Mailvox: to call or not to call

Ex-NY makes me wonder when this place turned into Dear Vox:

Hi Vox,

Are you ready to dish-out some dating – rather than econ – advice? If yes, here’s the story: about three years ago I dated a very nice, Christian beta male. He was cute and fit and honorable and I really, really liked him. He really liked me too, but there was one big problem: I lived in NYC and didn’t have a car. He lived far away in my old hometown (a moderately-sized city) and it was really hard for us to see each other. After three months, I was frustrated about the distance, and I ended it with him. I know now that was stupid. My only excuse is that I was young and I wanted a boyfriend with whom I could do fun stuff whenever I wanted, like other girls. Also, I thought nice, stable, Christian, honorable beta-males were everywhere in NYC. More fool me! I soon regretted it, but was too embarrassed to call him.

Now it’s three years later, and a new job has brought me back to my old hometown. I was talking to a friend the other day and I heard my old beau is still in my old hometown and still single. I’d like to call him and tell him I have moved back and see if he’d like to get together. He may or may not be interested. But is making the call stupid and self-defeating on its face? Guys? How would you react?

Oh, sweet Darwin… all right, my opinion is that it can’t hurt to take a shot. Contacting him is neither stupid nor self-defeating. You have nothing to lose but your pride, and that’s simply not worth a lifetime of cat-collecting. To be young is to be stupid; we all make absurd decisions and do ridiculous things that we subsequently come to regret. Most men understand that. I think that if he is still as honorable as you say he was, he will be naturally inclined to at least hear you out. And besides, you say that he’s a beta so he’s probably not going to be overly put out by the assumption that you’ve been off chasing alphas in New York City for the past three years. (Whether you truly have or haven’t been is irrelevant. Most men correctly interpret “fun”, in female terms, to mean sex with alphas. Or at least marriage-inappropriate non-beta providers.)

So, once you’ve made the decision to contact him, what to say? I would simply recommend calling him up, apologizing for being too young and foolish to recognize his true value, and asking him if he’d be amenable to letting you take him out to dinner or meeting him for drinks by way of apology. If he seems open to the idea but reluctant, remind him that at worst, he’ll get free food and drinks for an evening. No harm no foul. Now, you don’t need to grovel – in fact you shouldn’t – but you will need to be open and apologetic about what you now regard as your regrettable stupidity and superficiality. And, of course, if he agrees, you will have to bring your A-game with regards to your dress and appearance. Stylish, sexy, and contrite is what you’re going for, not sackcloth, ashes, and “New York kicked my ass so I guess you losers in the sticks are my best option now”.

It may work. Or it may not. If he’s not embittered by the experience and your looks haven’t declined too drastically over the three years, I suspect your odds are pretty good. But whether it works or not, in the long run you will almost certainly feel much, much better for having made the effort. At least you will know; it is not our failures that we regret so much as our failures to even try.

Anyhow, that’s my take. Other opinions may vary. And on a tangential note: ladies, stop going to the Big City to pursue your big adventure before beginning your “real life”! I’ve seen it again and again. You are very unlikely to meet anyone interested in building a future with you there, you’re primarily going to encounter men who are in the Big City to have as many adventures as possible. So, if you’re interested in pursuing marriage and children some day, keep in mind that the Big City Adventure is nothing more than a total waste of your market peak.

Mailvox: prayer request

Regular reader LP sends this one out to the Ilk:

My mom was hit by 2 cars Tuesday evening. She is not ok, we are not sure about the extent of her injuries. She broke around 6 to 9 ribs, to top it all off, today is her 60th b-day. Her car was totaled as were the other cars. The two cars sandwiched my mother’s car. She may have cardio thoracic surgery, not sure on that, but her hip and pelvis are fractured. She was sent to Allegheny ICU in Pittsburgh. Dad and I have been there and so far she is looking so-so. Keep her in your prayers. Do pray for the other 2 to 3 people in the wreck as well as they were sent to UPMC ICU that night.

Here is hoping she will make a full recovery.

Homeschool or Die, VI

All forms of centralization comes with inherent risks:

A man armed with a knife went on a slashing and stabbing rampage in a kindergarten in southern China this morning, injuring 28 children, two teachers and a caretaker. It was the second such attack in two days on a school in China, and the third in a month…. One expert attributed the string of attacks on schoolchildren to increasing social problems in recent years. He said the choice of schoolchildren as targets could be a form of copycat phenomenon.

Fortunately nothing like that would never happen in your child’s school. Because, after all, crazy people live only in China. And, of course, all those wonderful and caring teachers will surely keep them safe… or perhaps not:

Just yesterday, a teacher on sick leave due to mental illness broke into a primary school in Guangdong province’s Leizhou city in southern China and wounded 15 students and a teacher in a knife attack.

A moment of clarity

Gordon Brown’s “bigoted woman” remark demonstrates the contempt of the modern transnationalist politician for the very people who keep him in power:

There is intense anger among large parts of the electorate at what is happening to this country, and in Mrs Duffy that discontent found its voice. In her encounter with Gordon Brown, she raised the two issues – the deficit and immigration – that have until now hardly featured in the campaign, even though they are of overwhelming concern to millions of voters. Rarely has the gulf between the political elite at Westminster and the people they are supposed to represent been more graphically illustrated.

Such encounters used to be the stuff of election campaigns and, in truth, Mr Brown handled the exchanges perfectly well. It was his extraordinary private remarks to an aide afterwards, picked up by an open microphone, that did the damage. His own insecurity was exposed when he described the encounter with Mrs Duffy as a “disaster”. It was not; he was courteous and they parted on good terms. Mr Brown’s curious over-reaction seems to confirm the view, widespread in Whitehall, that he regards a contrary point of view as a personal affront.

But it was his characterisation of this Labour-voting pensioner as “just a sort of bigoted woman” that is genuinely shocking. What message does it send when the Prime Minister (who once talked of “British jobs for British workers”) brands as “bigoted” anyone who dares raise the issue of immigration in a conversation with him? Such arrogance plays straight into the hands of the British National Party.

It is ironic, of course, that aside from the BNP and UKIP, the British political parties, Conservative, Labour, and Liberal-Democrat, are all hell-bent on destroying Great Britain and rendering it nothing more than a non-sovereign county in the great trans-European nation at the very same time that the fundamental economic idiosyncrasies are threatening to tear apart its bureaucrat-imposed political structure. I can’t imagine the Greek/Portugese/Spanish debt crisis is doing wonders for the pro-Euro stance of the major parties either.

It is long past time that people like Mrs. Duffy learn to stop voting for people who despise them and are working to their detriment.