1. The revamp of Beavis and Butthead wherein they pan shows like Jersey Shore, et al, is probably something that I will watch. I don't know why. Raincoat Jed likes to send me links to things that spark my interest, like anything that involves the quote,“If they did this chart long enough, they could find out how herpes began.” 2. I don't know if it's because I'm getting older, but apparently my body hates corn chips like Godzilla movies hate continuity.
3. I noticed that someone posted a link tothis gem:
Pamela Paul at The Times observes: 'As Gibb would have it, the princesses are passive innocents and unaware of the spell – sleepdancing, as it were. They can be rescued only by the handsome young cobbler, Pip, who toils away mending their worn-out shoes. This ends — can you guess? – in a joyous wedding between Pip and the princess Poppy. “And, of course, they all lived happily ever after.” Very attractively, though inactively, so.'
I find it quite telling that sex and violence have been removed from these tales but stereotypes about women remain a kosher part of storytelling. There may no graphic scenes in these picture books but children learning that “passive” princesses can only be rescued from spells by a “handsome young cobbler” is just as damaging. Revamp indeed. Reads like the same old trajectory to me."
First of all, I’ve read the original “Twelve Dancing Princesses.” It is quite possible that it’s been “softened” because there’s not many parents who want to read a story to their daughters about a bunch of chicks who sneak out to party every night. This does not bespeak sexism.
In fact, it looks an awful lot like:
Yeah, that stamp? It may show up a lot.
As another (female) commenter put it:
“So…you wanted them to actually tell a different story? Should only the aggressive princesses have been saved? Should they have scorned the man, and belittled him, before declaring him worthless and then rescuing themselves? Perhaps the prince should have been nerdy and sensitive and passive to his ball-busting career princess, maybe even changing HIS last name this time around? Don’t you think you’re reaching a little to find the insult in this? What kind of damage does this cause again? Let me get this straight: you believe this encourages little girls to believe that passivity is required in order to win the affections of a handsome man…which is wrong…but you wouldn’t assume that this story teaches little girls that magic spells are real, right?? Why does it teach one concept, but not the other? Why not assume that little girls would learn that dancing is bad because you have to be rescued from it? Why wouldn’t they assume that the story is telling them that dancing is fun, and handsome men are lame for interrupting?? Its just so arbitrary to assume that ALL little girls will discern THAT particular message from a story. Let’s just re-write all books. That way no one’s feelings will be hurt. Like the Third Reict (sp). Any and all stories and books that portray the women as anything less than demi-gods worthy of only the highest respect must be altered or destroyed, along with the authors. Let’s start with the Bible. Then we’ll move on to Shakespeare. After that we’ll change all the history books.”
Second, I love Grimm Fairytales (the originals) because they're so dark and frankly weird. Theoriginal Rapunzel, for instance, has Rapunzel getting knocked up by the prince (mazel tov, it's twins). The witch comes back, throws Rapunzel out and blinds the prince. They're separated for a while, but Rapunzel is the one who finds him later (along with their kids) and restores his sight. Then they live happily ever after. If there's a moral to that story, it's that you have to go through a lot of bullshit in order to get your share of happiness; and let's face it, if you tell your kids that when they're young, it'll come as much less of a surprise later.
If the author of articles like this and the one at the Times is going to cherrypick just one story here and there that they think depicts a princess or two as too "passive" as being sexist, then it's not just reaching, it's bad reporting. If there's a parent out there who really finds the more modern, sanitized fairy tales to be so offensive, then just read your kids the originals.
By the way, theoriginal Grimm's Brothers version of the Pied Piper has the townspeople refusing to pay the piper after he rids the town of rats. So he plays a different tune and leads all their children dancing away into a mountain, whereupon they are never seen again. Vengeance complete, the piper presumably goes on his merry way while the parents wail in grief.
Now, I'd probably read a toddler something about dancing princesses simply because small children just don't analyze things the way adults do. You know why? 'Cause anything that poops itself and likes Barney is not, I repeat not, going to be lecturing in Oxford about the intricacies of literature any time soon.
But I guess if you prefer fairy tales to teach your kids the fine principles of "an eye for an eye and possibly also a leg just to be thorough," then, you know, you have options. Original fairy tales, Rambo movies, religion.
When the children hear about Jesus and how lovin' and carin' he was . . . how he gave his all to God's children and how it got him nailed to a tree, it will be amazin' to see whose eyes light up with hope and whose burn with newfound survival instincts. --Fred MacIntire, Something Positive
Speaking of S*P, Milholland also didthis awesome take on Sleeping Beauty. Also, by quoting his characters and linking to stuff he’s done that I think is cool, I’m not saying that he shares any of my opinions or that I actually know him in any way. Do not pester the Randy just ‘cause of this blog, OK thank you. Though he replied to me once on Twitter and it totally made my day ‘cause he’s awesome.
Note: If anyone gives a crap about what the rapunzel plant is, it’s an old name for Rampion (Campanula rapunculus), which is apparently a sort of salad green.
So hello! Today I have a little helping of WTF for you. As opposed to all the other ones dealing with WTF and WTF byproducts. And I have been told recently that my tendency to be longwinded is “cute,” so this post has got to be adorable.
"Do you find yourself attracted again and again to troubled, distant, moody men -- while "nice guys" seem boring? Do you obsess over men who are emotionally unavailable, addicted to work, hobbies, alcohol, or other women? Do you neglect your friends and your own interests to be immediately available to him? Do you feel empty without him, even though being with him is torment?"
This is from the Amazon.com description of a book titled, “Women Who Love Too Much.” They recommended this to me, theoretically because they have discovered that I do tend to go for the dark, moody/otherwise stable nice guy type. Then again, they also used to recommend me vibrators, knives, and books on taxidermy, so clearly they know what I do on Friday nights.* This is a joke. If you did not think it was a joke, then I weep for you.* *Lie.
First of all, if you need a book to tell you that your emotionally unavailable work addicted alcoholic cheating boyfriend/husband/whatever should perhaps not cause you to neglect your friends and interests in favor of being around for him all the time and that you are also dangerously emotionally codependent, stop reading. Go kill yourself. Do it now. For Jesus. Because he is disgusted with you. If Jesus were here right now, he would slap you across the face and call you a dumbass.* *Blatant lie. Theoretically. I mean, it’s not like he didn’t raise his most holy pimp hand to those little punk money-lenders in the temple. There’s a precedent here. (Upon reading the draft of this blog, my friend Dustin remarked, “Then they'd fall madly in love with him because there's nothing crazy bitches like more than a husband who beats them.”)
How in the hell are there still women (and men) that do this? I grant you, we all got raised with the Beauty & the Beast archetype, and not the relatively cool one with Ron Perlman.
This guy made fantasy soap operas cool for like 3 years, which is longer than anyone else has done ever.
But the whole underlying plot of the original Beauty and the Beast is that there’s basically this prince who was a huge prick, so he got turned into a beast--essentially, that whole “now the outside matches the inside, muwhahaha” thing. You’d think that would be sort of a warning to Belle, but noooo. No, she goes through the initial “Oh my God why are you keeping me prisoner here” thing (totally her father’s fault), at which point the Beast makes a couple token attempts to not be a dick. In the original story, these attempts were not aided by talking cutlery. Then Belle decides that there’s more to the Beast that she initially thought, and then it becomes this whole episode of her being patient and kind in the hopes that he will change. Luckily, he does; which theoretically means that he also decided that she didn’t look like a tasty little meat snack, what with him being a beast and all. As a result, he falls madly in love with her and all her patience and kindness is rewarded by him turning into a handsome prince. It is presumed that they lived out the rest of their days in his castle, very much in love and probably traumatizing Chip by doing the freaky in every room.
He’s trying to smile but he’s seen too much and now he's dead inside. SO CUTE
How often does that play out in real life, though? In real life, the guy who is consistently an asshole to you is, provided he’s not just having a streak of consecutive bad days, actually an asshole. Shocking, I know. Yet there is someone somewhere who decided, much like the other eleven billion self-help book authors like them, that women really can’t figure this out on their own and they need help.
Are enough women really that blind that they need a book?
‘Pop stars such as Rihanna and Britney talk about empowering women, but by dressing up in stockings and rubber bodices while dancing provocatively they are pandering to a male fantasy.’ --Louise O’Connell, beauty editor forGlamour UK.
The above quote is from an article on Yahoo! Lifestyle titled, “Why I’m a feminist.” Now, I don’t wholly disagree with the article. It’s true that once in a while, you will run up against some incredibly awful attitudes based entirely around your gender. It’s also true that women in the US can do nearly everything and anything they like, which is good. However, attempting to explain away looking like a prat with the excuse of “I’m empowered” is a cop out. It also makes women look stupid. So thanks a lot, all you pop-tarts out there.
Being judged according to different ideals according to gender is nothing new. This happens to both (or all three, if you like) genders. However, part of the “dirty connotation” in the word “feminist” is due entirely to the effects of radical feminism, the winding tentacles of which are why we still have those unusually irritating self-proclaimed feminists who react to what are basicallynormal relationship dynamics like demons toholy waterthrown by the Winchester brothers.
❦In every society, there are groups that are reviled.
In the LBGT community, Transgender individuals may not be as accepted. In the straight community, they may be ostracized. In both, they may be viewed as novelties or as living sex toys.
In areas of countries like Afghanistan or India, thepractice of child brides is still in heavy swing. Often, these girls may experience severe injuries from being raped by their new husbands on their wedding nights, or even death from ruptured organs. They may be as young as 5 in some cases.
Most cases of domestic abuse involvebattered women and children. A whopping 40% involvesbattered men, shattering the idea that only men are the aggressors in abuse. Yet women are pretty likely to get away with it if they are the abusers simply because they’re female and society views them as basically harmless, or at least more docile and therefore more likely to be a victim.
Women and childrenlead in statistics for being victims of rape. However,it is a myththat men do not also get raped, but this is a fact that is largely ignored.
❦The article poses this question: ‘Do you believe men and women are equal?’
For the most part, yes. But I don’t think that they’re interchangeable. The fact is, you can’t claim that men have a monopoly on oppression when women will do the same thing. For instance, you can’t claim that men are inherently more likely to harm their children when “women—who commit less than 13 percent of all violent crimes in the United States—commit about 50 percent of all parental murders.” In addition, “women who kill their children in this country are disproportionately hospitalized or treated, while men who do so are disproportionately jailed, even executed.” I could make a reference to the Casey Anthony trial here, but frankly, I’m sick of that idiot.
Point being, believing that men are women are equal does make you a feminist, but only by definition. The basic feminist ideology that started with the Suffrage movement (of which my great-grandmother, when she was my age, worked tirelessly to promote and had the great honor of seeing come to fruition in her lifetime) is usually misused. Modern, or radical feminism, is a political ideology rather than a personal one. It is not usually based in reality. And further, it often deals with paper tigers rather than actual issues. For instance, it’s perfectly fine for radical feminists to rant about how women get stared at or catcalled or groped on the street, butfemale circumcision* in another country? Honor killings? Forced prostitution? Human trafficking? They don’t often care, usually because complaining about it would mean that we, the big bad West, were being inconsiderate and not understanding another culture. *I know Wikipedia is a crap source, but they have a lot of links in that one--and besides, it summarizes.
If you want to be a true feminist, you have to champion causes for both genders. You can’t judge the man who cheats on his wife more harshly than the woman who cheats on her husband. You can’t execute the father who killed his kid while the mother who committed the same crime only gets treatment. You can’t react to women being liberated from the Taliban bysending mostly makeup. You can’t ignore male victims of abuse and rape simply because they’re male. You can’t claim that abortion is only a woman’s issue when itinvolves both genders. Welcome to equality.
❦I was going to include this in a different blog, but something that caught my eye recently was an article someone posted on Facebook, which unfortunately I did not bookmark and I’m refusing to go looking for out of stubbornness. The article involves the author talking about how, if women were not oppressed, the terms “femme” or “girly” would not be applied in a pejorative term to boys. The author then went on to say that the reason these terms were used is because society believes that being female is inherently “wrong” and lesser than being male.
Now, I don’t disagree that human sexuality is extremely diverse and is more difficult to classify for some people than others (ie, thegender binary may not apply to everyone, though it applies to me). I certainly don’t disagree with the idea that men naturally have a feminine side and women naturally have a male side--and both of these may come out in interests, mannerisms, etc. Considering that I’m typing this with my legs crossed like a man (ankle on knee) and had my hair cut short for years out of stubbornness (I’ve only recently grown it past my shoulders again), I’m no exception.
However, the idea that calling a boy “girly” means that being a girl is wrong would make more sense if the terms “butch” or “bull dyke” didn’t exist. Implying that a woman is unfeminine carries the connotation that male qualities are undesirable in women, essentially the old “I don’t like peas to touch my mashed potatoes” argument, but applied to gender and behavior. Things overlap to a degree. They always have, and they always will.
Plus, some guys really do look like girls. And my God, have you ever seen Helen Thomas?
NOTE: This blog was co-written with an alarmingly smart guy, who for what I’m describing as lulzy purposes wants to go by the moniker of “Raincoat Jed.” His argument for this handle is that “[Black] raincoats are actually better [than trenchcoats] because then you can go around perving even when it's raining out.” I then reestablished myself as an awful, awful person by making up a limerick:
No bomber jacket, no plain trench, but a black raincoat carefully chosen For length of hem and camouflage, for dramatic reveals most unwelcome Weather is of no matter with the preparations that now come to light Neither rain nor shine nor dark of night will keep the peen from others' sight. ON TO THE BLOG
I clicked on another Exmormon.org topic and was greeted with this thread. The initial topic has some solid points; Mormons do tend to get angry about teens being given birth control, though I have not personally run across any who were mad about a cure for HIV. However...
“Think about abortion, for example. These folks *pretend* it's all about being " ‘pro life’. But if you know their views on capital punishment, and social safety-net programs for poor or underage mothers, you quickly surmise it isn't about life at all. It's about punishing a woman for her ‘slutty’ behavior by making sure she has to deal with the consequences.” What. “that's very true. it's all about punishing the sinner and her child. no other rational is possible. If you are going to force her to carry the baby to term, then you have to provide services. To not do so is just being plain vindictive.”
Excuse me?
Well, aren’t we full of high-and-mighty today, O Exmormon posts?
It takes a very small mind to think that: 1. Capital punishment and abortion are somehow linked, or that it’s hypocritical to support one but not the other. 2. Services must be provided to people who get pregnant if they are “poor.” 3. Anyone against abortion is trying to “punish a sinner.”
➻Capital Punishment vs Abortion I’ve always wondered if the people equating abortion with capital punishment--then calling everyone who opposes the former but supports the latter a hypocrite--really know what they’re saying. If it’s true that you’re a hypocrite for being pro-life and also pro-capital punishment, then it shouldn’t be difficult to see that the corollary to that is that it must also be true that if you’re anti-capital punishment and not pro-life, you’re also a hypocrite. That would make quite a lot of pro-choicers hypocrites, since many of them are against capital punishment. In reality, the issues involved in abortion and capital punishment are very different, and there is no logical reason why a person can’t support one while opposing the other, support both at the same time, or oppose both at the same time. Both issues deal with life and death in some capacity, but that’s the only similarity. A murderer is guilty of having committed a crime. A fetus is not. Most everyone can agree with the belief that criminals should be punished and that innocents should not be, and that the law has an obligation to protect innocents from physical harm from aggressors. The pro-life position is simply that the fetus is an innocent, and thus should be afforded legal protection on the basis of the aforementioned beliefs that we all already share. The pro-choicer disagrees only because he/she does not conceive of the fetus as a real person in the first place. The capital punishment debate, on the other hand, is over to what extent a convicted criminal, who everybody already agrees is both (A) a person and (B) guilty, should be punished. ➻Services Provided vs Providing For Yourself
Sometimes I think leftists must sit in total puzzlement at how women were able to raise children before the advent of the welfare state. I can’t decide whether this is more silly or less silly than accusing pro-lifers of being hypocrites for supporting capital punishment (to the extent that pro-lifers actually support capital punishment). Now, someone may say they’re wrong, but the hypocrisy charge makes no sense. Since, again, pro-lifers do not take the view that a fetus is not a person, you could charge anyone who is against the killing of dependents and also against government welfare of being a hypocrite. If you’re against a mother drowning her five-year-old and also against giving her welfare, are you a hypocrite? If you’re against a man dumping his wheelchair-bound wife off a cliff and also against giving the couple welfare are you a hypocrite? Please. ➻Punishing The Sinners
What an interesting theory. It’s like it was thought up by someone who hates religion and everything associated with it. Oh, wait. This assertion seems to be the conclusion that is reached once it is falsely determined that pro-lifers are hypocrites. It reduces the pro-life position to a kind of ruse. The reasoning is that they (pro-lifers) aren’t actually interested in the life of the fetus at all since they don’t support the nanny state and oppose the death penalty (<--Now, really, doesn’t that sound stupid?); therefore, it must be that they want to punish women for having premarital sex--or something like that. Who knows. But we know this is silly since we’ve already established that being against killing human fetuses does not logically demand that one also oppose the death penalty and embrace the entitlement culture. I’m not a hugely religious person myself. I believe in God, but I don’t trust Him in the slightest because the guy is a jerk. Point being, if someone goes off and kills their kid, I feel a certain amount of concern about this. And frankly, I don’t really like most children because I think they’re little sociopaths. And I am certainly desensitized to most blood and gore; which is why I can look at abortion photos with a relatively calm demeanor, acknowledging that I find it vile while still remaining collected. Yet I’m still anti-abortion. Being anti-abortion is not about “punishing” anyone. To arrive at the idea that preventing a woman from aborting a fetus is about “punishing” her, you must have first accepted the idea that a child is an unacceptable burden. When there are so many excellentadoption options and so many people who cannot have children who would be overjoyed to take on such a “burden,” it is hardly a punishment to wait 9 months, deliver, and give the baby the chance at a happy life that it deserves. I may be in the minority within the pro-life group in some ways. I see nothing wrong with the “morning after pill.” I see nothing wrong with birth control, or even vasectomies or tubal ligation, if that is what the person desires. If a pregnancy (such as ectopic, though there are many more examples) would endanger the life of the mother, ending the pregnancy would be an extremely sad option--but I do not believe that it should be taken off the table as an option.
But I get fairly offended at the idea that by being anti-abortion, I am against women’s rights or trying to punish anyone. Unlike my fellow ExMos, I went from being a relatively liberal Mormon to being a Republican with a slight Libertarian list, while they went from being somewhat conservative to far-left. I understand their anger and frustration with the Mormon church, but I often feel that their desire to do the total opposite than what they would have done while in the church can cause them to make choices based on emotion rather than reason, something which they rightly ridicule Mormons for.
During the 2008 election, there were many ExMo women who glorified Hillary as a “feminist” candidate, to the point that I quit the Yahoo! Exmormon group. Many also glorified Obama for his skin color, citing their reasons as being that the Mormon church is disrespectful towards people of color (often true). However, turning your life into a sort of revenge based on hating all things conservative is, at least to me, a poor choice. Note: “These Three Things” by Type O Negative was written by Steele after, from what I hear, a longtime girlfriend found herself pregnant with his (rumored gender) son. She had an abortion, (rumored to have been) without his knowledge. Being a kind, gentle man who loved children, he was crushed when he eventually found out and penned the song for “Dead Again,” their last (and unfortunately final) album, referring to abortion in an interview later as “killing angels.” I would not want to give the impression that I don’t think that it took some serious balls to put that song out there or imply that I do not greatly admire Peter for writing it--or indeed, greatly admire him in general-- by not placing it as the embedded video for this post and instead as a link. I have chosen to embed the following song by The Cranberries instead simply because even a year after Peter passing away, seeing a Type O video, a picture, discussing him in detail, or unexpectedly hearing the music gives me a very harsh emotional jolt. Please enjoy the music.
You know, I'm admittedly not a feminist. I am fond of saying that I love feminism, but hate feminists. The basic idea of women and men being equals is fine with me. It's how that idea gets corrupted that pisses me off. Case in point, the Alpha VS Beta philosophy. Now, I gave this stuff a chance a while back. It was fine for a while, then it went bad. Live and learn.
While browsing Exmormon.org’s forum again, I found a link to this gem: LDS Alpha. Now, I get it. Like I said, I have had this point of view explained to me. It’s very convincing when explained to you by someone who approaches it from the same point of view as a missionary: emphasize the good parts and leave out the horse pucky so you can stumble all over it yourself much later. It’s a good method, in a way; it allows you to feel like an idiot for believing it in the first place without having it pointed out to you.
There’s couple of things that I would, in all fairness, consider valid on this guy's blog. For instance, I totally agree that men will marry a hot woman regardless of her intelligence or personality. Of course, then they’ll whine that she’s dumb and has no personality later, and chicks like me will laugh. Hysterically. We will also make fun of these guys. Mercilessly. We’ll also never date them ourselves, because they’re morons--and who wants to be with a moron? (The fact that the post I just linked to was written by some other Mormon guy and then posted on the LDS Alpha blog is intentional. I said it was on his blog. I never said it was content that he’d written himself that was valid.)
In this case, I ran across a recent post of LDSA’s that made me stop and re-read it. Then I laughed, a little hesitantly, and read it again. Then I sighed heavily and let the rage rise. So let’s examine this little gem, shall we?
So, you asked her out and she said, “Yes.” Now what? Most guys follow a set routine on a first date that marks them as total Beta chumps. On average girls go on more dates than guys so, they go on the same routine over and over and over. Guys who avoid these major mistakes are ahead of 95% of all other guys in the world.
...Really. I can understand the idea behind “Do something different,” but the “Beta chumps” bullcrap is ominous.
The first mistake is dinner. DO NOT TAKE HER TO A NICE DINNER! DO NOT PAY FOR IT! Guys think that they should show off their ability to choose some trendy place to eat. They then want to show off their ability to provide by paying. Guys remember: Beta Provider=Chump. Paying for girls and throwing money around only marks you as Beta.
DO NOT DATE THIS MAN! DO NOT PASS UP THE CHANCE TO KICK HIM IN THE BALLS! Women think that men should show off their ability to not be assholes by actually paying for the food when they ask a woman out to dinner. Guys, remember: Not Being An Asshole = Second Date. Paying for the dinner marks you as someone that doesn’t have the intelligence of a particularly idiotic piece of cheese. (And it doesn’t have to be trendy or expensive, but apparently no one told this guy. But if possible, it should not be any place that has a drive-thru. Ever.)
In the modern world younger women earn far more money than men. This means that she can afford to eat and does not need to rely on you for food.
Interesting. Because speaking as a younger woman, you can shove that theory right up your lying ass. I barely make more money than a 19 year old Mormon Missionary. I could have more of a cash flow if I hustled pool. How many “younger women” actually make more than their male counterparts? The answer is very, very few--on account of very few people in their 20s have high-level jobs. And where is this magical land of freakish weirdness where men in their 20s and 30s are only allowed to work minimum wage, no matter what?
This leads to the second mistake. DO NOT TALK ABOUT YOUR JOB! Guys want to show off about their great job and career ambitions. Many guys think that by showing that they can provide for a girl that this will make a girl attracted to them. Again, big mistake! Girls are not ATTRACTED to Betas! By trying to show how well you provide, you will just mark yourself as Beta and kill a girl’s attraction to you. This means that you will have failed in yourpurpose for a first date.
I can agree with this one, but only partly. I don’t want to hear about the guy’s job because it’s a freakin’ first date. If I am on a date with someone, I don’t care if he’s a CEO or a drives a garbage truck. But if you’re in the mood to look for someone for a long-term relationship, you do want to have it at least rattling around in the back of your mind that this guy isn’t going to be asking to borrow money to pay off the very understanding but nonetheless menacing bookie waiting out in the alley amongst the many hard and pointy objects. That doesn’t make him a Beta. It makes him able to get and keep a job, which is--and I know this must be shocking--a good quality.
DO NOT ASK HER TO TALK ABOUT HERSELF! Girls get asked the same questions on first dates over and over and over. Do not ask, “So, where did you go to school?” She gets asked this constantly. Do not ask her about her paper pushing job. Either, she will not want to talk about it and then you will have made her close up. Or even worse she will talk a ton about it and make herself seem of really high status, which will lower you in her eyes. Do not ask her to talk about her family. Do not try to build a real deep connection. She will just see that you are trying to build an artificial connection with her. This will mark you as Beta and kill attraction.
You’re right. Don’t ask me where I went to school. Ask me what books I like. Hell, you probably met me in a library anyway. This will lead to movies, and if you’re really looking to score points, it will lead to a potentially humorous discussion of why we’re all here. (Answer: because God has a phenomenally bad sense of humor/hates us and wanted to see how we’d all treat each other if he made a world full of Alpha males and made normal people deal with them.) I partly agree with the idea about trying to build a deep connection first off. Artificial connections do come off as desperate and clingy. But a real connection, well. Nothing wrong with having a little meaningful conversation.
DO NOT TAKE HER TO THE MOVIES! Lots of guys do the dinner and a movie thing. Girls go on this date all the time. Going to the movies will just mark you as another boring first date just like all of the other first dates that she has ever been on. At the movies you can’t interact and Demonstrate Higher Value (DHV). All you do is sit there and put your arm around her. Maybe you can get a little kino going, but that is it.
Unless I actually wanted to see that movie, but hey, be inconsiderate. Here’s a thought, get a DVD of something you know I want to see and sit through it with me after helping me cook something. Hint: I dig Rambo movies, love Practical Magic, and seriously liked Lethal Weapon. And as for “kino,” I’m going to assume he meant “kink.” Yeah baby, nothing like getting pawed in a movie theater to make me all hot. And by hot, I mean steamed. Steamed and violent. It’s not like you were using that eye, so don’t be upset when I decide that it looks better as my new keychain.
DO NOT LET THE DATE BECOME NON SEXUAL! If you get bogged down in conversation about a girl’s life or her family, the date can become non sexual. This will set you up for the path to the friend zone. The friend zone is a place that no guys ever escape. Keep sexual tension in the date. Sexual tension is good, comfort is bad.
I can make almost anything sexual in my head. We can talk about my life. Seriously. And if the friend zone was something that no guys ever escaped, women would never end up being interested in their male friends--which has happened to me three times--at least with the unmarried ones. And a guy who is obsessed with keeping the sexual tension in the date is a guy that I will find creepy and avoid. Look, maybe I’m in the minority here, but a guy that I find sexy is generally a guy that I find sexy no matter what. So...shut up. I want to be comfortable. I want to know that the guy I’m on a date with is someone that I can relax around. Someone who isn’t obsessed with keeping up the sexual tension because he thinks that a date is some kind of psychotic competition.
DO NOT DRAG THE DATE OUT! Some guys will use a first date to keep the girl with him for a long time. Especially, if the date is not going too well guys will want to keep it going in the hopes of redeeming himself. If the date is not going well, end it! All that you will do is to dig a greater hole for yourself and make it impossible that she will ever consider going out with you again.
Actually, I agree with this one. But WHY is this not just common sense? Who thinks that a date going badly means that they should try harder? Apparently, crazy people.
It's strange to me to read that blog. When I describe an "Alpha male," I'm thinking of well-spoken, intelligent men who are very capable. They may fix their own cars, etc, as opposed to constant (as in, really unhealthy fixation with) videogames and mental mind-games. They know who they are and they don't lie to themselves or others about this. They tell the truth, know the difference between right and wrong, stay loyal, are mature, kind, and dependable--basically, the type of guy that you look at and go, "That's a durn good man." That type of "manliness" just sort of rolls off of them like fog. This of course varies from man to man, but is unmistakable.
When this guy describes his version of an Alpha male, he's describing what I would refer to as a Beta. The need for constant stroking of the ego is something I associate with a person who is actually quite self-loathing and riddled with anxiety.
Here's an example: I remember befriending a guy slightly younger than me who demonstrated Beta (my definition) qualities. If someone disagreed with him, he would actively attack them, ripping away at their self esteem in any way he could. Everything was about him trying to convince himself that he was better than everyone else in every way. To him, every woman out there (that he felt he could easily bully) was his inferior, and he treated me accordingly. I found out much later that a mutual friend had been made subject to his abuse, and that she had actually told him that he was going to lose not only her friendship, but also mine if he didn’t change. This friendship did indeed come to an abrupt end when I realized how just much he was willing to blatantly lie to me in order to hide that he was basically the total opposite of the person I thought he was. That, my friends, is a Beta. But by LDS-A’s standards, he would be an Alpha--and I would be some weak-minded little shrew who passed up on a “real man.” What is fascinating in terms of my ex-friend is that I sincerely do not think that he is actually capable of change, and probably doesn’t think that he did anything wrong by being untrustworthy and hateful. But that’s a Beta for you.
So I've discovered several things today.
