In September 2005, in a burst of spontaneous stupidity and without consulting any of my friends or family, I left my husband of 18 years for a man I’d met twice. I made no preparations, and took few belongings. While Malcolm was out one morning, I simply packed a bag, left the house keys with a long letter explaining that I’d left him for another man, travelled to London from Manchester, where I had been living, and moved into David’s flat.Old Malcolm's clearly got at least a modicum of Game. He's just cruising through the backstretch of life when his insane, insufficiently entertained wife walks out on him for a failure to express interest in what the evidence suggests is her vapid travel writing, and he promptly finds a replacement some 32 years younger.
For the first 48 hours I was high on adrenalin. I loved feeling passion for the first time in decades, and was girlishly excited by this new chapter in my life.
But my joy was short-lived. Within days I started wondering whether David and I were right for each other, because we weren’t getting on as well as I’d imagined. I found David bad-tempered, and rather dull. By the end of the first week, I knew I’d been incredibly stupid to give up everything for a man I barely knew. He talked all the time about his late wife, and I realised that life with him would be lived in the shadow of a dead woman. He’d told me about all his friends and how supportive they were, but when I actually met them they seemed old, jaded and uninteresting.
But the ghastly mistake had been made - and it was now irreversible. Five days after I walked out on him, Malcolm moved his new girlfriend into our house. He had met an 18-year-old Eastern European girl in an internet cafe a day or two after I left, and she was now his girlfriend.
The dynamism of women tends to make it harder to find the sort of contentment that many men, especially older men, find relatively easy. Malcolm probably would have been content to stay married to Charlotte, but that doesn't mean that he found the situation ideal. Certainly the ease with which he acquired a young girlfriend suggests a man who understands that he has options. But the fact that one has options is very far from meaning that one is wise to pursue those options.
The most telling part of the article, however, is that it shows what is truly valuable to many women. "I missed the big house and garden, and I hated living in one room, and sleeping on a sofa bed. I missed the ease of married life." But old Malcolm himself? Apparently not so much.
Now, obviously not all women are flighty loons like Charlotte. The problem, of course, is that it is very, very hard to know who is and who is not.
24 comments:
Sofa bed?
She made her bed, and now she has to lie in it.
Hilarious. I think she did Malcolm a favor, now he can find at least a little bit of happiness or comfort. Charlotte probably nagged him constantly too.
Good for Malcolm. He's now with an 18 year old, living it up, and Charlotte wasn't even bright enough to get anything from the divorce. Malcolm's going to be doing just fine now that this impulsive, stupid old woman is out of his way.
And again... "The problem, of course, is that it is very, very hard to know who is and who is not."
*sigh* Yeah, this.
Woe unto those young men whose eyes are not open when they are dating, my own self would have been included. Because in the end it was my responsibility to vet my future mate instead of trusting God and assuming that she was not made up mostly of drama and other negative "things".
It seems to me that this stupid, short-sighted woman had a terrible, sexless marriage long before she left her husband. Most likely she was the one who made it that way as well. I suspect that Malcolm was cheating on Charlotte already as a result of this, given that after 18 years of marriage he still had enough game to pick up an 18 year old when he was 62 years old. I know that there is a natural aptitude to game for Alphas, but if he wasn't out picking up single women for 18 years, it would have taken him longer than a few days.
Notice how David, her lover with whom she left Malcolm for, was exhibiting Delta traits toward his dead wife. For any widowers out there, let that be a lesson to you. He was able to get a married woman away from her husband but couldn't seal the deal due to his BETA traits toward a dead woman.
Holy hell. What a selfish spoiled whore. Women like this tend to see themselves in a movie plot, and all she has to do is find her "happily ever after."
As for the husband possibly cheating, would it even matter at this point? If he was, he was obviously doing it discreetly enough that she had no idea (no woman this selfish passes up a chance to blame the ex. She seemed shocked that he had moved on). He probably kept his game going with harmless flirting, not only because he foresaw her whoredom, but because men crave the attention that tells them they can still hunt the bunny.
"The problem, of course, is that it is very, very hard to know who is and who is not."
What a pearl.
Vox, speaking as a man with a couple decades on you, please allow me to add this - you never really know a woman until you have divorced her.
This is a delightfully happy story. Malcolm got the girl, Deadwife got a little idiot sex in exchange for little more than a cat-stained sofa, and Idiot got a fairly entertaining story to tell, for once in her boring little life.
Game saving lives that matter.
"But the fact that one has options is very far from meaning that one is wise to pursue those options."
Exactly why I fully intend to instill DREAD in any future partners. And I care not one bit how cold that sounds.
If she knows she's imminently-replaceable, she's more likely to stay in line.
While their men are slaughtered on the battlefield French women do their patriothttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9088865/Hitler-had-son-with-French-teen.htmlic duty.
So, she get to cash out and walk away with half Malcolm's stuff despite being a flighty loon that was insufficiently entertained? Or does British law have the modicum of sanity American law does not and pretty much gave her the bag she left with in the subsequent divorce?
When we say women are attracted to "wealth" - does this mean that they find wealthy men themselves sexy, or are they merely drawn to them for material benefits? I understand, of course, that the latter is what was the case with the woman from the article.
And I'd ask the same for social status.
Neil Strauss in one of his books asked the following question - if women are primarily attracted to social status and wealth, why do most women say they would rather sleep with Tommy Lee than George Bush at the time he was the president?
Now, if the answer to the question I asked in my last post is the latter, material/status benefits, then that seems to nicely answer this question. If not, then how do you explain it?
Good for Malcolm!!
young polish girl has long gone, i'm sure. maybe she was smart enough to have the old fart marry her, so she can squeeze some good money out of him. then she either keeps the old man alongside a lover closer to her own age (NO woman likes to sleep with a grandpa, believe me!), or she has taken the money an run.
Some old guys then even pay the young woman to PRETEND she's staying. It's so they do not have to 'lose face (and faith ;-) )'. The young woman then has all liberties from daddy, but none of the duties towards him, so doesn't need to be touched by the old guy.
"...you never really know a woman until you have divorced her."
Preach it, brother.
That knowledge in and of itself made the subsequent financial rape and Stockholm Syndrome-induced hostility of my children infinitely more bearable.
if women are primarily attracted to social status and wealth, why do most women say they would rather sleep with Tommy Lee than George Bush at the time he was the president?
extrinsic game vs intrinsic game. i pointed out this flaw in Vox's system when he first introduced it.
also, you're discounting the social status that 'dangerous' men have.
and, you're talking about women. they change their minds all the time. and they always want most what they DON'T have.
she HAD money. she DIDN'T have excitement. voila.
Plus, she wasn't in the generation that Game is primarily talking about.
a - i believe Vox has made the comment before that Game, as it applies to women, is pretty much universal. applying to all cultures and times
b - how does Charlotte not conform to the expected Game outcome?
she was complacent, bored, even feeling neglected. and she acted out. hamsters gonna hamster.
Game would say that if Malcolm had employed negging and push-pull she would have both had enough anxiety about her status and been receiving enough attention that she'd never have given the new Gamma in her life a second thought.
for another fine example of historical hamstering, see this article on Christine Keeler:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2102814/Christine-Keeler-I-enjoyed-sex.html#ixzz1mgeUQqZl
you notice how in Christine's world everyone 'owes' her? and at the same time, neither her sons nor mother even want to talk to her.
a - i believe Vox has made the comment before that Game, as it applies to women, is pretty much universal. applying to all cultures and times
Game as a methodology is universal, but the behavior of women changes. For example, getting married was higher on the priority list in the past.
but the behavior of women changes. For example, getting married was higher on the priority list in the past.
that's confusion of "goals sought" with the underlying emotional reactions / framework upon which Game works, which have NOT changed.
the fact that marriage is no longer considered a priority for young women does not alter the fact that they look for 'exciting' and 'dangerous' men ( intrinsic Game ). it also doesn't change the fact that they also often key on men with wealth and fame ( extrinsic Game ), even if the high rank beta doesn't really get her all excited.
the fact that marriage is no longer considered a priority for young women does not alter the fact that they look for 'exciting' and 'dangerous' men ( intrinsic Game ).
No, it does the opposite; It decreases the demand for beta providers. And conversely, if we look at a woman from a different generation, her demand for a beta provider is higher than what we are used to.
'Beta provider seeking' is a function of long term goals.
the fact that women as a class USED to have a much higher long term goal preference does not invalidate what actually does or does not excite / interest them on a personal level.
societal pressure sublimated/suppressed SOME of the actions which the hypergamous nature would prefer to take. this does not mean that the hypergamous nature was not present nor does it mean that the hypergamous nature could not be exploited. it just means that women wanted to be more discreet about the expression of those actions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Liaisons_dangereuses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kama_sutra
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0134.htm#1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Valentino
"Women in the same interview found Valentino, "triumphantly seductive. Puts the love-making of the average husband or sweetheart into discard as tame, flat, and unimpassioned."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatles#Beatlemania_and_touring_years_.281963.E2.80.931966.29
on the one hand, the decrease in demand for beta providers is inarguable. on the other, it is still a serious error to assert that Game would not apply in other historical milieus, even those in which the LTP for providers was much stronger.
tl/dr: the change you are talking about is societal in nature, not fundamental to the character of women. Game is applied to the fundamental nature of women.
Old Malcolm is now 69. Do you think that now 25-year-old is with him?
This happened in 2005, not last week.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.