Gangs of Men, Game, and Christianity

Several years ago, when I was learning about pickup, but still blind to the larger implications (if crap like this works, what does that mean?), I remember reading about the concept of a “lair.”  I don’t know if it’s still current, and the name sounds somewhat…creepy[1], but it’s a good idea.  For those who’ve taken the red pill through different vectors, the basic idea is it’s a bunch of pickup-aware guys who sarge/wing together, trade tips, etc.

Why did Christ truck about with twelve apostles?  Why did David have his thirty-three-odd “mighty men?”

What is it about groups of men that is so powerful?

First the obvious: Ten men are more powerful than one man.  You lose some freedom by being part of such a group, but you gain protection, backup, advice, and access to resources.

Okay, so why does it need to be a group of men? To play devil’s advocate, especially in the modern age, why not throw a “strong, independent” woman in there?

The reason is that groups like this require a strong element of loyalty and self-sacrifice, even and especially when it’s a losing proposition for the person in question.  I’m talking about hard stuff, like “Hold them off as long as you can until they kill you,” in a military setting, and “As you promised you would, come to this place at this time, even though you have math homework.” [2]

(Can you imagine this speech being given to women?)

Men are not perfect, but women are horrible at protecting the group at expense of self.

Okay, but, as we are all aware (and if we are not, let me tell you, IT IS AN ISSUE AND FRANKLY WE SHOULD PROBABLY CALL IT RAPE) some women are self-sacrificial for the group!  They can meet every standard you can think of!  At Least One Woman Is Like That![3]  Why not allow that particular special snowflake in?

This is the interesting part.  The answer is: because she plays hell with the intra-group social dynamics.

  1. If not completely in submission (mentally, not “officially”) to either God or some man, she will at least prod individual members of the group for personal validation.  This is missing the entire point of the group, which is to motivate prosocial behavior by only providing contingent validation to its members.  This prod for validation (it may be framed as “a welcoming environment”), without accompanying prosocial behavior, makes the group (ready for this one?) unequal, in that there is now a protected class with special rights.  Groups like this may be hierarchical, but they are still quite egalitarian, in that every member of the group plays under the same rules[4], having the same opportunities, if not the same outcomes.
  2. Even if we have a hypothetical woman who is really a man in a woman’s body, in terms of not prodding for special privileges, there’s still the woman’s body.  She represents a walking temptation to betray the group that happens to also be sentient.  There is always the possibility that a weak member of the group will be tempted to break ranks for some sweet hot love—or, more usually, some puppy-sweet beta-aimed validation from (gasp!) a female.[5]  She can be perfectly demure and still have this effect.
  3. At the extreme, she can cause intra-group competition for her.  This is death for group cohesion, and threatens the group.  True, there should be some competition in the group for status, but the contest and outcome must be decided by and for the group, not someone who happens to have internal gonads.  There is a reason that pickup artists signal each other on who “the target” is—competition within the group is toxic.

Now, there is one huge, huge benefit that comes with these groups, and I think it is of import to the manosphere, particularly the Christian manosphere.  If the male group, as a whole, passes whatever multitude of shit tests it will face from its equivalent females, then it can change the opinion of the female group as a whole.  This is huge—a common story in the manosphere is that a wife spent too much time clubbing with her slut single/divorced friends, absorbed their poison, and went EPL soon after.  The female group can support and sustain a marriage, even with divorce laws as they are, but it won’t do that automatically.  If all the husbands within a group are resolute, then all the wives will flip from epl candidate to loving wife, and if this is all made explicit, then the women will adopt it as “the only sensible thing to do,” even to each other.
But it starts with the men.  And they have to stick together.  And they have to get it through their heads that celibacy is not death, because until they do, they’re vulnerable to defecting and crashing the whole thing down.

EDIT: I would be remiss if I did not refer the reader to Jack Donovan’s The Way of Men, as well as the excellent series at the Art of Manliness.

[1]I know, I know, I apologize.

[2]You might think this is not so hard.  Ask yourself: have you ever been flaked on?

[3]Either “fair lades” is going real-mainstream, or ALOWILT is going manosphere-mainstream.

[4]They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.

 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?  (Mark 10:38)

[5]And Delilah said to Samson, Tell me, I pray thee, wherein thy great strength lieth, and wherewith thou mightest be bound to afflict thee. (Judges 16:6)

Advertisements

4 comments on “Gangs of Men, Game, and Christianity

  1. zhai2nan2 says:

    I like the general drift, but I think you get dangerously vague near the end:

    > If the male group, as a whole, passes whatever multitude of shit tests it will face from its equivalent females, then it can change the opinion of the female group as a whole.

    The male group is a specific “lair” of two to ten pick-up artists, right?

    How numerous is the “female group”? Is this a social circle of a dozen girls, or does it refer to women in general?

    • You’re right, I got vague near the end.

      In that context, the “group” to which I refer is some gang of men, be it a lair of PUA’s as you mention, the men of a village who hunt together, or the players of a basketball team. In short, the Tribe.

      The female group consists of whatever women are associated with the male group, be they wives, girlfriends, whatever.

      If the men have the women firmly in submission, and use that to create an explicit ethic of faithful monogamy, the women will flip to this as well, and “Ditch him, girlfriend!” becomes “Stand by your man.”

      (Of course, this is really only an auxilary benefit, because it depends on firm submission in the first place. But it shows how while it’s true that divorce can be catching, so can faithfulness.)

      Thanks for commenting, by the way!

  2. […]  I need to get a career going, I need to have strong doctrinal understanding, and I need to build alliances with other men.  Talking with women helps with pretty much none of these […]

  3. […] This severely sabotages male camaraderie within the congregation.  There are strong reasons for men to cooperate: mutual protection, advice, and tackling bigger-than-one-man projects.  But if they are single men on the make, and there are women present right now, then they are plunged into competition against each other.  This wouldn’t be the end of the world if they were game-aware, but the vast majority will not be, and will, sensing their weak position, try to buy female approval through supplication, rather than bask in it. Third, it deprives both men and women of role models.  Singles congregations live in a sort of Perpetual Rapture, in which “the righteous” are “taken up” and join the family congregations upon marriage.  If you’re the sum of the five people you spend the most time with, and those people are cripplingly beta or actual Peter-Pan-manboy-cads, what do you turn into? Fourth, it tends inevitably toward infantilization.  If responsibility is grown into, then singles’ congregations are a terrible idea.  When everyone in the congregation is self-sufficient, what exactly is someone supposed to grow into spiritually?  Parents can learn about our Heavenly Father by raising their own children; single people can participate in at least a surrogate role within the community of a congregation—unless, you know that congregation is composed of other unmarried adults.  Without a strong creative purpose, and opposed to a destructive one, they tend toward hedonism.  But even in their hedonism they are restricted; chastity keeps them from pursuing a pretty great adult pasttime, so they move to childish pursuits like parlor games and childrens’ songs and sugary food.  The alpha-but-marginally-spiritual men are not fed by the spiritual meat that ought to be present, and bail, while the only men who stick around for this tripe are simpering betas with no other option. Lest some well-meaning idiot criticize me for complaining without providing no solutions, here you go: If you’re the leader of a singles’ congregation: […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s