I have tried to select no-hopers: such as women married to rich and successful men (why would they want to marry me when they are far better married already?) or women substantially older than I am (such women seem to think the age difference an unbridgeable barrier to marital union; hence, an older girlfriend tends not to bother you about the C-word).
(Incidentally, I do not share their ageist prejudice, but, psst, do not tell them or they will come after us).
Alas, cuckolded rich, successful men can be dangerous (which is odd; why should they care if they no longer sleep with their wives); worse: as I get older, I find the pool of sexually attractive, significantly older women shrinking every year.
Thus, I have recently been forced to try a refinement on this tactic: the idea was to aim for poor ugly ducklings. These, I thought, should realize that having no leverage at all, they stood no chance of any permanent commitment, and -- given attractive sub-commitment level rewards -- such as pleasant company, travel, wining-dining, gifts, etc., -- should therefore be prepared to settle for less and give up any silly hope of what is so obviously impossible. (Marriage).
Or, I thought, if ever they should entertain marriage hopes, they would realize that their only hope of securing one lay in seducing me by being nothing but sweet, submissive, and agreeable at all times. (This actually works, I have seen it work with other men, but, er... should we tell the girls if we really mean to stay single? Perhaps it is lucky that they do not know how to please us well?)
I was led to this scheme by a relationship of just this sort -- a relationship with an ugly duckling -- which I had had once, many years ago, in Asia: it lasted over four years only because the girl was good in bed and always and invariably sweet and agreeable. This made spending a couple days a week in her company a pure and complete pleasure despite her very ordinary looks and her very common brains; it also made it easy to lavish on her small luxuries and (reasonable) amounts of attention: she was not not unpleasant to please.
In fact, the only time I ever found out that she had indeed harbored hopes of commitment was when we bid good-bye and she broke out in tears. I remember her fondly still. She should be a lesson to my other girlfriends: given that none has married me, certainly being remembered fondly (and perhaps being recommended to someone else in due time as a result) is worth something?
In fact, I have no doubt that a lesser, or a less determined man, would have fallen for the trick and married her in the end.
Anyhow, inspired by Kumiko's wonderful example, I have tried the poor ugly duckling strategy only to find that none so far has had Kumiko's sweetness; or, if you prefer: cunning. They all did in time to me what the other, better looking nubial types always do: demand commitment and (and therein lies the problem) get all nasty about it.
Why, I wondered.
Do they not think?
Do they not realize the obvious, i.e. that they have no snow-flake's-chance-in-hell of ever marrying me (so much richer and better looking than them)? And that therefore, far from making me submit, the only possible result they can attain from being nasty to me is -- to compel me to walk? Or did they really take seriously the sweet nothings I whisper to them in moments of passion ("you are wonderful", "never anything like this", etc.?)
And if they do take these things seriously -- why do they?
The reason for this is perhaps -- I have now come to recognize -- my own conceptual mistake: I assumed that poor ugly ducklings would be, on average, as smart (and therefore as cunning) as everyone else.
But they aren't.
First, they are poor: their poverty should tell you already that not everything is working well upstairs. If you look at how they spend their money and how they think about managing their careers -- the two inputs affecting their finance -- you should quickly realize they are, well, not very smart; unless they inherit, or win the lottery (which is the same thing, actually) dumb-shits are usually poor; and, of course, vice-versa, since an intelligent person born poor will find a way to climb out.
And -- second -- there is perhaps a correlation with looks: much evolutionarily-psychological research has been done in the last twenty years to show that good looking people are not merely more lucky, more successful, richer, and better educated, but also -- smarter.
This has been interpreted as a result of beautism (i.e. prejudice in favor of the good looking, as if good looks did not represent an objectively valuable good, valuable in and of itself): good looking women get to marry higher, so their (good looking) children get better education than the also-rans. But is it just possible that what we recognize as good looks tells us something about people's brains, too? Perhaps it does: the good looking mother's father had the superior brains to a) recognize her good looks and b) acquire them for himself. The kids would have 50% of his brains.
Or, perhaps, and this is the key, the explanation is much simpler: perhaps the good looking girl had the brains to know how to sell herself? How to be sweet and agreeable most of the time; and, perhaps, too, how to be mean and difficult but only just enough -- to get the boy?
I wonder: do you follow?
2
What I am thinking now is that -- perhaps -- the willingness to be mean and nasty and confrontational in women is like the willingness in men to resort to physical violence: it is more common among the not-so-bright and not-so very good looking; the types, in other words, who do not have good looks, wits, and personal charm to fall back on.
3
I confess, my idea that ugly girls may be smart was to some extent affected by my university experience. I went to a so-called "very good school" -- the academic standards of admission were very high -- but not a very posh one; my fellow students did not seem especially rich, but they certainly were a smart and hard working crowd. If you have read the above carefully, you will not be surprised to hear that my alma mater was also famous for the ugliness its girls. From this I drew the conclusion that nature is just, spreading its all various blessings around the population so that ugly girls are smart (and go to good schools) while pretty girls are dumb (and don't) and that thus, in the end, everyone ends up being about the same.
Well, I have to conclude today, upon my break up with Anthanante, my ugly girl number 4, and, I hope, my last one, that I was mistaken in my good-natured belief in general human equality.
Since my experience dating ugly girls indicates that they are not a smart crowd -- certainly not one gifted with what some would call emotional intelligence -- I am now inclined to think that the bad looks of girls at my alma mater are to be explained by the fact that pretty girls are too busy doing other things (more pleasurable ones) to want to waste their time studying for P-Chem 2; or, perhaps one should say, they are too smart to go for that sort of laborious, tiresome, and, at bottom, ineffective, route to success. One goes much further much more quickly by being good looking, sweet, and -- playing dumb.
Perhaps the good-looking girls know that knowing P-Chem, far from being useful, is in fact a disadvantage: first, it makes you seem smart (ha ha), and, second, you do not meet especially desirable men while studying P-Chem.
Except the would-be general practitioners, of course, but every really smart person knows that it is not the doctors who make the real dough, but the heirs: the best hand-surgeon can't hold a candle to a dry-cleaning king.
And thus: no more ugly girls for me. They are too stupid to appreciate the good deal I have to offer them.
No comments:
Post a Comment