Every man wants to be wanted.
Unfortunately, desire is not an infinite or even an abundant trait; therefore, some men must needs go unwanted. That is to say, their desire to be desired must needs go unmet.
What truly weeds out the wheat from the chaff, or the men from the boys, is how a man responds to being unwanted.
He cannot help wanting to be wanted, for that (it may be said) is inevitable, an aspect of his genetic makeup which cannot be jettisoned. Unrequited desire to be desired cannot help but produce sadness. Lack of companionship cannot help but result in loneliness.
That said, there are certain things that are perfectly within one’s power and control. Being unwanted is unpleasant, since we desire being desired, and an unmet desire is a source of sorrow. Nevertheless, one needn’t respond to such a circumstance by being a “sad sack” in one’s behavior, demeanor, and outlook.
Sad-sackery is in fact contemptible, because it demonstrates an absence of character, and an overall lack of pride and dignity. The “sad sack” wants everyone to know how miserable he is, and he wants to be soothed and consoled. If the “sad sack” can’t be wanted – being “low-status”—he asks to have his ego massaged concerning his unwanted condition—he wishes to be told that he is wanted, even if he isn’t, because he prefers a comforting lie to a discomfiting truth.
“Sad-sackery” feeds into the self-improvement seminar movement, and the “PUA” (“pick up artist”) scene. A sad sack is an easy mark for hucksters with an interest in selling their wares. Neediness, obviously, reveals the existence of a need, and a need signifies a probable propensity to shell out cash, in order that the need might be met. Unscrupulous “gurus” prey upon sad-sacks like vultures feasting upon the entrails of a carcass. It makes for an unseemly sight, but it is nevertheless informative to witness, because it showcases the extent of many men’s tendency to grab at something—anything—which could conceivably salvage their egos from the fact that they are, in reality, unwanted.
What might be still worse, however, is the sight of the man who attempts to convince himself, in some mode or manner, that he needn’t “improve,” that he is, in fact, wanted, that he is fine “just the way he is.” Such a one is not mistaken, to be sure, in making an effort to reach self-acceptance; instead, what is unseemly is his trying to make himself seek validation in such a manner, which is frankly unbefitting of a man.
Eschewing sad-sackery essentially means embracing the dignity of stoicism. Yet stoicism is a difficult prospect, because it requires a degree of self-control far beyond that which is typically called for.
In most cases, after all, one is asked to display discipline through times of scarcity, in order eventually to be allowed to be “fed,” the way a hungry man waits until suppertime to eat, instead of indulging in an unhealthy and unedifying indulgence in a snack.
But… what if this anticipated future “feeding” in fact never happens? Can a man remain dignified and restrained in his behavior, not out of a conviction that it will surely be “greater later”—that a reward is in the offing, provided that one “hangs in there” long enough… that is, can he remain dignified and restrained even it turns out that the dignity and restraint he displays in the face of scarcity is in fact an end in itself, because the desired nourishing treat is in fact not in the offing at all?
Here is another way to examine the matter. All men have certain, let us say, “needs.” These needy aspects of our character aren’t limited to the vulgarly hormonal or the repugnantly glandular; instead, they are psychically real aspects of our deepest being. There is a built-in desire for companionship, for affirmation, for intimacy, for all of the fruits which derive from positive and loving human relationships. We “need” these things, in a sense, analogically speaking, just as we need food, drink, and oxygen in order to live.
But…. What if in truth these naturally derived desires are in fact a kind of “honeytrap”? What if, through a grotesque turn of events, nature has rigged us in a manner, whereby our desires are actually antithetical to our true best interests?
A worthwhile concept to reference here might be addiction.
We tend to think of the process by which one becomes addicted as a blighted phenomenon, rooted in malignant artificiality, whereby a person gets unnaturally “hooked” on a chemical substance. We conceive of the degradation of addiction, that is, as deriving from the fact that it takes a man into a mindset which is unbefitting of man in his “natural” state, wherein he is free and not enslaved to craving a “fix” or a “high.”
But such a conception of addiction needn’t in fact always hold true. To be sure, an addiction may indeed accurately be understood as an unhealthy attachment or craving; however, such a state might in fact be initiated by chemicals induced from within, rather than willfully ingested from without, as is the case with most drug addicts.
That is to say, one might find himself “hooked on a feeling” without having taken any drug, due to the simple fact that one is wired to be “hooked” in such a manner.
A man desires companionship, for example, and this causes him to seek to be with others, in order that he might enjoy the pleasing sensations which accompany being “companioned.”
It is, after all, “not good for man to be alone.” These words were reportedly uttered by God himself, prior to his fashioning the first woman from the rib of the first man. It would follow, then, that it is in fact “good” for a man to be together with a woman, as was the case with the very first human couple. One can well imagine the joy experienced by these two newly originated beings when each beheld the wonderful sight of the other for the very first time. The man and the woman must have mirrored one another’s marvelment: here was another, just like him and her, and yet at the same time so deliciously different!
But we must recall that this was before the moment when both man and woman succumbed to temptation and tumbled from grace. For a brief time, whilst still ensconced in Paradise, these first two humans must have shared and glorious and undefiled love, one which, being uncorrupt, was surely sensual without being correspondingly carnal, base, or animalistic… Before the Fall, Eve must have been the embodiment of what was spoken of in the Book of Proverbs: “a good woman, more valuable than rubies.” And her husband Adam, a man directly birthed from Divine handiwork, must have radiated a similarly impeccable, even angelic aspect.
These two initially led a blessed existence. They were created to be lights unto one another, and to share in the joy of one another’s divinely-created company. God had created them for one another, as He had ascertained that “It is not good for man to be alone.”
Alas, alas, they fell! Eve was beguiled by the serpent, and Adam was misled by his wife; both of them transgressed in a manner which caused them to lose their link to the divinity of their origins; they were cast out of Paradise, and we, their descendants, now dwell in a beleaguered realm of corruption and decay. As a result, our very nature, being corrupted, turns us against one another, and against ourselves.
So it now happens that a man’s very propensity to want the company of a woman—a kind of psychic echo of the ancient maxim recorded in Genesis (“It is not good for man to be alone”)—can in fact lead to his undoing. Particularly, it is the “low-status” man, who desperately wishes to convince himself that he is “wanted,” who finds himself especially vulnerable to such ministrations on behalf of his passions.
“It is not good for man to be alone.” This was true at one point, in the prelapsarian era. And it still feels true to us, even now. We dislike the notion of perpetual solitude—it “feels bad” to conceive of ourselves as being un-matched, un-yoked, un-hitched. We like the sensation of being united with another because we still catch some vague whiff of the prelapsarian delight that must have infused the consciousness of Adam and Eve, the first man and first woman, upon their first awareness of one another, while both dwelt in the unspoiled realm, prior to the Fall which subsequently engulfed all of mankind.
Andy Nowicki, assistant editor of Alternative Right, is the author of eight books, including Under the Nihil, The Columbine Pilgrim, Considering Suicide, and Beauty and the Least. Visit his Soundcloud page and his YouTube channel. His author page is Alt Right Novelist.
What truly weeds out the wheat from the chaff, or the men from the boys, is how a man responds to being unwanted.
He cannot help wanting to be wanted, for that (it may be said) is inevitable, an aspect of his genetic makeup which cannot be jettisoned. Unrequited desire to be desired cannot help but produce sadness. Lack of companionship cannot help but result in loneliness.
That said, there are certain things that are perfectly within one’s power and control. Being unwanted is unpleasant, since we desire being desired, and an unmet desire is a source of sorrow. Nevertheless, one needn’t respond to such a circumstance by being a “sad sack” in one’s behavior, demeanor, and outlook.
Sad-sackery is in fact contemptible, because it demonstrates an absence of character, and an overall lack of pride and dignity. The “sad sack” wants everyone to know how miserable he is, and he wants to be soothed and consoled. If the “sad sack” can’t be wanted – being “low-status”—he asks to have his ego massaged concerning his unwanted condition—he wishes to be told that he is wanted, even if he isn’t, because he prefers a comforting lie to a discomfiting truth.
 |
| The paradigmatic 'sad sack" of sitcoms: Toby from "The Office" |
FALSE SELF-ASSURANCE AND NATURE’S ‘HONEYTRAP’
What might be still worse, however, is the sight of the man who attempts to convince himself, in some mode or manner, that he needn’t “improve,” that he is, in fact, wanted, that he is fine “just the way he is.” Such a one is not mistaken, to be sure, in making an effort to reach self-acceptance; instead, what is unseemly is his trying to make himself seek validation in such a manner, which is frankly unbefitting of a man.
 |
| Unseemly self-validation via "self-help" |
In most cases, after all, one is asked to display discipline through times of scarcity, in order eventually to be allowed to be “fed,” the way a hungry man waits until suppertime to eat, instead of indulging in an unhealthy and unedifying indulgence in a snack.
But… what if this anticipated future “feeding” in fact never happens? Can a man remain dignified and restrained in his behavior, not out of a conviction that it will surely be “greater later”—that a reward is in the offing, provided that one “hangs in there” long enough… that is, can he remain dignified and restrained even it turns out that the dignity and restraint he displays in the face of scarcity is in fact an end in itself, because the desired nourishing treat is in fact not in the offing at all?
Here is another way to examine the matter. All men have certain, let us say, “needs.” These needy aspects of our character aren’t limited to the vulgarly hormonal or the repugnantly glandular; instead, they are psychically real aspects of our deepest being. There is a built-in desire for companionship, for affirmation, for intimacy, for all of the fruits which derive from positive and loving human relationships. We “need” these things, in a sense, analogically speaking, just as we need food, drink, and oxygen in order to live.
But…. What if in truth these naturally derived desires are in fact a kind of “honeytrap”? What if, through a grotesque turn of events, nature has rigged us in a manner, whereby our desires are actually antithetical to our true best interests?
ADDICTION AND THE ‘FALL OF MAN’
We tend to think of the process by which one becomes addicted as a blighted phenomenon, rooted in malignant artificiality, whereby a person gets unnaturally “hooked” on a chemical substance. We conceive of the degradation of addiction, that is, as deriving from the fact that it takes a man into a mindset which is unbefitting of man in his “natural” state, wherein he is free and not enslaved to craving a “fix” or a “high.”
But such a conception of addiction needn’t in fact always hold true. To be sure, an addiction may indeed accurately be understood as an unhealthy attachment or craving; however, such a state might in fact be initiated by chemicals induced from within, rather than willfully ingested from without, as is the case with most drug addicts.
That is to say, one might find himself “hooked on a feeling” without having taken any drug, due to the simple fact that one is wired to be “hooked” in such a manner.
A man desires companionship, for example, and this causes him to seek to be with others, in order that he might enjoy the pleasing sensations which accompany being “companioned.”
It is, after all, “not good for man to be alone.” These words were reportedly uttered by God himself, prior to his fashioning the first woman from the rib of the first man. It would follow, then, that it is in fact “good” for a man to be together with a woman, as was the case with the very first human couple. One can well imagine the joy experienced by these two newly originated beings when each beheld the wonderful sight of the other for the very first time. The man and the woman must have mirrored one another’s marvelment: here was another, just like him and her, and yet at the same time so deliciously different!
But we must recall that this was before the moment when both man and woman succumbed to temptation and tumbled from grace. For a brief time, whilst still ensconced in Paradise, these first two humans must have shared and glorious and undefiled love, one which, being uncorrupt, was surely sensual without being correspondingly carnal, base, or animalistic… Before the Fall, Eve must have been the embodiment of what was spoken of in the Book of Proverbs: “a good woman, more valuable than rubies.” And her husband Adam, a man directly birthed from Divine handiwork, must have radiated a similarly impeccable, even angelic aspect.
These two initially led a blessed existence. They were created to be lights unto one another, and to share in the joy of one another’s divinely-created company. God had created them for one another, as He had ascertained that “It is not good for man to be alone.”
Alas, alas, they fell! Eve was beguiled by the serpent, and Adam was misled by his wife; both of them transgressed in a manner which caused them to lose their link to the divinity of their origins; they were cast out of Paradise, and we, their descendants, now dwell in a beleaguered realm of corruption and decay. As a result, our very nature, being corrupted, turns us against one another, and against ourselves.
NEED AS MAN’S UNDOING: POST-LAPSARIAN MASCULINITY
“It is not good for man to be alone.” This was true at one point, in the prelapsarian era. And it still feels true to us, even now. We dislike the notion of perpetual solitude—it “feels bad” to conceive of ourselves as being un-matched, un-yoked, un-hitched. We like the sensation of being united with another because we still catch some vague whiff of the prelapsarian delight that must have infused the consciousness of Adam and Eve, the first man and first woman, upon their first awareness of one another, while both dwelt in the unspoiled realm, prior to the Fall which subsequently engulfed all of mankind.
Andy Nowicki, assistant editor of Alternative Right, is the author of eight books, including Under the Nihil, The Columbine Pilgrim, Considering Suicide, and Beauty and the Least. Visit his Soundcloud page and his YouTube channel. His author page is Alt Right Novelist.
