06 Jul 2012, Posted by yohami in guest post, 15 Comments.

Deti Wisdom: Players, MGTOWs, and Church


Deti just left this at Detination, well worth reposting.

ON PLAYERS

Though I don’t agree with all aspects of their lifestyles, and despite what I’ve said above, I have much respect for players. With a player, what you see is what you get. Players are up front, direct and honest about their intentions, what they want from life and the way they live their lives. Perhaps there are elements of ambiguity in a player’s seduction methods, but no more so than women have been deploying in their mating and sexual strategies since hypergamy was released from her Pandora’s box at least 30 years or so ago. Any woman who gets with a player gets with him because she wants to get with him — and she will have to live with whatever consequences flow from that. Players have surveyed the landscape and taken stock of their talents and drawbacks. They have made what I consider to be fully rational lifestyle choices, given the world they inhabit. Players know they live in a feminine-centric society that has expressly chosen unrestrained hypergamy over patriarchy. Players recognize they live in a world of unfettered female sexuality that assigns greater value to raw displays of masculinity and little value to marriage and lifetime coupling, Women have been told, nay, encouraged, to do and say anything they want, with anyone they want, whenever and wherever they want, and that they will suffer absolutely no adverse consequences for it. I can’t fault players for doing what they can to turn such a situation to their advantage, or at least learn to navigate it. Players are putting that old military adage into operation: Adapt. Improvise. Overcome.

ON MGTOW

I respect MGTOW because I believe it to be a viable, rational lifestyle choice in today’s SMP and the larger society. They also have taken stock and made rational decisions about their lives and the world they live in. Men’s rights activists do good work. They are sounding the alarm in informing men about divorce and its devastating effects on men, women, children, and society. The destruction of the family is the destruction of Western society. These men are given hope, told they are not alone, and work to get something to live for after their money, jobs, and children are taken from them. I don’t believe there will be a “men’s rights movement”. Short of doing work at the margins and making small improvements in the lives of divorced fathers, men for a number of reasons won’t organize into a movement to preserve and protect male rights. Men do not subscribe to such notions as “the personal is political”. For men, the political is political, and the personal is personal, and never the twain shall meet.

“Man up, stop playing those videogames and marry the high N over 30 woman who’s now ready to settle down after 10 or so years on the carousel” simply won’t do. It won’t do because a growing number of men have gotten wise to the lies, are figuring out what is really going on the SMP, and have stopped listening. If it is to survive — if indeed Western society is to survive — the North American Church must return to advocacy of patriarchy, in which men’s contributions and leadership are valued and cherished, and to which the women and children willingly submit.

ON THE CHURCH

I am not a traditionalist, or a traditional conservative. I am not a Churchian. I do not subscribe to the tenets of liberal Churchianity. Modern Churchianity and tradconism have become willing tools and useful idiots for feminism, which has shot through and infected much of the old line conservative and Churchian institutions. Those institutions wink and nod at women (including Churchian women) playing by the new rules of hookup, one-night stands, serial monogamy as the preferred, “more moral” form of promiscuity, intentional single motherhood, and “I’m not haaaappy” divorce, all with unlimited choices for women while simultaneously requiring no commitment from them. At the same time, modern Churchianity and tradconism demand that men play by 1950s rules of securing education and lucrative employment; courtship; supplication; traditional dinner-and-a-movie dating requiring immediate displays of monetary and time investment; and ultimate commitment in the form of hitching him to the plow of a wife who neither loves nor respects him in a society that is doing everything it can to sabotage and destroy his marriage. It encourages men to waste their money, their time and their lives in the service of ungrateful, unworthy women. And all of it is this way because women as a group, with their white knight and mangina accomplices, want it this way; while the Churchian establishment gives its tacit cooperation in the form of heretical “theology”.

[...]

Im a Christian. I am a Nicene Creed-style believer. I believe Game and patriarchy have their roots in the Bible. I’m also a complementarian. I believe male dominant/female submissive and sex within the confines of lifetime marriage are the most beneficial orderings of male-female relations. The evidence of this is all around us — men and women innately and automatically seek to order themselves into maledom/femsub relationships even in STRs and LTRs, even in “serial monogamy”, even outside marriage, even in fleeting sexual encounters. Men and women yearn to order themselves in this way because the Designer designed them this way — because God ordered it and placed those desires into every human being. Men and women ignore this fact at their extreme peril of grinding unhappiness, grief and misery. The prime source of dissatisfaction in the SMP arises from the fact that sex and relationships short of marriage are unsatisfying, incomplete imitations of marriage which are nearly always destined to failure.

I believe sluts can reform and make themselves into marriageable women. I believe this is very difficult and most women are unable to do this, and still more are unwilling to do the necessary work. I believe alphas can make themselves into marriageable men if they choose. I believe most alphas choose not to marry. I believe these things because I have faith in God’s redeeming power and ability to make all things new. I believe God can do what humans cannot. I believe the SMP looks the way it does because humans have screwed it up, just like they screw everything up. I realize my beliefs in this regard put me into a minority in the Manosphere.

Deti, July 6 2012

Promote Post

Enjoyed this post?


15 Comments

July 6, 2012 8:18 pm

Alphamission

Deti has it right, he’s got it completely right. I cant say enough good about this right now.

July 6, 2012 8:41 pm

Jim

Of course humans screwed it up.

We have a topless protest here next month. Instead of men going there and throwing rotten eggs at the skanks, they’re going to drool. And then we wonder why women act the way they do.

July 6, 2012 10:21 pm

Jim

Let me add that it’s legal for women to walk around topless in my city. But they ain’t got the balls to do it so the upcoming so called protest is happening because??????

Any society that allows its women too much freedom is asking for disaster. Period. Women are not capable of being a part of society on their own. They require control like small children do. And that’s not the words of a misogynist but of an observer.

July 6, 2012 11:39 pm

Leap of a Beta

Jim,
As far as I know, many cities have laws like that. Colorado laws were that being topless was fine as long as you didn’t cause any car crashes, which I thought was hilarious. I’ve never heard of protests because women were too uncomfortable to do it though.

Womens protests always make me laugh. This, slut walk, and others. Saw news for stuff like the ability to publicly breastfeed at private property – stores like Walmart or at work. It’s hilarious how much effort they’ll put in to anything besides self improvement

July 7, 2012 1:02 am

JCclimber

One subtle correction to your last paragraph. Humans may have screwed it up, but only because it was a long term, world-wide guided societal shift. Orchestrated by a supernatural, evil, tireless serial murderer who is the prince of this world.

We humans keep looking for human conspiracies. We’ll never be able to connect the dots because the various inept human conspiracies could never be proven to effect world-wide change.

Instead, inept conspiracy A can work on something over here, while inept conspiracy B works over there, C in a third place, and so on. Conspiracy theorists try to tie them together, but the membership rarely overlaps. Because the guiding inspiration is not human, nor can it be seen.

July 8, 2012 2:55 am

AneroidOcean

The word “player.” What does it mean to you?

To me, it has a negative connotation and I agree that it should, because of one reason. I consider a player someone who outright lies and means to deceive. I have NO problem with someone using game, sleeping with as many people as they want, etc…

When you take advantage of another person purely through lies and deception, I think it’s an incredibly shitty thing to do.

Thoughts?

On a lighter note, this always makes me laugh:
“I’m not a player, I just crush a lot.”

July 8, 2012 3:01 am

yohami

I took it as “womanizer”, or, player = dude with game and options

July 8, 2012 5:38 am

deti

Aneroid:

What you’re describing is a cad.

Players are different in that they aren’t (mostly) about deception and fraud. My sense is that players manipulate, but then so do women in their mating strategies. They are simply pushing things a little so as to get things to go more their way — kinda sorta like women do with men they want.

July 8, 2012 7:22 am

Linkage Is Good For You, 7-8-12 | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

[...] Yohami – Deti Wisdom: Players, MGTOWs, The Church [...]

July 8, 2012 3:40 pm

The Stranger

All communication is manipulation. If I tell you “I like pizza,” I am trying to make you believe that I like pizza. I may not be invested in your believing I like pizza, but the effort itself was manipulation, all the same. Manipulation has been categorized as a Bad Thing in order to give people an excuse to dismiss an act as “immoral” without proving that it actually is.

A White Knight buying lunch and writing poetry is attempting to manipulate yon fair lady as much as the player. He’s just hamsterized the fact that he’s doing it wrong with notions of the inherent holiness of femalehood.

Meanwhile, being human, yon fair lady is not so much fair, and soon not even yon.

Using game is no more or less manipulative than any other human act.

July 8, 2012 9:27 pm

deti

Very true, Stranger.

A player says to a StrongIndependent Woman: “You know, I think it’s great that women can do whatever they want now. I’ve always believed women should be able to sleep with men just like men do with women. It’s not fair otherwise. I mean, if a woman likes a man, and she wants to f**k him, why shouldn’t she be able to? She’s not a slut if she does, any more than a man is.”

It’s all designed to make her feel better about going home with that player. It’s all designed to feed the hamster — disable her anti-slut defenses, feel good about herself, normalize her feelings, and ultimately help her rationalize sleeping with the man.

There’s no deception, no fraud, no lying. Just a little push in the right direction.

And besides — doesn’t she manipulate?

Makeup. Wonderbra. Clothes to accentuate positive and downplay flaws.

“Don’t you respect me?”

“Buy me a drink.”

July 8, 2012 11:07 pm

Leap of a Beta

Yup. I love when people try to break it down to ‘intentions’ of trying to deceive, manipulate, or influence. As if intentions make a difference to results or that you can ever claim that most people know what their intentions are (I don’t think most women or a good amount of men are honest even to themselves about their intentions).

Anyways, how does it make someone who knows how social situations work more evil or less moral for having additional knowledge and deciding to use it rather than be the fool bumbling around not knowing what they’re doing? To so quickly brand something as evil you write off any constructive though or conversation that could happen around it, deny the reality that it works, why it works, and can’t work on changing or accepting it.

July 9, 2012 1:30 am

Shoe

I thank you for bolstering my strength on these issues. I am not alone.

July 13, 2012 5:18 am

Raza Dell

this is right up the alley of positive masculinity. similar to the likes of Dalrock and Married Man sex life (LTR game in general).

this is certainly a niche, for many alphas sidestep this thinking it is too soft, many betas overlook this because some of the terminology seems contradictory on the surface level (the perceived “player” definition as an example), and many feminists discount this, because, well, their it is counterintuitive to their hamster wheel. not to mention blasphemy to their raging hypergamy. IMO, positive masculinity is the right long term balance for those who intend to raise families and legacies – it restores the balance of gender role equilibrium (something a feminist will not allow herself to rationalize), and tames hypergamy to offer a suitable outcome for both (also cognitive dissonance to a feminist since it restrains her hypergamy). This niche of positive masculinity is slowly entrenching itself in the manosphere, however, it does not disqualify nor contradict the fundamental concepts of game served up by the grandmasters (rollo, roosh, roissy) – it simply offers a different path to get there.

February 19, 2013 7:57 pm

Kendrick Colchado

I cant wait to read much more from you. This is actually a great website.

Posting your comment...

Leave A Comment


Subscribe to this comment via Email

http://yohami.com/blog/wp-content/themes/press