Why Romance Died

“And I would gladly, die, screaming, in insufferable agony

If it meant I could spend my last few moments gazing into her eyes”

–David St. Hubbins, Derek Smalls, Nigel Tufnel

                                                                                                     “Diva Fever”

During my blue pill days, I read Robert Greene’s Art of Seduction.  It was during a period in which I knew I was doing something wrong but couldn’t quite figure out what.  I still believed that Game (or what I understood it to be at that point) was less a question of human nature and more about techniques.

One of the examples Greene gives of a master seducer is Duke Ellington.  Duke was famous for picking out some random girl and making her the center of his world.  I figured that if it worked for him, it very well might work for me.  I tried it.  It didn’t work.

I failed to recognize the obvious.  He was Duke Ellington.  I was just me.

Around this time I also read Les Liaisons dangereuses by de Laclos.  I noticed how Valmont would portray himself as the victim to his target.  Her moods, her actions, or whether or not she would write to him could make or break him emotionally.  This was amplification, of course (his targets had no such effect on him whatsoever).  Yet I found it fascinating how an Alpha (I didn’t think of him that way then) could control a woman by verbally demeaning himself before her.

Again, my attempts to emulate Valmont failed.  I didn’t recognize that only an Alpha can exert the emotional hold on a woman that would render such a technique effective.  Stingray said recently in my comments that “[t]here is not a woman alive who does not smile/giggle with delight upon receiving genuine praise from a high status man.”  I’m sure that such profound effects are not limited to to giggles and praise.  From “a high status man” would not criticism sting just a bit more?  Could such a man telling a woman that she’s wrecking him emotionally when he’s obviously in complete control of their interactions (and his own emotions) not bring her ambivalence and confusion to a fever pitch?

Yet today, even from an Alpha such machinations would likely set her hypergamy abuzz instead.   Women fantasizes about the Justin of her era (Timberlake, Bieber, etc.) singing those love lyrics straight to her, and I’m sure that Kristen Stewart initially felt overwhelmed by Edward Cullen’s worship.  But didn’t Kristen tire of the attention and cheat on the poor vampire?  Perhaps Justin could hold one of his anonymous Kansas beliebers indefinitely with such techniques, but I suspect that unless you’re an apex Alpha that anything even closely resembling the types of compliments Bruno Mars sings would completely flop in America today.

Nevertheless, from the Age of Chivalry until beyond the Romantic Era, over-the-top romantic praise was the order of the day.  I’m aware that the Feminine Imperative played a role, but somehow praising women to high hell used to get men laid.

What’s changed?

I believe the reason is twofold.

First, before birth control, feminism, and the sexual revolution, sexual relations with the wrong guy could have extremely adverse consequences.  A pump & dump could cause her expulsion from society, ostracism from her family, and consign her to some textile mill in some obscure, rocky, and isolated town for the rest of her life.

So unlike today, although the cad might want her to suspect he’s a cad to get her hamster running, Alphas had to assure their prey that she was different.  The glorious creature before him has driven out even the thought of every other woman, ever.  She is the sun to him, the twinkle in her eyes leaves his heart leaping in ecstasy, a downcast glance could easily drive him to suicide.  He would never abandon her, for she is the center of his very being.

Imagine trying that crap today.  Again, maybe if you’re Ryan Gosling.

Until he brings her to a party and she meets Ryan Lochte.

But the second reason is just as important.  Although men have always been Alphas and Betas, almost every man in his own little way was a contextual alpha.  He may just be an obscure miller, but he was in charge of his family.  If he was a cruel husband, she would be miserable, forever.  If he beat her, the courts would back him up; everybody would assume she deserved it.  If he cheated on her, even if his job was just to clear out hog-slop, she would have to grin and bear it.

Would this not inspire a woman to consider beta traits in her choice of mate?  For even if he’s neither Alpha nor alpha, he was her ruler, her king.  He didn’t necessarily need to demonstrate as many dominant traits because he had power over her no matter what.  What he lacked in Alpha was partially compensated for by the courts, church, and all of society.

When modern American Alphas beat the crap out of some dude, women get excited.  However, imagine a prospective bride in Saudi Arabia watching her betrothed beat some servant senseless for spilling a drop of water on the carpet.  Would she get the same tingle Rihanna gets?  After all, if he beats her to a pulp for fun, is she calls the cops she might be the one who gets in trouble for disobedience.

I suspect that this might curb a woman’s craving for danger somewhat.  I know that Queen Hamster always tells them that he’d never do that to her, but I also know that some women manage to rebuff the advances of convicted murderers.

At least I hope so.

Yet I can’t help but observe that when men have actual physical power over women that women are more likely to appreciate men who use that power more justly.

Maybe there are times when women actually do value chivalry.

Maybe part of the reason modern women have such bad taste in men is that having such bad taste has so few consequences.

So maybe the best way to get betas to man-up, and the best way for women to appreciate what men do for them, is to give average guys at least a little bit of control over their own families.

Until that happens, ladies, you can forget about any decent guy even thinking (much less saying) this crap about you.