Field report

Now’s I have enough money to support myself, I’m starting to look for an IRL waifu for to engage in 3-D degeneracy and pop out some niglets. To this end, I tapped my massive GENIUS and manosphere background to set myself the following curriculum:

Weekly: MM’s Chateau Heartiste boildown podcast (I’m a big believer in reviewing fundamentals)
1. The Rational Male (book)
2. Mystery Method
3. The Art of Seduction
4. The Style Guide
5. Day Bang
6. Married Man Sex Life (book)

Because I’m looking for a conscientious, introverted Christian girl, my focus will be on indirect approaches, day game, and environments where such girls may be found such as:

1. Churches
2. Libraries
3. Hardware/specialty stores
4. Family network
5. Accounting classes and departments

My frame couldn’t be tighter because, to be perfectly frank, I’m more interested in finding a free secretary than sex. Genius comes with serious mindfulness issues.

This evening I went to the grocery store, and realized I could start doing some indirect approaches. What I discovered is that, between my complete lack of approach anxiety (i.e. lack of social anxiety) and my unusually high creative drive, I’m very good at generating situational openers. Here are the three I used:

1. Excuse me, I have to buy my little sister something for secret Santa this year, what should I get?
2. What’s your favorite six-dollar wine? I’d go as high as six fifty if necessary. (This was successful with a young 7. I didn’t find her recommendation, so if I’d seen her again I would have accused her of “lying” about its existence to re-engage her and her friend.)
3. Is that color natural? I absolutely must know. (Directed to a fellow ginger.)

All of these have the distinct advantage of being questions about things I genuinely wanted to know. Though this isn’t necessary, I expect it gives the interaction a more genuine flavor than a canned opener, which will be more successful for me because I’m very bad at acting. However if I’m in a tight spot I’ll probably reuse #1, because there’s a large range of possible follow-up questions to use as a hook and the girl’s answer projects a lot about her. These questions also have the advantage of being playful subjects—so if a girl is already attracted or generally in a playful mood, this gives her plausible deniability to have some fun talking to me.

Something else I learned is why it’s so natural for a high-status man to do the false time constraint gambit and then turn around and hook. In the latter example above the ginger girl was an HB3, whereas I’m objectively a 5 but more like a 6 or 7 to feminine, introverted women on account of my novelty-generating mind and high testosterone. (It also helps if the girl is lighter-skinned than me, which this ginger gal was—this doesn’t happen often!) Anyway, I wasn’t interested and she clearly was, because when I started toward the door she followed me (on a plausibly sidelong path) and, when I re-engaged her, she undid her hair and started tossing it. If I’d known what to do in that situation I’d have gone for a number close but I’m only just starting chapter 4 of Mystery Method.

Here’s the thing: I didn’t turn around and re-engage because I wanted this girl’s number. I did it because I felt bad for getting her hopes up and leaving her in the lurch, and I wanted to drop a compliment to make the letdown a little brighter. That patronizing instinct is why it works.

Anyway, I bet I’m going to end up being very good at this. Need to figure out the whole morality of premarital sex thing ahead of time because it’s going to come up sooner rather than later and I’d rather make the decision with my big head.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to Field report

  1. Mycroft Jones says:

    I also highly recommend the book “Models” (of Attraction) by Mark Manson. Koanic was the one who turned me onto Mark Manson years ago, his book is top kek, I’d even put it above Day Bang and Mystery Method.

  2. Lizard King says:

    You’re doing this all wrong man.

    “You’re a wizard, Anakin!” – Gandalf

    • TM says:

      He hasn’t even reached his final form! This is not good. Can we change his mind with some tendies?

      • Lizard King says:

        I was thinking maybe just spamming “MGTOW! MGTOW! MGTOW!” in the comments. Not sure yet. Have to wait and see. Tendies is a good plan though.

        • TM says:

          Better get some mountain dew, too.

          • TM says:

            I’ve got it! A waifu pillow (an authentic Japanese one, of course)! Now, we just need to plan the intervention before it’s too late…

            • Lizard King says:

              Oooh, I know which waifu pillow to get him too. (I kno ur watchin Aeoli, u kno who best waifu iz)

              I think a better question than when to intervene is WHERE!

              The arcade? The basement? Chuck E Cheese? Wal Mart? No… no… RuneScape.

              Get the clan.

            • TM says:

              We’ll have to obtain his address. I’ve got a black van, chloroform, and a hidden shack in the woods. Itz time for srs business.

            • Lizard King says:

              Noice!

              I keep trying to message him on RuneScape but he isn’t answering. Must be fishing for shark again.

  3. Hezekiah Garrett says:

    I usually just ask if they’d like to see my etchings…

  4. a says:

    Very good.
    Would love to see whatever notes you take as you go through the game lit.
    The links don’t work btw.

    Also need to swag you the fuck out nigger. Boots n shit. Nice nontoxic facial cream (Yeah, yeah).
    Got the perfect site:
    http://stoneonstyle.com/style-etiquette-101/trump-fashion-faux-pas-is-deeply-unsettling/
    lol

  5. purpletigerbot says:

    The Style Guide … what is this referring to?

  6. Koanic says:

    Premarital sex is literally Biblical. Song of Solomon. It’s called betrothal. Legally no different than marriage.

    • Koanic says:

      If you can’t afford a divorce rape, you can’t afford a wife.

      “And I discovered more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets, whose hands are chains. One who is pleasing to God will escape from her, but the sinner will be captured by her.”

      Prison awaits the fool and the unfortunate.

      “Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found.”

    • Sunnybutt says:

      Wrong. The point of the betrothal period was to prove that you WEREN’T having sex during your courtship, because if you had, and she started Showing Signs, your sin would be evident to all.

      The Christian standard, unfortunately, is Ephesians 5:3: “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.”

      Yikes. Manospherians hate to hear that. Hell, I hate to hear that. But if the Bible / Christian Doctrine is your standard, them’s the breaks.

      • Koanic says:

        You’re lying. And your verse is irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with getting it on early with your betrothed. You are attempting to insert an arbitrary line into an organic process, and binding what is good in the name of false piety. A pox on your privates.

        The only possible “punishment” for sex with one’s betrothed is marriage.

        Now get the fuck out, pharisee.

        • SirHamster says:

          > You are attempting to insert an arbitrary line into an organic process, and binding what is good in the name of false piety.

          Not consummating the marriage before the marriage is not arbitrary.

          > The only possible “punishment” for sex with one’s betrothed is marriage.

          If there was zero possibility of a betrothed not becoming your wife. But say you need to put her away quietly because you’re a righteous man and she’s pregnant with someone else’s child … how much mileage do you want to put on someone else’s future wife?

          • Koanic says:

            Marriage is an arbitrary superfluous man-made celebration of a divinely recognized event. God does not draw the line of adultery at PiV sex. Feeling up your fiancee is part of an organic process of two becoming one flesh. There is zero Biblical precedent for an autistic spazzout if the natural process takes its course a bit early. The whole point of the betrothal is to fall in love and if it succeeds early that is NOT a problem.

            Guilt-tripping wholesome lovers for Song of Solomoning as if they were damned adulterers is sick fuckery of beyond Pharisaical proportions.

            > But say you need to put her away quietly because you’re a righteous man and she’s pregnant with someone else’s child … how much mileage do you want to put on someone else’s future wife?

            Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? You take one man’s exemplary merciful behavior and use it to upend the entire basis of the law? You have it completely backwards. Fucking a man’s fiancee is death penalty for both. You do NOT hold back out of consideration that she might wind up with someone else. That is EMASCULATION. UNSEXYTIME. SUPER-GAY.

            • SirHamster says:

              > Marriage is an arbitrary superfluous man-made celebration of a divinely recognized event. God does not draw the line of adultery at PiV sex.

              Fornication is a sin, defined in the dictionary as, “Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.”

              If your argument is that the betrothed couple are married before they are married, then that marriage ceremony should not even be called marriage. Just declare the two already married and then call the celebration a celebration.

              The main thing is to not cheat anyone (her, her family, yourself) by using different meanings for the same word.

              > You take one man’s exemplary merciful behavior and use it to upend the entire basis of the law?

              What basis of the law have I upended?

              I used pregnancy to illustrate a justified breaking of betrothal. Is adultery punishable by death the only allowed ending of betrothal? How about a crippling injury on one party post-betrothal, with a compassionate desire by the injured to “not be a burden”?

              Is “fiancee” so binding that the term should be made equivalent to wife?

              Is it good to celebrate a marriage ceremony with a pregnant fiancee, maybe with an extra child or two in tow if your betrothal period was over-long?

            • Koanic says:

              > Fornication is a sin, defined in the dictionary as, “Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.”

              I don’t give a fuck how the dictionary defines it. That’s not how the Bible defines it. Having sex with your betrothed is not fornication.

              > If your argument is that the betrothed couple are married before they are married,

              Hey sophisto! How many meanings of marriage are there? You can’t catch me with the switcheroo.

              > then that marriage ceremony should not even be called marriage.

              Yes it should. If you have a ceremony at all. Just because aristocrats do things in more elaborate fashion doesn’t mean that peasants are sinners for informality.

              > The main thing is to not cheat anyone (her, her family, yourself) by using different meanings for the same word.

              No it isn’t. The main thing is for two to become one flesh and stay that way.

              > What basis of the law have I upended?

              The Law of Moses, which’s intent was to enforce God’s design – “Two become one flesh.” It’s not rocket surgery.

              The intent was not: “Avoid the appearance of scandal to English Puritans.”

              > Is adultery punishable by death the only allowed ending of betrothal?

              No.

              > How about a crippling injury on one party post-betrothal, with a compassionate desire by the injured to “not be a burden”?

              Depends on whether they’ve had sex.

              > Is “fiancee” so binding that the term should be made equivalent to wife?

              It is far more binding in the Law than it is in our society, but then again, “wife” means almost the opposite of what it is supposed to, so really “fiancee” is doing pretty well for itself. Therefore: absolutely not!

              > Is it good to celebrate a marriage ceremony with a pregnant fiancee, maybe with an extra child or two in tow if your betrothal period was over-long?

              If you can hold your breath for a minute without any problem, should you do it for an hour?

            • SirHamster says:

              > Having sex with your betrothed is not fornication.

              Depends on what the meaning of “betrothed” is, don’t it?

              > How many meanings of marriage are there? You can’t catch me with the switcheroo.

              If “betrothed” is accepted as “marriage”, what you say can work. Issue comes up if say the rest of your community, or her father, don’t have the same definition and expectation.

              > Yes it should. If you have a ceremony at all. Just because aristocrats do things in more elaborate fashion doesn’t mean that peasants are sinners for informality.

              Dirt poor Joseph had a betrothal period. Your explanation of lower-class informality is questionable. If you’re married, say so and don’t even create confusion with, “betrothed” and “fiancee” when you really mean “wife”.

              > The Law of Moses, which’s intent was to enforce God’s design – “Two become one flesh.” It’s not rocket surgery.

              Christians are free from the Law of Moses, including the option to live by a high standard that fulfills the law and honors God.

              > > How about a crippling injury on one party post-betrothal, with a compassionate desire by the injured to “not be a burden”?
              > Depends on whether they’ve had sex.

              Your creation of betrothed-married and betrothed-not-quite-married categories stinks of epicycles and flawed definitions.

              The main thing is to not cheat anyone (her, her family, yourself) by using different meanings for the same word.

              > Therefore: absolutely not!

              You support my point, then. If we’re going to keep different words as a label of different phases of the relationship, then different behaviors and expectations follow.

              > If you can hold your breath for a minute without any problem, should you do it for an hour?

              Children follow sex. It only takes 9 months. A 1 year waiting period is ample time to create at least 1 child through intercourse.

              Why even have a betrothal period? Just be married!

            • Koanic says:

              > Depends on what the meaning of “betrothed” is, don’t it?

              No. We are using the Biblical definition, because that is what is relevant to the context. There is no such sin as “fornicating with your betrothed” in the Bible. Just celebration of it in Song of Solomon.

              > If “betrothed” is accepted as “marriage”, what you say can work.

              You have autism.

              > Issue comes up if say the rest of your community, or her father, don’t have the same definition and expectation.

              They need to repent of their un-Biblical social engineering.

              > Dirt poor Joseph had a betrothal period.

              You don’t know that he was poor. He certainly wasn’t dirt poor.

              > If you’re married, say so and don’t even create confusion with, “betrothed” and “fiancee” when you really mean “wife”.

              Take your un-Biblical preaching, print it out, and use it as toilet paper.

              > Christians are free from the Law of Moses,

              It’s the Law of Jehovah, given TO Moses, and maybe you should think twice before “improving” it.

              > Your creation of betrothed-married and betrothed-not-quite-married categories stinks of epicycles and flawed definitions.

              You stink of autism. It’s an organic process and the divisions are arbitrary.

              > You support my point, then.

              You failed to get the joke.

              > It only takes 9 months

              That was the joke. The time period to die of asphyxiation is similar to the time period of pregnancy, in that both are biological limits.

              > Why even have a betrothal period? Just be married!

              Oh, you wanted to find out why you’re not smarter than God in this specific instance? Sure! It’s because children sexually mature at variable rates, and you never know when they’re going to pop off and start screwing whoever’s available. So you keep the BETROTHED as a safety valve. If they can wait; great. If not, early pregnancy isn’t the end of the world, with the right person.

              And, I am not talking with you about this anymore, because it’s getting tedious.

            • SirHamster says:

              > It’s the Law of Jehovah, given TO Moses, and maybe you should think twice before “improving” it.

              Ripping off a 2,000 year old heresy makes you old news and gay.

              “What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. ”

              “Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.”

              The Law of Moses is training wheels for Hebrews. Watching grown men insist on childish things is LULZ.

              > So you keep the BETROTHED as a safety valve. If they can wait; great.

              Wait for what? Married is married, and you just said Betrothed is Married.

              Unless sex is consummation of marriage, and marriage should wait until the two are spiritually and physically ready for sex.

              Which reinforces no sex until marriage.

              Good luck, Aeoli. I trust this exchange has sufficiently seeded your conscientious noble instincts.

            • SirHamster says:

              Apologies. Make that GODSPEED.

            • glosoli says:

              ‘Christians are free from the Law of Moses, including the option to live by a high standard that fulfills the law and honors God.’

              “Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.”

              Why quote (and misinterpret) Paul when you can quote Jesus:

              ‘Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.’
              ‘Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.’

              He came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it, you poor fool.

              We’re justified by faith in Jesus, sanctified by means of the law of God (h/t Rushdoony).

              Repent of your ignorance and superiority, go read the bible and pray.

            • SirHamster says:

              Why quote (and misinterpret) Paul when you can quote Jesus:

              ‘Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.’
              ‘Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.’

              He came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it, you poor fool.

              Said Jesus as he spoke to Israel. Do I look (((Jewish))) to you?

              The UK has many wonderful (and no so wonderful) laws that are meant to be observed.
              As an American, I am under no obligation to respect them except when visiting the UK. (Though America has many similar laws that I am indeed obligated to follow)

              Were I to immigrate to the UK and pledge loyalty to that nation … sure, I’d be under her laws. But I am not.

              We’re justified by faith in Jesus, sanctified by means of the law of God (h/t Rushdoony).

              Repent of your ignorance and superiority, go read the bible and pray.

              What superiority have I expressed? I stake claims and see who can knock them down. I assert authority over none here, but I seek and love the truth.

              What ignorance of the law of God have I expressed in advising to refrain from premarital sex? In this sex-obsessed world, is not practice of chastity by the self-controlled Christian man a testimony of the power of Christ, set apart from corrupt practices of those who live by the Flesh?

            • Koanic says:

              Recognizing that God is a better social engineer than some midwit with reading comprehension issues != living in bondage under the law.

            • glosoli says:

              ‘Were I to immigrate to the UK and pledge loyalty to that nation … sure, I’d be under her laws. But I am not.’

              Always fascinating to see a Christian try to convince himself that he doesn’t live on planet earth. The planet God created, all the nations too. If you lived on Mars your weak analogy on national laws might work. But if you want to follow Christ, He made it clear that the law still applies. Not as a means of salvation, but because they’re God laws, they’re right, and they make us holier.

              I trust that you ignore everything in the New Testament that Jesus said to Jews then? Must make it a quick read.

            • SirHamster says:

              @ Koanic:

              > Recognizing that God is a better social engineer than some midwit with reading comprehension issues != living in bondage under the law.

              You claim that I, a Christian, upended the law, the Law of Moses. You say that to shame me and put me under bondage of the law. You envy my freedom to do good.

              The Law of Moses is a guardian and for children. Pharisees are concerned with making everything about the Law.

              To the Christian – “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

              The Law is a teacher, but it is not the end goal. Your attempts to use it to bind me and others is wrong.

            • SirHamster says:

              @ glosoli

              You said this to me:
              Repent of your ignorance and superiority, go read the bible and pray.

              You have claimed the position of Christian brother and rebuker and judged my conduct and words. As such, I expect a straight answer to my 2 direct questions to you:

              1. What superiority have I expressed?
              2. What ignorance of the law of God have I expressed in advising to refrain from premarital sex?

              If you claim the knowledge to tell me to repent, you claim the knowledge of my error and should elaborate so as to lead me to repentance and save my soul.

              You have claimed a sacred duty, don’t half-ass it. Ball is still in your court.

            • glosoli says:

              ‘1. What superiority have I expressed?’

              You choose to reinterpret the bible to suit your modern morals. You attempt to demonstrate that you know better than God. Unfortunately for you, Koanic knows his bible, so he proved you wrong, and your ignorance. Your failure to acknowledge your wrongness is due to your pride/superiority. You also ignore Jesus’ words, with the flimsy excuse that you’re not a Jew. The whole bible is about Jews, and all of it is a lesson in living a good life, to any human of any tribe. You cannot pick and choose. Be humble and accept God’s word in its entirety, do not suppose you know better than God.

              ‘2. What ignorance of the law of God have I expressed in advising to refrain from premarital sex?’

              You have displayed ignorance of the biblical rules of bethrothal, preferring a modern Puritanical stance. You also have expressed your misplaced belief that you are free of the law, that it is a bondage. You have ignored Jesus’ own words on the subject, as well as putting your freedom above our covenant with God. He gave us His laws and institutes because He wants us to be holy.

              All of the above is already in the thread, no words you write will alter facts: you think you know better than Jehovah and Jesus; you don’t.

            • SirHamster says:

              @ glosoli

              Appreciate that you did respond to the challenge. But you are wrong.

              > Always fascinating to see a Christian try to convince himself that he doesn’t live on planet earth. The planet God created, all the nations too. If you lived on Mars your weak analogy on national laws might work. But if you want to follow Christ, He made it clear that the law still applies. Not as a means of salvation, but because they’re God laws, they’re right, and they make us holier.

              In the nation of Israel, there was a hierarchy. There were those who were priests and had very restrictive rules on marriage and living, and those who attended the temple and had a looser set of rules, the rules for kings, and then the general rules for all.

              It is not merely about roles; only one tribe of Levites were given priestly duties, and had no land, for God was their inheritance.

              One God, different callings, different livings.

              Paul and the early Church spent a lot of time discussing this – and their conclusion is that circumcision – the symbol of the Jewish covenant – is not required of Gentile Christians.

              Paul goes out of his way to discourage Galatian believers from practicing circumcision, a key part of the Law of Moses:

              “Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. ”

              But where the Law of Moses is circumcision, the Law of Christ is Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

              > I trust that you ignore everything in the New Testament that Jesus said to Jews then? Must make it a quick read.

              You falsely accuse me. I study it closely and take care to apply it correctly.

              > > ‘1. What superiority have I expressed?’
              > You choose to reinterpret the bible to suit your modern morals.

              I study the entirety of the NT and conform my thinking to that which was passed down to me.

              Answer me like a man – is Paul a trustworthy teacher of the Gospel?

              > > ‘2. What ignorance of the law of God have I expressed in advising to refrain from premarital sex?’
              > You have displayed ignorance of the biblical rules of bethrothal, preferring a modern Puritanical stance.

              Why don’t you start from the top and explain to me what the “biblical rules of betrothal” are. “What Koanic said” is not a defense from the Bible.

              While you are preparing that apology (defense), take heed of this warning from the Bible: “He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil.”

              > you think you know better than Jehovah and Jesus;

              Another false accusation. Stop imitating the Accuser.

            • glosoli says:

              You keep repeating the phrase ‘justified through the law’ despite the fact I have specifically accepted that point. We are justified by faith in Christ, I am not arguing otherwise. But we are only sanctified via the Holy Spirit moving us to obey the law.

              My hierarchy for biblical teaching is simple: Jehovah, Jesus, and everyone else I treat pretty much the same, although perhaps Moses edges it. I know that Paul disagreed with others in Jerusalem, and an agreement was hashed out. That agreement frees gentiles from *certain* aspects of ritual law, and from circumcision. But that’s all. Everything else still applies, and always will do.

              Clearly you didn’t grasp the reason why bethrothal allowed for human nature in young people, God knows us. And your view is very puritanical as a result. You’re not alone in that, it’s a very common view. But it isn’t biblical.

              We all have to live our lives and face God one day. I really have my doubts He will be impressed with anyone who has ignored His wisdom and counsel, and if our covenant with Jehovah is now through Christ (rather than circumcision) it’s a sad state of affairs that modern Christians seem to totally ignore our side of the bargain. I am fed up with hearing ‘we’re saved, don’t worry be happy’, and nary a word about what we owe God. We owe Him a duty to obey His laws and institutes, and dare I say it, to slaughter those who slaughter our babies.

              Given the exchange to date, I suggest we stop now, I really can’t add anything more to my side of this issue.

            • SirHamster says:

              @ glosoli
              > You keep repeating the phrase ‘justified through the law’

              I have not said that phrase at all. I did quote Paul who refers to those who seek to be “justified by the law.” That would include someone like Koanic, who deigns to instruct all with his interpretation of the POETRY of the SONG of SOLOMON as the LAW of MOSES.
              (The foolish wise king whose kingdom was broken in two due to his unfaithfulness … )

              I am not talking here about salvation, I am quoting what Paul instructed Gentile Christians to PRACTICE. As he explains WHY, it reveals parts of the Christian mindset we need to adopt.

              > That agreement frees gentiles from *certain* aspects of ritual law, and from circumcision. But that’s all. Everything else still applies, and always will do.

              Wrong. Only 4 requirements were laid onto them, so everything else explicitly does NOT apply. God says He will have a people where His laws are written on our hearts. We absorb the spirit of the law and practice a higher righteousness than the Law of Moses.

              > Clearly you didn’t grasp the reason why bethrothal allowed for human nature in young people, God knows us.

              This is not a definition of the “biblical rules of bethrothal”. You said such existed. Define them. Or retract. But act like a man.

              > I am fed up with hearing ‘we’re saved, don’t worry be happy’, and nary a word about what we owe God.

              “Premarital sex is literally Biblical.” – Koanic

              “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” – Hebrews 13:4

              Which teaching better honors God?

              > Given the exchange to date, I suggest we stop now …

              Suggest?

              When Jesus told an adulterous woman, “Your sins are forgiven, repent and sin no more.” Was he giving her a suggestion?

              You judged me: “Repent of your ignorance and superiority, go read the bible and pray.”

              Follow through like a man of God, because you owe God that. Do not downgrade conviction to mere suggestion. But if you have no conviction left, don’t try to pretend away your error.

              From what I’ve gathered following this blog, I am a younger man than you, maybe half your age. But you are a newly baptized Christian, making me around ten times your age spiritually.

              Your zeal is good. But beware your tongue. (James 3)

            • glosoli says:

              > I am fed up with hearing ‘we’re saved, don’t worry be happy’, and nary a word about what we owe God.

              “Premarital sex is literally Biblical.” – Koanic

              “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” – Hebrews 13:4

              Which teaching better honors God?

              Both do, obviously. Your inability to grasp this very simple point is surely a sign of a low IQ, or a deeply ingrained puritanical streak. Do please stop being stupid, it is not complicated at all. Two people have sex, they get married, the sex act literally cements the deal. If they don’t, they are both immoral.

              Really, you seem intent to mis-state this position, as well as to use selective bible quotes from Paul to make your case. Please do stop doing that.

              I can’t improve on this from Koanic re the issue of sex during betrothal though:

              https://aeolipera.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/field-report/#comment-14303

              As for the law, well, here’s a load of New testament scripture that I think shows my reasoning. As for God’s statutes, such as the jubilee and similar, we should stick to them all, not just out of reverence for God, but because they’re morally and naturally right, just and correct, and better than anything puny men could devise left to their own devices, or do you like the modern world just as it is? How’s the murder rate in America, how many millions of babies have been slaughtered? How is marriage working out? What about coveting? Any false idols, just a few? Any theft? Only a few trillion. Usury, sure, but we all need debt right? Yes, well done the modern church men, men like you, weaklings.

              https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/sunset-to-sunset-gods-sabbath-rest/was-gods-law-abolished-in-the-new

              ‘When Jesus told an adulterous woman, “Your sins are forgiven, repent and sin no more.” Was he giving her a suggestion?’

              I lolled a little at you quoting the Lord literally telling a woman to obey the law as a way to criticise me. Hypocritical, ironic, and silly.

              No more from me, feel free to have the final comment. I have debated in good faith, I don’t feel you have done so at all, as you are very selective in what you choose to cover, ignoring the bits that don’t suit your case. It’s no wonder that with the modern church stuffed full of *experienced* men like you, we find the Western world in the exact same state it was when Jesus came to sort out the Pharisees in Roman times.

            • glosoli says:

              ‘If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.’

              She shall be his wife. He hath banged the bride. Note the order of events.

            • SirHamster says:

              @glosoli:

              I have debated in good faith, I don’t feel you have done so at all, as you are very selective in what you choose to cover, ignoring the bits that don’t suit your case.

              You are projecting. I have not called you names, I have not even judged you, but I have encouraged you to channel your zeal correctly.

              You, on the other hand, have judged me in need of repentance, yet downgraded it to a matter of suggestion. You have said I act prideful, ignorant, you have mis-attributed me things I have not said, and now you say you FEELZ I have not acted in good faith.

              God keep you, for my words aren’t going to help.

              Judge not, that ye be not judged.

              For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

              And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

              … because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.’

              The law RESTRICTS the actions of a man who has premarital sex with an unattached virgin. (But stones both when she is betrothed to someone else)

              Is that a celebration of pre-marital sex as Biblical and honoring to God?

              No, it is not. It is a mitigation of young men and women allowing sexual desire to override their sense and propriety.

              The man without self-control is restricted from putting away such a wife. In contrast, the man with self-control maintains his options.

            • glosoli says:

              ‘I have debated in good faith, I don’t feel you have done so at all, as you are very selective in what you choose to cover, ignoring the bits that don’t suit your case.

              You are projecting. I have not called you names, I have not even judged you, but I have encouraged you to channel your zeal correctly.

              You, on the other hand, have judged me in need of repentance, yet downgraded it to a matter of suggestion. You have said I act prideful, ignorant, you have mis-attributed me things I have not said, and now you say you FEELZ I have not acted in good faith.’

              Where did I say you’d called me names?
              I note that you continue to ignore the words I write (confirming my point) and present arguments that are immaterial. Name calling? Why did you even mention that?

              The fact you even bother to mention FEELZ is projection.
              I could as easily have used the word ‘think’ or ‘believe’.

              ‘And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.’

              And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

              23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

              24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

              Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

              And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
              _________

              Tell me where God disaproves of unprotected sex which leads to marriage, yea, even with two wives? There’s some scripture above. God made us in His image, He told us to reproduce. He didn’t mention the modern iteration of marriage, but He did say:

              “Two become one flesh.”

              ‘It’s not rocket surgery.’ to quote Koanic.

              Maybe you should simply sit and consider Jesus’ question:

              ‘Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?’

              Your puritan blinders are taking you away from God’s wishes.
              Therefore I again call on you to repent on your error.

            • SirHamster says:

              Where did I say you’d called me names?

              You did not say that. I listed it as an example of what lack of good faith on my part might look like. If I were to call you a fool or an idiot, that would be name-calling and lack of good faith on my part.

              I did not and do not call you those names. I am choosing to act in good faith towards you as an elder brother in Christ. Charity, as Aeoli Pera would put it.

              I note that you continue to ignore the words I write (confirming my point) and present arguments that are immaterial.

              You are attacking my character, so I address the character attack first. You have not acted in good faith. You made very serious attacks on me:

              “I trust that you ignore everything in the New Testament that Jesus said to Jews then? ”
              “you think you know better than Jehovah and Jesus;”

              A man who does these things cannot rightly be called a Christian (Christ-follower). After I have pointed out these are both false accusations, you have continued on without retraction or comment.

              Name calling? Why did you even mention that?

              Because those character attacks you have made on me are much, much worse than name-calling.

              But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

              Those statements were lies. Have nothing to do with them.

              The fact you even bother to mention FEELZ is projection. I could as easily have used the word ‘think’ or ‘believe’.

              But you did not. You used FEEL, which is where FEELZ are from. Perhaps this is your way of communication – you speak and then re-negotiate the meaning.

              I mean the words I say, upfront. I am patterning this after Jesus – he did not have to retract words and rephrase things, he did it right the first time.

              Tell me where God disaproves of unprotected sex which leads to marriage, yea, even with two wives?

              In the passage you quoted earlier, the man who is RESTRICTED from putting away is RESTRICTED because he HUMBLED the un-betrothed woman he lay with.

              That is not approval. The RESTRICTED marriage he is FORCED into is damage control, not a celebration of premarital sex. Equivalent to a shotgun marriage – the alternative is the shotgun.

              That particular scenario is part of a larger list of things that should not be done, like sleeping with a virgin betrothed to another, or marrying one’s father’s wife. This is not a celebration and approval of premarital sex. This is a solution to the problems created by extra-marital sex. Death in one case, forced marriage in another. Premarital sex is extra-marital sex. It’s by definition – otherwise it’d be called marital sex.

              Your puritan blinders are taking you away from God’s wishes. Therefore I again call on you to repent on your error.

              Puritan blinders is name-calling. I have not called you names, because I hope a gentler response will provoke thought. I am considering whether painful rhetoric is needed.

              You have not demonstrated any error on my part, yet. But that is a good call. Now repent of yours.

              “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?

              You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

              I say all this without anger – my hope is for you to adopt the Christ pattern.

              “But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. [ … ] Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

            • glosoli says:

              ‘Said Jesus as he spoke to Israel. Do I look (((Jewish))) to you?’

              You are deluded or very slippery, perhaps both. You wrote the above words, using the flimsiest of excuses to CHOOSE to ignore Christ’s teaching on the Law, then you think you can get away with the following (out of context) quote attacking me, whilst leaving out your initial statement:

              “I trust that you ignore everything in the New Testament that Jesus said to Jews then? ”
              “you think you know better than Jehovah and Jesus;”

              ‘A man who does these things cannot rightly be called a Christian (Christ-follower). After I have pointed out these are both false accusations, you have continued on without retraction or comment.’

              Once again you debate in bad faith. You, no matter your experience as a Christian, you do not get to choose to ignore Christ on the basis that you’re not a Jew. To argue that you can do so demonstrates you are arrogant and ignorant, prideful and sinning. You are not the Christ-follower, as you demonstrate by your own words: ‘Do I look Jewish to you?’ You should hang your head in shame.

              And you’ve still produced nothing, not a jot, to show that God disapproves of sex leading to marriage. The fact there are laws forcing the marriage is entirely sensible, and marks the disapproval of fornication, and the flesh of two not being joined permanently following sex.

              So where’s your proof? Why do you COMPLETELY IGNORE the scripture I quote, from Jehovah Himself? You are literally unable to counter this scripture with anything, and it is embarrassing to see you attempt to get on your high horse whilst being proven wrong. Your moral code is irrelevant, God decides.

              So you ignore Jesus (when it suits you): because you are flat wrong, don’t like being called out on it, and can’t admit the fact. Well, tough luck, it’s a matter of public record now, and I pray that Jesus hears your prayers for forgiveness today (he will hear them even though you’re not a Jew). Don’t be a proud wrong man, suck it up, repent.

            • SirHamster says:

              You are deluded or very slippery, perhaps both. You wrote the above words, using the flimsiest of excuses to CHOOSE to ignore Christ’s teaching on the Law, then you think you can get away with the following (out of context) quote attacking me, whilst leaving out your initial statement:

              Where my offense of “ignoring Christ’s teaching on the Law” is disapproving of premarital sex, something that was never approved of in the Law of Moses. This is quite stupid.

              Once again you debate in bad faith. You, no matter your experience as a Christian, you do not get to choose to ignore Christ on the basis that you’re not a Jew.

              You are again wrong on my motivations and intentions.

              Commands that apply to Jews do not apply to non-Jews.

              Jesus: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”

              Which teachers of the law and Pharisees do you demand I listen to as a non-Jew?

              In Matthew 17, Jesus and Peter pay the temple tax – have you paid the temple tax? Where is your temple sacrifice?

              You do not understand that the Apostles were given authority by Jesus, and they made decisions for the early Church on how believers were to develop and practice righteousness. I am operating completely within the guidelines laid down by the early church councils as described in Acts, and what Paul specially instructed churches in his letters.

              You are treating the Law of Moses as the highest law, and in the process you ignore that there is a higher standard:

              “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.
              […] Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

              The law of Moses allows divorce, but God hates divorce. If you are focused on the Law, you have lost sight of what God actually desires of his children.

              And you’ve still produced nothing, not a jot, to show that God disapproves of sex leading to marriage. The fact there are laws forcing the marriage is entirely sensible, and marks the disapproval of fornication, and the flesh of two not being joined permanently following sex.

              If the marriage must be forced, there is no honor and no celebration of that premarital sex.

              That is the disapproval, yet you pretend there is none. You mock God’s Word and need to repent.

              Why do you COMPLETELY IGNORE the scripture I quote, from Jehovah Himself?

              Your own chosen passage showed the disapproval. Premarital sex is not Biblical. It would lead to stoning according to the Law of Moses in some cases.

              It is dangerous for you to claim the power to judge and teach. You will be judged by your very standard.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              Enough. I should have cut this thread off 10,000 words ago.

  7. Son of Distant Trebizond says:

    May the Gods grant me one boon; That I live to see lil’ Cheloniglet McWindbagson down his first chlorox shot.

    Looking forward to the aspergic unpacking of the details of your next major *addiction*…

  8. Sunnybutt says:

    My pooh-pooh’ing Koanic above shouldn’t, I think, be taken as discouragement. Premarital sex is clearly a sin, but in the scheme of things – things being as they are – it looks like an unavoidable, venial sin, like usury.

    Good luck out there.

    • Hezekiah Garrett says:

      Usury is mortally sinful. Sanctity requires heroic sacrifice.

    • bicebicebice says:

      I think it has to do with the fact that it is loveless love and a carnal pastime, in youth clouded by hormones and if you start young you keep doing it as an adult until it finally hits you, i despise pua with a passion because it is gaming yourself into something you don’t really want nor need and will take itz toll and if that isn’t a sin then nothing is.

    • Heaviside says:

      >venial sin, like usury

  9. TM says:

    As a fellow autiste who has also had game endorsed by le Heartiste, don’t overthink this stuff (analysis = paralysis). My suggestion is, learn a number Heartiste lines for different situations (they’re easy to find in quantity). Then, start practicing according to his rules. You’ll quickly learn the responses and behaviour patterns and how to respond to them. Then it gets easy fairly quickly. Perhaps DL a degenerate app like Tinder or Hot or Not to practice text game, too. Good text game is necessary in today’s age of electronic communication.

    Anyway, good luck, Aeoli. Make us proud.

  10. mobiuswolf says:

    You don’t need all that. The girl you’ll want will probably be shy, don’t you think?

    I’ve realized, I only ever hooked up with thal girls long term. Whom else could you weather cabin fever with? Look for an activity that attracts smart girls and dive in.

    Not to denigrate the PUA thing. Fascinating stuff. Glad I didn’t know it, I’d be useless from a surfeit. As it is I was a serial monogamist, for the most part.

    You realize romance is a serious impediment to thought? ;)

    • TM says:

      Game is a tool. It makes things easier. In my case, it took me from autistic, socially retarded virgin to Chateau Autiste with the ability to pull 500 numbers in six months and get young, attractive women to pay for everything. I don’t bother with females at the moment, but if I came across a potential waifu, things would be a thousand times easier (knowing all this game). You always want to increase the odds of winning.

      • mobiuswolf says:

        No question, but thal girls are easy pickings if you are at or above their intellect, and are much less likely to weigh instinct so heavily.
        They also get pissed if you game them like nts.

      • The Anti-Gnostic says:

        “In my case, it took me from autistic, socially retarded virgin to Chateau Autiste with the ability to pull 500 numbers in six months and get young, attractive women to pay for everything.”

        Unless you have visual proof, you are yet another secret king, a gamma extraordinaire. True Christian alphas need not brag about their conquests. Rather, they showcase their close relationship to God.

  11. Acerbocrat says:

    Hmmm. Congratulations young Jedi but remember that, you know what, getting her attention or even her phone number (now more common “her Facebook”) is not even a third of the battle. Lots of girls will give you their contact. But then? Then you need to actually convince her to go out, then do a good performance in that essential first meeting, then you need to go all the steps in order to actually get her to bed or to a commitment, and remember that she can change her mind at any time.

    Best is meeting someone through common contacts or by frequenting a club, church group, etc.

    In any case, what is really hard is not all that, that’s even easy, what’s difficult is to find someone nice and compatible and good. Good luck.

    • a says:

      Yeah social circle game strikes me as best option for any kind of serious relationships. And the stats show that its where most ppl find a future spouse (Exclude coworkers!).
      Does anyone know if there is a good resource on social circle game? I have a good number of more normal books on it to read but would like the PUA angle as well.

      • bicebicebice says:

        ………………. you don’t need “game” in a honest social circle setting, that is the point of something called life. JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST €£$€@£${€[€[[lok`)`=d?=dwao;pwfap;odij)=(!/!1!73389=?`?^(does not go off on a rant)

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          Let me know when you find an honest social circle full of women, I’ll fly over there.

          • bicebicebice says:

            You ever been to a henhouse? The more copper you can taste in the air the more honest by natural proxy.
            Put potential spouse in both the henhouse and then the cockhouse, if woman is equally indifferent to both you got a keeper!

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Re: Acerbocrat,

      I sense a man who knows what he’s about. Thanks for the taking the time to give this advice, it will help me to prioritize the various issues raised by everyone else.

      Also, great handle, 100% A+.

  12. a says:

    Game:

    Interesting bio on this guy:

    • TM says:

      Great salesman. Also, videos are a good lesson on why good businesses can be simple and relatively easy. He’s making more cash than most people could dream of. Take notes.

  13. JUST GRAB HER BY THE PUSSY

  14. But seriously though the main thing is just nice clothes, good posture, and body language and showing that you have manners and are confident. A clean car, even a Camry or a Civic it doesn’t matter and constructive projects that you’re working on. This already makes you a 7 imho to a reasonably smart woman.

    My advice would be to befriend high IQ 9s with common interests like Church or philosophy or whatever and then build a circle of female acquaintances who know you’re a solid, worthy man. That’s basically a conveyor belt of prospects with pre-existing social validation.

    Nice clothes list:

    Brown Ankle Brogues (hardy and can be smart or casual)
    Tweed Jacket ( hardy and stains don’t show)
    Good quality jeans/cotton slacks
    Checked collared shirts (hardy and stains don’t show)
    1 or 2 good quality woollens
    Good winter coat (Canada Goose or whatever it’s called, something both hard wearing and quality that screams high status but won’t go out of fashion next year)

    Once you’ve got all that… GRAB HER BY THE PUSSY

    • And before we turn this into a Bible bashing Sunday School class or take the mickey out of Aeoli, we need to get him to the stage where he’s got the choice to make. This comment thread is just overall not cool. Our man needs to get the P in the V and that’s the most important thing rn.

  15. edensthaw000 says:

    Handy that you have a specific type you’re after. Strong will the frame be with this one.

    One thing…since you know your type, figure out a way to “set up shop” that brings that type to you and makes you automatically high status in that environment.

    For example, if you like model chicks, start a modeling agency. Since you want an introverted Christian girl…start a church! =P

    As a general rule all hot chicks will sleep with the alpha in a given social circle. Create that circle.

    “Approaching” is a great skill but ultimately a repetitive rat race. This approach gives you exponential increases in poon quantity and quality

    Good luck!!! =) – Long time listener first time caller ET

  16. Boneflour Out Among The People says:

    Wow! Many forward step. Such agency!

  17. glosoli says:

    ‘Need to figure out the whole morality of premarital sex thing ahead of time’

    You’d previously been very fixed in your view that premarital sex was a sin. Admirable in these rotten times.
    How come you now have to figure out the morality?

    Most of the comments above are varying degrees of degenerate, reminds me of that other thal place we both left.

    I pray brother that the devil doesn’t tempt you into doing something you will regret, and that you will ignore supposed friends who might lead you astray. Be strong, the right woman will respect you so much more.

    • a says:

      I agree, which is why atm Im looking into exactly what to do to get the quality christian baby mama for peeps like Aeoli, you, myself.

      Some ideas:
      Bible study groups
      Girls getting a degree in engineering or something mathsy at nearby college
      Meetup.com- join hiking groups, bible study groups, anything else that may have em
      Local GOP events that might have trad young women
      Making many more non degenerate friends in above places, keeping in touch, and leveraging contacts to meet tons of new ppl if necessary.
      Conservative volunteer groups IE Helping veterans or anything with kids
      Non degenerate female dominated hobby activities if you must.

      Thats about all I can think of on the “where to find them” side. Will take time to build a social network that is quality enough.
      Any thoughts or ideas?

  18. The Anti-Gnostic says:

    Aeoli, you realize that a man’s social status is assigned by those around him and he is ranked compared to all other men they know based on certain criteria. When you say “Anyway, I bet I’m going to end up being very good at this”, you are demonstrating “secret king” status, a general state of self delusion in which the individual refuses to accept reality of their personal status in favor of their fantasy. Your gamma tell? Self-aggrandizing behavior in which you make up stories about yourself and proceed to lie about their true role in actual events when telling the story.

    “Need to figure out the whole morality of premarital sex thing ahead of time…”

    Actually, it’s simple. Christian men and women wait until they are married to have sex.

    Conservative evangelical and Catholic clergy comprehend the weaknesses of females; they also realize that alpha males, when behaving as alpha males, will resort to tactics to ensure that women will NOT resist their temptations and, as a result, these men will succumb to fornication and/or adultery.

    Certainly, “righteous alphas” exist, but inevitably there will be a plethora of “unrighteous alphas” who claim, under the umbrella of religion, are conducting themselves as Christians. The way to reduce this unholy number is to minimize the tendencies of alpha males.

    So, as a “Christian” who practices “game”, you have the ultimate duty when commenting on “gaming sites” to spread the message–you abhor “pumping and dumping”, you detest “alphas” who use “game” to bed women, and you refrain from having sex outside of marriage, i.e. tempering your rutting instincts.

    Failure on your part only demonstrates your deceit against Jesus Christ, for you DIRECTLY contribute to promotion of sin. Simply offering your two cents worth does NOT fulfill your religious responsibility. Godly masculinity and Game do not overlap in this particular circumstance.

    Sex is only for procreation; do you frequent gaming sites where this is the rule rather than the exception? If yes, speak as a Christian male first and foremost.

    • Heaviside says:

      >When you say “Anyway, I bet I’m going to end up being very good at this”, you are demonstrating “secret king” status, a general state of self delusion in which the individual refuses to accept reality of their personal status in favor of their fantasy. Your gamma tell? Self-aggrandizing behavior in which you make up stories about yourself and proceed to lie about their true role in actual events when telling the story.

      Thanks, we really appreciate outside perspectives here! Maybe you’d like to leave us your phone number in case we need more free consulting?

      Regards,
      The Aeoli Group GmbH

  19. Pingback: This will require a change in strategy | Aeoli Pera

  20. Pingback: AP the fierce wonderdog (of love) | Aeoli Pera

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s