Three must-reads.

31 Mar

If you haven’t read these already, you should!

The Reason Beta Males Pedestalize Women by Heartiste.  If you’ve ever wondered why there are so many guys out there who refuse to take the red pill or just can’t imagine that there are Good Girls who do Bad Things, this post explains it.  It’s the most succinct and clear (not to mention, entertaining) explanation of the origin of white knight dogma that I’ve ever read.  A sample:

So you see, in the final analysis, it is very likely, by dint of the beta male’s ignorance, inexperience and habituated veneration of women and reflexive indulgence of women’s motives, that his view of women is severely constricted, child-like in its naivete. The beta male is not privy to what Tyler Durden famously called the secret society of women. He was never invited, and he was never apprised of the secret society’s goings-on by any woman in his life. He lives in a pinched world with only a peephole to the wonders beyond, given him not by insight but by stumbling into depravity or by the good grace of a sympathetic alpha male. As far as he knows, women don’t have much sex, and they are very nice and polite most of the time.

The beta male pedestalizes women because one, that’s all women have deigned to show him of their sexual inner world, and two, he cannot bear the contrary thought, affirming and cementing as it does his lackluster place on the sexual totem pole.

Women are innately good by Dalrock.  Here Dalrock goes after FOTF’s #1 Mangina Glenn Stanton and Stanton’s book Secure Daughters, Confident Sons: How Parents Guide Their Children into Authentic Masculinity and Femininity.  Anyone who’s been hanging around Haley’s Halo for a while probably knows my opinion of Stanton (read:  I enjoyed Dalrock’s article very much), but Dalrock’s post is just that much more satisfying after reading Roissy’s above post and seeing how Stanton fits that description to a T.  Is it any wonder that Stanton, born and raised to be the best of churchly betas, would find it impossible to believe that even the sweetest, most innocent, most Jesus-loving woman possesses the ability to transform into an unhinged sexual beast given the proper enticement?

Stanton repeatedly pushes the idea that women are genetically programmed to be good, while men are not, and it is the lack of good men (whom no one trained to be good, I guess) that results in women being bad (violating their natural propensities).  Yes, it’s obvious that this makes zero sense.  Dalrock sums it up nicely:

There is a special kind of irony in him lecturing about how good men hold those who do wrong accountable just before he goes on to not hold women accountable for having children out of wedlock, frivolously divorcing, and for choosing cads over dads.

Also stick around to read the comments by deti and van Rooinek.  Good stuff from guys who’ve been in the churchly trenches.

Dating Advice: How to Pick Your Right Girl by Art of Manliness.  Brett McKay found a book from 1944 entitled How to Get Along With Girls.  (The Greatest Generation didn’t have the internet or rappers with advice for handling shorties.)  The first chapter of the book is “How to Pick Your Right Girl” and gives a checklist of traits to consider.  The charm is in the old-fashioned language.  The wisdom is timeless.  Among the things a young man contemplating marriage should consider:

  • She is attractive, of course, but is that her chief asset? (Try to imagine her ten years from today.)
  • Could you spend seven consecutive evenings in her company without being bored? (If the answer is affirmative, it is a good sign.)
  • Is she a flirt? Does she make you jealous? (Decide whether you can stand the strain; your jealousy will persist until you grow indifferent.)
  • Does she tell lies? Do you mind?
  • Do you agree on children, or a career, or both? (Better settle this beforehand.)
  • Does she expect you to support her in a definite style? Could you count on her cooperation in hard times? Would she go to work if necessary?

Read the whole article.  I’m sure we can all think of at least a couple people in our lives who would have benefited from having such a list and taking it seriously.

I’m planning on seeing The Hunger Games tonight.  Last year I wrote a post on the book, so if you’re new here and have an interest in the book/movie, there’s something else you can put on your reading list.  Ha!

About these ads

38 Responses to “Three must-reads.”

  1. Jennifer March 31, 2012 at 2:12 pm #

    Yes, Heartiste is just an expert on women; what an ass. Dalrock’s is better, though he listened to some faulty sources on “As Good as it Gets”.

  2. 7man March 31, 2012 at 3:08 pm #

    CL and I have been writing about Dominance and submission. The more we experience and observe, this seems to be the forgotten foundation to male/female relationships. Whether others agree or not, at least they should think about it.

  3. modernguy March 31, 2012 at 3:34 pm #

    Roissy’s post is good in the sense of describing acurately why betas have the ideas they do, but not good in any other sense. It’s akin to describing why children think they are going to grow up and live happily ever after doing what they love to do while the real world is cesspool of iniquity where people cut each others throats for a dollar and criminals thrive. It’s basically saying that betas are ignorant and women are evil, which admittedly is true by and large.

  4. Dalrock March 31, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    Thanks for the linkage and the kind words Haley.

    Jennifer:

    As for As Good As It Gets, I’ll remain happily ignorant. Stanton should have his mancard revoked for even admitting in writing that he saw the movie, let alone stating in his book that he and his wife make it a point to watch the movie every year. Into each man’s life some chick flicks must fall; sometimes you can’t chew through the restraints fast enough to get away. But you don’t seek them out and you don’t use them as your life script.

  5. Badger April 1, 2012 at 1:17 am #

    This is great reading, Haley. I LOVE your new blog slogan, BTW.

    On a quasi-related note to 7man’s comment, I’ve been more forward with women lately when it comes to verbalizing or expressing unapologetic dominance, variously:

    -Smacking her ass in conversation (cover your ears Haley)
    -Physically repositioning her in conversation without asking or verbalizing
    -Joking about tying her up (with a deadpan expression)
    -Bringing up Fifty Shades of Grey, 9 1/2 Weeks or other works with a tinge of bondage or D/S to see how she reacts. The 5th season premiere of Mad Men also had a great (if vaguely disturbing) scene involving Don’s dominance over a woman’s token (TOKEN!) objection.

    I have found that women on the whole really respond to this stuff. They are quite hungry for assertive, strong, amative maleness.

  6. Jennifer April 1, 2012 at 11:09 am #

    LMAO Actually Dalrock, comments like that show you shouldn’t be happily ignorant. “As Good as it Gets” is a chick film? Enough to rob a man of his man card? My chickflick hating, engine-loving, bossy alpha father LOVES that film, because of the hardcore satire, biting wit and politically incorrect humor throughout. He insists on seeing it whenever we do watch it, and we’ve been quoting lines back and forth from it for years. LOL And now women love men who speak of 50 Shades of Gray, talk about a man card being revoked. And “Mad Men” joining trashy ranks; nice to know the world’s full of stupidity. Made my Sunday.

  7. dragnet April 1, 2012 at 6:44 pm #

    Heartiste absolutely nailed it with that post. I feel like he’s been off his game recently–but that post is the truth.

    Betas cannot conceive of the world that true alphas inhabit. Your average beta simply has not the foggiest notion of the sort of base, animalistic, desperate behavior women can engage in for the men they are truly attracted to. Most betas know they won’t be settling down with virgins, but they are almost definitely clueless as to the depth of sexual depravity their women participated in with other men before she met him and what she routinely did for alphas that she wouldn’t even dream of doing for him.

    I have gotten a few glimpses into this ignorance & denial recently. Last week I was out for sushi with a good buddy of mine. He’s a genuinely decent cat—good-looking, good job, would give a homeless man the shirt from his back…and beta as hell. He was telling me that his wife has been brushing him off for sex a lot lately and he was rationalizing it (i.e., Monday she was tired after a long day at work, Tuesday she wasn’t feeling well, etc). I listened for a bit and then asked him:

    “If Brad Pitt or Denzel Washington propositioned your wife for sex, do you think she would still be too tired to get it on?”

    He had no idea how to respond to this…and so continued to make excuses for his wife. The beta was simply too strong.

    But you don’t have to be an apex alpha to get a glimpse into what most beta males will never see—all you really need is to experience having a woman fall hard for you. Just experiencing what a woman will do for a man she’s completely taken by—how she denies him nothing, no matter how nasty. One experience like that should shatter any illusions a guy may have of female sexuality, and utterly destroy the instinct to pedestalize women.

    But most betas never have that experience.

  8. Jill April 1, 2012 at 7:24 pm #

    My student informed me that it is s-h-a-w-t-y-s, but the academic spelling is s-h-a-w-t-i-e-s.

  9. Jennifer: Not A Potential Sow April 1, 2012 at 8:37 pm #

    Just read over the Roissy thing. Yup, typical half-assed Roissy logic; if a woman withholds, it must be because she thinks you suck, and all you have to do to reveal that she’s really nasty is be a big ass and turn her on. He’s frolicked in the trough, so he knows the condition of the slops and the slime, and sees every woman now as a potential sow. He generally has partially clear vision, clarifying one side of a huge parallelogram, and mucking the rest of it that bears any difference from himself. The most pathetic side of this is his belief that “beta” squeezes so many men into one small compartment, that men who think generally well of women must be ignorant because they haven’t scraped to the sewer pits of human nature that he has, and that women in general mistreat betas because of their longing for the ideal assholes.

  10. Badger April 1, 2012 at 10:54 pm #

    I’d just like to tell everyone on the thread to just not listen to Jennifer. She has been so consistently wrong on all the big issues of discussion, here and elsewhere – and been rude and condescending about it to boot. Most telling is how she rendered (profane) commentary on Roissy’s post, then admitted later she hadn’t read it yet.

  11. Jennifer April 1, 2012 at 11:14 pm #

    LOL Wrong as opposed to who, Badger? Roissy? Yeah, there’s a healthy guide for relations. And talk about condescending, the way you started to dog my comments and fire insults like a child with a paintball gun some time ago. If I was consistently wrong about every large thing, you probably wouldn’t feel the strange need to “warn” others about me, as though they’re not used to me and can’t make up their own minds on individual comments. Many have given up the childish hunt for slut sex, including Assanova I hear, and still more disagree with how it’s done, so your general opinion, complete with approval of bang guides, is meaningless to me.

    “”Most telling is how she rendered (profane) commentary on Roissy’s post”

    Profane? Indeed, I called him an ass based on all his other sociopathic tidbits, and law how profane! I’d better start talking more like your preferred type of people, Tucker Max, Roissy, Roosh and company, maybe then I’d sound less crude. Enjoy the trough.

  12. Badger April 1, 2012 at 11:29 pm #

    Jennifer,

    Does this mean we’re not having a drink next time I’m in your city?

  13. Jennifer April 1, 2012 at 11:35 pm #

    LOL No can do, sorry.

  14. Badger April 1, 2012 at 11:41 pm #

    “sorry”

    I’m sure you are.

  15. Jennifer April 1, 2012 at 11:52 pm #

    Well, try to be a lady once in a while.

  16. Hermit April 2, 2012 at 6:20 am #

    “Beta males are rarely in a position to witness the worst of women.”

    I grew up with 2 attractive sisters that got a lot of attention from guys. It is very hard to hold onto the illusion when you see it firsthand day in and day out.

  17. Jennifer April 2, 2012 at 6:58 am #

    Yeah, that is a partly ironic statement; if they’re around shallow women, or have no clue socially, they’ll likely be hurt.

  18. Jim April 2, 2012 at 11:16 am #

    Can a lurker ask a dumb question? I read sites like this and come away with the impression that all “good” women, including Christian women, single or married, are just putting on an act. Is that what people actually believe here?

  19. Jennifer April 2, 2012 at 12:09 pm #

    Good question, Jim. Men like Roissy, and even “nicer” people like some around here, do think, I believe, that anyone with the proper temptation can devolve into a sexually deviant being.

  20. Jim April 2, 2012 at 12:48 pm #

    Well, I’m not sure of the terminology here, but my guess is “beta” Christian males, who seem to be looked down at here, act that way because they are instructed to do so by Scripture. “Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.” (I Timothy 1:1-2) And it has not been my experience that Christian women (and by this I mean the ones who walk the walk, not just talk the talk), “transform into an unhinged sexual beast given the proper enticement.”

    And I don’t think that when Christians divorce, it is necessarily for sexual reasons, that somehow the wife is just on the make for someone new. My wife and I went through a lot of struggles raising our kids, and I know a number of times I just felt like chucking the whole thing, and I am sure she felt the same way sometimes. If we divorced it would have been over the difficulty raising kids and the stress that put on us, not wanting a new sexual attraction to someone else. But fortunately both she and I believed that divorce is a non-starter, and we stuck it out through some very difficult years. And we both have been totally faithful to each other.

  21. Jennifer April 2, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

    That’s wonderful :)

  22. Hermit April 2, 2012 at 7:49 pm #

    ” I read sites like this and come away with the impression that all “good” women, including Christian women, single or married, are just putting on an act. Is that what people actually believe here?”

    Only an aspie expects a generalization to apply to everyone. The point is, given the proper motivation, the vast majority of women can rationalize just about anything. Also, you it depends on what your definition of a good woman is. By a biblical standard, do you consider the women at ChristianForums “good women”?

    ‘And it has not been my experience that Christian women (and by this I mean the ones who walk the walk, not just talk the talk), “transform into an unhinged sexual beast given the proper enticement.”’

    You’ve never seen this happen with your wife in the bedroom? I feel for you.

  23. Hermes April 2, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

    I have to agree with samsonsjawbone, Haley. I mean, are you a Christian or not? I agree there’s value in disbelieving the blatant falsehoods that taint the world of Christian dating/marriage advice (i.e., Glenn Stanton saying women are “naturally good.”) But l look at the last paragraph of that Roissy post. Do you really think dwelling on such notions is going to enable Christian women to have happy marriages? Is it going to help you be a good wife to the kind of man you’re likely to be able to marry?

  24. dragnet April 3, 2012 at 4:46 am #

    “Yeah, that is a partly ironic statement; if they’re around shallow women, or have no clue socially, they’ll likely be hurt.”

    Predictable feminist logic—and utter bullshit.

    What Roissy describes isn’t a phenomenon related to shallowness or social ineptitude—it’s a phenomenon associated with having nearly absolute power in the dating marketplace, as women do in their 20s.

    It’s near absolute power that causes women to behave in this way—the same way men have often behaved in horrible ways with absolute power.

  25. FumbleBuck April 3, 2012 at 7:03 am #

    @Dragnet -
    Beware the apex fallacy – as misleading when applied to women as it is when applied to men. My 19 year old daughter has nothing close to absolute power in the SMP, although to be fair, she has friends 35 pounds lighter who do.

  26. Jennifer April 3, 2012 at 10:20 am #

    I’m well-aware of and have spoken MANY times of women having too much power, drag, and what that causes. This doesn’t change for a second the fact that many shallow women treat “betas” and the socially inept as less than worthy of their attention; your own shit needs working on before you criticze my logic as feministic.

  27. Jennifer April 3, 2012 at 10:55 am #

    Exactly, Fumble. Neither do I.

  28. dragnet April 3, 2012 at 6:45 pm #

    @ Jennifer

    “This doesn’t change for a second the fact that many shallow women treat “betas” and the socially inept as less than worthy of their attention”

    Yes, my dear—but they do this because of the disproportionate power young women can wield in the sexual marketplace. Older women and less attractive tend to treat those same men a bit better, not because they are somehow less “shallow”, but because they don’t have as many options.

    Women don’t treat betas poorly necessarily because they are “shallow”—they treat them poorly because near absolute power can corrupt even very good and decent women.

  29. Jennifer April 3, 2012 at 8:32 pm #

    I don’t think your theory properly covers the motives of women who actually treat “betas” badly and not just non-sexually. Dear.

  30. Aunt Haley April 3, 2012 at 9:19 pm #

    Jennifer, I need a break from you. Modded.

  31. dragnet April 4, 2012 at 3:53 am #

    “I don’t think your theory properly covers the motives of women who actually treat “betas” badly and not just non-sexually.”

    read: I think you’re wrong because my hamster says so and no additional explanation is needed.

    Gotcha.

  32. dragnet April 4, 2012 at 4:09 am #

    I offer this excellent example:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/men-women/sex-and-the-modern-girl-are-we-witnessing-a-new-age-of-female-sexual-assertiveness-1727304.html

    Betas will simply never get to experience this side of women—but this is the true sexuality of women, unleashed. Notice that of the very few men at these sex parties, NONE of them are betas—they are all high status men (wealthy, footballers, etc) but many of the girls are completely ordinary women who will no doubt eventually have to settle and marry a regular schmoe, if they get married at all.

    Their beta husbands will simply never know what hit them.

  33. samsonsjawbone April 6, 2012 at 8:05 am #

    @Dragnet:

    The article is typical non-representative sensationalism, and I suspect it may even be fiction. But that’s not the point I care to make:

    this is the true sexuality of women, unleashed.

    I am getting fairly tired of this sentiment, and in fact I’ve been thinking about writing a full-blown essay on the topic. What does it mean that this is “true” female sexuality, “unleashed”? What is “true” sexuality? I would say that this represents *fallen* female sexuality, unleashed. Yes, in our world women *can* be tempted to behave this way, but they’re not *supposed* to, and we shouldn’t talk about it as if it’s a good thing when they do, or as if men who don’t get to experience this kind of debauchery are somehow “missing” something. Men have a “true” sexuality that they can “unleash”, too; it’s called “masturbating to pornography” or “treating women like objects”, or “sodomy”, and nobody – of a Christian bent, anyway – would call it good for men to “unleash” this side of themselves. We would call it sin; a failure of will; and a failure to appreciate sex as it was meant to be enjoyed. So too with women: they have a carnal side that can tip out of control given the proper temptation? Then we should be helping them to cultivate a love for proper marital sexuality – real “true” sexuality.

    I have to agree with samsonsjawbone, Haley. I mean, are you a Christian or not?

    Right, Hermes. How’s your faith doing, Haley? “Where your treasure is, there also will be your heart.” Take this in the well-meaning way that I intend it: based on what I have read in your blog over the past couple of years, Haley, I would counsel young men to run far in the other direction from you. The shallow, mean-spirited attitude that you consistently reveal is not going to serve you well in the long run. Roissy bills himself as the exploder of “pretty lies”; well, here is one: a pretty face ain’t everything, and sex *certainly” isn’t everything.

  34. y81 April 9, 2012 at 7:17 am #

    I’m kind of enjoying the throught of our hostess “transform[ing] into an unhinged sexual beast given the proper enticement,” but I’m guessing that this transformation can’t actually be accomplished, to her or many other women. (Enthusiastic marital sex does not meet my definition of “unhinged” or “beast.”) Generalizations based on the girls you meet in nightclubs are not very accurate. Also, articles in the British tabloid press are often not just inaccurate, they are frequently made up of whole cloth.

  35. Hana April 9, 2012 at 10:29 am #

    “What does it mean that this is “true” female sexuality, “unleashed”? What is “true” sexuality? I would say that this represents *fallen* female sexuality, unleashed.”

    Right – what kind of sex did God intend when he created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? Did he create Eve to be a woman who would “surrender to the most vile sexual plunderings, screaming in ecstatic pleasure at every enthusiastically welcome violation”? Did he intend for Adam to plot ways of unleashing this libido, “smacking her ass in conversation” or “joking about tying her up?” Or did he just intend for them to be attracted to each other and to act on this attraction in fulfilling, loving marital sex?

    Galatians 5:14: “The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” I don’t see how Heartiste or even Badger’s descriptions of sex reflect loving our neighbour (male or female) as ourselves.

    I understand Boundless and Focus on the Family tend to whitewash the rules of sexual attraction, which isn’t wise, because God created those laws, just as he created everything in nature. At the same time, sexual attraction is a part of creation, and all creation is fallen. So reading about Heartiste’s exploits with women can give plenty of information about fallen sexuality, but it can’t teach us about sexuality as God intended it when Eve was created for Adam. God never intended sexuality to be divorced from love and the command of “loving our neighbour.”

    Jesus died to redeem humanity and make us new creations in Christ through the Holy Spirit. God has shown me over the past year that we can only understand God’s true intentions for sexuality through the Holy Spirit.

    On another, belated note, I watched the Hunger Games last week and liked it (even though I haven’t read the books)!

  36. Anna April 11, 2012 at 7:40 pm #

    Reading Heartiste, while amusing, is also demoralizing. What is absent from the writings there regarding male and female relationships is love, devotion, maturity, gratitude, humility. Only through the frame of calculation, cynicism, lust, and power are relationships discussed.

    The worldview espoused there makes it easy to understand why St. Paul thought singleness was more blessed. ;)

  37. punom December 13, 2013 at 1:39 am #

    The Amazing News: At the moment there is PLENTY of dating advice for men out there. And a few of it is absolutely appropriate and adequate.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Women’s need to give | Datingwise - April 12, 2012

    [...] contains kernels of truth about male-female relationships. If you can stand it to read it, go here and click on the article, read and come back [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 139 other followers