I like Cane Caldo; he always makes for an interesting read. He also provides a lot of blog fodder, which is also a bonus, and brings us to this post:
Recently I’ve been told again that I have an improper understanding of Game; that my definition is not great because I put a great deal of focus both on the word and on the concept of seduction; which is enticement towards evil. It is stated, implied, and assumed that therefore I don’t understand what Game means, or what it is; that if I actually understood Game, or if I actually understood its application that I’d be able to–as a Christian–understand that it’s a matter of seducing the right woman into marriage. Not convincing (that’s something losers do), but getting a woman to like a man so much that she wants to have his babies, and that continuance of this seduction will lead to a happy wife happy life (enjoying her life, and happy do his bidding) scenario.
Let’s start with consulting the dictionary. Merriam-Webster’s defines seduction as, “the act of seducing; especially: the enticement of a person to sexual intercourse; something that seduces; something that attracts or charms.” Astute readers will note that this definition of seduction makes absolutely no assertion towards the morality of its ends. Seducing a woman for sex can be good (like getting your wife into bed) or it can be bad (like getting someone else’s wife into bed), but there is nothing intrinsic to seduction that makes it good or bad. So, Cane’s understanding of seduction is not great because he apparently doesn’t even know what the word “seduction” even means.
To be fair: Pro-Game folks hate that phrase. They’d much rather turn it around and say that Game stops a wife from being unhappy and from the man having an unhappy life. Damned if I can see the difference.
Since Paul says, at least regarding sex, that, “the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does…” and that husbands and wives should, “not deprive one another except with consent for a time…” perhaps it might be wise to step back and consider whether men can use Game as a tool to make sure their wives are happy (if you know what I and the apostle Paul mean). What women find sexually satisfying is different from what men find sexually satisfying. Game, as a tool of seduction, helps to illuminate the differences and explain how to make a woman happy in bed. Since men are commanded to not deprive their wives, and since wives have authority over their husband’s body when it comes to sex, men have a God-mandated obligation to do their best to satisfy their wives sexually. If Game (or seduction) is necessary to that end, so be it. Also, get over yourself.
It’s also said–particularly by those of the Vox Day Alpha Game Plan persuasion–that an understanding of Game unlocks the secrets of a contented existence; not just in marital or sexual relations but across the human experience. In other words, it would open one’s eyes to the various things that the Neoreactionary and Dark Enlightenment folks have been going on about. With that in mind, let’s look at his definition of Game; written in response to my very first post in the Men’s Sphere, and hosted by my friend Dalrock.
Vox Day: A much better definition of Game is this: the conscious attempt to observe and understand successful natural behaviors and attitudes in order to artificially simulate them.
So, Game–in it’s broadest sense–is about looking at men who have found success in the world, calling that worldly success good, and then imitating it to the point that these habits of worldly success are internalized and then realized. [Minor formatting changes for clarity—ed.]
As Vox points out, Cane’s assertion is false. Vox, and most others who write on the subject, view Game as amoral. While Vox notes that Game is successful to achieving its ends, he never has claimed that Game is intrinsically good. In logic, this is known as building a straw man. In the Old Testament, this would be called bearing false witness. Cane is simply being dishonest, and conclusions drawn from this dishonesty are invalid.
Now the first thing to accept if we accept Vox’s idea is that Christ failed at this. He was literally born in a barn (the very phrase we throw at those who have no civilization whatsoever) and slept where animals eat; symbolically, He was food for the stupidest animals, and not only animals, but the animals who are too stupid to remain wild. This all happens under suspicious circumstances, born to probably a teenage mother and a father who was not His biological father; without schooling, without wealth; indeed without ANY of the trappings that we consider worldly success. When He grew up He quit His job, and took up bumming around to tell a tiny beat-down nation of sell-outs, sheepherders, ragamuffins, and whores who cut on their sons’ genitals about a God they did not know.
At first, He got some followers; quite a lot of them. Then those throngs dwindled down to a mere 72, and then to 12 disciples; salt of the earth crackpots the lot of them. Eventually, each of those 12 would desert Him, and Jesus would be hung on the cross for (a whole lot of) something He didn’t do. After his death, the only one’s who gave a hoot about Him was a handful of spinsters. Pathetic.
This is some really impressive argumentation as it is both unsound and invalid, and quite irrelevant to boot. In the first place, Cane’s recounting of Christ’s life is simply wrong on a host of details. The assertion about Mary’s age is unprovable and speculation is unjustified. There is no indication that he was unschooled; rather, his ability to read from the law would prove that he had some education. His lack of massive wealth was deliberate, but even with that he and his apostles were still given money. He also didn’t “bum around,” as he was on a mission. As for his followers, he was pretty much able to attract a large crowd. During his last week on earth, his arrival to the capital city of his nation was greeted with massive crowds praising his name (for the numerically-challenged Cane, “multitude” is greater than 12). Jesus hung on a cross because the political leaders of his day were afraid he would usurp them. Immediately after his death, his tomb was visited by not only some spinsters, but a few of his apostles as well. Forty days after his death, at least three thousand souls were baptized in his name and became his disciples. Trying to pretend that Christ was some unsuccessful schmuck who just stumbled through life only to have his name lost in the annals of history is simply such a dishonest portrait of the man that perhaps only Satan himself would be brazen enough to tell such a lie.
Quite simply, Christ had and has a following that every man seeking power would kill for. Christ was successful at getting people following him, even in the two millennia after his death, that corrupt power-seeking men have found it easier to corrupt Christianity instead of combatting it. Christ’s kingdom is global and transcend ethnicity, sex, status, nationality, and a host of other divisive markers. People only continue to attack it precisely because it is such a massive and successful kingdom. People only continue to try to corrupt it precisely because it is so massive and successful. Even the most intractable atheist, when pressed, will concede that CHRISTiantity is the most successful human movement in all of history. So, when Cane says that Christ failed at being successful, even on the world’s terms, he is simply full of shit. Christ is the most successful man to ever live, on his own terms, on God’s terms, and even on the world’s terms.
Clearly, the premises of Cane’s arguments are wrong, making his argument unsound. Since, however, his argument is predicated on a false assertion, his argument is also irrelevant. Thus, Cane fails to defeat a straw man of his own making. That’s some logical ineptitude right there.
I’m not the first to see this contrast between the story of Christ and the stories of worldly success, but I just wanted to lay it out very clear. Should any of my readers have the bad habit of thinking of themselves as conservative, reactionary, neoreactionary, traditionalist, etc. this old Chesterton chestnut should be right up your alley:
If the Jews had answered that question wrongly they might have lost all their after influence in human history. They might have sunk even down to the level of modern well educated society. For when once people have begun to believe that prosperity is the reward of virtue their next calamity is obvious. If prosperity is regarded as the reward of virtue it will be regarded as the symptom of virtue. Men will leave off the heavy task of making good men successful. They will adopt the easier task of making out successful men good. This, which has happened throughout modern commerce and journalism, is the ultimate Nemesis of the wicked optimism of the comforters of Job. If the Jews could be saved from it, the Book of Job saved them. The Book of Job is chiefly remarkable, as I have insisted throughout, for the fact that it does not end in a way that is conventionally satisfactory. Job is not told that his misfortunes were due to his sins or a part of any plan for his improvement.
But in the prologue we see Job tormented not because he was the worst of men, but because he was the best. It is the lesson of the whole work that man is most comforted by paradoxes. Here is the very darkest and strangest of the paradoxes; and it is by all human testimony the most reassuring. I need not suggest what a high and strange history awaited this paradox of the best man in the worst fortune. I need not say that in the freest and most philosophical sense there is one Old Testament figure who is truly a type; or say what is prefigured in the wounds of Job. [Formatting changed for clarity—ed.]
I like Chesterton, but quoting him is simply an appeal to authority. Since Chesterton was not infallible (though he was wise), it behooves readers to take this appeal with a grain of salt, especially since there’s a reason why people equate success with virtue.
Next time you’re chuckling at Heartiste’s Beta of the Month entry: Chew on that. Whom did God imitate–what kind of man did God assume–when He came to Earth, and what does that tell you about what He believes success to be, and who should be called good?
I don’t exactly what kind of man God assumed when he came to earth, but I doubt it bore a strong resemblance to John Scalzi. Or to the dude celebrating his divorce (which God kind of hates, you know). Enough with the question-begging.
If God is the god who made families, and if the Bible tells us about how both are ordered: Why isn’t courtship and marriage the topic of discussion for family formation? Why are we instead discussing how to seduce properly; how to seduce the right woman? Why are we encouraging and women to marry the men to whom they have the most exciting physical response? Even if they try to mitigate it by looking for good provider traits–what the Hell kind of temptation is that to set? The whole idea of checking for sexual response first is perverse, and not in keeping with the tradition or what is assumed in the Bible.
This is all simply begging the question. Where in the bible is courtship commanded for family formation? Where does the Bible forbid any and all forms seduction? Who, exactly, is encouraging women to marry men to whom they have the most exciting physical response?
Also, the assertion that, “The whole idea of checking for sexual response first is perverse, and not in keeping with the tradition or what is assumed in the Bible” is dubious. The reason why men and women check for sexual response first is because this is the easiest thing to check for. The costs of knowledge acquisition are lower for attraction than for character.
I’m intent on marrying a woman is good, submissive and pretty. These three traits are non-negotiable, and prettiness is the easy to check for. I’m not going to marry someone who is good, submissive and ugly, so if I see an ugly chick, I’m not going to spend any more time trying to find out if she’s submissive or good because she’s already disqualified. Now, this doesn’t mean that looks are the most important concern of the three (they aren’t), nor does this mean that a woman’s submissiveness and goodness are of no concern (they aren’t), it simply means that it’s easier to qualify looks than character. This isn’t wrong or unholy, it’s simply reality and bitching bout it won’t change it or make it wrong.
Furthermore, neither traditions nor assumptions are a valid basis for morality. This doesn’t mean that one should ignore them, but it also doesn’t mean that they are correct or infallible. Another logic fail.
None of this has anything to do with those things a man will, should, and can do with his bride once he has one. Can you slap her on the butt? Yes. Can you tease her? Can it be good for her to have some dread instilled in her by someone who loves her? Yes. What we’ve lost is the archaic definition of the word husbandry; as in the craft of husbands, and we lost the definition when we laid aside the wisdom. Gentile (non-Christian) wisdom for getting laid is not the way to go about getting it back.
So, Cane logic leads to this conclusion: Game is only useful once you acquire wife, but not a moment before. Or, to state it more simply, Cane logic is bullshit.