Someone over at Dalrock's made the important point that doing the right thing is never going to win you friends or make you attractive to the opposite sex (read: 'get you laid').
This is largely true. But I think hidden in here lies another ...gasp....paradox!
I shall explore this paradox later.
The reason I added 'get you laid' in the first sentence is that pure attraction (which is largely um...physical) doesn't really care whether the object of the attraction is 'good' or 'nice'.
This is a cruel twist of Nature.
If mating is all about passing on great qualities to the next generation, then it is a shame that the instinct to mate is clouded by only what is physically appealing and nothing else.
Does Nature not care about values?
Apparently not.
It seems like we have to 'fill in the gap' left by Nature ourselves.
:-)
Thank you Nature... not. :-)
Metak brought up an uncomfortable paradox in the last post.
'The first shall be the last' -> Nice guys finish last.
I thought about this one for a while.
It seems to me that a lot of MGTOW are Nice Guys (TM) who got burned. I have a lot of sympathy for them, as I do for the Nice Girls who are chronically 'left on the shelf' because they won't 'put out'.
But these Nice guys and girls... they have the assurance that they have done the right thing.
They know that they are 'cool with God' or 'cool with the Universe' or what have you.
They are at peace with themselves, no?
In the MGTOW post, I got this sense of 'I have made my peace with myself and I am happy with that' from a lot of men who were 'left on the shelf' because they were 'Nice Guys' and now are being ardently chased by those same women who rejected them and who are now being rejected for the first time in their lives.
I wish I had heard from women who are also GTOW (although perhaps this is not the way a Nice Girl who is just not having any luck in tody's SMP will label herself - hmm, need a better title for her. Can anyone help on this score?).
I am certain they too will say something similar to what the men are saying, albeit using slightly different language - as men and women see things slightly differently from each other, even if they are both on the same page.
These people may not have friends (of the opposite sex) but who needs friends who will only distract you from your path of peace?
Really, who needs that? (Genuine question!)
Anyhow, there is one way to make friends...
:-)
Let this British chef show you how (at the 3:55 mark).
:-)
Cheeky question:
If you found yourself drooling watching this video, ask yourself:
Was the source of my salivary gland stimulation the....
1. Chef (hint: former model, lol).
2. The British accent (she is from Oxford, so she has as near to the perfect English 'Queen's English' as possible :-)
3. The millefeuille (ahuh, I believe you :-)
Answers on a postcard please!
:-)
Be good, and make millefeuilles to your heart's content.
You will make good friends :-)
Joking aside, there are people who will make good decisions no matter what the consequences of those decisions will be.
This is 'Outcome Independence' at its finest...
:-)
I admire this trait because this kind of attitude can indeed do more damage than lose you friends or simply not help you make friends: it can even get you killed.
But as someone I know keeps saying ad nauseum...
An honourable death is better than a dishonourable life.
I think he has a point, no? Nowhere is this more important than in the SMP, for both men and women.
It takes a brave soul to live like this.
It takes a crazy kind of 'fearless' to live one's life this way.
But I think people who do are more at peace with themselves than those who circumvent the hardships of life in exchange for an easy ride.
Life always comes back at one with 'payback' in mind.
So the questions is: would you rather pay now or payback later?
This should be a rhetorical question, but feel free to answer it if you want.
Friends are wonderful to have, but only if they are the right ones...no?
15 comments:
i thought you disappeared.
the difference is, most men prefer solitude or at least better cope with it at later ages than women.
women's bonding nature and societal pressure views unattached women (especially in later years) as defective. typically if she divorced and has kids, no biggie. but if she's never been married and no kids.....something's wrong.
personally, it doesn't matter to me. it's not my place to judge. if she's cool, she's cool.
it would seem (at least in my experience) that WOMEN typically look down on the latter of the 2 females.
Danny,
You are absolutely right.
Because societal rules are largely made by women, it is indeed WOMEN who make old, single women feel bad.
But I notice that this is changing - and singledom in old age is 'cool' again, because WOMEN are making it cool.
But yes, we are social creatures, women more than men, and having close relationships is a nice thing to have, so social pressures aside, most women want to have company at home, not just at work or other 'outside' functions.
That usually means having a husband and children, but other templates also work.
Having said all of the above, of course let's not forget the men who really also want comapnionship, even if they are wired to tolerate its absence better than women.
The problem for men is that as they get older and lose testosterone, their 'wants' and 'needs' begin to closely resemble that of women...so men too also crave companionship the older they get. But this is at a much older age than in women.
So men have a much longer time to choose between single life and companioned life than women do (certainly if the woman wants to have children with the man she has chosen to marry and does not already have children).
But you know, the point is that whatever scenario one chooses, it is best done with a clear conscience and goodwill.
And that seems missing in a lot of relationships today.
People are making 'false' friends under duress.
That is perhaps a failing strategy, no?
I think that we create most of these 'paradoxes' because we sugarcoat the truth and cling on to our rigid belief systems, downloaded from our parents and others... Nature is perfect the way it is. Take a look at some of those indigenous tribes that live their lives in peace and harmony. It's those humans that are detached from nature that create problems.
'Nice' guys and girls? No such thing. Only those that have 'weird' beliefs and live their lives by those beliefs. At some point they get angry and shout "I've lived my life by these rules, now where's my f***ing prince charming/nice girl?!". ;-) Too bad it doesn't work that way.
lol ST, I see a new 'romantic' hit for Eurovision!
All I didn't want was to 'put ouuuut',
na na nanana...
and all he wanted was to 'get laiiiid'.
la la lalala...
Metak,
LOL. Now let's see which country steals your mega-hit :-)
Douze points across the board!
Do you believe that the paradoxes are created by us?
Or do the paradoxes come find us?
I tend to believe the latter.
For example, it is indeed true that nice guys and gals do finish last. But that's not their fault in most cases. Their situation may have been a result of their lack of 'stratetegic play' but that's not to say that they were in complete control of their situation and did not take their chances.
Timing is everything and sometimes time is not on our side...
You don't believe that Nice guys and gals exist?
Do I misread you?
No-one's perfect, for sure.
But I think there are indeed Nice Guys and gals out there.
And I think it is only natural to want something if you feel you have worked hard for it.
I don't think I can reproach a Christian guy for wanting a virgin, can you?
Similarly, a virgin cannot be admonished for wanting a high status man.
Yes, this attitude smacks of 'entitlement' but at least it is 'deserved' entitlement to some degree :-)
Let's give the nice people a break!
Heck, they are going to finish last anyway, so let's cut 'em some slack :-)
... en eindelik is almal maar net kinders van die wind ...
Yes, I believe that we create paradoxes. This whole 'paradox' of nice guys and gals finishing last can be true if they accept the victim role. Life is not something you live according to plan. To resolve this paradox I could also claim that because they've finished last, they weren't that 'nice' to begin with... :-)
This 'nice' word reminds me of G. Carlin - 'Have a nice day'. What exactly does 'nice' mean? You'll see it used on different blogs and forums to describe all kinds of men and then you realize that what they're describing is an 'average' man, with inferiority complex and not drowning puppies in his free time (the jury is still out on that one ;).
Delayed gratification? Entitlement? Christian guy may want a virgin and a virgin may want a high status man, but that doesn't mean they 'deserve' it, or that they'll get any of it. Like I said earlier, it doesn't work that way. Ouch, the V-word again... ;)
On our knees, we both preyed,
na na nanana...
not to 'put out' and to 'get laiiiid',
la la lalala... still better than the crap which Slovenia always sends... ;)
ST,
You wrote the following on Dalrock's blog :
In any case, I think a male virgin of Frank’s age has every reason to be ‘proud’, even more so than a female virgin of the same age, because of the higher risk of failure inherent in men due to their physiology.
Sadly, men like Frank are not ‘rewarded’ by most of society for this Herculean task of remaining chaste, but let us not beat him down in THIS forum of all places, where we purport to know better than the average person on the street on all matters SMP.
Can you elaborate ?
Marellus,
Children of the Wind? Explain...
:-)
My comment at Dalrock's ties in well with this post as it happens. Thank you for making me trealise that.
As a background for those who don't know about my latest source of displeasure (LOL), a commenter over at Dalrock's is giving two other commenters grief for being male virgins over a certain age.
The reason I am jumping to the defence of the two men is that there is no acknowledgment in the 'attacking' commenter's post about the good that these two men have achieved. It's all about bashing them for not being virgins 'for the right reasons'.
This is not right (not to talk of unfair).
Dalrock's forum is a place for The Truth. Out in the secular world, these two men would be derided ALL the time. (Now, paradoxically, I might even be part of the problem in that previously I have been 'sceptcal' of male virginity over a certain age, but hold female virginity at a higher regard - a double standard that I think I should 'lose' from my cerebral database).
However, I was perturbed by the fact that even in a place like Dalrock's blog, these men are still being bashed. No-one is saying, 'Well done chaps, wish I were more like you...'
Which brings me to yet another realisation that is kind of the point of this post: the world will not reward you for your 'good work'. You really have to be in it for the personal satisfaction you gain from it. If you are waiting for accolades from the secular world, you will be eternally frustrated...
Metak,
Yes, there may be an element of 'Nice Guys' only being nice because it might bring them some reward...this is always a mistake, as my little rant above suggests :-)
Doing the right thing should not be synonymous with taking the 'victim route'. That is weak, and unproductive.
But...once in a while, let's give these Nice Guys and Girls a little break :-)
Their lot in life is hard enough and we should all respect that...
And now I am rooting for Slovenia in Eurovision...their song had better be good :-)
ST,
You wrote
(Now, paradoxically, I might even be part of the problem in that previously I have been 'sceptcal' of male virginity over a certain age, but hold female virginity at a higher regard - a double standard that I think I should 'lose' from my cerebral database).
It's all right to be sceptical of male virginity over a certain age. Don't change this sentiment because of some theology. Use your common sense.
I think one of the virgin commenters experienced this scepticism from women as well. But what he said, that truly amazed me, is that there were Christian women who expressly tried to seduce him because of this.
Have you seen this yourself ?
Marellus,
"But what he said, that truly amazed me, is that there were Christian women who expressly tried to seduce him because of this."
This is truly bizarre, Marellus. The only way I can explain this is that there has been a 'switch' in the male-female interaction such that the woman (I doubt she would be a virgin if she is this 'predatory' towards a man) takes on the role of sexual 'pursuer' and the man becomes the 'unconquered maiden' in this little twisted scenario.
In many ways this is a problem, one which helped me come to the conclusion that a man ought not to be the virgin in the relationship, (at least if there is one virgin in the relationship, it is better if it is not the man ) and in fact, I think male virgins might be distinctly aware of (and potentially horrified by) this phenomenon if they encounter a non-virgin woman...
There is something slightly perverse about this scenario...for sure.
It is not supposed to be like this between men and women, surely?
I might get shot for this, but the other way round seems more 'natural' to me, but alas I have no studies to substantiate my hunch :-)
Marellus, stop asking me awkward questions.
:-)
But it does make you think ST : whether you're a man or a woman, there is something heady about being a virgin's first ... well, for some men or women anyway.
It's similar graffiti methinks. Some people can't help but immortalize themselves on an unblemished wall ... spoiling it ... and everybody notices ... and is upset.
*to graffiti*
Marellus,
"...whether you're a man or a woman, there is something heady about being a virgin's first..."
Are you sure this applies to women too?
Well, if it does, it is definitely a social construct and not 'Nature'.
Does a woman really derive pleasure from 'conquering a virgin man??
I would have thought that would be a male thing...
But I am only guessing here. I really don't know.
Perhaps if it is a female thing too, it must be an older woman thing...
It all sounds a bit unsavoury to me though, I have to say...
(I am speaking with my female hat on here, Marellus. I guess I just don't have this 'let's defile it!' instinct you refer to. I would be horrified if I did. Really, I would. I can't think of a worse urge to have - speaking as a woman. I accept that it is a perfectly natural urge in a man though).
Perhaps I should find an equivalent for you so that you understand my abject horror.
As a man of few words, (some of your comments here are the shortest I receive on this blog, lol!)suppose you woke up one day and you were forced to talk nonstop for the entire day (and to 'encourage' you to keep going, you received a little electric shock each time you paused for breath :-)...how would you like that?
I bet it would feel very unnatural for you to be so verbose, no?
I you were asked to keep this up for any length of time, you would be looking for an escape route from this 'torture'.
This reminds me of what Bellita once said on this blog (or perhaps on hers, I forget).
She said that a man had asked her to do something and that the reward would be a thousand men. And she was horrified! Of course that man was projecting - of course for HIM, a thousand women would be pure heaven, but to a woman, a thousand men would be hell, which was Bellita's response to the stupefied man...
SO I question if your assertion that men and women would view this scenario in the same way, is in fact true.
I suspect it isn't.
Women who have this attitude eventually come to regret it. Because it is going against female nature, me thinks...
Anyone else have thoughts on this?
Although I think I am correct in this, I am not sure I have the whole story figured out...
He brought candles. He lights them up. You can see the trembling of his hands. He sees you looking. He makes a lame joke.
He puts this song on the stereo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKSUmEh2IPQ
He undresses. He folds his clothes up. He's neat about it.
He faces you. Naked. He tries to cover himself. He blushes. He lies down.
You begin to undress. He watches the spectacle with wonder. He lifts his legs ... because he's trying to hide his erection behind them.
Later you sit astride him ... his hands now exploring an alien landscape, as his eyes behold an undiscovered country.
Your body.
... and the time comes. You grab hold of it. He looks at you. He's afraid. You soothe him.
You guide it in. He trembles. He squirms. He tries to stifle a yelp. He fails.
You remain still.
He comes to his senses. He looks at you. He looks below.
Disbelief.
He eyes returns to yours.
"Thank you" he says.
... and then the music begins to wash over both of you ...
Marellus,
??
Post a Comment