21 August 2012

God and Game


This recent post by Cane Caldo has been making some waves recently (hat tip).  It’s been pretty well addressed in the comments, and also by Vox and, interestingly, GBFM.  I don’t have much more to add, but I would like to address this particular assertion:
No man can serve two masters. Serving women–that is, Feminism; that is, the Matrix–is what Game is all about. Understand her desires. Fulfill her desires. Reap pleasure from her desires. This is Feminism twisted back on itself. Game attempts to use the Matrix to get in Feminist pants. Christianity means to send Feminism to Hell.
Unless I’m mistaken, Cane has apparently never read I Corinthians 7 or I Peter 3.  In I Cor.7:3-5, Paul says:
Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.  The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.  Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. [Emphasis added, obviously.]
In I Peter 3:7, Peter says:
Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered. [Emphasis added.]
In the first passage, Paul is specifically addressing the matter of sex (“don’t deprive one another…”) in regards to spirituality.  His point is that neither partner should deprive the other of sex, except by mutual consent, for a limited, and only in deference to spiritual things (“fasting and prayer”).  In laying down this law of non-deprivation, Paul says that the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife.  Obviously, in light of Ephesians5, this does not mean that wives are heads over their husbands.  Rather, the context implies that no husband ever has the right to intentionally refuse to satisfy his wife’s sexual needs, save for those times when they mutually consent to refrain from sexual activity for the purpose of spiritual development.  This is the general principle of the passage.

In keeping with this principle, then, it should become readily apparent that husbands are expected to sexually satisfy their wives, and vice versa.  Now, as should be obvious to all honest adults that have full exercise of their faculties, men and women are different.  Biologically, neurologically, physiologically, etc.  As such, it should not be surprising that men and women are sexually satisfied in different ways.  Game is a tool that can be used to understand the nature of female sexual desire, and can provide strategies to successfully sate that desire.  Since husbands are expected by God to sexually satisfy their wives, and since Game is a way of understanding how to go about that, it is logical to conclude that Game provides a way to enable men to satisfy their wives.

This conclusion is also backed up by Peter, who commands husbands to dwell with their wives “with understanding.”  The expectation is that men take time to understand what makes their respective wives tick.  Obviously, this has broader connotations than mere sexual desire; nonetheless this connotation is in keeping with the underlying principle of the passage.  Again, men are expected to understand their wives, and that would include understanding their wives’ sexuality.

Thus, Cane’s assertion that no man can serve two masters is a non sequitur in this instance since God clearly expects men to service (heh) their wives.  Thus, fulfilling a woman’s desires is not inherently sinful.  In fact, it is expected within the sexual context of marriage.  Therefore, there is nothing inherently sinful in understanding or fulfilling a woman’s desires, especially if the woman in question happens to be one’s wife.

Furthermore, the implicit doctrine that a man should never seek to make his wife happy (or bring pleasure to her) is not consistent with Biblical principle.  Being the head over a woman is not a command to ignore her desires or willfully deprive her of what she wants.*  In fact, one principle of headship, within the confines of marriage, is that one is expected to make his wife happy sexually.  At least that’s what I take away from Deuteronomy 24:5.

Anyway, the point in all this is:  understanding a woman’s sexual desire and seeking to satisfy it is not sinful in any way.  It is actually expected in marriage.  One is not therefore serving two masters by seeking to please his wife.  One is actually rendering service to God (in a sense) when one renders service (heh) to one’s wife.  Or, to state it another way, God is pleased when men satisfy their wives.  God is also pleased when women satisfy their husbands.  Therefore, no man should feel ashamed for trying to understand the nature of his wife’s desire, or by seeking to satisfy it.

In closing, I would like to point out the obvious:  Game can be used for sin.  So can sex.  Fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, etc. are all sinful behaviors and are all manifestations of the sexual desire that God created within man.  Now, these manifestations are perversions, to be sure; nonetheless, they are manifestations all the same.  My point here is that it is not sexual desire that is inherently sinful, but rather how that desire is exercised.  Likewise with Game. The application of Game is not inherently sinful, but it can be used for wrong.  Conversely, it can be used for right, and so it behooves us to do just that.

Incidentally, and on a somewhat related note, I have previously asserted that Game is a subset of Christianity.  I still stand by this assertion, and further note that the principles of Game are not only consistent with Biblical teaching, but practically demanded by it. 

* Note for the more autistic readers:  This does not mean that one should constantly seek to serve a woman or always make her happy, or always supplicate to her.  It simply means that there is no point of holiness or piety in ignoring one’s wife’s needs.  There must be a proper balance between the two extremes.  Don’t be a slave to a woman’s emotions and needs, but don’t ignore them completely, either.

8 comments:

  1. You are citing letters written by apostles to specific churches (not addressed to you or I, and never intended for inclusion in a biblical canon, which came much later). Cite Jesus' words instead.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You have given the clearest Biblical response to Caldo. Straight forward, dead on.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Anon.- You need to take your trolling somewhere else.

    @SoAG- Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for writing about this Simon. I admit: I checked back here to see if you'd tackle the topic--dogpile though it had already become.

    One of the things that has been interesting to me is what Game tools Christian Game writers decide to pick and choose from among the box, and how they make those decisions.

    Of course I have read 1 Corinthians 7 and 1 Peter 3, and of course I must submit to the good teaching of them. What they say in toto is far different than what the best, most technical, Game writers say; with far different implications.

    In fairness to me: in your linked post "The Theology of Game" you make basically the same point on not serving two masters. Game writers very much have a focus on serving themselves; as does Feminism, and since non-Christian Game will readily use--and exort others to use--Feminist claptrap in the course of their Gaming...this is surely what I was referring to.

    I did like The Theology of Game, and I missed it before.

    And it's a straw man that I ever said a husband should not try to please or pleasure his wife.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is quite a Dalrockian post. Full of win.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Cane- My sincere apologies; I didn't mean to be so snarky. I was in a pretty pissed mood when I wrote this, hence the potshots. I generally use writing as a form of therapy, and that doesn't always make for polite writing, as you can see. Again, my sincere apologies.

    I agree that Game has a broader application than what the Bible allots. the same is true of food, sex, wine, and a host of other things. That a given thing can be used for evil does not make it intrinsically evil. Sex can be used for evil (fornication, et al.), and for good (marital bonding, reproduction, etc.). Sex, then, is amoral, just like Game. Its morality is contingent on how it is used.

    In all honesty, I'm now not entirely sure what you meant in the passage I excerpted in this post. Any of my initial misunderstanding was unintentional. However, it would be helpful if you clarified better what you meant. If it helps, I wasn't able to follow your Matrix metaphor that well, even though I just watched that movie again a couple of weeks ago. I will, however, address the paradox of Christian service and submission in a separate post.

    You did say that no man can serve two masters. I took that to mean that you thought that a man who was concerned with serving God should concern himself with serving his wife (by implication, in the realm of sexual pleasure). Not that one must make his wife miserable, per se, but that one need not concern himself with actively ensuring his wife's pleasure. If I misunderstood, I'm sorry.

    @Borepatch- Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just saw this.

    No apology necessary. The Matrix analogy was convoluted. Part of that was bad stylistic choices: I don't care for the second and third movies very much, so I didn't want to include them. I should have, because Roissy is much more like the Merovigian than an agent, or Cypher. Much more.

    Or, maybe I should have just skipped The Matrix altogether. It's so tempting because of Red Pill concept is already embedded in Game; and because, generally, The Matrix is a powerful metaphor for escaping and understanding the system, subtexts, etc. Too tempting by half, it would seem.

    Regardless, it's a pleasure to meet people like you, Vox, Dalrock, and others in the ring.

    Yo Adrianne!

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Cane- yeah, you might have wanted to skip the Matrix metaphor. The red pill metaphor is pretty much a metaphor unto itself now. And it's been a pleasure meeting you. Feel free to hang out in the comments section whenever you want.

    ReplyDelete