The Art of Date Improvisation

I used to believe that planning dates was an important thing. Figuring out all the logistics in advance seemed like the best idea. However, over the past year or so, my mindset has completely changed. As someone who lives radically in the moment, I rarely make any plans at all more than a week in advance, I don't even start considering date ideas until at least the day before the date, and I never solidly plan any date anymore. Instead, I mentally sketch a general idea of what I might feel like doing and leave plenty of room for improvisation. The result of an improvisational approach to dates? Dates are a lot more fluid, a lot more enjoyable, and any obstacles or deviations completely fail to bother me. I welcome change and unexpected turns of event.

There are several crucial elements to improvisational dates. In many ways, improvisational dates are very similar to good jazz solos, but there are certainly a few differences.

Have an Array of Possibilities Beforehand
Improvisation isn't about coming with stuff completely out of thin air. Instead, it's about having a wide range of possible directions to go, and choosing them in the moment, in accordance with the present mood. As such, before the date begins it's vital to have a mental list of possibilities. This can be a list of various venues that you might feel like visiting, or this might be a list of various activities that can be done at a given location. Your array or choices can be as broad or as selective as desired. A simple improvisational date list might be as simple as Outdoor Activity (go for a walk, play frisbee, kick around a soccer ball, or play at a playground) followed by a Meal (grill steaks at home, grab a burger from In-N-Out, or pickup Chinese food) and then relax at home (listen to new CD, play video games, cuddle and watch a movie, or play cards). That simple improvisational framework offer 48 possible dates, consisting of only three different activities. The vastness of your array of possibilities is limited only by your imagination.

Establish Proper Expectations
This one is fairly obvious, but it's also an absolutely crucial one. Given that improvisational dates aren't always "tried and tested," it is important that both you and your date have no solidly set expectations for what will or will not happen. Disappointment and dates don't mix especially well and they often don't end well, either. As such, it is important for you not to count on certain things happening or working out perfectly, and it's important for your date not to have any misconceptions about what you might end up doing or where you might end up going. The simplest way to eliminate false expectations in your date's mind is simply not to tell her where you're going or what you're doing. Not only does this circumvent any misconceptions or problematic expectations, but it also serves to enhance your aura of mystery.

Be Confident and Decisive
Since improvisional dates often change on whim, it is critical that you remain perfectly confident and firmly decisive. Displaying these two leadership qualities well communicates the subtext that you can be trusted and that no obstacles deter or bother you. When you are confident and decisive enough, your date will never even know whether a given adventure was pre-planned or improvised. In her mind, it all flowed together so smoothly and seamlessly that it hardly seems like the result of improvisation. When things don't go as smoothly as planned, she has the opportunity to see that you can dynamically handle situations as they arise. Either way, you win.

Improvise Based on the Energy of the Date
Since the chief focus of the date isn't the venues visited and the activities done, it's important to keep the interpersonal vibe the central focus of the date. The best choices are made based on the level of energy and the present vibe of the date. If the two of you are starting to reach a lower-level of energy, it probably isn't a good idea to go for a three-mile run or begin an indepth discussion of quantum physics. Likewise, if the mood is starting to get more personal and connected, it probably isn't a good idea to do something that involves competition or puts too much physical or emotional space between you and your date. Instead, the way you improvise should capitalize on the flow of energy and serve to further direct it. Some of the best dates are ones that have contrasting levels of energy or vibes. This serves to engage both people's emotions more fully and creates a more visceral experience.

Most Importantly, Have Fun!
In the end, the whole point of improvisional dates is to have a good time doing some fun things with a person that you like. As such, it is important to only choose elements that will be mutually enjoyable. If one of the ideas you previously thought of doesn't seem like a fun choice, don't do it. If none of the options you have in mind seem fun, then throw them all out and choose something else. If something you're doing is even more fun than you expected, then do it for longer. If something you thought would be fun ends up being quite dull, don't waste any more time on it--change activities right away! There are few things more enjoyable in life than having an amazing time with someone you enjoy being around.

The Essential Ingredient for Meaningful Teaching

The most effective sorts are teaching are the ones that are student-centric rather than curriculum-centric. While curriculum-centric teaching focuses ostensibly on what students "ought" to know, student-centric teaching emphasizes that which students will actually find personally meaningful. This is not a paradigm generally embraced by teaching institutions. Curriculum-centric teaching is the norm in American public schools, private schools, and churches today. This misplaced focus is one of the major reasons why most teaching is perceived as irrelevant. If the goal of teaching is for students to be better prepared for life and better equipped to face various challenges, then it is imperative that students learn things that practically impact their lives. In order for students to learn things that practically impact their lives, it is necessary that whatever is taught directly addresses things that pertain to students' lives.

Curriculum-centric teaching does not effectively meet this need since curriculum-centric teaching has several instrinsic limitations. The first limitation of curriculum-centric teaching is that curriculums are developed by the people who teach, based on their own impressions of what students will find useful rather than being developed directly based on feedback and inquiries from students. The second limitation of curriculum-centric teaching is that it is fairly inflexible. Since curriculum-centric teaching typically emphasizes specific lessons that must be taught in a specific order, there is little room for day-to-day flexibility or deviation from the scheduled content. Additionally, since curriculums are generally developed and refined over a period of time and not prone to be changed rapidly, many of them are based on the real or perceived needs of students in times past, rather than being developed in response to the needs of today's students. The third limitation of curriculum-centric teaching is that it is uniformly "taught" to a broad range of students, whose varying levels of foundational knowledge and learning styles serve to negate the effectiveness of what is taught. Curriculum-centric teaching cannot be easily adapted to the needs of individual students or groups of students.

Student-centric learning, contrastingly, focuses on what students actually need to know. It is form of responsive, dynamic teaching, rather than being static and inflexible. For a teacher to teach students content of relevance, it is indispensible for teachers to be aware of what matters to students, what students struggle with, what students think about, and how students think. For this sort of awareness to be developed, teaching must be a relational experience rather than a merely "academic" one. An atmosphere of open dialog and direct student feedback must be continually cultivated. Simple "factual" communication is insufficient to gauge what students are actually learning. Instead, two-way communication must be the foundation of learning.

As an illustration, there is a profound difference between a teacher informing a student of a fact, and a teacher answering a question posed by a student, even if the hypothetical content is exactly the same. When a teacher informs a student of a fact, this may be a fact that the student does not care about, has no deeper comprehesion of, or already knows. However, when a student poses a self-motivated question, the answer then given is one that is desired, likely unknown and one which the student is prepared to develop a comprehension of. The best way to prepare students to learn is by encouraging them to ask questions, showing them how to ask questions, and having an environment where question-asking and open discussion are encouraged.

Upon the foundation of open dialog and relational learning, is it certainly possible to teach specific lessons about specific topics, since relevance has already been established. After (or even during) the teaching of specific lessons, it is best if there is room for direct feedback about the helpfulness and relevance of the lesson. Apart from establishing that a specific topic is relevant to a student, however, there is limited usefulness in teaching specific lessons. Relevance is the most essential ingreident for meaningful teaching. Anything that is taught must be relevant to the students' lives, comprehensible by the students, and taught in a manner that ensures students are able to connect with the way it is being taught.

The focus in developing lessons should be on quality, rather than quantity. Rather than throwing lots of factual content at students and hoping for them to retain some of it, teaching would be far more effective if most of the time were spent on seeking to develop relationships with students and determining topics of relevance. A few lessons that are highly relevant far outweigh the practical value of many lessons with limited relevance. This is a paradigm that is utilized by effective salesmen, effective couselors, and effective entrepreneurs. Developing a strategy that ensures relevance to the target market is the key to success for those sorts of jobs. If a similar paradigm were adopted towards teaching methods, the quantity of teaching and time spend teaching would decrease, while the quality of the lessons taught would increase exponentially.

The Facades We Use

With some friends, deep and meaningful conversation flows naturally. With other friends, the conversational depth almost never exceeds that of a puddle. In the past few days I've had some extremely rich and fulfilling conversations with friends. One friend and I were discussing how people connect with each other. There is always the general social conversation that most of society favors: small-talk, polite inquiries into well-being, topics deemed of general interest. While that helps keep things comfortable and light, in many ways it's a way of avoiding deeper connection.

Though many people secretly crave deeper connection, most people also are fearful of being genuine or vulnerable with others. In group settings, this insecurity is even more pronounced. While people might be willing to discuss things that are more personal in a one-on-one context, in a group setting there is much more general hesitance to express one's true thoughts and feelings. Of course, apart from some expression of one's true thoughts and feelings, neither friendship nor deeper connection can occur between two people.

Facades of all sorts inhibit such connection. Whenever we act or speak in such a way as to disguise our true thoughts or feelings, we are utilizing a facade. Fundamentally, there are two types of facades. Some people have cultivated an unconscious facade. They are not aware of the social-exterior they display (or at least attempt to display) to others. Most people who have an unconscious facade also expect others to utilize a similar facade, and actually have a harder time connecting with those who do not have a similar facade. Such people generally feel a desire to connect with others, but are unaware of their own insecurities and fears which prevent deeper connection.

Another sort of facade is the intentionally-crafted sort. This type of facade is not an accidental or subconscious creation, but instead is consciously developed with the explicit aim of effecting social interactions. Those who have crafted facades generally possess a deeper awareness of their own mannerisms, behaviors, and speech patterns as well as a heightened awareness of social norms and the perceptions of others. As a result of "trying on" various personalities and testing various mannerisms, they generally are fairly easily able to see through the facades of others, and also are more able to manipulate the perceptions of others.

The other kind of person, the most rare sort, is the truly genuine person. Such a person generally does not utilize a facade of any sort in social interactions. Truly genuine people generally are genuine for one of three reasons:

Some are completely oblivious to social norms and perceptions and therefore violate all sorts of social norms simply on accident. These sorts of people tend to be social misfits who aren't necessarily disliked but generally have a harder time fitting in with any social group.

Some people are extremely naturally assertive and therefore take no thought for whatever social norms they violate. They do what they like, say whatever they're thinking and simply leave their words and actions unfiltered. These people are often perceived as jerks and assholes, but also are admired and loved by some, simply for their unapologetic (and often raw) genuineness.

Some people have completely worked through their own insecurities, and as a result of having a deep self-acceptance, in meekness they offer themselves to the world as they are, unconcerned with the judgments of others. These kinds of people are often aware of social norms, but neither adhere to the social norms, nor flagrantly violate them. They have a certain grace and easy-going presence about them.

Those people who are very genuine have a greater capacity for developing deeper and more lasting connections based on genuine respect. Yet, the path of being genuine is not an easy one to walk. In a culture that is quite superficial and expects a certain level of superficiality, it takes boldness and humility to be aware of social norms without being enslaved to them. Yet, the eschewing of facades is a necessary prerequisite to connecting with people more fully. Both the fear-based unconscious facades and the crafted and calculated facades generally do more harm than good. They keep people socially "safe" while simultaneously preventing people from building the relationships they desire.

What Women Think They Want

Recently, I went out to dinner with some friends of mine. There were four of us. The first fellow, a stable middle-aged guy (SMG) is quite soundly in the beta provider category. He has a great place to live, is very responsible with his money, throws good parties and is pretty easy to get along with. The second fellow is a player extraordinaire (PE). He has loads of natural game, a well established reputation as a bad boy and a fun, completely comfortable persona. The last person, player extraordinaire's girlfriend, is a nice but fairly typical American woman (TAW).

SMG was extremely excited because he had a blind date set up for the next weekend. He was on his phone texting this girl and setting up a time and location for the date when we first arrived at the restaurant. This was a pretty big thing for him, since he's not very assertive towards women and hasn't been on a date in quite a long time. So, for the first while, he was telling us about this girl and how his friend set him up on a date with her. He was telling us that they're planning on going to a nice restaurant for lunch. Next, he asks this question.

SMG: "Do you think I should get her some flowers?"

TAW: "You should definitely get her some flowers."

Me: "Why in the world would you get a girl flowers on a first date?"

TAW looks at me quite taken aback. She says: "You don't have a girlfriend, do you?"

Me: "Nope. I broke up with her a few weeks ago. She wasn't quite cutting it."
Pointing to PE, I ask her, "Did he get you any flowers on your first date?"

PE, chiming in: "We didn't exactly have a first date."

Next he goes on to casually mention that even though they've been dating for about 7 or 8 months, he's never gotten her flowers, never taken her out for dinner, and typically gets her to pay for him for most things they do. TAW really doesn't say much about any of this, but goes back to the initial question and addresses SMG again.

TAW: "Girls love flowers. You should get her some."

PE: "Or you could get her one flower. A flower that is just beginning to blossom, whose petals are just starting to open up."

PE launches into a story about one girl that he brought flowers for, who ended up being deathly allergic to most types of flowers. She was also allergic to chocolate, so he was quite happy he didn't bring a box of those.

The whole evening was quite interesting, and we had a lot of other interesting interchanges. I am endlessly amused by the vast divergence between what women think that they want and what they actually desire. TAW clearly seemed to think that she liked flowers, romance and nice gestures. Yet, the clear evidence of her relationship shows that none of those things actually matter to her. Instead, she was utterly enchanted with a fellow who is the furthest from "nice" or "romantic" possible. Women swoon for desirable men who have an overabundance of psychosocial dominance. They always think they want romantic gestures, but they actually find a lack of romantic expression, from a fun and engaging man with options, to be far more irresistible.

On Breakups and White Lies

The threads of alleged niceness that are taught and encouraged today are, in actuality, anything but. This point has been brought up ad naseum by numerous authors and bloggers, so I will not spend any time supporting such a transparent fact. In this post, I want to take a brief look at the idea that using white lies is the best and kindest recourse, when instigating a breakup. Readers of my blog already know where I stand on the use of vacuous phrases utilized in the midst of a breakup. Yet, there are some who take the stance that it is better to cushion the blow and use white lies, rather than risk upsetting or hurting the self-esteem of a soon-to-be ex.

While it might seem that using trite, unaccompanied, meaningless phrases such as, "I just don't feel we're meant to be together," "It's not you, it's me," "This is just not quite working out," would be the kindest way to end a relationship, it really is anything but. My first objection to such a method is that it is primarily concerned with keeping the peace and avoiding confrontation. From a Biblical standpoint, one's primary motivation in any action or method should be love and a genuine desire for the best of the other person. When one's motives are skewed, it is certain that one's methods will be far from ideal. A fear-based mentality that seeks to avoid conflict is a selfish one rather than an others-centric love-based mentality.

If one does have a genuine care for the well-being of another, then love dictates that one's actions should be more concerned with helping a person and pointing them in a direction of personal growth, than of attempting to help them avoid unpleasant feelings which might be stirred up in the process. That some truths are unpleasant and uncomfortable does not mean that they should not be faced or dealt with. Similarly, if one does have a true love for another, such a person will limit their statements to that which can lead to real change and growth. Alternately, it is a sign of malicious intent if one expresses things simply to cause pain or inflict emotional distress. Wisdom then reveals that the most loving method of breaking up involves a clear and candid statement of those real reasons for the breakup which offer the opportunity for personal growth, stemming from a motive of love.

Secondly, a problem with the use of ambiguous or misleading language in the midst of breakup is that such verbalizations often cross the line into dishonesty and deception. A person of integrity may not fully reveal their entire stance, but they will never willfully deceive or mislead another. When the reason for the breakup is stated solely as, "It's not you, it's me," this is generally a flat-out lie. The intentional deception of another person is something that is not kind, loving or righteous in any regard. It is an evil of the highest sorts.

In considering the effect to the self-esteem of the soon-to-be ex, we must first consider the proper place of self-esteem. Proper self-esteem is a right estimation of oneself and one's standing in life. Viewing oneself as more perfect or less flawed than one is, results in an attitude of pride. Viewing oneself as more flawed or less capable than one is, needlessly inhibits one's ability to function in the world. Self-esteem, then, is only a good thing if is it founded on facts and built on a proper assessment of oneself. If a person's self-image is skewed, their self-esteem will be based on an illusion rather than truth. Therefore, the very best thing for a person's self-esteem is that it be based on a right estimation of self. It is necessary to be cognizant of one's strengths and weaknesses in order to rightly estimate oneself. In the process of a breakup, then, the best thing is for a person to be made aware of those strengths that they do not realize and also of those shortcomings, of which they are unaware. Anything else ensures that a flawed self-image is retained.

Regarding the clear exposition of reasons for a breakup, there is no mandate that such a thing occur. However, it is in the best interests of the other person that such an exposition be made. When vague and ambiguous reasons are offered, the person on the receiving end of the breakup lacks the peace of mind to know what caused the breakup. In the long-run it is far more troubling and emotionally painful to be left in the dark than it is to come to accept clearly-stated reasons given. Additionally, when no reasons are given, there is nothing that a person can do to attempt to avoid a similar future outcome. When clear and specific reasons for a breakup are given, a person is able to recognize their own flaws and deficiencies and grow in those areas. The correction of character and personality flaws in oneself increases the likeliness of better future relational outcomes. For those two reasons, it seems that it is far better to offer clear and specific reasons for a breakup, as opposed to explaining nothing.

Therefore, despite the initial attractiveness of the use of white lies or statements of ambiguity to preserve the feelings of another in a breakup, rational minds will conclude that such an approach conflicts with love and a genuine desire for the well-being of another. Lies, motivated by fear and selfishness, are incompatible with a love of truth, a pursuit of integrity or a lifestyle of love. Avoidance of real issues rather than a candid addressing of such issues robs someone of real opportunities for personal growth. As such, a clear and specific exposition of the issues leading to a breakup, offered from a heart of love, out of a genuine desire for the best of the other, is the most wholesome and caring method of ending relationships.

Women Are Sponges

This past weekend, I went with two of my brothers to a card game tournament in Las Vegas. Being the observer of humanity and gender dynamics that I am, I ended up having a few different discussions with one of my brothers about the various girls who attended the convention and played in the tournament. Initially, both my brother and I were surprised that there were as many girls as there were, given that most players of the game are men. For this reason, there were more women who were volunteering at the event as judges and program support than who attended it as players.

There were several other observations that we made in short order. All of the girls who attended the event as players had accompanied their boyfriends to the event. Hence, there were no single girls who attended the event as players. Most of the girls who played in the tournament placed in the bottom percentiles. Most of the girls played more for the enjoyment of the game than out of a strong desire for competition or victory. The overall average attractiveness of the girls at the event, both those who played and those working as event support staff was below general population average. Of course, most of those observations were fairly straight-forward and intuitive.

However, there was one interesting observation that my brother made not long after we left. Of the girls who played in the various tournaments, their competitive skill was highly correlated with their respective boyfriends' competitive skill levels. Given the other observations that we made, I would have expected all of the girls to remain very poorly competitive. However, the correlation between the skill level of the boyfriends and the skill level of their respective girlfriends was too high to be ignored.

- The one girl who was most competent and competitive at all the various game types was dating a fellow who also was a fairly skilled and experienced player.
- The girl who was the most fun and personable, but only moderately skilled was dating one of the most positive and fun fellows at the event. He was extremely friendly and relaxed, but lacked sufficient experience or competitiveness to rise above the average level of competition.
- One girl who consistently placed close to last was dating a guy who was a decent guy but a bit below average at the game.

There were also a few other girls playing in the event who also seemed to match our observation, though neither my brothers nor I interacted with them much. In any event, these observations seem to match the experiences of Alte/ButterflySquash in her post on women being empty vessels. She observed that women generally adopt opinions, interests, and mannerisms from the people around them. Our observations this past weekend not only support that observation, but extend it even further. Not only do women generally absorb opinions, interests and mannerisms from their boyfriends/husbands, but their knowledgeability and competence regarding such hobbies, interests and stances are directly correlated with the knowledgeability and competence of their men. This lends even more support to the idea that men are naturally hard-wired to be dominant leaders and that women are hard-wired to follow, learn from, and support their men.

LTR Game - A Little Bit of Mystery

The human mind is always intrigued by the unknown. Whenever there is something that seems both interesting and knowable, while remaining unknown, it tantalizes the mind. Not only is use of the unknown a critical component of good stories and good movies, but in some measure, it is indispensable in a good relationship. Sometimes, in a relationship, openness and vulnerability is the best stance, while at other times, a little bit of mystery is precisely what is needed. Being able to effectively add a hint of mystery to your persona or your actions is a valuable skill to utilitize in running LTR game.

Depth of personality is primarily gauged based on perception. As such, there is little fundamental difference between actual mystery and perceived mystery. The simple fact that something which could be shared is being withheld provides plenty of fuel for the mind to ponder. It is fairly easy to cultivate a hint of mystery, and there are numerous ways to do it. Using wording that is intentionally ambiguous or indefinitive always allows for various possible interpretations. Reframing or avoiding an innocent direct question suggests the possibility of something hidden. Altering one's behavior slightly or being spontaneous implies a more nuanced personality.

Sometimes, when my LTR asks me what I'm up to, I let her know what exciting things I have planned. Last Friday afternoon, after a couple of texts back and forth, she texted me: "What are you up?" I replied: "Bet you wish you knew." Hoping I would answer her original question, she prompted: "I do wish I knew... hee hee hee!!!" Of course, whenever you're hinting at mystery, you can never reveal whatever is alluded to as mysterious. Hence, I never sent her a reply. An hour later she sent, "Well i hope your having fun... whatever you up are doing!!!" Naturally, I did just that. The next day, she was still somewhat curious about what I'd been up to. When I picked her up, she asked me, "Did you have fun last night?" One simply reply was all I needed, "Of course!"

As with anything in life, mystery must be cultivated in proper proportions. Too much mystery and you will seem unknowable and inhuman, which might work for STR game and seduction, but will prevent LTRs from developing very far. Too little mystery and you will seem boring, predictable and at least somewhat uninteresting. But, cultivating a certain amount of characteristic mystery serves to greatly enhance your interestingness and attractiveness. Learn to replace statements with insinuations occasionally. Every once in a while, reframe an innocent and harmless question. Learn to be spontaneous and keep things fresh. That way, even when your LTR isn't with you, she'll be curious about what you're up to, what you might do next, and what exciting things might be in store for the next time she sees you. With a little bit of mystery in your persona, she'll never know for certain--which will intrigue and fascinate her!

Benefits of a Large Family - The Never-Ending Party

I am very blessed to be part of a large family. Though my opinions of my family do vary somewhat, never have I felt that it is a burden to have so many siblings. It is a great blessing, and it is a lot of fun! During different periods of life, the relational dynamics have changed and varied. Right now, a good many of my 10 siblings are of sufficient age to have fairly flexible schedules. Four of my brothers effectively have no bedtimes and can stay up as late as they like on most nights. Such a particular set of circumstances has given rise to a fairly new phenomenon: the never-ending party.

While my week is typically fairly busy, I always leave at least a couple of nights open to hang out with different friends and social groups. On Friday nights, one of my groups of friends meets at Starbucks to play assorted board games and card games. Occasionally, I invite my brothers to join us and come drink coffee while playing fun games. One of my brothers drives, but two of the others who frequently accompany me are not yet of age to have a driver's license. One night, I picked up one of my brothers and we went to games night. Afterwards, having ingested copious quantities of coffee, we decided to head back to my apartment and hang out for a little bit. Needless to say, one game soon led to another and next thing we knew it was 4 am. Finally, I drove him back home as the night began to wind down. But, we both were amazed at how much fun could be had on a Friday night.

A couple weeks later, the same brother happened to have another Friday night free, so I came and picked up two of my brothers. We went to games night and then had another afterparty until the wee hours of the morn. The games night plus afterparty combination was an unqualified winner, which absolutely guaranteed an entire night of nonstop fun. Around 3 am one night, I jokingly remarked, "Friday nights are awesome! Party all night; sleep all day." My brother responded, "No. Party all night and party all day!" This began to become a tradition, and another brother began to join us regularly. Sometimes we would go to other event besides games night, as well. But, no matter what we do on Friday, whenever we hang out, we always have an afterparty until at least 3 or 4 in the morning.

While friends are good, in many ways, brothers are even better. While you only ever know your friends to a certain degree, you typically are extremely knowledgable about your siblings. You know what they enjoy, what they love to do, and when they're typically free. You share countless inside jokes, similar interests and common memories. All of this serves as an effective foundation for having unbelievable fun times at a moment's notice. Last week, after partying all night Friday, the next morning I woke up to a call from one of my brothers. He had a couple awesome new ideas for a business project that we are working on together. After discussing the details of that, I asked him, "What are you guys up to later?" Two of my brothers were free, and so a couple hours later we were happily immersed in more fun activities. As my other brother rightly declared, "It's a never-ending party!"

What Token Resistance Reveals

Token resistance is a bit of a strange thing, since initially it seems counterintuitive. Why would a woman resist that which she actually desires? In my pre-game days, such a thing would be likely to confuse and perplex me. Now, I think that token resistance is both a fascinating and fun thing that speaks volumes about the intriguing differences between men and women.

Most of the important truths about women aren't completely obvious. They are subtle things that you have to discover, either through your own experiences or vicariously, through the experience of others. Token resistance is something that reveals three fundamental truths about women.

1. Women Love Intuitiveness
I can't say why women so strongly like intuitiveness, but there is something that strongly attracts a woman to a man that she perceives as intuitive. Strong game always necessitates that a man be skilled at interpretting non-verbal communication such as tone, body language, facial expressions and unexplained actions. While this is never something a woman will vocalize, every woman secretly has a desire for her man to know what she's thinking without having to express it verbally. Token resistance, in this regard, is a test of a man's intuitiveness. If he listens only to her words, then she views him as unintuitive. If she knows that he knows that what she says isn't actually what she means, then she becomes more strongly attracted to him, because she feels that he understands her on some deeper level.

2. Women Enjoy Being Chased
Any sort of romantic male-female relationship, and especially the enjoyable sort, necessarily includes elements of chase. Generally, women like to be chased and men like to chase. Women like to be chased, because they enjoy being desired. They enjoy being attractive enough to be worth pursuing. Men naturally enjoy chasing and pursuing that which they desire. Masculine men are always driven and ambitious. They set their sights on what they desire, and they allow nothing to deter them from their quest. Not only does this element of challenge testify to the fundamental natures of both men and women, but the chase itself is an enjoyable thing. Even when the eventual outcome is known by both parties, the chase is still a thoroughly delightful part of the experience, for both people.

3. Women Love Dominant Men
Of course, this is probably the strongest reason of all. Given that women are hard-wired to desire to submit to a dominant man, a woman likes to know that her man is a leader who does things according to what he thinks is best. If a few words or a little resistance from her is able to deter him from pursuing what he wants, he certainly isn't very dominant. When a man remains undeterred from attaining what he desires, even in the presence of resistance or opposition, his dominance is clearly displayed. Without fail, a clear demonstration of masculine dominance is something that strongly increases the present attraction that a woman feels for her man. For this reason, token resistance is offered both as a test of a man's dominance and as an opportunity for a man to display his dominance.

Gender Roles and RPGs - A Discussion

A few days ago, I had a very interesting discussion concerning whether a Biblically-modeled patriarchal family structure necessarily implied that women are worse than men. The discussion also touched on whether or not a Biblical view of gender roles is sexist.

TheoConfidor: I believe that the patriarchal structure is what results in the most fulfillment and happiness for both men and women. A man should be a man, lead his household, be respected by his family and make a difference in the world. A woman should help a man in his goals, submit to his leadership willingly, love him passionately and respect him.

Corax: Are you then implying that women are innately inferior to men in regards to familial leadership? It sure seems like it, that a woman's leadership, "wearing the pants," seems to result in "discord, sadness and strife" in a family, to your eyes.

TheoConfidor: I am not implying that women are innately inferior in regards to familial leadership. In some cases, a wife may be more capable of leading her family than her husband. That isn't the issue. The issue is role-designation and not innate ability.

Since we are all gamers, please allow me to use a simple RPG example. Sometimes my brothers and I play D&D. Each of us has a specific class-role. The cleric should do the healing. The fighter should provoke the enemy and absorb attacks. The barbarian should smash dangerous enemies. The wizard should help by wiping out minions and doing some mobility control. Now, it might be that the fighter is built in such a way that he could do more damage than the barbarian. However, if he chooses to focus on killing enemies rather than taking the enemy aggro, more damage might be done, but it might also leave the more fragile party members open to attack. Stepping out of his role occasionally might be a good thing, but if he continually focuses on dealing damage rather than on tanking, the party will suffer and everyone will be less effective than if he stuck to his designated role.

It's the same way in the family. A man has his role, and a woman has her role. To the degree that each one fulfills their natural role, they will derive fulfillment and also contribute great to the group's success. To the degree that each one steps outside of their role, the family will be less effective and less fulfilled in the long run. Unlike with an RPG where each player can choose their own class, men and women are hardwired to perform their divinely-designated roles.

Corax: Problem with that would be that it still assumes and implies that women are inferior to men in leadership roles, particularly family ones. And that's called sexism.

TheoConfidor: The Bible never teaches that women are inferior to men. Different, yes. Inferior, no. There is no sexism in taking a Biblical stance on gender and gender roles.

Corax: I should also point out that I and no one else is proclaiming that women and men are exactly the same, and no rational feminists would state that either; that's not the point of feminism. Feminism is the pursuit of the end of discrimination against women. Which is based on the notion that men and women are equals (which seems to contradict your views Theo, given your descriptions of domination and such. "Loving" or not, it's still inequality).

TheoConfidor: If women are different than men, then it makes sense that one should treat them differently. Equality (of worth and value) does not imply equality of condition, equality of capacity in all areas, nor equal roles.

Again, in the example of an RPG, would it be reasonable to say that the cleric is more valuable or better than the fighter? Is the wizard better than the rogue? The simple fact is, they all are necessary and needed. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. One is good at healing and protecting, one is good at absorbing attacks and restricting enemy motion, one is good at controlling and special effects, and one is good at delivering the stabby-death. If the party is missing any one of it's members, it will not function as well. Each one is different, but each one is equally needed and equally valuable to the party.

The Christian worldview doesn't have such a limited view of "better-worse" hierarchies as the modern secular person does. In Christianity, all the members of the body of Christ, though possessing different gifts, are all equally valuable and necessary. The janitor who sweeps the floors is is necessary as the pastor who preaches. Those who have the gift of mercy and compassion are as crucial as those with the gift of prophecy. The weak are as valuable and treasured in God's eyes as the strong. The poor are as necessary as the rich. None is better or worse than any other. Each one has been given different gifts and different callings. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28) "Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. (Rom. 12:4-6a)

In the same way, within the family, both the husband and his wife are necessary and valuable parts of the whole. The husband is not complete without his wife. The wife is not complete without her husband. The parents are not complete without their children. The children are not complete without their parents. Together, they are a unit. Each member of the family is necessary and indispensable. However, the husband and wife have different roles and therefore, on the basis of their roles, MUST be treated differently. Discrimination (that is, treating one person differently than another) is a necessary thing as long as one believes in different roles. Would the rogue ask the fighter to heal him? Would the wizard ask the cleric to charge headfirst into battle? Preposterous! Different roles necessitate different treatment.

Corax: You've already stated that men should "lovingly dominate" their wives and wives should "submit to their husband's leadership." It also doesn't help that the Bible says that "Women were created for men." But even then, let's say somehow that purely what the Bible says isn't sexist. That men and women are just different. But wait... the wife is below the man, is supposed to support him and submit to him. Isn't that the definition of inferiority? Doesn't that make her less than the husband? Much as a human being is less than God, he/she is inferior.

TheoConfidor: Hierarchically inferior, yes. Of less value, merit, capability or importance? No.

Returning to my D&D analogy, in Neverwinter Nights, our party was always required to have a designated party leader. Sometimes the fighter would be the designated party leader. Other times the cleric was the designated party leader. Hierarchical leadership was required, but the hierarchy did not imply that one character was better than any other.

Similarly, though I have a boss at work, outside of the realm of work, we are peers. Though, when I am on the clock I submit to him and obey his orders, this does not imply that he is smarter, more capable or better than I am. In fact, in my area of expertise, I am far more capable than he is. The hierarchy exists to best accomplish the task of earning money and creating good products. Within that hierarchy, we each have our roles and responsibilities. My supervisor is the designated leader. Outside of that hierarchy, we are equals and peers. He is skilled in his areas, and I am skilled in mine.

The family structure is the same. Within the hierarchy of the family (which, like a company, has a specific purpose: to raise up godly offspring), the husband is the designated leader. He gives the orders, his wife willingly submits. Outside of that hierarchy, there is personal equality. The wife has her own specific talents, skills and areas of expertise. The husband has his own specific talents, skills and areas of expertise.

A lot of people have an culturally-indoctrinately objection to the concept of submission and the concept of dominance, especially in romantic relationships and the familial structure. These objections are almost always due to a fundamental misunderstanding of submission and dominance. The simple fact is that divergent roles do not imply personal inequality. People function best when they play a role that suits them and groups function best when each person plays their own respective role.

Men are hardwired by God to be leaders. They are inescapably leaders of their own families, and often leaders in other aspects of life, as well. Those men who lead best are the happiest, most successful, most fruitful and most fulfilled. Women are hardwired by God to respond to men who lead well. Those women who have a good husband and who submit to their husband's leadership are the happiest, the most fruitful, the loveliest and the most fulfilled.

I will not deny the possibility that there may be outliers. There are always exceptions to any general principle, and as such, there may be occasional instances where a woman must lead and will find fulfillment in leading. But, the existence of exceptions does nothing to invalidate the general principle. Both Scripture and practical life experience teach that in romantic relationships, men must be dominant and women must submit. Those who deny this crucial fact of life are destined for pain, relational dysfunction and heartache. Those who recognize that this is simply the way life is are able to develop relational habits that capitalize on the differences between men and women, which will result in the most holiness and happiness.

Douglas Wilson on Marital Dominance

While I have been aware of Douglas Wilson for quite some time, until recently I had only read 2 of his books. Last week, I borrowed Reforming Marriage from a friend of mine and I have been quite impressed with the depth of insight that Wilson clearly demonstrates. He clearly has a firm grasp of the proper model of marriage as well as the cultural lies that have utterly eroded our society's ability to successfully handle marriage and relationships. He also has a very interesting perspective on marital dominance, which I have never before seen voiced in precisely this manner. Wilson writes:

The Bible says the "husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church" (Eph. 5:23). Paul most emphatically does not say that husbands ought to be the heads of their wives. He says that they are. In this verse, the apostle is not telling us how marriages ought to function (that comes in the verses following). Rather he is telling us what the marriage relationship between husband and wife is. Marriage is defined in part as the headship of a husband over a wife. In other words, without this headship, there is no marriage.

Meditating on this is a very valuable thing for husbands to do. Because the husband is the head of the wife, he finds himself in a position of inescapable leadership. He cannot successfully refuse to lead. If he attempts to abdicate in some way, he may, through his rebellion, lead poorly. But no matter what he does, or where he goes, he does so as the head of his wife. This is how God designed marriage. He has created us as male and female in such a way as to ensure that men will always be dominant in marriage. If the husband is godly, then that dominance will not be harsh; it will be characterized by the same self-sacrificial love demonstrated by our Lord--Dominus--at the cross. If a husband tries to run away from his headship, that abdication will dominate the home. If he catches a plane to the other side of the country, and stays there, he will dominate in and by his absence. How many children have grown up in a home dominated by the empty chair at the table? If the marriage is one in which the wife "wears the pants," the wimpiness of the husband is the most obvious thing about the marriage, creating a miserable marriage and home. His abdication dominates.
These are difficult words. And even with the qualifications, it is probable that a number of readers have reacted negatively to the earlier use of the word dominance. The fact that this is so is simply another testimony to how much the Christian church is influenced by the propaganda of feminism--whether the man-hating secular variety or the sanitized, "evangelical" kind. Nevertheless, the dominance of the husband is a fact; the only choice we have in this regards concerns whether that dominance will be a loving and constructive dominion or hateful and destructive tyranny. Arguing with the fact of the husband's headship in the home is like jumping off a cliff in order to quarrel with the law of gravity. Marshall the arguments on the way down however one likes, he will eventually find himself refuted in a messy way.

Douglas Wilson demonstrates a clear grasp of many important concepts:
1. A man must be the leader in his household
2. Women are hardwired to respond to dominance
3. Patriarchal structure is necessary for familial health and happiness
4. Feminism is a rejection of the natural and necessary relational structure
5. There are various faces of feminism, both the women-worshipping sort often espoused by conservatives and the man-hating secular sort

Either to be in accordance with God's design, or even simply to make a marriage or LTR work, the natural order of male-female relationships must be understood and respected. Men are inescapably called to lead. Women naturally respond to leadership and displays of dominance. A man who leads well will be attractive to women and will be respected. Dominance can either be expressed in a gentle, firm and loving way, or in a harsh and destructive manner. Both ways of expressing dominance will likely be effective, but one will be constructive and nourishing while the other will be harmful. Either for societal stability, familial success or personal happiness, a man must resist the pernicious lies and the vast array of modern cultural propaganda that deny and oppose these fundamental truths.

Douglas Wilson also introduces the intriguing concept that even in seeking to abdicate leading, a man still is inescapably the leader of his family. Though his dominance may be weak and feeble, yet his leadership still sets the tone of his familial relationships and directly impacts his wife and his children. The same principle can be clearly applied to LTRs. The health of a LTR is determined by how well a man leads his woman. A man's dominance, or lack thereof, is what determines the quality, tone and longevity of his romantic relationships.

Game Takes Consistent Effort

Recently, I came across an interesting conjecture about the relative difference in required effort for maintaining an LTR compared to the necessary effort to maintain an active sex life through an endless string of casual relationships and STRs. Talleyrand writes:

Entropy always enters into a long-term relationship. The fact that it is often repeated that long-term relationships take “work” to be successful is evidence of this. It takes more energy over the long-term to keep an active sex life going if you are married, while it is easier and more frequent while the excitement and passion of a new romance is sizzling.

One of the simple facts of life is that entropy affects every aspect of existence, not just long-term relationships. Entropy is an inescapable force which requires regular effort to overcome. Now, while it is true that not as much effort is directly invested in any given relationship for those who engage in casual sex or STRs, it is not true that any less energy is needed. I have had experience with both LTRs and with casual dating. While one's energies are directed at different things, in both LTR game and STR game, effort must be consistently put in either to maintain the status quo or to improve one's results.

In a LTR, energy is directed towards getting to better know each other, towards building attraction, towards establishing and maintaining good relational habits, and towards better fulfilling one's relational role. It takes consistent effort to keep physically fit, to ensure continual physical attration. It takes consistent effort to keep one's mind active and to be interesting. It takes consistent effort to be growing spiritually. It takes consistent effort for a man to offer wise and consistent leadership to his woman. It takes consistent effort to cultivate a relational unity in the pursuit of oneness of mind and spirit. It takes consistent effort to ward off threats to the relationship that come in many forms (spiritual attack, cultural lies, social pressure...). Most certainly, establishing and maintaining a happy and healthy LTR or marriage is a challenging endeavor.

However, is it really any easier for the man who devotes his energy to continually meeting and bedding new women? Not at all. He must always be at the top of his game. The player must dedicate time and energy to ensure that he always has excellent physical presence, be keeping his body in shape, dressing well and utilizing proper body language. He must always be ready with routines, interesting conversational topics, and stories that demonstrate high value for whenever he meets a new girl. He must have a mental list of great meeting venues and comfort-building locations. He must regularly practice his game by going out and approaching attractive women. The chase and the challenge never lessen, therefore such a man must always consistently game well and sharpen his skills to ensure successful seduction.

With both types of Game, which utilize similar but somewhat different skillsets, there is a significant learning curve. However, to the degree that one properly learns the principles of Game and applies them habitually, the amount of mental energy needed to develop new relationships, attract girls or maintain one's LTR drops to a minimum. Yet, practically, time and energy are always required in relationships with women. You never get something for nothing. In a LTR, you must seduce your woman again and again. In the pursuit of STRs, you must meet and seduce new women again and again. In a LTR, you have to dedicate effort to being consistently attractive to your woman. In the pursuit of STRs, you must dedicate effort to be consistently attractive to many women. In both STRs and LTRs, the quality of the relationships and the regularity and quality of sex is extremely dependent on how good your Game is, and how much consistent effort is applied.

The idea that single men need utilize less energy and effort in pursuit of sex than married men is a fallacious idea that neglects the effect of entropy on any man's attractiveness. The simple fact is, having an active and fulfilling sex life takes consistent energy and effort for both the single man and the married man.

Proper Priorities of a Man

In response to my post on unbalanced priorities being relationship killers, a commenter asked:

In a marriage, though, ought not your relationship be your highest priority? And once you have children, shouldn't the children be the highest priority?

While a seemingly simple question, I actually think that her question is quite profound. What should a person's priorities be? Is there a difference between the ideal priorities for a man and for a woman? These questions have been percolating in my head for the past week, and I've even found it helpful to think through what I've read about priorities from other authors. In particular, I think that John Eldredge, David Deida, and Steve Pavlina have a fairly good grasp on how a man should organize his priorities. While short-term priorities are quite malleable and perhaps change every hour, a person's long-term priorities should be stable and fixed. Every person who lives life with intentionality and direction must be clear on their priorities and must operate on the basis of them.

For a man, his list of priorities, where applicable, should be:

1. Love God
Given that we were created by God to bring Him glory, our chief duty in life, as human beings, is to love God whole-heartedly, to enjoy Him completely and to bring glory to Him with our words and actions. Jesus Christ succinctly expressed such a priority when he was asked what the greatest commandment is. "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." A man who has his priorities straight will live his life in accordance with God's will and align himself with the divine. He willingly submits to God's authority in every area of his life and sets all his priorities based on God's.

2. Take Care of Yourself
In order for a man to be successful in any endeavor he untertakes, he must have adequate resources. Proper self-care is a non-negotiable prerequisite for productivity, personal and spiritual growth, relational success, and financial freedom. Even in order to love others, a man must have time, energy and resources that he can utilize. A man must take adequately care of himself physically, mentally, spiritually and emotionally. When he allows any of these areas to stagnate, his energy is diminished and his potential impact is greatly limited.

3. Pursue Your Mission
While no two men have quite the same mission, and while a man's mission may change at various points in his life, all men are naturally missional. Every man has a mission that compels him to act and to make a unique contribution to the world. To the degree that a man knows his mission, he is able to pursue it. To the degree that a man is willing to passionately invest himself in fulfilling his mission, he is able to make a lasting impact on the world and on other peoples' lives. A man must know his mission and wholeheartedly pursue it.

4. Love Your Woman
Fewer people can have as profound an effect on a man's life as his wife does. When a man chooses a good woman to marry, continually guides and nurtures her, and offers her his unbridled love, she will gladly manage his household, encourage his pursuits and support him both practically and emotionally. When a man neglects his wife, she will turn into a nagging shrew who undermines his authority and hinders his mission. A man must love his woman and take good care of her, much in the same way that he must dedicate energy to proper self-care. When he offers her his love and strength, she will flourish and offer him every blessing she can.

5. Love Your Family
Unlike most other relationships a man has, familial bonds are much deeper and more enduring than other human relationships. A man's best friend may not always be his best friend, but his brother will always be his brother and his daughter will always be his daughter. It is always wise for a man to develop and maintain rich and rewarding relationships with everyone in his family, especially with his family of origin and his own family.

6. Love Your Friends
The life of a man is incomplete without quality friendships that have been consciously created. A man's friends are the people he enjoys spending time with, and who challenge him to live up to his potential. Walking alongside a few quality men is a rewarding experience and an indispensible aid in pursuing personal growth. A wise man always knows that he needs other men who inspire him and call him out when he loses his edge or begins heading down a dangerous path. Similarly, such a man will also seek to enrich the lives of his friends by offering his presence, by helping them in times of need, and by exhorting them to live to their fullest potential.



This list is a universal list of priorities that a man should adopt. For each of those priorities that is applicable to a man's life, they should always be prioritized in the order listed. If there is a priority that is not applicable to a man's life (for example, if he does not have a woman), then in the short-term it is quite reasonable to simply remove it from the list. In the long-term, however, it is vital for most men to live life in such a way that all of these elements are applicable. A man who does not know God and who is not adequately developed in his spirituality has not yet attained the ideal balance in his life. A well-developed and balanced man is always a spiritual man with an appreciation for sublime beauty and a mystical perception of God and his ways. A man who is lacking in friends and a solid social network may be living according to his priorities, but he is not living a balanced and complete life. A man who has not learned how to love and appreciate a woman, and who has not learned how to develop a rich relationship with her, is not living a full and balanced life.

Additionally, while I have presented these priorities as a list, in order of precendence, I want to be clear in saying that it is not a sort of checklist. It is not a chronological list, wherein you move down the list, checking off each thing, one by one. Instead, all of the priorities must co-exist together in a particular proportion. It is a recipe for a balanced life. If any necessary element is excluded, either intentionally or by neglect, a man's life is incomplete and imbalanced. Of the applicable elements, then, it is crucial that each priority have its place. If a man spends time with God, pursues his mission, loves his wife and his family, and yet neglects to rest his body sufficiently through sleep and his mind through relaxing, then his day is unbalanced. If a week goes by and a man has not dedicated energy to pursuing his mission, then even if he spent time on all of the other elements, his week is unbalanced. All of the applicable priorities must be a regular part of a man's life. Neglecting even one of them, for a period of time, may cause problems.

Let's return to the question that was originally asked. Should a married man's romantic relationship be the highest priority in his life? Not at all! For his sake and for the sake of his wife and family, he must place higher priority on his spiritual standing before God, on developing his own character and living with integrity, and in passionately pursuing his purpose. If he does put his romantic relationship ahead of any of those things, his unbalanced living will cause every area of his life to deteriorate, including his marriage. A woman needs to know that her man is someone to be respected, who will not compromise his values or his mission in life. Similarly, a man's children should never be the highest priority in his life either. Children need to know that their father is dedicated to following God, to pursuing his mission and to loving his wife. They need to know that his world does not revolve around them. A man is best able to love the people in his life by maintaining healthy priorities in every aspect of life.

Relationship Killers: Unbalanced Priorities

It's an occurence that most of us can relate to. A close friend, after being single for a while, gets into a romantic relationship. Suddenly, the friend becomes a bit more scarce. You see him much less frequently than you used to. He becomes more flaky with his commitments. Then, eventually, the relationship bites the dust, and your friend is mostly back to his normal self. I've seen this precise pattern happen quite a number of times. Recently, this is what happened to a close friend of mine. While excitement about a new relationship is a good thing, overinvestment and poor priorities are very harmful.

There are several major problems with spending too much time with a new romantic partner. First of all, it demonstrates that your priorities aren't properly aligned. The most valuable resource that human beings have is time. Your priorities in life are most vividly shown by how you choose to spend your time. When you spend excessive amounts of time with a romantic partner it communicates the message that your new lover is the most important and valued part of your life. This is communicated to your lover, to your family, to your friends and to yourself. This goes against a cardinal rule of relationships. Overinvestness, like neediness, is unattractive. It signals to others that you aren't satisfied enough with your own life, and that your normal activities aren't exciting and engaging enough.

Silas' Relationship Maxim #1: A romantic relationship is just a part of your life, it should never be your life.

Second, when your priorities are not properly aligned, your other relationships and pursuits tend to suffer. When you overinvest yourself in a relationship, you have insufficient remaining time for your friends, for your family, for your spiritual journey, and for your creative pursuits or hobbies. Friendships will suffer because your actions demonstrate that you don't value your friends as much as they thought you did. Your spirituality begins to decline because you simply don't have enough remaining time to make God a priority. Creative output is diminished substantially, since all creative pursuits take regular time commitment. Given that time is as limited as it is, every hour that you spend doing one thing is an hour that you can't spend doing anything else. Some things can be reasonably cut, but there are many things in life that must remain priorities.

Third, while it might not happen initially, eventually your emotions will trouble you. When you are neglecting relationships that you should be nurturing or neglecting things that you know you should be doing, it catches up to you. Soon, you feel less like yourself. Your life isn't the same, and it begins to bother you. Your self-image begins to nose-dive. Good habits begin to erode and disappear. It isn't a good place to be.

Any one of these three issues has the potential to be a relationship-killer. Overinvesting yourself in a relationship may cause your lover to lose attraction for you. Pressure from friends and family (who love and miss you) will begin to affect the relationship. Negative emotions will profoundly impact your own enthusiasm about the relationship. Yet, the combination of these three factors is positively lethal. For that reason, it is always crucially important to keep a close eye on your priorities, whether you're in a relationship or not. Healthy relationships can only be formed by two people who have proper priorities. Healthy relationships can only grow stronger and more satisfying if proper priorities are consistently maintained.

For that reason, I think that the priorities of a person in a relationship can serve as a useful metric in determining the health and direction of that relationship. Proper priorities strengthen and reinforce a relationship, while unbalanced priorities hasten its demise.

Simplifying Sexual Dynamics

Recently, I was having a conversation with a friend of mine (LB) who was having some girl troubles. A certain girl had been perplexing him and he was having trouble figuring out how she really perceived things. This, of course, was unsurprising to me, since I know that women are rarely ever direct or perfectly forthcoming about their emotions, especially concerning romantic possibilities. LB was trying to make sense of what had transpired and was very confused about the whole ordeal. Like most women, both her actions and her words conveyed a broad array of mixed signals. He recounted for me specific things that she had done and said and then tried to offer his interpretations of what she meant. Soon, he describing his attempts to figure out whether she was just sexually attracted to him, or whether she just liked him as a friend, or whether she wanted a relationship with him, or whether she was confused and flip-flopping constantly--it sounded like a complicated jumble!

I used to having troubles reading women and figuring out how to determine their perspectives and intentions. But, once you understand one simple fact, it all becomes quite simple. I told LB, "You're overthinking things. It's much simpler than all that." Fundamentally, there is only one thing you have to determine to know where you stand with a girl. Most women quickly and subconsciously assess the sexual value and relationship value of a guy upon meeting him. Generally, within the first 30 seconds to five minutes, she puts a guy in one of two categories:

Category 1 - Alpha - He is an attractive guy

Category 2 - Beta - He is not an attractive guy

When you're an alpha, a woman will do just about anything for you. You are in control of the relationship and can take things in whatever direction you want. You want to date her? You got it. You want to marry her? Piece of cake. You want to sleep with her and leave her? No problem. You aren't interested in her and just want to be friends? She's up for it. Want to bring her along for social proof or to buy you drinks? No sweat. While the pacing might be somewhat different, depending on the sort of girl, as long as you are an alpha, the ball is completely in your court and she's happy to follow your lead.

When you're a beta, the girl is in control of the interactions. She is in control of the relationship and will allow exactly what she wants to happen, but nothing more. Generally this results in either no contact or the dreaded "friend-zone." With some girls, particularly ones who are more promiscuous, they may even have no qualms about kissing you or sleeping with you, but that still doesn't change the sexual dynamic. In other cases, they may string you along and get you to buy them drinks, dinner and gifts, while knowing that nothing with ever materialize from it.

Now, while it is possible to change categories, the main directional flow is downward. There are things that an alpha can do to diminish his attractiveness in a woman's eyes. Enough of this sort of behavior and he will eventually become a beta, in her eyes. It is also theoretically possible for a beta to be viewed as an alpha, but such a thing is rare enough that it is very nearly a miracle. Fundamentally, whatever category you are first placed in is the one you remain in for the duration of the relationship. Understanding and interpreting sexual dynamics is as simple as figuring out which category you are in. You can understand the entire drift of a relationship by simply figuring out whether a girl perceives a guy as an alpha or as a beta. There doesn't need to be a lot of analysis and thinking about the whole thing. Either attraction is there or it isn't. It's as simple as that.

In the case of LB, he was confused because the girl said that she wasn't interested in a relationship with him, and yet she offered to sleep with him. Such mixed signals are extremely confusing for anyone who doesn't understand the simple principle of female attraction--but it all becomes quite clear when you understand sexual dynamics. I told him that even though she had no qualms about making out with him or sleeping with him, she viewed him merely as a category 2 guy, and therefore no lasting relationship would be possible. A day later, after LB had talked with the girl, he called me up and told me that I had been right. The only reason she had offered to sleep with him was out of pity. It would have been a pity fuck. Sexual dynamics are always simpler than they seem. Social awareness and an understanding of what attracts men and women is a vital and indispensible ally in successfully navigating the dating world. It's a simple thing, but there's a bit of a learning curve.

Thoughts About Valentine's Day

Ever since I was a child, I have always had a certain fondness for Valentine's Day. My sentiments don't seem much shared by modern people. In fact, as a nation, we underappreciate nearly all of our holidays. Some are too trivial. Some carry no personal significance. Some are too religious. Some are too sappy and whimsical. I think that modern attitudes about our holidays are a more accurate reflection of us as a people than a proper critique of the holidays themselves. Presently, we are a people who lack appreciation for what ought to be appreciated. We do not see the magic of our world, and therefore we do not see what is worth celebrating. There is a similar sentiment oft expressed concerning Valentine's day. Some disdainfully refer to it as "singles awareness day," while others complain that it is the prime example of a "hallmark holiday." While holidays are set aside as days of celebration for the rejoicing in that which is most human, some refuse to see anything but the negative side of things. If they take joy and pleasure in the drudgery of celebration, then I will do nothing to interfere with their upside-down days of gloomy rejoicing, but I also shall take part in such a pitiable perspective.

Personally, I think that if anything is to be done, it ought to be done out of joy with a childlike jubilee. Especially holidays! Valentine's Day, while not presently my favorite holiday, is definitely one that I greatly appreciate and thoroughly enjoy. I have enjoyed it when I've been single, and I have enjoyed it when I haven't been. It's a holiday that is about much more than just oneself. It is a celebration of love, closeness, connection, relationships and the glorious and surprising differences between men and women. It is a celebration of that which most matters in life, and of that which is capable of bringing some of the highest human pleasures. While it certainly is about no less than romantic relationships and love affairs, it is definitely not limited to the sphere of romance.

Ironically, Valentine's gifts I've received from girls or activities I've done with girls don't come close in comparison with what has made me feel the most loved on Valentine's day. The most meaningful and satisfying Valentine's days have been ones where my father gave candy to my siblings and me. I've written in the past about my favorite memories of my father. This is another memory that I very much treasure and value. For the most part, my father is not a very expressive man. He rarely talks about his emotions or feelings and he rarely shares his heart with people. During my teenage years, however, every Valentine's day for several consecutive years, my father would always surprise us with a box of delicious chocolate-covered cherry coridals. He never said more than "Happy Valentine's Day," but the very fact the he went out of his way to do anything at all spoke volumes more than his words or even his gifts could convey. They say that it's the thought that counts most, behind a gift. Never have I found a truer and more practical example of that little epigram than in the gifts my father gave us on Valentine's day. Those gifts showed me that he does have a deep fondness for me, despite his general lack of expression concerning such affection. His gifts were sincere, genuine, meaningful and unpretentious.

Indeed, I think that the best way to celebrate Valentine's day, if it is to be celebrated at all, is exactly in that sort of manner. Whatever is done or given should be sincere, genuine, meaningful and unpretentious. Rather than doing something cliché and stereotypical out of duty, if there are to be any expressions of love and appreciation they should be done from the heart. As an artist, I have always thought that buying any sort of store-bought card is quite impersonal. Such a card takes a negligible amount of thought and creativity, and expresses very little of personal significance. When I do give cards for Valentines day, I always prefer to create them myself, either by hand or digitally, depending on my present mood and the complexity of my idea. In such manner, when I do give a card, it is something that is heartfelt and specifically crafted for its recipient. Poems and letters also have a personal touch and significance that far outweigh flowers or chocolates. Simple things are often more meaningful than elaborate gestures, since they always have a purity about them that overblown efforts more frequently lack.

Yet, the most important thing on Valentine's day is never what is done or given, but the specific person or relationship being celebrated. It is easy to lose sight of this in our materialistic age, and it is easy to allow expectations to prevent a person (giver or receiver) from fully enjoying the day. When one sets expectations for what is to be done or given, the emphasis is no longer on what truly matters (love, the person, and the relationship), but instead is on the token of expression. A giver who buys flowers and chocolates out of duty is worse than one who does nothing, because he misses the whole point of the day. Similarly, a receiver who expects to receive certain things also misses the point of the whole day and arbitrarily limits their enjoyment and delight. Chesterton offers a brilliant insight into the blissfulness that accompanies having no expectations:

The man who said, "Blessed is he that expecteth nothing, for he shall not be disappointed," put the eulogy quite inadequately and even falsely. The truth is, "Blessed is he that expecteth nothing, for he shall be gloriously surprised."

Because I enjoy celebrating that which is joyous and wonderful, and because I thoroughly embrace everything that Valentine's day represents and stands for, I am quite excited about the upcoming holiday. I am quite glad that personality exists, that personal relationships are real, that romance is not merely a fantasy, and that love is one of the truest and greatest parts of life! I am completely delighted by the shocking fact that there are two very different sexes, each glorious in its own way! I am extremely thankful for the wonderful people in my life, and especially for those who are the closest to me: my family, my best friend, and my girlfriend! Why should I hesitate to express myself in a way that is slightly more tangible than ordinary expression, when I express myself in so many ways in the ordinary course of things? Valentine's day is gift from God, and I shall rejoice in His love, which is the deepest of all, and in expressing my own love for others.

Of course, that isn't the only reason I celebrate--for some deep and mysterious reason, I have always found these surprisingly delicious and delightful:

Projections of an Immoral Cynic

Today, Talleyrand posted a rather harsh response to a Catholic article on men and marriage. While I thoroughly support dismantling the pretty lies foisted upon us by various blind and agenda-driven organizations and individuals, when I read Talleyrand's response, I couldn't help but be struck by the shocking amount of logical fallcies and reactiveness in his post. While I am not a strong supporter of the Catholic church (for various reasons), I do highly value the fact that the Catholic Church has a noble vision for what marriage should be, and actively advocates it. In this particular instance, I think that the article in question is quite a reasonable one. Let's break down Talleyrand's response to it and see whether his criticisms are valid, or whether they are merely projections of a cynic.

I bring this up because of the Catholic’s church “new” (read conservative) stance it is starting to take. I headed over to read one of the blogs that supposedly represents this sea change in the catholic church and I found this article on men and marriage. (Hat tip: Butterfly Squash)

I have said it before, and I will say it again, conservatives, liberals, and feminists are no friends of men because they refuse to accept the nature of women.

It may or may not be true that conservatives, liberals, and feminists refuse to accept the nature of women. However, in this particular case, such a complaint is unrelated to the article in question, which specifically states: "It is true that women have a role in all these matters. But this article is directed to men." Given that the article in question says nothing at all about the nature of women, this critism has zero applicability to the present article.

Lets get to dissecting the article.

Among the measures of mature manhood that God Himself sets forth is faithful, stable, committed marriage. After observing, It is not good for the man to be alone (Gen 2:18) God says ….A man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two of them shall become one flesh. Thus God indicates an essential description of manhood. This is what a MAN does.

Right from the get go we have shaming language. (Code Green: Peter Pan, Code Lavender: Masculinity). They posit the convenient interpretation of scripture that to be fully a man, you must get married.

Shaming language? Perhaps my reading comprehension is sadly deficient, but nowhere in that excerpt do I see any shaming occuring. Nowhere is Charles Pope saying that marriage is the only criteria for being fully a man--hence his use of the word "among." He is sharing his vision, based on Scripture, that marriage is a good thing, and that a mature, stable, committed marriage does indicate maturity in a man.

However, the advocation of a certain course of action cannot be accurately conflated with disparaging the abdication of such a recourse. That the author advocates marriage does not mean that he is shaming those who don't choose to get married. This is a blatant misreading or misinterpretation of the author's words.

The article’s next point is:

A mature man recognizes that it is not good, not healthy, for him to remain alone and unattached.

Right back to the shaming language. I am almost embarrassed for them. They can’t move on, they can’t even come up with new tactics, just the same old, same old. (Code White: Mental health). The writer does not say how it is unhealthy for the man to do this. He makes no explanation for the health benefits for marriage at all.

The writer isn't presenting any new thoughts or ideas. Instead, he is postulating the age-old Scriptural claim that was quoted in earlier in the article. If God Himself doesn't say how it is unhealthy for a man to be alone, why complain that the writer doesn't? It is sufficient to state the true nature of things. Whether an idea is new or old has no bearing on its veracity.

He fills a very long paragraph with more shaming language: You’re a boy, not a man if you don’t get married. (Code Green . . . again).

Rather than simply take your word for it, let's quote the article itself:

But a man, if he is a man, prepares himself for marriage, or perhaps for the priesthood or religious life. He is serious and steadfast about it. This may mean finishing college and embarking on the beginnings of a career but in the end he will accept the truth that it is not good for him to remain alone and unattached. In the recent past dating was usually understood as a time wherein one searched for a spouse. Today many see it “just for fun.” Marriage is postponed indefinitely. Many young men are not serious in searching for a spouse. Instead they “play the field” and use women sexually. They avoid commitment and drift from relationship to relationship. Some “father” children and still do not accept responsibility. They are not men, they are boys. For boys play. “Boys will be boys,” after all. Sadly many women allow and facilitate this immature and immoral behavior. But God is clear, a man (rather than a boy) accepts that it is not good for him to remain single and unattached and he respectfully seeks a wife.

Here, there is very specific shaming language. It is not, however, directed at those who choose to abstain from marriage, nor is it directed at those who are "serious and steadfast" in their aims towards marriage or towards a life calling that does not include marriage. It is directed at those who, "use women sexually," "avoid commitment," and "drift from relationship to relationship." It does not surprise me that Talleyrand is bothered by such a moral judgement, since his very lifestyle is exactly the one condemned by the author as boyish and irresponsible. While I much appreciate his honesty and openness about who he is and how he lives, the fact of the matter is that he is one who uses women sexually, avoids commitment and drifts from relationship to relationship. Since we do live in a world of objective morality, which is codified by God Himself, such behavior is destructive and deplorable. The author's shaming language isn't nearly strong enough. Not only is it sad that "many women allow and facilitate this immature and immoral behavior," I would say that it is digusting that men allow and facilitate this immature and immoral behavior. Something Talleyrand wrote yesterday resonated deeply with me:

We should be as good fathers to each other. What does a good father do? He teaches his son all the skills that he can, shows him the pitfalls, and he lets his children live their lives, make their own way, make their mistakes and suffer the consequences as well as the triumphs.

If we are to be good fathers to each other, we must not only instruct one another, but also correct one another. Discipline is an inescapable component of proper fatherhood. Scripture says, "For what son is there whom a father does not chasten?" (Hebrews 12:6) If we are to be good fathers to each other, then we must exhort one another to live righteously and pursue virture. We must hold each other accountable for immoral and irresponsible behavior and admonish one another to live justly, to show mercy and to walk humbly before God.

Scripture also insightfully says, "Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you. (Proverbs 9:8) Indeed, a litmus test of a man's character is how he receives correction. A wise man accepts correction and discipline with humility and graciousness. A fool rages against all sound judgment and hates those who offer reproof, since his pride and self-righteousness conflict with wisdom. One who does not receive correction is a fool.

Next point:

Having properly sought a wife he marries her and leaves his parents to establish a home.

Leaving aside the inherent shaming language of this statement, the paragraph encourages marriage but again it does so with shaming language. It does not go into why this is important, only that you must do it. Because God says so, is a nice way to fall back on moral authority, but since the catholic church has allowed itself to become girlie, it needs to do better than that.

Shaming language inherent in this statement? I don't see any. To declare how a mature man of purpose pursues marriage says nothing about those who don't.

Regarding the idea itself, Talleyrand commits the infamous genetic fallacy by rejecting the idea of marriage because "the catholic church has allowed itself to become girlie," rather than discussing the importance of marriage on its own merits. For those who accept God's truth, "Because God said so," is sufficient epistemological grounding. God's words are directly mentioned in the verse quoted in the article, "A man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two of them shall become one flesh." The author is quoting Scripture and affirming Scripture directly.

He actually commits his whole life to his wife

Bad Advice. Horrible advice. Advice that will get a man divorced in today’s day and age.

Good advice: A man makes his mission, not his woman, his priority.

To commit to something is not the same as making something the top priority. This is an equivocation fallacy. A man can commit to a woman, or a job, or a lease, or a bet, without it become the center of his world. In fact, in all these instances, it is best for a man to have a higher purpose behind his commitment. Christians are called to be committed to God above all else.

Too many men are passive husbands. Too often it is really the wife who works hardest to preserve the marriage.

O.k., the first part of this is true, but unfortunately not the way this priest believes. The second part is not true, unless you believe constant tests and undermining the man are in fact efforts to preserve the marriage. This guy is so unbelievably dense about human relationships that it makes me weep with frustration. That he is so arrogant to give men advice like this is proof that being a man of orders does not protect you from that deadly of sins: PRIDE.

It is presumption to jump too quickly to finger-pointing in either direction. While there are many women who actively destroy their relationships and marriages through constant tests and undermining, it is also true that too many men are passive husbands. To deny or fail to consider one's own sins or the sins of one's gender is also a clear manifestation of that deadly sin, pride. Not all men are passive, and not all women test and undermine. The author is stressing the importance of manly assertiveness, nothing more. These is nothing dense or arrogant about that.

This is what God says a real man does.

I challenge anyone to find where God uses the term “real man.”

In the Bible, God just uses the term "man." Implied in such a term is the reality of being masculine. The fact that the word "real" has to be appended is a sad reflection of contemporary cultural conditions.

A man doesn’t whine and say, “But what about the wife?!” He just does what he is supposed to do and does not point fingers. He accepts his own responsibility. Yes, there are men who have worked hard to preserve their marriage and the wife still walked away.

Remember this fool was advocating counseling earlier in his missive? Remember that? Think about what counseling is like with someone with the above attitude. You cannot complain, you cannot whine, you cannot point out wrongs, because that is not what a man does. He just sits and takes whatever shit sandwich is fed to him and he likes it.

When someone is making these statements, what he is really saying that as a man you need to take it like a slave.

You have no right to complain, you have no where to air your grievances in the catholic church, because “real” men don’t do this.

The author is advocating responsbility and assertive action. Whining accomplishes nothing, and is pathetic and wimpy. Nowhere is the author saying that a man shouldn't point out wrongs or hold others accountable. Before a man holds others accountable for their actions, he must first take responsibility for his own. Jumping to point fingers or remaining passive while waiting for others to change is a weak way to approach life.



In his reponse to the article, Talleyrand has constantly resorted to using fallacious arguments of numerous sorts. Much of what he protests isn't even being advocated by the author of the article. With a couple of minor exceptions, nearly all of the supposed instances of "shaming language" are nonexistent. In the one instance where the author is actually using shaming language, it is directed at precisely the sort of behavior Talleyrand regularly engages in. His defensiveness and reactionary perspective are thoroughly evident in his response, and are clearly being projected onto the author of the original article, whose intent is entirely different than Talleyrand appears to think it is.

While the author does make a few minor points that I would quibble with, his major points are all quite reasonable:
1. A stable, commited, faithful marriage is the calling of most men
2. A man should pursue his calling (either to marriage or to abstinence) in a serious and steadfast manner
3. Marriage should be pursued according to God's prescribed method, as outlined by Scripture
4. A man takes leadership in his family and manfully addresses any threats to marital unity
5. A man should take responsiblity for his own actions and live righteously, regardless of how others behave

Of course, as someone who lives in a contrary manner to all of these points, it is no surprise that Talleyrand would be driven by his emotions to attack such teaching. Talleyrand views marriage as something that is undesirable, and instead dedicates substantial energy to the hedonic pursuit of promiscuity with numerous women. He neither pursues marriage nor abstinence. He rejects God's authority and Scriptural teaching. He adopts an individualistic approach towards relationships, and is not concerned with marital unity or even with relational unity in romantic affairs at all. He does not live righteously and pursue virtue. Instead, bitterness, unbridled pessism and defensiveness surface in his attempt to dissuade others from valuing marriage, living righteously, and standing against the tide of social decay that unarguably surrounds modern men and women. His critisms of the Catholic article seem more to be a reflection of himself than a proper logical refuttal of any of the major points made. Rather than being a reasoned response, all he offers us is the projections of an immoral cynic.

The Solipsism of Individualism

There is an interesting strain of hypocrisy that I have noted in the blogs of some writers whom I follow. There are many who attest to the truths of modern men and women, especially in regard to their mindsets concerning relationships. They rightfully decry the social decay and entropy that has gripped our culture. Yet, I have seen something that, though unsurprising, does strike me as blind and hypocritical. Many of them correctly recognize that typical American women are solipsististic--that is, they are extremely narcissistic, self-seeking and self-absorbed. Very few American women truly value the men in their lives. Very few of them are willing to be sacrificial or offer genuine love or support. Indeed, rampant individualism permeates the worldview of most modern Americans. We are self-seeking creatures, who are consumed with getting the best for ourselves, while remaining unconcerned with the feelings and well-being of others. This is a cultural disease that does not merely affect the women.

Fundamentally, there are two different approaches to relationship. The first is an individualistic perspective. Individualism is defined as: "the pursuit of individual rather than common or collective interests; egoism." Our culture indoctrinates people with this attitude from the time they are young. Through our experiences, through our families and through media and entertainment we are implicitly taught that since no one else has your best interests in mind, you must seek your own good and ensure your well-being at all costs. You must think of yourself before others. Your interests come before anyone else's. As such, in every area of life you must be on guard against those who would use you for their own gain, and ensure that your own well-being comes first. This consumeristic mindset is even taken into relationships. Whether in marriages, in dating relationships, or in one-night stands, this is the predominant attitude of the people in our culture. Each person is seeking their own interests, above that of their partner. The critical questions are, "What am I getting out of this relationship?" "Am I happy?" "Is this relationship working for me?" If the answers ever seem dissatisfactory, then the relationship quickly dissolves, and both partners continue seeking their own best interests in other relationships. Their first priority is personal gain, and the metric of that is primarily happiness. This is a solipsistic and selfish approach to relationships.

The second approach to relationship is a collectivistic approach. In this mindset, a person is not solely concerned with their own interests and well-being, but is simultaneously concerned with the well-being and interests of their partner. This mindset is radically different since it leads each person to care about other people. While it doesn't neglect self-interest, a collectivistic mindset is primarily others-centric. Through deference and mutual submission each person choses to seek the benefit of the other. This is a strongly counter-cultural attitude. It requires self-sacrifice, genuine commitment and trust from both partners in order to work at all. Such an attitude is the one preached by Christianity. In the words of Paul, "Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others." (Phillipians 2:4) Jesus, too, preaches about the centrality of self-sacrificial love towards both God and other people. "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." (John 13:34) That is a high calling! As witnessed in Jesus' own life, His love was what compelled Him to sacrifice His life that the world might be saved. Jesus commands His followers to live with a similar love for others. Paul extends this command to romantic relationships when he writes, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her." (Ephesians 5:25) Here, Paul commands all men to have a self-sacrificial love for their wives. A collectivistic approach to relationships, in which both partners view themselves not solely as individuals, but as part of a unified whole, demands that both husbands and wives love each other, and that wives are to submit to their husbands. When this rare attitude does exist bilaterally in a relationship there is a remarkable and beautiful unity which is evident. As both partners primarily seek joint happiness and mutual benefit, they are able to support each other, encourage each other and grow together. The archaic adage of a chain being as strong as its weakest link accurately describes such a union. To the degree that there is mutual love, respect and sacrifice, the two are stronger together. To the degree that such an attitude is lacking from either partner, the union, and both people individually, are that much weaker. A team-minded approach towards relationships is the attitude that God desires all people to have. It is the cure to the social disease of individualism that plagues our generation.

The lack of a self-sacrificial and submissive love is what is decried by many of my fellow bloggers. My criticism is that there are many such men who behave exactly like the women whom they judge. It might be true that today's women are the more solipsistic sex. Yet, when men embrace the same mindset in their approach to relationships, they do not see the cognitive dissonance between their words and their actions. Many of the men who complain that women are too self-centered, self-seeking and self-absorbed proceed to develop the very same traits in themselves. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the philandering lifestyles of several major practitioners of Game. They sleep with one woman after another, and quickly leave them in pursuit of hotter women, more excitement or for the thrill of the chase. Rather than seeking to find a woman of character who is selfless and committed and rather than standing against the current social tide, such men have hopped into the river and become one with the polluted paradigmatic currents.

To those who recognize the social maladies of individualism and the consumeristic mindset towards relationships and actively oppose such thinking by speaking out against it and living a life that is an example of the self-sacrificial love which cures such an affliction, I strongly support and heartily endorse your efforts. To those who recognize the flawed thinking of our age but stand aside and do nothing, I urge you to question your motives and your resolve. If our world is to be changed, we must believe that change is possible, hold a clear vision for what can be, and boldly take action to remake the world according to such a vision. To those who decry the solipsism and individualism of the opposite gender, whilst living with a self-absorbed and solely self-interested mindset, I am disgusted by your hypocrisy. The solipsism of modern women neither justifies nor excuses such behavior in men. Similarly, the selfishness of modern men does not justify or excuse such behavior in women. Beware lest you become like those you judge!

As for me, I have a vision for the way the world should be. Jesus' words and teachings describe the sort of world I seek to create, and the sort of behavior I seek to model and encourage. Even if all around me are utterly consumed in self-absorption, yet will I uphold the model of collectivism, which cannot be accurately conflated with either altruism or individualism. Rather than being solely self-seeking, or living solely for the good of others, I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ who preached loving one's neighbor while loving oneself. Collectivism seeks mutual benefit in relationship. This requires humility, graciousness, patience and a self-sacrificial, committed love. It also requires self-respect, independence and assertiveness. I will not be a timid pessimist who believes that victory is unattainable and therefore unworth pursuing. Resignation is not befitting a man of courage. Nor will I be a blind optimist, who lives in denial of the pervasive cultural degradation. A clear vision of both and the problem and the solution are necessary for real reform to occur. I take my stand against selfishness, individualism, and the hedonic pursuits of those who set forth their own happiness as the highest aim in life. Edmund Burke wisely noted, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." Come alongside me and fight against the social entropy by embracing my vision and working towards it!