write about it often. He is not integrated into the manosphere. He is less specialised than that. Laurence Auster is very traditional but he does not like game. Steve Sailer is an intelligent conservative, but he tends to obsess about race, not sex (like a normal bloke!)
@Ilion – you might just have me confused with someone else, homey. If the appellation “creationist” sticks in your craw, that wasn’t my intent. Take a deep breath. All that anger isn’t good for you.
Sweetie-pie, “creationist” no more “sticks in my craw” than your passive-aggressive bitchiness does.
Manosphere is so ovarian. I prefer “Maniverse.”
Good job!
Concerning the amusing wish for a Christian “Game” site … how, exactly, does one go about regarding one’s spouse as a means to one’s ends, in a Christian manner? How does one hone one’s skill at passive-aggressively manipulating one’s spouse, in a Christian manner? How does one exercise that passive-aggressive skill at manipulating one’s spouse, in a Christian manner?
OR: how does a man better learn to display and exercise the sorts character flaws which are stereotypically female character flaws, and yet remain a man in his wife’s eyes?
Damn! If you insist upon having character flaws, at least work on having masculine character flaws.
Let’s see: the biggest and most recurring (*) bitch men have about women is that they never *say* what they want (until have themselves in a rage, of course) … and yet they expect us to just *know* — “If you loved me, you’d *know* [what’s bothering me]/[what I want]” — and then that they deploy passive-aggressive “hints” to attempt to control (and change!) us … you know, that ol’ “subtextual communication.”
(*) And the second biggest is probably about that perennial “You never open up to me” … and, if that’s the second, the third would be that they don’t actually listen when we do.
So, yeah, I can see that once men are behaving like women, everything between the sexes will be fine!
Novaseeker, do you mind my asking you a personal question? Do you think your marriage would have survived, had you had the legendary “tight game”? I hope you don’t mind my asking, because you once said, IIRC, that your wife was very career-minded. Was this also part of the problem?
Please excuse the personal question.
Ilion
I can only give my experience. It is that of a man who will have been married to the same female for nearly 25 years (next January). She is a good woman, as women go, and what the Japanese call a “tofu wife”. That is, a good basic housewife.
But she has given me some difficult moments. She is volatile. She has a temper.
I have always been naturally a bit cool and arrogant, and I think this has helped. But being a husband and father of three children tends to “betaise” a man. He naturally wants his wife to still see him as a man and a lover. I still want regular sex.
None of this happens without a bit of effort. All “game” does is codify what men used to know almost instinctively, and society used to teach them.
I am a Traditional Catholic. I believe, as the Church has taught for two thousands years, that the man has authority over his wife. I don’t have much compunction about this. So using “game” to dominate her, subtly, is not a moral issue for me.
I have asked my wife once or twice why she married me. She prevaricated, and women are not terribly reflective in my experience, or they choose not to tell. But I have come to suspect it was because I turned her on by being cocky, arrogant and a bit cold. The way men often are, until society tells them to be soft, sappy and supportive.
I have done a lot of hard work with my children, mundane stuff, as well as earning a good living. I have paid my “beta” dues in full. But I want the alpha goodies as well: a compliant wife, and the traditional rights of a husband.
As for regarding one’s wife as a means to an end – if you can’t see that your wife was, in Christian terms, made to be your helpmate, and that she is the only “means” to the “end” of your having children, to take one example, then you have let society caponise you, Ilion.
In terms of brute numbers, yes, but there’s not usually so much sword-fighting.
Appreciate the info about existing Christian game blogs. I already read Vox Day and like his viewpoint on most things. Ilion, either you don’t understand what game is or you are willfully misrepresenting it. Using game is simply being more masculine, properly defined. As has been pointed out on Roissy, it starts out as an act if you are a beta, but in time it becomes who you are, and it is a welcome change. It is no more manipulation than being wimpy and supplicating toward your wife manipulates her into disrespecting her.
Ilion, don’t let me interrupt your act, I just wanted to rub this in:
My girl likes to interrupt me while I’m working. She comes over and sits in my lap. This week she’s been complaining about her boobs getting bigger. Frankly, I have to agree.
“Game will not really help you to understand what happened”
BS. Game explain all my relationships: from the high school to now that I am 40.
When I had given up to the temptation of rejecting Game and being beta (which is my natural trend), I have come to regret it. My current relationship has problem because of that.
Ignore Game at your own peril
|snicker|
I think it would have required very tight Game. Ambitious career women, like my ex, need even *more* alpha than average — so more Game, on average, than the typical woman. It’s because an ambitious career woman already has quite a few high-T/alpha-male characteristics of her own — and it takes an even higher dose of alpha from the man to be able to be the “man” in the equation.
Having said that, I would not marry another woman like that, if I were ever to marry again (unlikely). It’s just way too much work, and way too risky, really, in my opinion.
Being more masculine, properly defined, means having other things on your mind than boinking girls you meet in bars. When I met my wife, I would (if I had thought about it) have described my priorities as work/equestrianism/metaphysical poetry/Jesus/girls. (Since then, Jesus has moved up the list, and family has been added to the list.) What has never been on the list is mind games with women. What kind of trivial idiot has that on his list of priorities?
That is why I feel sorry for our hostess: she is looking for a man who thinks about relationships with the intensity that women think about relationships, but the only men who think about relationships to that degree have wildly different priorities from the average woman.
y81
I agree that a man must put something else ahead of women. Women are not that important. It reminds me of a line from a comedy, I think starring Chris Rock, “I have seen men lose money by chasing women, but not lose women by chasing money”.
I would replace “women” with something more meaningful in that saying, but it expresses a valuable truth. Do not make the woman your mission. Put God first, or some principle, not your woman. She will follow you, if you follow God.
That said, a husband needs to understand women enough so that he knows how to handle his wife with minimum effort. That is what “game” is really useful for. Once he understands how women work, and why they act nuts most of the time, he has it made.
Novaseeker, didn’t you post somewhere (here? Roissy’s? can’t remember) that you have a girlfriend and are not having sex with her? If you don’t intend to marry again, is your girlfriend okay with permanent, sexless girlfriend status? (If I’m wrong on any count, please correct me.)
Good, ’cause it looked like you got a little freaked out about it. I’ll be more gentle in my word choice, in case you don’t have your midol handy next time.
Wow, if someone told me I needed to take my midol I think I’d crawl under a rock from embarrassment.
I haven’t made any final decisions as to whether I will remarry or not, but I am very skeptical about marriage under this regime, and we have had that discussion. I do not assume that she would be okay with permanent girlfriend status, no — at some stage a decision will need to be made one way or the other.
Stay strong brotha. As improbable as it sounds, the decision can be indefinitely delayed.
Thank you, sunk costs :)
I do not assume that she would be okay with permanent girlfriend status, no — at some stage a decision will need to be made one way or the other.
Well, I hope that you make your decision sooner rather than later. Every day she stays with a man who doesn’t want to marry her is a day she can’t use to find one who does. (And, as manosphere readers know, every day she becomes less attractive to a prospective suitor.)
I wouldn’t even have noticed the fool’s dribblings had you not pointed them out. And, frankly, after reading his dribblings, I didn’t see that much in them that was amusing enough to rate a snicker.
But then, I know that if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen two; and I’ve seen at least two.
To you fellows who imagine that “Game” can tell you what went wrong in your prior relationship or marriage (that’s what I’m going to focus on) and how to avoid the problem next time —
— even knowing nothing you except that you grew up in this feminized culture and that you’re divorced, I can offer you a far more accurate diagnosis of what when wrong than you’ll ever get out of “Game.”
To start with, you never courted your wife; rather, you dated her. Now, the vital difference between courting and dating is that courting points toward a desired end – marriage – and that desired end-state is explicit from the very beginning; whereas, dating is about … well, nothing, like Seinfeld.
So, from the very beginning of the relationship, rather than an attitude of “I desire, more than anything, to make this woman my wife, and shall consciously direct my efforts to that end,” your attitude was, “I kinda like her, so lets see what happens.”
And, what “happens” is, of course, that you engaged in sexual activity with her – not only before she was actually your wife, but before the subject of marriage had even been broached. You may even have eventually shacked up for a year (or three) before actually getting married. Either of these, disregarding any other false steps, greatly increased the odds that you’d eventually end up in divorce court.
Now, understand, I’m not calling you a cad because you [bad-word]ed (*) your not-yet-wife. She was pressuring you to do so at least as much as your libido was telling you could disregard human nature (and thousands of years of history) and it would all work out for the two of you.
(*) I assure you, you did not “make love” to/with your not-yet-wife, you [bad-word]ed her. And, in fact, even after you did marry her, most of whatever sexual activity you did manage (**) was not “making love,” but was just more [bad-word]ing.
If you “make love” to anything, it was not to a woman, but to a piece of latex. The woman served mostly as a receptacle to hold the latex in place. Or, perhaps she was on The Pill, and so you were able physically to dispense with the piece of latex – it didn’t matter, for, psychologically the latex was still there: the two of you were not “making love,” you were “getting your rocks off.”
Understand, I’m not a Catholic – I never can be a Catholic, for I am convinced that Catholicism is seriously wrong about some important theological issues – but regarding the relationship-killing nature of all forms of artificial contraception, Catholic teaching is correct. And, after all, the institution of the Roman church has been closely and consciously studying human beings for 1700 or 1800 years … one expects that by now the institution does understand a few things about humans.
(**) Getting your wife to have sexual relations with you was generally a chore – unless she wanted at the moment to manipulate you – because your wife’s whole attitude toward sex was poisoned by:
1) the fact that the two of you engaged in sexual activity before you were married;
2) that she pressured you for that sexual activity – because:
2a) she wanted to prove that she “had it” – she wants to believe that she can make a man be irrational;
2b) she sought to use sex to manipulate you in various ways, including the silly “moving the relationship to the next level;”
3) that you gave in to that pressure, meaning:
3a) you did not respect yourself (you were not a man; at best you were a boy);
3b) you did not respect her;
4) that most of your sexual activity involved artificial contraception, meaning:
4a) that the sex was not an expression of love, of oneness, but merely of “getting your rocks off.”
Then, you finally did marry the woman … out of inertia; and because you’re not a cad. And because she was pressuring you to “move the relationship to the next level.”
Now, you, being a man, for men are actually the more romantic of the sexes (and not being a cad), probably really did love her by the time you married. But, she did not love you … for, since you continuously allowed yourself to be manipulated by her, she did not (and could not!) respect you. And no one can love whom he or she does not respect. She married you because her attitude was, “You *owe* this to me – you owe me ‘My Special Day.’ And by damn, I’m gonna have it!” She cared about the wedding, playing dress-up; the marriage was a distant after-thought.
The missteps which lead you, like night to day, to divorce court had nothing to do with being a “Beta” (as though that silly terminology has anything to do with human beings). It was because you did not respect yourself, you did not respect her, and you did not demand/command her respect toward you.
And, because building a solid marriage was not your conscious goal from the very beginning of the relationship. You drifted into marriage … and then you drifted out of it, for your wife had decided to “move the relationship to the next level.”
Because I copied-and-pasted at times, there are some typos, including in verb-tense; I must trust the reader to figure those out.
A fool said: “Wow, if someone told me I needed to take my midol I think I’d crawl under a rock from embarrassment.”
I don’t doubt that you would.
But then, you’re not really a man. You’re a woman with a dick.
… to be more precise, you’re a high-school girl with a dick.
Another fool said: “Good, ’cause it looked like you got a little freaked out about it. I’ll be more gentle in my word choice, in case you don’t have your midol handy next time.”
Oh! Sweetie, I’m all out. Would you be a dear and lend me some of yours?
Y81: “Being more masculine, properly defined, means having other things on your mind than boinking girls you meet in bars.”
Indeed. And “Game” aficionados, no matter how “Alpha” they imagine themselves to be, are every bit as “pussy-whipped” as the schlub who allows his wife humiliate him.
“Ilion, either you don’t understand what game is or you are willfully misrepresenting it. Using game is simply being more masculine, properly defined.”
Silly boy!
“Game” is all about helping feminized man-boys better connect to their “inner girl.” “Game” is all about further feminizing the already-feminized so-called men of present-day culture.
Men are not sneaks; they do not play the manipulative games that “Game” teaches; they do what they do openly and directly — why do you think that all other little boys despise the boy who is a sneak, or who is a manipulator? Its because he acts like a girl (to be more precise, he displays a character flaw which is stereotypically feminine; it’s not that *all* girls are manipulators or sneaks).
The children cannot bear to have the silly (and foolish) ideas to which they have begun to bend the knee critically examined.
Ilion
I did court my wife. I have only had one wife, and we have been married for nearly 25 years. We have three children. I read game blogs and relationship blogs to help me to deal with a wife who is probably about as difficult as the average woman.
Women can be very hard to cope with. My wife was angry with me, off and on, all day yesterday. I was a bit unwell, which put extra burden on her. But it does not take much to put a woman off. Whatever else people tell you, do understand that women are pretty volatile – always. They don’t calm down much as they get older.
And do you know what this old married chap of 55 did to cope? He “iced the bitch”, as Joseph puts it at his blog. And it worked like a charm. That is game in action. Nobody got hurt, I received the usual wifely services, and the household ran fairly smoothly. Despite my wife being a TYPICAL WOMAN.
I am NOT a player. I have only had sex with two different women in my entire life. I just want a happy marriage. I probably have more natural alpha than some men, but I still need to understand the principles of what makes women tick. “Game” is the only thing that actually works. I am a religious man, and I have read a lot of marriage advice, religious and secular, but only “game” makes sense as theory and works in practice.
But, she did not love you … for, since you continuously allowed yourself to be manipulated by her, she did not (and could not!) respect you. And no one can love whom he or she does not respect.In my understanding of “game”, this is probably the most succinct explanation of the core of “game”. The rest is just details as to how to go about it.
Ilion –
How wrong you are.
Let’s tick them off for you.
To start with, you never courted your wife; rather, you dated her. Now, the vital difference between courting and dating is that courting points toward a desired end – marriage – and that desired end-state is explicit from the very beginning; whereas, dating is about … well, nothing, like Seinfeld.
So, from the very beginning of the relationship, rather than an attitude of “I desire, more than anything, to make this woman my wife, and shall consciously direct my efforts to that end,” your attitude was, “I kinda like her, so lets see what happens.”
Nope. The idea of marriage was there from the beginning. We were both virgin RCs at the time and kept it that way, precisely because the potentiality of marriage was on the table. Nice try.
And, what “happens” is, of course, that you engaged in sexual activity with her – not only before she was actually your wife, but before the subject of marriage had even been broached.
Nope again. See above. Both entered marriage as virgins and no shacking up.
attitude toward sex was poisoned by: 1) the fact that the two of you engaged in sexual activity before you were married; 2) that she pressured you for that sexual activity – because: 2a) she wanted to prove that she “had it” – she wants to believe that she can make a man be irrational; 2b) she sought to use sex to manipulate you in various ways, including the silly “moving the relationship to the next level;” 3) that you gave in to that pressure, meaning: 3a) you did not respect yourself (you were not a man; at best you were a boy); 3b) you did not respect her; 4) that most of your sexual activity involved artificial contraception, meaning: 4a) that the sex was not an expression of love, of oneness, but merely of “getting your rocks off.”
Nope, none of it applied to me or my marriage or pre-marriage. No shacking up, no artificial contraception, no pre-marital sex .. need I go on, Mr. Presumption-In-Chief? In any case, for the record … wrong again.
Then, you finally did marry the woman … out of inertia; and because you’re not a cad. And because she was pressuring you to “move the relationship to the next level.”
Nope, we were engaged at our one year anniversary of our first date, ahem, “courting encounter”, ahem. Nice try, again, but still wrong. Keep this up and you’re going back to the minor leagues, son.
The missteps which lead you, like night to day, to divorce court had nothing to do with being a “Beta” (as though that silly terminology has anything to do with human beings). It was because you did not respect yourself, you did not respect her, and you did not demand/command her respect toward you.
Nope. Other stuff happened during the marriage, of course, but nothing that you have written here resembles anything that happened in my relationship with my ex-wife, either before or after we were married. It’s a nice try, Ilion, but you so obviously have no clue that you’re just a useless waste of time reading. Save yourself the energy, mate.
Alpha: she works for you.
Beta: you work for her.
If you fall into too much beta, she will lose respect for you.
When your wife asks you to “please” do things; when she checks if it is OK to make purchases; when she reports to you on the number of loads of laundry she has done during the day – you are the alpha.
Ilion, I don’t disagree with alot of what you posted in your long post. But I don’t see that your points refute what is loosely (and maybe that is the problem)referred to as game. I agree that you can’t love someone unless you first respect them. My wife’s disrespect level for me increased every year of our marriage. I realize now that my over-eagerness to please her, or at least pacify her, contributed to her disrespect. Perhaps it is the poisonous feminized atmosphere around us that drives women to disrespect men who are too nice to them, but it is what it is.
The last year of our marriage was hell, as she literally treated me like a piece of furniture, encouraged our daughter to disrespect me, and began making plans to move in with another man behind my back. Yet she justified it in her own mind, saying that I ‘wasted’ valuable years of her life.
Ilion, women despise men who let them get the upper hand. They viscerally hate men whom they are tied to but can’t respect. It is almost animal.
Thanks David, this made my day!
Oddly, she did all those things this evening. She asked if she could “please” go out to a meeting tonight. She complained that she had done three loads of laundry on the weekend, and what had I done?! And she asked me if she could buy a CD of “angel” music, and then quickly added, “I will anyway”. Which made me think, well, why ask me? Her instincts are to seek my approval.
She works for me.
“The reason Game works is that it is a pale, corrupted reflection of the truth.” — Vox Day
And yet, he wastes time and effort analyzing human beings in terms of something he consciously knows to be false. Meanwhile you kiddies refuse to see that “Game” is false, and react irrationally to attempts to help you see/understand that it is false.
I wonder, now that ‘Vox Day’ has explicitly stated that “Game” is false, how will the kiddies react to that? Maybe one of you can discount what he has said as due to his “being on the rag” when he wrote that post.
I see JD and DC have officially called the Internet Alpha Society weekly meeting to order…who is taking the minutes?
Argumentum ad verecundiam
By that logic, we should immediately kill every convert because this is the state of the whole world. VD is referencing a fairly respected author: St. Paul. “For now we see through a glass darkly…” This sight, however admittedly meager, is all we have. Further, you’ve talked yourself into eliminating practice, and the virtues of endurance. Not born a Mozart? Never touch a key because you’re faking it.
Humans can recognize the good mixed into evil things without compromising themselves. “Be wise as serpents, but innocents as doves.” That includes knowing how people actually behave, and not just how they should. Life is a dangerous game, but it’s the only one going, and this is not the intellectual hill you should die on.
You idiot, he said GAME WORKS.
If my happiness in any way depended on my hope for your eventual enlightenment, I’d be slitting my wrists right now.
You can, b*tch.