“The Way of Men holds the fucking line.” – Korezaan
A thought provoking and intense review.
– Jack Donovan’s author page on Facebook
I have forgotten until recently how people think of me as “intense”.
People have berated me basically as long as I can remember. After childhood when it was okay to be “full of energy”, I was suddenly “too full of energy”. Where it was once “likes to play with others”, my behavior was now seen as “overly aggressive” (Thankfully I was out of elementary school before the ADD/Ritalin craze hit my area). Later, things I said (couldn’t act, “You’re not a kid anymore” + cops and reputation of principals in middle school) became “insensitive”, and “offensive”, or sometimes “edgy”. Even now, with the power of the internet to link me to many people I could never otherwise meet, people who agree with me and are on my side, people who would be there when I need them even if they don’t particularly agree with everything I say, say I’m “intense”.
For my part, I think the complementary thing about the rest of the world: everyone is boring as fuck.
The fact that I need to spell out that the standard criteria and approximations behind my lines to the average public audience is indicative of my reasoning. Of course “It’s just [my] opinion”, It’s coming out of my mouth. And what’s with the “just”? Should I downgrade my own opinion while upholding yours, regardless of validity, just because you’re not me? Etiquette is a choice, that’s why it’s valued in the people who are good at it. Of course I’m not talking about every single person who has ever lived or will lived and how they act at every single event; it’s called a generalization and not an absolutization for a reason. Saying things like that is interesting the first time, but the novelty wears of real quickly when you find out that you have to say stuff like that *every* *single* *time* because apparently stuff like this needs to be sent out in a memo, and it just so happens everyone you talk to, didn’t get it.
To be boring is to have predictable and uncomplicated responses. Very passionate people can be boring, if they are blabbering inarticulately. Very articulate people can be boring because they find stuff to talk about – rather than actually having more stuff to talk about – and talk in circles for lack of true passion and thus direction and purpose. Boring people tend to repeat their very simple, very easily memorized, and very bland responses in a one trick pony manner (though the former type tends to be less boring than the latter). And the more passionate and articulate you are, the more you figure out that even intelligent people are just on longer repeat loops, the more everybody will look boring.
Do I still have to say that I don’t mean absolutely everybody? Probably. Will I? No.
You have been warned: If I deem it necessary I will add qualifiers, but by default I will assume your mind to be active.
Part of the reason why my review of The Way of Men was so long was I couldn’t figure out why explicitly I found it so inspiring. There’s always the problem of transitioning well when you start from one idea and move to another, but it’s really hard if you don’t even know what you’re transitioning to. I ended up just following a couple of my natural thought and wording patterns and I finished in a manner I found satisfactory. I was unable to state it further than “actions need actors, actors are not cardboard cutouts, actors are men, and men want to create shit”, but the general tone and feeling made up for it. In general, I think that quoted section really is the Unifier, is the most applicable idea of the book.
The reason why this Unifier resonates with me, however, is because it tells me my “intensity” can be legitimate. That’s exactly what intensity is, an indomitable desire to create, to “make your mark on the world”. Whether you succeed or not is not relevant, not because you “gave your best” (that’s a given and to talk about it is to degrade it), but because you’re guaranteed to have either a legendary victory or a glorious defeat. I’m sure there are plenty of people who will find other ideas as unifying their existence. I’m sure there are actually people who are truly happy with fishing and sitting around for a living, who really believe that saving the whales will give meaning to their existence, who find it a great learning experience to work part-time swiping your groceries past a set of lasers, etc. – I don’t believe anybody does, and if I ever meet anyone like that I’d probably doubt them for a long time. If not forever. But that’s fine, because they’ve doubted me forever too. No matter what their choice of wording, the message was the same: stop being intense. No buts about it, anything with intensity has to go.
And I can’t do that. It must be the exact opposite case; I have to be intense in every last thing I do. If I’m not intense, I’ll get bored real quick. Even in washing dishes and cleaning the table after dinner I find a way to be intense. Literally up until the point I read The Way of Men I was trying to find any other way to convert or transmutate my kind of energy into other things – Discipline and Motivation being the big ones I’ve tried during my time on this blog. They are important of course and I will probably continue to talk in their terms, but I cannot think in their terms. Even my short time that I’ve attempted to channel my natural energy into respect and telling stories, everything is still characterized by intensity – I simply have tried to retroactively paint everything as intense, to try and recognize and realize the greatness of all who have came before. There’s a difference between this, and simply making “mountains out of molehills” – one is doable by a shitty nobody, and one can only be doable by people who are intense about themselves.
Like a metal tool created through and machining, all the molds, mills, and lathes in the world are just going to sit around and collect dust if you don’t have some high quality stock material. Passion Clarity is my manufacturing, this blog (and my behavior in life) is my tool/product, but “intensity” is my raw material. Intensity too can improve and be refined (the manufacturing analogy holds), but not being intense is not a method of improving intensity. A better analogy could probably be made out of relating intensity to energy, as energy is used in absolutely everything. But that would be oversaturation to everybody who doesn’t already deeply share my sentiments.
I’ll probably write a manifesto on this sometime. It’s definitely something that’s inherent to my character and I’ve confirmed it multiple times, I simply haven’t taken it (and thus myself) very seriously up till now.
The topic of this post is on the most commonly cited reason to not be intense:
You want a girlfriend right? Someone to spend time with, to be happy with? A lover, rather your left (or right) hand? Well then, you need to make adjustments. You’re going to be part of a pair. You need to spend time with her, do what she likes. There are certain ways you have to interact, certain things you need to do. Some things, she’s not going to like. One of the big things you’re going to need to change is that attitude. Stop being so intense, dude.
The world painted to me by everyone from the main media to my friends is that I need to get laid, and that to get laid, I need to change who I am. That I’m a virgin is not something I see as a particular problem (this is a problem), it’s the way these love gurus say both that you need to adapt to be with someone else and yet you need to be yourself. This is a conflict that appears outside the romantic context as well: you can’t rock the boat too much, or you’ll get thrown off by the other people around you and then you’re going to have to swim in the ocean all alone, cold, and wet. My friends give advice to me on this as well, about how I’m “antisocial” even though their words indicate that it is all about how people react to me rather than what I do, how I’m “offensive” even though it’s clear that the reason words are loaded is because people hear them as loaded and not because I have any malintent. I was originally going to make a separate entry about the sociopolitical version, but I have the same response, and romance is stronger, so I’ll respond over here instead:
“I just want to be different”? You just want to be the same.
I have two close friends I talk with a lot, and they both have girlfriends. They are two very different people, but I won’t discuss that too much – except in how they are with their girlfriends. For the general sentiment in culture today is that to have a girlfriend is categorically better than to not have a girlfriend, and that means all other things diminish in significance with relation to this one main objective.
So I will judge via the main objective: how do these pairs look?
Guy One has a girlfriend that is a couple of years older than him. He’s always had about double the amount of female friends than he does male friends. A nice and sociable guy all around, and will make a perfect salesman. He had told me his girlfriend does everything for him – makes his meals, helps with laundry, anything he named. She had a pretty average face, and her body wasn’t anything mindblowing but it was slim and fit. For a while, she basically served him. I didn’t see much care on his part – perhaps the “thank you”s he said were nicer, but that was about it.. Then, there was a short time where he was depressed when her parents forbid her to be with him, and he talked to me a lot about how she had taught him so many things and made him into a better person. When I asked why he didn’t do anything before, he told me the standard lines along “you don’t treasure what you have until you lose it” and said he now realized she was the most beautiful he’d ever seen and this would be a chance in a lifetime gone. He said he realized what had happened was basically he treated her like shit and just a maid, while she was working her ass off to do things to make his life easier. Probably within a week they got back together, and he had changed. A lot. She’d steer conversations and topics every time I paid attention; he’d use accomodating lines almost exclusively. On what seemed like every other occasion, there’d be a conversation along the lines of
Hey, what’s wrong?
Are you sure? What’s bothering you?
No, everything’s fine.
In talking about general social and philosophical concerns, he needs to repeatedly tell me that he’s just giving me his opinion. Always things are talked about in a dark and brooding manner, a fear of what will happen to me if I don’t change in this way or that. When he tells me I should do something, I regularly tell him to fuck off. Anger, mine because of what he’s suggesting and him because I reject his suggestions, is regular.
Guy Two has a girlfriend that is one year older than him. He has about an even ratio of female to male friends, but he prefers females for just social activities while preferring males in any directly purposive activities. He is completely fine with saying he dislikes most people. Though he never talks about his girlfriend, it is rather clear that she takes a similar set of actions that Girl One used to: helps him find a job, drives him where he needs to go, does small nice things on her own (bake cookies). Her face is almost an 8, she’s decently endowed and runs every day. For the time I’ve known Guy Two I haven’t seen any important romantic events, but both relationships have been running for about the same total length. If anything, I am inclined to believe an analogous catastrophe never happened. He takes control, all the time. While on Skype, he’ll often say “Korezaan says he [something that I didn’t say]” to Girl Two, or say “Girl Two says she [something she didn’t say]” to me, and all three of us just run with it. All the worried “What’s wrong”s are replaced by amused “What are you doing”s, and all the “concerns” about how she might feel or I might feel are dealt with in a much more firm and convincing manner.
You look a little upset.
I’m not upset~
You haven’t been smiling much the whole day.
Yeah, [a short, to-the-point functional explanation]…
I’ve heard that a grand total of once. With Guy Two I also discuss general social and philosophical concerns, but always his responses are suggestions, a thought on a background of the flow of logic rather than the supposed unchangable social cause and effect, and always the focus is on where the common ground may lead rather than how it is that we may differ. I still don’t really know too much about how we’re different – I don’t think about it. Most conversations are more like this one:
Is it possible to tell if a man is pussy whipped within the first five seconds of meeting them?
….No, i think i need a little more time. The best would be to watch them actually interact with a girl. I think girls have an innate ability to tell whether or not a guy will be like that. Girl Two says she doesn’t have it though.
Do you believe her?
Of course not.
[laughter] I mean, I don’t think I do…
Girl Two is laughing at us.
No I’m no-
SHUT UP. SHUT UP. YOU’RE the one that likes Harry Pothead.
I don’t like Harry Pot-
[chuckles, softer:] I just wanted to hear you say pot.
There’s a good saying, and though it has different forms, my favorite one is “Don’t be dead right”. There is a romance equivalent: don’t search for truth and assert that you’re right about whatever, if it means that you’ll end up dying old alone.
I believe the cautionary warning has a proper use and place and heed its warning, but it is not the way people use it today. If it is not clear already, I much prefer Pair Two – and this is the pair many people would prefer, if they were honest with themselves. All other things aside, Guy Two’s relationship with his girlfriend actually feels like he has a girlfriend. It is a symbiosis, one where I can speak to Girl Two like one of my own friends and she to me, one where we can screw around with me and Guy Two giving disapproving remarks while Girl Two (and sometimes, me) have laughs of disbelief. We don’t know where Guy Two will take the train of lolwut? next, but even if it does turn serious (which it never has) it’s clear that the focus the other two of us would take is figuring out the most direct and complete solution to the problem.
In contrast, Guy One is some girl’s boyfriend. While I can converse somewhat normally with her while Guy One is away, every single time both of them are together I’m a third wheel. Not even a hint of thought on her part, and the best Guy One can manage is that I’m a bit different and he tends to choose girls who are on the “same wavelength” as him. Every time I open my mouth, she shuts hers. Outside of activities where she knows exactly what we’re doing together, like Starcraft, she’s always hanging over us – often literally – and the silence is there to imply that she’s being left out and that’s bad. Guy One can’t check out other girls and Girl One is even pre-empting him at every turn, “shit-testing” to see if all eyes really are on her. There can be no trinary. She forces the situation to make it either me or her that’s useless and disposable. The choice is made, of course.
See the difference?
The possessive is working the opposite way, the wrong way, and as it is in most cases where the female is the dominant, there ends up being no real dominance. I’m not going to make all of the manosphere required reading for this blog, but you can certainly look there for justifications of some of the more “outrageous” things I will start assuming and not explaining on this blog. Many of these things are simply self-evident to me, and really, are just traditional ideas in a slightly different form. Marriage is good. Men should be in control. As I have noted already here, the vast majority of the actually heinous things believed about otherwise natural and traditional ideas (“sexism”, “racism”, a bunch of other made-up words) are actually just conjurations, snake oil from a salesman who is simply selling you ideas to run away from rather than ideas to run towards.
These “language games” are what prevent me from cleanly executing my idea. It may appear that Guy One actually doesn’t believe that intensity is bad. He did everything he could to give chase and get a chance back at his girl, right? He’s a better person now who will do his duty to care and provide for his girlfriend now, right? That kind of stuff takes intensity to do – until you remember that you can do one thing a variety of different ways and still have something recognized as “the same”, but at the same time be recognized to be of completely lower quality. Yeah, I changed your tire correctly. You can feel around it now and won’t find any errors. Then an hour after you start riding it, you find that he installed it incorrectly and caused you a pinch flat 15 miles from civilization. Yeah, I learned that math lesson. You can test me now and I’ll get an A. Then a year after when you test me again I’ll have forgotten everything, and guess what that shows? Sure your car’s better than mine, mine can’t hold a candle to yours’ 0-60 time. But what about amount of maintenance needed, and the difficulty to perform such maintenance? What is the lifespan of your car, compared to mine? China can build a skyscraper in two weeks, but how good are they really?
The more complex I make things the more likely it seems it’s okay to be different, that it’s okay to do many different things and it’s still fine. It is technically true. Division of labor, all of us are unique, differing personality types, different experiences, diverse cultures; there are so many things that lend us a hand in believing that anything is possible in any way. But the moment you lay down any one purpose, to start one thing with all else as halation, you realize that you have to lay down fundamentals. That there are a set of principles for each purpose, and a set of principles for all purposes, that must remain true no matter what because they are inherent to the nature of setting a goal and achieving it efficiently within this reality of biology and physics.
And it shows up in a very clear and obvious way in romance.
Guy One wants to be the perfect boyfriend, to make it so his owner is always happy – but he is fearful of failure. All his attempts are around preventing her unhappiness. He focuses on what he needs to not do. He may use language to shine his actions in a positive light, that he is doing something rather than attempting to not do nothing, but it is clear to everyone that he is not control, that he is at the whims of her, and he knows it – and justifies it even, by saying that people need to “adapt” to their partners.
Guy Two never talks about it, but he’s on top, shows he knows it, and both he and his girlfriend are pretty well off. Maybe not happy in the idealized dream sense, but it is nothing strange to suggest that they are much more satisfied than Pair One. Guy Two fears not failure and focuses not on failure, and thus he doesn’t fail much, if at all. When he does fail, people with him are inclined to give him another chance, to believe that Guy Two has some inherent worth, that he perhaps just had bad fortune. And if not, oh well. He doesn’t beat himself over the head with it. Move on, achieve other things.
I could certainly get a girlfriend easier if I stopped being intense, stopped trying to be good at being a man. I have almost no doubts there. What I doubt is the quality of a girl I’d get. If I’m not intense, if I’m not myself, would I get what I really want? I can say that not all love is created equal. I can also say that all girls are unique. Really, my belief and holding out for a better woman is something everyone would cheer on. For men, it means more holes for them to stick it into. For women, they think they’re the better women.
The unpalatable suggestion is that my holding onto my intensity is what will get me a better woman, because it simultaneously declares that the vast majority of both men and women today are shit – the men are competing against me in a rigged and dishonorable competition, and the women who are parading their asses around are not worth my energy and attention. This is the part that riles people up to call me, and people like me, misogynists, haters, shut-ins, and whatever other gibberish they can think of.
People try to use logic against me, try to tell me I shouldn’t be dead right in terms of love. It is ironic, really. I have a tendency to disregard cost and see risks as irrelevant, to see all else as halation, so I use the dead right concept to remind me that there are indeed other things I need to think about. But these people, they use it as a crutch, or more accurately, as a safety blanket. It’s all they focus on. Whereas for me it’s “Dying would be pretty bad, can’t do other stuff I want” and “Being alone is going to cause a lot of logistical problems, also it just sucks not having anyone to play with”, for them it is the end goal. They don’t want to die because dying is bad and that’s the end of the story. As for love itself, they will stick to their notion of “I never want my “significant other” to be unhappy, ever” to the death. It is not I that is willing to become a martyr, it is them.
It doesn’t even take a trip to the bathroom to remember how much this culture idolizes those who give it all up for love.
And I don’t care for such things.
A Tale of Two Cities was a story of willing cuckoldry. Guy dies so his girl can fuck another man.
Are you going to be cuckolded or be a willing cuckold, just so you can hold onto your idea of love?
I’m not, and I don’t care if for that reason you think less of me. If you go and die because your girl is happier with me, I will take her and I will fuck her and I’ll be perfectly happy.
Actually… that probably wouldn’t happen.
I wouldn’t go for a girl like that.