I had cause to think about 'cause and effect' the other day (no pun intended :-).
As ever, I was forced to confront this issue as relates to the SMP in a rather precipitous manner.
It's almost as if each time I settle down and rest on my laurels, life pulls me off said laurels and hands me another new lesson on a plate.
I was discussing something of a personal (read 'relationship') nature with a female acquaintance during her visit to my home.
I was upset about something.
I didn't want to talk about it to her , but she has a way of persuading just about anyone to 'squeal'. So I did.
And in doing so, I unmasked my 'vulnerability' to her, it seems.
Amongst other behaviours that 'freaked her out' about me, I grabbed one of my 'cuddle bunnies' and gave it a big, juicy hug.
She was horrified.
Below is a summary of her case against me:
1. The very fact that I have a 'cuddle bunny' at all. According to her, past a woman's teens, 'comfort zone associates' such as 'cuddle bunnies' are illegal. Not permitted in polite society, it would appear :-)
2. The fact that I actually did hug my 'cuddle bunny' at a time of emotional stress suggested to her that I was still an adolescent.
Why does this have a familiar ring to it?
Is this a female accuser's version of 'woman up' in the manner of 'man up'?
3. And this was her advice: and hence the point of this post: When dealing with a man, never show him your vulnerable side.
This is effectively what many women are being advised to do.
By other women.
Now, points 1 and 2 are a question of taste/maturity, etc. Guilty as charged. I have a 'teddy bear equivalent', and I am in my 30s. Shameful, I know.
But, and this question is addressed primarily to the ladies...
Is this necessarily sad or twisted?
What is the alternative, if any?
Assuming I had a husband and children of say, age 6 and above: would it be reasonable to burden them with my emotional problems ala Princess Diana and Prince William?
Actually, I think not personally. My female friends and my 'cuddle bunnies' exist for that function :-)
But I welcome alternate views on this.
What disturbs me the most is point No. 3.
Am I courting controversy by addressing this?
I actually have mixed feelings about 'showing vulnerability'. I really do.
I like 'privacy' and emotional strength, aka 'stoicism'.
But I also know that 'privacy' precludes 'intimacy' as addressed in this post.
'Intimacy' can take many forms - I do not restrict myself to the more obvious forms - sexual/emotional.
Spiritual intimacy is just as important. As a Catholic, for example, you need this if you are to make a good Confession. You need spiritual intimacy with a priest to achieve this. (I really am not being 'sleazy here. This is nothing to do with my (separate) and slightly pathological problem of 'priestophilia' :-)
I do believe that even the most alpha of men has to show vulnerability at some point in his relationship with a woman.
But what about women?
Can a woman negotiate a relationship without showing some vulnerability?
I think not...
But why is it so hard to show vulnerability?
Fear of being belittled, betrayed, abandoned, exposed...
Is there another reason behind this advice?
As ever, the 'why' is very important to me.
Why cannot I hug a teddy bear in front of a potential suitor?
Has a woman ever been dumped for this heinous crime?
Cause and effect...
Because of what is commonly known in the statistical world as confounding variables.
Peripheral issues that cloud the main issue.
If a 'nice girl' is dumped in favour of a 'rymes with rut' kind of girl, what's the most common reaction by said 'nice girl'?
No more 'nice girl'!
Similarly for men...
No more Mr. Nice Guy!
But isn't that somehow wrong?
Isn't that 'treating the symptom' as opposed to 'treating the root cause' as someone pointed out to me recently (you know who you are: thank you for your insight into this).
Whatever happened to 'Outcome independence'?
But what is the 'root cause'?
Could there not be a 'confounding variable' that might have been confused with 'nice girl's' niceness?
For example, what if 'nice girl' is also unhygienic?
If she is dumped, is it ever helpful to blame her 'niceness'? Would it not be more appropriate to confront the real problem head-on, i.e. her body odour?
This is of course an extreme example, but I wonder if the reasons we give for 'staying in the mire' are actually problems that can easily be eradicated...
Reacting negatively to a negative situation does not a positive outcome produce.
That much is clear to me now.
In my Blue Pill days, I might have swallowed the above woman's advice piecemeal. But now, with a Red Pill attitude to life, I see that it is simply unforgivable to do this.
Unforgivable because I would be punishing my own self.
In slightly unrelated but nonetheless relevant news, a South African student recently invented a water-free bath product, similar to but not identical to sanitizers.
I admire his inventiveness and creativity (his work was inspired by a friend of his who was 'too lazy' to take a shower...um, I wonder if he was ever dumped for being a 'nice boy'?)
But water is water. Water is so much more than a cleansing agent. It is a holistic element. There is a healing quality to water that is simply missing from 'DryBath'.
My point is, if someone is too lazy to take a shower, DryBath may not in fact be the right solution for them.
If there is no water available, DryBath is nothing but a temporary solution.
Merely treating the symptom is not the answer. The root cause still exists.
Find a way to get water. Living beings need water. Not just for taking a bath.
'Don't show 'em your vulnerable side!' is an attempt to treat a symptom.
But it doesn't work, I think.
If the person giving me this advice was ever castigated for being 'vulnerable', could it just be possible that there was another hidden reason for her chastisement and not the vulnerability?
Am I being too naïve here?
For sure, her advice is wrong...at least for me.
A woman who is unable to show vulnerability (at an appropriate time of course!) is sometimes hard.
I believe it is advice like this that inspires comments like this from men:
This fom Bob Wallace:
"They end up hostile, bitter spinsters, usually on psychiatric drugs, ending alone in apartments with a cat (cats), and blaming all their problems on men. They're hostile because of their envy of men and put men down - and they don't even know it. I've seen this several times, and it's got to the point when I run across these kind of women I tell them what their problem is."
It is a direct result of 'feminism programming'.
It is insiduous, but women absorb this 'Blue Pill advice' via a process of osmosis until this mentality is properly assimilated into their psyches. Then when the deeply ingrained dogma starts to play out, chaos ensues, or as Bob describes above, the manhate starts.
Men can help women they know and like/love who are being 'misinformed' by simply being aware that she is being 'misinformed'.
Attitudes can be changed.
For the better.
But it requires a (sometimes tedious) deprogramming of previous programming.
Remember, it is not always her fault...