Game and the Old Testament

BM wonders about this passage from 2 Samuel:

And as the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, Michal Saul's daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the Lord; and she despised him in her heart. Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself! And David said unto Michal, It was before the Lord, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the Lord, over Israel: therefore will I play before the Lord. And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour. Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
 - 2 Samuel 6:16, 20-23.

Both men and women are hierarchical herd animals, but women tend to be more focused on status within the hierarchy, especially as it is denoted by external markers of that status. From Michal's perspective, David was behaving in a foolish manner unworthy of a king.  Because his external behavior was incongruent with his high-status position, she did not respect him for either his position or his accomplishments, but despised him instead.  Notice that all of his past achievements and all of her affection for him meant absolutely nothing in that moment; because he played the fool, once, in public, that is enough to completely destroy her regard for him.

Take note of that, men.  Screw up in her singular opinion just one time in public and that can be all she wrote for your wife's regard for you, at least in the short term.

There is, of course, an element of jealousy here as well. Michal complains specifically about "the handmaids of his servants", which tells us that they probably didn't mind the sight of the handsome young king capering about in his uncovered glory at all.  It is telling that she doesn't bring up the priests, the soldiers, the old men, the widows, the beggars, or anyone else who has seen David leaping and dancing.  No, it's what we can safely assume to be the positive response of the pretty young women that set her off.

This is a lesson for both men and women. Michal can't help that she doesn't like his behavior, but she has three choices. She could keep her mouth shut, she could fawn on him in the manner we presume the handmaids did, or she can resort to the role of the Mommy-fuhrer.  Being filled with jealousy and despising him in her heart, she unwisely resorts to the latter. This is a terrible idea in general, and it is spectacularly stupid in the case of a charismatic alpha who is not only a popular leader of men, but a superlative killer as well. Her response is a textbook example of how a woman should NEVER behave when she thinks her man has made a fool of himself in public.

David's response is also illuminating. He not only rejects her attempt to control him, but he recognizes that her failure to understand the purpose underlying his actions renders her categorically unfit to be a wife to a king who fears and abases himself before the Lord. The clear implication of the final verse should put fear into the heart of every woman who thinks to exert herd control over her husband via shame: "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death."

David doesn't divorce Michal, but he sexually rejects her as a wife from that moment forward.  Not because she was jealous or because she thought he looked foolish while dancing, (he actually agrees with her in that regard given how he describes himself as base in his own sight), but due to her complete failure to understand who and what he is, her inability to comprehend his values, and her lack of respect for him as a man and a king. She has everything backwards.  She thinks his dancing before the Lord makes him inglorious and unworthy of his position, whereas he knows that because he is a king, he can behave in an even more vile manner and merit honor for it.

This is a strong Alpha move. David doesn't hesitate or equivocate, he doesn't attempt to explain himself or defend himself. He simply acts. He doesn't try to fix the situation because there is nothing to fix: she has, of her own will, disqualified herself as being worthy of his wife and queen. David's action illuminates the bright dividing line between ALPHA and BETA. ALPHAS qualify women.  BETAS attempt to qualify themselves to women.  And ALPHAS, being secure in their self-belief, do not tolerate women attempting to qualify them.  The mere attempt to do so is sufficient to intrinsically disqualify the woman.

A man answers to God. He does not answer to his wife. The wise man will listen to his wife and consider her advice. But he will not answer to her.  He has a purpose in life that goes beyond pleasing her.

This passage from 2 Samuel is an ancient illustration of an observable modern reality and explains why women tend to respond so positively to douchebags with Game while despising men of quality who lack it.  Women tend to focus on attitude and external status markers; they often fail to grasp that the markers can be misleading and that the value they nominally represent only exists insofar as a marker truly indicates something of substance supporting it.  While this tendency can certainly be surmounted, that can't happen so long as its existence is denied.