Sexual Harrassment

[reno cool]

Yeah. Plommer is foked. He's still a champ but he's foked. He'll get over it. It's a phase.

 

[betplom]

Plommer, I have a friend who has similar views on female attraction. He calls it stud vs. provider. But they are all just generalizations. When you start doing that, you automatically put people in buckets before even giving them a chance to be categorized outside of your generalizations.

The generalizations have been accurate in my experience and thats why I believe them. Yes they are generalizations and there are exceptions but for me they at their core are true.

I started reading up on MGTOW and Redpill after seeing some funny youtube videos on the subjects.

I was blown away by what I was reading because it was describing my experiences very accurately.

There are some fundamental things that I am convinced of 100% and other things I only partially support.

For example, there is no doubt in my mind that being a nice guy as a strategy for female attraction is the worst strategy there is.
Females are attracted to masculinity not femininity and being nice reeks of femininity and subconsciously repels women.


Here is an article that describes what I'm talking about and yes there are exceptions but generally I believe this to be accurate.


Dual mating

"Dual mating" is a sexual strategy in which the female seeks reproduction and partnership with two different males. She seeks to reproduce with a genetically superior male (called 'alpha') and to enter into a relationship with a reliable, capable male (called 'beta') that will provide her and her children with protection and resources.

In most cases, the cuckolded beta male will have some reproductive access and will gain some offspring of his own: dual mating doesn't imply a 100% cuckolding rate.

The beta male will also attempt various strategies to ward off cuckolding, like mate guarding. But while the beta male must provide resources and commitment to gain some reproductive access (which the female gives up grudgingly as the price of his commitment), the alpha male gets enthusiastic reproductive access with almost no effort and with no commitment required.

Human females engage in dual mating. It developed before neurologically-modern humans and takes place at an instinctual, not rational level. Read the link for a shit-ton of details.


Alpha and beta

In the manosphere, the terms 'alpha' and 'beta' were introduced informally and before any strong connection to evolutionary psychology was realized. They are taken from analogy with hierarchical pack animals, like wolves, where the dominant male of the group (the alpha) enjoys several advantages over the lesser males (betas).

However imprecise in their origin, the terms were well-suited to describe recurring patterns in relationship dynamics, and have remained in use.

With the introduction of evo-psych to the manosphere, they could take on a more precise meaning:

• Alpha: a male which (((displays))) (more on this later) traits that indicate a superior genetic makeup. Mating with an alpha male is desirable because of his advantageous genetics.

• Beta: a male which (((displays))) traits that indicate his reliability, willingness to commit and ability to provide. Being in a relationship with a beta male is desirable because he can reliably provide resources and services.

In humans, alpha male traits include physical fitness indicators (like height, muscularity, shoulder-hip ratio), masculinity indicators (facial masculinity) and dominance. Beta male traits include reliability, willingness to commit, ability to provide (wealth, lucrative skills).

Notice that some of these traits can overlap but they are not the same: a socially dominant alpha male might also be wealthy, but a wealthy man might well be a wuss.

Information and signalling

Women don't have a magical scanner that can read the genetic makeup of men, so they must rely on those traits that males display. Displaying certain traits suggests to the female brain that the male in question possesses an underlying quality: a muscular man subconsciously indicates that he has high levels of genetic fitness, enabling him to grow muscles better and to catch more food.


These indicators evolved over the millions of years in which humans were hunter gatherers. They might not logically apply to the current day: a muscular man today is more likely the product of dedication and discipline than gifted genetics. But that doesn't matter: humans have lived in the modern age for far too short a time for present conditions to override millions of years of evolution. Women are still sexually attracted to what made an alpha caveman.


The fact that the display of traits is what matters allows a certain latitude to male sexual strategy. "Fake it until you make it" works because you can display confidence while not having it, and for the most part it will still be perceived as genuine confidence and elicit sexual attraction.

Sexual attraction and relationship attraction

All of this brings us to a fundamental operational distinction.

Sexual attraction is the kind of attraction which makes a woman want to have sex with you, regardless of all other considerations. It is produced by alpha traits: looks and dominance.

A high school dropout felon who is, however, a tower of testosterone-driven muscle is the perfect example of an alpha male who is a loser in 2016 society, and still far more likely to slay pussy than fat Billie Beta with his office job and meek manners.

Relationship attraction is the kind of attraction which makes a woman want to be in a relationship with you, regardless of all other considerations. It is produced by beta traits: reliabilty, compliance and ability to provide. A self-made billionaire CEO who is, however, a pussy-whipped wuss who gets manipulated by a gold-digging girlfriend is the perfect example of a beta male who is a winner in 2016 society, and still can only get pussy if he puts incredible amounts of resources on the table.


Notice that while the two kinds of attraction are NOT mutually exclusive, and indeed in most cases are both present at the same time in some proportion, it is generally very easy for the effort required by the beta traits to make a man fall behind on his alpha ones. Specifically, men often give up dominance to try to show commitment.

Why it's important to know the distinction

The distinction is fundamental, because it teaches you which traits to develop and display to obtain the results you want. If you want to get a lot of NSA sex, work on your looks and dominance; if you want a stable relationship and maybe even a family, you need to also ("also" doesn't mean "exclusively") provide stability, reliability and resources.

You CAN use the lure of beta traits like wealth to raise initial interest, but unless they are coupled with alpha traits they won't turn into sexual attraction. Having an expensive car might make a woman talk to you, maybe even sleep with you once, but if she realizes you're a pussy the sex is only going to be coming, grudgingly, in return for gifts and services.


The plight of the "nice guy" is exactly the result of trying to use beta traits, like availability and privision of resources, to elicit sexual attraction, and failing hard.

Lessons (re-)learned:

• sexual attraction and relationship attraction are distinct and instinctual; they can overlap, but one is not the other

• alpha traits, like looks and dominance, result in sexual attraction

• beta traits, like commitment and wealth, result in relationship attraction

• you can use either trait to elicit initial interest, but the end result of the interaction (sex and/or relationship) will depend on the kind of traits you display

• not understanding this distinction will make you deploy an ineffective sexual strategy, something typical of "nice guys"

 

[betplom]

Yeah. Plommer is foked. He's still a champ but he's foked. He'll get over it. It's a phase.

I would expect this type of comment from Mudcat not you. If you disagree fine but don't try to belittle or shame me for my views. It's disrespectful. I don't treat you like an idiot or disrespectfully.

It's definitely not a phase. Some people believe what I've posted and some don't. I've received enough positive feedback from posters to know that these ideas have merit.

I post this stuff for the benefit of those that are already convinced and not to try and change beliefs of those that disagree.

 

[MonkeyF0cker]

Or maybe those alpha traits of being a self-indulgent asshole just aren't conducive to lasting, monogamous relationships...

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

 

[betplom]

You're holding men to a higher standard than women because men are seen as the ones who are not supposed to "punch back".

So when men are portrayed as bumbling idiots in the media, when they're sent to mandatory college classes on how not to rape, when they're losing the incentive to marry but are shamed for not marrying and when some say they don't want to interact with women because there's no plus side for them, women are crying foul.


I must say this though: women don't have to comply with men at all. Honestly.

Women have been told that they "don't need no man", that they're independent and that they can do anything a man can do but only better.

So by all means, don't bother with men. The issue isn't with those women at all.

It's with the ones who want the benefits without the responsibilities.

It creates expectations that men cannot fulfill, destroys relationships and when men point out they're being given a raw deal, apparently they want to make women the punching bags.


I think the MGTOW movement is an example of men not wanting to take or give any punches.

Which, just like the woman not wanting to interact with men, is fine. Like I said, the issue is not with women who don't want to bother with men.

It's with women who insist men change, that they're wrong for being men, that their masculinity is toxic, that they're criminals and rapists just waiting to happen, that they should be more like women (because women are better) and that they've somehow got it better despite having issues not enough people take seriously enough.


When you give people in general no incentive to try, they won't. So why bother? Right now, things like marriage, sex, reproductive rights and divorce are in women's favour.

Women have more incentives to marry than men, for example. If women want nothing to do with men, they are under no obligation to comply.

But then they shouldn't be telling men they're intrinsically bad/wrong for being men and the laws should not reflect this either.

Women are welcome to start their own companies, live separately from men, build their own homes and make their own money if they do not want to comply.


However, to suggest men offer women nothing when women choose to be with men, especially high quality men?

Well, that's where the argument falls flat. Many men aren't spitting nearly as much hate towards women as women are towards men.

If your argument is that men should be really nice while women get to do what they want, then you're asking too much. If the incentive you're talking about is that men be nicer, then women have to be nicer too. If it means men accepting women as they are, then women have to accept men as they are too.

 

[betplom]

there's another reason we experience these gender imbalances.


Women fought for, and won, the right to have their imperatives encoded into law. Society looks the way it does because women, and powerful men, decided that it should look this way. Women fought for, and won, the right to have society give them every advantage in fulfilling their imperatives; and to have society hamper, inhibit and sandbag men in fulfilling their imperatives.


Law, culture, political institutions, the economy, religious institutions, and pretty much everything else have been completely reengineered and set up to serve the feminine imperative and to hamper and sandbag the masculine imperative(s).

 

[betplom]

Or maybe those alpha traits of being a self-indulgent asshole just aren't conducive to lasting, monogamous relationships...

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Absolutely correct. Alpha fucks. These are the guys that make pussies wet, and women fantasize about taming a man like this and getting him to commit to a monogamous relationship. Its what they mean when they say there are no good men left. There are tons of good men left, but its seen as "settling" when they get involved in a relationship with a man who they only value for his resources.

Hence beta bucks.

 

[MonkeyF0cker]

So, you don't think the generalizations that you put forth are the result of gender roles ingrained in society for many, many years? You don't think it's harder for people to overcome those generalizations (such as women overcoming predetermined gender roles) if they aren't a part of the path they desire for themselves?

 

[betplom]

So, you don't think the generalizations that you put forth are the result of gender roles ingrained in society for many, many years?

I do think this yes. Based on my experiences.

You don't think it's harder for people to overcome those generalizations (such as women overcoming predetermined gender roles) if they aren't a part of the path they desire for themselves?

I'm not sure what you're asking me here. I'm leaning yes as a response to your question but the point of what I'm saying is not that there are problems both sexes have but that the generalizations are in fact valid.

I think women are capable of changing behaviour and of overpowering their impulses ie their instincts with will power but the problem is many women don't even realize what their problem is.

Hypergamy.

 

[MonkeyF0cker]

Absolutely correct. Alpha fucks.

Hence beta bucks.

And the alpha male's inability to maintain a lasting, monogamous relationship should be cast in a positive light? Is that somehow better than the beta that can offer a substantive relationship with a woman?

 

[MonkeyF0cker]

I do think this yes. Based on my experiences.


I'm not sure what you're asking me here. I'm leaning yes as a response to your question but the point of what I'm saying is not that there are problems both sexes have but that the generalizations are in fact valid.

I think women are capable of changing behaviour and of overpowering their impulses ie their instincts with will power but the problem is many women don't even realize what their problem is.

Hypergamy.

Do you believe that you're compounding those gender roles with your own generalizations?

 

[betplom]

And the alpha male's inability to maintain a lasting, monogamous relationship should be cast in a positive light? Is that somehow better than the beta that can offer a substantive relationship with a woman?

I said no such thing. I am saying that they both exist and that its in a mans best interest to understand this in order to improve their sexual strategy.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I think were are talking about different things altogether.

I'm saying there are alphas and betas and women use these men to satisfy their needs, and each man plays a role.

 

[betplom]

Do you believe that you're compounding those gender roles with your own generalizations?

No because the theory behind the generalizations were not my original ideas, they are ideas I copied from others because I agreed and they made sense.

What are you trying to make me realize?

Do you think my beliefs are nuts because there is no truth in any of them?
The reason I don't think these beliefs are crazy is because of much of the feedback I've received from other men, except Reno.

I'm curious to know how successful Reno has been with women during his lifetime. I mean I'm fairly certain he hasn't been very successful, and no I don't claim to have been successful either so its not that I want to judge him. I thought he would be able to identify with much of what I posted, was not expecting him to be so dismissive.

 

[MonkeyF0cker]

No because the theory behind the generalizations were not my original ideas, they are ideas I copied from others because I agreed and they made sense.

What are you trying to make me realize?

Do you think my beliefs are nuts because there is no truth in any of them?
The reason I don't think these beliefs are crazy is because of much of the feedback I've received from other men, except Reno. I'm curious to know how successful Reno has been with women during his lifetime.

Most stereotypes exist due to a collective of people's personal experience. Do you think that makes those stereotypes necessarily accurate in even a majority of instances?

 

[reno cool]

Sorry pal, not trying to belittle.
I'm probably more disappointed with women than anybody. Still, you going on so much, and with theory that sounds pretty simpleton makes me feel like you're hurt personally. And I can empathise, but yeah the thought of a fun hooker loving Plommer is more uplifting.

 

[betplom]

Sorry pal, not trying to belittle.
I'm probably more disappointed with women than anybody. Still, you going on so much, and with theory that sounds pretty simpleton makes me feel like you're hurt personally. And I can empathise, but yeah the thought of a fun hooker loving Plommer is more uplifting.

The only reason I'm "going on so much" is because I believe I've made a discovery that has explained things to me and given me a bit of peace of mind. And also because I have LOTS of free time and am fairly enthusiastic about my discoveries.

And so what if a theory sounds "simpleton" it is still valid. No one has challenged the core beliefs, those who don't agree have no argument other than vague single sentence generalizations.

Some things I kind of sensed but couldn't put in to words like "men are disposable" in our society, is very true.

Also, men ARE superior to women in almost every way but legislation has been enacted to create a false "equality" between the sexes and it has caused alot of suffering for men in general.

Also that women are excellent manipulators, this one thing they do far better than men and have evolved to because they cant physically compete with men so they gain advantage through other means.

And lastly that men are shamed for everything these days because of womens imperative.

I'll try not to rant further.

Calis post stirred me up enough that I felt I had to reply. Women have it good, they get all the benefits and have much less responsibility than men yet they constantly complain. I just had enough.

I won't apologize for being a man or acting like one.

 

[betplom]

Most stereotypes exist due to a collective of people's personal experience. Do you think that makes those stereotypes necessarily accurate in even a majority of instances?

With regard to my beliefs about the topics I discuss yes.

And Asians are horrible fucking drivers.

 

[MonkeyF0cker]

The only reason I'm "going on so much" is because I believe I've made a discovery that has explained things to me and given me a bit of peace of mind. And also because I have LOTS of free time and am fairly enthusiastic about my discoveries.

And so what if a theory sounds "simpleton" it is still valid. No one has challenged the core beliefs, those who don't agree have no argument other than vague single sentence generalizations.

Some things I kind of sensed but couldn't put in to words like "men are disposable" in our society, is very true.

Also, men ARE superior to women in almost every way but legislation has been enacted to create a false "equality" between the sexes and it has caused alot of suffering for men in general.

Also that women are excellent manipulators, this one thing they do far better than men and have evolved to because they cant physically compete with men so they gain advantage through other means.

And lastly that men are shamed for everything these days because of womens imperative.

I'll try not to rant further.

Calis post stirred me up enough that I felt I had to reply. Women have it good, they get all the benefits and have much less responsibility than men yet they constantly complain. I just had enough.

I won't apologize for being a man or acting like one.

Could one imply that these sentiments are construed to "play the victim" and that men are being victimized by feminism?

What gender do you believe set the values in our culture? (economic, governmental, religious, etc.) Do you think the system would have been vastly different if women had initially set the rules?