Abbottcallmost

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Something that fits with game

Posted on 6:31 PM by Unknown
I was browsing through an online personal advice column and came across a post from a young woman which fits in well with some of the ideas put out by those who practise "game".

Her post is reproduced below:

My boyfriend is too nice - the guy flirting with me is macho - what shall I do?

My boyfriend is super nice, I really like him. He treats me well, gives me gifts every now and then (but not too often, so I still really look forward to them), does a whole lot of fun things with me and shows me things I never knew about. And he's always there for me...I really enjoy the long conversations with him in the evening. And I have to admit, the sex with him is great.

The guy flirting with me is the image of what a man should be...strong, the leader amongst his friends and at work, daring, extremely charming and funny. When I begin to be bitchy he just says "Sweety, come here, sit on my lap" in a commanding tone that is also really tender. I would follow him blindly everywhere, as he knows what he wants.

My girlfriend believes he is one of those men who takes part in the Coke ads. I'm not sleeping with him, I would separate from my boyfriend before that would happen. Of course he attempts to do so, but I'm remaining consistent even though I'm turned on.

I no longer know what I want. I know that men like my boyfriend make women happy in the long run and don't only hang around for a short affair. But since I've been in contact with the guy flirting with me, I can't value my boyfriend as much as before.

What shall I do?

Obviously this girl is not following a traditional morality here. I found her post interesting because it shows the dilemma that seems to be part of the romantic life of many women. Many women are drawn to a kind of man (in gamespeak the "alpha" male) who is unlikely to commit to them in the long-run.

Note though that this particular woman seems to know the score. She knows that the flirty alpha guy isn't likely to be the one to make her happy in the long run - her boyfriend is. In a different kind of society, one in which a stable relationship would bring a woman an important measure of material security, respectability, independence from her parents, and a father for her children, then the boyfriend would have a much stronger hand than he has in today's society.

The sexual revolution has altered the balance in favour of the "alpha" male.

It's interesting too that the woman's true feelings, as revealed in her post, are so far removed from what feminists believe about relationships. Feminists often tell men that they need to cultivate a kind of androgynous egalitarianism to appeal to women. In this feminist take on relationships, any problems can be solved by men doing more of the housework. But what this particular woman wants is not a harmlessly domesticated man, but a man who takes even her worst moods in his stride, who is a leader, who knows what he wants, as well as being charming and funny.

The gamists often claim, and it might well be true, that the ideal man for a woman would be what they sometimes call a "lesser alpha" or a "higher beta" - in other words, a man who combines the qualities of this woman's boyfriend, including an ability to commit, with some of the qualities of the "alpha" - such as the confidence in dealing with a woman's moods and an ability to lead rather than to supplicate.

And what did this woman choose eventually to do? She left a note in the discussion thread later on to announce:

I've come to a decision. I told the flirty guy that although he is charming there's nothing lasting that can come of it. And that the whole episode has been more about my ego than about him. I believe that sometimes you have to think according to reason. We women always go for these player men, but if I had gone along with it the end result would have been losing my boyfriend for an adventure.

I'm happy again.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home
View mobile version

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • We're breaking the mould
    I had a go at completing a political compass that supposedly tells you where you fit on the political spectrum. As I suspected the compass c...
  • A new party in Germany
    The breaking up of political orthodoxy is a good thing for us. So I was interested to read that a new German party, the Alternative for Ge...
  • A new blog: Upon Hope
    It's always pleasing to be able to announce a new traditionalist blog. The latest is called Upon Hope and is being run by a Melbourne t...
  • What are the liberal advantages?
    The liberal team has done better than our team over a long period of time. Therefore, we have to carefully consider where they have managed ...
  • Lawrence Auster
    Sadly news has arrived of the passing on of Lawrence Auster. Laura Wood has written a fine tribute to him at her site. I can't write as...
  • Stay at home dads still barely register
    There are not many fathers in the U.S. who are choosing to be stay at home dads. If you look at the graph below you'll see that the numb...
  • The Senate race in Australia
    An article in The Age has reignited my interest in the forthcoming Australian elections. It seems that the smaller parties have done prefe...
  • How is history made?
    When I write a post describing a positive political strategy or some political work that is happening on the ground I often get comments tha...
  • Attractive architecture by Lutyens
    Here's a place I wouldn't mind owning. It was built in 1902 at Thakeham, West Sussex, and designed by the famous English architect S...
  • Enjoyable meeting
    We had another get together of the Eltham Traditionalists last week. Once again we had a new face and the conversation was very engaging (s...

Categories

  • Aborigines (2)
  • administrative class (1)
  • Africa (1)
  • Andrew Bolt (2)
  • architecture (8)
  • arts (17)
  • atomised individual (2)
  • authenticity (2)
  • authority (1)
  • autonomy (14)
  • Brandis (4)
  • business (1)
  • caritas (1)
  • choice (1)
  • Christianity (5)
  • classical liberalism (1)
  • common good (1)
  • connectedness (2)
  • cosmic enemy (1)
  • creative spirit (2)
  • Cultural Marxism (1)
  • dehumanisation (1)
  • delayed family formation (17)
  • diversity (3)
  • divorce (1)
  • domestic violence (4)
  • drugs (1)
  • economic man (3)
  • economy (1)
  • education (1)
  • essences (8)
  • ethnic double standard (5)
  • ethnicity (19)
  • European Union (3)
  • existentialism (1)
  • fatherhood (4)
  • femininity (8)
  • feminism (4)
  • feminism and autonomy (2)
  • feminism and equal pay (7)
  • feminism and fertility (1)
  • feminism and military (7)
  • feminism and separatism (1)
  • feminism and work (4)
  • film review (2)
  • France (2)
  • gender (37)
  • happiness (1)
  • Hegel (1)
  • history (1)
  • human nature (1)
  • human status (1)
  • identity (6)
  • immigration (3)
  • immigration and the economy (1)
  • inclusiveness (1)
  • individuality (3)
  • justice (1)
  • left liberalism (13)
  • liberalism and discrimination (3)
  • liberalism and equality (4)
  • liberalism and freedom (9)
  • liberalism and individualism (9)
  • liberalism and nationalism (20)
  • liberalism and neutrality (3)
  • liberalism and non-discrimination (2)
  • liberalism and social solidarity (7)
  • liberalism and tolerance (3)
  • love (3)
  • male income (2)
  • marriage (16)
  • masculinity (6)
  • men's rights (2)
  • misanthropy (1)
  • morality (18)
  • motherhood (11)
  • multiculturalism (4)
  • music (2)
  • nationalism (3)
  • nihilism (2)
  • nominalism (1)
  • ontology (1)
  • paid leave (3)
  • patriarchy theory (3)
  • philosophy (1)
  • poetry (2)
  • polygamy (1)
  • pride (3)
  • privilege (10)
  • progress (1)
  • provider role (1)
  • rationalisation hamster (1)
  • rationalism (1)
  • reason & truth (1)
  • reductionism (2)
  • refugees (3)
  • relationships (16)
  • religion (21)
  • right liberalism (26)
  • rights (1)
  • same sex marriage (3)
  • Scandinavia (12)
  • science and gender (1)
  • scientism (1)
  • sexual liberation (3)
  • sexual morality (4)
  • sexuality (1)
  • social offices (1)
  • songs (1)
  • the family (25)
  • the good (1)
  • the Other (1)
  • the past (1)
  • timing (2)
  • traditionalist community (1)
  • traditionalist conservatism (1)
  • trivial aims (4)
  • undefined family (2)
  • virtues (5)
  • welfare (1)
  • whiteness studies (7)
  • women priests (1)

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (186)
    • ►  September (12)
    • ►  August (24)
    • ►  July (29)
    • ►  June (24)
    • ►  May (19)
    • ►  April (19)
    • ►  March (21)
    • ►  February (16)
    • ►  January (22)
  • ▼  2012 (225)
    • ►  December (15)
    • ►  November (14)
    • ►  October (20)
    • ►  September (19)
    • ►  August (18)
    • ►  July (20)
    • ►  June (19)
    • ►  May (19)
    • ►  April (27)
    • ▼  March (19)
      • Melbourne Archbishop takes a stand
      • What do feminists want for women?
      • Rick Santorum: a principled critic of liberalism?
      • Don't be that guy
      • The soaring Ulm Minster
      • The intersexed Christ
      • Here comes Eastern liberalism
      • Jesse on sweating out the left
      • Alex the Swede hurts badly because...
      • Why seek out dangerous men?
      • The Rendell controversy
      • The Lynne Featherstone definition of marriage
      • Advantage China
      • Troubling signs in the U.S.
      • Eltham traditionalists update
      • Apple doesn't like the word "wife"
      • Anna Smajdor: pregnancy is unjust
      • A liberal ethicist believes babies are not persons
      • Something that fits with game
    • ►  February (14)
    • ►  January (21)
  • ►  2011 (89)
    • ►  December (25)
    • ►  November (15)
    • ►  October (17)
    • ►  September (17)
    • ►  August (15)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile