Tags
I have been wanting to write a post for some time now on submission. On how far too many people today view submission as letting the man have his way in everything, that if one is submissive it automatically means the woman is a doormat. It’s not all that easy to write and given that since well before Christmas at least one person has been sick in our house (give or take a few days) continuously, I haven’t been able to put it together as I had hoped. Then, a few days ago, commenter Kate asked:
This reminds me of something the Baroness said to Maria in the Sound of Music. (Excuse the cheesy reference.) She said something along the lines of “There is nothing so irresistable to a man as a woman in love with him.”
I’m inclined to believe this is true from my experiences as well as those of other women I know, but HOW does one show this without coming off as a doormat with a man who has options? Any advice?
Given the views of many people today, it’s an understandable question. Shortly after I read this question I came across this piece from Matt Forney (I can’t remember where I found the link, though. Heads up, too, as Matt is not shy about his language, but he’s good). I think this post answer’s Kate’s question very well. There are two key words in it: femininity and confidence.
Michelle Jenneke oozes with [femininity]. Her youthful beauty, her exuberance, her aura: these aren’t things that can be faked. Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution have honed men’s tastes for sweet, submissive, complimentary women. As much as feminists . . . . wail about “social conditioning,” when it comes down to brass tacks, all men want the same thing.
Not only that, Michelle Jenneke has something else that few American/Western women possess: confidence.
Read the rest of his piece as he goes on to explain that so many women mistake their shields as confidence. Only those shields actually betray their insecurities. A woman with real confidence has no reason for these shields and Michelle Jenneke oozes this is spades.
So, back to Kate’s question . . . How does a woman show love without coming across as a doormat? The first thing I think women in this position need to realize is that showing this love might very well come across to other women (and some men) as being a doormat. It does not matter what they think. Have the confidence and the fortitude to show this love anyway. You may get some very unexpected comments. Some good and some bad. They don’t matter. What does matter is your man’s perception and what is important to him.
Now, in my experience, men do not care for doormats, either. At least not in the dominate men we are attracted to. (remember dominance and domineering are different as a domineering man may very well seek out a true doormat). This is where confidence is really key. The difference between a confident, feminine woman is that she wants to care for her man. She wants to love him, be with him, serve him, cook for him, be pretty, et cetera. It is not something he makes her do or that she does for the sole purpose of hanging on to him. It is her choice and something she relishes and has fun doing. She strives to be good at it, not only for him, but for her. She is also very confident in her very femininity regardless of what others may think. She likes to dress in nice clothes, wear her hair long, wear makeup. She knows there is a line outside the home between pretty/beautiful and way too much skin. She also knows that inside the home, that line is very different.
There is another big key to all of this and that is respect. Commenter Phedre stated it thus:
1- always keeping her respect for her man foremost in her heart, so all of her actions for him and around him stem from that feeling. Respect/appreciation are a crucial aspect of how men understand love. It’s foreign to women’s nature though, so we have to keep consciously put it to the forefront and work actively to keep it there. All the actions that flow out of that feeling will show him that she loves him the way he wants to be loved.
2- It’s in the eyes. This is secondary to the first point, because no matter how much love is in her gaze, if her actions don’t support it he will ultimately feel unloved. But when the behaviour is right, letting your love overflow into your gaze as you look at him can be a very powerful thing. They’re flashes that show him the full depth of your feeling.
A women in submission to a man she loves will almost automatically convey respect in most everything she does. I don’t think a woman really can respect a man without being submissive to him. I also don’t think a woman can respect a man and be a doormat at the same time. A doormat, a woman who does as she is told out of fear, does not have respect for a man. She can’t as her fear stands in the way. Both the man and the woman may mistake her fear for respect but they are two very different things.
What I have found is, through this confidence and love stems something that many women strive for from the men in their lives but can never quite reach. Respect returned. But far better than that respect is a man who is in love . . . with you.
***Now, I realize I didn’t answer all of Kate’s question, namely the how. That is the truly hard part. Each person needs to find for themselves their own confidence. The particulars of love and respect are going to stem from this confidence and the particulars of each couple. I welcome ideas on where to start in the comments.
This reminds me of something the Baroness said to Maria in the Sound of Music. (Excuse the cheesy reference.) She said something along the lines of “There is nothing so irresistable to a man as a woman in love with him.”
I’ve previously written that I disagree on this one. Post Masculine wrote a while back that “the biggest aphrodisiac in the world is someone who likes you and isn’t afraid to show it” and I wrote that I only half agreed.
Sure this is really, really important – and girls continually wanting to blow you is evidence of what a turn on this is – but it’s not the whole picture.
The caveat that should be added at the end is “when you also like/love them”.
As Beckster taught me, there is a massive difference between being attracted to someone, and desiring them. The second is a far more powerful phenomenon…
I’ve found that when you are able to connect on that intimate level and have two-way passion for each other, things just get better and better over time…
http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/the-biggest-aphrodisiac-in-the-world/
However, you also need to like the girl.
“I’m inclined to believe this is true from my experiences as well as those of other women I know, but HOW does one show this without coming off as a doormat with a man who has options? Any advice?”
Hope you don’t mind me sharing this, it’s my Top 10 Posts for Women, which is largely a compilation of the Manosphere’s best writings.
http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com/top-10-posts-for-women/
You just touched on something I’ve seen all my life. I bring it up now and then in person and in blog comments but I rarely get confirmation from others that what I’m seeing they also see.
What I see is fear. Pervasive, perpetual, habitual fear. I see it in the eyes of almost every woman I meet and many men. Every action, every utterance, every thought seems to be motivated by fear. That they have problems with relationships of all kinds is unsurprising since every assumption they have about the world and everybody in it is built on fear.
There are all kinds of fear. Fear of rejection, fear of acceptance, fear of failure, fear of disappointment, fear of success, fear of labor, fear of sloth, fear of fear….and on and on and on.
There is an antidote to the fear but it involves accepting a different Spirit as the light guiding your life. To get that Spirit you must accept Jesus Christ as your savior.
You must then consciously reject the spirit of fear that now runs your life and seek the Spirit of Truth, Peace and Love to replace it.
I agree with what 3MM just said.
I have personal experience with which to reach that conclusion as well. When it’s one way it is not a good thing.
A particular girl in high school wanted me in the worst way. She asked me out on Sadie Hawkins day. We went out once or twice after that and then I broke up with her. She gave me crap every day for three months after that. She was hurt and wanted me to share in that. Her locker was next to mine so I saw her often.
Here is how my day went for those three months.
Get to locker between classes.
Start combo on lock.
She walks up and immediately begins to insult me.
I say nothing, open my locker and get my book for the next class.
She continues the insults as I close the locker and leave.
The insults continued until I was out of earshot.
This happened every day, before first class, between every other class and after the last class, like I said, for three months straight. We even shared some classes, those were fun.
After three months she ran out of steam and only insulted me when I said something that she couldn’t resist using as the base for the next insult.
I feel like I should get dressed for this conversation. Brb
3mm and Author Pel,
I agree with that and thought about it at the end of the post. I didn’t add it as I was thinking it was obvious. Maybe it’s not though, so thank you for bringing it up. However, a woman who is confident, or striving for it, would she not be more inclined to realize that her love/affection is not returned and move on?
For any people reading who might be working on their own confidence, this is important. Seeking love and affection from a man who is not interested in returning it is not someone you should actively pursue. Active pursuit of a man who does not wish this from you will only work to turn him further away.
Kate,
Brb? What’s that?
Excellent post. We need to re-teach women (and men) that submissiveness is not weakness, but first we need to re-learn what submissiveness is. It’s been distorted for so long, even those of us who try to practice it, or for whom it comes naturally, have trouble defining it in positive terms. I try, but I keep running into the same wall – common perceptions.
Be right back
Wow, so much to read here. This is wonderful.
Weakness is strength.
Kate,
You’re wearing warm weather clothes. I’m jealous (and happy for you!)
First off, http://www.myspace.com/rippingtons/music/songs/stingray-album-version-21879 — been meaning to drop that for a while.
As to how one shows you’re in love to a man with options without coming off as a doormat, one of the best ways is to actively individuate us. Even when we have options, the number of women — let alone people in general — we can rely on to distinguish us from other men by our positive characteristics is likely to be vanishingly small.
Hardly any men will talk about that sort of vulnerability because as human beings, we can’t keep facing just how disposable we really are to most of society, including our families, and still continue to function. That’s part of why suicide is now our 7th largest killer. If we don’t repress our awareness of just how much and how badly society exploits us as a routine, we break down.
And we don’t talk about our depersonalization and dehumanization and how it hurts us because we’ve seen enough other guys try and get hammered for it. Not to bag on her for it, but I remember a Laura Grace Robbins post where she was asking for men to speak out, and then allowed someone to bash them in the comments. She didn’t get any men opening up to her, of course.
So first be an attractive woman (eat right, get fit, have skills), then actually do things for us (not just mere words, but tangible, materially benefiting actions) which demonstrate that YOU know how WE’RE different, in a positive, praiseworthy way, from most people, and particularly other men, and most particularly, our male competition for your affections.
Wait, no; I correct myself; most guys will probably fall for just the mere words. I was force-fed red pills from childhood, so I know better.
^
|
|
Notice that bit of self-individuation right there? That was a deliberate example of a guy throwing out a (safely deniable) invitation to learn more about him in order to individuate him. If I had actually been emotionally peacocking for any of you ladies, that would have been not just a normal conversational pass for you to catch and return, but an indicator of what I respond to positively.
Not that most guys are anywhere near aware of that level of analysis. Mostly we just splash around, trying stuff. Some of us will practically hand you the keys to our souls if you just watch and listen actively enough.
I’ve been thinking about something else for a while, and I’ve concluded that ‘submission’ is the wrong word and we should stop using it. I think people are letting the femelitists control the dialogue again. ‘Submission’ not only carries a ton of unnecessary baggage, but isn’t even accurate. I recommend ‘subordination’ instead. Subordinates still have responsibility and thus authority. Submissives. . .not so much. Submissives easily feel like doormats. Subordinates. . .don’t.
Also, 4tehlulz, some ’1 Submissive, 1 Subordinate’ examples — if you had to pick one of each, who’d be which? NB: there are right and wrong answers to these; it’s a challenge, not a poll.
C3P0 and R2D2
Yeoman Rand and Lieutenant Uhura
Eowyn and Arwen
Suz,
I have written a submission post in my head over and over and I can’t get past those misconceptions either. I can’t think of a way to combat them as now matter what I say, submission can’t be more than a doormat as that’s all they can see. Unless I can put these people into my shoes, or another woman’s shoes who knows what I am talking about, they can never see it. I don’t think many of them want to see it.
Acksiom,
Thank you for the song! I looked them up and apparently they did an album with Zakk Wylde last year, too. Very nice.
R2D2
Uhura (I can’t remember who Yeoman Rand is but I do remember Uhura some)
Eowyn (Assuming we are talking about the book)
Subordinate is a good word, but I personally have a difficult time letting submissive go because I’m religious. The feminist ruined a good word and I want it back.
Wait, no; I correct myself; most guys will probably fall for just the mere words. I was force-fed red pills from childhood, so I know better.
Well. Done.
This is perfect.
@Stingray: Oh, that was me at the beach a few summers ago and then me in a 72 degree house last weekend
Just trying to “think warm” 
I did go to Florida over the holidays, but I had the flu and it was cold!
@Acksiom: I can’t play
I don’t know who any of those people are. lol
I want to reclaim submission too. Subordination seems to me to have a purely action-based connotation. Submission, true, real submission has to come from within. It’s an internal transformation whence ‘subordinate’ actions stem.
>Kate: @Acksiom: I can’t play
I don’t know who any of those people are. lol
^
|
|
Good example of a (safely deniable) feminine leading statement giving a man the greenlight to peacock for her. “I can’t play that game, I don’t know enough,” often gets translated in the male head to [please welcome me into your male space and help me play there].
It doesn’t have to be even just a potentially romantic context, either. After years and years of formative. . .er, years, of being picked late to last for teams, both literally and metaphorically, we’re sensitive to it. Most guys know what this is like, not because most guys are wimps and losers, but because most of us grow up trying to CATCH up to the older boys — and men — who always get picked first. And so we are sympathetic to noob uncertainty and insecurity in women as human beings regardless of gender. Fighting our way to inclusion through it without support makes our own lives a lot harder than they had to be and no matter how much rah-rah high-standards-cause-high-achievement HFCS we spoon over that, it still leaves scars on us, sometimes crippling ones.
Like an ulcer, PLUS diabetes!
Of course, men have to put it differently to other men and just ask straight out. If they passively troll bait through the social water like girls do, they get shunned.
All that being said, if a lady were trying to attract a guy’s attention for more than just a couple of tickets on Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride, the passive and helpless nature that going “tee-hee! poor me!” like that communicates should be balanced with something more initiatory and responsible later. Any girl can dimple and smile and get some dick talk thrown at her to see if it sticks. The girls we monogamize are the ones we can rely on to watch our backs — the ones we know we can trust with authority because of how they demonstrate responsibility.
Because ultimately, for us — for the genuinely top quality guys you ladies want for husbands — it’s all about the fallback safety of the kids. We don’t want a weepy wimp who cries time out the moment she gets some pushback, because god forbid something happens to us and that kind of person is left raising our children.
But, anyways:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C3P0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R2-D2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeoman_Rand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uhura
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eowyn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arwen
Oh, I’m definitely not responsible. I’ve been trying to get fired for eleven years, and I still haven’t succeeded. If only I was more willing to put in the effort to do a bad job, who knows what I could accomplish!
Some great comments here tonight. I liked what Athor said about fear, I also like what 3MM about them having to love you back. Somehow we need to respect them, be submissive, but have the strength to not idolize or pedestalize them into something they shouldn’t be. Be willing to let them go if they don’t return our affections without fear. Be willing to go after our own ambitions, but not at the cost of theirs just instead of pandering to their every whim, to have our own passions apart from them.
“…The difference between a confident, feminine woman is that she wants to care for her man. She wants to love him, be with him, serve him, cook for him, be pretty, et cetera. It is not something he makes her do or that she does for the sole purpose of hanging on to him. It is her choice and something she relishes and has fun doing. She strives to be good at it, not only for him, but for her.
…”
Reading this feels like a gut punch or that sinking queasy feeling when you look straight down from a great height. I never saw the kind of behavior described in the blog post while I was married. The lack gives great evidence that she never really loved me, not like that anyway. I really was just a tool to her, even at the very beginning.
If you want something to point to when you meet a woman that wonders why so many middle aged men are put off by the prospect of marriage, this is it.
one thing i’ve always seen as an issue with men is the inability to understand the fine line between being dominant and being dictatorial with women. most women (and i ALWAYS end up with submissive women) LOVE dominance, but being dictatorial…..OOOOF. that never works.
great post Angel. Danny approves.
You bring up an important point by way of the Jenneke link, which is connected to the overwhelming importance of female submission. PUA’s are stuck on stupid with regard to the components of attractiveness. They have stumbled over taboo knowledge in this feminist age: that men rank the visual much higher than women. And because this secret is so explosive in our culture, they then go on to exaggerate the importance of it and claim it makes up the entirety of a woman’s beauty.
No. In fact, it is becoming clear that both men and women rank the physical appearance of the opposite sex in equal measure. Somewhere around 55-60%.
Except — and this is the decisive exception — women have always been the displayed sex. Their “game” is accentuating their appearance. In a permissive-to-the-point-of-licentious culture, it is global thermonuclear war among women in upping the ante. “If that slut can wear a skirt that short, I’ll go one inch shorter.”
Your post belongs in a curriculum for Grad School Game, though, Stingray, along with Forney’s sharp observation about what makes Michelle Jenneke appealing. Because women are just as attracted to the other sex’s physicality as men are, but the present cultural standards require different expressions. The outer beauty of a woman is an indication of her inner quality — her advertised potential submissiveness which says, “Look at me, I am dressing up for you, I’ve got it together, I know what you like, I’m doing it for you.” Same with men! The outer attractiveness of a man is an indication of his inner quality. “I stand tall, though I am short, I exude confidence, I’ve got it together, I know what you like, but I’m doing it for me.”
Our cultural worship of the female body notwithstanding (and you’ll have little complaint from me there), men value a woman’s inner quality in the same measure as a woman does a man’s. We are put off by beautiful sluts just like you are put off by handsome crybabies. We can appreciate their pure form while overlooking their impurity, that night, through beer goggles, just as wall-approaching women can deal with beta males to satisfy one part of attraction (rock-solid stability).
Of course this is a difficult point to get across in a feminist age because it can easily shade into “men and women are equal and want the same things,” which is why PUA’s don’t go near it (and in fact aggressively deny it). But among an audience like this, where we celebrate La Différence, it is safe to dig deeper and to speak precisely.
The more I think about this — and I’m just now developing the thought — the more I’m convinced the entire manosphere is utterly beholden to a myth conveniently expressed, and they repeat propaganda without examination. Men and women respond similarly to both the tangibles and intangibles. The difference is, the male corrective of their intangibles, that is, working on an aura of dominance (euphemism: “confidence”), is more culturally acceptable than the female corrective of their intangibles, which is, working on an aura of submissiveness. The mighty task this blog has undertaken is to make it safe for women to correct themselves toward submissiveness even as the feminist culture screams at them.
Forney, et. al. hit the nail on the head. Jenneke’s physicality does not detract from her attraction quotient, but her girly, youthful exuberance turned her from any old hurdler gif into an international sex symbol. The boost was from an expression of her inner qualities, not from being prettier than her fellow athletes (Janneke was third or fourth prettiest, just in that line-up).
I am convinced men are in the same position. If your physicality does not actively detract from your aura (obesity, fascinating ugliness, deformation), there are ways to visually transmit the inner qualities that women are looking for. Stand up straight, maintain an effortless affect, move as if you own the place. For women it is submissiveness, exuberance, purity, and the artful balance between availability and modesty.
Confident women are not unattractive! Women confident in their manliness are unattractive. Women confident in their submissiveness are gorgeous. Add that to a non-repulsive physical package and you will get a stunner, which does not come across in a single photo. Jenneke was too young (19-years-old) to know how to scowl. Female confidence must be expressed in a way that acknowledges its conquerability by rather than its competativeness with manly confidence. A woman who knows she is womanly is like a man who is unabashed about his manliness.
Women can express this many ways, as the commenters above indicate. But here is one of the best tricks — say his name. Say it a lot. To hear a girl speak your name is an ultimate acknowledgement of a man’s will made real in the world, which is his ultimate primal desire — the “will to power.”
Anyway, I’ll stop now, but this subject begs for further explanation from the grad student researchers. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Stingray, you are a treasure. Women like you find the subjects the men overlook in their zeal, and for that you are indispensable to the “manosphere.”*
Matt
———-
* Indeed, so indispensable that the word “manosphere” becomes inappropriate. Our mode of thinking deserves a name that better identifies us as those who acknowledge the sexual difference, whatever the sex. “Red pill” is too comic-book, “manosphere” is so gay that I have to always put quotes around it. All the ancient roots have been stolen by the enemy (andro-, gyno-, homo-, psych-), and some words have been so perverted that they’ve been rendered unusable (sex, gender). We might have to dip into literature, history, or mythos to anchor the idea to something more real than The Matrix franchise.
No, don’t stop now! More tips, please:)
1. saying his name often
2.
3.
4.
5.
Mark Twain had a good quote…
“Don’t wake up a woman in love. Let her dream, so that she does not weep when she returns to her bitter reality”
… ultimately, there is a difference between the one we want, and the one we really need. We live for the dream, and die in our realities.
We’d rather chase than settle.
We’d rather be without the prize, and compete for it … than be the judge, and award it.
We live on hope. We die for a belief. We deplore our critics.
We are human.
It’s the unattainable that inspires our foolhardiness … and the unmentionable that conspires with our foolishness.
All this … because of that which we cannot have, but desire … and love that makes it all … mocks us all …
… and mucks it all.
Athor,
I wish I knew what to say to your comment, but I don’t. Men being put off of marriage to women who are not interested in being women is understandable. What’s sad is that so many women really don’t understand why. It’ll come out, it already is.
Danny,
There is a fine line between dominate and dictatorial, but the difference is enormous. A dominant man inspires feminine submissiveness, a dictator inspire fear and anger. I find myself railing hard against a domineering man. The insecurity of it makes be want to fight for control.
That was deep, Marellus.
i’ve NEVER had a gf challenge me. BUT, i ALWAYS make decisions based on HER NEEDS. which affects, my needs…..and equates to OUR needs. i KNOW she depends on me to be decisive.
i NEVER tell my woman what to do unless it regards our/her safety. again let me point out- i ALWAYS end up with submissive women. i hate the women that think being sub= weakness.
far from it. sub women are some of the strongest willed women i’ve even known. they will fight tooth and nail for those they love.
@ Matt
In a permissive-to-the-point-of-licentious culture, it is global thermonuclear war among women in upping the ante. “If that slut can wear a skirt that short, I’ll go one inch shorter.”
What I find amazing is that, in this competition, the girl who opts for a more beautiful style of dress, rather than promiscuous, of *wins*. She may not go home with the masculine man that night. She may not get as much overt attention as the 1 inch shorter girl, but she gets male attention. if she plays the game right, she gets a lot of really great male attention. Men actually want to spend some time with her, not just getting in her pants.
but I’m doing it for me.”
I wish there was a way to ingrain this into men’s brains. And it’s not selfish.
he more I’m convinced the entire manosphere is utterly beholden to a myth conveniently expressed, and they repeat propaganda without examination.
It’s out there some and it’s is still different between the sexes. Men can still be aroused by a beautiful yet promiscuous woman. It’s different for a woman settling for a beta man. There is little arousal yet she will convincer herself she is in love because she does know she has found a good man. Her ability to see that goodness fades over time as contentment sinks in. So, I do agree with your premise, but there is much difference between the two. A man might be aroused by a promiscuous woman, but he won’t respect her.
Also, to add to this, from men’s reports, there are so few women that they can see as beautiful and feminine that they hold onto to one thing at a time (If I don’t make sense, I apologize. I’m sick as a dog and cannot form my thoughts well).
I am convinced men are in the same position. If your physicality does not actively detract from your aura (obesity, fascinating ugliness, deformation), there are ways to visually transmit the inner qualities that women are looking for. Stand up straight, maintain an effortless affect, move as if you own the place. For women it is submissiveness, exuberance, purity, and the artful balance between availability and modesty.
Absolutely. And, like you said, in some ways it is far more acceptable for a man to seek this change (cries of JERK!, notwithstanding. It’s actually a compliment). A woman does it and those around her do not like it.
Also, thank you for your compliments. I will do my best.
Kate,
Off the top of my head (in a haze of tissues):
2. Find a reason to touch him. If it is at the very beginning of your relationship, touch his hand while you are talking to make a point. Remove the piece of fuzz from his shirt. When he says something funny, gently chuck his arm. As the relationship moves on, touch him more, in a more intimate manner. It doesn’t have to sexual in any way, shape or form.
3. Smile. Smile a lot. And always, always always smile genuinely. It MUST touch our eyes. And when you do, look at him.
4. When he’s funny laugh! (Don’t fake it. It’s a dead give away and men don’t like it.)
5. Listen to him. When you don’t understand, ask questions. Most men really like to teach things that interest them (and most of the time it’s quite interesting stuff). Let him teach you something new, something that he loves.
6. In that awkward silence that comes during dates, smile and drop your eyes. If this isn’t something that comes natural to you, don’t try to fake it. But if you feel like you want to do this, let it happen. We have the urge to do this for a reason. Then look back into his eyes.
There are so many more little things. I can’t think of them right now. If I think of anything else, I’ll be back.
taterearl,
Not quite sure what to think of that quote, if it’s incredibly sweet or very depressing. . . .
Danny,
I’m not surprised you haven’t been challenged. There’s no reason to.
Regarding fighting tooth and nail. Yes. Without hesitation.
Marellus,
Don’t settle, but when you have her, own her.
Ooooh! Now we’re getting to the fun stuff!
Thanks, Stingray. And get well soon!
I have my moments Kate.
Sorry, Stingray, but you got the tricky one wrong. Eowyn is the submissive because she disqualified herself from subordinate status by abandoning her post. She was told to stay behind and run not just the household but the whole damn national government, IN WARTIME.
But after all those years of elite privilege as the family of royalty, all those perks without most of the responsibility, ohhhh nooooo, it’s still not enooooooough for her, oh no she wants MOOOOOOOOAAAAR.
So she blew off her HEAD OF STATE responsibilities for the exciting bad boy thrills of the battlefield. She friendzone-douchebagged her entire nation.
And ultimately, she ended up exploiting Faramir’s daddy issues after throwing away her original place. She couldn’t go back to the Rohirrim, not after ABANDONING THEM IN A CRISIS. Yeah, she helped kill the Lord of the Nazgul. That’s great, and they’ll put her in the songs and legends, but she can’t go back to being Missy Princess again; the people can’t trust her with the responsibility of authority. Helping kill a Nazgul doesn’t excuse that. So she glomps onto Faramir, the best option she had left.
I was always kind of bothered by that, from an early age. It’s taken almost 40 years and other men’s red pill insights to understand why I felt Tolkien was bolting across that section of plot as fast as he could. It’s because it’s such shaky moral and ethical ground, by comparison, and I think on some level Tolkien knew it.
So she’s the submissive, and Arwen’s the subordinate. Who’s Aragorn going to marry, which means maybe someday leave in charge, between the two of them? The one who already abandoned almost exactly the same post, or the one who gave up immortality to be with him and have his children?
Put that way, it’s a no-brainer. Arwen’s the subordinate. In the bacon and eggs of it, Eowyn just involved herself. . .but Arwen actually COMMITTED.
Aksion,
Yep, that was the one I kept waffling on. I kept thinking, “But Aragorn chose Arwen . . .” I completely forgot about her abandoning her Father and her people as well.
(Add to that my extreme irritation that the writers of the movie had Arwen save Frodo at the River. It clouds my judgement of her. I need to read the books again.)
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/01/30 « Free Northerner
Well, Kate, since you forgot to say my name, Kate, I think you haven’t earned two through five, Kate. Has a man ever demanded you say his name in the boudoir? (Slap. “What’s my name?” Spank. “Say my name.”) Uh huh.
Stingray’s list is excellent as usual. She gets it. I will add that I didn’t fully appreciate my first very pretty (soon-to-be) girlfriend in high school until I found out she was crushing hard on me. Maybe my ego doth bestride the narrow world like a colossus, but if a girl doesn’t have at least a little crush on me, I seriously wonder about her mental/physical/sensual faculties. Catching signs of her indifference uglifies a woman before my very eyes, like, what hidden damage is preventing her from acknowledging the obvious? Is she secretly retarded?
So. That’s the mountainous self-regard you are competing with. You have to find a way to worship us more than we worship ourselves.
Guys have trouble admitting this, but a woman’s physical appearance changes when you find out what’s inside them. Oh, my first pretty GF could be such a snot, but I knew I had veto power over her soul, and that alone bounced her up a couple points (after adjusting for youth and inexperience).
Matt
Stingray wrote:
The red pill for girls, right there. This is why the PUA skew of the “manosphere” is not long for this world. It is myopic, too focused on the quick score. And a life of quick scores amounts to nothing lasting. Empty assets.
Of course in a wide-open sexual marketplace, the most openly slutty gains a temporary victory (which suppurates into a wasted life soon enough). Why would men do the hard work of plying the modest girl, when lesser value women are doing all the work for them. It depends on the goal. The PUA skew insists on SNL, hypersexuality, all those things that omegas dream about because they never experienced them. For the most part, I say: whatever, son, go get your dick wet. But don’t try to turn female quality on its head. The best women have always been the most demure, because they (or their fathers) realize how much she has to lose. And if they don’t, they devalued that asset in the backseat of some greasy teenager’s car long ago. Modesty is confidence that what’s under her dress is worth fighting for.
Now, because we are also in the era of phony self-esteem, many men have been duped by an unearned attitude (You are so phat, grrrl!), and when they unwrap their hard-won “prize,” the joke’s on them. This leads men to be bitter and to overvalue the whores who wear their assets on their sleeve.
Matt
@ King: “Has a man ever…” Obviously not or I wouldn’t go around huffing alpha. You know I’m unbroken.
“You have to find a way to worship us more than we worship ourselves.”
Well, you see, King, there is a fine line between adoration and being a pest and I prefer to stay on the right side of the line
But, sure, if the person seems indifferent, it is cause for consternation. Like, just how thick are they? Know what I mean, Vern? I think its more acceptable for a woman to be overcome by a crush than a man though.
Btw, have you read my latest at Eradica? My adoration got the better of me.
What about “yielding” as an alternative term to “submission”?
I was privy to a conversation between a young woman that I’ve been seeing for a while and someone she knows. The other woman said something to the effect that I am ‘rude to women.’ (I admit that I don’t tolerate stupidity well.). The young lady who has been seeing me, ripped her a new one telling her, “He treats a LADY like a Queen, and a rude-bitch like she’s a rude-bitch.” The rest of the conversation was along the same line – the young lady I have been seeing, picked up the phone but the machine kept recording rather than cutting off, so it caught every word and I heard it almost a week later since I almost never use that phone. But it was an interesting insight into this particular woman.
I had to smile since this particular young woman has been moving up my rating poll for quite some time. She is what a woman should be – sweet, loving, submissive, intelligent, incredibly hot… And she is one of the few women who knows how to “follow” when it comes to dancing. There is no competition – she is complimentary in all things. While I seriously doubt that I will ever marry (it’s just too detrimental to a man’s financial well being in the US and I don’t trust ANYONE that much), this particular young woman has been part of my sphere for longer than almost any other woman in the last decade. Of course she is also a LOT younger than I am, but her father was 25+ years older then her mother, and she once said, “I’d rather spend 20 years with the man I love than 50 years with someone who is just there.” Can’t argue with that…
But when I saw this thread, it rang a bell. She is submissive – not in a bad way, but in all ways that make a man feel like a man, and all of those instincts which evolved over the last several hundred thousand years, come to the forefront. That is what is missing in most women today – they are so geared toward being a competitor that they have lost sight of what it means to be a woman… And what it takes to “win” in the ways that matter..
I like “yield” as it suggests its a precursor to “merge.”
Matthew King wrote – In a permissive-to-the-point-of-licentious culture, it is global thermonuclear war among women in upping the ante. “If that slut can wear a skirt that short, I’ll go one inch shorter.”
The woman who crosses my Alps is the one dressed properly. The miniskirted cleavage-flashing skin slags die of exposure.
Speaking of which … Kate wrote – I feel like I should get dressed for this conversation
Why didn’t someone tell me pants were required here?
Acksiom – R2D2 tops from the bottom.
lol- my avatar was previously me in a swimsuit, so I changed it. I think you’ll find we like men who wear the pants around here
my avatar was previously me in a swimsuit, so I changed it
I missed it. Bugger.
Acksiom? This is the guy who is trashing me on other blogs? The one who drops the nerd trifecta of Star Wars, Star Trek, and Lord of the Rings references in a single comment? This is the pipsqueak platoon sent to dispatch me? Is there any man under fifty who can handle a real argument without wetting his pants? I suffer for the quality of my opponent. The country suffers for lack of men.
It’s worse than I thought. Why do I get booted from every place but Roissy’s? Where are the men who can hold their own? I’m so nauseated by the bravado and the self-congratulation over nothing. Enjoy the “masterminding” dungeon adventure, you faggot fantasist.
I gotta get out of here.
Matt
Marellus, you have the classic “God-shaped hole in your soul.” For every other desire we have a satisfying counterpart. We are hungry, there is food. We are thirsty, there is water. We are lonely, there are people.
We desire “All this,” and “we cannot have”? “[D]esire … and love that makes it all … mocks us all …”?
No. Hear the good news:
http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2011/09/father-barron-on-the-new-atheists.html
Fecisti nos ad te et inquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in te. “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.” — St. Augustine
Nothing in this world suffices or ultimately satisfies. That very truth is evidence of something more. Go after it. Hope is not a sentiment, it is a virtue. Hope is that which enables us to acknowledge The Needful Thing in a broken world by transporting ourselves out of our own natural self-centeredness.
Matt
Matt, when I first encountered that idea – I think in Lewis or Chesterton, but maybe elsewhere – it was profoundly impactful.
I was raised an atheist. I fully accepted the emptiness of existence, and was comfortable with it. Clearly, God was for people who were too mentally weak to handle the reality of emptiness/meaninglessness. Good News therefore always struck me as a strange name, too casual for something as needful as a limping man’s crutch.
But over time I lost my arrogant mindset, and now when the idea came before me that that very feeling of emptiness was in fact proof of the existence of more, it was profound – it was indeed good news. It was good news because I didn’t *need* it – just like those people I had assumed crippled did not in fact need it, were not in fact cripples – and now I was able to welcome it as the great and surprising revelation that it was.
It’s still a slow and gradual process of transformation for me, shedding a quarter century of certainty for something unknowable. Reminders like yours help push me forward just that little bit faster. Thank you.
Stingray, speaking of reciprocation and respect — I’d appreciate some myself now, please.
Acksiom,
I haven’t read any arguments you have had elsewhere, and I don’t know your past history. Far be it fro me to stand between two men fighting. I can only suggest that you approach your rhetorical differences in a manner that will ultimately resolve in a recognized truth. Steve Sailer had a recent post on just such a method.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/12/intellectual-discourse-taking.html
I don’t moderate my comment section and I do not plan to. Argue if you wish, you may use this space. Or don’t argue and leave it be. But please know that both you and Matt are welcome here.
>you faggot fantasist.
No, I am not welcome here.
Go ahead, Axiom, run and hide under another moderator’s skirts. I respect Stingray, and I won’t trample any more mud into her house by describing your cowardice in the full vocabulary it deserves.
Suffice it to know what happens to your brand of cost-free, hit-and-run snark when you try it in an open arena among men. You see, you are welcome here. Nobody but your type (and insecure blogsters) think it necessary to “exclude” the strongly opinionated in order for conversations to thrive.
Your clever twerpiness caused other twerps to congregate and shun, censor, misrepresent, and muzzle another commenter like you’re a lunch clique of precocious seventh-grade bitches. You think this makes for a real “manosphere”? You proud of injecting your DnD jealousies into an attempted gathering of men? That “DANGER” “and” “PLAY” tool blows a lot of smoke, casts a lot of aspersions, but when it comes to the simplest pushback, exposes himself for the little pussy he is.
I don’t want to exclude you from anything. I want you to be better. We need better. I am just entering my prime, and I can’t spend it fending off rear-guard ankle-biters. You are my brother, we are seeking the same goals, you are better than this.
Matt
Phedre wrote:
It gets even clearer when you scrutinize the modern history of this presumption, and you realize that nihilism is just as posited an article of faith (of positive materialism) as any statement in the Nicene Creed, only its true believers are a thousand-times less aware of their leap than the typical person in the pew. I laugh at this unholy arrogance, especially when they make claims to “science” in lieu of examining the first principles that animate their credulous faith in emptiness/fiction. For them to lecture about who’s “too mentally weak to handle the reality” is a delusion inside an arrogance lost in a misapprehension.
But isn’t that just it? The liberation of humility. “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 18:3-4).
And: “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John 8:31-32).
God bless you, sister. Go tell the world the euangelion.
Matt
King A
… maar aan U o God … geen versoek … in die ru-gekwas op lewensdoek geen lotsbekla … en waar Skildertogte klowe saag … hoop ek … antwoord van ‘n vraag …
Roughly translated it means this :
… but for Thou oh God … no request … in those savage strokes on canvassed life … no protest … and where Painter-travels ravines bequest … hope do I … the answers rest …
Pingback: Link Love Thursday: Ladies Night Edition | Adventures in Red Pill Wifery