If I talk to two different women about normal stuff for five minutes – different times, different venues, with both women being equally attractive – I’ll come away being really attracted to one of them.This shouldn't come as a surprise. The man is a paramedic. He's literally wired to rescue people, which is admirable in general but definitely sub-optimal for personal relationships. He is one of the many men who are simply unsuitable to choose their own mates and would benefit from receiving strong guidance from their trusted friends and family members.
Here’s what I know:
The woman who I’m really attracted to has problems. She’s got a coke habit, sexual abuse issues, an eating disorder – something like that. The women and I won’t talk about that stuff, but my subconscious has picked up on certain patterns and mannerisms. Those subtle cues have rung the fire-bell hanging on the wall where my own personal White Knight hangs out. That bastard starts polishing up his rusty armor and looking around for his sword. He’s gonna go rescue this chick from herself, and he starts conspiring with my limbic system to make me attracted to her.
See? The gal with problems acts a certain, subtle way. Subconsciously, she’s broadcasting her pain/problems out into the world. Because of certain experiences I’ve had/the way I was raised, my antennae are very sensitive to certain signals. Because of those signals, I feel certain things – attraction, the need to rescue, the need to “be there”, etc.
It's very important to figure out your historical pattern with women because failing to learn from history will condemn you to repeating it. And learn to place great significance in the non-verbal reactions of your friends to meeting new women. Even if they're not inclined to tell you to your face that you're making the same mistake again, they'll usually let you know in subtler ways.
88 comments:
You don't want to date a girl you're not attracted to.
If you're attracted to broken personalities, then that's a mirror of your own brokenness.
Fix yourself, and then you'll be attracted to healthier women.
See Mark Manson of Post:Masculine.
Also, it may just be that American women aren't vulnerable enough to be femininely attractive unless they are seriously fucked in the head.
Off Topic, but On Topic for Blog:
29 vs 31 year old woman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-gfxjAaZg0
Many American women kid themselves that the reason they don't get enough "serious" attention is they are just too much woman for most men to handle - too Grrrrl, too strong.
The opposite is true, most of them don't have a very clearly formed sense of personality or self, and they aren't comfortable in their own skin.
Actually strong women - with morals, a fully formed character, a sense of purpose in their life - no doubt have a tough time dealing with a long succession of Herbs.
This is feminism's harvest. Betty Friedan shoulda stopped at equal pay for equal wages.
"and would benefit from receiving strong guidance from their trusted friends and family members."
And make certain that ALL of those "trusted friends and family members" are male.
Interesting idea, Vox. Modern Western culture doesn't value the family's opinion on potential mates...but maybe it should. A second opinion never hurt.
The impulse to help a broken woman in need -- rather than exploit her to get your rocks off -- is not a sign of weakness, ideologues. It is a sign of magnanimity, and it could be an indicator of the very highest capacity of noblesse oblige.
The problem with you low-born, do-it-yourself alpha impersonators is you have conflated strength with evil. Only someone who has no true familiarity with either could make such a stupid mistake. For the rest of us -- sacrificing ourselves to help another is an ultimate act of strength. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
The cross is the "last full measure of devotion." Rescuing a damaged girl from her demons? It's like taking a vagrant to a soup kitchen. If your reserve of strength is large (magnus), the act of charity is nearly costless. And even if it weren't such a pittance, the mere calculation is ignoble. The mark of the weak man is his transactional approach to all exchanges, the sniveling bourgeois merchant who haggles over pennies and hoards his nickels.
Don't tell self-reforming chumps that caritas is all just so much "white knightery." You encourage them to their own sociopathy and destruction. The help one gives per se is not the problem. The problem is the expectation of exchange that defines the hapless white knight: I will make an ostentatious display of my charity so that you give me attention/devotion in return. They have not heard:
When you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret....
You fools are morally confused, and in your confusion you err on the side of harshness lest you be thought weak. In that cramped little horizon your only expression of strength is an overt display of power which, yes, proves you to be more manly than the average beta male, but also caps your capacity at the upper levels of chumpiness. Men give hints of what great power they deliberately hold in reserve, and that very ability to refrain from spastically displaying the height of one's virtue is an indicator of strength itself.
Matt
Great video, Despair.
I wasted most of my life, from childhood to mid 20's, trying to 'save' my family from drugs, self pity and depression. Finally learned you can not save people that aren't trying to save themselves. Just a waste of time. If the woman is in rehab/therapy and seems to be making progress, sure, give it a go. But not because you're going to save her.
The ghetto version of White Knighting is called Captain Save A Hoe.
Captain Save A Hoe never gets the girl, he never gets the parade, he never gets the key to the city. Captain Save A Hoe never beats the bad guy or saves the day.
Nobody, NOBODY likes Captain Save A Hoe.
The only thing you can do to help a girl is get her pregnant, as Nietzsche said.
Know this, and your white knighting will take a decidedly alpha turn.
I wish I had advice for him. I'm in a similar boat, if I think my situation was more akin to the wolf looking for the easy prey than anything having to do with a white knight come to save. It's driving me mad. I've let at least six lovers go without getting involved, all the wrong ones of course, in the last two years. And that without seeking, just... noticing. But I can't even see a right woman. I'm blind, playing a game of chess with potentially psychopathic women. If God hadn't called me, and then set my feet on this path, I would not be doing this. Here and I thought I was doing good being (mostly) celibate. If I think... if it works out... it will be the best thing I ever did.
No one seems to have much advice though. I can merely wish him luck. So, good luck! Oh, and stay the hell away from Rosanne Barr.
Koanik:
"If you're attracted to broken personalities, then that's a mirror of your own brokenness.
Fix yourself, and then you'll be attracted to healthier women."
Wise wise words. "Fixing" another fulfills a need of your own. Understand your needs.
Wow, can I relate. I have said that if you drop me into a party where I don't know anyone, I can identify all of the women who are alcoholic or drug-addicted: They are the ones to whom I am instantly attracted.
Thank God I broke that pattern when I met my wife.
Don't tell self-reforming chumps that caritas is all just so much "white knightery." You encourage them to their own sociopathy and destruction.
You have it precisely backwards. It is their "caritas" that is leading to their destruction. There is nothing wrong with charity or helping others, but charity is not an appropriate aspect of a marital relationship.
All you're attempting to do is put a Christian veneer on the emotional male desire to white-knight. It will work about as well as putting a Christian veneer on female hypergamy has.
The impulse to help people isn't wrong. It just isn't wise to base a romantic relationship on that.
A white knight helps a woman because he wants to be the hero. He's trying to prove himself, or he wants her to owe him. Either way it is weakness. Because if he could attract her without the "heroics", he wouldn't do them.
White knight sees hot damsel. She wants nothing to do with him, he's weak. Next he sees a damsel in distress. She's damaged goods so she can't reject him. Here's one for him.
The help is given from a position of weakness, not strength, and there are strings attached. Not Christian.
"Never help a woman", David DeAngelo sez. This is going too far. I say, you can help a woman, but you have to remember that there is a cost to it, and you have to compensate for the lost attraction.
Don't tell self-reforming chumps that caritas is all just so much "white knightery." You encourage them to their own sociopathy and destruction.
Women don't need helpers, they need leaders. This thinking puts the man in the role of help meet instead of the woman.
Women who follow can be helped, women who don't can't, and there are a boat load of lost causes out there. I make a distinction between a woman of some character struggling with one issue and an essentially broken person who will forever be an emotional sinkhole for your white knightery.
I used to be a paramedic too. My answer was to marry another paramedic. Fifteen years and two kids later and we're still happy, so it worked for us. He should get out of the ambulance biz though - it's soul-crushing. You don't even realize it until you've been back in the world for a while.
Very long story short, Dogsquat has unresolved issues and he's looking for someone to resolve them with and finish that game. He wants to salve someone else through the girls, his mom, father, himself, go figure. Mix that with a heavy dosis of sexual attraction and it feels like home. The same broken home where all this originated.
Indeed attraction should never be confused with charity, and this tendency is something I have never understood. Any man with this problem needs to make a pact with himself that should he ever engage in a serious act of charity to help a woman, he will immediately cross her off his list of potential mates. This sets the act of charity back where it should be: a sacrifice.
Sub-optimal is one way to put it...
I think of it like being an emotional Kamikaze, compelled by some perverted version of Bushido to dive one's aircraft onto the deck of yet another doomed relationship.
The good news is that membership in Club Save-A-Ho does not have to be permanent. Changing is a lot of work, and requires ruthless objectivity about oneself (not always pleasant), but it can be done. Game/Red Pill thought is an indispensable tool for this.
Thanks for the look, Vox.
It'll be another three years or so in the ambalamps, then off to PA/Med School...
Nobody can do this shit for ever, and yes, it's soul crushing in a lot of ways.
I'll bet if you pay very close attention, you'll feel something for the abuse victims and eating disordered, too. Maybe not the same/as strong as the substance abusers, but that mental pathology is related.
Interesting, isn't it? Some chick is fooling everybody else, but you know better - kind of like having x-ray vision or something.
Caring for others doesn't mean you have to be stupid. I agree some of the "use em and dump em" attitude common in these threads is idiotic. But so is the idea that you are going to help a single women like those noted no matter what you do. People have to want change before they will change and few with those persistent problems will do so just because some guy "helps them" through things. They will almost certainly draw the man down or at least draw out his own troubles he sees reflected as someone else noted.
Girl's, the harsh truth. If you want to have the greatest influence on society. Find the best man you can early. Be the best wife you can be. Have his kid's and take care of them. You then will be honored. And rightfully so.
Here is King A again, making a big swing only to miss by a lot.
Helping someone because you are expecting something in return is not a Christian thing to do.
Learn to comprehend what you read. Like this one:
He's literally wired to rescue people, which is admirable in general but definitely sub-optimal for personal relationships.
It is admirable that men wants to be the hero. But when a woman sees you as her personal get-out-of-trouble free card, then you are nothing but a tool that she can use whenever she needs it and discard when she doesn't.
You want her, then make her fall for you.
Ideally you want to be more like the thing she needs rescuing from, rather than the one doing the rescuing.
Of course, if you can pull both off... even better.
"All you're attempting to do is put a Christian veneer on the emotional male desire to white-knight. It will work about as well as putting a Christian veneer on female hypergamy has." - Vox
If you have $1000 and loan out $800 - no, chances are it will not work out well. If you have $1,000,000 and loan out $800, the wild ride might be worth the gamble. ("If your reserve of strength is large (magnus), the act of charity is nearly costless." - Matt)
I have a milquetoast sister-in-law who never once looked at the carousel, much less rode it. She has a great background and no brokenness. By her own admission, today, after 25 years of marriage to her beta provider, gives it up about once every six months. Anecdotal, of course, but certainly isn't the first safe and wholesome girl I've known who belittles the sexual needs of her husband.
The man with the million that put me through the test has seen his caritas pay off huge dividends. Seventeen years later he is a very well sexed man and is never bored. Granted I may be a precious little snowflake outlier.
Determining which of us broken girls is a sure bet should include what you've advised (the approval of family and close friends). I was put through a two week testing time with no crazy eyes and got to meet the family for the final test. Their words, "we like him better with her than without her." This wholesome bunch of family values have been mortified to learn where I've come from but enjoy the flavor I bring to every jaw dropping conversation.
And in keeping with this inexplicable agreement I have with Matt, it was never my husband telling others of his charity. ("Men give hints of what great power they deliberately hold in reserve, and that very ability to refrain from spastically displaying the height of one's virtue is an indicator of strength itself.") I have always been the one to tell of my past, in the timing I deem appropriate.
"I make a distinction between a woman of some character struggling with one issue and an essentially broken person who will forever be an emotional sinkhole for your white knightery." - Orville
How do you make this distinction? My sister and I have virtually the same twisted pasts (mine is actually a bit worse). She's divorced, obese, alcoholic, married again to an alcoholic and a compulsive liar. There's really more to it than what a person has done/been through versus who they are. You have to be willing to get past the details and recognize indicators of true character.
SD, I agree. The point is not to confuse charity (and self-sacrifice for such) with attraction. Every potential mate comes with risks. I took the risk of marrying a woman whose divorced parents had a horribly stressful relationship, ergo did not grow up with a good model for marriage. But I didn't marry her *because* of this past, and it certainly didn't make her more attractive to me. I gladly took the risk because both attraction and good qualities outweighed it. I think your husband is likely of the same disposition. Whereas, Dogsquat is saying that there is an unreasoning part of him that actually prefers the woman to have problems.
Easiest option. Marry young to a girl from a good family. All girl's have their moment of crazy. But if your kids are successful. Be glad. Now that we have successfully passed on our genes. We interact as veterans in the parent game quite well.
St. Paul told us not to be unequally yoked in marriage. That is a good guideline that applies across a range of topics - both should have more or less similar views on faith, whether to have kids, how to raise them and so on. A personality difference is fine, but the character of the two people in a marriage has to be of comparable quality - a ho is not a good match for a gentleman who takes his faith and fidelity seriously. A broken woman is not a suitable match for a man who has his act together, and vice versa.
As for rescuing broken women... well, rescue is an activity you do for people who are drowning, and for dogs. In life, most of our problems are self-inflicted. God's gift of free will leaves us in a position where we must take steps to rescue ourselves (temporally), to stop inflicting problems on ourselves, while God helps save us spiritually. Just because you show up with a dick and good intentions, doesn't mean you're properly positioned to help out a broken woman. In fact, based on what I've seen of broken people, white knight approaches generally fail. The white knight cushions the broken woman from the consequences of her actions. True change has to come from within (again with God's help), and cushioning a broken woman from the harsh impacts caused by her bad choices only delays the moment of clarity. It may have a worse effect too, helping to gently ease her into a life of total disfunction, helping her to become gradually and gently accustomed to the shocks and protecting her from the consequences so that she never learns.
The therapeutic class talks about co-dependency. White knights function as enablers that only dig the broken person into their trench a bit deeper. Though some broken folks may turn it around eventually, it is likely not from the help of the white knight.
This also raises the question of whether people compelled to white knight behavior aren't broken in some way as well, in that they need to have an extremely needy partner. Are white knights the equivalent of teenage girls who desire to have a baby that weill love them in an unquestioning manner?
My cousin went through this with his disastrous ex-wife. She shit on his dreams and his life for 15 years, and he's only now digging out of the hole, but in his mid-50's, he's lost the chance to have children that he always wanted. He's still tied up in trying to protect her, even though they've been divorced for 7 years... it's painful to watch. If he'd let her crash and burn early on, she might have turned it around. He enabled her though, and may not have been conscious of it. He himself lost his mother and father at a very young age, and has always sought to act as others's protector. In the end, I'm not sure how much he helped, though he has cost himself the chance to live his dreams.
Really good article. As a recovering White Knight I know just how I become more responsive to women who are looking for helpers.
Back when my second wife left me (I was a White Knight in both marriages), I completely lost interest in women. However one day, some four months after we separated, I was at a jewellery fair and met a woman jeweller. She was hugely narcissistic (like my second wife) and radiated a kind of I-am-a-princess-meet-my-needs vibe. I immediately began trying (hard) to chat her up and get her number. It was the most animated I had been for a year.
Luckily she decided I was not her type. But afterwards I wondered what the hell had come over me. More recently I have come to understand (through Game) what Beta/White Knight syndrome is.
Dogsquat is right. Stuff starts happening in your body and the attraction hits. I recognise it now. One of the things I have done recently is, where possible, get a background check from someone who knows her, someone who I can trust. If she is flaky, I make sure I stay away.
I understand this problem! I had always been attracted to cocky, handsome Irish guys with a streak of violence in them. I went the other way entirely when picking my Husband.
This writer needs to look at women with these question in mind... "Can I leave her alone with a screaming newborn? Can I trust her to care for me if I am disabled for the rest of my life? Will she be faithfull when a more handsome/wealthy/etc man wants her? Can I leave all my worldy goods at her disposal and not lose everything?"
It will kill the attraction to these wrong types of people. Prioriities!
As for being un-Christian, King has a point on the whole "gaming" thing..to a point. But the topic of this post was pretty limited. Charity and praying for someone is fine, you don't marry them though.
Last, as for "damaged" women, I was one. I don't know that all of me is completely healed from the stuff that I came through..but I liken it to war. You see all types of injuries and all types of recoveries. Don't write someone off the list because you smell victim, see if you also smell survivor.
My damage made me a much better Mother then I ever would have been, a much more devoted and grateful wife and a much more serious Christian.
Pray friend, God sees the end from here, He can lead you to her.
It's not about getting the girl or the parade or the key to the city. If it is about that transaction, then the exchange is mercenary/evil.
The only way to "get" a broken girl in that sense is to exploit her brokenness. Christ handled the adulteress by writing in the sand before the Pharisees who would stone her. And by commanding her to "go and sin no more." No, no one gave him a key to the city. They nailed him to a tree for it.
Damaged goods are powerfully attracted to their saviors. But if the broken girl is merely rescued rather than transfigured, bandaged rather than cured, she will return to the abuse out of familiarity and sexual short-circuitry. Of course, transfiguration is not in the power of most who would make the attempt, so your observations apply in most cases. Apex Caritas seems impossible/foolhardy to weak men who cannot conceive of a kind of strength beyond their ken, and they often close their eyes and pretend that, since it does not exist in them, it cannot exist in anyone. They will erroneously regard their superiors as chumps because they project their own petty bourgeois motivations on their betters.
Teaching betas to adopt a hard edge is not a bad pedagogical technique -- something needs to roust them from their feminist-dogmatic slumber. But only as an initiation into a longer program, where they learn to extricate the transactional (white knight weakness) from every impulse to help. PUA blowhards are only sophisticated enough to condemn the impulse wholesale, an error that ultimately leads them to a monstrous, dead-souled solipsism.
Being irretrievably dead in sin is not attractive to women, no matter what some untutored pick-up punk tells you. Girls are not necrophiles, though the walking dead rationalize their laziness by imagining female hypergamy is "limbically" attracted to a putrefying soul. Everybody's in on the joke except the zombie, dead to the liberating possibility of love.
Matt
"[C]harity is not an appropriate aspect of a marital relationship."
And you hold yourself out as a Christian? Deus Caritas Est. "God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him" (1 John 4:16).
God is love. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DltDyVdbMWM
Caritas is everything. 1 Corinthians 13
Or did you make the crude rookie mistake of translating Agape as "helping others," like the "charity" of donating to the Salvation Army?
That "emotional male desire" is not a mere prejudice to be overcome with Frame Control or some other cheesy pick-up artifice. It is at the core of our purpose for being, the very force that animates the anima. And of course it is fundamental to the sacrament of marriage:
"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her. ... Husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself." (Ephesians 5:25-28)
Learn something from your buddy Dalrock:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/reframing-christian-marriage/
I am putting no "veneer" over the destructive "desire to white knight." I am placing a noble desire in its proper context so that its misappropriation does not "lead[] to their destruction." When we act in love for our own selfish purposes (to impress the girl), God turns that attempt inside out. As such, the woman doesn't see the assistance, she only sees the rather pathetic attempt at betamale ingratiation. Because that's precisely what it is.
When we act truly in Caritas, that is, willing the good of another as other, there is no telltale stink of the transactional. It is evidence of strength, not the bad impersonation you are rightly denigrating. But the precision of your attack is way off, a carpet bombing which flattens any possibility of Caritas, rather than the laser-guided bunker buster surgically removing the element that turns a noble effort counterproductive.
Your suspicion against chivalry and knighthood and gentlemanliness is the hard residue of feminist assumption that survived your MGTOW scouring. Yes, men who hold doors for women, pay the check, lay their coat across a puddle -- they are preposterous Don Quixotes unaware of their own anachronism. They are still enforcing a transaction that has been void for at least a half-century in the West.
But a man who gathers the broken soul of a prodigal daughter into his arms isn't by definition a chump. He is, however, incompatible with the feminist prerogative. So the harridans (and you) ridicule him as if he were Quixote, since your ideology has closed off the possibility of honorable manliness just as surely as the feminists' has.
Not every peasant can be a knight; not every omega can be made alpha. But your rejection of the very idea of knighthood is a rejection of a recovered alphatude that one day might be practiced unabashed in public. Yours is the cynicism of the lowborn and the grasping, looking to loot the ruins rather than rebuild, a price-gouger taking vulgar advantage of this temporary sexual catastrophe.
Now I doubt you or anyone here is sipping drinks at Roissy's "poolside" seat while civilization burns. I doubt you are uninterested in seeing a general recovery of manliness and femininity. But your dashed-off observations and repetition of PUA canards contribute to a state of mind that impressionable betas have no ability to recognize as calamitous. They're too eager for freedom to understand the consequences of their method of liberation. And you're too smart to be so careless.
Matt
"there are a boat load of lost causes out there. I make a distinction..."
Maybe there are lost causes out there. But "mak[ing]" the "distinction" is well above your paygrade, Christian. Yours is not to condemn based on partial knowledge and the resentful attitude that bleeds through your writing.
And you speak of leadership! What do you know about leadership? You've discredited yourself in two paragraphs.
- - - - - - - - -
If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish. ...
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hireling and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me.
- - - - - - - - -
If you can't be persuaded by The Lord Your God, then try out the United States Marine Corps' translation:
- - - - - - - - -
"Know your Marines and look out for their welfare."
Put your Marines' welfare before your own--correct grievances and remove discontent. ...
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmc/leadership.htm
Matt
Paragraph 1-2: Miscellanous Bible quotes.
Paragraph 3: Is this a rhetorical question? If not: No.
Paragraph 4: Men desiring to protect women is natural, not a trick. Use the fancy term "anima" instead the simple one of "being human."
Paragraph 5: Italicized standard quote that any practicing Christian has heard a million times. Is this the Lifetime Channel all of a sudden?
Paragraph 6: Miscellaneous bullshit link for distraction, hoping no one will take the time to read it.
Paragraph 7: I think that girls can see through what a white knight actually is, unless it is truly selfless.
Paragraph 8: I don't like the way you are defining love in a Christian sense. I think it is more than what you say.
Paragraph 9: The situation has changed, yet some men are still playing by the old rules.
Paragraph 10: A chump is not what you say it is, and I think you are lumping in people who are not really chumps.
Paragraph 11: People can be divided into multiple groups, and sometimes they can't switch groups. You are too cynical Vox about the current situation and people's ability to change.
Final Paragraph: You really care. Stop pretending you don't. Stop misleading people with PUA stuff, because I think it is misapplied here.
Damn do I need a stiff drink after wading through that thigh-high bullshit.
White Knight anthem: Coldplay's "Fix You."
Paragraph 1: It's not about getting the damaged girl or being successful. I think the bad part is about the manipulation that might happen.
Paragraph 2: I personally think the most efficient way to get a broken woman is to exploit her insecurities. Now on to some classic story about Jesus, which does not even apply. Then I will be clever by trying to equate that to Jesus being a white knight, and him getting killed for it.
Paragraph 3: Damaged women like to be helped, but if the damaged woman is not helped well enough, they are not actually cured of their damage, and she will return to her old habits. Apex Caritas = highest charity, which is what I think you need to help the damaged women effectively. This is beyond most men to do.
Paragraph 4: Teaching weaker men to be stronger can work, but it has to be done repeatedly to change their core personality from white knight behavior. I think that PUAs are merely try to repress white knightness entirely, which is a bad idea.
Paragraph 5: I think that saints are not attractive to women, due to the fact they are too perfect in behavior, but people might use hypergamy as an excuse.
The bullshit is strong with this one.
"I think that saints are not attractive to women, due to the fact they are too perfect in behavior, but people might use hypergamy as an excuse. "
Perfect, except that last line, which I would render thusly:
"I am a huge tool and so girls don't like me, which I rationalize as being the result of my excess perfection."
But this is down to translation philosophies.
AnonymousMay 29, 2012 5:30 AM
"Many American women kid themselves that the reason they don't get enough "serious" attention is they are just too much woman for most men to handle - too Grrrrl, too strong.
The opposite is true, most of them don't have a very clearly formed sense of personality or self, and they aren't comfortable in their own skin.
Actually strong women - with morals, a fully formed character, a sense of purpose in their life - no doubt have a tough time dealing with a long succession of Herbs.
This is feminism's harvest. Betty Friedan shoulda stopped at equal pay for equal wages."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, no, even "equal pay for equal wages" was a mistake. First, that meme goes a long way towards making men and women out to be interchangeable, when their overall roles in life (in a healthy, sustainable society with good future prospects, unlike ours) couldn't be more different. Second, higher wages for married men, especially those with minor children, and lower wages for women, especially combined with discouraging unnecessary employment by married women, was a substantial buttress for marriage. It directly encouraged people to find, and remain in, appropriate life roles for their sex. You'll know that sanity and good prospects for a decent future may well have returned to our nation when such policies are again routine and generally accepted.
"Being irretrievably dead in sin is not attractive to women." What a great statement, if I was busy huffing glue.
That could be, they are "dead in sin", so a saint.
Or "dead in sin", so their soul died as dead, so a hedonist.
Is that martini here yet? This is going to take awhile.
O' course the bigger point here is he is not SAYING ANYTHING meaningful. Taking concepts that take 5 words and stretching them to 50.
It's like somebody gave Ross Jeffries a pulped Narnia enema, and then set their little brown baby loose on the keyboard.
Perhaps it's my Chinese influence, but I always have trouble telling which is the surname.
Is it supposed to be "King, A", the bibliographic notation, or "King Asshole," the vernacular abbreviation?
Or a bipolar Catholic schoolboy took LSD, found Jesus, and began channeling his visions.
"Being irretrievably dead in sin is not attractive to women."
That's rougnly 180 degrees from what most women actually go for. They actually dig that, King A.
There is something to be said for morality as an attracting factor though it's not clear exactly what it is that should be said. Women show a lot of signs of attraction to an Alpha or Sigma who is married and faithful - the coupling of social dominance with fidelity seems to press all their buttons. As a result, a married, moral Alpha or Sigma will get a lot of go ahead signs (speaking from experience here). What mechanism drives women to act this way?
It seems to me that there is something deeply contradictory in women's souls. I can't quite articulate it though.
I see the conversation around here has not budged from its usual Junior High Dungeons & Dragons Club level.
You misunderstand what "dead in sin" is, just like the commenters circle-jerking and high-fiving each other above. Your misunderstanding is a function of the die-hard feminist presumption still lingering in your thought process.
Both you and the feminists agree that acting manly is sinful. But while the feminists attack that manliness as evil, you celebrate it as evil. My observation precedes your error: acting manly is not sinful or evil. It is, in fact, a high expression of caritas.
So you, like the feminists, identify manliness with the shame-language they originated and locate it in the same bêtes noires -- asshole, narcissist, jerk, bad boy, sociopath -- when the genuine article is nothing of the sort. Likewise, you identify its opposite -- white knight, niceguy, sacrificer -- just as the feminists do, but again, you flip the script. Instead of encouraging these attributes as good in the manner of your hag-sisters, you ridicule them for their naïveté and weakness, (which is fine insofar as they are naïve and weak). Neither you nor the feminists can conceive the possibility that strength and goodness can be resident in the same breast, so evidence of goodness becomes ipso facto evidence of a lack of strength.
Your talk about "morality as an attracting factor" or "something deeply contradictory in women's souls" is the result of a prior, more basic error. Morality doesn't attract women, and I would never claim that; strength does. If the only evidence of strength comes from assholes, she will be attracted to assholes. If all attempts at caritas are weak and white-knighty, she will be indifferent or contemptuous of caritas. Completely missing in your picture is the strong man who is strong enough to be good.
Sin by definition is weak. It is a failure of internal discipline, a fat kid unable to forgo his fourth piece of cake. Men who reduce morality to its "attracting factor" are much more outwardly repulsive than you think they are or they realize they are. A deconstruction of morality for its utility in pick-up shows itself on one's face, a sweaty desperation from trying to hold together enough lies to complete a complex con job. Meantime, the man who acts from moral motivation has nothing to manage because he has no stake in the outcome. That translates into a serenity which yields savoir faire.
You are a fool if you think women are not preternaturally attracted to that implacable serenity. In fact, PUA tinkerers translate it into "aloofness" or "amused mastery" or "confidence" without bothering to trace the source of those outward expressions. No, that serenity is so foreign and so unreachable to symptom-managers like you that the disease seems incurable or "deeply contradictory."
The contradiction isn't in woman. The confusion is in your first principles. Like every lowborn pickpocket, your theories of nobility begin and end in resentment.
Matt
Newsflash. We are all broken, more or less. Anyone who makes a "distinction" between which people to help and which to condemn is a liar and coward with an absurd opinion of himself. Not a rare type in these parts.
In forums like these, participants stand proximate to the truth but with eyes turned in the opposite direction. They peddle the fantasy that they're not broken, they just haven't gone to the right PUA seminar yet. So they may sift and choose who gets to benefit from their miserly little store of caritas. They are picky nerds, and the evidence of their nerdishness is their preposterous standards of discrimination.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/210-would-not-bang
It is so engrained in us that acts of valor are deceptions. As a wife of a man that makes right decisions, I can attest, rarely do they feel good at the onset. I was never coddled, he continues to be steady and sure in his decision making. I now have the clarity to see and understand his anguish and prayer life prior to making tough decisions because I am now on the other side of it - healed (still vulnerable, however, being a woman). Since I have known him, I have heard the accusations and the sneers, "there is no way he's not up to something," "how can you let him treat you this way," Time reveals the truth of the skeptics. My own truth and reluctance to surrender to a personal relationship with God - independent of my husband, a boss who was having an affair with a colleague, a business partner who was embezzling tens of thousands of dollars, a 1st Sergeant who was sleeping with lower enlisted, countless men whose wives are on antidepressant and anti-anxiety medications.
The serenity you mention is dead on. So few are willing to take the risk to achieve it. It is difficult to explain what it's like to be married to a man who has been willing to watch me leave and unshaken in his resolve. He'll tell you it was the loneliest time of his life, his Job moment. It's humbling and painful to know that I needed him to do what he was willing to do. That, because of my brokenness, he went through what he did.
Thank you for what you've written here, Matt. You've put in words what I've been able to experience.
I now watch as my husband sows into our children. His resolve is still, unshakeable.
To add, what pisses me off most, is hearing from on lookers that he lives "the life of Riley." He laughs about it while it makes my blood boil. Not being one to keep my mouth shut, I do take every opportunity I have to tell the story about the man who worked 18 hour days, six days a week, never once sacrificing me to the highest bidder or our children to the lowest. When I, 15 years ago, decided to let him know it wasn't enough, that we needed more money, out of anger he walked (wouldn't drive so he wouldn't be using gas) five miles in a snow storm and donated his plasma, walked back into the apartment, threw the money at me and said, "shut the hell up."
Translation: Most people take the time to respond to me, then I flood them with paragraphs of text. What can I do now? Without my big academic words and overwrought sentences, all I can do fling insults about D&D. I feel so empty inside...
Paragraph 1: I'm going to say everyone is "broken," thereby making the term meaningless as it applies to everyone, even though everyone clearly knows what "broken" means in this context. This way I look clever, and have the ability to cast myself as "good" for having seen this wonderful idea, and cast everyone else as a "liar" and "coward."
Paragraph 2: I'm going to us the term "forums like these" as if to pretend I don't hang out at Roissy's constantly and comment. Next, I'm just going to assume that the only people participating here are picky nerds, even though Vox is clearly a bodybuilder. And many more counterexamples of people who's discrimination standards match their ability.
Paragraph 3: Meme that does not apply to the topic at hand as most people are clearly not supermodels, except for the word "bang" in the link. I hope no one checks it thoroughly...
I'm truly doing God's work here Vox.
"It is so engrained in us that acts of valor are deceptions..."
- - - - - - - -
It is an outrage that they should be commonly spoken of as Intellectuals. This gives them the chance to say that he who attacks them attacks Intelligence. It is not so. They are not distinguished from other men by any unusual skill in finding truth nor any virginal ardour to pursue her. ... It is not excess of thought but defect of fertile and generous emotion that marks them out. Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary: it is the atrophy of the chest beneath that makes them seem so.
And all the time—such is the tragi-comedy of our situation—we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more 'drive', or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or 'creativity'. In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.
C.S. Lewis, "Men without Chests" from The Abolition of Man
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition1.htm
Son, let me try to help you out here.
Your obsessive following after my every word does not deconstruct me, it humiliates you. You have declared yourself dependent on another man, even to the point of constructing your pseudonymous identity around my name.
Which underscores the structural flaw in this blog. Vox Dei's self-regard and inability to engage his peers (a consequence of the wildly absurd if silent presumption that he has no peers) create an inert community of readers who outdo themselves in their Kim Jong Il-ian praise rather than take him to task. Near as I can tell, the only other contributor calls himself an Omega. So publication becomes an exercise in indulging Vox's Thought of the Day, followed by two-dozen chirps from a covey of yes-birds.
It's the same with this fool above, who thinks he is doing the community a service by criticizing the critics with lame but persistent alacrity. After all, a display of loyalty depends on persistence more than content.
Look, for all I know, Vox is the bee's knees, and he deserves all the praise he and his toadies heap upon him. But creating an entire community allergic to strong criticism indicates insecurity more than it does robustness. An alpha male attracts strength -- strong allies who would be alpha in another context. He invites criticism as the opportunity to not just demonstrate his own virtue but to test whether his advertised strengths are actual.
The dismissive culture Vox created here is the surest indicator he is more blowhard than leader. Whatever strengths he has are concealed the tornado of self-puffing windbaggery to which poor souls like "Translator" above contribute their little toots, farting so earnestly for approval.
Matt
Just as feminists screech and decry the writings of Schopenhauer, I imagine your stalker will rail against this as well.
Observation of my son in contrast to my daughters (and my own self) has shown me the validity of Schopenhauer's words. It doesn't take much societal observation to see the same in Lewis's.
Funny you should mention taking a good look at a historical pattern with women. I'm actually taking inventory right now for a future post, and though the women who have come through my life have been very diverse, they all have one or two traits in common. Once I figure out what the hell it means, I'm going to write about it.
Excellent post.
I understand why you say that.
Does your opinion change after you've learned it was written for his wife of 9 years after the death of her father?
What you couple gasbags are prescribing is not a manly man. It is a longsuffering eunuch or a doormat-style martyr. "Man up, though your wife is castrating you." This isn't a righteous martyrdom, it's not stepping in front of a bullet to protect a family member; it's a form of self-abuse. It isn't self-sacrifice, it's masochism.
Without projection, please expand on what you are trying to say. What specifically do you identify as a long suffering eunuch, doormat-style martyr, self-abusive, and masochistic regarding what we have mentioned? See, you wrote a lot but you didn't say anything.
Is it conceivable to you that a man might actually have this reserve of strength?
Vox - OT, but why do you keep Susan Walsh on the blogroll of this site? Are you not aware that she is deleting comments which mention respected, analytical bloggers such as Dalrock, Rollo, or Yohami, and banning people as well?
http://yohami.com/blog/2012/05/29/my-hus-love-story/
http://www.antifeministtech.info/2012/05/first-she-deleted-comments-now-she-is-deleting-posts/
http://patriactionary.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/you-too-can-contribute-to-the-great-susan-walsh-ban-athon/
HUS has become a fem-centric hamster echo chamber. Are you keeping HUS on the blogroll simply as a good 'bad example' of how game can become betafied (i.e., Game2.0)? Or do you actually respect her as a game/relationship blogger and agree with what she is doing?
Leave Vox alone dude, they are family or something. To each their own.
Hey look, he again responded with a wall of 6 paragraphs of text to my four sentences, just like I pointed out above! I wonder if King A gets the irony? Probably not. Talk about tone deaf.
I'm noticing the patttern in your writing King A: statement A, followed by condescending title B. Over and over again. Sometimes the order reverses and condescending title B preludes the statement A.
Examples:
"(B)Son, let me try to help you out here.(A)"
"...word does not deconstruct me(A), it humiliates you.(B)"
"So publication becomes an exercise in indulging Vox's Thought of the Day,(A) followed by two-dozen chirps from a covey of yes-birds.(B)"
"It's the same(A) with this fool(B) above, who thinks he is doing the community a service by criticizing the critics with lame but persistent alacrity."
"The dismissive culture Vox created here is the surest indicator(A) he is more blowhard(B) than leader."
"Whatever strengths he has are concealed the(A) tornado of self-puffing windbaggery to which poor souls(B) like "Translator" above contribute their little toots, farting so earnestly for approval."
That's just from the response above. I'm sure the readers can go around to the other replies here and find their own.
I recommend perhaps a new rhetorical strategy. You being so predictable in your writing is what makes it so fun for me to deconstruct your every paragraph. I could literally make a bingo game out of it or program a King A writing macro.
Keep it coming ok?
"After all, a display of loyalty depends on persistence more than content."
As King A lacks content, which allows me to boil his paragraphs down to a few sentences. Yet posts repeatedly. Does King A get the irony?
"The dismissive culture Vox created here"
As King A dismisses people in every sentence as shown above. Does King A get the irony?
"But creating an entire community allergic to strong criticism indicates insecurity more than it does robustness."
As I demonstrate his criticism lacking in strength. Does King A get the irony?
Physician, heal thyself.
Sorry, Yohami, but I can't do that. Inclusion in a blogroll equals a head-nod and implicit recommendation, which does not make sense given what has been happening at HUS for some time now, and how Susan treats a number of highly respected manosphere/game bloggers and their well-reasoned and factual arguments.
I'm asking seriously because I respect Vox and enjoy his logic and fact-based arguments, and it just doesn't make sense.
It may have a worse effect too, helping to gently ease her into a life of total disfunction, helping her to become gradually and gently accustomed to the shocks and protecting her from the consequences so that she never learns.
Sadly, this is society in general, these days.
It seems to me that there is something deeply contradictory in women's souls. I can't quite articulate it though.
Strangely, considering this what they commonly complain about in men, women are not in touch with their feelings
That's a false assumption. Vox not only includes links to bloggers with whom he does not agree, he outright highlights those who hold opposing beliefs to his own.
To steal his term, neither he nor you nor me are the reality police.
Giraffe I think got it right. Dogsquat is attracted to women with problems because it's a self-confidence boost for him. Subconsciously he doesn't think he could attract an emotionally healthy woman, so his subconscious guides him to ones with problems, on the assumption he'll have a better chance with them.
That's what the White Knight is all about anyway - the WK can't marry the damsel in distress until he saves her, and he can't very well save her if she's not in distress first...
OT: Rare footage of hypergamy in the wild, against a child, over a man's shoe.
Leave it to Packer fans to illustrate the point without irony or guile. Even Donald Driver White Knights for the solipsistic fan a little at the end of the article.
Anonymous anonymously wrote: "What you couple gasbags are prescribing is not a manly man. It is a longsuffering eunuch or a doormat-style martyr. 'Man up, though your wife is castrating you.'"
Would you describe Corporal Jason Dunham as a "longsuffering eunuch or a doormat-style martyr"?
http://www.cmohs.org/recipient-detail/3458/dunham-jason-l.php
If a man suffers and sacrifices to further his own (and his culture's) "castrat[ion]," that is not courageous. All-important is the goal to which his strength is applied. You need to dig a level deeper.
What you share in common with the feminists is this rejection of the ethical content of one's virtue, a promotion of ends over means. "Violence is never the answer," etc. It is a very female understanding of honor: what your son died for doesn't matter as much as the fact that your son is dead. Women prefer their own to the good, and that is the maternal instinct complementary to the father's outward-looking one. "With your shield or on it" is not your typical motherly advice, Spartan women notwithstanding.
Your separation of means and ends, as WFB once put it, is to say "that the man who pushes an old lady into the path of a hurtling bus is not to be distinguished from the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a hurtling bus: on the grounds that, after all, in both cases someone is pushing old ladies around." Your separation of means and ends is to say suicide bombers are courageous for taking their own lives to murder the innocent and unprotected indiscriminately.
This is why trying to talk classical sense into ignoramuses with a feminist education is so Sisyphusian. You don't even understand the female presumptions controlling you. This has led to your corrupt redefinition of manliness as just one more conspiracy of the viragos.
Answer SarahsDaughter's inquiry. Exactly where do I promote castration? The only way you could conclude that is to equate moral behavior with wimpishness. Which is why I castigated Vox for implying such an absurd and reckless formula, if only indirectly. Men can be both virtuous and strong -- in fact virtue is synonymous with strength. You unconsciously identify virtue with feminism, and that sends you as surely to catastrophe as it sent our culture. Read history, become acquainted with the men who existed before they outlawed manliness. Your ignorance is contributive to the feminist project in ways you aren't alert enough to realize.
Matt
This is a tough problem to have. On one hand the guy obviously has an issue with what he finds attractive. On the other hand that's what he is attracted to and it's hard to argue with what you are attracted to. I honestly think what might be best for this guy is therapy. Clearly he has some underlying issues. It's not going to be as simple as deciding that he needs to stop being attracted to women with coke problems, sexual abuse, and eating disorders. He clearly has his own serious issues that he has not dealt with and is dealing with them through these women.
Nah Zac, it's just a confidence issue. If Dogsquat can build up his self-confidence, he won't think he needs to go for the broken chicks anymore. He'll have enough confidence to go for the functional ones.
Giraffe I think got it right. Dogsquat is attracted to women with problems because it's a self-confidence boost for him. Subconsciously he doesn't think he could attract an emotionally healthy woman, so his subconscious guides him to ones with problems, on the assumption he'll have a better chance with them.
Think in terms of predator vs. prey. As a predator, you eat what you can kill. The alpha is the lion. He can kill pretty much what he wants. He isn't successful 100% of the time, but he's top of the food chain.
Next we have the mangy coyote with a broken leg. He isn't going to be taking down a deer, so he eats roadkill.
I disagreed about the confidence boost, until you think about it. A hot girl with major issues is still hot. Otherwise, you're just occupying your place on the food chain, it may be demoralizing because your eating roadkill.
Pretty stinkin' close, man. Nice work. I wrote a follow up post if you're interested.
You identified the underlying issue, but nailing a bunch of hot chicks is just putting a band-aid over a spurting arterial laceration. Better than nothing, and it'll work for a bit, but you'd better be working on something better...
"Some" underlying issues?
You're damning me with faint praise, Sir.
Check out the follow up post if you want to see how things shook out.
Vox, thank you again for the links - I appreciate your consideration very much.
Who said anything about banging hot chicks? I mean, if that's what you need for the self-confidence, fine. But it's the self confidence that matters.
Pretty sectіon of content. I just stumblеd upon уour ωeb site and in аccession caρіtаl to aѕsert that I acquirе
іn fact enjoyed aсcοunt уour blog ρosts.
Any wаy I'll be subscribing to your augment and even I achievement you access consistently rapidly.
Look at my weblog ... loans for bad credit
Thanκ you, I have just been looκing fοr informatiοn appгοximately thiѕ topic for а long time and
yours is the beѕt I've came upon till now. However, what concerning the bottom line? Are you positive in regards to the source?
Feel free to surf to my blog fast payday loans
My homepage - fast payday loans
Ηi therе to all, how is аll, І
think everу οne is getting more frоm this web sіte,
and youг νіews аre pleasant designed for new users.
Feel free to surf to my weblog quick loans
Thank you for your very nice article, do not forget to read my articles also humor dewasa, status fb galau, status fb romantis, status fb lucu, kata kata cinta, kata kata cinta, kata kata bijak , Kata Kata Galau, kata kata indah, kata kata bijak, kata kata cinta, kata kata romantis, kata kata motivasi, status fb lucu, status fb romantis and many other interesting articles on my blog that.
At the same token it can be taken out of context with term shit testing in which women does all the time to feel the masculine vibe from the man. so basically saying "no im not going to do this or that" is actually and indicator of interest on the female part. however, thats not saying not be a kind gentleman. if we are talking about mirroring, then RESPECT is what you want to be mirrored back on your part correct?
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.