Monday, March 05, 2012

Heart of Darkness. Part III

Fahnestock's response to his fiance's confession was to go silent and go to bed. Alford was staying over at his place, however it was the early 60's, and the custom was for them to sleep in separate rooms. During the night, Fahnestock, who had never pressed her for sex, without saying a word, came into her bedroom;
Saying nothing, he yanked back the covers, climbed into my bed, and, without a word, initiated our first sexual encounter. I was so desperate to keep him I didn't resist.  It was forceful and clumsy-and I had no idea how to behave [Ed: ?], neither how to express my sorrow at hurting him nor how to offer my love to heal the pain. He left the bedroom as abruptly as he had entered it...... It was sex but there was no love.
Later on Alford describes the event as sexual violent. [Ed. Rape?]

Fahnestock decided to go ahead with marriage on the condition that her affair with Kennedy was never mentioned or that his name was never bought up in conversation. She had to bury her previously life in order to get married. But it is interesting to see her psychological reasons for agreeing to marry Fahnestock on those terms.
I felt relieved as he pulled back on the road. I took what he'd said to mean that if I obeyed him, then the wedding would go ahead. There would be no scandal, no disgrace, no tearful explanations of why the wedding had been cancelled.
She was scared about her social standing, not the harm she had done to Fahnestock.
For a long time I'd like to think that he was protecting me by demanding my silence, but I've come to realise that he was only protecting himself and his own ego. My revelation had embarrassed him. He must have hated the fact that the President had claimed me before he did. He must have felt humiliated that I continued to see the President after we met. He must have felt he would never measure to someone so charismatic and powerful. Perhaps he event felt I was mocking him.
However she writes; 
If our roles had been reversed, I know I would not be so forgiving.
Her own attempts to understand Fahnestock are more an reflection of her own solipsistic though patterns than his. I suppose it never occurred to her that he loved her passionately and that her affair was a betrayal of his love. The woman who he had intended to pledge the rest of his life to was screwing another man during the most emotionally intense period of any relationship.  Indeed, the tone of his interrogation of her in the previous post suggests that he was concerned more about when the affair was happening than the fact that she was a virgin. He lapsed into silence only after she told him that she was still sleeping with the President whilst they were engaged.

I imagine that Fahnestock was a normal guy of the times with normal young male desires. The fact that he didn't press her for sex means to me that he was probably living by some chivalric code and trying to be some sort of honourable man. He probably "snapped" the night when he found out the affair, but it's hard to wipe away an upbringing overnight, and  I can only speculate as to why he decided to marry her after her became aware of her alter life.  When I was young and I was strong in the way of romantic beta, and putting myself in his position, I imagine that the reason he decided not to call off the marriage was,  despite the betrayal, because he loved her.  He knew what the consequences would be if he called off the marriage; her reputation would suffer more by any hushed revelation to close friends and family than his.  In other words, Fahnestock had very little to lose by calling the marriage off  and everything to gain, except losing her. So the only explanation for his actions which makes sense to me is that he went through with the marriage for her benefit. Fahnestock, from her description of him in the book, seemed a man of both decision and action, and I have no doubt that he would have dumped her if he had decided on that course.

I imagine that his demand (that she never raise the subject of her affair with JFK) was his attempt to blot out the memory of her infidelity. I think he wanted to love the pre-confession Mimi back, and I imagine that he was hoping,  that with the passage of time, the memory of her infidelity would fade. I think it was his way of "forgiving" and taking her back.

And yet, wanting to forget is not the same as being able to. 
Tony, for his part, was completing his Army tour of duty, which kept us apart for a big chunk of time before the wedding. But even when we were together, as much as I might try to deny it, the tenor of our relationship was different  We had always been light and playful with each other, as if we didn't have a care in the world. Now I felt a creeping unease with him, as if he was constantly scrutinizing me and finding me wanting.
and;
Tony was never able to trust me from completely that day, and for good reason. Nothing could erase the depth of his hurt. He carried that baggage for our entire marriage. It was forever woven into the emotional fabric of our lives together and I could sense it. The anger and jealousy never completely disappeared.
Alford believes the Fahnestock's insistence that the subject of JFK never be raised was the cause of their subsequent marital disharmony. She feels that had they had the chance to "talk about it" and "seek therapy" and bought the secret out into the open, things may have been different.  In one of her most callous passages she writes:
If we could put this behind us, perhaps years later we could marvel over--even laugh about--the time when Tony's wife had an affair with the President of the United States when she was very, very young.
 [Ed: And engaged to Tony]
How do you laugh about infidelity? How do you laugh about betrayed love? Initially, she went along with Fahnestock's demands and describes their early marriage as reasonably happy, however later on, conditioned by modern psychobabble, somehow she suggests that Fahnestock's response to her infidelity was pathologically abnormal. In this woman, the whole moral calculus is inverted. Contrition, which is a precondition of forgiveness, consists in recogonising the wrongness of the act. Nowhere do I get the impression that she regrets the affair. She didn't want Fahnestock's forgiveness, she wanted his happy acceptance of her infidelity which she equated with forgiveness. She perhaps wouldn't have felt the same way if she loved Fahnestock in the same way that he loved her. His love was symbiotic, her love was parasitic.


In the early stages of their marriage, Alford did try to be a good wife, however it wasn't only Fahnestock who could not forget. She too seemed never able to shake off the memories her past; of her "five minutes of alpha."

(Photo of the wedding can be seen here. Scroll down.)

(to be continued)

13 comments:

spandrell said...

Roissy should get royalties from the book.

Also how hard must it have been for a moral man to live the 60s. Kennedy wasn't the only one fucking engaged young women. At least now we know the score.

jmperry said...

If anyone wishes to read the book without subsidizing the author, it's available in .pdf:

http://oron.com/3emv9f9vmwyo

The Social Pathologist said...

@spandrell.

It's a great book illustrating all the principles of Game and female hypergamy. The kindle version is a steal for the education it provides.

@jmperry.

Thanks, but I actually don't mind subsidising the author as she has done great service to both history and the "man-o-sphere". Everyone has commented on her dalliances with JFK but missed the big things.

I thought her recollections of JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis particularly valuable. His comment, "I'd rather my children red than dead" explains a lot of the psychology of his actions during that time. Unlike Castro, who was prepared to die for Communism, Kennedy was not prepared to live up to his ideals expressed in his inauguration speech. Le May's assessment of Kennedy continues to be validated.

Kathy Farrelly said...

Not female hypergamy, SP.

Complete and utter Godlessness.

I see nothing in common with the selfish, solipsistic and attention seeking Mimi.. That goes for the good women that I know as well.

Unfortunately there are just too many "bad" women around today, giving men the impression that all women are attracted to "bad" boys.

And the bad women ARE attracted to the bad men.

I say again. 'Water seeks it's own level.'

Mimi! What an apt name for such a woman. .. me! me! Yes, always about Mimi..

Anonymous said...

Kathy:

Your own behavior betrays you.
I note you cover for this woman by asserting her husband must be a bad man. After all, "water seeks its own level". That's very cute but women are hypergamous and many have BPD - and you can't always see that coming.

I don't have your religion and yet I can see every single thing that TSP is saying is correct. You seem utterly incapable of doing so.

Clarence

Kathy Farrelly said...

Brilliant deduction, there, Clarence. Not! :D

Tony was a good man who was sucked in by this woman. He was utterly blown away when he found out the truth about her. Still, he married her because of the shame it would bring if he didn't. They were engaged and this was back in the sixties, remember.

This is why the poor man made her promise never to mention the affair with the President to anyone. Imagine how that would have made him look and feel if it had been made public, or his family had found out about it!!

And who is to say that Mimi would have married Tony if the President had not been killed?

She may still have married him and continued the affair, knowing that the President would never divorce his wife for her. Who knows.

So, nice try, Clarence, but no cigar.

In any case I am not disputing what SP says. Just saying that I do not relate to Mimi in any way. Nor do I see anything in common with the good women that I know (who are happily married btw)

Unrestrained hypergamy (and I think that word has been twisted to mean that a woman is forever on the look out to upgrade her man) is not the problem.

Godlessness is.

Now I mean no rudeness here, Clarence, but you as a non-believer can't really understand what I mean.

I put my faith and trust in God. I pray. I try to be a good wife and mother. Sometimes I don't measure up, but I do the best that I can.

God gave me a wonderful husband. I love him deeply and have never ever wanted any one else. Never. Never ever thought about having sex with anyone else either.

Whether you believe it or not is up to you. God knows what is in my heart.

The Social Pathologist said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Social Pathologist said...

@Kathy

Still, he married her because of the shame it would bring if he didn't.

I'm not convinced that he married her for that reason. I think he really loved her. I think he was a bit of a romantic beta. I think she was more worried about the shame.

I must admit, I do wonder what would have happened with the relationship if Kennedy had not been killed. I've got a feeling that she would have kept going back to him until he broke the relationship off; even after the wedding.

I don't lump all women in one group Kathy; not all women are like Mimi Alford. I don't think Godlessness is as much of an issue here as is biology. The pleasure she got from being with the president had nothing to do with her morals but her biological response. It's a testament to biological/genetic basis of hypergamy. The desire for a alpha male seems "hard wired" in women to a variable degree. I think Alford's book illustrates this very well. As a woman without any prior sexual experience, the fact that she automatically started disrobing once on the Presidential bed say less about her morals than her biological submission.

Now, people are not automatons and a hypergamous impulse can be overcome, but even good Christian girls get hot and steamy around alpha males. It's just that some of them have got religious inspired self-control whilst a majority haven't. A lot of people are weak.

I think the other thing that needs to be understood is that there is not one type of alpha. i.e. bad boy.

Some women need to be "bitch slapped" in order to be aroused by a man, whilst women on the other end of the "crudeness/phyisicality" spectrum will get aroused by a charismatic and politely self- assured man. The fact that a lot of women like bad boys is more a measure of their "psychological crudeness" than some innate preference for anti-social behaviour.

Alford's hypergamy and her solipsism are two separate issues.

Kathy Farrelly said...

Yes, I think that you are right about Tony loving her SP.

He was so angry.. With good cause. The President took what should have been his. I cannot begin to imagine how he must have felt. when he finally had her! He had to wait Sigh..

As for Mimi, something lacking in her upbringing. Where was God in her life? Nowhere as far as I can make out.


"The fact that a lot of women like bad boys is more a measure of their "psychological crudeness" than some innate preference for anti-social behaviour."

Sorry can't agree SP.

I struggle to understand this.

What is attractive about a bloke that sleeps with a slew of women
and is cocky and crude?

Unless of course the woman is like minded..

Anyhow thanks for the interesting posts.

They are always thought provoking.

Your wife married a very good man. :D

The Social Pathologist said...

What is attractive about a bloke that sleeps with a slew of women
and is cocky and crude?


I ask myself the same question, especially when I see women who have options choose the "bad boy". What you're attracted to is not a choice, who you choose is.

Anonymous said...

There's almost certainly a crude biological basis for pre-selection, and you know what? I'm ok with that.
Presumably, as TSP said, innate sexual desires cannot be changed, but behavior can be controlled.

And Kathy, it's good to finally see you, for once, admit you have a bad woman screwing over a good man.

Clarence

Anonymous said...

Of course it was her Godlessness. Yes, people are hardwired for some things. But many people resist those things because they believe in something higher than themselves. They fight against sin, sometimes they lose, but they fight. Mimi was sick to the core in the way she viewed everything. She was giving blow jobs to advisors as the president watched. This is a vile, disgusting person. Not the person to draw conclusions about the full range of human moral responses to our biology - she is the low end. There is a higher and noble end that is completely different from hers.

The Social Pathologist said...

I don't think Mimi was "sick to the core", she was simply utilitarian. True Love, however, cannot grow in a utilitarian environment.