It’s a fact, I mused to myself, that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly…. Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization. Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none. It’s what’s known as “the law of the market”.… In a totally liberal economic system certain people accumulate considerable fortunes; others stagnate in unemployment and misery. In a totally liberal sexual system certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude. Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society.… Businesses fight over certain young professionals; women fight over certain young men; men fight over certain young women; the trouble and strife are considerable.
(Michel Houellebecq)
It could have come straight from Roissy.
I found it in this very good review by Benjamin Kerstein of Houellebecq's book, The Possiblility of an Island.
This visceral equation-sexuality as a system of social hierarchy-is more than a satirical revision of the war between the sexes. It is, rather, the key to Houellebecq’s own absolutism of despair. It is a dagger thrust into the heart of the ’68 generation, striking at their greatest source of pride: The liberation of the individual from social constraints on sexuality. Far from an erotic paradise, Houellebecq’s sexual revolution has created not only a world of the walking wounded, but a world in which the most intimate of human relationships has become an arena of Hobbesian brutality. It has created a life which is no longer worth living.
51 comments:
Roissy was always a fan of Houllebecq, wasn't he?
The trouble is that this kind of critique sets one up to arguing for some kind of sexual "socialism", which really goes against the grain. I don't think that the ancien regime was sexually socialist as much as it was sexually limiting from the social point of view -- assortative mating within social class and rank was fairly strongly enforced, which tends to have similar results to a socialist system in sexual terms in that every man is less likely to go wanting than under the current more laissez-faire system. The difference is that a socially enforced system isn't really socialist in a true sense because the main force is social rather than statist, but the result can look similar.
The related problem is that women generally don't fancy being considered a "good" that is divvied up between men, either on an egalitarian or inegalitarian basis -- even though there's much evidence that this has been the case historically and continues to be the case today.
Brendan, The trouble is that this kind of critique sets one up to arguing for some kind of sexual "socialism"
That's like saying that a culture that provides basic food and medical care for the disabled is "socialism".
There is a balance between a free sexual market and complete sexual chaos where everyone but the top 10% are happy. It's called monogamy without divorce with enforced stigma for premarital sex and/or unwed mothers.
In the end, there isn't a choice. The West will either look like Africa depopulated or will convert back to sexual "socialism" if that is how one words it. It's Darwinian.
Make that "where only the top 10% are happy".
The sexual marketplace is even worse than the economic marketplace, because the former is zero-sum, while in the latter a rising tide really can lift all boats.
At least sometimes.
Roissy was always a fan of Houllebecq, wasn't he?
No, he kept promising to read the books and do some reviews, but he never did.
Lots of R's commenters were fans though.
Sexual liberalism is a misnomer, so is sexual socialism.
The consumption/production dynamic doesn't change for any society, men produce 2x times their consumption while women are below parity. Under the old (seen as a socialist model) system, the excess production of males was transfered through marriage which was necessary for women for their provision, not men (hence dowries). Without a socialist safety net women would starve or be the burden of their families if they didn't marry.
Under the current liberal model ( which in actual fact is socialist) the excess production is procured through taxation (non wealth producing state jobs or direct payments or forced payments through divorce). Under the current system the recipient has no obligation towards the payer, hence the sexual free for all.
@Brendan
The trouble is that this kind of critique sets one up to arguing for some kind of sexual "socialism"
I don't think he is setting anything up, he's merely stating it as it is. Sexual liberation was promised as a means to make everyone happy, much like unfettered capitalism. Both clearly have their winners and losers.
The related problem is that women generally don't fancy being considered a "good" that is divvied up between men
Women may not like it, but it is also a reflection of how the majority of them "love" as well. The soft harem is merely the socialisation of alpha male goods for the benefit of the women.
@mdavid.
I think more Middle East than Africa. But perhaps I'm being too optimistic. Still, the socialistic solution results in an equal allocation of goods but not necessarily love.
As for the top %10, I'm not that sure that they're really all that happy. Roosh has written quite a bit on the dark side of game; the inability to love.
@johnnycomelately
It's true that the welfare state thwarts the traditional exchange contract. Still, I'm not a fan of thinking about marriage as an "exchange" model. Neither, it would appear, is Houellebecq. The exchange of goods leaves no room for love.
@Thursday.
Being the literary highbrow here, what's your take on Houellebecq? I personally think he is brilliant, though flawed. He seems to be a hyper-intelligent beta who has stared at the abyss and is waiting to fall in, yet would be grateful not to.
This was a powerful paragraph for me, esp. this clause:
"Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society..."
I read a book by James Wilson a while back, don't right remember the title right now, but in it he discussed how the "knowledge economy" would subsume the old industrial one.
And in claiming so, he offered a warning, that the resultant differences in wealth would cause substantial class strife between those who succeed in the new economy and those who do not. Or some combination of the two.
I can't help but think of the parallels here, as those men who have their soft harems will need to either (a) appease or (b) suppress those who do not.
In our culture today, we employ redistributive techniques such as affirmative action, welfare, etc., to relieve some of the pressure even as those who "lose" in our mixed economy clamor for more.
I wonder if we will see a repeat of this pattern, only this time it's not about money, but about sexual access.
@SP
What specifically, if I may ask, makes Houellebecq a beta in your eyes?
A successful and brilliant author doesn't sound all that beta to me, then again I haven't met the man in person.
Just a very brief and admittedly not very complete thought: I read the actual Azure essay from which you quote, which I think provides some good context. In essence the review shows that Houellebecq is a nihilist, something the French produce the way we Americans produce reality TV stars. And as a nihilist, it makes a good deal of sense that Houellebecq - along with nihilists in general – will see the sexual market place in fairly brutal, totally laissez-faire terms. For really – if you eschew such concepts as transcendence, selfless love that puts the other often above self, and so on – and I think it is reasonable to say that nihilists again, in general, tend to do so, then it is just natural that you’ll have a Hobbesian sexual world if it consists of a lot of individuals who are themselves nihilists. It just follows, since without such things as love and sacrifice, other people are usually simply seen it terms of “What do they offer to me? And what price do I have to pay to acquire them?” And since individuals are very unequal as far as social and other capital is concerned (Alphas vs. Deltas, young women vs. cougars, rich vs. poor), some individuals will do very well, while others will be left in the cold (especially in today’s world).
How much thought is contained in Michel Houellebecq's paragraph? Consider the following.
Don't spend time diving into the following quote, just get a feel for it.
=== ===
The Rubicon of Reality: Precultural Socialism, Socialism and Neomaterial Capitalist Theory
In the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the concept of textual art. It could be said that Baudrillard promotes the use of neostructuralist constructive theory to deconstruct capitalism. The subject is contextualised into a predialectic paradigm of expression that includes narrativity as a reality.
=== ===
The above is significant because it was constructed by the computer program Postmodernism Generator. It produces senseless texts which mimic postmodern, deconstructive "thought".
Even better, Professor of Physics Alan Sokal submitted an article of nonsense to the respected journal Social Text in 1996, as a hoax. They published the paper without consulting any physicists to check if the concepts were true, then they refused to publish the story behind the hoax. Postmodern social theorists don't show much humility, humor, or competence.
An Intellectual Program
@EW
I can't help but think of the parallels here, as those men who have their soft harems will need to either (a) appease or (b) suppress those who do not.
I don't think that there will be any push from below to change things. The thing about beta group is that they lack the "balls" so to speak to effect a change. What will probably happen is that a growing cult of misogyny will devalue women back to second class status. The alphas will treat them with contempt whilst the betas will look upon them with hatred.
@Brandon
I've just finished reading his book "Whatever". The book appears semi autobiographical and he demonstrates both a clear grasp of the beta mindset and it's inevitable problems. His descriptions of female rejection are situation which many a beta male would have lived through. I think it comes from personal experience. Whilst his star has risen, he does seem to have bad luck with women. He has propositioned many of his female interviewers and it appears not had much success.
@Jason
I don't think Nihilism is a particularly French product. Unlike Roissy, who doesn't really ponder on the eventual outcome of his hedonism the French seem to push things to their logical conclusions. In world without an afterlife, well..... nothing really matters.
The problem though is that this also impacts upon the mechanics of love, something I'm going to talk about in my next post.
@Andrew Garland.
Thanks for dropping by. I'm familiar with Sokal. I don't think the passage was computer generated thought the current programs are very good.
Not to deflate a good apocalyptic vision or anything, but why is it that we assume that bereft of social constraint all women will flock to alphas when most males would find the idea insulting that in the absence of external social constraints, they'd have sex with anything vaguely female that moves (if they had the opportunity).
Both ideas are equally ludicrous.
Sure there are both men and women without any internal self-restraint, but who'd want to marry them anyway?
@Tom
The real problem arises when one with self restraint falls in love with one who has none.
The sad fact is that a lot of people have very little self restraint. Obesity is a typical example. Lot's of people live life simply driven by their animal desires.
Houellebecq is brilliant, up there with Roth and McCarthy as among the best living fiction writers. His flaws are that, like many satirists, he has trouble creating rounded characters and that he, very rarely, verges on the sentimental.
I'm now reading "The Elementary Particles". Certainly some of the characters and their histories appear autobiographical, but it also appears that he has spread aspects of his own experience among multiple characters.
He has a strong understanding of what has happened in the West and why. His own experiences are clearly on the beta side of things, and he describes very well what it can be like to be among the many "sexual have nots" in the current system. He's pretty equal opportunity in his critiques of men and women, however. He appears to be clear-eyed about how the foibles of each are magnified by the current situation.
He's way over the top in his cynicism however. I am quite the cynic myself, but his writing is extraordinary in this respect and I suspect it limits his ability to reach people.
There will be no revolt from below because men are actually the happiest they have ever been. Those without women have been effectively pacified with porn and video games, or their more sophisticated alternatives.
@SP
Thanks for the clarification. Now I have a question for you as a Christian. Women love the Alpha male. It would appear that the most Alpha of men is also a sociopath. Being a sociopath and a Christian is contradictory. Therefore, isn't Christianity contrary to fulfilling female desire and the path to beta loserdom? (I'm not attacking Christianity here, I am one, but I just wanted your take on this)
I'm not sure that the pacification of women less men is really durable for those guys. Most guys eventually will marry at some stage other than the true omegas, and so the market and its issues is really only temporarily side-stepped by most guys who are doing beer and video games in their 20s. I'd agree that these guys are having more fun in their 20s than men have for some time, whether women are in the picture or not. But ennui comes later.
At the same time, I fully agree that there will be no revolt. Betas don't revolt. They, if anything, may withdraw. But most won't do that either. Betas are dutiful and will generally do what they are told, which means marrying women in their early 30s, manning up and the like. These are not guys who are going to revolt. Nor are the lower betas and omegas who can't find a wife in their 30s, because they are social lepers and despised -- they are the segment that will permanently withdraw and, in a very few isolated cases, become lone wolf shooters who serve no useful purpose.
Just a few more notes.
Whilst his star has risen, he does seem to have bad luck with women. He has propositioned many of his female interviewers and it appears not had much success.
Well I would expect that based on his writing. An angry beta with a small penis (very much suggested by his writing) isn't turning many women on, despite his status as an "enfant terrible" in the French literary scene. Writing autobio-esque fiction that describes your own sexual failures, anger at the system, and physical inadequacies isn't exactly good Game.
Women love the Alpha male. It would appear that the most Alpha of men is also a sociopath. Being a sociopath and a Christian is contradictory. Therefore, isn't Christianity contrary to fulfilling female desire and the path to beta loserdom?
An alpha male with self control is obviously close to an ideal -- closer is the alpha with some pre-selection who has repented and is "reformed" of his sins. A beta male doesn't rate, even though the church is great at creating them at this point in time. You can be an alpha male Christian, but Christianity (in my opinion) generally won't make you alpha.
@Brandon
Therefore, isn't Christianity contrary to fulfilling female desire and the path to beta loserdom?
In a sense you're correct. But I want to be clear here. I think that Christianity was rather too successful in the war against the flesh and what it did was emasculate manhood to a certain degree. The romantic tradition in western thought was heavily influenced by both pedestalisation of women and asceticism (asexuality). Some of the smarter orthodox Catholic theologians, I feel, are beginning, way too late, to see the error of traditionalist ways. This sermon from preacher to the Pope needs to be digested fully.
""Love suffers from ill-fated separation not only in the mentality of the secularized world, but also in that of the opposite side, among believers and in particular among consecrated souls. Simplifying the situation to the greatest extent, we can articulate it thus: In the world we find eros without agape; among believers we often find agape without eros.""
The believers did not get that way all by themselves. They were led there by the Church. It was too successful, in its war against the flesh, and the world revolted. (in the wrong direction of course) The Church shot itself in the foot.
I personally think it is possible to create a synthesis between alpha behaviour and Christian teaching. But I don't think it can be done in violation of the commandements. For instance, Catholicism is never going to approve of fornication, but it may be able to approve of a man which possesses qualities which women would want to fornicate with.
A very pious Catholic girl friend of mine, expressing her exsasperation at all the good beta Catholic boys she had been set up with and found unnatractive, said it best. I want a man to love a man who who is a bit naughty and could cheat on me if he wanted to, but he'll be the type of man that doesn't want to.
Does it make sense?
It makes sense, it's just that it would take a man of extraordinary character and finesse to achieve this. Most men aren't extraordinary. Plus, why should female pleasure, which is infamously fickle and shifting like wind blown sands, have to be the telos of existence?
Thus I remain a proponent of patriarchy. The feminine id must be contained.
I want a man to love a man who who is a bit naughty and could cheat on me if he wanted to, but he'll be the type of man that doesn't want to.
But this sets up a ridiculous standard that most men cannot ever dream of meeting.
Yes, women want hypergamous mates. It's true that one solution is pretending that all men can be such. I think that is very unrealistic, in that it will always be the case that very few men will be like that naturally, and also few will be able to "learn Game" to be like it by effort. It's nice for women, but it doesn't really work on a masse scale -- it's idealistic in terms of what is achievable by men. I simply disagree that most men can "make themselves the kind of men who could be naughty", even if they were willing to do so without actually *being* naughty. It's a fantasia scenario from the women's perspective.
"I want a man to love a man who who is a bit naughty and could cheat on me if he wanted to, but he'll be the type of man that doesn't want to."
No that makes no sense to me. Could cheat if he wanted but does not want to? An oxymoron.
That girl is just a product of feminist conditioning.Women are becoming more like men.Having been told that they can pursue the hot bad boy. Even have sex with him. It's their right. Men do it after all!(pursue hot girls)
But it's a nonsense. A Man has always wanted to marry a hot looking woman of good character, to be a mother to his kids,and who would be a real bad girl in the bedroom just for him . ;)
Now we have women trying it on with their own variation of that same theme. Hot bad boys that all the other women want but she has the prize..rolls eyes.
I see it even now with some of my nearly 16 year old daughter's peers.I see it in the songs that they listen too. Go listen to Rhianna, and watch her music clips . Good example.
This is a cultural conditioning thing.
Even so-called pious Catholics are not immune. ;)
Now, why do women really want the hot naughty kind of guy?
Think about this. Women DO NOT marry for sex and love... I am the only one who has, that I know of, of all my female relatives friends and acqauintances.(Including in my working years too, when I spoke to many many women)
Women marry because they want to have kids and men marry to get regular sex.
Women get their kids and most of the time the men end up with little or no sex. Or they are reduced to coercing or gaming their wives to get a nookie out of her.
That is mostly how it is.
We all know that men are visual creatures.. Women not so much. Men think about sex more often than women.. This is the way they are made.. It's why men have had mistresses since time immemorial(not something I condone, just saying)
Women are no longer behaving like women.They are Trying to be more like men.
But it never really works out that way in the end.
Because if a woman really wanted a man to love, who could be a bit naughty if he wanted, she would be coming across on a daily basis after she married him. Which is what all men want, and too often don't get.
Hence we hear so often how once the ring is on the finger and the woman has children, everything changes.(there are many jokes about how the sex dries up etc)
Not so with the husband who is still up for a nookie every night if the opportunity presents itself. What has happened to his "hawt" wife he thinks to himself!
Women will never think like men. Nor be like men. Nor will they ever really have the same sex drives either.
There are exceptions of course. :D
Getting back to what I believe is just cultural conditioning, let me tell you about my own daughter.
She has a boyfriend.. Yes a boyfriend. Been an "item" for over six months now.
I like him.. You know what, he is a really nice young bloke. He is 17 and in year twelve. Going to be a Psychologist. Gets good grades. Tall at 188 centimetres, dark hair , average looking. Nice brown eyes.
He is smitten with her. Every time I drop her off at school he is waiting just inside the gate. Last week I saw that look of love on his face for myself, as he had just arrived a minute before her.
His face lit up when he saw her and nothing or no one else mattered.
He writes poems to her. He says things like "Can I borrow a kiss I promise I will give it back." He sends her love songs. Beautiful not tawdry or crude. For Valentines Day he gave her a single stemmed rose.
My daughter as the months have gone by has really seemed to grow to like him more and more.."Love" she tells me, the other day.
I try and find out what it is she loves about him.."I just love him" she says.. "Yes, but what is it about him that you love?" I ask.
"I just love HIM!. He's nice. We get on really well. I love it when he gives me a big bear hug when I get to school..." That kind of stuff. Lol.
Hubby went to pick our daughter up from the train station last week after she had been to the movies with a group of her friends. Boyfriend included.The young bloke(who had accompanied our daughter to her destination and was then going to catch the train back to his suburb) came up to my husband and said to him. "You know that I am in love with your daughter! "
Hubby was speechless. Lol.
My daughter doesn't like bad boys. Yippee!
And that's because she was not brought up to like them.
Just as I myself was not brought up to like bad boys.
@Brandon
Plus, why should female pleasure, which is infamously fickle and shifting like wind blown sands, have to be the telos of existence?
It's not.
A man needs to have complete skill set. Having qualities which are attractive to females is but one part of the set.
Brendon
But this sets up a ridiculous standard that most men cannot ever dream of meeting.
But it's no more ridiculous than expecting a lady on the streets and freak between the sheets.
My father once said to me that what a woman wants is a man in company, a friend in the home, and a lover in bed. The three aren't mutually exclusive.
@Kathy
No that makes no sense to me. Could cheat if he wanted but does not want to?
Um....well.... how do I put this. I've had a few women express interest in me even though they know I'm married. I don't go there. I go politely cold and it ends.
Which is what all men want, and too often don't get.
I've got a patient who looks like a famous Hollywood starlet. She wants to make love to her husband but has zero libido. I know why. He drinks too much, is whiney and still acts like he is 16. She is a bloody good girl, she wants to make her husband happy (he whines and gets angry when they don't have sex) but has zero urge. The biochemistry is all normal. Now, as Keoni Galt an numerous others have demonstrated Game saved their marriage. It made their wifes want to have sex with them even though the marriage was sexless previously. I'm afraid that sometimes it's the man who is responsible for his wife's low libido.
"Um....well.... how do I put this. I've had a few women express interest in me even though they know I'm married. I don't go there. I go politely cold and it ends."
And your point is?
Just a few low class Godless women with no self respect (sluts).
You are ignoring the point that I was making.
Women are a product of their unbringing. Poor upbringing makes them susceptible to negative outside influences.
I never ever considered married men fair game.
I was not brought up that way. What I have learned from my good, loving and faithfull Catholic parents I have passed on to my daughter.. So far so good.
There are just too many women out there who have not had very good parents who have guided them and given them good advice.
That being said, I am not the greatest of Mothers, however I have a very good husband, so together we make a pretty good team. :)
Just a few low class Godless women with no self respect (sluts)
I always attract the best type of girls.
And your point is?
You missed the point entirely. The thing is a man can be God fearing and sexually attractive to other women without straying. I'm no paragon of moral virtue but taking your religion seriously and having some game is not that hard to do.
"Now, as Keoni Galt an numerous others have demonstrated Game saved their marriage."
And I have nothing against game.
I've used it myself(to successfully get sex) when my husband has been immersed in his business dealings.
My point is that women once they have bagged the prize more often than not lose interest in sex.
It's all about the thrill of the kill. The power they hold. Not libido.
Once they have kids they lose interest. (Not all)
So game comes in handy to rekindle interest.
Like I said if a woman wanted a "naughty" man in the true sense she would be f**king his brains out on a regular basis.... if you will pardon the expression.
One swallow does not a summer make, SP. ;)
"The thing is a man can be God fearing and sexually attractive to other women without straying. I'm no paragon of moral virtue but taking your religion seriously and having some game is not hard to do"
I have no quarrel with that SP.
But was this not about the girlfriend who wanted a man to love who could be naughty with other women but who would not stray?
The woman was deluded. Feminist claptrap.
Does not work that way.
Nothing to do with God fearing men who are sexually attractive and don't stray. ;)
Oh and one more thing.
(You must be getting thoroughly sick of me by now!)
"I always attract the best type of girls."
No reflection on your good self SP, you're a nice bloke. But hey what decent woman tries to crack onto a married man, eh?
Chillax Kathy
At my age its nice to know that I can still play the field if I wanted to.
You know, I like to know that I could be naughty.........if I wanted to. :)
"I want a man to love a man who who is a bit naughty and could cheat on me if he wanted to, but he'll be the type of man that doesn't want to."
All this means is she wants a man who is attractive and has a bit of game who is dedicated to her. How is that feminist claptrap? Sounds like a reasonable, normal desire for a good quality man to me.
Of course, it requires trust - you have to be able to trust a man enough not to take what's offered, and you have to be willing to keep him happy enough that he isn't tempted.
"All this means is she wants a man who is attractive and has a bit of game who is dedicated to her. How is that feminist claptrap? Sounds like a reasonable, normal desire for a good quality man to me."
No it's what YOU think it means.
The notion is an unrealistic one in any case. Men should not have to undergo a big change to become someone they are not just to secure the attentions of a woman. A manufactured man is very unappealing.
It's really very simple, CL. All a man has to do is to have a strong frame, be confident and not allow a woman to use him as a door mat. A good sense of humour goes a long way too. .
Ya don't need to read a heap of books or Roissy to get that. ;) Too much analyzing!
Read what Brandon and Brendan say in comments, further up.
"But this sets up a ridiculous standard that most men cannot ever dream of meeting." Brendan
You are seeing it from a woman's point of view CL (Cl is a woman)
Why should a man have to pander to some silly bint with a vague notion of what she thinks she wants in a man.
I swear the women of the world have taken leave of their senses.
Women want too much. Why is it that the men must continue to pander to women? (just another form of pedestalizing)
A man just wants a decent and attractive looking woman, with a reasonable personality. Marry her have a couple of kids a hot meal on the table evey night and a good root afterwards.
Not much to ask is it? Easy to understand, too.
Women on the other hand have vague notions and laundry lists.
No wonder so many men despair of meeting and marrying a good woman.
@Kathy
I'm afraid I'm with CL on this issue. Most women want a man that other women desire, no woman wants a man that no other woman wants. It's a fact of life.
Christian masculinity should be about sex appeal and virtue, this is what my friend and CL are trying to get across. GK Chesterton, in Orthodoxy, shows that Christianity is a balance of two sometimes opposing virtues. His famous example being that of courage, which he describes a utter disregard for death whilst wishing furiously to live.
Therefore the ideal Christian man, from a dating point of view, is a man who looks like he could be a bad boy but is good.
"Most women want a man that other women desire, no woman wants a man that no other woman wants. It's a fact of life."
Well, must be the circles I move in SP In my discussions with other women I have not found it to be the case. Certainly was not in my case. (But I had good parents who taught me well)
This is all as I said previously, to do with cultural conditioning.
It has a lot to do with upbringing like I tried to show using my daughter as an example.
Why is it that I never liked bad boys? Why is it that my daughter does not like bad boys either.( Her bloke never ever looks at another girl.) He is not the kind of bloke that you describe that women would want ;)
I dont think it is because we are outliers, my daughter and I, it's more because of upbringing
Circumventing the cultural conditioning.
And my point still stands women want too much and expect men to pander to them.
"I want a man to love a man who who is a bit naughty and could cheat on me if he wanted to, but he'll be the type of man that doesn't want to."
I'm sorry but I think that a rather shallow and unrealistic statement. A silly romantic kind of notion. Most good men are just not like that.
Whilst I have no problem with game per se, becoming someone that you are not in order to get a woman is just another form of pedestalizing.
Becoming more confident and refusing to be treated like a doormat, being strong and leading is not.
Interestingly I married a man who was not "desired" by lots of women. Strong, silent type with a wicked sense of humour.
His own man. Not a panderer. Also not a ladies man. He was not that kind of bloke. But a damn good man. The shallow women overlooked these qualities. He went out with a few women, a couple who were looking for marriage and a meal ticket (according to him)but was not surrounded by women.
I like that. It's also why even now after 16 years of marriage I am so glad that he works in the building industry away from women. And the fact that he is always covered in dirt and sweat, because I am happy that no other woman will ever get to see the rare gem beneath that exterior.
And that makes me enormously happy.
He's all mine.
My attraction is not and has never been contingent upon other women's desires.
@ Kathy
I know you think that learning a bit of game means a man is not real, that he is just imitating a set of behaviours. Do you think if someone learns to play the violin well, even though he was awful at it to begin with, is an imitation of a musician? Do you think adults cannot learn things?
What about someone who has an explosive temper as an adult, learns some techniques for dealing with the anger, and then becomes much calmer? Is that only an imitation of a calmer person? Is a person who learns to drive a car only an imitation of a driver?
SP said, “Most women want a man that other women desire, no woman wants a man that no other woman wants. It's a fact of life."
Kathy said, ”Well, must be the circles I move in SP In my discussions with other women I have not found it to be the case. Certainly was not in my case. (But I had good parents who taught me well)”
I guess Kathy’s experience is women desire men that no other women want. In fact, it makes sense that a woman would believe this as she gets older and her beauty fades. It is hard for her to believe that her husband would stick with her, unless he had no other choice and was not wanted by other women. This is female insecurity and to avoid feeling this, many women project thought control on others. (i.e. her husband does not even see other women and other women do not see her husband as an attractive man.)
Of course all this fails in reality, since if he has “a strong frame, [is] confident and [does] not allow a woman to use him as a door mat”, women WILL see these traits and recognize his worth. Reality negates the existence of a good attractive confident capable man that no other women would want.
Or maybe, just maybe, only a special snowflake can realize that, and all the other women in the entire world are to shallow to know what a good man looks like. Nah, this doesn’t make sense.
@Kathy
Whilst I have no problem with game per se, becoming someone that you are not in order to get a woman is just another form of pedestalizing.
Becoming more confident and refusing to be treated like a doormat, being strong and leading is not.
I'm not a big believer in the "authenticity" critique of game. Neither would Aristotle or Aquinas be. Bad people can only change into good people by acting well. Some people aren't born with strength and confidence. Are you proposing that they shouldn't change because by doing so they're putting strength and confidence on a pedestal? Would you say that if acted confidently they were not being "authentic"?
I like that. It's also why even now after 16 years of marriage I am so glad that he works in the building industry away from women.
You see that's a very interesting comment. Because of my job I'm surrounded by women all day and sometimes they're naked.
Prior to getting married, my mother in law pulled my wife up to see if she would "have a problem" with me looking at other women. My wife never thought about it prior to that, and she doesn't now. She couldn't care less about me looking at other women, but she expects me to stay faithful.
But even she knows that it is not her expectation that keeps me in line; I don't live in fear of her. She realises that I run my own show and the reason I stay with her is because, despite having options, I want to.
"I guess Kathy’s experience is women desire men that no other women want. In fact, it makes sense that a woman would believe this as she gets older and her beauty fades. It is hard for her to believe that her husband would stick with her, unless he had no other choice and was not wanted by other women. This is female insecurity and to avoid feeling this, many women project thought control on others. (i.e. her husband does not even see other women and other women do not see her husband as an attractive man.)
Ha .. You are always good for a laugh 7 man. Hey what would I know anyway?
Having had a successful marriage for 16 years? Pfft!.
You and CL on the other hand have had... Oh wait.. ;)
I really had to Lol when you made that geeky comment about being so happy that you were no longer a nice man.. Or some such rubbish over at Patriactionary.
I married a really nice guy who won't take shit from anyone.. He is his own man.
Being strong and decisive and a nice guy are not mutually exclusive, ya know.
And, no matter how much bluster you engage with, you are still yourself a nice guy.. sigh.. I see it in what you write.. You cannot disguise it.. You are a pussycat..
You try so hard (and you have been deeply hurt) but really, there is not a mean bone in your body..
Boring, serious, banal and repetitive maybe, but certainly not mean. ;)
And no I do not see you as an attractive man... Sorry, you do not have the required Joie de vivre for me. (having read quite a bit of your stuff)
Too much time spent in your sombre half glass full company and I just might want to go and take a leap off the Europa Bridge..
C'est la vie.... :D
"I know you think that learning a bit of game means a man is not real, that he is just imitating a set of behaviours."
There you go twisting my words CL.
Never said that at all. I've used game myself, hun..
I have said this before..
I am not against game at all, used for the right purposes. ie not just to get a woman into bed.
However becoming someone that you are not just to secure the charms of a woman is just another form of pedestalizing.
When 7 man says that he is no longer a nice guy, I just Lol. and think what a silly delusional man.
Read too much Roissey methinks..
And we all know how successful he has been in securing an LTR.
Bwwwwhhhhhaaahhhhaaaaaa..
Ha ha ha ha ha.. Of course I meant half glass empty 7 man.
My apologies..
"I'm not a big believer in the "authenticity" critique of game. Neither would Aristotle or Aquinas be. Bad people can only change into good people by acting well. Some people aren't born with strength and confidence. Are you proposing that they shouldn't change because by doing so they're putting strength and confidence on a pedestal? Would you say that if acted confidently they were not being "authentic"?"
No.. Confidence and strength come from interaction with people over time.. Something learned. For some reason some men just go to water where women are concerned. What they have to do is just treat women like they would any other man..
They do not have to change themselves as some men seem to think.. Badger for one has said that a man must "change"
Bollocks.
My husband never learnt game.
He just treated everyone in the same way that he wished to be treated.
Never let women walk all over him.
I will say this again.. A manufactured man ie one who has to read a heap of books and read a blog from a man who is most certainly on the road to hell ( as you yourself once said SP) in order to become the man he thinks he should be, is not worth the time of day in my book.
Harsh I know, but it's a fact. Sooner or later the facade will drop. It cannot be sustained. One cannot change one's basic personality.
In any event, a woman should love a man for who he is.Not expect him to change to suit her..
If she doesn't then she is not worth two bob.. To coin an old phrase. ;)
@ Kathy
The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.
Thursday said:
The sexual marketplace is even worse than the economic marketplace, because the former is zero-sum, while in the latter a rising tide really can lift all boats.
This is a great point.
I don't see a contradiction in Alpha-ness and Christianity. The contradiction seems to come by tying the classification with actual actions, rather than as personality qualities.
Man fornicates with a woman. When done with her he leaves her and moves on to the next, if he didn't already have 2 or 3 other ladies on the side.
vs
Man has options, selects for the best, takes a wife and leads the relationship, wife is hot for the hubby
To me, that is Dark Alpha vs Light Alpha. Not Alpha vs Beta. Both men are doing leading behavior and are confident in what they want and are motivated to get it. Are women attracted to the fornicating or is it to the qualities? I don't recall women asking me my number until we had slept with one another for a while, if at all. (note, I'm a convert so I don't participate in such actions anymore)
Actually, I feel that many players are less alpha than the Light Alpha in the sense that they are slaves to their sexual impulse. They settle for eros as mutual masturbation over agape + eros. The former feels amazing (so does the latter), but it's awful when it drives you. Women AND Men let their hamsters rationalize this form of personal slavery.
I think another issue, particularly for us Christians, is that we get mixed up on the proper Alpha model because we accept the one dictated by some evolutionary model and forget to incorporate theology. Jesus, as Christians, is our Alpha. So when I hear that dying for others is beta, I find this rather odd. How is running away to breed another day not considered beta? In an evolutionary model, it is Alpha, since genetics is what matters. In theology, it's beta at best, omega at it's worse to not stand for what is important(there is a way to be a bad martyr). Do we really consider the Apostles betas at the time of their death? The Martyrs?
@Durandel
Are women attracted to the fornicating or is it to the qualities?
In most cases it's the qualities
However, Durandel, I think that there is strong "anti-flesh" tradition in Christian thought which cuts Eros at the knees, especially amongst men: too much agape and not enough eros.
I don't buy a lot of the "evolutionary motivations" as pushed by the HBD crowd. It seems to use the same underlying logic as Fruedianism.
There is no doubt that the early martyrs were brave, but were they sexually attractive? That's another matter. I think it's much better to think of alpha and beta as being either in possession or deficit of erotic "goods". Sacrifice is irrelevant to the question of what gets the opposite sex horny. Alpha and beta are a measure of sexual goods, not moral virtue.
The good Christian man must be both morally good and sexually attractive to his mate. I think why Christianity gets lumped with betadom is because of the commonplace association of Christianity and sexual aridity. I think the smarter orthodox Christians are beginning to see that this is a very serious problem and that's there seems to be a recent legitimisation of the body amongst those higher up.
It's true though, that men without agape (or caritas, as I prefer to call it) become slaves to Eros, which is a cruel master. Most of the players that I have met have never been "quite right".
"The good Christian man must be both morally good and sexually attractive to his mate. I think why Christianity gets lumped with betadom is because of the commonplace association of Christianity and sexual aridity. I think the smarter orthodox Christians are beginning to see that this is a very serious problem and that's there seems to be a recent legitimisation of the body amongst those higher up." - SP
Agreed! The Theology of the Body is very big with the young in the Catholic Church here in pockets of the US. The message has religitimized the body for many of these young Catholics, who also wish to be more orthodox than the previous generations. And yes, you clarified something I did not, that the issue is on sexual goods. I just think we get too caught up in the actions that reflect sexual goods, but not the sexual goods themselves. This is why I'm still striving, but do believe, that "Game" and Christianity do coincide and that there is even a proper Catholic/Orthodox theological model that could be developed.
sorry, legitimatized*
Post a Comment