The trouble with insta-famous people is that their credentials are often faked. They say in interviews that they did such and such a degree, or hold such and such a qualification, but when these claims are investigated, they often evaporate in smoke.
When I joined an international service organization a few years ago, I was interviewed by two older men. They praised me for my CV and asked me if I was married. The question took me by surprise. I asked if being married was a prerequisite for joining such an organization. They said no. They stopped short of asking me why I was not married. In the years since, it has become obvious that the married status is increasingly seen not only as a status symbol, but as a form of virtue signaling. It means you are capable of making commitments, at least in words. Whether your subsequent actions illustrate your vows is another matter entirely.
I believe it’s been in the last ten years that side chickery started torpedoing the credibility of the Good Ship Happy Ever After. Some women make a career out of it. And then even monetize the advice they give, cloaked in not invisibility, but hypocrisy and the glamour of insta-fame.
Sadia Khan, the ‘relationship expert’ who has ridden the wave of celebrity for the past few years, has recently been exposed for being allegedly less than high calibre in her personal dealings with men who were spoken for. It is difficult to discern what really went on through the roar of public censure and outrage, and the scratchy sound of the audio that was recorded by the fiancée of the man she was boasting about being preferred by, and the adulterous event all happened a couple of years ago, but there seems to be a very large gap between appearance and reality, where her ‘value’ is concerned.
Why keep using the word ‘value’? She has often used the term ‘high value’ to describe the kind of woman she visually embodies, and the kind of high-net-worth men that such women attract. In the chaos of the world today, she seemed to offer certainty and wisdom and clarity, to her many followers. She seems to identify with Red Pill incels who decry women and their strategic attempts to capture wealthy men. She teaches courses to men, to embolden them to draw women of high value to them. She has basically been playing both sides of the gender wars. Her beauty and charm make her a pleasure to look at. Some find the way she speaks very pleasant. I personally found that her somewhat rough accent contrasted with her smoothened facade. But where she really grated on my sensibilities was when she started exhibiting narcissistic exceptionalism on an epic scale.
By this, I mean, she appears to think she is above the rules by which most human beings conduct their lives. She has this belief in common with many men of high net worth, from Heads of State to corporate Princes. The kind of entitled scions who have mistresses and think of themselves as royalty. The men incels wish they were. Alpha men, who subscribe to the hierarchical scales of external worth and value she promotes. Her appearance and presentation have clearly opened many doors for her.
She scales herself a 10/10 and competitively measures herself against other women to their detriment. She’s a woman succeeding and excelling, temporarily, in a man-made world. Often her statements about women are sneering and mocking. She wants to distance herself from victims and losers. She plays to win. She not only dresses but positions herself for success. At least, that is probably what she would tell her clients.
The trouble with insta-famous people is that their credentials are often faked. They say in interviews that they did such and such a degree, or hold such and such a qualification, but when these claims are investigated, they often evaporate in smoke. They can claim to invent innovative and effective ways of testing human blood, appear on Forbes lists as wunderkinds, or tell people they are heiresses while skipping out of paying their hotel bills, but their stories wear thin, and exposure is inevitable. All the superlatives and the grandiosity set them up for a big fall.
In the case of Sadia Khan, the value she brought to the table, in terms of advice to people regarding how to conduct themselves to maximize their self-fulfillment is now somewhat diminished. The audio that is circulating through the very channels and sites that made her famous is very graphic, showcasing a vulgar, brazen crudeness not only of language but of mindset that is in strong contrast to her cultivated, soft, feminine public demeanor. She speaks in the audio not like a refined lady, but like a slapper or a bully boy. It is quite a shock to hear it.
It makes me wonder about celebrity personality cults, and the insidious effects of uncertified influencers. In their virile eagerness to seize their moment, they sometimes display what should not be seen, to court the infamous algorithm and monetize their appeal. Their ambition carries them beyond the parameters of self-restraint and mass relatability and into outlier territory.
The fact is the value of being the second choice of a person who cannot even honour their own marriage or engagement vows is a very low calibre place to hold. There are plenty of rationalizations side chicks or side pieces can indulge themselves with, but it’s still a far cry from the higher love they presumably feel they should receive. Love is not just a commodity, whatever the dating apps and Only Fans may suggest. To commit adultery and call it feminism (or even anti-feminism) or simply demonstrating one’s excessive desirability by promiscuity and poaching on other people’s territory is still a degradation of the vows made by other people to each other. Saying you are preferred by someone who is promised elsewhere is a pretty fractured way of manufacturing self-worth. We live in a multiverse now, and that means we should be more careful whose spheres we collide with, and what roles we play in those realms.
