Tim Tebow and the Peacock effect

Continuing on the sporting theme, a female friend was waxing lyrical about Tim Tebow the other day. She especially liked his 'Tebowing'. I suggested to her that she only liked him because he was a famous athlete.

She said this:
"There are lots of famous athletes. Big deal. I like this one because he is different."

I said "yeah, sure" and we left it at that as there was no time to continue our conversation.

I think I now understand what she meant.

Peacocks are magnificent birds to watch. I think they are second only to the King of the jungle himself, the Lion, when it comes to the whole "strutting" thing.
The preening is spectacularly over the top.

Some men might see the peacock as the "dandy" of the animal kingdom, the gay guy.
Some might see him as a true alpha.
I am with the latter group.
A peacock will kill, and I repeat, kill another competitor for a peahen. He ain't gay.

Some studies suggest that the plumage of a peacock is actually nothing to do with attracting the peahen - it is more a case of warding off or intimidating other males.
In any case, a Japanese study concluded, after seven years of watching free-living peacocks, that the female is actually indifferent (read: unimpressed) to the often excessive display by the peacock.
An example of hypergamy if ever there was one!

Male sparrows and other birds are Nature's serenaders. What we know as 'birdsong' is actually a full-on male choir in action. All doing their bit to attract a female.
Although not detectable by human ears, not all birdsong is the same. I have seen phonograms proving beyond any doubt that the frequency of each birdsong is different.

Each male bird is trying to be unique.
The female birds are just there, passive. They all look alike. If they like the sound of a particular male bird, they pick him.

Same story in human terms if each gender is to follow Nature's way.

A woman does not have to be überspecial, to attract a man. She does have to be visible to him, and the better her 'assets' the better. Thereafter, he needs to know that she will keep his home, bear his children and keep him company, never betraying him (read: cuckoldry/divorce rape, etc).

Some men believe that women just like the 'bad boys'. Whilst I see this happening sometimes, it is by no means the only story.

A woman's attraction triggers are different from a man's, because they have to be. Otherwise we would all be gay. That wouldn't work for the purposes of propagating the species.
She needs to look at a man and see a king. He needs to stand out because there are many men on the parade, usually.
He has to be unique, to her.

For a woman, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man really is king.
And in the land of the one-eyed man, the two-eyed man is king. And so is the blind man.

It's the difference that counts. In the purely biological sense.
In the land of good boys, a bad boy will become 'alpha' (read: extraordinary) by default.
In the land of bad boys, Tim Tebow is king.

But alas, human beings have higher functions too, as some of you keep reminding me. Social factors do come into play too. I know that.

A woman can go wrong in two ways:
1. She is not yet mature when she makes her 'choice'. So she does choose Mr Top Spot, but her criteria for choosing him are all wrong because they are riddled with adolescent thinking. Next you know, she is on the hypergamy train to the next station.

In the old days, a woman's maturity was nailed earlier in her life.
Feminism has increased the age at which this happens in modern women. Counterproductively.

2. She is mature, but chooses someone who is not Top Spot for a variety of reasons outlined under 'The Reluctant bride'.
So a man's job in this case is to find out where he is on 'the list' if this is a woman he does care enough about that he wants to commit to. Game (the right kind, as explained by Lost and Danny) can help in this regard. This is why I personally respect Game.

The happiest woman is one who is mature and chooses Mr Top Spot as a result of her physical attraction for him combined with the clear thinking her maturity accords her.

So, if many women are being accused of choosing 'the bad boy', consider that she is most likely immature and that that bad boy made himself stand out to her immature mind. In this regard, neither that woman nor the bad boy are appealing.

What's the best strategy for the immature woman with regards to the 'bad boy'?
Avoidance.
There is a good reason girls and boys were largely 'segregated' in ancient times, until a certain age. It is also why I am in accordance with same sex education until a certain age. The goal here is to achieve the necessary maturity in both sexes, but particularly in a girl before she is exposed to the big bad world. By then, her ideas on who is worthy or not are firmly formed in her mind.

For mature women, their default position is that 'there are no good men out there' i.e. every man is a bad boy. So a 'good boy' to a mature good woman is actually a true alpha.  because he stands out. The Private Man has a series of posts advising women to 'see' the good in men. I think this is good advice because it helps this process along nicely.

I think this is what my friend was talking about when she was referring to Tim Tebow as 'different'.
This is why I also think that a 'principled mangina' can be gold dust to a good mature woman if he has enough Game.

The reluctant bride revisited

Sometimes you get an unexpected helping hand from an unexpected source.

Two of my last three posts have touched on the subject of The Reluctant bride, even though this was not meant to be the main focus of the posts.

And then I found this on Dalrock:

'The one that got away'

where a Katy Perry video showing an elderly married woman pining away for her ex-lover is shown and analysed.

This is what Dalrock advises:
This should serve as a warning to men considering marriage; check very carefully for this sort of vibe. Women often feel entitled to nurse this sort of “poor me” feeling, regardless of how good a husband you are. This is also why you need to take your potential wife’s past sexual history very seriously.

It is precisely because I am privy to female nature that I agree with Dalrock's advice to men.
But I spot a potential fatal flaw.

This is also why you need to take your potential wife’s past sexual history very seriously.

This refers to the truism that if a woman has had many sexual partners, she may be less likely to bond to any one man.
On the whole, I cosign this. But I am well aware that there are two important caveats here:

1. There are always exceptions which prove the rule.

2. Very importantly, sometimes the individual circumstances in which a woman engages in sexual activity are crucial to decipher her motives.

Some men might respond to No 2 that whatever the circumstances, the risk of potential cuckoldry remains high, as history can always repeat itself. I cannot argue with that.

What caught my attention with Dalrock's last sentence was the implication of the reverse situation.
That if the woman is a virgin, you are relatively safe.

He does not actually conclude this, but I think it is a possible assumption.

The assumption that a woman needs sex to bond with a man.

Like Dalrock's wife, I too abhor the situation where a reluctant bride forges on into marriage/longterm relationship only to destroy that relationship because she cannot get another man out of her mind.
Like Dalrock's wife, I too have seen this play out and it is not pretty to watch.

In some of the cases of this nature that I know of, the woman was a virgin at the time of marriage.

Of course it is true that the hormone oxytocin which surges into the bloodstream post copulation promotes bonding. It is indeed the same hormone which promotes attachment of mother to baby too.

But...

A woman does not have to have sex in order to bond to a man.

There is a reason this hormone is also called the 'cuddle hormone'.
Sometimes, that's all it takes. A cuddle. A kiss. A handhold. A look.

If you are having trouble believing it, consider this.
An adoptive mother can bond incredibly well with her adoptive child. She never bore that child in her own womb. And yet she can bond to that child better than the child's own biological mother.

In the old days, women were able to properly bond to their prospective husbands prior to marriage. Sex was not required to make this process happen.

I know it's only a film, but it illustrates my point.
In my post on Pearl Harbour, I state that Evelyn would most likely have gone on to become Danny's reluctant bride had he not died in the war. And yet Danny is the one she had slept with. She had never slept with Rafe, her true love.

A woman truly bonds with only an incredibly small number of men in her lifetime. Usually, there is one at the top of the list.
She does not need to have slept with him for him to get there, way up above all the rest.

Gentlemen, make sure you are at Top Spot with your woman before jumping into longterm plans with her. (I know you already do!)
Even if she is a virgin.
Especially if she is a virgin.

Unless you are happy with No 2 spot.
Which is not a fun place to be.
The bitter men from the Manosphere already know that.

Film Review: Pearl Harbour

I seem to be stuck. On war films. Specifically Far East war films. A few days ago, I posted a review on the film Empire of the sun highlighting the specific lessons I had picked up from it.
It seems I cannot get myself out of the Far East.
This time, I shall discuss a lesson from Pearl Harbour.

Two young american men, Rafe and Danny are best friends since their boyhood. They both enrol in the Armed Forces when they get older and are transferred to Pearl Harbour. Rafe (who is undoubtedly the alpha of the two, perhaps because he is older (?)) meets a Navy nurse, Evelyn who he falls in love with. Before the two can establish their budding romance, Rafe volunteers to join the war effort in England. Whilst there, his plane gets shot down by the enemy and he plunges into the cold waters of the English channel and is presumed dead.
Danny has to break the bad news to Evelyn. She is clearly devastated. Many months pass and Danny begins to show signs of falling for her. Evelyn resists his efforts for a long time. Then one day, Danny takes her for a ride in his plane - an action which could have got him kicked out of the Air Force. On their return to the Airfield base, Danny narrowly misses being spotted. He and Evelyn have to hide in the terminal building. One thing leads to another and they become intimate for the first time.

Evelyn is still reluctant with Danny. He is clearly smitten with her and wants a relationship with her, but Evelyn is not really attracted to him. She tries to resist him but in the end he seems to be making headway with her.
Unfortunately for her, she soon discovers she is pregnant by Danny.
This, on the same day that Rafe shows up in town. Turns out he didn't die afterall. He was rescued by a french fisherman and being stuck in Occupied France, so he could not get word out that he was indeed alive.

Evelyn is happy to see him. But she is now torn between her true love, Rafe, and the father of her unborn child, Danny.
The two men unsurprisingly become enemies. But not for long. The events surrounding them collude to repair their relationship, and in the end, Rafe relinquishes Evelyn to Danny, in compliance with her wishes.
The two later volunteer on what turns out to be a suicide mission to Tokyo and Japanese-occupied China.  Danny loses his life, but not before Rafe reveals to him news of his impending fatherhood.

Rafe returns to Pearl Harbour with Danny's coffin, and is greeted by a heavily pregnant Evelyn yet again devastated by loss.

The film ends with a family scene of Rafe and Evelyn and  'little Danny'.



I was thinking the other day about 'honour'. Not the negative kind, like where some traditional families kill their daughter for refusing to marry a man of her father's choice and call it an 'honour' killing.

I am talking here about the distinctive masculine concept.

Honour is a deeply masculine virtue. At least, defending honour is.

It is why men can die for their country without a moment's hesitation. It is why a boxer will keep going until he is almost comatose, rather than quit.

Speaking of which, take a look at this scene from Pearl Harbour.

Two men are in a boxing match (starting at 03:39). The smaller guy looks like he may need a doctor soon. His friend and supporter says to him at 04:59: "He slept with your Mamma, remember? Be a son of a bitch!"
The smaller guy wins the match.

'Honour' to a woman is about protecting her own dignity, in general.
I don't know any woman who sees it as her duty to protect another's honour. If those same words that were directed at the boxer were directed to a woman, the only way it would affect her would be how those words reflected on her.

A good example, however of how this sense of honour can extend to 'other' rather than 'self', is Evelyn's decision to stick with Danny when she discovers she is pregnant by him, even though it is really Rafe she loves. In this case, she is being selfless. She does the 'honourable' thing, not for Danny per se, but for her unborn child. She never truly loved Danny. She was always going to be a reluctant bride for Danny. Which makes her decision all the more heroic.

The young guy in the boxing ring won because he was protecting his mother's honour. His friend knew he would react that way. That's why he said what he said.

Defending (a woman's) honour makes a man vulnerable.
To women, it should be a beautiful thing.

(Incidentally, although not the focus of this post, the young boxer arrives at Nurse Evelyn's hospital to have his cuts sewn up (05:35). She asks him how he acquired his wounds.
There follows a little lecture on what 'Respect' means to a man.
Her comment 'Well let's hope you never have to' demonstrates how much she misses the point of what he is trying to say to her. Like so many women do, including me).