You get what you pay for.

12 Aug

The dating advice thread strikes again.

Situation: Woman (I’m assuming late 20s-mid 30s; let’s call her Emmy) dates man for two years, during which time she regularly, loudly, proclaims to all who will listen that she deserves better than what he is giving her.

She breaks up with him.

But apparently is allowing him to live at her place while his apartment is being renovated.

He tells her that she deserves better than what he could give her.

She is privately devastated to hear this, and writes that hearing it was no vindication, that she felt no euphoria, pride, or triumph.  Instead, she felt only sadness as she asked herself repeatedly why she had spent two years in the relationship.

I think Emmy’s original problem was that she dated a downtrodden beta so she could have a relationship but, after the initial “I have a boyfriend!” euphoria wore off, never felt that he was higher value than she was.  Believing a man to be higher value than her probably would have offended her feminist principles.  (I am assuming she is a feminist because the majority of posters on the board are college-educated, non-religious, politically liberal women.)  Anyhow, she figuratively emasculated him to all who would listen, probably thinking herself clever, and then, after destroying the remaining dregs of attraction she had for him, finally broke it off.

But being a woman, her hindbrain (as Roissy might say) is not allowing her to make a clean, emotion-free break like an alpha male.  Instead, she is upset that he wouldn’t alpha up in the face of her colossal shit test of putting him down publicly, and is trying to give him a final chance to assert himself by allowing him to live with her for as flimsy a reason as his apartment being renovated.  (Seriously, does the man have no other friends?!  Women, never date men with no friends.)  When he parroted back to her the exact things she said to him during their dating relationship, she felt overwhelming despair because she realized she had allowed herself to have sex with an unfit man for two years.  Yet she can’t at all see what role she played in the demise of their relationship.

A smattering of advice from the regulars:

  • Aww.  Let’s hang out and drink until you forget him.
  • Sometimes you wish you had the chutzpah to shout that you could do better than his tiny penis.
  • You’re the better person for allowing him to stay with you.
  • Don’t worry, everyone has made this mistake.

Really, just where have all the good men gone?

The reason that men need to be strong with women is because women cannot be strong with other women.  A woman is socially obligated to tell her friend whatever it is the friend wants to hear, even if it completely contradicts reality.  A woman who goes around telling unwanted truths to her female friends will probably not remain friends with those women for long.  So, men, if you want better women, you need to be a better man first.  If you take control, women will follow.  Maybe not every woman, but a lot will.  If you tell a woman the truth, she will take it to heart if she has any respect for you at all, even if she throws a fit.

I once knew a young guy who was from a very small, very conservative town.  He was the type who had sisters with rarely-cut, long, wavy hair whose idea of nice clothes were long, cotton-knit dresses with tiny flowers on them.  His upbringing was so conservative that he had been taught to stand up whenever a woman entered the room.  It was only when he came to the “big city” (population 100,000) to go to school that he discovered that this was the kind of behavior that made people stare in a bad way.  So he stopped doing it, which he semi-regretted.  One day he mentioned that he constantly had women throwing themselves at him – young, old, it didn’t matter.  They would actually tell him how attractive they found him and how much they wanted to date him.  Looking back, I can now see that this all stemmed from his impeccable masculine frame.  It’s rare to meet a man with that kind of frame, much less a very young one.  He wasn’t built.  He wasn’t particularly good-looking.  He wasn’t a snazzy dresser.  But he was so sure of himself in a quietly powerful way that women were falling at his feet.

This young guy was also a Christian, so he wasn’t having sex.  Strictly comparing him to the ex-boyfriend from the dating advice thread, he comes out inferior on paper, sex-wise.  After all, the ex-boyfriend not only got to have sex with Emmy for two years, he has now been able to convince her to house him for an indefinite length of time, and I am quite certain that if he wanted to resume having sex with Emmy, he could make it happen.  He’s about one wine bottle and a candle away from boom shaka-laka time.  But he really isn’t the more successful man, is he?

P.S.  I am not trying to say that women are not responsible for the choices they make.  Emmy got exactly what she paid for out of the relationship.  But because women are uniquely programmed to follow strong men, it behooves good men to take the lead and guide women into making good choices they might not have made on their own.

Advertisements

41 Responses to “You get what you pay for.”

  1. Ilíon August 12, 2010 at 1:26 pm #

    Can’t dispute a word of that.

  2. dalrock August 12, 2010 at 1:57 pm #

    I think Emmy’s original problem was that she dated a downtrodden beta so she could have a relationship but, after the initial “I have a boyfriend!” euphoria wore off, never felt that he was higher value than she was.

    Her problem is that she is wildly delusional about the kind of man she can attract. If this guy had any choices, he wouldn’t have moved in with princess ballbuster. Also, if a better man had been attracted to her during that two year period, certainly she would have dumped mr not-good-enough. She knows this deep down, which is why her behavior counters her words.

    But being a woman, her hindbrain (as Roissy might say) is not allowing her to make a clean, emotion-free break like an alpha male.

    I think it is a gross overstatement that women can’t act rationally. Many (most?) can, they just tend to get married, be happy, etc. So they aren’t visible in magazine articles, dating sites, etc. There are a lot more women like grerp, J, Susan Walsh etc. out there, we just don’t tend to hear from them much. Ironically the best reason a beta should learn game is to be attractive enough to move up to this higher quality of woman.

  3. grerp August 12, 2010 at 7:58 pm #

    Women can be so Misery Loves Company. It’s true, though, that it’s virtually impossible to tell another woman the truth about her disastrous choices in love in person. And even if you do, she won’t believe you because there are so many other sources, media and live, who will give her another free pass explanation.

    Two years is a long time to disrespect someone and to spend with someone you don’t respect. She should probably do a reassessment of her own assets, however. She’s probably rating herself too high.

  4. Aunt Haley August 12, 2010 at 8:10 pm #

    Women can act rationally (i.e., dispassionately), but most women usually act on their emotions. Even more so if they are not aware of this tendency. I would say that the women who don’t are generally settled in a marital relationship where the husband has clear headship.

  5. Will S. August 12, 2010 at 8:11 pm #

    “The reason that men need to be strong with women is because women cannot be strong with other women. A woman is socially obligated to tell her friend whatever it is the friend wants to hear, even if it completely contradicts reality. A woman who goes around telling unwanted truths to her female friends will probably not remain friends with those women for long.”

    Well, that raises the question: are such friends worth having?

    I’ve known several women who prefer to have guys as friends (not that I recommend this, because I don’t) because of how catty or superficial most women they’ve known are. I even knew a lesbian who had this way of thinking, and said she was having trouble finding a nice girl to settle down with, because most of her fellow lesbians in the area were man-hating butch dykes, who couldn’t understand how she enjoyed hanging out with, fishing, and drinking with her straight male buddies, rather than hating them like her fellow dykes did.

    If women would shame other women who only chase alphas then bash all men afterwards when their hearts are broken, it would likely become less common. Then we could have progress.

  6. Aunt Haley August 12, 2010 at 8:12 pm #

    She should probably do a reassessment of her own assets, however. She’s probably rating herself too high.

    I would say that most of the single women on this particular board – at least the ones who post in the dating thread – tend to rate themselves too highly. They’re Roissy’s stereotypical professional women who believe that their intellect, education, and/or job entitles them to high quality men despite their being overweight or not all that pretty.

  7. dalrock August 12, 2010 at 9:15 pm #

    But because women are uniquely programmed to follow strong men, it behooves good men to take the lead and guide women into making good choices they might not have made on their own.

    Even Roissy and company don’t claim to be able to talk a woman down from an entitlement complex. They know how to break through it or use it to their advantage, but not how to make her see the light.

    Perhaps more importantly, why should a man learn game to try to reform such an awful person? Once he learns game, he should go find a nice non delusional one instead. Let the omegas chase after the ones with entitlement complexes. They need love too.

  8. Cane Caldo August 13, 2010 at 10:39 am #

    Wouldn’t using the guy be rational? I find women to be excruciatingly rational in the immediate. It’s internalized morals–principles–they tend to lack.

  9. Cane Caldo August 13, 2010 at 10:43 am #

    “Perhaps more importantly, why should a man learn game to try to reform such an awful person?”

    Because sometimes men love those women. Grace is sublime.

  10. Cane Caldo August 13, 2010 at 11:02 am #

    “Strictly comparing him to the ex-boyfriend from the dating advice thread, he comes out inferior on paper, sex-wise. After all, the ex-boyfriend not only got to have sex with Emmy for two years, he has now been able to convince her to house him for an indefinite length of time, and I am quite certain that if he wanted to resume having sex with Emmy, he could make it happen. He’s about one wine bottle and a candle away from boom shaka-laka time. But he really isn’t the more successful man, is he?”

    Even on paper the Christian man is winning because he’s having exactly as much sex as he chooses. Mr. Feminist serves at his mistress’ whim. This is the point Game philosophy should reach, but from which it always diverts. Relationships aren’t about high scores, but of hitting your bet. Going Nil is a good strategy.

  11. Aunt Haley August 13, 2010 at 11:10 am #

    Well, that raises the question: are such friends worth having?

    Sometimes. Women can have a lot of great qualities that are not negated by one bad one.

  12. Aunt Haley August 13, 2010 at 11:12 am #

    dalrock, I wasn’t talking specifically about entitlement complexes. There’s a difference between someone who is arrogantly delusional and someone who might make bad choices but for the gentle but firm intervention of someone who cares about her.

  13. dalrock August 13, 2010 at 11:20 am #

    Good distinction. I thought you were talking about the woman who complained about her boyfriend for 2 years, not another group of women. This makes more sense now.

    For the category you are talking about, a man with good game could find them to be good LTR material. But I wouldn’t advise marrying a woman who couldn’t control her own choices. There are too many opportunities for them to screw up, with disastrous results for the man, his wife, and most of all his kids. Better to steer clear of the helpless kind altogether.

  14. Will S. August 13, 2010 at 1:57 pm #

    Oh, I agree; I meant avoiding the ones to whom you have to tell only the things they want to hear.

  15. Aunt Haley August 13, 2010 at 7:38 pm #

    Character matters, for sure. But women can be surprisingly malleable in the hands of the right man.

  16. Lover of Wisdom August 14, 2010 at 2:43 pm #

    This is off topic, but what do you guys think is the female viewpoint on prenuptial agreements? Will feminists take a radically different viewpoint from the average female?

  17. Aunt Haley August 14, 2010 at 4:00 pm #

    This is a good topic for a future post. (Thanks for the inspiration.)

  18. jack August 15, 2010 at 7:56 am #

    Haley-

    Your comment about women overrating themselves is why I hit the topic so hard over on boundless. As I pointed out, it seems to me that the default position of most women is that the majority of men are not good enough for them whether based on looks, status, or whatever.

    To beat the drum again, I will say that the problem is that young women are very misinformed about the difference between their short-term and long-term value.

    The problem is that high-status men have no problem having a group of female orbiters, all vying for his attention. The high-status guy does not mind playing flavor-of-the-month with a lot of girls, who then get their hearts broken. They mistake his willingness to take them for a test-drive for actual long-term potential.

    I think that if you showed the average 25-year-old girl what guys are ACTUALLY available to her for marriage, they would make the trademark pickle-face and run away. They have spent too much time dreaming up their own fantasy man, with the full cooperation of Hollywood and MTV.

    The problem for guys like me is that after they have tasted the tingling goodness of attention from a man who is above their long-term potential, they view their rightful counterpart as “settling”.

    This is not the foundation for a loving marriage. The analogy I have used before is that of the Israelites in the desert. God had to wait for a generation to die off before they entered the promised land. They did not starve or die of thirst, they were provided for, but they only saw a glimpse of what they could have had.

    And for believing the lie of popular culture and forsaking Godly principles with regard to marriage and dating, this generation (or two) of younger people will see the glory of Godly marriage, but will not likely participate in it.

    That does not mean that ALL deserve to. But the righteous often suffer along with the wicked when it comes to generational sin.

    So where is your husband? Perhaps off playing flavor-of-the-month with some girl.

    My wife? She probable spent her youth and virtue on men who “wouldn’t commit”, and is now lost to me.

  19. tannen August 16, 2010 at 3:09 pm #

    Astute comment Jack. Browsing the profiles on Christian Cafe for a few months seems to confirms this for many the women. Boundless type self help books have been peddling this dating advice to single girls for years.

    Briefly, the ideal Christian husband is a reformed rake, maybe in need of further reforming (by her). He might also be well on his way to earthly evangelical perfection. Attributes include but are not limited to:

    *Social dominance (“servant” leadership position in congregation)
    *an exciting, maybe shady past (depending on the woman)
    *always devastatingly handsome, min 6′ tall
    *nattily dressed at all times
    *showers her with attention and gifts
    *Virgin but paradoxically highly skilled in the sack
    *bare minimum high 6 fig investment portfolio
    *applies tactical violence when needed (fights rarely, but is good at it.)
    *knows more theology than she does but not too much.
    *may play in worship band
    *his job and extended family raise her status
    *wants to do mission work overseas or has done so already.

    I just look at these and think I’ll never reach this apex, so why bother. What’s wrong with a steady job and home, no STDs, virgin and content with the role I have in church now?

    The ideal listed above exists only Christian romance novels and not reality. Men are shamed for having any standards at all but not the other way around.

    In the end our role is not to achieve evangelical happiness but to be Christ to other people in the hope that they might come to the knowledge of the Truth. Isn’t that what the Bible teaches us?

  20. Koanic August 17, 2010 at 1:02 am #

    Honestly, guys, this pathetic whining just demonstrates your core betaness that is the real reason you aren’t getting tail, in church or out of it.

    All you really need to succeed sexually in church is a little game, and perhaps a little strategic hypocrisy. No different than most social milieus, except the ratio of gaming men to females makes it significantly easier.

  21. jack August 17, 2010 at 6:30 am #

    How is game going to restore some girl’s chastity?

    Way too many of them gave given it up for a couple guys before Mr. Beta+game can get to them.

    I don’t care if a girl has pined for a few alphas before she marries me, that is just a fact of biology.

    I resent it when she sleeps with those guys in an attempt to get them to “commit”. Then she “settles” for a grateful beta ™ later.

    Seriously – call it whining all you like, I am not ashamed of calling out bad female behavior for what it is. I’m not lacking opportunities for sex – I’m lacking a chaste woman to marry.

  22. Aunt Haley August 17, 2010 at 10:31 am #

    Jack, if you’re going to complain in every comment you post that there are no virgins available for you to marry – WHICH IS NOT TRUE – I’m going to stick your posts in moderation until you figure out how to contribute to conversation instead of whine all the time. Consider this your first and last warning.

  23. jack August 17, 2010 at 4:32 pm #

    Interesting response.

  24. ThinkingMan August 18, 2010 at 7:17 am #

    Koanic,

    Not everyone wants a slut masquerading as a good girl. We’ll leave those for you. Me? I don’t want someone who’s given more rides than the local bus service, even if she does go to church.

  25. ThinkingMan August 18, 2010 at 7:31 am #

    Aunt Haley,

    I hope you don’t think my response to Koanic was over the edge, if it was, I’ll moderate my tone in future posts. My reply to Koanic was with the specific idea he brought up about scoring sexual conquests among church women.

    I’m not suggesting that ALL women who attend church live immoral lifestyles, the opposite is closer to the truth. But there are women in church singles groups who do live lives of questionable integrity, just as there are men.

  26. Koanic August 20, 2010 at 9:09 am #

    Your obtuseness is astounding. I have little to no interest in sluts; I’m one of the biggest Britomart/virginity/good-girl fetishists around.

    If you think a little strategic hypocrisy doesn’t work with good girls, you’re hopelessly naive.

  27. Koanic August 20, 2010 at 9:12 am #

    Fag.

  28. Koanic August 20, 2010 at 9:19 am #

    Jack, I’m guessing that’s a passive aggressive comeback. Haley’s right.

    Here’s how to get what you want.

    1. Work on your game so you have more options by…
    2. Dating lots of seemingly eligible church girls and tell them
    3. You don’t care about their past but you want to be totally honest with each other, and “invent” a story of how you made a mistake and lost your virginity…
    4. If she then tells you she’s not a virgin, dump her, gain points for cruelty, and move to the next girl in line.

    I will cease to take you seriously unless you implement this or give good reasons why not.

  29. Cane Caldo August 20, 2010 at 9:51 am #

    You don’t truly understand how that works. In my experience single church girls are very sisterly.

    1. That ruse will work once or twice because the first phonecall duped girl makes is to a friend–to “share in love”–what went down. Further sharing will ensue geometrically.

    2. Cruelty doesn’t earn points with very many women; only the outright vindictive and evil ones. While dumping her may work, it’s as a DHV despite the cruelty, not because of it.

  30. Cane Caldo August 20, 2010 at 9:53 am #

    I don’t know hardly any non-feminist females. They all think they should be able to vote.

  31. Aunt Haley August 20, 2010 at 9:56 am #

    Knock it off.

  32. Koanic August 20, 2010 at 1:42 pm #

    Well yeah you would need multiple churchian social circles or lots of time to pull this off, as the numbers went up. But both are readily available.

  33. Koanic August 20, 2010 at 1:47 pm #

    Sorry, I meant “beta.”

    ThinkingMan wrongly assumes that by sexually successful I mean consummated flings with sincere Christian women. To pursue such an objective would put one in danger of hellfire, and I would never recommend or pursue such an objective.

  34. tannen August 22, 2010 at 1:11 am #

    Ahh, a recipe for a happy marriage.

  35. white and nerdy August 22, 2010 at 12:31 pm #

    Your comment about women overrating themselves is why I hit the topic so hard over on boundless.

    Jack you are right. Keep on hitting on the topic on Boundless. Your detractors are just afraid of a man speaking the truth.

  36. J September 18, 2010 at 2:27 pm #

    There are a lot more women like grerp, J, Susan Walsh etc. out there, we just don’t tend to hear from them much. Ironically the best reason a beta should learn game is to be attractive enough to move up to this higher quality of woman.

    High praise, Dalrock. Thanks!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. I Sing the Body Electric – Part 6 « Hidden Leaves - August 13, 2010

    […] are foolish. Masculinity has always been in style, it has always been desirable. Moreover, the less prevalent it becomes in popular culture, the more it will make the ladies swoon. Be action and power. 6 The […]

  2. Word Around the Campfire – the Hungover edition « Hidden Leaves - August 14, 2010

    […] Aunt Haley: The perfect storm (stealth date follow-up). and You get what you pay for. […]

  3. Linkage is Good for You: White is Right Edition (NSFW) - August 15, 2010

    […] Aunt Haley – “You Get What You Pay For.” […]

  4. The timeless appeal of the reformed rake. « Haley's Halo - August 18, 2010

    […] rakes never go out of style – because they have always been in style.  (Also note that Diana dutifully tells Anne what she wants to hear in order to preserve the friendship – even though Anne’s story went against what Diana saw as […]

  5. Why is the marriage deck stacked against women? | Dalrock - September 18, 2010

    […] are far more likely to be the ones to initiate divorce.  These poor women are forced to marry men who are beneath them.  While I have to give the patriarchal conspirators their due for this diabolical plan, I think it […]

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