ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Mailvox: a series of false assumptions

Fake Crew objects to the socio-sexual hierarchy.
It never ceases to amaze how a patently pseudo-intellectual system—the sexual-social hierarchy—is used to explain the glaring mistakes for a man to marry a bi-racial, older, divorced woman, when their impending nuptials is of little or no personal consequence to the detractors. Men, Christian or otherwise, who create and perpetuate that structure make a series of subjective behavioral and personality appraisals as its foundational pieces. Any protestation about this label or refusal to act in the prescribed manner brings about a pejorative response. It may be “convenient” for men to articulate what they believe are definitive aspects of their fellow man’s conduct because they subscribe to this hierarchy, but what about those men who find definitive flaws in how those decisions were arrived? What happens when those men challenge the structure by arguing that the “unvarnished truth of the structure” is in reality a set of assumptions predicated on sophistry? Would God truly judge in this exact manner by calling Christian men betas, gammas, and situational alphas?
First, there is nothing "pseudo-intellectual" about the socio-sexual hierarchy. In fact, it is every bit as scientific as any other system of taxonomy which encompasses the description, identification, nomenclature, and classification of organisms. Second, the impending nuptuals between Harry and the Half-Blood Princess are not of no personal consequence to the detractors. Symbols matter, and the English monarchy is one of the most powerful symbols of Western civilization, so the conquest of the prince by the part-African girl is deeply symbolic of the invasion of the West by the Global South in general and Africa in particular. One need only read the coverage of the royal engagement by the pro-invasion press to observe as much. Consider its significance in light of how a much less significant act of anti-Western symbolism is being trumpeted:
Grammys shut out white men in album of the year category for the first time

From Frank Sinatra in the 1960s to Paul Simon in the 1970s to U2 in the 1980s, ’90s and early 2000s, one set of musicians has long had reason to feel secure in its privileged position at the Grammy Awards.

Well, roll over, white guys, and tell Beethoven the news.

For the first time in the ceremony’s six-decade history, a woman and people of color have squeezed the Recording Academy’s go-to demographic from among the principal artists in contention for album of the year, the flagship category in nominations announced Tuesday for the 60th Grammys….

It’s about time.
Third, there is no "prescribed manner" in which men must act. Fake Crew has it backwards. Men act as they act. We merely observe, describe, and label that behavior. Having done so, we can use our observations to provide the basis for a predictive model, which in this case has proven to be an astonishingly reliable guide to future human behavior.

Fourth, no one cares about the opinion of those men "who find definitive flaws in how those decisions were arrived" because those men have offered no competing system of analyzing and successfully anticipating human behavior. No one, to date, has even offered any serious criticism of the socio-sexual hierarchy nor has given anyone any reason to doubt the existence of the behaviors observed or the relevance of those behaviors to male socio-sexual status.

Fifth, nothing happens when the structure is challenged by being labeled "a set of assumptions predicated on sophistry" because the statement itself doesn't even rise to the level of sophistry. The statement is obviously incorrect about the observations being assumptions, and is therefore also wrong about the basis of these non-existent assumptions.

Sixth, God's judgment is irrelevant because God does not respect human status, just as the CEO of a Fortune 500 company does not respect high school status. But high school status exists and is deeply relevant to high school students nevertheless. The man who ignores the realities of the socio-sexual hierarchy, whether he believes it exists or not, is making life difficult for himself in much the same way that men who ignore the realities of traffic laws do.

Fake Crew is making the same mistake here that various elements of the Fake Right frequently make when they object to various aspects of the 16 Points. I am no more inventing these concepts than zoologists were inventing zebras, giraffes, and okapis when they first encountered them in Africa. I am merely describing the behavioral patterns I observe and labeling them. It no more matters what one happens to call "gamma" is called than whether one says "monkey", "Affe", or "scimmia"; it is only the behavioral pattern that is relevant. While one can quite reasonably argue that there should be more or fewer gradations, one cannot credibly argue that male social status does not exist, that male social status is entirely unrelated to human sexuality, or that there are not common behavioral indicators of an individual man's social status that can be readily observed by others.

Anyone attempting to disprove the relevance of the socio-sexual hierarchy must deny all three of those statements. I certainly invite Fake Crew, or anyone else, to do so, and more importantly, to explain the logic supporting that denial. However, he has to stop using someone else's name and create a new one for himself first.

Labels: ,

158 Comments:

Blogger Groggy November 29, 2017 10:11 AM  

Vox, could you please identify the socio-sexual status of Mikael Wood, the white man who wrote the above-quoted "Grammys shut out white men in album of the year category for the first time".

I don't think the word 'cuck' is sufficient.

Anonymous Sam the Man November 29, 2017 10:13 AM  

Well that was an intellectual ass-pounding.

Crew has some work ahead of him.

Blogger VD November 29, 2017 10:13 AM  

Almost certainly Gamma. An Omega wouldn't care.

Blogger Groggy November 29, 2017 10:18 AM  

This stuff (the media coverage of the royal marriage, the Emmys, NFL, etc) reminds me of Ages of Discord which Steve Keen mentioned, mentioning how analysis has shown the public discourse is reaching a level of antagonism approaching pre-Civil-War levels.

"If they want peace, nations should avoid the pin-pricks that precede cannon shots." - Napoleon Bonaparte

It seems we are experiencing a continuous staccato series of pin pricks of which no end is in sight. It bodes very ill.

Anonymous VFM #6306 November 29, 2017 10:19 AM  

Now, if there were no common behavioral indicators of an individual man's status that can be readily observed, that might disprove the relevance of socio-sexual hierarchy alone. I'd start there, if I was trying to debunk the taxonomy. Unfortunately, real-world behavior patterns of individuals happens to be the most obvious and least deniable real-world expression of the hierarchy.

You can't unsee the Gamma in the wild once you've simply itemized -- in advance -- his tendencies.

I don't think Delta requires any further granularity than "low" and "high"(and, for potentially high-stress conditions, such as combat, possibly "natural" and "synthetic.") Beta sure as heck could use an overhaul, because partner count ranges wildly per individual Betas, and damn if they aren't chameleons: easily mistaken for delta-to-sigma range crazy optimists when not in the presence of the Alpha. Betas are like porn: you know them when you see them. But still, I think it is time for some advanced Beta research into those guys.

Blogger Desdichado November 29, 2017 10:23 AM  

Although I don't know for sure that the taxonomy has caught on, even the habitual lumpers (like heartiste) are referring to Omegas with regularity, and make a split between high and low alphas.

Crew's objection seems to be with regards to the attempt to create a taxonomy AT ALL, and he submits plenty of tells that he's made decisions of his own that put him in a lower run on the hierarchy than he'd like to think of for himself. As is often the case, I suspect that the pseudo-intellectual posturing is more about personal butthurt than about anything else.

I'd bet Crew is himself in a multiracial marriage, maybe even with an African or part African.

Anonymous Difster November 29, 2017 10:24 AM  

Socio-sexual politics, arguably a subset of identity politics will play you if you don't play it.

Anonymous Stickwick November 29, 2017 10:24 AM  

It is creditable that Crew attempts to express himself with such sophistication -- using what is often referred to colloquially as "a lot of two-dollar words" -- but it is apparent that in spite if this eloquent remonstration, our interlocutor has failed to make an incontrovertible case. As such, we are compelled, in the manner of our esteemed host, to dismiss it.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 29, 2017 10:31 AM  

I don't like it when you label people!
God doesn't like it when you label people!
Waaaaah!

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 29, 2017 10:34 AM  

VD wrote:Almost certainly Gamma. An Omega wouldn't care.

Can confirm.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan November 29, 2017 10:34 AM  

IMO it is the man's sliding up and down the scale which causes some confusion, myself my range is from Omega to Beta and never alpha, not even close.

Blogger Groggy November 29, 2017 10:35 AM  

As such, we are compelled, in the manner of our esteemed host, to dismiss it.

We are regrettably obliged to inform the honourable gentleman that although a his valiant effort was gratefully entertained at great length as to its merits and liabilities, in the balance the latter rather outweighed the former and in light of the comparisons which were made between the aforementioned efforts and the contemporary state of the art in the present epoch they were found to be qualitatively deficient in certain rather integral respects, which had the unfortunate consequence that the foundations fell out of the whole damn thing at an awkward moment and accumulated into a dishevelled heap.

Anonymous VFM #6306 November 29, 2017 10:37 AM  

Crew is merely amazed that the socio-sexual hierarchy is used to "explain the glaring mistakes" that a man makes, when a the person using the hierarchy doesn't have a personal connection to the man making the mistake.

I fail to see how this is a criticism of the hierarchy. One of its strengths is prediction of future behavior and evaluation of past and present behavior.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 29, 2017 10:37 AM  

Though I'm really more of a Sigma among Sigmas, and an Alpha among Sigma-Sigmas.

Behold, I am the Alpha-Sigma-Sigma, and beware the winds of my mouth!

Blogger Brad Matthews November 29, 2017 10:38 AM  

It doesn't exist because I don't like my status in it. Won't/can't make necessary changes=confirmation status is real and accurate. It really is an excellent explanatory model for observed reality.

Anonymous johnc November 29, 2017 10:43 AM  

I'm not really up to date on British monarchy rules, but can Prince Harry really be a prince since Prince Charles is not his biological father? Doesn't it sort of go by blood line and stuff?

Blogger Starboard November 29, 2017 10:44 AM  

The only problem I have with the Alpha-Omega scale is its effectiveness. I now can't unsee Gamma in entertainment. I can't pretend anymore that a movie or TV show is what I wanted it to be rather than what it is (Star Trek, Roxanne and so many more). It's a good thing we have alt-culture building because what passes for culture right now is a desert.

Before our family learned terms Gamma or male SJW, we referred to them as sister-wives (from a rather horrible polygamist reality show).

If Gammas are made, we are doing something very wrong with how we raise our boys.

Blogger The Kurgan November 29, 2017 10:45 AM  

Being somewhat of a brutalist, my own socio-sexual hierarchy (before I read yours) was relatively simple:
Alphas
Betas (where you have Betas, Deltas, Omegas, Lambdas)
and Scouts.

I knew there were varieties of Betas but frankly I didn't care to differentiate between them, because who cares, in a tactical environment they end up being Betas of one kind or another.
And Scouts are about the equivalent of your Sigmas.
My rationale was that Scouts can successfully infiltrate different societies from their own.
Given where I grew up my system explained the world as I valued it.

Blogger pyrrhus November 29, 2017 10:49 AM  

Yes, Crew's illogical spewings are "not even wrong." Better luck next time..

Anonymous Critically Bent November 29, 2017 10:53 AM  

If science is really just using observations and logic to make predictions about the future, then the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy is about as scientific as it comes.

It predicts accurately!!!

This guy uses some gamma key words and behaviors. I predict gamma. Poke them, watch the Secret King attack and run away. Hmmm, prediction confirmed...

As long as you understand that it can be relative and that someone can be an alpha in a certain context and group, yet a delta in another, it makes total sense and is super successful at predictions.

Anonymous Patron November 29, 2017 10:55 AM  

Why do you think this pairing got the go-ahead ;) ?

Blogger Groggy November 29, 2017 10:56 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Groggy November 29, 2017 10:59 AM  

Well, roll over, white guys, and tell Beethoven the news.

Dear Mikael Wood,

Your recent statements in regards to 'The Grammys' have been subject to an extended review process within the International Council of Men.

We regret to inform you that your manhood license has been revoked, effective immediately.

You have a grace period of 14 days in which to return your testicles to your nearest outlet.

Regards,
The International Council of Men

Blogger Jeff aka Orville November 29, 2017 11:02 AM  

There was a tell Crew's statement "Men, Christian or otherwise..." that indicates to me a level of cognitive dissonance was reached where Crew sees the truth of social-sexual rankings and realizes his lower ranking. He uses his churchian background to rewrite the story in his mind to excuse his own short comings.

Blogger dienw November 29, 2017 11:11 AM  

Aeoli Pera wrote:Though I'm really more of a Sigma among Sigmas, and an Alpha among Sigma-Sigmas.

Behold, I am the Alpha-Sigma-Sigma, and beware the winds of my mouth!


That may be so but an Alph-Pi make the world go round!

Anonymous zoology November 29, 2017 11:14 AM  

than zoologists were inventing zebras, giraffes, and okapis when they first encountered them in Africa.

My father in law and I were talking one time, I think we had a few drinks, we were talking about the history of the earth and humans and animals genetic makeup as we often do bc we are both interested in the subject, and I forget how but somehow we armchair reasoned that horses initially were only found in the Northern Hemisphere, that they evolved biologically in the Northern Hemisphere, and then they were transported to the Southern Hemisphere. They didnt form in the Southern Hemisphere, not sure if that is true

OpenID widlast November 29, 2017 11:16 AM  

Crews must not be terribly bright. Anyone who has been through high school in the last 80 years has had first hand experience with the socio-sexual hierarchy. Whether you got laid, and by whom, was COMPLETELY dependent on your status in the hierarchy.

Anonymous Manwe November 29, 2017 11:16 AM  

I liked Harry better when he used to dress up as a Nazi and make fun of Pakistanis. As John C said, he isn't Charles' son anyway.

Blogger dienw November 29, 2017 11:20 AM  

Manwe wrote:I liked Harry better when he used to dress up as a Nazi and make fun of Pakistanis. As John C said, he isn't Charles' son anyway.

True; but multiple murders can make things happen. This is the same fear that some said the royals had when it was thought Princess Diana was pregnant with a Moslem's child.

OpenID widlast November 29, 2017 11:21 AM  

@16 Shhhh! You're not supposed to have noticed that. Rather odd how Bonnie Prince Charlie went for old horse face and pretty much ignored Diana. Ignore a pretty woman and she WILL find her entertainment elsewhere.

Blogger Arthur Isaac November 29, 2017 11:28 AM  

Listening to Laura Ingraham yesterday do a lot of hand-waving about the fact that Prince Harry announced that he had fornicated with the future duchess: "kids will be kids" she said. My response was if nobility isn't going to be noble and royalty royal than why does the UK bother keeping these people in their rich lifestyle? Even the pretense is gone and that is going to leave another mark shortly.

OpenID widlast November 29, 2017 11:31 AM  

@26

good page on horse evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

The vast majority of extinct horse species lived in North America. Equus and relatives must have radiated to Europe, Africa, and Asia somewhere in the last few million years.

Anonymous Precious November 29, 2017 11:34 AM  

I now can't unsee Gamma in entertainment

Same here, but on the bright side, less TV means more time for other things.

Blogger Arthur Isaac November 29, 2017 11:36 AM  

I think people like Crew hate nature. If you go look at any vertebrate animal your going to se socio-sexual hierarchy. Would he argue that that's all "sophistry" too? Does the guy claim to be an evolutionist I wonder? What does he do with mate selection? Memory hole.

Anonymous John November 29, 2017 11:36 AM  

The Bible references how valiant certain men are and how beautiful certain women, and makes distinctions between princes and plebs.
What I think God would object to is the disorderly jungle-like setting of contemporary marriage affairs, made up of competing individuals acting selfishly, rather than tribes and families acting cooperatively. Needing to know the psychological theories and strategies of seduction is already a sign of moral perversity and social decline; society and families should be formed according to reason, not through the manipulation of passions. There is a certain kind of "science" which is imprudent to know. I think what Crew is objecting to is the materialistic reduction of men to dumb animals, forgetting their rational and spiritual natures make in the image of God.

Anonymous John November 29, 2017 11:41 AM  

Arthur Isaac wrote:I think people like Crew hate nature. If you go look at any vertebrate animal your going to se socio-sexual hierarchy.

I think what Crew would object to is the reduction of men to "vertebrate animals". The problem with modern science is that it pays no respect to any of our sacrosanct notions or customs, and is willing to trample upon human dignity in the pursuit of more knowledge.

Blogger Thomas Henderson November 29, 2017 11:41 AM  

I'm not really up to date on British monarchy rules, but can Prince Harry really be a prince since Prince Charles is not his biological father? Doesn't it sort of go by blood line and stuff?

Charles and Diana were married when Harry was born. Biology is irrelevant since a wife's son is, by legal default, the husband's son.

Heirs and successors are determined by law.

Hewitt lays no claim to the paternity of Harry.

Anonymous TheHiss November 29, 2017 11:42 AM  

@16. By British law the child of a married woman is assumed to be the child of her husband. Not just British law either - it provides a good chunk of the plot of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina.

Anonymous zoology November 29, 2017 11:44 AM  

The vast majority of extinct horse species lived in North America. Equus and relatives must have radiated to Europe, Africa, and Asia somewhere in the last few million years.

I think its interesting if it is the case that horses were NOT formed orginally in the Southern Hemisphere, but Giraffes WERE. I also think the mythological figure the -Centaur- (part human part horse) is interesting

Anonymous Ignatius J. Reilly November 29, 2017 11:45 AM  

It never ceases to amaze how a patently pseudo-intellectual system—the sexual-social hierarchy—is used to explain

Most indeed - and a tentative huzzah!- sir!

This so-called "hierarchy" is very transparently an attempt by inferior minds - the fetid fetishists of crepuscular copulation - to elevate the tawdry bump-n-grind of grungy genitalled sex-havers above the intellectual virtues of true Christians: gallant gentlemen and glorious geometers who would never grimy their generative glands by inserting them in something so unsalutary as the sinful sinkhole of a modern American woman!

Blogger Curlytop November 29, 2017 11:45 AM  

That is exactly my observation, Patron. No way a family where Grandpa refers to blacks as "nig nogs" is going to allow a biological offspring to taint their genes. It's a win win for the Royal Family.
William keeps the line "pure" while the bastard, Harry gets to promote the progressively hip trend to the gullible masses who imitate accordingly.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Fine Purveyor of Quality Artisanal Gorm ) November 29, 2017 11:47 AM  

VD
No one, to date, has even offered any serious criticism of the socio-sexual hierarchy



oh, come now.

how does pointing out that you have directly contradicted yourself, using your own quotes, not constitute a "serious criticism"?

of course, i wasn't trying to refute the hypothesis. i was trying to strengthen it.

to claim that there is no hierarchy is to deny the difference between Private Bailey and Alexander or Napoleon.

to deny that this hierarchy can be defined and categorized is to deny that any endeavor of Men can be truly understood or objectively defined ( hello, Morality ).

so where do you stand Mr. Crew? on the side of ( those who are at least attempting ) Objectivity and Rationality?

or on the side of those who live by Subjectivity and Deceit?

who is your Father?

Anonymous TS November 29, 2017 11:48 AM  

"Is making life difficult for himself in much the same way that men who ignore the realities of traffic laws do."

Not just for himself but others too.

Anonymous Peter B November 29, 2017 11:50 AM  

Royal families have always used the marriages of more and less likely heirs and offspring not in the line of succession to cement alliances and send political signals. Vox is reading this one right.

Blogger VFM #7634 November 29, 2017 11:54 AM  

I'd bet Crew is himself in a multiracial marriage, maybe even with an African or part African.

@6 Desdichado
Not a bad bet, considering that white Gammas pairing off with black women appears to be an increasingly common fad these last few years.

Anonymous TS November 29, 2017 11:55 AM  

"The Bible references how valiant certain men are and how beautiful certain women, and makes distinctions between princes and plebs."

And there is also that earlier version of taxonomy in Genesis chapter 1.

Anonymous Philalethes November 29, 2017 12:01 PM  

@17 Starboard: If Gammas are made, we are doing something very wrong with how we raise our boys.

Indeed. I don't believe it is entirely accident that the first universally-circumcised generation of American males (born in the 1940s) was the one who turned the country over to the feminists. Of course, there were many other factors involved – it was two/three generations earlier who gave women the vote (note: the vote was given to women; they didn't earn it, except by nagging) – but the campaigns for female suffrage and infant male circumcision (to "cure masturbation") developed in tandem in the late 19th century – and in the same elite northeastern Anglo-American cultural milieu.

Apparently it never occurred to said elite, in their hope of being inducted into the Chosen by means of crippling their males' sexuality (literally chopping off the boy's man-hood), that in the OT the Hebrews also circumcised their slaves, who nevertheless remained slaves.

Blogger The Remnant November 29, 2017 12:02 PM  

I don't object to acknowledging these truths of human conduct and working with them rather than against them. What I object to is using them to measure a man's worth, which is far greater than mere sex appeal and should not be held hostage to female preferences. There are good men and vile men who are attractive to women, just as there are good men and vile men who are repulsive to women. To focus solely on what women want in this analysis is to surrender patriarchy and embrace matriarchy.

Blogger Nate November 29, 2017 12:02 PM  

The Heirarchy is predictive. Meaning... based on a few small observations... you can make predictions using it... and those predictions are pretty reliable.

In other words... you can test it. Which makes it....

Anonymous TS November 29, 2017 12:02 PM  

"Not a bad bet, considering that white Gammas pairing off with black women appears to be an increasingly common fad these last few years."

That unsurprisingly never ends well.

Anonymous TheSmokingMan#3424 November 29, 2017 12:04 PM  

Jeff aka Orville wrote:There was a tell Crew's statement "Men, Christian or otherwise..." that indicates to me a level of cognitive dissonance was reached where Crew sees the truth of social-sexual rankings and realizes his lower ranking. He uses his churchian background to rewrite the story in his mind to excuse his own short comings.



This hints at the reason i never wanted to become a christian...even though Gods Will will not be thwarted. The "church" men are stereo-typically delta-omega and some gammas. Alpha behavior has downward pressure applied by gynocentric consensus. Its possible that Crew has bought into this culture of lowering yourself, by rank, as a virtue signal. This realization, or realizations like it are what makes the red-pill so jagged.

Anonymous lurker November 29, 2017 12:09 PM  

"Apparently it never occurred to said elite, in their hope of being inducted into the Chosen by means of crippling their males' sexuality (literally chopping off the boy's man-hood), that in the OT the Hebrews also circumcised their slaves, who nevertheless remained slaves."

Hunh!? It's just the foreskin not the whole member.

Blogger James November 29, 2017 12:11 PM  

Philalethes wrote:@17
Apparently it never occurred to said elite, in their hope of being inducted into the Chosen by means of crippling their males' sexuality (literally chopping off the boy's man-hood), that in the OT the Hebrews also circumcised their slaves, who nevertheless remained slaves.


As (((the Chosen))) used to change their names to the surrounding culture’s modes, they also pushed circumcision. Why? To blend in. Being “cut” is another way you could recognize the (((parasite))). If everyone is “cut”, everyone is the same. This is also why they mate with individuals from their host culture. So they can pass for the people they are trying to hide from in plain sight.

Anonymous SAK November 29, 2017 12:11 PM  

I don't believe it is entirely accident that the first universally-circumcised generation of American males (born in the 1940s) was the one who turned the country over to the feminists

I can see how it would correlate but I doubt it is causative. The circumcision thing is very American (looks bizarre to British eyes), but sadly, the feminism thing is more widespread.

Blogger Jeff aka Orville November 29, 2017 12:15 PM  

SmokingMan, I've seen that too, but don't condemn the dog for the fleas on it. True Christianity has much to offer you.

Blogger Cool Guy449xx_420 November 29, 2017 12:21 PM  

Surely the perturbed gentleman that wrote such an eloquent critique of boundless bountiful knowledge MUST not have anything personal involved in this scenario at all. I mean, this man clearly did not take any of this personally. I mean, like, this guy is totally science.

Isn't it self-evident that social status for men is paramount to the pussy that is bequeef'd 'pon him?
Why the fuck would a guy buy a big car with inordinately large wheels and blinking lights, when there's a truck that serves much more utility?


He probably read the description of gamma, found it to be VERY much him, and decided to re-position his tingling anus atop his chair in a very controlled fashion before proceeding with a sharp inhalation, marking a 97.3% on the flustometer - levels not seen since the barrage of wedgies were bestowed unto him in Jr. High.

Blogger Eric Slate November 29, 2017 12:25 PM  

I remember the people who would cry about the alpha/beta categories even after we explained they were descriptive and sometimes situational. They'd want to scrap them if they weren't 100% rock solid. As a Christian, I understand that people will always have some mysterious element to them, but that doesn't mean you can't look for patterns and fit a concept to them. Some people just don't want to learn.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 29, 2017 12:26 PM  

In other words... you can test it. Which makes it....

SCIENCE! Or I guess Scientody. Er, Scientage? Ah crap, I can never remember.

Anonymous TheSmokingMan#3424 November 29, 2017 12:27 PM  

Jeff aka Orville wrote:SmokingMan, I've seen that too, but don't condemn the dog for the fleas on it. True Christianity has much to offer you.

I have become a Christian, and I agree. I am very much looking forward to the resurgence of masculine Christianity that I see on the horizon. I decided to become the future I want to see within the Church.

Blogger Arthur Isaac November 29, 2017 12:29 PM  

I think what Crew would object to is the reduction of men to "vertebrate animals".

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Even post-modern Churchian types acknowledge that our feet are made of clay even while they deny our sin nature. Our existence is rooted in biology, denying that is futile.

Blogger Cloom Glue November 29, 2017 12:30 PM  

I am adding to the sixth point. Hierarchy is not a scale, as though the goal of life is to move up and down it. Isn't that Gamma thinking?

I think there is a specific aspect of tares, not wheat, expressed by Gamma, which is the original fall of Lucifer, putting self in place of God and thus cut off from being able to express Alpha traits, but a person who overcomes that error does not necessarily become Alpha. He becomes where God places him by events which happen in his life, which could be any good role.

I guess a people who come apart to be chosen by God would have less Gammas, or Gammas working out their flaw more silently.

I forget the bad traits of the other categories, but accepting our place in the social hierarchy seems like a necessary thing while we work on being born into a new life per Jesus Christ, because that place is needed I guess, ... probably to uncover our bad traits, too. For example, I went back to church Mass and the sacraments. After I went back, I realised I had inadvertently withdrawn from the social hierarchy, which was originally only because I had enough money, retired, and was not compelled by circumstance to participate. Inadvertently withdrawing was not happy for me.

Also, we change roles in life by a huge margin from time to time if our character changes. None of us are fixed.

Blogger pyrrhus November 29, 2017 12:32 PM  

"Heirs and successors are determined by law.

Hewitt lays no claim to the paternity of Harry. "

True, although I would wager a lot that he is Hewitt's, whom he resembles greatly. I am not sure whether the presumption is rebuttable on the basis of DNA testing, but it's irrelevant since the Royals don't allow that.

Blogger Lovekraft November 29, 2017 12:32 PM  

Re the Half-Blood Princess, what I'd like to know is what her previous lovers/husbands think of her.

Past behavior is a strong indicator of future behavior. Of course, everything she says and does is going to be fully scripted and choreographed, but it would interesting to find out what men who have had to deal with her think.

Blogger Koanic November 29, 2017 12:37 PM  

"The Mismeasure of Man!" shouted Fool's Gould (and Crew).

Anonymous Philalethes November 29, 2017 12:41 PM  

@52 lurker: Hunh!? It's just the foreskin not the whole member.

1. Didn't say it was.

2. In addition to being a protective cover for the sensitive glans (thus "man-hood"; and yes, the implication is intentional), which in its absence becomes keratinized and numb by comparison with the original design, the foreskin provides numerous other benefits, including the greater part of the male's ability to feel sexual pleasure (more nerves than fingertips). Of course, the entire member is not chopped, as it is needed for the male to provide stud service; but that he should derive real pleasure from doing so is an affront to the Goddess. The Lost List.

Anonymous E Deploribus Unum November 29, 2017 12:41 PM  

I dislike such systems myself, and a big part of that is that I don't like to pigeonhole people because I personally resent being pigeonholed. Once I got past my initial rather bizarre resistance to calling a spade a spade, Vox's version of the socio-sexual hierarchy has been tremendously helpful to me in recognizing what to expect in social situations ("Hello Alpha. Crap, there she goes ..."), in keeping my expectations of co-workers realistic ("Gammas gonna gamma") and in learning to avoid behaviors that may well be natural but are not seen as flattering or helpful by anyone else in the world.

Like any other general system of categorization, the SSH cannot capture every nuance, nor would anyone expect it to. But it successfully predicts 80-90% of human interactions, IMHO.

Reality is what reality is.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 29, 2017 12:41 PM  

If Gammas are made, we are doing something very wrong with how we raise our boys.

Soy-based infant formula, high-carb diets, and maybe too much birth control runoff in the water.

My theory of Gamma creation: Baby boys have relative low testosterone levels until puberty, but there is a brief spike around, if I remember, 9 months or so. His T-levels rise to what they will be as an adult, then drop back to infant levels. That spike corresponds do a phase of significant brain development. I think that the T-spike is meant to cause the little boy's brain to develop into a male brain that it will function correctly when he is an adult and it is soused in testosterone.

Too much soy based formula, full of plant-based estrogen, or maybe other environmental estrogens, suppresses that T-spike and the little boy's brain develops into a female brain. Consequently, he grows into a man who, while not gay, thinks like a woman.


Alternate theory: low-T as an adult, and he has insufficient testosterone to activate male brain structures.

Anonymous Philalethes November 29, 2017 12:48 PM  

@53 James: If everyone is “cut”, everyone is the same.

Precisely; and in fact in the late 19th century some "American" Jews were open about this motivation for their advocacy of the practice for goyim. Most, however, pushed the "hygiene" angle – which was also the explanation in the Reform community, along with "trichinosis" for the prohibition of pork, and other modern "scientific" explanations for Biblical commandments.

Someday perhaps there will be a real study done of Tribal involvement in the pushing of these ideas on the Anglo nations.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Fine Purveyor of Quality Artisanal Gorm ) November 29, 2017 12:50 PM  

58. Jack Amok November 29, 2017 12:26 PM
SCIENCE! Or I guess Scientody. Er, Scientage? Ah crap, I can never remember.



Falsifiable.

not all things which are Falsifiable are IFLScience!

in fact, as demonstrated by the NdGTyson fellators, unsupported assertions and outright fabrications qualify as IFLScience!


37. Thomas Henderson November 29, 2017 11:41 AM
Hewitt lays no claim to the paternity of Harry.



he would be insane / pathologically Narcissist to do so.

assume that the cuckoldry theory is True.

he has successfully placed his Cuckoo within the nest of one of the most wealthy and powerful families on the planet. to force public acknowledgment of this act would destroy the very reproductive advantage which he had gained in the first place.

it could result in nothing but Harry being removed from the line of Succession and, possibly, get him disowned and removed from the family altogether.

Anonymous Dorm Room Dave November 29, 2017 12:51 PM  

"The Heirarchy is predictive. Meaning... based on a few small observations... you can make predictions using it... and those predictions are pretty reliable.

In other words... you can test it."

Okay. For the moment I'll keep my own cards hidden, w/r/t my own opinion of the subject. But if it's testable and predictable as claimed, I'll submit a leetle test.

Rank the socio-sexual status of the following characters. Granted they are all fictional (though some are clearly based on real-life models), but they are considered universal archetypes, and their consistency as portrayed is such that at least for the sake of an interesting argument, they make decent-enough stand-ins to at least provoke a critical conversation.

What is the socio-sexual status of:

Achilles
Odysseus
Menelaus
Agamemnon

Hamlet
Lear
Macbeth
Othello
Iago
Falstaff

Jake the Dog
Finn the Human
Marceline the Vampire Queen
Peppermint Butler

Anonymous Philalethes November 29, 2017 12:56 PM  

@54. SAK: I can see how it would correlate but I doubt it is causative.

Why not? Note I wrote "Of course, there were many other factors involved…." It certainly cannot explain the emasculation of Continental European nations such as Germany, France, Sweden, et al. But the Anglosphere has been the leader in this process.

Anytime I post something anywhere on this subject, it's met with quibbling responses. Why, one might almost think people – especially men who've been circumcised – don't want to confront the issue directly.

The circumcision thing is very American (looks bizarre to British eyes), but sadly, the feminism thing is more widespread.

Actually, the practice took hold in the entire Anglosphere in the early/mid-20th century. The Brits gave it up when their socialized medicine system quit covering it in the 1950s – apparently it didn't look "bizarre" before then – but it's still common in all the other English-speaking countries. For instance, one of the most comprehensive anti-circ sites is hosted in NZ: The Intactivism Pages.

Princess Diana, by the way, was on record as refusing to allow her sons to be circumcised – "as their father was" – but by the time they were born the feminization of Britain was near-complete anyway.

Blogger VFM #7634 November 29, 2017 1:03 PM  

I am adding to the sixth point. Hierarchy is not a scale, as though the goal of life is to move up and down it. Isn't that Gamma thinking?

@61 Cloom Glue
Yes and no. If a man is Alpha, Beta, Sigma, or Delta, he's healthy and at the rank he is innately. (Think of them as Elite-Leader, Elite-Follower, Elite-Loner, and Non-Elite, respectively.) If he is Gamma, Omega, or Lambda, he's damaged in some way. Sometimes it's a simple matter of immaturity or poor socialization, but it can also be something deeper. Anyone in the "damaged" categories should work to get out of them if he is able to and desires to.

Anonymous johnc November 29, 2017 1:09 PM  

@71 Anytime I post something anywhere on this subject, it's met with quibbling responses. Why, one might almost think people – especially men who've been circumcised – don't want to confront the issue directly.

Probably almost everybody here is against circumcision at this point.

Whether it's the primary cause of effeminacy, I don't know. That was the hallmark vice of the Greatest Generation, and they had it instilled in them from how they were brought up by the generation before them.

Don't forget that the Great Uncircumcised People are running the entire world right now. So how much of a defect is it?

Blogger VFM #7634 November 29, 2017 1:10 PM  

What is the socio-sexual status of:

@70 Dorm Room Dave
Achilles, Odysseus, and Agamemnon are all Alphas, with Agamemnon the highest-ranked of the three. Menelaus is a Beta.

I'm not as familiar with Shakespeare characters, but I think Macbeth and Iago are Gammas, and Hamlet is a Delta. I don't know much about Lear, Othello, or Falstaff.

Don't know anything about the last four.

Blogger ace November 29, 2017 1:11 PM  

The only criticism I would level at our hierarchy is that it is concerned with a man's internal psychology rather than simply a description of his sexual success. We are sometimes in the position of having to say that Weinstein is actually a gamma in spite of his many conquests.

So it almost isn't a socio-sexual hierarchy, but more of a psycho-sexual classification which is highly correlated with the socio sexual hierarchy. Women will fuck men who have money, are attractive, who have power, but that doesn't help us predict their behavior. Does a man who wins the lottery become an alpha? Obviously not, even though I'm sure women are displaying more interest in him and some of that can be converted into dick wetness. He has increased socio sexual status, and yet we can predict he will squander it just as reliably as an accountant can say he will squander the money. Measuring someone's raw status isn't useful because it doesn't provide a key to their behavior.

Perhaps the reason this came out of Game was because game revealed the supreme importance of mindset.

Anonymous Athor Pel November 29, 2017 1:12 PM  

"35. Anonymous John November 29, 2017 11:36 AM
...
Needing to know the psychological theories and strategies of seduction is already a sign of moral perversity and social decline; society and families should be formed according to reason, not through the manipulation of passions. There is a certain kind of "science" which is imprudent to know.
...
"



You have a discernment problem. You're not separating the knowledge from the user or how it is used.

Game is a tool. It works. Anyone can use it, for good or for evil. It can be used to seduce in a biblically unlawful manner or it can be used to get and keep a wife. The principles utilized by game can also be used in every other area of life where you interact with other humans, man or woman.

Women do not naturally resort to reason. They are creatures of emotion. If you expect more from them than they are willing to give you will be disappointed. And so will they and they won't know why because that's your problem, not hers.

Women are not men.

That emotional manipulation feels wrong because you would see and resent its use on you or other men does not mean it won't work and work well on women. Do you want to keep your wife acting virtuous or do you want to reason with a wall.

Remember, life ain't fair.

Anonymous Philalethes November 29, 2017 1:14 PM  

@67 JackAmok: My theory of Gamma creation….

Thanks for the analysis; good insights. Like I said, there have been many factors involved in the decline of the West.

A major one, I believe, was the huge European wars of the 20th century, which killed off much of Europe's best men – and left the survivors spiritually exhausted. Of course, the tribes of Europe – like the pre-conquest tribes of North America, and everywhere in the world – were interminably at war since the dawn of history; but this unfortunate (though mandated, I believe, by the imperatives of the sexual marketplace) habit was much magnified after one Meyer Bauer (who opened a storefront with a red sign at the door – thus rot schild) figured out that he could get rich by provoking wars between princes and then lending first gold, then "credit" to both sides.

Who really benefited from the outcome of the two Great Wars (which were really two stages of a single conflagration)? Certainly not those who actually fought them.

In any case, the results of all these factors/trends are certainly in line with the preferences of our Rulers.

Blogger lowercaseb November 29, 2017 1:16 PM  

Starboard wrote:If Gammas are made, we are doing something very wrong with how we raise our boys.

I am still learning about the SSH, but the tragic thing about Gammas is that they are broken men who have "fixed" themselves incorrectly. They correctly diagnose what is wrong with themselves socially, and then use sloppy techniques or remedies that are going to break in the future. The cruel thing is their "fixes" work on the short term. It's the equivalent of the penny in the fuse-box.

I guess the question should be...is it laziness or ignorance underneath. Do they do it because someone taught them that's how to get the power running again, or do they know better but just assume that things will be alright? If you are a kind soul you can give them the knowledge on how things should work properly. Heck, you could help them fix it properly (if they let you) and even do all the work yourself. The trouble is, if they are lazy, they are just going to put a penny back in the fusebox when things break again.

Normally this would ultimately be their problem and their problem alone as it's their house that is going to burn down. You are only getting involved out of the kindness of your heart and the only thing you risk is having your time wasted. However we now have so many people using those dangerous shortcuts that when things fail...it's going to cause a fire that is going to threaten the whole town. We have to get involved to get them to fix their problems properly or get out of town.

Anonymous Philalethes November 29, 2017 1:22 PM  

@73 john: Don't forget that the Great Uncircumcised People are running the entire world right now.

Huh? Who's that? The Americans? Well, the whole point of this side discussion is that the overwhelming majority of White American males are circumcised. (In fact, the decline in the circumcision rate since ca. 1960 is mostly due to the increase in non-white "Americans".) The Russians? No; they're struggling to survive what the Saker calls the Anglo-Zionist Empire. The Chinese? They're trying, and may succeed, but not yet. The international banksters? Guess which Tribe most of them belong to.

Blogger Bodo Staron November 29, 2017 1:33 PM  

What is the problem? Just think of the men you met in your life. And compare their behavior (and your own) to the list.

Some are textbook examples, but other times you see "bleeding around the edges".

And it helps every man to identify his own shortcomings (and strengths).

Question for VD: Can someone be a Sigma without being a total man-whore? ("Lifetime sexual partners = 4x average+."

Anonymous AB.Prosper November 29, 2017 1:33 PM  

Philalethes wrote:A major one, I believe, was the huge European wars of the 20th century, which killed off much of Europe's best men – and left the survivors spiritually exhausted. Of course, the tribes of Europe – like the pre-conquest tribes of North America, and everywhere in the world – were interminably at war since the dawn of history; but this unfortunate (though mandated, I believe, by the imperatives of the sexual marketplace) habit was much magnified after one Meyer Bauer (who opened a storefront with a red sign at the door – thus rot schild) figured out that he could get rich by provoking wars between princes and then lending first gold, then "credit" to both sides.

Who really benefited from the outcome of the two Great Wars (which were really two stages of a single conflagration)? Certainly not those who actually fought them.

In any case, the results of all these factors/trends are certainly in line with the preferences of our Rulers.


The casualty count of WW1 and 2, measured as a percentage is probably less than that of the 30 years war. That war killed up to half of the population of Germany in places and it wasn't just soldiers.

Germany was fine thereafter.


The Black Death killed quite indiscriminately , up to 2/3 of the population including a lot of good stock.

Some say Europe was better thereafter. I'm of mixed opinion on that.

I think it was modernity that killed people, the clamor of horror of modern war and the all consuming needs of industrial civilization

reminds me of the Dead Flag Blues actually.

the car's on fire and there's no driver at the wheel and the sewers are all muddied with a thousand lonely suicides and a dark wind blows. the government is corrupt and we're on so many drugs with the radio on and the curtains drawn. we're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine and the machine is bleeding to death.

People were uprooted from family, from traditional arrangements , from health expressions of gender from tradition itself to feed the needs of the state and this condition of modernity combined with material affluence is a Gamma factory.

Anonymous lurker November 29, 2017 1:34 PM  

"Anytime I post something anywhere on this subject, it's met with quibbling responses. Why, one might almost think people – especially men who've been circumcised – don't want to confront the issue directly."

Then you're a woman who doesn't understand why men don't care?

Blogger ace November 29, 2017 1:36 PM  

I'll bite:

-Achilles
Gamma
-Odysseus
Sigma
-Menelaus
Beta
-Agamemnon
Alpha

Anonymous johnc November 29, 2017 1:46 PM  

@79 Huh? Who's that? The Americans? Well, the whole point of this side discussion is that the overwhelming majority of White American males are circumcised.

Yeah, I did a typo. "Great Circumcised People". I should have just stuck with the echoes. ;)

Blogger VD November 29, 2017 1:47 PM  

Question for VD: Can someone be a Sigma without being a total man-whore?

Almost certainly not. I think it would be much more likely for an Alpha to be a clean-living sort. A Sigma is much more likely to be into one fetish or another. Remember, lacking the social element, it is the sexual aspect that makes it obvious he is at the top of the social pyramid.

Blogger Akulkis November 29, 2017 2:07 PM  

@VFM #6306

"Crew is merely amazed that the socio-sexual hierarchy is used to "explain the glaring mistakes" that a man makes, when a the person using the hierarchy doesn't have a personal connection to the man making the mistake."

Crew-to-English translator: "You don't know me!"

(As if knowing an individual matters in the slightest)

Blogger Akulkis November 29, 2017 2:12 PM  

The gamma is a boy who hasn't shaken himself free from being force-fed blue pills since he learned to comprehend language.

Blogger Akulkis November 29, 2017 2:16 PM  

And unlike the anthropogenic glow-bull warming hyothesis and the evolution hypothesis, socio-sexual hierarchy is a testable theory.

Which makes it VASTLY more scientific.

Anonymous Philalethes November 29, 2017 2:20 PM  

@82 lurker: Then you're a woman who doesn't understand why men don't care?

No, I'm a man, and I do understand why (some) men don't care – or feel they they must insist that they don't.

Morpheus: You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember: all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more.

Blogger The Kurgan November 29, 2017 2:58 PM  

<b)
What is the socio-sexual status of:

Achilles - Alpha
Odysseus - Sigma
Menelaus - Beta with Situational Alpha status
Agamemnon - borderline Gamma with Situational Alpha Status

Hamlet - whack job/ Omega


Blogger Nate November 29, 2017 3:11 PM  

" A Sigma is much more likely to be into one fetish or another."

well that explains the baby metal

Blogger WynnLloyd November 29, 2017 3:12 PM  

This. The sheer magnitude of gamma is difficult to get past but it's worth it.

Blogger WynnLloyd November 29, 2017 3:14 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger DonReynolds November 29, 2017 3:15 PM  

As a regular reader of the Daily Mail, I have noticed the massive attention devoted to Mrs. Markle...breathless adulation, and any question or exception is either completely ignored or attacked as exceedingly rude or in bad taste. You may recall, these are the same people who keep insisting that race either does not exist or does not matter, yet they celebrate the coming marriage of Prince Henry of Wales to a wealthy American mulatto divorcee. Of course, no small part of this reporting is re-living the memory of Harry's mother, who is still (somehow) respectable in England.

No more mention of Chelsy Davy, Harry's girlfriend from 2004 to 2011...who had never been married to anyone....but was still invited to William and Kate's wedding. Coincidentally, during the same years Chelsy was Harry's girlfriend, Ms Markle was girlfriend to Trevor Engleson (actor/producer), which continued as married life from 2011 to 2013. They were married in Jamaica.

Throughout it all, I could not help but re-visit a detailed description of the events surrounding the abdication of King Edward VIII in December 1936 as the result of a deliberate smear of the King and his intention to marry another wealthy American divorcee, Ms Wallis Simpson, who was still married to her British husband. This was the year of the Three Kings. I do not blame anyone for having an opinion on the matter but I do blame people when they lie and conspire and actively frustrate the situation. The Home Secretary ordered the phone calls between the King and Ms Simpson to be stopped by the Post. The King's own legal counsel betrayed and conspired against his royal client with those political figures who were opposed....not only to the marriage, but to King Edward taking an interest in political matters of state. And then there was the open bigotry of the British ruling classes to anything American, even when money was included.

So I end up asking the same question ....Did King Edward VIII abdicate for nothing? He and his wife were apparently devoted to each other and remained together for 35 years, until his death in 1972. Was their love for each other somehow less important than Harry and Meghan?

Blogger WynnLloyd November 29, 2017 3:16 PM  

Lol. Unfortunately now I'm thinking about that crotchety article by Scrooge McDerbyshire.

Blogger Nate November 29, 2017 3:17 PM  

Achilles - Sigma
Odysseus - Sigma
Menelaus - Alpha
Agamemnon - Alpha

lets start with this.

Blogger Nate November 29, 2017 3:22 PM  

Ace

Don't ever comment about social heirarchy again. Calling Achilles a gamma is like calling the Cleveland Browns a Superbowl Team.

Blogger Cool Guy449xx_420 November 29, 2017 3:24 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:Soy-based infant formula, high-carb diets, and maybe too much birth control runoff in the water.



I'm going to throw my 2 SEK in.
I think you're partially right. I've never met a gamma with high test. However, I've met non-gammas with low test.

If the culture taught in schools and TV is: (((masturbation is cool and töööötally good for you *big thumbs up for camera and massive smile while glancing quickly to the side for approval and biscuit*)))
Then gamma is imminent.
But it's probably something like a feedback loop of low test > shit culture > lower test > shitter culture > muslim invasion. Maybe it's possible to reverse-engineer it all.

Oh, I'm from Sweden. But you might have inferred that already.

Blogger WynnLloyd November 29, 2017 3:24 PM  

Could that be the worst case of narcissistic projection of all-time? The Clinton's Russia dealings might be more extreme, but Gould's deliberate mismeasurement of man has got to be up there. The man presented the world as 100% the opposite of reality, and knew he was doing it. Disgusting.
We should be teaching students about Gould and exactly why he was a fraud.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Fine Purveyor of Quality Artisanal Gorm ) November 29, 2017 3:26 PM  

71. Philalethes November 29, 2017 12:56 PM
Anytime I post something anywhere on this subject, it's met with quibbling responses. Why, one might almost think people – especially men who've been circumcised – don't want to confront the issue directly.



we had this subject come up when Michael Z. Williamson ( a lunatic anti-circumcision guy ) was posting here.

a poster chimed in that he had been circumcised as an adult due to medical condition and that, after he healed, he could discern no difference in his sexual experience.

i can't comment on the infant trauma aspect, but the whole "permanently crippled and desensitized" accusation seems to be crap.


83. ace November 29, 2017 1:36 PM
-Achilles Gamma


wut?

how is the mightiest warrior at the siege of Troy Gamma? kind of hard to be a 'Secret King' when everyone knows you're the best fighter because you've proven it numerous times.

in certain instances, Achilles even over rules Agamemnon.

Blogger Nate November 29, 2017 3:32 PM  

a good argument could be made that literally everyone in the illiad is alpha.

Blogger VFM #7634 November 29, 2017 3:33 PM  

So I end up asking the same question ....Did King Edward VIII abdicate for nothing? He and his wife were apparently devoted to each other and remained together for 35 years, until his death in 1972. Was their love for each other somehow less important than Harry and Meghan?

@94 DonReynolds
Edward VIII had a bad case of Gamma face. That, together with his bad decision in regards to choosing a wife, suggests to me that his uncrowning wasn't a bad thing at all.

Blogger Nate November 29, 2017 3:33 PM  

its like someone sat down and said.. "I'm going to write a giant tale about stupendous badasses... doing stupendously badass things."

Blogger ace November 29, 2017 3:51 PM  

He's either sigma or gamma. I went with gamma based on his willingness to blow up the Trojan war because he wasn't willing to forgive Agamemnon even after being compensated for the initial sleight. Rage over not being given what you imagine yourself as being due is a key gamma trait isn't it? As is flouncing and threatening to take your ball home, but not actually carrying through on that.

Blogger Jack Burroughs November 29, 2017 3:57 PM  

Many people on here have complained about Hollywood's dishonest pushing of the Gamma type as romantic hero.
I'm not fully fluent in Vox's system, but it's certainly true that Hollywood peddles sanctimonious lies about sexual dynamics between men and women, especially in romantic comedies.

However, the remarkable third act of the 80s movie, The Last American Virgin, does seem to tell the brutal truth about the socio-sexual hierarchy. (Only the third act is interesting; the first two acts are worthless, Porkies-like crap.)

Briefly: the pretty, popular girl gets knocked up by a prickish Alpha, who promptly ditches her when he learns of her pregnancy. The entire third act is about how the nerdy Gamma helps her in her time of need. He is unfailingly there for her, a shoulder to cry on throughout her ordeal. He even sells his damn stereo to raise money to pay for her abortion! And, of course, he accompanies her to the clinic for the procedure. What a nice guy.

When she sincerely thanks him for his help, he confesses that he has loved her from the moment he met her. She does not say that she loves him, but they do kiss for the first (and only) time, as Journey's "Open Arms" sentimentally amplifies the moment on the soundtrack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-uqE0rUOmw

Sounds almost like he might get the girl, right? He sure thinks so. In the climactic sequence, he buys his new "girlfriend" a necklace, and attends a stupid house party to give it to her. When he comes upon the girl, he finds her making out with the very same prickish Alpha who knocked her up.

She and the Gamma lock eyes. He is heartbroken, of course--but, interestingly, so is she. Sort of, anyway. She looks genuinely sad that she has had to destroy the poor guy like this. But what can she do? She's a high school girl, and instincts are instincts. She's as baffled as anyone else by her behavior: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkPQinEEB94

In the final scene, as credits roll, the Gamma drives home alone, weeping. It is hauntingly sad--a rare accomplishment for a teen movie.

Now, this is definitely a mercilessly truthful depiction of some sort of socio-sexual dynamic.

Vox, I'm calling the guy a Gamma, but is that the right label for him? Or is this some other type of low value guy?

Anonymous Dorm Room Dave November 29, 2017 4:01 PM  

"a good argument could be made that literally everyone in the illiad is alpha."

Fair point -- from the point of view of literary criticism. I mean if you think Ajax is Alpha, we have to have a talk, and yet you wouldn't be kwazy. But it isn't the purpose of the exercise: if, as claimed, these attributes are objective, and easily observed, testable, and predictable, then people who claim to understand the theory should give answers which roughly cluster together. I won't declare yet whether or not, or to what extent, I believe the theory, but I do think I understand it fairly well, and while you have to remember that my answers are just as personal as your own, I'd say that our respondents so far are well under 50% accuracy. Some of the answers leave room for ambiguity --for instance I'd say that Odysseus is clearly Alpha, but his "polytropos"/"many-sided"/trickster quality can excuse an answer of Sigma, though I think that's a shoot-from-the-hip mentality-- , ...but some of the answers to my mind (and in keeping with the theory, mind you) are so bloody obvious that giving a wrong answer either points to an inability to grasp a theory which is alleged to be close to self-evident, or else people just ain't as literate as they used to be. The comments crowd on this blog generally gives indications that it's considerably well above average intellectually and culturally, so I'm a little surprised so far.

Here's an easier questionnaire, real-life people (I'll pony up my own answers, just to provide a baseline.

The Beatles:

Ringo Starr -- alpha, believe it or not.
George Harrison -- alpha as the day is long.
John Lennon -- gamma in his personal and emotional life, but in his public and professional life, the most alpha personality of 1960-1967.
Paul McCartney -- classic beta, but forced into the alpha role when Lennon's long-suppressed gamma tendencies overwhelmed him.

Mick Jagger -- beta
Keith Richards -- beta
Jimi Hendrix -- alpha professionally, beta in his personal life


C'mon, dudes, dig in, get some. This oughta be a snap.



Blogger Jack Burroughs November 29, 2017 4:13 PM  

Dorm Room Dave:
"Mick Jagger -- beta
Keith Richards -- beta"

Jagger is definitely an Alpha. There is no reasonable basis for calling the man who arguably lived the most erotically privileged life of the 20th Century a Beta. That is ludicrous.

Richards is an Alpha, too, in the context of the band. That they are both Alphas is the source of the much of the tension between Jagger and Richards. But, judging by his memoir, Richards does seem to lack a bit of confidence with women. Sexually, perhaps he is a Beta, or a situational Alpha.

Anonymous Dorm Room Dave November 29, 2017 4:19 PM  

"Jagger is definitely an Alpha. There is no reasonable basis for calling the man..."

Nah, it's not ludicrous at all. I would argue, Either you don't know much about the actual artistic culture of the period, or else you don't understand the theory as well as you think. But I'm open-minded, and I don't want to muddy the waters. I can be persuaded.

I mean, both Frank Zappa and Captain Beefheart were alphas in their weird little privately-created universes, but in the real world they both scream Gamma or even Omega. And I say this as someone who greatly admires the work of Don Van Vliet.

Professors of the Theory, enlighten us! Straighten us cuz we're ready.


Anonymous daniel November 29, 2017 4:33 PM  

Dorm Room Dave wrote:

John Lennon -- gamma in his personal and emotional life, but in his public and professional life, the most alpha personality of 1960-1967.

Paul McCartney -- classic beta, but forced into the alpha role when Lennon's long-suppressed gamma tendencies overwhelmed him.


If the sociosexual hierarchy is such a good system for categorising people by observable traits, then why do people have to add epicycles upon epicycles of odd situational qualifiers to fit people into the sociosexual categories? Why do two people have three opinions about where some character, be he fictional or real, fits?

Anonymous Dorm Room Dave November 29, 2017 4:47 PM  

@109: well that there is a good question now, innit.

Blogger Howard Stone November 29, 2017 4:54 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Cool Guy449xx_420 November 29, 2017 5:03 PM  

daniel wrote:John Lennon -- gamma in his personal and emotional life, but in his public and professional life, the most alpha personality of 1960-1967.

Paul McCartney -- classic beta, but forced into the alpha role when Lennon's long-suppressed gamma tendencies overwhelmed him.



If the sociosexual hierarchy is such a good system for categorising people by observable traits, then why do people have to add epicycles upon epicycles of odd situational qualifiers to fit people into the sociosexual categories?


Because Lennon is a lambda, and was never an alpha. Remember, fags can make pretty good music. Also, he had a hollywood marriage to yoko. I mean who would fuck her? Seriously, come on...
Gammas simply CAN NOT make music. I know this. I play music. I have played with numerous people, and the gammas always bail out in a jam due to severe confidence issues. They can't follow, and they can't lead. Extrapolate principle infinitely to unlock the secret king.

Blogger Jack Burroughs November 29, 2017 5:17 PM  

Dorm Room Dave: "Either you don't know much about the actual artistic culture of the period, or else you don't understand the theory as well as you think."

Jagger's swaggering self-confidence, both onstage and off, and his sexual success with countless of the most beautiful women in the world, strikes me as unambiguously Alpha behavior.

Even today, in his 70s, Jagger does conspicuously well with young, attractive women. He just knocked up a 27 year old ballet dancer a couple of years ago.

Moreover, he never displays traits that I would classify as Beta.

But perhaps you know something about him that I don't. What is the factual basis of your claim that Jagger is a Beta?

Anonymous Avalanche November 29, 2017 5:40 PM  

@38 "By British law the child of a married woman is assumed to be the child of her husband. Not just British law either - it provides a good chunk of the plot of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina."

Worked with a man once (a mechanic) who was SO excited about his soon-to-be first child... and then his wife squatted out a niglet. Beyond the horror and dismay and confusion and righteous fury -- in Washington state (aa in most states): he was married to the mother so it was "his" son. Even with the DNA proof it was NOT his son, WA didn't care; and he was on the hook for 18-yr of child support!

Beyond belief!

Blogger VFM #7634 November 29, 2017 5:41 PM  

@112 Cool Guy449xx_420

There is in fact a lot of overlap between Gamma and Lambda (heck, I knew a creature who said he became gay because he "respected women too much"). But, I find the assertion that Gammas can't make music to be flat-out wrong. In fact, a disproportionate number of musicians I've known (especially the hacks) are definitely Gammas. And AFAIK I'm not aware of any evidence that Lennon was gay.

Granted, Gammas don't make very GOOD music, but they do like to show off. Comedians are often Gammas, especially the unfunny ones like Stephen Colbert.

As for your chokers, I'd actually expect low Deltas and the higher-functioning Omegas (both of which may appear to be Gammas at first glance) to be more likely to have confidence issues of that kind.

Blogger VFM #7634 November 29, 2017 5:45 PM  

@106 Dorm Room Dave

PA's blog concurs with your observation about Lennon and McCartney.

Blogger GraceIronwood November 29, 2017 6:08 PM  

"Its about time"


I'm wondering how far this insane SJW race-sex mania is going to run.
In the ugly social mood of hothoused but now-conventional vilification of whites I feel a real sense of dread: it seems inevitable that some intrepid soldiers of social justice will start hunting white men down. (just as we have seen with police officers.

Blogger Cool Guy449xx_420 November 29, 2017 6:19 PM  

Lennon remains a mystery to me then. I'll reassess.
I don't think fags respect women though. I've known a few, and they generally have low opinions of them. So it was probably more along the lines of "having a cock inside of me seems more appealing than working 16h a day for an ungrateful bitch"
People say shit they don't mean far too often. Or maybe I'm inferring too much.

Low deltas definitely choke but it can always be fixed by applying alcohol, E, and a good, compassionate alpha in the vicinity. Gamma choke never fixes. We actually had one blame our alpha the other day because our alpha put a melody to this cuntfuckers "doom metal" riff.

And I'll reiterate: gamma can't jam. They can learn something by themselves and then play. Can't jam. Tried with 2.

Comedy is a lot of gamma.
Stephen Colbert makes me think of queue cards reading "laugh or gulag"

Blogger GraceIronwood November 29, 2017 6:30 PM  

Desdichado wrote:Although I don't know for sure that the taxonomy has caught on, even the habitual lumpers (like heartiste) are referring to Omegas with regularity, and make a split between high and low alphas.

Crew's objection seems to be with regards to the attempt to create a taxonomy AT ALL, and he submits plenty of tells that he's made decisions of his own that put him in a lower run on the hierarchy than he'd like to think of for himself. As is often the case, I suspect that the pseudo-intellectual posturing is more about personal butthurt than about anything else.

I'd bet Crew is himself in a multiracial marriage, maybe even with an African or part African.


Nah, he doesn't have to be married himself. Crew is just another one of those Leftists high with the sheer joy of seeing norms and institutions of society fall. The race aspect obviously forms a particularly intense part of the pleasure. As a number have said, the situation could only be improved-upon if she were a muslim Duchess for the British people.

Anonymous E Deploribus Unum November 29, 2017 6:33 PM  

Crew is just another one of those Leftists

Uh, no. Just no. You read that wrong.

Blogger GraceIronwood November 29, 2017 6:38 PM  

Desdichado wrote:Although I don't know for sure that the taxonomy has caught on, even the habitual lumpers (like heartiste) are referring to Omegas with regularity, and make a split between high and low alphas.

Crew's objection seems to be with regards to the attempt to create a taxonomy AT ALL, and he submits plenty of tells that he's made decisions of his own that put him in a lower run on the hierarchy than he'd like to think of for himself. As is often the case, I suspect that the pseudo-intellectual posturing is more about personal butthurt than about anything else.

I'd bet Crew is himself in a multiracial marriage, maybe even with an African or part African.


I'm also one of those FOR labels (the ability to observe and generalise) because we cannot THINK without them.
I guess it depends on whether the labels are appropriate and whether they help to explain phenomena or not.

Blogger VFM #7634 November 29, 2017 6:41 PM  

@Cool Guy449xx_420
Ok, yeah, that all makes sense.

Blogger GraceIronwood November 29, 2017 6:47 PM  

Arthur Isaac wrote:Listening to Laura Ingraham yesterday do a lot of hand-waving about the fact that Prince Harry announced that he had fornicated with the future duchess: "kids will be kids" she said. My response was if nobility isn't going to be noble and royalty royal than why does the UK bother keeping these people in their rich lifestyle? Even the pretense is gone and that is going to leave another mark shortly.

The Royal Family is one of the few unifying national symbols that has not been knocked over yet by the Great Levelling. The race of the Duchess-to-be gives the left some stake in the institution of constitutional monarchy, which is amusing.

Anonymous Avalanche November 29, 2017 8:10 PM  

@102 "Edward VIII ... suggests to me that his uncrowning wasn't a bad thing at all."

I understood that a huge motivator for forcing him out WAS of the political variety (that is, he WAS taking an interest). He, like so many others, thought WELL of Hitler (having met him) and would likely have proven an obstacle to (((those))) who wanted to throw England's young men into it again...

Blogger SirHamster November 29, 2017 8:38 PM  

Cool Guy449xx_420 wrote:I don't think fags respect women though. I've known a few, and they generally have low opinions of them. So it was probably more along the lines of "having a cock inside of me seems more appealing than working 16h a day for an ungrateful bitch"

People say shit they don't mean far too often. Or maybe I'm inferring too much.


Don't have the personal experience, but Ivan Throne has a post from a gay man recovering his identity who writes about how gay culture hates masculinity and are trying to become women.

Possible modal expressions of gay culture? Some are there because they want to be a woman, other are there because they don't want women.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan November 29, 2017 9:15 PM  

Poor Harry a bastard, his ship has no combat power and he is being forced to marry a good looking but older woman of mistress material not breeding material

Anonymous Ain November 29, 2017 11:58 PM  

"Well, roll over, white guys, and tell Beethoven the news."

This brings to mind those rap piano memes that feature six keys.

Anonymous Luke November 30, 2017 12:16 AM  

1) Plenty of Americans are still pro-circumcision. I'm a 56-YO redpilled man, and if I'd had a son, I would have had him circed. With all the chicks out there that have serious slut history, the STD-risk-reduction is a nontrivial argument in its favor.

2) The whiners who get butthurt over any reference to the sociosexual hierarchy sound the like same people offended by any mention of hypergamy, women's general inability to bond once they've premaritally slutted significantly, demographic crashing among whites and its causes, how men are actually the sex that has it rougher in life (just look at workplace deaths), racial or sexual IQ difference, time preferences, heck, the basic worthlessness of nearly all non-STEM/non-skilled trade schooling.

It's perhaps an "emperor's new clothes" thing, but I suspect it's something else. Either it's unhappiness that they or someone they like doesn't look good when it's used to describe them. Or, perhaps it's that those concepts disallow the soon-to-be-gotten societal nirvanas all the broken eggs were for, and that's the death of a dream. The latter sounds like how queers were in denial about HIV for so long.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 30, 2017 1:15 AM  

I think it was modernity that killed people, the clamor of horror of modern war and the all consuming needs of industrial civilization

WWI is often said to have removed all the glory from war. Whatever the death toll of a conflict, if the victors can come away feeling victorious and the surviving losers can feel that they suffered for a noble cause, well, you can rebuild on that.

But if victors and vanquished both walk away feeling queasy, feeling there had been no glory or goodness in the bloodbath, just evil and stupidity with the leaders of society the most evil and stupid of all...

Yeah.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 30, 2017 1:20 AM  

its like someone sat down and said.. "I'm going to write a giant tale about stupendous badasses... doing stupendously badass things."

Why would anyone write a story about anything else? Who would read it? I mean, if someone wrote a story about weepy women weeping about womanish things, would future generations ever hear of it?

God I hope not.

Anonymous Jack Amok November 30, 2017 1:33 AM  

I think you're partially right. I've never met a gamma with high test. However, I've met non-gammas with low test.

Well, remember, my alternate theory is based on low adult testosterone levels. My primary theory is based on a temporary glitch at a critical period of brain development. If my primary theory is true, it would be entirely possible for a boy to experience that brief spike of T at 9 months, have his brain develop properly, but then for some reason end up with low-T as an adult. In that case, he'd simply be a low-T version of whatever he was, alpha, beta, etc.

The critical observational difference between Gammas and other men is that Gammas exhibit female thought patterns. The epiphany came for me a few years ago when I tried to offer advice to some sackless MGTOWs on Helen Smith's (Instapundit's wife) site, and I was met with furious screeching. The old truth that when women complain about something, the last thing they want is for someone to tell them how they can solve their own problem hit me. What they really want is either a) someone else to solve it for them, or b) someone to pat them on the head and say "there, there, poor baby..."

That was the behavior I was seeing from Gammas. Add in solipsism, and then juice it up with testosterone fueled aggro (even low-T guys have more of it than most women) and there you go.

Oh, I'm from Sweden. But you might have inferred that already

Yah, sure, the umlauts gave you away.

Blogger DonReynolds November 30, 2017 2:23 AM  

Avalanche wrote:@38 "By British law the child of a married woman is assumed to be the child of her husband. Not just British law either - it provides a good chunk of the plot of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina."

Worked with a man once (a mechanic) who was SO excited about his soon-to-be first child... and then his wife squatted out a niglet. Beyond the horror and dismay and confusion and righteous fury -- in Washington state (aa in most states): he was married to the mother so it was "his" son. Even with the DNA proof it was NOT his son, WA didn't care; and he was on the hook for 18-yr of child support!

Beyond belief!



It is the law in the USA too. Paternity testing is pretty much pointless in the case of a married woman. The law will insist that the newborn has two parents, regardless of who is biologically involved in the conception, the Father is Mom's Husband.

Paternity is an issue that we tend to avoid in the USA, to be honest. The only exception I know of was a Public Health Service study in Oregon and Washington, that lasted only a few years. Every newborn was automatically tested to determine if the newborn was biologically related to Mom's husband (the legal father). The outcome of the study was that ONE out of SIX newborns had no biological relationship to their Mom's husband. There were no other regional studies of this type elsewhere.

So either you can accept the 1 out of 6 figure and generalize for the entire country, or you can imagine that it might be higher in the Deep South or lower in Vermont and New York. There is no way of knowing if nobody is motivated to find out. It is not that nobody wants to know.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Fine Purveyor of Quality Artisanal Gorm ) November 30, 2017 2:29 AM  

106. Dorm Room Dave November 29, 2017 4:01 PM
I'd say that our respondents so far are well under 50% accuracy.



while you may be impressed with the general level of the commentariat here, that doesn't mean that those who choose to respond to your question are necessarily the ones who have a particularly good grasp of the concepts.

personally, i'm not even aware of many of the characters you asked for analysis of, so it would be kind of silly for me to attempt to assay them.


if you check out the comment thread for the hierarchy over at Alpha Game you'll note that i had pointed out your dichotomy between personal / professional years back. i expressed it as Extrinsic vs Intrinsic qualities. Harvey Weinstein is worth many millions of dollars, controls hundreds of millions more and is rather physically imposing ( 6', +250lbs ), though not in the least handsome. Harvey is a modern Extrinsic Alpha / Intrinsic Gamma.

now, if *Vox* assays your subjects and you think his analysis wildly off, then either you or he doesn't quite understand the models.

the problem being that if Vox doesn't understand the models, that leads to serious questions about the utility of the system.

i would categorize Achilles as Sigma. he does lead his own war band, but he's not particularly interested in expanding his Social Power ( typically, a major concern for your standard Alpha, hence AMOG ). he is superlatively talented, and proves that whenever tested. he gets laid pretty much anytime he wants, although it is true that in SOME versions of the story he's not above raping the unwilling.


104. ace November 29, 2017 3:51 PM
because he wasn't willing to forgive Agamemnon even after being compensated for the initial sleight.


wut?

that's a mighty strange way to characterize what happened.

1 - Agamemnon kidnaps the daughter of a priest of Apollo and refuses to ransom her back
2 - the priest appeals to his patron god and Apollo sends a plague amongst the Grecian army for Agamemnon having dared to disgrace his votary
3 - many Greeks die and they have no success in their efforts against Troy
4 - one of the Greek prophets discerns the source of the problem but fears for his life ( it would appear, quite wisely ) to dare accuse the High King as being responsible
5 - Achilles vouchsafes the prophet's life, thereby permitting Agamemnon and the entire leadership to know what they have done that has displeased the gods ( which Aggy should have already been well aware of )
6 - Agamemnon returns Chryseis to her father, appeasing the gods
7 - and 'rewards' Achilles for fixing the problem Agamemnon created by ... stealing spoils of war that Achilles had earned through his own talent and work


frankly, i would consider Achilles to have been justified in killing Agamemnon outright for what he had done.


although Agamemnon holds many Extrinsic Alpha traits ( being the High King and nominal Commander in Chief of the army as well as being himself a mighty man of war ), if there is any character in the story who could be considered Gamma, he would be the one. certainly he is one based on his Intrinsic traits.


from a DSM perspective, Agamemnon would at minimum be a Narcissist. the tell is his childish lashing out at those who point out, correctly, that he is doing wrong.

regardless, Agamemnon's entire story arc revolves around how he continually insults and disgraces those around him, ranging from the gods to his most important warriors to his own wife ... this foolishness finally resulting in his death.

doesn't sound very Alpha to me.

Blogger Retrenched November 30, 2017 2:31 AM  

Of course the socio-sexual hierarchy is real. Kids in school know all about it, even before they have any interest in the opposite sex. They may know nothing about alpha, gamma or omega, but they know who the cool kids are, who the average kids are, who the wimps and dorks are, etc.

Anonymous AB.Prosper November 30, 2017 2:51 AM  

Jack Amok wrote:I think it was modernity that killed people, the clamor of horror of modern war and the all consuming needs of industrial civilization

WWI is often said to have removed all the glory from war. Whatever the death toll of a conflict, if the victors can come away feeling victorious and the surviving losers can feel that they suffered for a noble cause, well, you can rebuild on that.

But if victors and vanquished both walk away feeling queasy, feeling there had been no glory or goodness in the bloodbath, just evil and stupidity with the leaders of society the most evil and stupid of all...

Yeah.


Its going to get worse with things like networked drone swarms and robots . We are quite easily capable of creating a world we can't live in and inflicting a psychological toll on our warfighters they won't be able to recover from or the societies can't

Likely we'll resort to brain implants like DARPA has in human trials and just use people as machine tools till enough people have enough power to impose a forceful theocracy.

Hopefully Christian but ignoring the theological ramifications, humanity would even be much better off under a global Caliphate than under such a regime

As an aside, the Canadian time travel police procedural/thriller Continuum from a few years ago shows this future nicely, after they take over government functions corporations have a life tax on everyone and anyone not paying the tax is chipped and turned into a living robot. Its a horrific scene and entirely plausible

Anonymous VFM 9054 November 30, 2017 4:46 AM  

Jack Amok wrote:Why would anyone write a story about anything else? Who would read it? I mean, if someone wrote a story about weepy women weeping about womanish things, would future generations ever hear of it?

God I hope not.


I take it that you are unfamiliar with the work of Jane Austen or the Bronte sister?

Blogger Cool Guy449xx_420 November 30, 2017 4:55 AM  

Yeah that makes sense. I came to loathe them because they absolutely despise men that don't display neurotic, submissive tendencies.
But they don't like femininity. What they do is pervert the women into "go-go girl power" mode. They don't like feminine women.

Very fucked up people in general.

Blogger Artisanal Toad November 30, 2017 4:58 AM  

VFM #7634 wrote:@112 Cool Guy449xx_420

There is in fact a lot of overlap between Gamma and Lambda (heck, I knew a creature who said he became gay because he "respected women too much").


While the SSH is a taxonomy for classifying men, I see a similarity between gamma's who are consistently rejected by women they are attracted to and women who are rejected by men they are attracted to.

In both cases they can't get what they want, are rejected and are trying to deal with the rejection in a way that lets them win.

I'm sure some gammas who face rejection from the women they believe they deserve decide they aren't being rejected because they're actually gay. Thus, he still gets to be the secret (gay) king. He wins by preserving his illusion. Solipsism takes over, a personal narrative is created and they cling to the lies because gammas can't admit when they're wrong.

Why is it so many lesbians are fat? Are they fat because they're lesbians or lesbians because they were fat (thus rejected)? What about physically attractive lesbians? Perhaps, like the gamma, they believe they deserve the best but can't get it (they do get pumped and dumped) and thus a "sour grapes" rejection of men results. Or, perhaps the physically attractive ones still have some hope and haven't given up yet.

My theory holds there are no lesbians; there are only women who can’t get attention from the men they’re attracted to… it's just another aspect of hypergamy. Refusing to settle for the men who are attracted to them, they settle for a woman because it preserves the illusion that they weren’t rejected, they did the rejecting. It's actually all about men, but feminism slaps the label "lesbian" on it to preserve the feminist narrative and protect the illusion. Surprise, a lot of these harridans were the driving force behind feminism.

The other side of that coin is bisexual women. Interestingly, work by Baumeister (et al) indicates female sexuality is far more plastic than that of men. Consider the threesome. The vast, vast majority of women will say "I would NEVER!" if the subject came up. However, if a man is attractive enough (and knows how) he can regularly get threesomes with women who say "I would never" to other men and women.

When it does happen the women will do whatever he wants because he's the reason they're naked in bed with another woman. In other words, it isn't about the other woman, it's all about him. But feminism can't tolerate that so they slap a bisexual label on the women to maintain the narrative that it's actually the women in control.

Given the various taboos involved with female-female sexual contact, claiming AWALT is probably inappropriate, but otherwise the rule should be that for 1) the right man, 2) at the right place, 3) at the right time, 4) with the right line (RM/RP/RT/RL) all women are "bisexual".

Women tend to personalize that characterization and vehemently object, but as a general rule when a woman says "I would never" the man should mentally add "with you". That said, observed female behavior indicates that when a woman encounters the RM/RP/RT/RL, as a general rule her objections disappear. For women it's always about the right man and in the end, the gamma will never be the right man.

For the gamma it's about preserving his illusions but being rejected by women he thinks he deserves has to be explained somehow. Rather than homosexuality, I think the MtF tranny who identifies as lesbian is perhaps the perfect example of how the gamma runs away from the fight he can't win while preserving his illusions, increases his PC social status and then as a bonus, gets to claim victim status.

Just look at the poster-child of this lunacy, the Jenner trainwreck.

Blogger Cool Guy449xx_420 November 30, 2017 5:41 AM  

I think both your theories are correct at the same time. The feedback loop thingy. I'll put most of my eggs in the 9 month basket though.

And yeah 100% They want pats and affection to shelter them from harsh realities that nobody but God will ever love them.

And here's a crazy hypothesis to addend to your theory:
What if mommy didn't get fucked enough during pregnancy?


Blogger Cool Guy449xx_420 November 30, 2017 7:51 AM  

All of this checks out imo. Very informative.

I always wondered why some lesbos would give me the "might fuck" eyes. I tend to leave their vicinity asap because you get the sense that they are fake in the highest sense of the word fake. Superlatively fake.

I once had a mighty heffer from theatre school sit down next to me and breathe loudly, as if sitting itself took a tremendous amount of effort.
I slowly pushed my chair in the opposite direction while feeling a tad guilty and simultaneously relieved.

Blogger SirHamster November 30, 2017 2:15 PM  

Artisanal Toad wrote:Consider the threesome.

Your obsession with this scenario is unbecoming of a Christian.

Have you stopped lying about Christians yet?

Blogger Artisanal Toad November 30, 2017 7:14 PM  

@141

SirHamster, triggered, responds with bulverism.

If you wish to challenge what I laid out, do so and back it up. The observation you reference is not an observation of Christianity or Christians, it is an observation of men falling under the taxonomy of the SSH according to Game. The point of the observation was that for the right man at the right place at the right time with the right line (and only the women determine that), women will do just about anything.

Over time the gamma will never be the right man because nothing covers the reek of gamma for very long and it repulses women. Apparently you can't handle that, which is telling.

Last time around you were the sidekick to your boy Simply Timothy, who finally had to admit there was no support for the doctrine you two were defending. Nothing. He admitted he'd always been taught the lie and he believed the lie but when I demanded he prove to me from the Bible that he was correct, he could not. The two of you were lying about what the Bible says.

He even asked for help to "interpret" the Bible to make it say something it does not say. In other words, the two of you asked for help in order to continue the lies. That reeks of gamma and the hundreds of additional comments across two different locations after I dropped out (I won) was observably gamma rage.

You learned that what you'd always been taught was a lie and when confronted with the truth you couldn't admit it or accept it. That's gamma behavior.

Now, you again engage in lying gamma behavior on the same issue, knowing you can't win on the issue itself so you engage in bulverism.

There is hope for you but the first step out of the pit of gamma is to recognize your gamma behavior for what it is and stop lying.

Blogger wreckage November 30, 2017 7:47 PM  

Here's a question. What ARE the worst gamma tells and how does one avoid them? I don't want to converge on maladaptive behaviours.....

Anonymous Jack Amok December 01, 2017 3:00 AM  

I'll put most of my eggs in the 9 month basket though.

Yeah, when I first put 2 and 2 together on that one, it was a real stunner.

And here's a crazy hypothesis to addend to your theory:
What if mommy didn't get fucked enough during pregnancy?


Very, very interesting. We know seminal fluid carries some powerful compounds that have a big impact when absorbed by the female body, and there's some evidence the DNA in absorbed sperm has long-lasting effects...

Blogger Artisanal Toad December 01, 2017 5:04 AM  

@144

The designations and descriptions are other than scientific--they are predicated on what a group of men personally believe ought to be the standards for manliness.

You are an idiot if you believe you get to designate what your social status is.

The designations and descriptions Vox used are based on the real-world observational data of what actually exists. A man's social status is assigned by those around him and he is ranked compared to all other men they know based on certain criteria, which is why it's called a "hierarchy". One of the key indicators of a man's rank is the opinion of women as to his desirability.

This is why gammas burn with rage when women can't see that they're really a secret king. They can't admit there's anything wrong with their behavior, it must be everyone else. The SSH describes what is, not what you want it to be.

Furthermore, there is an alternative model, and a proven one...it is called the Christian Bible, which offers complexity to behavior rather than stereotypes. Manhood develops most appropriately when we pursue the kingdom of God rather than an idol of masculinity itself and all of its worldly trimmings. Upon closer inspection, the men found in the Bible is the epitome of inner fortitude, not outward toughness. In other words, secular standards of masculinity, i.e. Western Civilization machismo, woefully falls short for Biblical manhood.

Twaddle. I see this kind of feminist churchian response on my blog frequently, you're simply parroting the lies you have been taught. Feminized churchian doctrine that castrates men.

If you truly care only about what God thinks of your standing before Him, why are you here complaining about the SSH? Shouldn't you be counting your suffering of involuntary celibacy as pure joy while studying the Word as you wait for God to plop your perfect woman down in front of you, ready to say "I DO!"?

The answer is you don't want to die an incel and even though you might be a world-class feminist churchian, what you are doing is not attracting women. And you know it. So instead of adjusting to the real standards, you're here arguing that everyone else needs to adopt new standards so you can be high-status without changing.

Unfortunately for your position, the real-world observational data demonstrates your feminist churchian doctrines are lies. Otherwise your pursuit of the Kingdom of God without the need for masculine, confident dominance would result in hot women chasing you around the sanctuary and you'd be laughing to yourself at Vox.

According to your doctrines of mutual submission and servant leadership, beautiful Proverbs 31 women should be attracted to you!

But instead they find you repulsive, don't they.

God said to the woman "Your desire shall be for your man and he shall rule over you".

Women want a king, not a servant. Because God said so.

Want women to desire you? Abandon the lies and become fit to rule. Or keep doing what you've been doing. Your choice.

Blogger Cool Guy449xx_420 December 01, 2017 9:05 AM  

You are a godsend m8.
The pieces of the puzzle are falling together.

I'm also adding another fact to back the hypothesis up to, perhaps, theory status:
Stefan molymeme mentioned something about stress hormones released in the absence of a father.

We're probably somewhere along the lines of right. Too bad Jewniversity doesn't take kindly to such mean hypotheses.

Blogger Cool Guy449xx_420 December 01, 2017 9:17 AM  

Amusing name
Amusing irony

Anonymous Jack Amok December 01, 2017 2:16 PM  

Here's a question. What ARE the worst gamma tells and how does one avoid them? I don't want to converge on maladaptive behaviours.....

Refusing to admin a mistake or a defeat.

Blogger SirHamster December 01, 2017 2:19 PM  

Artisanal Toad wrote:There is hope for you but the first step out of the pit of gamma is to recognize your gamma behavior for what it is and stop lying.


Gammas always double down. You were banned from Dalrock for lying that he banned you to silence your viewpoint from discussion.

You lied about a solid Christian blogger, because he cut through your bullshitting and called out your error.

You have in the past attacked other Christians here, like Beau. You also lie about simplytimothy and myself.

I am in no way important that your treatment of me matters, but your repeated lying attacks on other Christians marks you as a child of the Devil. Repent.

Alternatively, drop the facade of Christianity, and I'd be content to ignore you advertising your freaky threesome-obsessed sex cult.

Blogger SirHamster December 01, 2017 2:21 PM  

Jack Amok wrote:Here's a question. What ARE the worst gamma tells and how does one avoid them? I don't want to converge on maladaptive behaviours.....

Refusing to admin a mistake or a defeat.


Not loving truth. Because the Truth reveals that he is not the Secret King, master of wisdom and light to the Gentiles.

The true Light reveals something quite ugly that needs to be crucified on the cross.

Blogger Artisanal Toad December 01, 2017 7:13 PM  

@149

The triggering continues. First bulverism, now DARVO lies. You just can't let it go, can you? And claiming that I'm doubling down? That's called projection.

Citing Dalrock is hilarious because it started off as his hit-piece (attack) on me. Straight out of SJW's Always Lie, it started with the point and shriek and turned into a classic SJW show trial. Dalrock lied repeatedly, intentionally misquoted me, engaged in massive ad hominem, changed the subject to avoid answering and attacked others who supported me or questioned his honesty. I called him out on it repeatedly. However, he also encouraged all his followers to pile on and over a thousand comments worth of personal attacks and OT comments poisoned the well.

The real issue quickly became whether the eligible virgin is married when she has sex with a man who is eligible to marry her, or does God require some sort of additional Special Sauce™ in order for the couple to be married? That flipped the script, put TradCon churchian doctrine on trial and Dalrock had to defend it. He couldn't.

After refuting every argument he made it became obvious he couldn't defend his doctrine because the Bible doesn't support it, so he banned me to end the discussion. Then he lied again, claiming he hadn't but he was banning me because I made it up. I can prove he lied repeatedly in the threads but only he and I know the truth of when he banned me.

SirHamster, in citing his dishonest attack on me and my honest defense as evidence that I'm a liar attacking others, you once again demonstrate you're an idiot who isn't tall enough for this ride.

You also accuse me of lying about you and Simply Timothy. I didn't link or quote it before, but if you recall, the subject of the debate was that nowhere in the Bible does God forbid female-female sexual contact as sin. You and Simply Timothy claimed I was wrong and God did forbid it as sin. In the end, it was as I said in this comment:

I believe what I have been taught, that all homosex is sin.
Attacking Toad's position cannot be made by showing a prohibition against woman-woman sex as no verse does so.
The question then becomes, how do I make a Biblical case that it is sin absent such a verse?
That is the case I am in the process of building; it is eminently doable. It will take time, probably months


I explained this in the first part of Ho Ho Ho because it's a classic example of a churchian refusing to accept the truth and concluding that God got it wrong. I told no lies, you did.

You were his partner and while those are his words, you agreed with your silence and ratified them with your later support.

Now you virtue signal by attacking me to position yourself as the only Real Christian™ in the room. And then you kept going.

SirHamster wrote:Jack Amok wrote:Here's a question. What ARE the worst gamma tells and how does one avoid them?

Refusing to admin a mistake or a defeat.


Not loving truth. Because the Truth reveals that he is not the Secret King, master of wisdom and light to the Gentiles.


You lie again. A major gamma tell IS refusing to admit a mistake or defeat, but "Not loving truth" is NOT.

Like Crew, you

1) Refuse to admit it when you get defeated.
2) Refuse to let it go.
3) Attempt to redefine the standard so you can win.
4) Virtue signal with churchian twaddle.
5) Posture as the only Real Christian™ in the room.

By their fruits shall you know them, because gamma is as gamma does.

Blogger Cool Guy449xx_420 December 02, 2017 6:46 AM  

Less ad hominem, virtue signals, and mentions of the past. More debating and actual refutation of toads theories and arguments.



This reeks of gamma. GROSS

Anonymous Motley Crue December 02, 2017 9:34 AM  

The exchange between Toad and Hamster only highlights the subjective application of the SS hierarchy. Both sides accuse one another of being a gamma. Their peers would come to their defense and offer evidence to the contrary. Outsiders would then chime in with their own interpretation.

Thanks for proving the point.

“The answer is you don't want to die an incel and even though you might be a world-class feminist churchian, what you are doing is not attracting women. And you know it.”

Direct question --> What specific evidence do you have that enables you to definitively know that 1) I am not atttracting women and 2) I might be a world-class feminist churchian, taking into consideration you are reacting to my post on a blog?

“The designations and descriptions Vox used are based on the real-world observational data of what actually exists. “

No, they are based on a group of men’s own personal interpretations of what they believe is “true manhood” that in reality runs counter to Godly masculinity. The Pavlovian response to any challenge to that system is "you're a gamma", which is other than scientific.

“A man's social status is assigned by those around him and he is ranked compared to all other men they know based on certain criteria, which is why it's called a "hierarchy".”

Key phrase here--they know. So how do posters here have the requisite background knowledge of my actions as a man, along with the stories of my relationships with women, to designate me as a “gamma”? Furthermore, assuming that a man’s social status is assigned to those around him, there may be another group of men who label me a “sigma” or “alpha”. So, who is correct in their labeling? Why?

“One of the key indicators of a man's rank is the opinion of women as to his desirability.”

So merely by calling into serious question the decision making process of men labeling other men on a hierarchy based on their own preferences equates to me being of a lower rung of female desirability?

“They can't admit there's anything wrong with their behavior, it must be everyone else. The SSH describes what is, not what you want it to be.”

The SSH describes what it COULD be according to subjective criteria rooted in confirmation bias by a group of men who believe their observations are entirely accurate.

Blogger Artisanal Toad December 02, 2017 6:38 PM  

Gamma Is As Gamma Does

Again, as Vox pointed out in the OP, the label is irrelevant because the label merely describes an observable and identifiable behavior.

The gamma "secret king" description points to a general state of self delusion in which the individual refuses to accept reality of their personal status in favor of their fantasy. This produces four major gamma behavioral tells:

1) Self-aggrandizing behavior in which they make up stories about themselves (complete fantasy) and lie about their true role in actual events when telling the story.

2) Refuse to admit mistakes, lies and defeats.

3) When confronted in real life with their mistakes, lies or defeat the gamma runs to safety. Anonymously online, they are triggered into meltdowns that can be epic.

4) When triggered, gammas become enraged and they can't let it go. Vox has frequently highlighted examples (like this one) on his Alpha Game blog as well as this blog.

The gamma constantly works to reinforce his self delusion and minimize any threat to it. When confronted with evidence exposing their self-delusion, they have a number of defenses that boil down to more lies (doubling down) and the use of pejorative. When it comes to pejorative, their projection reveals their deepest insecurities. This is why calling someone "gamma" is frequently the favorite insult of the gamma just as "racist" is the favorite of the SJW.

In addition, bulverism and DARVO can be examples of this and are quite effective in redefining the issue, changing the subject and poisoning the well in any public discourse.

Thus, when one sees an exchange in which each side accuses the other of lying and being gamma, examine the evidence to determine who is lying and it will frequently become obvious who the gamma is. In situations like this, the SSH is an effective metric to evaluate the behavior.

My exchange with Hamster is illustrative.

@138 I used the example of the threesome as a metric of very high status men.

@141 Hamster was triggered due to a fight that happened 2.5 years ago that he lost. He responded not to the current point but to the fight he lost years ago. He quoted the trigger phrase and bulverized.

@142 I called that out and explicated, pointing to the gamma behavior both then and now. Note that I did not call him a gamma but identified his behavior as gamma.

@149 Hamster then came back with disqualification, DARVO and lies, calling me a gamma.

@151 I quoted and linked to the evidence that refuted the lies. It's his lying gamma behavior that makes him gamma because gamma is as gamma does

Then we come to FakeCrew (I use the new name after this).

After Vox addressed MotleyCrue's arguments against the SSH in this post and destroyed them, Vox made three statements:

"one cannot credibly argue that male social status does not exist, that male social status is entirely unrelated to human sexuality, or that there are not common behavioral indicators of an individual man's social status that can be readily observed by others."

He then observed "Anyone attempting to disprove the relevance of the socio-sexual hierarchy must deny all three of those statements" and invited MotleyCrue to do so and support that argument.

Crue's initial responses did not address any of them. Rather, he claimed a "Biblical manhood" standard exists in the "Christian Bible" and Vox is wrong because the SSH is worldly. But Vox didn't invite Crue to argue about that. Unfortunately, evidently his responses were made using someone else's name and they were deleted.

I'll address MotleyCrue's latest response in my next comment.

Blogger Artisanal Toad December 02, 2017 10:18 PM  

Motley Crue wrote:Direct question --> What specific evidence do you have that enables you to definitively know that 1) I am not atttracting women and 2) I might be a world-class feminist churchian, taking into consideration you are reacting to my post on a blog?

First, your argument. Your previous (now deleted) comment argued that the SSH should be disregarded because it is worldly and replaced with your undefined metric of "Biblical manhood", a metric in which confident dominant masculinity plays no part.

Additionally I observe you're not an ordinary reeking gamma, you're a feminist churchian gamma, a peculiar subspecies of gamma in which the combination of feminist churchian doctrine and gamma rabbiting form a toxic stew of repulsiveness to women.

As I stated in my previous comment to you:

"Unfortunately for your position, the real-world observational data demonstrates your feminist churchian doctrines are lies. Otherwise your pursuit of the Kingdom of God without the need for masculine, confident dominance would result in hot women chasing you around the sanctuary and you'd be laughing to yourself at Vox."

The rest of my commentary will provide further evidence.


Motley Crue wrote:“One of the key indicators of a man's rank is the opinion of women as to his desirability.”

So merely by calling into serious question the decision making process of men labeling other men on a hierarchy based on their own preferences equates to me being of a lower rung of female desirability?


No. Women prove the validity of the SSH in the same way a metal detector identifies valuable metals and ignores worthless ones.

A man is not high status because he's sexually desirable to women, he's sexually desirable because he's high status. It is the women who make that decision, not the men, which is why I said you're an idiot if you think you can assign yourself your own status. Men of any group or persuasion can observe who women are attracted to and draw their own conclusions.

What women are attracted to in men depends on what phase of their life they are in and there is a spectrum at every point. That said, women are attracted to a man's confident, masculine dominance; his power, status and money, as well as his character traits such as honesty, loyalty and dependability. That forms a matrix and with a good combination of those the man will be high status. Women don't want a servant, they want a king. Full explanation here.

The mechanism behind a woman's sexual attraction to confident masculine dominance is called hypergamy and you can't understand women until you understand hypergamy.

A man's status is *indicated* by how desirable women find him and that is observable by other men.

Blogger Artisanal Toad December 03, 2017 5:17 AM  

Motley Crue wrote:So how do posters here have the requisite background knowledge of my actions as a man, along with the stories of my relationships with women, to designate me as a “gamma”? Furthermore, assuming that a man’s social status is assigned to those around him, there may be another group of men who label me a “sigma” or “alpha”. So, who is correct in their labeling? Why?

Utilizing the SSH, a few examples of behavior generally suffice to assign a position, which allows one to accurately predict future behavior. That is the value of the SSH, it's predictive utility. Your second question indicates you'd rather be labeled as alpha or sigma. Why did you use the terms of the SSH instead of your own "Biblical manhood" with "Godly Masculinity" (BMwGM) metric? If you believed your own argument you'd have said:

"Furthermore, assuming that a man’s social status is assigned to those around him, there may be another group of men who label me a “Mighty Man of God” or “Christlike”.

That exposes the delusion. Alpha is as alpha does and likewise gamma is as gamma does. They're just labels describing and classifying specific attitudes, traits and behavioral characteristics. Within your peer group you may be high status, but that's meaningless if the church-girls compare you to all the men they know and reject your groups ideas of what *should* be attractive.

Next, the question is not "who is correct in their labeling" but rather which group do you want to be labeled by and what standard to they use?

The group you want a high ranking from is women you are attracted to.

Do such women use your BMwGM metric to rank you compared to other men? No. They rank you according to their assessment of your attractiveness, which reflects a set of traits and behaviors described by the SSH.

The SSH will accurately predict not only your future behavior but also how attractive you will be to women, depending on your position.


Motley Crue wrote:“The designations and descriptions Vox used are based on the real-world observational data of what actually exists. “

No, they are based on a group of men’s own personal interpretations of what they believe is “true manhood” that in reality runs counter to Godly masculinity.


Gamma trait: Refusal to accept being wrong.

I classified you as a feminist churchian gamma based on your arguments and behavior. According to the SSH, gamma is repulsive to women with options. Feminist churchian gamma is even worse. The end result of internalizing the toxic doctrines is to transform boys into feminized, castrated caricatures of men subservient to women. That is not attractive and you can prove it for yourself. Consider the men that the girls are attracted to. What behaviors/traits do they display?

You claim men should be assessed according to your BMwGM. You haven't explained this non-taxonomy that doesn't have stereotypes, so there is no way to know how BMwGM compares to the SSH or what your BMwGM rank might be. Or even if there are any ranks. You say you've got it and I believe you, but I'm trying to see how this relates to real life so I have a question:

In the aggregate, do women you are attracted to generally find your BMwGM attitude, traits and behaviors attractive? Fill in the blank honestly.

SSH example: gamma = Repulsive

You according to BMwGM = _____________________________

"He makes me wet just thinking about him"
"He's marriage material"
"I have better options"
"Permanent Friendzone in 30 seconds"
"Repulsive, avoid at all cost"

Anonymous Motley Crue December 04, 2017 10:37 AM  

“Again, as Vox pointed out in the OP, the label is irrelevant because the label merely describes an observable and identifiable behavior.”

You mean a conclusion that was arrived at subjectively, not objectively, based on personal biases.

Considering the metric here is that a man’s social status is assigned by those around him, your own self-aggrandizing behavior on this blog, refusal to admit mistakes, lies, and defeats (as evident by your statements at Dalrock), and your own triggering (your SJW-esque outbursts on your last two posts), you reek of the gamma stench. ITake your own advice and seek to improve yourself at the advice of your betters.



"@138 I used the example of the threesome as a metric of very high status men. “

Except God would disapprove of such actions as being diametrically opposed to Christian masculinity. Corinthians 7:2—“But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” In this verse, the apostle Paul describes any and all sexual activity outside of marriage as “sexual immorality.” Sex before marriage is absolutely sinful.


"@142 I called that out and explicated, pointing to the gamma behavior both then and now. Note that I did not call him a gamma but identified his behavior as gamma.”



Again, that identification based on your preconceived notions as to what constitutes gammerism.



"First, your argument. Your previous (now deleted) comment argued that the SSH should be disregarded because it is worldly and replaced with your undefined metric of "Biblical manhood", a metric in which confident dominant masculinity plays no part.

“Additionally I observe you're not an ordinary reeking gamma, you're a feminist churchian gamma, a peculiar subspecies of gamma in which the combination of feminist churchian doctrine and gamma rabbiting form a toxic stew of repulsiveness to women.”



All you have done here is attach a label, assume it to be true, and argue your point without specific evidence as to my daily interactions with men and women.


“A man is not high status because he's sexually desirable to women, he's sexually desirable because he's high status.”

The perceived sexual desirability of a man to a woman varies; thus, to her, he is of high status. But how that man conveys his desirability is under his control so long as he is adept at male-female interactions.

“What women are attracted to in men depends on what phase of their life they are in and there is a spectrum at every point. That said, women are attracted to a man's confident, masculine dominance; his power, status and money, as well as his character traits such as honesty, loyalty and dependability.”

Which is to women each and of their own as to how they define those characteristics.

Anonymous Motley Crue December 04, 2017 10:39 AM  

“Women don't want a servant, they want a king”.

Some women may go that route, and other women may want a mutual king-queen relationship. You are making a sweeping generalization here.



“The mechanism behind a woman's sexual attraction to confident masculine dominance is called hypergamy and you can't understand women until you understand hypergamy. “

Actually, the object of woman’s desire is for her man depends upon what she personally believes is desirable in a relationship, which may include being submissive. Moreover, God did not create hypergamy. The sexual marketplace is but a human construct. Social status is most often the result of greed and irrational self confidence.

Be mindful that Evil is attractive. For people to conclude that evil is the dominant criterion for attractiveness equates to the "Converse Fallacy of Accident.” Women, like all sinners, are drawn to Evil when they have rarely encountered Good. Even then, our natural inclination. Yet even then our fallen nature is defeated by our yearning for Good, which can never be entirely destroyed. It is the divine spark that burns our soul for Redemption. Thus, true Christian men and women seek to separate their occasional worship of Evil from the rightful worship of inner Fortitude and Righteousness. Exactly why Game denies the faith and why the faithful deny game.

On a scientific level, Eastwick and Finkel (2008) discovered women will tell you they want a wealthy man. But when it actually comes to who chooses whom to date in a live dating environment, there is little difference between men and women in how money is important money. Women are no more likely to go for the rich guy than men are to go for the rich gal in real life.

“Within your peer group you may be high status, but that's meaningless if the church-girls compare you to all the men they know and reject your groups ideas of what *should* be attractive.”



Not all women discuss the high status given to you by your peer group, nor is that high status dependent upon how other men view you, especially if you are a competitor. It is natural for men to falsely state how their rivals think and act other than in a masculine fashion. In other words, the peer group I associate with and those outside my network of friends have divergent views as to what constitutions my value, which leads to how the SSM is observably subjective in nature.



“They rank you according to their assessment of your attractiveness, which reflects a set of traits and behaviors described by the SSH.”



No, women rank men according to their assessment of a man’s perceived physical and emotional attractiveness, which reflects a set of traits and behaviors based on their own personal standards influenced by family, friends, and society.

“I classified you as a feminist churchian gamma based on your arguments and behavior.”

No, you classified me as using an artificially created and emotionally induced system.



“In the aggregate, do women you are attracted to generally find your BMwGM attitude, traits and behaviors attractive? Fill in the blank honestly.”

Stuart Smalley said “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and gosh darn it, people like me”. You are hopelessly caught up in SSH. I pray that one day you see God’s true light.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts