Tracy Moore at Jezebel is troubled that a fellow mother writes of the unexpected beauty and blessings of childbirth. Moore quotes an upbeat post by Jensy in Very Blessed New Mom Wishes She Had Been Warned More About Blessings:
They should’ve warned me that after all those hours of labor (half of which with an epidural, which made things totally bearable), the first time I saw her face my heart would burst out of my chest and shatter onto the floor. They should’ve warned me that crying because you’re happy is actually a thing, and it’s a thing you can’t control when you’re a mommy and you behold the beauty in your arms. So you’d better keep tissues on hand at all times, and stock up on the waterproof eyeliner.
They should’ve warned me that I would love my husband so much more once he was the father of my bundle of perfection, that I wouldn’t remember what the old love had felt like.
All of this talk of blessings, beauty, love, and feeling grateful is an existential threat to the feminist mindset, so Moore quickly reframes the discussion to something ugly (emphasis mine):
Having my daughter was still the most important thing I’ve ever done. But I also had really hot farts, the baby blues, a terrible time learning how to nurse, inexplicable sobbing, and a complete and utter fog for the first several months due to profound sleeplessness, hormone crashes, and a really big learning curve.
I don’t feel bad about talking about that, because the harder thing to talk about of the two experiences is not the all-encompassing love, but the hot farts, okay? The sobbing and the fog is stuff people don’t seem comfortable with, and—particularly in the case of hot farts—who could blame them? That’s the stuff we need to get out there (not the hot farts themselves, but rather the fact of them). That’s the stuff women have historically not had the freedom and space to express without a lot of side-eye implying they don’t love their baby and husband enough.
What is it with feminists and TMI? Save that stuff for the OB/GYN or a therapist of some sort, or perhaps a female relative.
It’s part of the “in your face” aspect of feminism that is truly tiresome.
Pingback: Friday afternoon ugly feminists: Hot farts edition. | Manosphere.com
They consider it oppressive, AR, to have to be silent about things.
Tracy should have warned Jensy about all thost Hot Farts. No wait, maybe it might back fire on feminism because its entirely possible that Jensy would love her husband even MORE than she does now if her husband pretends not to notice them.
They consider it oppressive, AR, to have to be silent about things.
Yes, the hot farts of a special snowflake princess must be talked about, I’m sure.
Rather like a pack of 2nd graders in that regard.
What man wants a woman with a kid? . She has a thug Spawn and a blown out vagina .
Pingback: Friday afternoon ugly feminists: Hot farts edition. | Neoreactive
Jensy’s blog post is awesome.
I’ve had hot farts, too. Where’s my medal?
What qualifies some farts as “hot farts” and others as “cool farts”?
Negativity is a disease of the mind that can spread from one person to another. Feminism has been long infected with the disease. They search out the negative in every situation as Moore has done here. She attempts to persuade herself that she is only speaking an ugly truth. What I hear from what she says is that she is jealous of Jensy. Moore is incapable of feeling the emotions that Jensy experienced because she can only see the negative. So her solipsism protects her little ego by blaming society for not wanting to hear about her Hot Farts.
“What man wants a woman with a kid? . She has a thug Spawn and a blown out vagina.”
Really? No child was born a thug. They only learn to be thugs through bad parenting.
And, I was expecting folks to comment more on the hot farts, so that we can all learn a bit more from them. Are they the types of farts that these wonderful women saved up for their future husbands—the types Dalrock wrote about not too long ago? Has any study been done to determine the effects of hot farts on the love between the wife and the husband? Do feminists experience more hot farts compared to other women? Do the farts get hotter with time, or their temperatures tend to fall? Can we do anything to reduce their frequency? Are they loud? Do they smell? These are very important questions that we need to have answers to, and I hope that we don’t get sidetracked….
There’s women that see the beauty in life.
Then there’s the hot farts women.
I don’t know, I guess something could be said for setting the bar low. Ever have somebody tell you that something was bar none the best they ever had?
Then again, the whole purpose of such feminist claptrap is to dissuade as many young impressionable women from getting pregnant before their eggs start to spoil.
**Facepalm**
“That’s the stuff women have historically not had the freedom and space to express without a lot of side-eye implying they don’t love their baby and husband enough.”
Please. Women are allowed to complain about whatever they want during pregnancy and no matter how irrational or rational it is, the hubby has to put up with it because she’s just being “hormonal.” Women can scream “Look what you did to me! I hate you!” at their husbands whenever they get irritated and it’s considered perfectly acceptable.
This article is the herd mentality in action. She is literally reframing her own life to line up with her herd status. Women hate their husbands because it is good to hate him. Her joy is in feeling secure with her place in the herd.
This is how a civilized society creates “good” woman when actually having virtue is achieved by the same wicked selfishness not actual sacrifice for the well being of others. This article Dalrock says so much about female nature
It’s hard to fathom out petty some people are. Then they surprise you.
I notice Moore never mentions a husband. It’s possible she is sharing the hot farts online because she was denied the feminist delicacy of being wretched and ugly to a man up close.
“Really? No child was born a thug.”
You must not be from around here. The phrase ‘thug spawn’ is shorthand for ‘child (usually but not always bastard) conceived in casual sex with some thug whom she found so hawt she couldn’t keep her legs together’.
Two men looked from prison bars
One saw mud
The other … stars
I don’t know what “hot fart” is.
All I know is that I’m deathly afraid of the dreaded “wet fart” when I’m under physical duress.
I made the mistake of going down on a feminist once and got the “hot farts”. Went to see a doctor, told him that I had the “hot farts” and they kept escaping down my leg. He kept backing away, said something about smelling like amoebic dysentary and gave me a prescription for 3 types of antibiotics to take simultaneously. 5 days later and bye bye “hot farts”. And that men is why you never go down on a feminist.
what are “hot farts” anyway? is that like beer farts? does this woman miss giving her husband the dutch oven treatment in bed? have heard the women in my extended family talk about complications but this one never came up.
For $25 you can buy an ‘Invisible Boyfriend’ and fool your relatives, but what if you fall in love?
Swipe your credit card and the imaginary man of your dreams starts texting you, providing ‘believable social proof’ that you’re in a relationship
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/23/for-25-you-can-buy-your-very-own-invisible-boyfriend-but-what-happens-when-you-fall-in-love-with-him/
Read Jensy’s post and thought that was a beautiful thing.
Gives my heart a small ache to wonder if I could find one like that.
Reading Jensy’s post about her experience and joy was diabetically sweet, but understandable and I can be happy for her. It was a thing of beauty; the first moments of mother and newborn daughter.
Following that, I read Tracy Moore’s articles and comments.
Their hatred of joy is instinctual. These Godless Feminists truly are ugly and they hate beauty in all it forms. They rage against contentment, laugh at humility and in this case, despise the happiness to be found in God’s grand designs.
The bitterness of the women in the comments invokes nausea. All they see is darkness.
Was this article intended as an MGTOW inspirational? If so hear, hear and well done!
Dear Cane:
She alludes to the possibility of being married, using words like “parenthood” rather than motherhood. I read these subtle cues as an attempt to humblebrag to the radfem-kooks in residence. ‘Yes,’ she says, pretending to commiserate, ‘I had bad gas, isn’t it terrible… Also note that I have a kid and maybe a husband… while you dried-out, barren, ex-whores are largely untouchable, surrounded by cats and empty boxes of half-eaten chocolates?’
I learned early on that this was the way women insulted and demeaned others. Men will generally tell you plainly where they stand. Women like plausible deniability. When you hear a wimminz complain loudly about her big burly lout of a husband, she’s actually boasting about him, and she’ll bring up the fact that he is never home because he flies all over the country, and while it’s nice that he just bought her a new Cadillac and put a down payment on a vacation condo at Whistler, she really wishes she had a man like Sue’s, who is a mailman and is so devoted… blah blah.
In any event, I find the overall tone of the article sort of funny for the Jezzie crowd. I’m convinced that she’s mocking them, while pretending sympathy — even going so far to embed a link to a site entitled “Born To Be A Bride”. (Fuckin’ LOL!)
But then that’s the thing with wimminz. I can never be sure.
Good catch by Dalrock, and I’m glad I read the article.
Best,
Boxer
Reminds me of this passage from The Screwtape Letters:
“You will notice that we have got them completely fogged about the meaning of the word “real”‘.
They tell each other, of some great spiritual experience, “All that really happened was that you heard some music in a lighted building”; here “Real” means the bare physical facts, separated from the other elements in the experience they actually had. On the other hand, they will also say “It’s all very well discussing that high dive as you sit here in an armchair, but wait till you get up there and see what it’s really like”: here “real” is being used in the opposite sense to mean, not the physical facts (which they know already while discussing the matter in armchairs) but the emotional effect those facts will have on a human consciousness.
Either application of the word could be defended; but our business is to keep the two going at once so that the emotional value of the word “real” can be placed now on one side of the account, now on the other, as it happens to suit us. The general rule which we have now pretty well established among them is that in all experiences which can make them happier or better only the physical facts are “Real” while the spiritual elements are “subjective”; in all experiences which can discourage or corrupt them the spiritual elements are the main reality and to ignore them is to be an escapist. Thus in birth the blood and pain are “real”, the rejoicing a mere subjective point of view; in death, the terror and ugliness reveal what death “really means”.
The hatefulness of a hated person is “real”—in hatred you see men as they are, you are disillusioned; but the loveliness of a loved person is merely a subjective haze concealing a “real” core of sexual appetite or economic association. Wars and poverty are “really” horrible; peace and plenty are mere physical facts about which men happen to have certain sentiments.
The creatures are always accusing one another of wanting “to eat the cake and have it”; but thanks to our labours they are more often in the predicament of paying for the cake and not eating it. Your patient, properly handled, will have no difficulty in regarding his emotion at the sight of human entrails as a revelation of Reality and his emotion at the sight of happy children or fair weather as mere sentiment.”
-C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Someone’s happy motherhood story is not necessarily an attack on your more difficult motherhood story. I see Jensy was warned about all sorts of problems that would happen, but was warned about none of the benefits. It makes sense then, to tell the story of how you were pleasantly surprised. Her repeating of “they should have warned me” sure sounds poetic to me 😉 But really, we have sex ed already, and lots of information on pregnancy, risks, and benefits, so straightforwardly saying someone should have warned you about everything smacks of lack of personal responsibility.
I guess pregnancy/childbirth can be gross AND beautiful. One has to accept the good with the bad. Does talking about/highlighting the gross parts of pregnancy put people off having babies or “ruin the magic”? I remember reading about those husbands who were present during childbirth and helped deliver, so they looked down there and were so freaked out they lost sexual desire for the mother. Is this normal?
@MarcusD
Yeah, but then she runs the risk of her imaginary boyfriend luring her to his imaginary frat house for an imaginary gang rape.
The comments are equally hideous. They all hate someone else’s happiness.
@Dalrock
Nice post Mr.’D’….I have read a lot of articles over at Jezebel.They are a joke.The wimminz that post over there are the bottom of the barrel.
@MarcusD
I saw that article the other day as I subscribe to the NP.There is a copy waiting in my office every morning.I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read it.I had a really good time with that.Asked a few wimminz at the office if they are going to signup.Of course I got the usual “F*** You A-Hole”….L*.Actually the guy that came up with that idea I have to admire and wish him all the luck with his enterprise.He definitely understands the desperation of today’s modern wimminz.
@Dalrock
“Yeah, but then she runs the risk of her imaginary boyfriend luring her to his imaginary frat house for an imaginary gang rape.”
:D. That’s about it – there seems to be a desire for attention at the root of both.
—
@Mark
“Actually the guy that came up with that idea I have to admire and wish him all the luck with his enterprise.He definitely understands the desperation of today’s modern wimminz.”
I do find it interesting that it’s men who usually come up with these things. I guess a man doesn’t have to face introspection in this particular matter.
Was this article intended as an MGTOW inspirational? If so hear, hear and well done!
Women need to stop talking and expressing their thoughts now! They are getting less and less sexier by the hour…
The ‘wimminz’ section of my newspaper (NEVER click on an article: It sends the message that the authors are popular and you end up with MORE articles!) had a title, “How an episiotomy changed me forever”.
It seems that you can never win with women and childbirth. First, when Jon Chamberlin (a man) invented forceps delivery after centuries of high mortality due to midwifery, women retaliated by saying how horrible the ‘medicalisation” of childbirth was (despite WOMEN themselves abandoning midwives for doctors with the new delivery techniques that SAVED lives). When episiotomy was developed to allieviate possible tearing – a worse situation – more complaint. Of course, it is what doctors (read: men!) do to ‘women’.
Most recently, an Argentinian car mechanic called Jorge Odon developed an inflatable bag system to ease childbirth
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25137800
Expect feminists to tell us more about how the dreaded patriarchy has caused women to suffer in childbirth.
OT NYC red pill pastor pisses off churchians:
http://nycpastor.com/2014/12/29/10-women-christian-men-should-not-marry/
Ten women men should not marry:
”2. The Divorcee. Jesus clearly taught that unless the first marriage ended due to a partner’s sexual infidelity, a second marriage is to be considered invalid and adulterous. A divorced woman, therefore, is off limits for a Christian man–unrepentant adultery being a sin that prevents one from obtaining eternal life (1 Cor 6:9). “If she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:12). “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9).
4. The Feminist. There’s no room within Christendom for the “Christian feminist.” Though women and men have equal value in the eyes of God (Gal 3:28), they certainly have different God-given roles. Any woman who tries to usurp her husband’s authority or even claims to be a co-leader with her man is gravely dishonoring the God who created her to be subject and obedient to her husband (Eph 5:22, Col 3:18, 1 Pet 3:1). Eve was distinctly created “for” man, a point that the apostle Paul makes abundantly clear in 1 Corinthians 11 when he writes, “For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” (1 Corinthians 11:8-9). Men, your wife is to be your “helper” (Gen 2:18)–not your leader and certainly not your equal in terms of authority. Look for a woman who agrees with you in this very vital God-ordained relational dynamic.”
http://nycpastor.com/2014/12/29/10-women-christian-men-should-not-marry/
‘Expect feminists to tell us more about how the dreaded patriarchy has caused women to suffer in childbirth.’
Because they don’t know (or maybe they do) what is really causing women to suffer in childbirth.
We have all those advancements to protect the mother and child during childbirth…while on the flip side abortion is legal.
But, in reality, feminists must be thoroughly miserable. How can someone go through life, and not have any meaningful thing to be happy about, except, maybe to fight needless fights with someone else?
@ infowarrior:
Dalrock already wrote a post on that link.
Granted it’s a generalization but a pretty good one…how does the woman feel about children? Either having them, playing with them, babysitting them, etc. It’s a pretty reliable indicator about what she’s like.
Perhaps she should get on a regime of low-fats and sugars and more greek yogurt, this should help the farts
@infowarrior1:
Dalrock already covered that one at https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/he-left-out-harlots/.
Maybe the most impressive thing about child birth she experienced was acid flatulence. But that is her personal problem and it should have stayed that way. Feminist equals women who watch others set a beautiful table for a lovely meal and then add their contribution of taking a public dump on it…..cause at least they were part of it and it is no longer lovely.
@ Marcus D:
Regarding the fake boyfriend service, if she finally found a real man to date and wife her up, would she be considered a alpha widow, even if her hymen were intact??
Was this article intended as an MGTOW inspirational? If so hear, hear and well done!
Take heart. We have a daughter, and we are doing our best to prevent this.
http://courtshippledge.com/2015/01/my-own-facebok-meme/
@Earl
“Because they don’t know (or maybe they do) what is really causing women to suffer in childbirth.
We have all those advancements to protect the mother and child during childbirth…while on the flip side abortion is legal.”
Spot On! The ability to control their childbearing and keeping the leverage they have over men is more important than the lives of their own children. But yeah, it’s men who are the monsters…cuz Teh Patriarchy!
It used to be that feminist claptrap was spewed from woman’s studies courses at colleges and universities. That method reached higher education women only.
A blunter tool was needed.
It is now part off high school curriculum and embedded in courses throughout.
Now none can escape its caustic effects.
No longer do we have an education system…..it is now an indoctrination system.
Emma the Emo says:
January 23, 2015 at 9:18 pm
“…But really, we have sex ed already, and lots of information on pregnancy, risks, and benefits, so straightforwardly saying someone should have warned you about everything smacks of lack of personal responsibility.”
Emma, DON’T mention the ‘R’ word (responsibility) around feminists — they HATE the idea that someone (especially women) should be responsible for themselves and the choices that they make. It completely upsets their Leftist agenda and their ‘Holy’ Religion of Victimology.
Dalrock says:
“Yeah, but then she runs the risk of her imaginary boyfriend luring her to his imaginary frat house for an imaginary gang rape.”
Dalrock, just because the rape was imaginary doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen: just ask any feminist, Rolling Stone magazine, or the president/staff of UVA. Men are guilty by a woman’s say-so, before they are proven innocent — IF EVER.
Dave says:
January 24, 2015 at 6:59 am
“…How can someone go through life, and not have any meaningful thing to be happy about, except, maybe to fight needless fights with someone else?”
That’s a very simple answer Dave: feminists live drab, wretched, bleak lives full of bitterness and anger (usually over imaginary and/or petty slights) and do not want ANYONE else to be happy either — “misery loves company”, you know. By making other peoples’ lives as wretched ad bleak as theirs, they validate their pathetic existences while also drawing attention to themselves by the leftist media also (there is no ‘attention whore’ like a female one, you know).
“Was this article intended as an MGTOW inspirational? If so hear, hear and well done!”
As a divorced man, I was saddened to find that, after I came to Christ later in life, there is no “remarriage” for Christians because it is adultery in spirit according to Matthew 5:32; exceptions exist for genuine widows and those divorced by unbelievers. I used to see this as a curse, but given the state of modern women I now see it see it as God’s blessing for to serve him in a unique way as a single man.
Believers in these forums should be praying for young faithful men who are seeking an honorable, God fearing wife. Only God’s will can deliver them from this generation of harpies.
I imagine feminists would be most against the conclusion of wife-and-motherhood as a higher evolved developmental stage rather than an equivalent (or worse) alternative:
“They should’ve warned me that becoming a mommy would absolutely change every single thing, but that I would never want to go back and visit the “old” me, not even for a second. They should’ve warned me that my life was about to become so rich and beautiful and fulfilling, that I’d look back on what it was before and think, “Poor me. I didn’t know her yet.””
@Poseidon
“Regarding the fake boyfriend service, if she finally found a real man to date and wife her up, would she be considered a alpha widow, even if her hymen were intact??”
I don’t think so.
Feminism doesn’t have a coherent ideology. It only seems that way, because it attracts the most broken and damaged people in society, and these miscreants tend to share some low-level psychological traits.
Note that I am not a psychoanalyst, and have never had any formal training in that regard, yet this is even obvious to a poseur like myself. It should be transparent to anyone who spends even a few minutes studying the collective behavior of feminists.
Whenever a person with an inferiority complex (such as borderline personality disorder) is confronted with evidence of someone else’s success, the subject will tend to react in an extreme way to the perceived threat that this outside source poses to their fragile ego. Both Freud and Adler wrote all about this.
A complete stranger who tells a happy story about a life event is seen by these hypersensitive nutters as a braggart. The embarrassing public kook-fest that Jezebel published is a perfect example of the usual reaction. Normal people would be happy to hear a nice story about someone’s childbirth, promotion or graduation. These aren’t normal people. They can’t help but pour cold water all over someone else’s achievements, in a vain attempt to protect the mental vectors which prop up their inflated collective ego.
It’s a veritable parade of nuttery. We should be glad Jezebel is in business. People in the future won’t believe that the lunacy of the present actually got to such levels without historical evidence. I imagine some of these articles will be studied by clinicians doing graduate work in abnormal psychology for years to come.
Best,
Boxer
Certainly, Boxer. But feminism isn’t just for the incoherent, leftist Jezebel set. It’s for Holly Fisher. It’s for Dana Loesch. It’s for Renee Ellmers. It’s for the unfortunate multitude of ‘conservative women’ who vote like I do, more or less. Except that they are complete frauds, and will align themselves with modern-day ‘feminist’ arguments the moment they are exposed as frauds.
I’m so far surprised and disappointed by the lack of ‘Sphere commentary on Holly Fisher. As I see it, the unbridled hypocrisy of ‘conservative’ scumbags like her is far worse than the adulterous actions of someone like – say, Steve Kroft…or non-religious folks who own their wrongdoing with no excuse or justification – but never were moral crusaders in the first place. And then you have atheists like myself who have been plenty tempted but never, ever cheated on someone. Seems like Christianity nowadays is for people who *intend* to perpetrate awful, deceitful betrayals in the future and need the prospective forgiveness of Christ waiting in the wings for when they do get caught carrying out their evil deeds.
Pingback: Jezebel: Something’s wrong with moms who are thrilled with their new babies and don’t have post-partum depression | Stupid Girl
@MarcusD
“”I do find it interesting that it’s men who usually come up with these things.””
Women event SQUAT!……even sex toys for women were invented,patented and sold by men.
On another note.I am now the scourge of the office.For Xmas I gave out MGTOW T-shirts.I had 200 printed up.L,XL & XXL.Black with white lettering,red with white lettering and orange with black lettering.All of them with “MGTOW” emblazoned on the front and back.I gave them out to men that I know in the office tower.A lot of the offices have a “dress down day” once a month.I gave the shirts to the guys on the premise that during dress down day they wear the shirts…..and when the wimminz ask..”what the hell is MGTOW”???…..you reply…”Google it and you will see”…..I have been laughing my balls off since I gave out those shirts.The wimminz are pissed and do not know how to react.The men are coming to me and asking..”can I get a few more shirts for my friends”?? The biggest surprise that I have had is the “gay men”.They are hilarious.They wear those shirts and flaunt them like no one else.I am the last person to support the “gay lifestyle” but,they are doing all the promoting for me.I am getting some more printed up.Wish me luck…..I am going to be the most hated man,(by the wimminz),in the tower…..but,then again,that is my goal.They have no choice but to accept it.Afterall,my family owns the tower.As that saying goes…”revenge is a dish best served cold”…L*
Dear Steve:
Well, I wrote a little piece on her right here:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/he-left-out-harlots/#comment-156378
I think the orthosphere, composed mostly of dudes who are still politically conservative and consider themselves to be admirers of America and capitalism (despite these being the greatest threats today against their way of life) are caught in a strange dilemma when it comes to people like this.
This goes just as much for students of “game”, as Fisher violates one of their favorite ideas: That a conservative, Christian virgin won’t play around when given the chance. Certainly the stats seem to give better odds with such a woman, but she’s living proof of the failure of the maxim.
I’m hesitant to condemn all but the worst offenders for hypocrisy. Many times, hypocrisy is “fake it til you make it” self-improvement. The ideal comes before the achievement.
Christianity, as some old priest once told me, is a paradox. Knowledgeable Christians seem OK with this, and merely accept the mystery of it, while doing the best they can. Pseudo-Christians use it as an excuse when caught out, as you point out. It’s not my religion, so I don’t pass judgment, but like you I often find myself wondering where the boundaries are.
Best,
Boxer
Mark
You are cool, That is how you enjoy the decline. You ever make it to Texas I’m buying the first 2 rounds
Dear Mark:
I think you just became my personal hero. Funniest story I’ve heard in a long time.
Boxer
“…dudes who are still politically conservative and consider themselves to be admirers of America and capitalism (despite these being the greatest threats today against their way of life) are caught in a strange dilemma when it comes to people like this.”
Exactly. I think this hints at what Rollo is referring to when expressing his unwillingness to get political. Which is to say, the ol’ democrat vs. GOP ideological divide is a false one. Instead of that – there is the macchiavellian FI in direct opposition with the ideology of honesty/keeping one’s word. They are almost entirely mutually exclusive. In a way, you could almost reduce the true ideological divide to libertarianism (MI) vs. fascist socialism (FI) – but that paints an ugly macro-view in which the genders are truly at war with one another.
@Mark, your MGTOW t-shirts is a tough act to follow but I will try.
***NSFW***
I have hot farts all the time. You know when it is really hot you get this foul odor that can clear out a room. I like Mexican food and baked beans and spicy cheese and salsa. Yum. I love my hot farts and don’t understand this chicks problem. Is that the best she could do? Seriously?
Also, just to continue the theme, I have taken dumps that were more difficult than having a baby. Seriously! Why if we are talking about hot farts let me tell you about the worst dump I ever had. Dehydrated and on Vicodin for several days as a child a plug formed that was larger than the exit. It took 3 days and some tearing and digging to pass it which was way worse than my wife’s 12 hour labors. 3 days laying in bed or on the toilet screaming in almost constant pain. Give me a break. Looking back now it seems they could have given me a stool softener but whatever.
As if that wasn’t enough, as an adult I have passed way more kidney stones than my wife ever passed babies. I have never seen a woman pray for death during labor like I do when passing a stone. Bitch, please. Cease the attention whoring and make me a sammich.
This post proves, to me, that feminists are selfish misfits. I’d love to see Dalrock due a study on elective abortions, that are sex selective. Despite all the phony solidarity feminists profess for women, i’d guess that the majority of abortions are to destroy a gestating baby girl!
I lost my wife once the kids came. She never cared a hill of beans for me afterwards. It only got worse from there.
@Steve H
I had to google her name to understand what you are talking about. Disgusting. If she has repented, I couldn’t find evidence of it in the stories I read.
I thought this was a weird article. Megan Trainor *might* be wife-material. She may never have been to third base in her life. She’s pretty cute. Dresses well. Young. Sings. Hm.
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/meghan-trainor-says-shes-saving-her-booty-for-her-future-husband-2015241utm_source=thestir.cafemom.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_module
She’s lost some weight. Not bad!
She’s suddenly a role-model to fat virgins everywhere- don’t be a slut, lose weight, dress well. Here’s hoping she marries young.
Regular Guy, is she the one who went astray? If so, she broke the marriage covenant and you may remarry if you want to. (But, um, don’t. )
“Believers in these forums should be praying for young faithful men who are seeking an honorable, God fearing wife. Only God’s will can deliver them from this generation of harpies.”
It’s been my experience that the really big blessings in life have come in such a way that it was obvious He had a direct hand in them. I’ve written off marriage unless I wind up crossing paths with a woman with very similar interests – i.e. physical fitness, cinema, a penchant for Ron Paul, etc. That way, I’d feel better knowing that He sent me a fish rather than a snake.
Even so, I’m in no hurry.
Hot farts? Is she a poor mother who lives off of Spam and Mac and Cheese?
When women used to say, “If men got pregnant or had menstrual cycles, you know there’d be no pain.”
The obvious implication is that men want their women to suffer.
My response was always, “So what you’re saying is, only a man can solve this problem.”
I was single for a long time.
“all those Hot Farts. No wait, maybe it might back fire” – I see what you did there. 🙂
It’s so true – you cry instantly when they put the baby on you/near you right after it comes out. Ugh – so beautiful and wonderful!!! And you really DO look at your husband in a totally new way – so amazing.
Feminists are just ridiculous – it’s all about selfishness & their own suffering (lol). Many women have a hard labor or very hard time nursing… 😦 with the one we just had, I had blood coming out at one point – all normal and it went away the next day, but its worth it – totally! If a woman loves being a mother and wife, these things don’t get to her as much (at least, not enough to write a whole article about it).
@Chris Dagostino
“Regular Guy, is she the one who went astray? If so, she broke the marriage covenant and you may remarry if you want to. (But, um, don’t. )”
I left her after just one year. She turned into a completely different person on our honeymoon. It finally made sense right then; the red flags I dismissed from a year prior were warnings I failed to take seriously. She was a werewolf, except, she didn’t turn back into a human being after the honeymoon, she simply remained a monster. I knew I had to leave her by the way she spoke to me, because I didn’t want to go to prison for killing her. The final straw was when she started pressuring me for kids. I couldn’t imagine her being the mother of my children, with her belittling me in front of them, or worse, do the same to son(s) of mine. I knew she wouldn’t do that to her daughers and would eventually turn them against me.
I left her; I violated a vow made to her and hurt her. I accept responsibility for my sin against her and God. To be fair, I wasn’t a good person then either.
I thank God I’m not the man I used to be and yes, being single has been a blessing.
Let me help translate from Feminazi land.
When you hear horror stories about child birth. You need to put the age of the expectant mother into the picture. Invariably the nastiest and horrific pregnancy, delivery stories come from mid to late 30’s OLDER MOTHERS. Yep you heard me… you will never hear an early 20 year old complain about child birth. But squeezing out a bundle of joy at 37 IS a big deal.
Much like other things in life birthing children IS EASIER when one is younger. (go figure)
I only noticed this when my wife had our last kid. She was 35 and… boy was she milking all the aches and pains for all to hear. That being said since she has multiple experiences I don’t think this was all complaining for attention. I really do believe that the REAL upper limit for uncomplicated pregnancy and delivery is 35.
THIS is my beef with most of the Feminist intelligentsia out there about Childbirth. Of course it’s a pain to have a squealing child at 40+.
Why didn’t the brilliant little lady have kids at 20? oh yeah college to be equal in education to men.
Why didn’t the brilliant lady have kids at 25? oh yeah fun times due to post degree income
Why didn’t the brilliant lady have kids at 30? oh yeah hard to find Mr Right.
Why didn’t the brilliant lady have kids at 35? oh yeah she just settled for Mr Right Now
Then at 40 post 3 rounds of fertility treatments, Loads of OB pregnancy care, Genetic counseling and a complicated C-Section delivery. Boom! a little baby appears. (ANYONE want to guess at the LARGEST percent increase in healthcare services for people aged less than 55???)
And…
This Baby that has a 1/8 of down syndrome due to mother’s age.
This Baby who will be 25 when their PARENTS are at RETIREMENT age.
etc etc
Feminism and the associated STUPIDITY of making the arc of women’s lives be similar to MEN has done untold damage to the Western world. Is it any wonder why the barbarian hordes (think Afganistan) are prohibiting female education… and enjoying 4 TIMES the birthrates of the west???
Don’t want to be married, don’t want to be single, not sure what to do
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=941516
Can a homossexual couple raising kids be called a family?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=941489
Ang Aamer says:
Your question reminded me of a story published in National Geographic years ago about child brides in India. It is a long article but worth the read. Eastern tradition meets Western feminism:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/child-brides/gorney-text/1
I am woman. Hear me fart.
My niece two years ago at 21 had a natural home birth with a midwife and she said she didn’t have any problem and no pain that she remembered. She weighs just over 100lbs soaking wet. She and her husband plan on homeschooling their daughter. She is a bright and outgoing young 2 year old now.
Boxer:
“This goes just as much for students of “game”, as Fisher violates one of their favorite ideas: That a conservative, Christian virgin won’t play around when given the chance. Certainly the stats seem to give better odds with such a woman, but she’s living proof of the failure of the maxim.”
No, I think you are misconstruing students of game because I don’t see this at all what I see is:
1) Virgins are less likely to divorce you at marriage, less likely doesn’t mean won’t. There’s still a 20% chance that she will in the first ten years.
2) Virgins are more likely to not stray from you, again doesn’t mean they won’t
3) Devout women (which is different from Religious women) are more likely to keep their vows, again it doesn’t mean they will
4) Hypergamy means that any woman presented with a “better offer” are going to be tempted to cheat
5) Women morph themselves to suit the environment they are in (they are like water) a conservative Christian girl can very easily become a liberal slut feminist in college and then become a muslim fanatic.
6) Attention whores, and Fisher is obviously one, are not to be trusted.
Now I don’t know, but I suspect fisher doesn’t and probably never qualified as any of the first three with her husband.
She absolutely falls into 4,5 and 6.
Most “Christian” women sleep around, and the conservative ones don’t behave any different versus the liberal ones.
Dear Ras al Ghul:
Well, when I read explanations of cheating on places like Heartiste (and Dalrock) that center on “not being alpha enough” (and that is never defined), I chuckle.
This is an excellent example of a woman who was devoutly religious, married to an extreme alpha (what is more “alpha” than a war hero? please enlighten) and politically conservative. She claims to have been a virgin at marriage, and went to church at least once a week.
Despite all this, the ho decided, against all the prevailing “game” wisdom, to bang a moderately nerdy politico who was working on some Tea Party campaign with her. His photo is up on the interwebz. He ain’t Brad Pitt or Daddy Warbucks. To me he looks like a regular schlub.
The usual “she cheated because he went beta” schlock wears mighty thin in cases like this.
Regards,
Boxer
A man can go off to a macho job and come home and be a supplicating doormat with his wife. Such a man might be in worse shape than one who didn’t seem so alpha on the outside, because his wife will be repulsed by the contrast.
But your basic point is valid: there are no guarantees. Being super-alpha and marrying a virgin won’t guarantee her fidelity, any more than a wife being hot and sexy will guarantee her husband’s. It just improves the odds.
Boxer – after all this has happened, though, David Fisher actually does come across as astoundingly beta. He claims to believe his wife, and is enthusiastically standing up for her and staying with her. He’s also deleted tweets in which he bragged about ‘shooting Taliban in the face’ which is explicitly against US military code, and he violated this code simply to lash back at nobodies who had the ‘audacity’ to point out his wife’s extraordinary hypocrisy. He even risked his good standing in the military community to whiteknight his recently-adulterous wife (as recent as November ’14, if not after that). All in all, he’s shown himself to be beta and totally pathetic at least as a husband and civilian.
Japan’s Solution To Lack Of Sex: A “Handsome” Tax
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-25/japan-considers-handsome-tax-libido-crisis-looms
@Boxer
“The usual “she cheated because he went beta” schlock wears mighty thin in cases like this.”
-wear mighty thin- Why? Is it because your concept of females is so 18th century that you can’t fathom why a woman would not show more loyalty to a “war hero”.
I can tell you from personal observed experience women married to military men seem to have affairs more than the general population. Of course living on a military installation where there are thousands of buff 18-20 year manly men in every shape size and IQ would have nothing to do with it… (snicker)
Here’s the deal you can either believe the Blue Pill line that women spontaneously without deliberate intent cheat on “war hero” husbands. Or you can allow yourself to see reality, Take the Red Pill. And realize that women despite all our wishes that they be be wise and thoughtful… allow their XX libido’s to speak for them and daily practice Alpha Fux/Beta Bux mating strategies.
It’s too pervasive a problem (as in 3 written policies and a ton of informal policies within Military Dependent Operations alone). So pervasive that some (hat tip Rollo) have founded a good set of theories for what is REALLY going on.
All I can say is after a Division deploys (which is 10,000 personnel) and you see case after case of married women of the men who just deployed getting into (indecent exposure, solicitation, assault, victim of assault, rape, sexual misconduct, disturbing the peace yelling at male lover) all requiring notification of the Solder who has gone down range. (happy duty that is let me tell you).
Being a thinking person you might think hey wait a minute did these women drink something strange? Are Army women just less… loyal? Nope the Red Pill answer is these women are JUST BEING WOMEN.
Oh and by the way I ask the old timers if this is new… their reply is “happened during Gulf War 1, happened during Vietnam”… so we can’t blame Tinder.
Dear Cail & Steve:
That makes sense intuitively, in that the subject might feel that her husband’s dominance is a put on; but, it still contradicts the overall message of game: that women seek status markers rather than looks or empathy when choosing a mate. It’s also inconsistent with examples like Charles Manson, who was recently touted as some sorta ultimate badboy, when he got a deranged fan to marry him. Everyone knows Charles Manson is a put on. He has no power (he has to ask permission to take a dump) yet the chicks still seem to like him.
Boxer – after all this has happened, though, David Fisher actually does come across as astoundingly beta. He claims to believe his wife, and is enthusiastically standing up for her and staying with her. He’s also deleted tweets in which he bragged about ‘shooting Taliban in the face’ which is explicitly against US military code, and he violated this code simply to lash back at nobodies who had the ‘audacity’ to point out his wife’s extraordinary hypocrisy. He even risked his good standing in the military community to whiteknight his recently-adulterous wife (as recent as November ’14, if not after that). All in all, he’s shown himself to be beta and totally pathetic at least as a husband and civilian.
I am very, very hesitant to criticise a man in his position. I’m not married, but can imagine that the last few weeks have been quite emotionally traumatic. To forgive or not to forgive his wife is a matter that only concerns him, and I don’t judge him either way.
If this dysfunctional nutcase is the mother of this bro’s kids, moreover, it’s a pretty good reason (in my book) to beta down, knowing that she can remove them at any time.
I also have seen things like this before, and have noticed in others that the “white-knight” phase of the revelation is generally transitory. Our brother David is likely assessing things, while saying whatever is necessary to pacify the cheating skank ho. In a year, there’s an excellent chance that he’ll be shacked up with someone younger-hotter-tighter, paying off his trick, and enjoying his life as a bachelor. It doesn’t always happen that way, but when it does, it usually follows a period of extreme betatude, suggesting that most men take a bit of time to gather funds and friends before dumping an unfaithful ho.
Best,
Boxer
…And 40% of Japanese women aged 16-24 will lie in an anonymous survey. I don’t believe they are immune from their biology.
But, they might not be interested in or might despise sexual contact with Japanese men.
I’m not aware of anyone who says looks have no value; I would say looks are helpful, but dominance is more important and can make up considerably (not entirely) for poor looks. Empathy is fine, but whether it’s attractive depends on how you use it. I’m also not aware of anyone who says game is all about status markers; if anything, social status tends to be a reflection of a man’s dominance, but it’s the dominance that really matters. Social status is just a shortcut.
Charles Manson is actually a great example. No, he has no power in the worldly, legal sense. Never did have, really. But he has (even according to people like Bugliosi, who got him convicted) heaps of charisma, and he did dominate the people around him, even to the point of getting them to kill for him. It wasn’t his looks, his height, his wealth, his athleticism, his worldly popularity, his musical talent, or out at Spahn Ranch, his hygiene. It was his attitude: he’d look a girl in the eye and tell her he could see into her soul, and she’d follow him.
Of course, it didn’t work every time; some girls blew him off, and some followed him and then ran away when it got too weird for them. (It worked best on runaways with daddy issues, but he pulled it with some normal ones too, and some men.) If anyone says game is a guarantee, he’s wrong, and probably trying to sell you something. It just helps.
And it doesn’t mean you have to act like Manson. But if a grungy little git like Manson could do what he did, then with a little bit of swagger, I should be able to get a date, right?
Cail you are right on time. That comment of yours should be a “home ec” class for boys in every high school in America
Ang Amer
Oh and by the way I ask the old timers if this is new… their reply is “happened during Gulf War 1, happened during Vietnam”… so we can’t blame Tinder.
Jody wasn’t born yesterday. He wasn’t even born in the 20th century. No, it’s not Tinder. Tinder just makes it easier.
Ang Amer:
Oh and by the way I ask the old timers if this is new… their reply is “happened during Gulf War 1, happened during Vietnam”… so we can’t blame Tinder.
Then Anon Reader:
Jody wasn’t born yesterday. He wasn’t even born in the 20th century. No, it’s not Tinder. Tinder just makes it easier.
I tried to get into this vis a vis the military suicide rate last week…
http://westernphilosophyeasternfaith.blogspot.com/2015/01/throw-military-suicide-rate-in-reverse.html
OT article to share
http://abcnews.go.com/US/straight-single-men-wanting-kids-turn-surrogacy/story?id=16520916
Cail C Wins the internet:
“It doesn’t mean you have to act like Manson. But if a grungy little git like Manson could do what he did, then with a little bit of swagger, I should be able to get a date, right?”
We certainly agree on that. I guess it’s the aspie neckbeard in me that thinks the game gurus should define some of these terms.
Incidentally, whenever I bring this up and use myself as an example, the game dudes switch to “you must be a natural alpha”. OK, so we can’t say exactly what an “alpha” is, but whatever it is, you’re sure I must be one. Aside from the transparent appeal to my ego, it’s sorta funny.
I think it’d be better to define “alpha” as a loose constellation of interrelated traits, but when we do that, another game maxim collapses: that all women are carbon copies of one another, and they all respond (to greater or lesser degrees) to the same stimuli. Clearly that’s not true, as “alpha” means different things in different scenarios, and one trait will attract some women while leaving others unimpressed.
Boxer
Is it a sin to move in with your boyfriend?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=942002
Catholic based men’s bible study program
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=942018
Game, A completely useless man by any measure of civilization. Yet a female will kill for him.
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/chicks-dig-jerks-game-is-its-own-status/
If the churches could speak to truth and reality like this there wouldn’t be as many atheist as we have now.
That doesn’t even make logical sense, because if they were carbon copies of each other, there would be no “to greater or lesser degrees” about it; they’d all respond the same. The truth is, they DO respond to greater or lesser degrees to the same stimuli, but that leaves a lot of leeway. I had one woman who was so into me from chat and phone calls that she jumped me the instant we met, and then she freaked out and ran because I was an inch shorter than her, and being fairly tall herself she had a thing about that. They’re not nearly as unpredictable as they like to think, but they’re still human beings with individual foibles, so there will always be exceptions to the rules.
Around here, we DO define “alpha” as a loosely related set of traits, as in the LAMPS concept. That fits in fine with game as I know it: different women will respond to different traits to different degrees, but certain traits are generally attractive to women and some are generally more important than others.
I don’t pay much attention to the “game gurus” anymore, so I don’t know where you’re hearing these maxims that make such absolute claims about the definition and effectiveness of game. They weren’t around back when I was studying it. If the claims you’re talking about are common enough in game circles now to call them “maxims,” that’s a change for the worse. If they’re just coming from a handful of guys who have e-books to sell, then they don’t deserve to be called maxims.
In game discussion groups where guys advised each other in the olden days, the goal was always to do better. For the hopeless loner, “success” might mean getting one girl’s phone number. For the guy who could get numbers, it might be to get girls to stop flaking. For the guy who could get dates, it might be to get second dates. The goal was always improvement, because it was understood that perfection was impossible.
Clearly that’s not true, as “alpha” means different things in different scenarios, and one trait will attract some women while leaving others unimpressed.
Certainly. The key is knowing your market niche, and then exploiting the crap out of it. To do the former requires knowledge, and to do the latter requires ability — the latter is where “Game” comes in, in some form of self improvement so that your social execution in your niche target market is optimized.
Dear Cail:
Thanks for an interesting response, please see below…
Which is generally the implication that has been repeated for years on sites like heartiste…
To be a man is to spin the genetic roulette wheel in a way that no woman ever will. To wit: the Y chromosome lacks many of the regions found on the X, and is additionally more variable as a result of how it pairs with its counterpart during meiosis.
Can you please, once and for all, give me the precise definition of “alpha”? I’m imagining that it starts “for all alpha, greater than zero, there exists…” 🙂
The idea that nature drives the evolution of our species through variability of men, keeping women pretty much the same, is a theme I encounter several times per month. The meme itself has saturated the “game” sphere since I started studying it, which was around 2009. I’m not into the life sciences, so I don’t know whether its true or not, but it’s certainly the catalyst for a lot of the theory in those parts.
Best,
Boxer
“But, they might not be interested in or might despise sexual contact with Japanese men.”
It’s a bitter defense reaction to the whole Herbivore thing. Hell hath no fury like a woman ignored.
@Ang Aamer “Oh and by the way I ask the old timers if this is new… their reply is “happened during Gulf War 1, happened during Vietnam”… so we can’t blame Tinder.”
My personal experience:
I was in Army basic training in 1993 with 30 females in one platoon in a 100 man 54B MOS(Nuclear Biological Chemical) training company. It wasn’t even 8 weeks before 29 of the 30 females cheated on their boyfriends and husbands while still calling home and telling their men how much the missed and loved them. The males in the company were no where near this promiscuous.
What’s another name for a woman in uniform? Slut.
Can you please, once and for all, give me the precise definition of “alpha”? I’m imagining that it starts “for all alpha, greater than zero, there exists…”
This is kind of the trouble I have with the concept. For all the valuable truth and useful information I have found around these parts, I just don’t get the alpha/beta terminoligy. And I mean it sincerely when I write “valuable truth.” My life as a married man has truly improved as the scales have fallen off my eyes.
It may be my training as a psychologist that has ruined my ability to see this one part clearly. It is counter intuitive for me to see individuals/men as being either “alpha” or “not alpha.” The vast amount of literature on personality and how people develop, mommy/daddy issues, how they react in different situations, how they become enmeshed with other personality types, powere differentials within relationships, what they can do about…
The list goes on and on. A dichotomous variable is woefully inadequate for describing these things. Also, as I have tried to explore elsewhere, it doesn’t jive with personal experience. I had a more or less normative social developmental trajectory–right down the middle of the bell curve–and I had a fairly decent amount of sex within, for the most part, a serial monogamy template + the occasional ONS. I wasn’t “gaming” anyone. I just followed the implicit rules of that “dating–>sex–>boyfriend/ girlfriend” paradigm like everyone else around me.
As a marketeer, I was probably given a slight advantage by my height, ability to look people straight in the eye, give a firm handshake, played football/other sports reasonably well, and had older brothers who gave me the “girls like assholes” talk when I young. But other than that, it just seems a little shallow.
Boxer,
I guess I’m glad I don’t spend time in “game guru” areas then, if it’s changed that much. To that Roissy quote, though, I’d say that claiming that Y is more variable than X doesn’t imply that X is not variable at all. It’s true that since taking the red pill and coming to understand women much better than I did, they’re more predictable than I had thought possible — but that doesn’t mean they’re clones.
Can I give a precise definition of “alpha”? No, for the reason I gave: it’s a loose assortment of human traits, and it’s pretty hard to give a precise definition of those, especially ones like “dominance” which can be relative and situational. It’s a bit like the joke about the blind guys describing an elephant, and each one thinks it’s something different depending on what part he’s holding. Or the line about pornography, that you can’t define it, but you know it when you see it.
But being unable to define something precisely doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I don’t know that I can give a precise definition of “happiness” that fits in all contexts; but happiness does exist, we can describe it in various ways, and we generally know it when we see it. One man can certainly be more alpha than another, and he will tend to be more attractive to most women, though not necessarily to all of them. Two men can be equally alpha but in different ways, making one more attractive to some women and the other to others.
A dichotomous variable [of alpha and beta] is woefully inadequate for describing these things. Also, as I have tried to explore elsewhere, it doesn’t jive with personal experience.
Yes, a dichotomy is inadequate. And no, it doesn’t jive with personal experience. Nonetheless, Boxer’s dilemma is a good jumpoff point to discuss generalities, I think. I’ll do my best with it.
Alpha/beta exists on a spectrum. Nearly all men have some of both suites of traits. IN general, “alpha” is traditionally masculine traits. Most men don’t really have much in the way of these traits.
1. Confidence (man’s knowledge that he can thrive or at least survive regardless of the circumstances he exists in)
2. Dominance (man’s ability to impose his will on and influence his circumstances; his ability to shape his circumstances to suit him)
3. the traditionally V-shaped masculine physique of wide shoulders tapering to narrow waist; upper body muscle definition; toned and in shape; height; imposing physical presence; appealing face consisting of broad forehead, narrow set eyes, defined jaw line and prominent chin
4. He works and wields a certain amount of power in his occupation
5. He is able to command resources.
Beta is the suite of “comfort” traits that women like but don’t find sexually attractive. They aren’t sexually attractive because it’s easier for men to offer these. They’re useful for family formation and continuation, but not so much for sex: Kindness, industriousness, fidelity, loyalty, “emotional availability”, vulnerability, etc.
They exist on a spectrum in each man. All men have some of each, and display more of some and less than the other at various times. Some men have more “alpha” than “beta” at different times.
The problem, I think , lies in the intentional obfuscation and confusion of what women find attractive. We’ve been going on two generations now in which men were explicitly being told that “beta” traits are SEXUALLY attractive – that women really really want to have sex with and sleep with such men. That’s where the confusion is.
One man can certainly be more alpha than another, and he will tend to be more attractive to most women, though not necessarily to all of them.
I was working on another thought and I saw this.
I am wondering–where has this been exlplored within a Christian framework on the net? I really try to avoid the secular game/PUA sites because there is just so much there that conflicts with my personal values.
I think this continuum could be explored to its fullest extent for Christian men to real benefit. I guess I just think of it as common sense. Doesn’t everyone adjust their “target” based on what they bring to a marketplace? I always knew that there were guys around who were better looking, were even bigger jocks, had cooler cars, richer parents, etc. So I never went after the smoking hot, 10/10, prom queen. I automatically adjusted to just below that–her friends. These were the people in my peer group, and as long as everyone stayed within the natural heirarchy, all was right with the world.
The Deti-
We were typing at the same time. Reading your thoughts now.
And what I put down above are generalities. As a general rule, women are sexually attracted to men who display “alpha” traits. They want sex with such men. As a general rule, women want relationships with men who display “beta” traits. They want marriage from such men. Hence, alpha fux, beta bux.
There are exceptions to these rules. The fact that they are exceptions indicates that they can exist sometimes and in some situations, but not at all times or in all situations.
Some men with lots of “beta” are also “alpha” in some ways. Some men with lots of “alpha” are also “beta” in some ways.
As a general rule, men who have participated in or read manosphere blogs have shown too much “beta” in their lives and relationships, in large part because of extreme confusion and misinformation about the roles these suites of traits play in attraction, sex, relationships, work, and the way all of these play out in the real world. The entire idea here is to dispel the confusion and provide a better understanding of how these sexual dynamics really work, not how other misinformed people claim that they work. In this way, men can calibrate themselves appropriately so they can achieve what they wish in their lives and relationships.
“I am wondering–where has this been explored within a Christian framework on the net?”
deepstrength.wordpress.com
Scott, don’t forget that the so-called “alpha” suite of traits is universally attractive. ALL women are attracted to these traits — it’s just that Christian women are less likely to admit it or talk about it. There’s nothing special about Christian women in this regard — they want hot sexy sex with hot sexy men just like their secular sisters do. And in fact most Christian women do have hot sexy sex with at least one or two hot sexy men before they get married to some other less hot and less sexy man.
Jezebel has occasionally gotten angry at pro-lifers for showing pictures of aborted fetuses at pro-life rallies, right?
So we can discuss in graphic and endless and gratuitous detail the ugly things accidental to beautiful things like motherhood — but the ugliness of ugly things (like abortion) must be kept hidden, veiled, and secret.
This is hideous moral inversion in the service of evil.
Dalrock’s site is one of the best, although we tend to focus more on the higher-level theory and not so much on the practical how-to-use-it aspects. We Christians have some catching up to do on that; the “I just wanna get laid” guys have a couple decades head-start on us in just trying stuff to figure out what works. We have the advantage, though, of being able to understand why, and we can borrow some of their techniques as long as we don’t misuse them. For instance, the admonition about never buying a girl a drink to get her to talk to you; I don’t think we need our own “Christian” reasoning for not buying girls drinks.
As for your overall question, I’d start with what Deti said: alpha/beta isn’t binary; it’s a spectrum. Think of it like confidence (which is part of it anyway): you’re rarely 100% confident or 0% confident. Most of the time you’re somewhere in between, and higher some days than others. If Adam’s confidence level tends to fall between 50% and 90% and averages 75%, and Bernard’s ranges from 20% to 60% and averages 35%, we’d all agree that Adam is more confident, even though it’s possible that Bernard is occasionally more confident than Adam.
Alpha is like that. Some days, or in some situations, you just have more swagger, more of that difficult-to-define thing that makes people want to be around you. Some men also have a lot more of it in general than other men, and they get more interest from women. There are plenty of guys who are dominant at work or in their hobbies with other men, and then come home and let their wives push them around. So it doesn’t necessarily extend to every part of a man’s life, either.
Ordinarily, yes, but some aspects of modern life skew that target. We’re all familiar with the idea that pornography (remember those airbrushed pictures?) skews men’s idea of attractiveness and makes them all expect a flawless centerfold. There’s probably a bit of truth to that. But Hollywood is doing the same thing to women, and it’s multiplied by all the self-esteem boosting they get. As someone pointed out in another thread, the online dating sites are full of average-looking mothers-of-three who are holding out for a 6/6 guy (6 feel tall and a 6-figure income).
For those and a few other reasons, women’s “targets” are off the charts, and don’t start to come back beneath the clouds until they hit the wall and men stop sniffing around. That messes it up for everyone: the guy-7 can’t get a date with a girl-7 because they’re all out chasing (and occasionally sleeping with) 9s and 10s. So the guy-7 gets drunk and bangs a girl-4 and now she thinks she’s 7 material. It’s a vicious circle.
This is kind of the trouble I have with the concept. For all the valuable truth and useful information I have found around these parts, I just don’t get the alpha/beta terminoligy. And I mean it sincerely when I write “valuable truth.” My life as a married man has truly improved as the scales have fallen off my eyes.
Have you read Vox Day’s blogs? He has an interesting write up on this, using number of sexual partners as the metric. Everyone has their own unique aspects, but the results provide a pretty good idea of where one fits in the spectrum.
He also breaks it down into more categories, so his terms are different than Alpha/Beta used on other Game blogs, which is winner/loser; with his terms, betas are the #2 guys who follow the alpha leader types.
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2011/03/socio-sexual-hierarchy.html
Reblogged this on Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar and commented:
they’re getting desperate
Dalrock, please edit this post to include Moore’s bit about the happy new mom being manic or a malaria victim. That ought to be preserved.
No one warned me about hot farts after a visit to the Hot Sauce Festival. Maybe I should have used the shoulder manosphere to cry on.
8oxer: re Fartologists of the Future.
“some of these articles will be studied by clinicians doing graduate work in abnormal psychology for years to come.”
Just “Hot Farts”? I am disappoint, why not they “follow through”?
Pingback: The ugly feminist secret weapon. | Dalrock
Gross. Feminist broads are just gross.
Pingback: “I have always depended on the sexual kindness of strangers.” | Dalrock
Pingback: Something must have scared him off. | Dalrock
Pingback: That’s gonna leave a mark on the narrative. | Dalrock
“They should’ve warned me that I would love my husband so much more once he was the father of my bundle of perfection”
Stupid bitch! That was just the oxytocin hormone deluding your hamster brain! Also, you left out “amazing” as in “amazing husband” which so many of these idiots use to describe their men when they are in love. And “bundle of perfection”? Wow. Egocentric much?
Pingback: Sounds like she squeaked one past him. | Dalrock