Guest Post: Cranky Betas - not attractive to single women - as well they shouldn't be

In the comments of Donal Graeme's recent post commenter, Ton, peaked my interest with this comment: 

Yes men are pissed. They were lied to, the lie was easy to believe, gave them an easy out to manhood, one that made sense to them and now they are cranky about it. Most betas still think their beta male selves should be the rational choice. Which is false, but they believe it so they are still cranky.

In responding to Deti he had this to say:

No brother I don't think beta men are necessarily the logical choice.

I asked if he would expand on this to which he obliged:

Why betas are not the logical choice; they are for the time periods of peace and prosperity. Which is rare when you look at history. The Bible also tells us things will get worse. Sooooo who should she tie her fate to? The nice guy beta, or the thug who is willing to fight, break the law, skirt social norms etc? Which is not to say the beta won't nut up, but who has the demonstrated track record of taking risks, violence etc?

The lie is easy for them because being a nice guy/ beta is easy. No real risk required. No missing lung, no chewed up face, busted hands, knees shoulders etc that hurt every day. No getting up and doing PT before you go do PT. Then doing PT during lunch and after work. Believe the lie and you get to sit on your ass, play video games etc.

The easy way out is harmful because a man's first duty is violence. Watch how women (in general) respond to a combat sport athlete or football player vs a golfer or tennis player. Why? At the cellular she knows what he is supposed to do. 

It is harmful on the society level. Our people are being replaced by aliens because men do not protect the tribe at any level. It is also not Biblical. Almost all the big names in the Old Testament were violent men. Our 1st commandment including taking dominion over the earth. To rule. Rule ourselves like avoiding soft living, rule over or women/ children/ family and house hold. Rule over our clan and tribes. Rule over our nation. Rule over others and the earth. To rule you need informal personal power or top down legal authority. The last does not exist when things get bad. To have that personal power, to earn that respect without relying on a formal chain of command, requires the absolute certainty that a man can and will enforce his will physically.

Men, by in large, should not be cranky about what women find attractive. Its logical and rational when looked at in total. They way I see it, they are cranky because they are lazy as much as the lie. The other lie that plays into the pissy attitude is the one about being happy, deserving this that and the other thing. Life is pain, work, and challenges. A man's joy should be in over coming tough obstacles and his rare moments of peace and contentment.

Folks in the manosphere think I am a caricature of masculinity. I think they are all pussies.

So...if women do it, it is good, if men do it, it is immoral?

Deti writes via Free Northerner's post, Christian Masculinity:

Christian women need to be told the truth about men:
Men are attracted to youth and looks. This is normal. Men are not evil, base or perverted for being attracted to youth and beauty. Young Christian girl, if you are not getting approached or asked out, it’s probably because you’re not attractive enough, you’re not nice enough or you’re not available enough. You need to work on this. You need to lose weight, grow your hair out, wear nice clothes and some decent makeup. You might be a bitch, and if you are, you need to be nicer. If you really want to find a man and marry, then you need to get serious about it while you’re young. Hint: 30 is NOT young when it comes to starting to think about getting married. Men want sex. This is normal. It is not evil, base or perverted.

 Deti has said this repeatedly in short form and long. Maybe he'll stop by and deliver a long version of it, his passionate commentaries on the subject are works of art.

The truth about men, regarding what they're attracted to, hasn't been denied in our culture, rather it has sadly been demonized by feminism as something that is wrong. For those of us who don't hate men, don't desire to be one, appreciate that we are not the same, know we were created differently, and value harmonious relationships with them, it is important we learn what they like, without judgement.

Learning the truth of what men are attracted to and developing these characteristics in ourselves can be called Girl Game. Whether you are a single young woman who desires a husband or you are a married woman who desires to be pleasing to your husband, learning the truth about mens' attraction is valuable. You are certainly welcome to waste time arguing about whether or not these things should be true. You are also welcome to not care, just be yourself (if that self is not naturally attractive to men), and see if that works for the accomplishment of your desires (to be married or be pleasing to the man you do marry).

"My husband loves me for who I am." - Great. If you are married to a man who is not interested in the length or color of your hair, amount of fat hanging from your body, physical health, temperament, or submissiveness, you are welcome to continue on just being who you are. I would advise you however to recognize that he may not be telling you the truth. What I've found in reading blogs such as those I have linked on the right is that men in droves are expressing their disgust of what has become of women. From the most devout Christian to the fornicating pick up artist, they are, for the most part, in agreement.

That's interesting, isn't it?

I remember learning that how I wear my hair matters to my husband. I had not thought of it before, I just did my hair the way I liked doing my hair. When we first met, I liked wearing it long, highlighted, sometimes curly, sometimes straight. When RLB told me he wanted me to color my hair platinum and was willing to pay whatever it took to get it that way, it dawned on me that this is something that is important to him. The same is true about my weight, my physical condition, my attitude, and my submission to him. Some of what is attractive to RLB comes naturally to me, some doesn't. That which doesn't is becoming more natural to me as I work on it. Seems simple enough, doesn't it?

An intangible feature that is attractive to my husband is loyalty. It stands to reason if I am physically attractive to RLB, I am also physically attractive to other men. The way I wear my hear, the clothes I wear, my demeanor and mannerisms are appreciated by men. Knowing this, I do things to limit my interactions with men. I do not have private conversations with men and avoid being alone with men. I don't have any conversations with men that RLB does not know about or approve of.

I've taught my daughters this. Just recently one of them told me about a boy she met who she thinks is great. He's intelligent and likes some of the same things she does. She's very attractive, has a pleasant demeanor, and has an interest in a wide variety of things that are of interest to her father and which she enjoys conversing about. I told her that though being friends with this boy seems like a good idea, it's not. While he might enjoy their conversations, he is a teenage boy and will be attracted to her. Their friendship will not be platonic, he will desire her and she should keep her distance until she is ready to enter a courtship. There will be no phone conversations, facebook interactions, or hanging out privately. Because of her natural "girl game" this will happen a lot with her. The reason she will not have friendships with boys is not just for her benefit, it is for the boys' benefit as well. She is to be kind and courteous but respectfully decline any furtherance of friendship or relationships with them.

As Deti said, there is nothing evil, base, or perverted about the attraction boys will have to her. In fact the very things that make her attractive to these boys will be the delight of her husband.

Let me bring this full circle to the truth about women. It has been an enlightening journey to dig deep and analyze the truths about women that are discussed on the blogs I read. When I take the time to ponder that which my husband does that increases my attraction to him I can see these truths within myself. I do have the benefit of being obedient to God when it comes to my marriage. I take very seriously what He calls me to do. It's interesting, though, that there are times when that which I am biblically called to do is easier than others. Some of which has to do with hormones that naturally course through me regardless of external influence. As I talked about in my last post some hormonal responses I have are influenced because of external stimuli like physical exercise. But there is another hormonal response I experience that is influenced by my husband's behavior.

We've been married a minute and have the benefit of being able to look back and make observations of our attraction levels to each other over the years, how they've waned and flowed and we can analyze what all the factors were in play that may have influenced that attraction level. The factors in play that influence his physical attraction to me are the very things that Deti listed. And, wouldn't you know it, the factors that influence my physical attraction to RLB are what has been termed Game in the manosphere. Some of which comes quite naturally to him and some he's learned.

That which he has learned some have called manipulative and not something a Christian should concern himself with. Which is interesting because if those characteristics came naturally to him, all is well and good - right? But because it is something learned - that makes it somehow wrong?

Confusing though, is the same is not said of that which women learn. For example, I used to express my feelings to RLB in whatever manner came naturally to me. This was a big turn off to him because often times it seemed disrespectful and selfish. Now, I express myself to him a way I have learned is attractive to him. Instead of saying, "I disagree with you, the truth is: _____", now I say something like, "I might be wrong, this is what I was thinking is true, tell me what you think."

It's a funny example and here's why: If RLB were to say to me, "I might be wrong, this is what I was thinking is true, tell me what you think." it is not attractive to me, quite the opposite in fact. Those hormones that create physical desire within me crawl into a hole. Bleh! Where as if he says, "No, you're wrong." I have a very positive physiological reaction to him. My heart rate jumps a little, I feel challenged, intrigued and honestly, I trust him. It is easier for me to submit to him when he expresses himself this way than if he were to speak to me the other way.

I'd be interested to know if those who find it somehow not Christian for men to learn and apply techniques that stimulate a woman's attraction to him find it as non Christian when women learn to do the same. And if not, what makes it different?

Jim taught me how to lift weights

He taught me the correct form to use, he taught me how to warm up, increase the weights safely, and how to outperform my yesterday's self.  He laughed with me at my mistakes, challenged me to overcome my natural inclination to do the minimums, shamed me when I spoke words of failure, and cheered for my successes.

Now RLB paid Jim a good amount for training me. A well deserved payment to be sure. There were no promises made, however the results of the training are obvious. I am stronger than I was.

In addition to increased muscle mass and the ability to lift heavier things than I previously could, I have experienced internal benefits as well: a pleasant attitude, happiness, a spirit of overcoming, a positive self image, a peaceful disposition, a calm mind.  I pray a lot. I find great comfort in talking to God so I do it often. Quite often I would pray before I'd lift and always during challenging workouts. I was listening to Jim about technique and procedure. I was being instructed and encouraged by him but when it came down to it, I was going to the source of my inner strength, God, for the rest. I'd thank Jim for his help and I'd thank God for His help.

RLB and I have a lot of respect for Jim. He's a dedicated trainer who can be trusted to do what RLB paid him to do. He's an honest man. He told me the truth. He saw when I was being a quitter, he knew when I wasn't giving my best, he told me the truth of why I wasn't accomplishing my goals faster and what I'd need to change to achieve my goals.

Jim was introduced to us by a Christian. Jim is an atheist.

How is it that an atheist could teach me things that are true? It's a stupid question. Isn't it?

Now it is possible to experience all of the positive internal benefits I experienced by reading God's Word and praying to Him. This fascinating body that He created contains hormones that are the physical component to emotional expression. God created them, they are good. He created them in such a way that they are influenced not only by reading the Bible and prayer but also by external stimuli like lifting weights. Good nor bad, it just is. It is true. God sees the hearts of His people and the truth of their motivation is between Him and the Christian.

When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear and understand:  Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.” Matthew 15:10-11

Keep this in mind as you hear Christians deriding other Christians (whose hearts are known by God) for their use of techniques they have learned to positively benefit their interpersonal relationships.

Update - Dalrock wrote this over a year prior to when I began reading his posts. It is excellent and quite relevant to the point I'm making here: She felt unloved

We've come a long way baby: Feminists are reading, and they agree with us!

Manosphere antagonist, Body Crimes, and a few individuals who comment there have sufficiently exposed the value of Christian marriage in an ironic analysis of some posts on my blog. 

I just don’t understand feminism

That’s the cry of the Manosphere. As far as they’re concerned, back in the good old days, all a woman had to do to have a fulfilling life was keep her hair long, get married, have rosy-cheeked babies and then spend the rest of her life in marital bliss, being adored by a masculine man who totally provided for her needs.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why the New Misogynists will never overturn feminism. They simply don’t understand it, and therefore can neither critique it effectively or mount a political challenge to it.

 The conversation turns to my posts When women rage and Amazing Grace where we see a bizarre parallel - feminists saying precisely what I and other manosphere bloggers have been saying all along. Take a look:

 bodycrimes
From other things she’s written, it sounds like she was a neglected child. So all credit to her that she’s used Christianity and ‘red pill’ knowledge to straighten herself out. It’s the belief that it should be imposed on everybody else I have problems with.

Imposed on everybody else? Well, unfortunately not everybody reads my blog, but those who do voluntarily, I simply can not take the credit for imposing my beliefs on you. I lack the power it would take to make you click over here. 

Normal Pap Smear
Very insightful, though I think it’s more father/child than dom/sub. He writes posts on her blog every once in a while and seems like a rational person who got stuck with the job of re-parenting her.

Oh how MGTOWs can howl with delight. They don't want to re-parent a woman like me, understandably.  A woman like me, unfortunately, is a growing number of women on the market: they are former carousel riders, have horrible family histories, often times they are irrational raging bitches that haven't an iota of self control, they believe divorce is a suitable way out whenever you find yourself unhappy, and they lack accountability for any of their actions.

Since my parents dropped me off at church, one could say they fulfilled Proverbs 22:6, however you are right,  Normal Pap Smear, RLB (and his mother) got stuck with most of my parenting. I was, after all, 19 when he proposed to me and still very much acting like a child. What RLB understood was that marriage is forever, he chose to marry me, and he's chosen God's call for him in marriage as laid out in 1 Peter, and Ephesians.

 Butterfly Girl
I feel sorry for SD b/c I can relate to her. My mom had substance abuse issues and my crazy childhood created in me a need to create a world where everything was in order. As a young person I’d fly into a rage if a person’s behavior didn’t fit what I thought it should be. It made me feel out of control and above all, terrified. Eventually I got therapy and learned to let myself relax and let other people be.
SD is brutal when the other women on SSM’s blog question her beliefs on submissiveness. She even once argued that a wife should give in to having a threesome if her husband ordered it. I believe she has to adhere to these rigid beliefs b/c she doesn’t want her life to ever be out of control again. She derives comfort from her dom/sub relationship and doesn’t understand why such an arrangement wouldn’t work for everyone.

No need to feel sorry for me darling Butterfly, for mine is a victory story. I'm glad your therapy has worked for you. Mine has as well - biblical marriage. Obedience to God has given me that comfort so many women seek. I have no fear of my life being out of control. Is that because of my rigid beliefs? It makes no difference to me. Peace and Joy in the Lord, a calm disposition, a tranquil home, and a fun and exciting marriage and family life are the fruit of those beliefs.

The next comment tells a tale that is more and more common these days. Of course not all women are like that, but for those of us who are, what comfort there is in knowing there is Hope. 

 sn0rkmaiden

I only skimmed through SD’s blog post, as it sounded like yet another ‘mea culpa’ with the happy ending of a woman surrendering all autonomy to her lord and master (god or husband? take your pick).
However from what you guys are saying, she sounds not unlike my old school friend who’s mother would dose her with medicine to send her to sleep in order to protect her from her father’s violence.
While my friend, I’ll call her Lizzie, is not a Christian, and is in fact a staunch aetheist, she’s also got a real problem with ‘the red mist’ where I’ve seen her fly into scary rages and hysteria over something as trivial as being slighted in the pub. The DV incident you guys are talking about sounds like some of the altercations she would describe with her second husband. And I’m afraid I would describe her as a domestic abuser, because he didn’t hit back.
I don’t think she kept him in a state or terror, as many abusers do their spouses, but once in a while they’d have a fight where she would physically attack him, I never saw it happen but she would talk about it, like explaining to me once there was a pub we couldn’t go in because she’d been permanantly barred for punching her husband three times in the face for ‘really winding her up’. The worst of it was she always blamed him for starting her off, just like the men we read about who always blame their wives.
I’m not proud of the fact I didn’t do anything about this when I found out, it’s been one of the major moral dilemmas I’ve had in my life. I had originally lost touch with Lizzie after our teens, then reconnected with her in our thirties when she was married to her second husband, and it was only after meeting up a few times she started telling me what was going on. I’ll be honest, I felt intimidated to tell her that she was wrong to behave like this, I remember the first time we in her local when she went ballistic at the chef who worked there over something really minor, and it was scary seeing her blow up like that, there was no way she could be reasoned with, she got barred from that place as well. I suppose because I never saw her attack her husband I couldn’t have gone to the police, not when going on her say so which she could take back, and I felt too intimidated to challenge her directly, so I just started distancing myself from her. I also couldn’t help having some compassion for her as I knew how much she had been through in her life, not that it was any excuse to act out at anyone who pissed her off. I suppose if I’d been his friend rather than hers I’d have felt in a better position to interfere. The most I did was urge her to get therapy, though that was more in relation to her anxiety issues than her violence.
Funny, the above would belong more on an anti-feminist blog than this one, though since this is real life and people are flawed and this has absolutely nothing to do with feminism or misandry, perhaps this is a good place to talk about it. As it was I bumped into her several months later, after they’d moved to a different area, and she was sporting an electronic tag. It turned out she and he had had ‘a big fight’, where the police had been called, and despite his refusing to press charges she’d still been prosecuted for assault and served a custodial sentence. So I can sight at least one example to refute the often repeated claim that only men ever do time for DV.

You are welcome to pause for a moment to laugh. "The above would belong more on an anti-feminist blog than this one, though since this is real life...this has absolutely nothing to do with feminism or misandry..." 

They betray their own selves.

2SweetCats
Well, I do wonder about the kind of person who (presumably) saw this kind of behavior while dating, and chose marriage. A relationship can only be as strong as the least healthy person in it.

 Well isn't that a different kind of shaming. Shaming a man for marrying a...feminist, strong independent woman (TM), who freely gave away sex and needs a strong man to be able to handle all she's gonna dish out.
...oh wait...

 A.
 Her comments about her insecurity, readiness to run off whenever they had a fight … she links that, as far as I can see, to her past promiscuity, but I’d be more inclined to say both behaviors were linked to the abuse. iow, they’re both symptoms of the problem rather than the problem itself.

I have that tendency myself, to want to flee as soon as things get hard, because I have so many issues tied up in my past. But, I have a husband who understands what happened back then and how it affects me now. Heck, he even talked to the nurses at the nursing home when my sister was having some real struggles emotionally (and now I have tears in my eyes because I really DO have an incredible man) to try to help them better understand what she needed. We’ve made it through a lot and are going on 13 years married, 16 years together. Still the best of friends, and I cannot imagine my life without him.
SD sounds like she needs serious therapy to work through her past traumas. It’s good that she’s gotten to a more functioning place, but burying the past without properly dealing with it may well come back to haunt her.

 No matter who it is, I love to hear a woman edify her husband.

And by the way, welcome to my public blog, a place where I have....buried my past.

 lusciouswords
While I feel for her while dealing with a neglected childhood and for her mother for dealing with whatever she has/had, there comes a point where we each have to take responsibility for our actions. Her behavior in these examples she cites sound like the behavior of a bratty child who was never told “no” or throws a tantrum any time things don’t happen the way she wishes. I have a problem with any adult (female or male) who acts in this manner. In the example of tossing a lukewarm coffee on her husband, she endangered the lives of others. Plain and simple, she’s acting like a spoiled brat, and definitely sounds like therapy could be helpful.

Schopenhauer couldn't have said it better himself. 

No wonder the cry of the manosphere, according to Bodycrimes, is that they don't understand feminism. I'm not sure feminists do.

Excessive pet taxation.

If you have a pet in a city requiring licensing, it will cost you on average $10/pet. If you have a middle class income with 2-3 kids and have two pets, you will pay more for those pet taxes than all your federal taxes combined. You can argue the point at which federal taxes kick in or how much you pay indirectly. However, the actual money coming out of your pocket that you can realistically control is the local $10/pet. Obviously there are many more local tax issues that are larger and affect your wallet more significantly than a pet. Your vote and voice on such issues is a much larger percentage of the voting populace locally than nationally.

Interestingly, more people vote for national elections than local. Why is this? It must have to do with people not wanting to carry responsibility for their decisions. It is easier to blame others than to take responsibility. Running for school board or town council is a much bigger commitment than voting for a president and bitching about the outcome. Whining about things you can't control is much easier than changing the things you can. Why would you care about the pennies of aid to Georgia (the country) if your local school in Georgia (the state) is spending thousands of dollars of your earnings on a school you and your neighbors don't want or need? Maybe you do need it. Why would you not vote for it and encourage others to but get all excited about a presidential election. What actually affects you more?

Try looking up your local municipality's budget. Read the minutes. Go to a meeting. The involvement and bureaucracy of it all is incredibly intimidating. I am as guilty of this as anyone. I rely on the idea that I'm new to my area to justify my lack of involvement. It is a cop out. I will change. I will be charged as a newbie and not understanding local issues. I will do it anyway because I care about my community.

Our cat went Miley.

I like cats. They hunt and kill. In particular they keep birds from defecating on my porch and eliminate rodents from my household. They are killers. Unless you go all cat lady on them.

They aren't children. They are effective pest control that costs little compared to paying for pest control. It's almost like our ancestors knew what they were doing when trying to protect their food stores by domesticating them. Or even more scary, God knew we would need such a creature to handle pests.

OTOH, they are still animals and will display animalistic functions. This includes reproduction. Our lovable kitten that was killing birds and rodents changed. She went into heat and was insatiable. To people that have seen this, it is understood what I mean. To my children that have never seen it, it was appalling.  It did remind them of Ms. Miley and her twerking.

That similarity is yet one more reason to have pets. Your children seeing the animalistic tendencies of such people will only be understood if they see it from animals as well. The ability to deny these instincts and desires is what makes us different from animals.

Our cat has been fixed and she is lovable again. She still hunts and the rodents that were in the house we moved into are gone now. Some eaten, some escaped. I would prefer to live in a country setting where I can have a glaring. That will happen eventually. In the meantime, our children have seen the Miley function removed from a cat. You don't have to do the same thing to people. They can adopt a moral system like Christianity and they stop twerking.

George Washington was a redcoat.

The last month has been...interesting for our family. We have moved and I have transitioned from the military to the private sector. There are many things to look at and comment upon. In this post I will address the transitioning of a soldier/airman/seaman/marine/coastie.

When young men leave the military, they need to find a veteran's organization quickly. There are several, including the VFW and American Legion. These organizations are priceless for the young man leaving service. The camaraderie available is necessary for a successful transition.

Tonight I joined the Legion. I met several elderly veterans. They are a testament to the long term vision necessary for a culture to succeed long term. I met octogenarians that lived through four elections of FDR. I met veterans that were spit upon after Vietnam. These men are the heart of our culture. George Washington was a redcoat.

Culture is determined by those that lead independent of the political environment. There is only so much that military men will abide. When they are done...they become George Washington. These are the men that a country must not ignore. These are the men that resist violence because they have seen it too close. These men hate the use of violence to implement political solutions. These men understand what the tip of the spear looks like when political discussion has ceased. It is bloody and nothing will make sense. That is why they resist escalation of rhetoric. Yet they know exactly how to use violence and how to separate emotion from execution of orders.

George Washington was a traitor to England, yet he was a saint to the new world. Identify the difference and you understand the importance of culture.

Status - buying things you don't need to impress people you don't care about

It's been a busy month for us. RLB is medically retired from the Army and we've moved back to our home state.

Two days before we were going to start our thousand mile journey, RLB took our Suburban to the mechanic to make sure it was ready for the trip and could haul his RX7. The mechanic called back with bad news, the coolant leak RLB had noticed was a cracked head gasket which would cost $2600 to repair and wouldn't be able to be done until after we planned on leaving.

We left that truck behind with my sister to sell it for whatever she could get for it and we rented another for the trip. Before we left, RLB located another Suburban for sale near our new home. And within a week we wrote a check for it.

God was involved in all of this, there's no way to deny that. See, the old Suburban was a rear wheel drive and would have been completely useless to us where we live now. The new-to-us Suburban has four-wheel drive and we've put it to good use already.

Meanwhile, my sister took the old Suburban to her mechanic. Turns out the gaskets are just fine, it was the water pump that needed to be replaced. $150 repair and now we can sell it for more than what we paid for the four-wheel drive.

RLB and I don't have status when it comes to our vehicles. We see them as tools. I've been driving Suburbans for six years now because of two reasons; safety, and hauling capacity. Yes, it costs more in fuel than an economy car would. However RLB doesn't count that cost when it comes to the safety of his wife and children.

We've been driving older vehicles for our entire marriage. My first Suburban was a 2000 that we bought in 2008 and drove it in the ground, it had 220,000 miles on it. The last one was a 2002 and has 150,000 miles on it and this one we now have is a 1996. We hate car payments. It is less stressful for RLB for us to save $300/month and for me to budget a couple days of time for repairs a couple times a year than to straddle ourselves with debt on a depreciating vehicle.That $300/month savings adds up fast when there are long periods of time where no repairs are necessary. In fact, that is why we could write a check for this last Suburban (all told it cost $4200).

No doubt about it, I love the newest Suburban on the market. It's gorgeous! It has all the latest gadgets and conveniences now available in vehicles. It just doesn't make sense to us economically. There are people it does make sense for. If $50,000 to a breadwinner is equivalent to $4000 to RLB it makes sense. And good for them. But I will not ask or beg my husband to sign a bank note so I can pretend we live at that lifestyle while burdening his future time.

When we covet, what we are doing is saying: "I have an expectation from you, God, and you're not delivering."