I have a theory. Here it is:
The welfare state has created more pump and dumpers.
I only have casual observation, not hard data, to back up my theory. I base it on the exponential increase in the past ten years of businesses teaching pickup skills to men. These are real businesses with satisfied clientele who pay in the thousands for weekend seminars and “boot camps” to learn how to turn women on.
Bleeding heart compassion has cursed blessed the country with layers of safety nets that subvert the natural cleansing of losers from contributing to the next generation. The result of all this government largesse is the substitution of handouts for husbands. When provider males who are predisposed to marry and support a family are worth less on the market than they used to be they are slowly replaced by playboys taking advantage of the sexual climate. Women who have their security needs met by Big Government (in combination with their own economic empowerment) begin to favor their desire for sexy, noncommital alpha males at the expense of their attraction for men who will foot the bills.
Prediction: As women’s financial status rises to levels at or above the available men in their social sphere, they will have great difficulty finding an acceptable long-term partner. The men, for their part, will turn away from emphasizing their ability to provide as they discover their mediocre-paying corporate jobs are no longer effective displays of mating value. They will instead emphasize the skills of “personality dominance”.
The betas either learn to adapt or learn to love celibacy. The “seduction community” has grown organically out of the cultural soil to help these guys adapt. Now, instead of spending their money on diapers, these guys are spending it on in-field instruction in nightclubs.
Our genes only care about one thing: What is the winning reproductive strategy? Today, that winning strategy is seduction, sex, and splitting, leaving the kid to be raised by an unwitting chump.
The result of this sea change in relations between the sexes will be a future of more cads and fewer monogamously inclined men. The pendulum will eventually swing back as a world full of players and fatherless children cannot sustain itself, but there will be much wailing and gnashing of genitals before that day arrives.
Ultimately, compassionate policies to help protect us from ourselves will backfire. Losers need to suffer and be excluded from experiencing the happiness of financial security, love and sex for the health of society as a whole.
Culling the weak – it’s cruel, it’s cold-hearted, it’s uncompassionate… it’s necessary.
The executive summary:
Women are the more compassionate sex.
Their compassion compels them to vote for welfare statism.
Welfare statism drives down the asking price of provider betas.
Hit and run players fill the void.
Therefore, women are responsible for the very types of men who hurt them most.
And that kid went HA HAWWW!
Couldn’t the Internet be a major factor behind the growth of the seduction community?
I’d add one more thing: financially successful betas also have other opportunities than to settle for a chick that is used up by an alpha (i.e. is older, has a kid(s)…). The beta male with money can go to other parts of the world to have his needs met. So, in this sense some betas are also more alpha now, too.
Who cares about these seduction communities? The problem with most of them are that they’re filled with betas who read the articles, buy the videos, and don’t have the balls to approach.
I agree with retard that men are moving abroad more for women now, but it’s not them becoming more alpha, it’s that a more flat earth has given betas more women to control them. The ultimate losers with our changed societal structure are American women, and Western women. Men will spend more and more time getting mail order/ internet wives. Which is why that crazy law was passed to forbid men from meeting women in foreign countries (On Marriage Sites), in an effort to control this. I give the feminists a few points for that. They had the foresight to see where this was going, but ultimately any beta who wants to be a provider, can still just jump on an airplane and meet women in South America/Europe/Asia/Africa and bring them back here. While all these betas that waste money on seduction just help foster the spirit and ideals that women should enjoy pump and dumps. Basically it’s +1 me. -1 American Women. -5 Beta Males. I love America!
“Women are the more compassionate sex.”
Many women have repressed some of their natural feminine compassion due to the societal influence of femininity hating feminists.
“Their compassion compels them to vote for welfare statism.”
That may be true for some. Definitely not I. Making people dependent on the state benefits the state more than anyone else.
“Welfare statism drives down the asking price of provider betas.
Hit and run players fill the void.”
There’s more going on here than welfare statism. More effective birth control and feminist pressure to be less feminine and more masculine makes women less attractive to men as life mates, but more attractive as ego enhancing sexual consumables. When there’s no higher purpose, men and women resort to games and manipulation. The trick is finding the higher purpose since survival is no longer the big issue.
Therefore, women are responsible for the very types of men who hurt them most.
Sorry, we are all responsible. Men are hurt too they just repress their hurt….and die younger and commit more suicides. Heath Ledger anyone? Women take more anti-depressants and talk to everyone from their cats to the check out person at MacDonald’s to let off steam and frustration. Who’s better off? It’s not clear.
Alpha/beta; I’ve had both. Women who are only attracted to alphas (stating the obvious here) are severely limiting their options. I think it’s time to at least enhance our basic animal nature to include all kinds of attractive features a man may have. If you’re with an alpha and have amazing chemistry but end up fighting all the time, the sex is going to stop anyway, so what’s the point? Women are not players by nature. We still get bonded and attached. So why get bonded with a man when the breakup will be inevitable and painful? Yes, I know players try to cloud a woman’s mind so she’s not seeing the writing on the wall, but women now know all about pickup artists (thank you MTV) and the negs, giving value, role playing, let me see your palms, body language tricks and all that. So, it’s game over for a lot of players anyway. Is it not?
“I agree with retard that men are moving abroad more for women now, but it’s not them becoming more alpha, it’s that a more flat earth has given betas more women to control them. The ultimate losers with our changed societal structure are American women, and Western women. Men will spend more and more time getting mail order/ internet wives. Which is why that crazy law was passed to forbid men from meeting women in foreign countries (On Marriage Sites), in an effort to control this.”
Just another job Americans Won’t Do that has to be outsourced. Interesting that liberals go ballistic about this (via IMBRA) in a way they won’t about border incursions from Mexico.
Sweet Jane….It’s not a matter of you knowing that I’m not going to constantly give you compliments or that I’m going to neg you, role play etc. If I use lines straight from that show and you saw it, then you’ll call me out on it. A Beta stammer s and walk away embarrassed. An alpha laughs at you for watching the show and continue on with whatever they are talking about. The problem with that show is that it teaches tricks rather than mindset. An alpha is an alpha becuase he holds to his beliefs and really doesn’t care what you think, and that type of personality of being in control of yourself, being interesting, having the ability to converse is what you will continue to find attractive. These tricks will work on many becuase they help convey that message without having the natural personality to match it. If you really want to avoid alpha’s/players, look at what their doing, not what their saying.
in britain, however, more women vote conservative than men. women were maggies biggest supporters, it’s strange. i think it’s something to do with the fact that the conservatives in the uk are considered more elitist and cosmopolitan than the republicans in the US, and thus working class guys are loathe to vote for them because of their posh, almost effeminite oxbridge image. That and the fact that big govnt in the uk tended to mean public jobs and nationalized coalmines up until the seventies, after which big govnt became free money for single mothers and welfare bums, an idea imported from sweden.
8 Instant,
“If you really want to avoid alpha’s/players, look at what their doing, not what their saying.”
#1 Women have to know what they want beyond attraction.
If she wants a life mate, she has to reach a deep level of trust and that takes, as you stated, having opportunities to observe his behavior in many real life situations. Even a fantastic mutually felt bond and purpose requires a reality check in order for both to have confidence that the movie will be like the book.
I would think we all (men AND women) want to guide our own lives in order to avoid being deceived, betrayed, persuaded beyond our better judgement, or otherwise ending up in situation after situation that turns out to be more learning experience than heart’s desire.
In my opinion, alpha or beta….either could fit the bill. I’ve had great lovers who were more beta and lousy lovers who were more alpha.
When my friends come to me with their man problems I try to remind them (between cries of injustice) that after all; the problem is half them. They don’t like hearing that.
In the next two decades 80 million baby boomers are set to retire and the country will have to cough up $53 trillion dollars to pay pensioners through the middle of the century.
The welfare state isn’t just creating more pump and dumpers, its going to destroy the country.
Once I have enough stashed, I’m outta here. Good luck bitches.
Big Government is wanted by both the Democrats and Republicans, for mostly the same reasons — POWER. The superficial differences like poor welfare/food stamps vs. corporate welfare/bailouts, illegal immigrants draining national resources vs. useless wars draining $275million per day… these mean jack squat on a long timeline.
There are also more problems than just finances in this country. The infrastructure is set up so that it’s incredibly reliant on oil (as well as the rest of the world to prop it up; CIA operatives in South America play just a small part). If fuel ever becomes scarce, prices of food and goods are going to skyrocket. The wasteful spending of water on shit — like lawns in climates that really don’t support lush green grass (So. Cal, Arizona, most of the southwest) — is going to come back and bite people in the ass.
The wealthy are speeding up the demise of the nation just as quickly as the welfare recipients, if not more so. It’s not just women that are creating this situation — that kind of narrow blame might fly on a dating blog but not with people who aren’t plugged solely into the mainstream media. What we see today is the result of ignorance and short-sightedness, of people who cannot see past their greed and their current short-term happiness. It’s leading us all down a path of destruction. As usual, I’m complicit just as others are, but I agree with the above poster: getting out may be the optimal solution, since so few see anything wrong.
Anony-miss….We don’t make love unlovely, instead we take precautions and use our advantages. Why would I bend over backwards, in my opinion, when I know that withholding, and refusing to help will lead me to better results? The problem isn’t with the men in this regard but rather with women. They choose to reward this type of behavior, and as an intelligent man I have a choice of either conforming to your rules and maybe getting what I want, or being “authoritative” and “laughably arrogant”. And yes I am quite capable of laughing at myself, becuase I’m not afraid of being wrong.
Hope
If you are saying Republicans, Democrats and Inds. want a government that works (Fair taxation, intelligent oversight, responsible R&D for a better future, Mass Transit, Monorails that work, etc.) , and that actually cares (universal effective low cost health care) and that can police (no penis spam or lead laden Chinese toy imports) and can defend (Germans, Japanese), and that won’t ignore intelligence (9/11, oil crisis, global warming) then I’d agree.
OK. now look at this :
How the Mega-Rich Treat Our Treasury Like a Buffet (And Stick You With the Bill) http://www.alternet.org/story/74389/?page=entire
and
Bill Moyers talks with David Cay Johnston
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01182008/watch.html
This is the “alpha battle” in the economy
The whole “Game” in the economy is this. Everything else put together won’t affect your wallet as much as these underlying processes.
This is what I find wrong with the mail order bride approach. It’s generally what men do when they don’t want to look at themselves. They look to control conditions. If they don’t like what they’re experiencing with a woman, they decide that dumping her and simply finding the right WOMAN will be the solution.
Problem is; wherever you go, there you are. My own ex-boyfriend whom I was madly in love with has been through many girlfriends but always ends up wanting me back. Why? Because I’m the best thing that ever happened to him! My door is now permanently closed to him. He was always looking for “the perfect” woman. One with whom he would have zero problems. So what did he find?
1. A woman so much younger than him he was embarrassed to
be seen in public with her. (dated 3 month)
2. A woman who smelled like Campbell’s soup or worse. (dated 3
months)
3. A woman who criticized his clothing, was jealous of his kids,
hated his friends (the feelings were mutual), negatively
compared him to other men, tried to make him jealous, told
him he needed plastic surgery and viagra (he never needed it
with me!), berated him and nagged him 24/7 about not
making enough money. (lived with 2 and 1/2 years)
4. Now he’s with a woman who on a scale of 1 to 10, may be a 6
on a really good day. She’s needy, insecure, clingy, has an
unappealing body, long dull stringy hair, and has no clue how
to dress. (5 months and counting)
He’ll be wanting me back any day now. My point? The problem is not always solved by finding another woman. Depends on whether YOU have changed or not!! Could be you just need to develop a few relationship skills, read a book, attend a seminar, change your thoughts, improve yourself…..that kind of thing.
#16:
Let’s take a generic scenario. Imagine you’re given some task — what it is exactly isn’t important. You’re told to go about this task in a certain way and not to deviate from it; you’re assured that you will achieve results if you do as you are told. And it’s not just a supervisor telling you this: it’s the books you read, the movies you watch, and in fact is the general view of society that the task should be performed in this one way.
You attempt to perform this task in this way, but you’re not having much success. You occasionally succeed, but it’s far from frequent, and you can never ascertain what made it work one time and not work the next. You’re basically in the dark, but you don’t question the method you’re using, because everything you’ve learned is telling you to do it that way.
Then a guy comes up next to you to do the same task. But here’s the thing: he’s doing it a different way. He’s disregarding the received wisdom on how to perform the task, and guess what? He’s getting much better results than you, and when he fails, he’s able to identify why and correct the mistake in the future. Sure, his method isn’t foolproof, but it has a vastly higher success rate than yours.
Now, if you were in this situation, what would you do? Would you continue to use your method? Or would you observe what the successful guy is doing and adapt your approach so that it’s more like his? If you’re smart, you’d adapt, right?
Now, here’s how to apply this example to the subject at hand:
Task = Attracting women
Traditional method = The strategies for attracting women that are generally accepted: Niceness, flattery, loyalty, acquiescence to her desires, and downplaying sexuality
New method = Pickup strategies: Disinterest, teasing, pursuit of your own desires, and being unashamed of sexuality
Does it make sense now why men use pickup strategies? To put it more simply, men employ these tactics and attitudes because they attract more women more consistently than the traditional methods. It’s a simple matter of efficiency.
“The problem with most of them are that they’re filled with betas who read the articles, buy the videos, and don’t have the balls to approach.”
I think it is more complicated. A lot of the seminars are still filled with white men. I won’t dispute that anyone can theoretically do pick-up. But, it is harder if you lack certain traits that are in demand in this country with respect to race, height, looks… For a high IQ tall white guy, learning the behavioral tricks of game will- on average- pay off a lot mroe than a short non- white guy with a similar IQ. All of the pick up seminars are created and taught by Caucasian guys who approach game from that perspective.
Certain guys who lack too many of the physical traits that are in demand may get frustrated at their higher failure rate and not persistently try to improve their game to appropriately compensate for their physical limitations. Some of these are going to be financially successful white or non- white betas who will decide there are better, easier pickings in other parts of the world.
That’s not a knock. I just think he is a confluence of a number of factors, not just game and IQ.
“but it’s not them becoming more alpha, it’s that a more flat earth has given betas more women to control them. ”
In absolute terms, you are right. But, in relative terms, if the main criteria for alpha status is ability to sleep with a great deal of ultra hot women, then a lot of betas are relative alphas. Also consider that a lot of these foreign women are adept at giving the GFE (girlfriend experience) and you have as situation whereby certain betas are, in effect, getting much of the total treatment an alpha would get. That, in fact, many social alphas cannot afford outside this country.
There’s a major problem with your theory. The men who go to pickup classes and seminars the most are the ones least likely to have been raised by welfare mothers. In fact, their social ineptness often stems from having too nurturing and successful a household that shielded them from the world too much and betaized them. On the flipside, the men who actually grow up in welfare homes are the least likely to ever go to a pickup class I think. First off because they can’t afford it. And second because they live in communities with a lot of hoes. When I lived in the hood you could score just by having working heat in your house.
I think it’s feminism that created the problem. Men that grew up in a progressively liberal household that taught men the type of feminism that’s synonymous with placing women on pedestals. These are the type of middle class nancy boys that go to liberal universities and attend rallies and try to use their enlightened feminist man shtick to even score with women. Their parents may or may not be divorced, the dads are boomer betas and their moms are overbearing feminists and they have a screwed up vision of manhood where they think being alpha is being some sort of unenlightened throwback caveman. Their male heroes are the leads from Judd Apatow flicks and they think Chuck on NBC is a cool guy to be.
I think you’re right in blaming liberalism, but it’s the feminist aspect more than the welfare aspect.
irina’s theory on communism:
communism only works in two situations:
1) when the female: male ratio is very high (after wars)
there’s no way socialism could have worked for as long as it did in the USSR if it wasn’t for the deaths of 20 million russians, largely men
look at how china’s communism crumbled after they started killing all the girls
2) when everyone in the commune is genetically related to one another
chix dig socialism, including me.
your theory can be disproved by observing other countries with welfare states. countries like sweden have a very low marriage rate, and yet still have high rates of monogamous partnerships
perhaps the theory only works in a country like the US, that is yang and competition up the wazoo. the free market outshines any socialism in place every single moment. want proof? look at any economic and market segment? this is capitalistic heaven. have you and my dad been hanging out and listening to michael savage again? tisk tisk.
like it or not, even though your testosterone is driving your female consumption, so is the $. status, status, status. we’re gluttons for everything: you like vagina, 2/3 of the country likes food.
#21 got it right but there’s more, as Orwell pointed out:
“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.”
And let’s not forget:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
to which we might add:
“A WOMON [sic] WITHOUT A MAN IS LIKE A FISH WITHOUT A BICYCLE”
20 Reggie,
“Does it make sense now why men use pickup strategies? To put it more simply, men employ these tactics and attitudes because they attract more women more consistently than the traditional methods. It’s a simple matter of efficiency.”
Sure it makes a lot of sense. Beyond attraction though, what is the point?
#24 Sure it makes a lot of sense. Beyond attraction though, what is the point?
Sex. And possibly love.
25: Do you believe that approach is equally effective for finding sex AND love? Just askin’.
As I said b4, The other thing about utilizing foreign women for serious or non- serious relationships is that the financially successful American beta male will, therefore, be refusing to help ‘over the hill’ or in other ways ‘used up’ (i.e. single mommies) American females who deigned to choose often times a more irresponsible alpha male. They discuss how the current arrangement favors alpha males but that it’s non-sustainable in the long term. I would agree. Plus, ‘foreign food’ tastes great, prolly better than ‘American cuisine,’ if you know what I mean.
Betas should stop ‘rewarding’ bad behavior if other options present themselves.
I don’t know if it’s equally effective for both, but it’s more effective in both respects than the traditional approach.
Sorry retard! But you and the other calculating types make ‘love’ decidedly unlovely. Withholding ‘reward’ and ‘refusing to help’ as if you’re in some appointed position of authority! Who appointed you? Some of you guys are laughably arrogant. Hopefully you’re laughing at yourselves too. :D
27: I’m starting to think that women who bite too soon and have sex on an approach like that are naive and asking for trouble. Most want a big time relationship, but if they’re seduced (and let’s face it, it’s usually the players primary objective, is it not?) then the odds of them having that long term forever thing are severely limited. On the other hand, if finding love is really your long term goal, then making sure that you believe in your approach would be paramount. If you have any doubts, it may not work for you. Most don’t think about WHAT they’re long term goal in dating is, but if you don’t go out with the intention of achieving a long term goal….naturally you won’t achieve it. So what is your long term goal?
T, First, starting at the end of your argument; there’s not necessarily a conflict between socialist liberalism, the welfare state, and feminism. In fact, certain tenets of feminism -extension of the franchise, state-run bureaucratic welfare for the elderly, indigent, children (and, implicitly, their mothers), have been longstanding goals of socialists, communists, progressives –basically a whole cross-section of what might be called the liberalist wing. Feminism and the welfare state are not mutually exclusive positions, but, at least historically, have tended to support each other.
Second, your problem with the theory is not a problem, but supporting evidence. Basically you are saying most of the guys in pick-up classes are beta-ized middle class men. In short, you say they need this because of the feminist way in which they were raised, whereas hood guys don’t bother because either they can’t afford it or there’s already a lot of easy women (or are ho’s just women who are more likely to fall for game?) or both. So, out of all possible men who take classes, it’s the middle-class feminized guys who feel they need the work as opposed to hood guys, who, let’s admit, sound a little caddish to begin with. Sounds like supporting evidence if anything: in areas where welfare is very much in use, you find a lot of cads; in areas where welfare in not very much in use, oddly, guys are frustrated –why is that?
Meanwhile: My compliments. You say you base this on anecdotal evidence. Lionel Tiger had some hard evidence (calls the welfare state “bureaugamy”). George Gilder had some hard evidence. Daniel Patrick Moynihan had the evidence. And in some of your previous posts about why the whole situation is like it is (in part due to the the pill) you are in excellent analytical company, including such lightweights as Pope Paul VI.
I think it’s feminism that created the problem. Men that grew up in a progressively liberal household that taught men the type of feminism that’s synonymous with placing women on pedestals. These are the type of middle class nancy boys that go to liberal universities and attend rallies and try to use their enlightened feminist man shtick to even score with women. Their parents may or may not be divorced, the dads are boomer betas and their moms are overbearing feminists and they have a screwed up vision of manhood where they think being alpha is being some sort of unenlightened throwback caveman. Their male heroes are the leads from Judd Apatow flicks and they think Chuck on NBC is a cool guy to be.
Yeah. Ironically enough it was reading stuff like this blog that helped deprogram me from feminism, realizing that women want men who take the lead, etc. There’s a certain resentment of alphas, of course, because of their superiority, but I can certainly work on being more dominant and successful.
Getting back at the feminists who deprived me of my sexual peak, well, that’s a different story. ;)
Yeah. Ironically enough it was reading stuff like this blog that helped deprogram me from feminism, realizing that women want men who take the lead, etc. There’s a certain resentment of alphas, of course, because of their superiority, but I can certainly work on being more dominant and successful.
In my case, all it took was two feminists to tell me that they don’t date like wimpy loser beta males like myself. Apparently, strong women like strong men, and they’re uninterested in dating men that they can walk all over. Since I can’t be dominant and successful, it added to the myriad of reasons to avoid dating and to stick with pornography.
I totally agree with this. In fact, one of my comments may have unintentionally inspired it. But I want to add something I originally said, and still stand by:
Genetics matter. They play a role in personality. And there is such a thing as a “wild gene,” which men who live out-of-bounds of society have, according to the New York Times. These are the men who have kids with lotso f women, who don’t hold jobs, who go for drugs and drink and wind up in prison.
Back in the mid-20th century, women did not breed with such men, for the most part. They bred with the respectable types who held jobs at Dupont and wherever. This resulted in the orderly society we once knew; the society that produced things like The Beach Boys, assembly lines line dancing, and volunteer fire departments. In other words, “white guy” society.
Now women breed with “wild gene” men. This is producing a chaotic “inner city”* society geared towards drinking, partying, babies out of wedlock — and its bled into the suburbs.
All these wild, uneducated men not in college is going to create a whirlwind of chaos for society — and women will be dealing with the brunt of that chaos since they have been essential in dismantling the old, orderly society — by voting in programs that have deemed it old hat and by breeding with non-earners.
*Not meant to be racial; it’s a mindset I see amongst suburban kids that was NOT there in the 1980s.
Feminists are the biggest enemies of women’s causes in the world.
Certainly the whole welfare state thing does contribute to the breakdown of the family, but only in those families where the women primarily are on welfare. There have been studies done on that.
Interesting to compare the US with Latin America, where traditionally there is very little in the way of a social safety net, and the model, as oppoesed to P and D, is for a man to have a wife, and a mistress, and support both, including the kids of both.
If you were raised to be a uber-nice feminist boy, you will be de-socialized to act that way with the fucking quickness if you have any sense of observation.
If that was the case, then why would the seduction industry make so much money just selling common sense to guys? And remember, girls themselves don’t even realize that they don’t want guys to be nice. Ask any girl what she wants, and she’ll say a nice guy.
This post is ABSOLUTELY straight on and PERFECTLY explained by the two mating strategies of coy/he-man that can be played by any female gender.
Dawkins set up a computer simulation where he assigned arbitrary values to having a man assist in raising kids vs. raising kids on one’s own. Depending on how valuable men were to dating, that would in turn determine the equilibrium amount of coy vs. alpha-seeking women would emerge in the population. Now as the payoff of having a provider go down, the women who hold out for providers lose their fitness (in a meme sense).
It’s just that now instead of actual genetic tendencies towards playing coy (seeking a beta provider) vs. he-man (wanting alpha-genes) being genetic, they take the form of ideas. So, it would work out that women who go for the alphas are not as screwed as they were in the 50′s, and so their numbers increase. Hence the seduction industry.
Check out this for the preview of the coming sexbot revolution that will make all this stuff irrelevant.
Now, in terms of the future. Simple relationships between IQ and the wealth of nations and differential reproduction rates will guarantee that there will always be foreign women abroad for American men. However, there will probably be a ton of competition from Chinese men.
Check this out from the European dispatch.
If the welfare state is responsible for this current condition, then why do European countries, with a much greater system of socialism entrenched, have much less alpha-worship going on? By his own admission, Swedish women like prefer ‘beta providers’, and Sweden is the most socialist country in the EU.
Days of Broken arrows: Hey, don’t knock the beach boys. “sunflower” isn’t a lily-white album.
T: Most of the male characters in Apatow movies are unemployed, weed smoking, immature assholes. They are practically the MODEL for caddishness.
As far as every commenter talking this feminized upbringing causing a whole generation of liberal upper middle class men to treat women on a pedestal, sorry, but I’m not seeing it. Liberal upbringing, conservative upbringing, moderate upbringing, once you start noticing women in middle school, the general consensus among boys immediately concludes that it’s not helpful to be overly nice or respectful. If you were raised to be a uber-nice feminist boy, you will be de-socialized to act that way with the fucking quickness if you have any sense of observation.
I think the role of the “seduction industry”, as either a cause or an effect, is vastly overestimated. This so-called “industry” amounts to what — about 30 people on the internet offering books and courses, and a couple of thousands of graduates who are mostly losers to begin with?
Also, someone above made the great point that most European countries have bigger, more pervasive welfare states than average Americans could ever imagine, yet their societies don’t exalt alpha-male “playas” like we do.
I have always held that the main drivers of these phenomena are actually three things which are talked about quite a lot:
1) The economic marginalization of men – with the information economy, the job market has shifted over massively to jobs that females are highly competitive in; this combined with an increasing advantage young women have in education and qualifications has put younger women on more than a level playing field with men.
2) The fact that the US, more than any other country, is an individualist “rights based” society (as opposed to a group-oriented or community-oriented society). This vindication of individual rights is nevertheless often pursued by our politicians and bureaucrats by emphasizing the collective rights of what they see as large voting blocs that can be shepherded together and organized to win elections. Thus, anti sexual harassment and stalking laws, the Violence Against Women Act, hate crimes legislation, IMBRA, Title IX, etc. (Congress spends a lot of time passing laws like this, instead of laws that would help our economy, because these are seen as quick, inexpensive ways to rally large voting blocs to win the next election).
3) Going back to the 19th century westward expansion and settlement of the US, this country has emphasized “tough” or “masculine values” over “feminine ones”. Masculine values often mean the unusual importance of sports in American schools (from elementary school to college), at the expense of intellectual development. 20th and 21st century turbo capitalism in America have prescribed adopting male competitiveness and independence not just for men, but also (and equally) for women, resulting in a “hypermasculine” society where women are encouraged to act like men, and to compensate, where men have to act like “hyper-men” to compete with each other and with women, and to attract women.
Interesting to compare the US with Latin America, where traditionally there is very little in the way of a social safety net, and the model, as oppoesed to P and D, is for a man to have a wife, and a mistress, and support both, including the kids of both.
One of the reasos is that due to a general poor economic situation in these nations, many women end up becoming mistresses in order to support themselves financially. My grandmother was bounced around as a mistress because her first boyfriend decided to dump her after she became pregnant.
BTW, for the Gannonites, she was 15 and her boyfriend was 21, so there goes that theory…
Sweden’s form of welfare – whatever its issues and limitations – was not specifically designed to make it easier for single mothers to raise children alone.
In addition, Sweeden’s welfare system requires one to work before extracting any benefits from it while the old classical American welfare system was available to any teen mother who had a child.
The big difference is that teen pregnancies in the US and UK are much higher than in Sweeden and other parts of Europe, and one of the big differences is the lack of sexual education in the Anglo-sphere. When you have ghetto kids who think that pulling out is a method of contraception and that virgins can’t become pregnant, it’s no wonder why the pregnancy rates are so high, and why the STD rates are high as well amongst the groups with high teen pregnancy rates (read: inner city blacks).
Yes, but David Alexander, there was a time in the US when there was virtually no sex education in the schools (nor in any other country either), but teen pregnancy rates were still much lower than they are today, probably because of social pressure.
I don’t think lack of sex education is the reason for the problem of teen pregnancy in Britain and the US; I think welfare patterns there have far more to do with it. When having a baby is your ticket to getting your own apartment and leaving school, it can seem like an attractive option.
Your National Centre for Health Statistics said that the teen pregnancy rate had gone up for the first time in 15 years in 2006. (Confirm via Google.) Was there really a sudden change in the availability of sex education?
“*Not meant to be racial; it’s a mindset I see amongst suburban kids that was NOT there in the 1980s.”
You sure about that. What about those wild white boys running all over the world doing God knows what to the natives, for centuries? They were doing their fair share of drinking and drugs, among other things.
I agree, reluctantly but firmly, with his point that “compassion creates cads”. Welfare payments that make it possible for women to raise children without fathers are what social scientists now call a “perverse incentive”. But it’s that in itself – the raising of children without fathers – that is the heart of the problem. It’s not sweet-natured betas who emerge out of the feminized society – it’s wild young men who resent women and who have no sense of responsibility towards their offspring.
I don’t believe it’s a matter of genetics/race either. Britain has produced a couple of generations of wild young men who are white, not black, who were raised by single mothers in an almost purely feminine society with few adult males permanently present.
One reason why Sweden hasn’t gone the way of the US (or Britain or to some extent Canada) in producing generations of irresponsible men is that Sweden’s unmarried fathers generally raise their children with their “partners”. Sweden’s form of welfare – whatever its issues and limitations – was not specifically designed to make it easier for single mothers to raise children alone. In the US, on the other hand, welfare was set up so that it was nearly inaccessible except to single mothers – on the assumption that only such families were truly needy. Poor intact families were given much less in the way of social assistance than in Sweden. But my understanding is that “workfare”, which has its own problems, is reducing welfare rolls in the US nowadays.
John Smith: The seduction community sells “common sense” because there is a subset of men who lack common sense. Common sense would mean that the majority of men understand the necessity of some kind of game (personality, talent, etc). I fail to see where the connection is between the supposed feminist indoctrination in the majority men and what you’re talking about in the first paragraph. I am under the impression that most people believe that if you act too nice, you will not be taken seriously.
The only real places where you might see dominant feminist attitudes in men are at art schools, small liberal art colleges, city hipster neighborhoods etc. But, the men there also tend to pull a decent amount of tail, which means that even if these guys don’t fit the traditional ‘dominant male’ role, they still managed to create culture where they can get women.
As for your Dawkins study, I understand it and agree with the gist that a welfare state negates the value of the provider males, but traditional welfare doesn’t really operate in the American middle class (what I was referring to in my original post). I was under the impression that the pill and increased financial independence in women negated the provider role in this area. In that case, I see it as a good thing. It allows the male to pursue an impractical path more inclined with his own desires than that of some societal expectation bestowed upon him to have a ‘real job’ or wealth. I tend to follow the Roosh example of ‘alpha’-ness per his book: doing what you want, which done effectively will make you more attractive to women. This philosophy doesn’t have any particular political idealogy, and that’s why I get annoyed with people trying to politicize game on this thread here.
It’s not only conservatives and libertarians who read this blog :)
I should have made clear that I was speaking of out-of-wedlock pregnancies. Teen pregnancy rates were highest in the 1950s, but not necessarily as a result of shotgun marriages. You forget that that was the period when girls married at the end of high school (typically age 17-19), or in the middle of university if they were fortunate enough to be able to attend. It was socially acceptable to do so then, and not a disaster for one’s future prospects. People didn’t expect to put off marriage and adulthood until their mid-20s or later, and there were more jobs available for the non-university educated.
But mid-20th century American marriage and child-bearing patterns were somewhat exceptional in history anyway, although it’s difficult to speak of a typical pattern even in Europe. I can tell you that Europe in the 17th century, for example, had the lowest rate of out-of-wedlock pregnancies that historians have been able to track. Illegitimacy rose unsteadily through the 18th century in England and some other European countries, and it tapered off again in the early 19th century under the influence of a religious revival.
Here’s a link to a chart of Continental out-of-wedlock birth rates in the late 19th century, which show them to be much lower than modern ones. The website is Catholic but the source of the statistics is not: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07650a.htm
I have been reading this site for some clarity with women. Actualy what helped me was reading these two…
http://www.geocities.com/protopop_1999/treatise.html ( from your site)
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_Women. (This is blunt and on your face stuff).
After reading them, i somehow feel that we are re-inventing the wheel :P
but teen pregnancy rates were still much lower than they are today, probably because of social pressure
Actually, American teenage pregnancy rates peaked during the 1950s. In the ancient days that she dreams about, either shotgun marriages took place, or the girls were sent to convents with the children eventually sent for adoption, and in a few cases, the grandmother faked the pregnancy and claimed that the child was hers.
Your National Centre for Health Statistics said that the teen pregnancy rate had gone up for the first time in 15 years in 2006. (Confirm via Google.) Was there really a sudden change in the availability of sex education?
Some jurisdictions did push for abstinence-only education which in many cases has a tendency to disparage condoms as useless and birth control as ineffective.
There have always been “losers” in this country. The problem is when being a loser is *really* bad and there are a lot of them. Right now, a loser in this country probably has a roof over his head and cable TV. Not all that bad compared to losers in many countries where just getting food and shelter is a struggle for society’s “losers’. But if the “loser-line” drops below this and you have a lot of people below this line, then you have a potential class warfare situation.
It’s not like losers die off if ignored. No, they keep reproducing and they outbreed more productive members of society by a lot. You can’t have too many of these people TOO dissatisfied with their lot in life…
Our safety nets have the practical purpose of preventing class warfare. Too much though and you get a diminishing return on investment. There’s a balance somewhere…
20th and 21st century turbo capitalism in America have prescribed adopting male competitiveness and independence not just for men, but also (and equally) for women, resulting in a “hypermasculine” society where women are encouraged to act like men, and to compensate, where men have to act like “hyper-men” to compete with each other and with women, and to attract women.
Interesting point. But how does this jibe with the “feminization” (or “pussification”) of America that posters here are always on about? It seems like you can’t have it both ways: either feminism has emasculated men, or male competitiveness has made women more masculine.
A lot of figuring out here about why things are the way they are, but very little about how to change it.
Sure you can have it both ways. Radical feminism has emasculated men AND made women more masculine.
Joe T, the funny thing is that if you look at these guidos and their mode of “hypermasculinity,” it’s actually more proof of how masculine they’re not. Despite the muscles and “ice grills,” they are more waxed, primped, perfumed, bronzed and plucked than the ladies. It’s feminization masquerading as supermasculine.
I made a similar point about the so-called hypermasculinization of the ghetto black community and why it’s a myth:
http://therawness.com/myth-of-the-ghetto-alpha-male/
What are the strategies for men now in America? Going overseas is not feasible for most people. I think we need to take back our country by treating women with respect only when they earn it. She gives you attitude? Dump the bitch. She engages in low-class behavior like profanity, alcoholism, and promiscuity? Belittle and scorn her like would have been done in the 1950′s. Women want to be socially approved, and they will act more appropriately when they stop getting away with everything. Unfortunately, most men put up with whatever they think they need to. Stop.
^ “She gives you attitude? Dump the bitch. She engages in low-class behavior like profanity, alcoholism, and promiscuity? Belittle and scorn her like would have been done in the 1950’s. Women want to be socially approved, and they will act more appropriately when they stop getting away with everything.”
Again; oversimplifying the problem and the solution is not a solution at all. Sounds very tough and all that. Does toughness really work? If toughness worked we would all be very happy indeed.
^ Jack, why don’t you go ahead and do what you’re suggesting and get back to us on what the result is.
In response to Comment #23 from CZ….
you’re absolutely right. I reread his post and realized that I am actually supporting it and not disagreeing with it. Shouldn’t have skimmed it so fast the first time around.
Take extra care not to lose what you feel
The apple you’re eating is simple and real
Water the flowers that grow at your heel
guiding your vision to heaven and heaven is in your mind
Your National Centre for Health Statistics said that the teen pregnancy rate had gone up for the first time in 15 years in 2006. (Confirm via Google.) Was there really a sudden change in the availability of sex education?
A one-year increase might be statistical noise without much meaning.
To Reggie, @ 47:
You can have it both ways, in fact the two trends (women acting as men, and men favoring “hypermasculine” posturing) tend to reinforce each other.
American capitalism pushes women to act more like men, and men as a class and individually feel emasculated. So, to compensate, they adopt macho, hypermasculine traits.
Just go to any middle class nightclub or pick-up location in any big Northeastern city of the US (especially the NYC-Boston corridor)… What do you see? More than half of the guys are pumped-up, steroid-enhanced “Guidos”. Their whole look, attitude, dress, style, and behavior screams “overcompensation”.
Why? Because the NYC-Boston corridor, and to an only slightly lesser extent DC, is Ground Zero for the Alpha Female “ballcutter” hypercompetitive babes that he frequently rails about.
So when people talk about “emasculation”, they’re not talking about a static condition where all men are literally reduced to wimps, pantywaists and fruitcakes. It’s rather a sensation or a state that males experience, and it drives them to overcompensate.
And yes, the situation is a lot more complicated than just hypermasculinization. American society is very complex, and you have to look at many complex layers and layers of social and cultural substrata to get at the truth.
That’s why his post is only partly right, and doesn’t begin to explain how we got to this state of affairs.
61 John Smith
“Focus your anger on the women that have kids that they can’t support. That’s a bigger problem than promiscuity.”
As a woman; personally I think both are a problem. This may sound sexist, but I think women are better suited for setting a higher standard for relationships. If they aren’t discriminating about who they ‘give it up’ to, where is the standard? Women who think they can screw like a man, quite often (with exceptions of course) find out that DNA is stronger than they are. Evolution is not enhanced by having women behave as men.
“we realize that if we want play..”
Play? Play is nice. Playful sex is great. But we’re going to be as dead as Heath Ledger one day, so the play has a bit of seriousness to it, don’t you think? Any act could result in your death. And as far as acting like a real man? You either are or you’re not. There is no way to fake it. Just like there is no way for me to fake being a healthy woman capable of loving and being loved. My life is proof of my level of health and it has nothing to do with society, feminism, etc. Unless I make it that, in which case I’m am surely screwed and not in a good way.
Glad that you recognize that personal responsibility comes in there somewhere. It’s really the only thing that matters.
Two things:
1) I have no idea why this happened but as soon as I saw ‘I have a theory’, I read ‘I HAS A THEORY’ with an accompanying lolcat. I laughed, decided I was insane then shared it in the comments. Further proving my insanity.
2) I understand what you’re trying to say. America = heaven for a future catlady. Moving there as soon as I qualify. Cheaper land/houses, too. *hopes the dollar remains weakish but not too weak*
T, your article is on point, but the truth is this kind of posturing is by no means restricted to the hood or the African-American community.
61 John
I don’t want you to feel beat up here, but you’re suggesting focusing anger on women that have kids they can’t support. How does focusing anger on them possibly help? What do they really have to do with YOU in the first place??? The point I’m trying very VERY hard to make here is that we need to really mind our own business a lot more and don’t tell me that if they go on welfare it’s going to reduce your standard of living somehow, because it really does not. That, Mr. Smith, is a load of bullshit. That’s just more passing the buck if you’re not as prosperous as you think you should be and wanting to blame someone, ANYONE for that reality. If that were the case then we’d all be poor and there are a lot of rich people in this country and it is not the welfare mother’s fault that you or any of us is not one of them!!l
Anonymous commenters – if you want to disagree with my suggestion, fine. I’m waiting to hear yours. The fact is, you generally do what you can get away with. Women get away with much more nowadays, creating a situation where they are not held accountable for their poor choices. Therefore, they have a care less attitude. Men (and women) need to provide social negative reinforcement consistently if this is ever going to change. I see way too many men willing to excuse it and way too many women not willing to “judge”. Every action that undermines a feminist, ballcutting type woman is a good one for society, even a small action. Men need a concerted effort to shun/punish these women; then, more women will act feminine.
65 Jack
“Men need a concerted effort to shun/punish these women; then, more women will act feminine.”
Methinks you want to provoke! I’m saying #1 your method is ridiculous. If that type of approach could achieve positive results we would surely all be shunning and punishing our way into paradise. So #1, you need to dump your strategy. It’s been tried for about 5,000 years already with the same result.
The new approach is this: Look in the mirror. Do you like what you see? Do you like what you feel when you look at yourself? When you can say yes and mean it and not just have your ego doing the talking, you’ll be ready for a healthy relationship with a healthy woman and it’s not going to matter what anyone else in the world is up to.
The world does not need you to put it right. Your vigilante attitude is just a recipe for more misery and failure though the appeal is apparent. Perhaps it’s a nice (very) short term strategy, but keep it short term, else you’ll be stuck in that mode forever.
Jack, the problem is bigger than us. Individuals are powerless in the face of such a tidal onslaught. Look up the expression qui bono, and follow the signs. Who truly shall benefit from masses of women who work long hours and consume goods like designer purses and men who are emasculated to such an extent that they won’t fight against anything, not even to save their own lives?
Democracy will die not with a bang, but with a whimper.
67 Hope
“Individuals are powerless in the face of such a tidal onslaught.”
Your defeatist attitude hurts only you and the ‘onslaught’ should simply be ignored. Do you want to change your life or the world? Your world is your life and it’s the only one that matters. This world is made up of individuals. Are you one? Or just a reflection of mass consciousness?
Should have been cui bono in my last post.
Your defeatist attitude hurts only you and the ‘onslaught’ should simply be ignored. Do you want to change your life or the world? Your world is your life and it’s the only one that matters. This world is made up of individuals. Are you one?
Individualism is what brought us here. It is not the path to betterment.
There still exist places where women and men shun promiscuity, and those places have tight communities where people do not act selfishly as pure individuals. But most of them are breaking down as well. The mass media has engendered a new, secular religion, that of material worship, sold through advertising with imagery designed to appeal directly to the lizard brain.
Sex is commercialized and broadcast daily through glowing screens. We’re endlessly fascinated by it, as evidenced by the search trends on Google. The men and women railed against are not born, but created. Biology is not the whole story, and this culture has brought us the types of people that we see around us. This culture of commercialism, profit, greed, ignorance, and yes, absolute individualism.
69 Hope
We simply have different definitions of individuals. You say individualism. I’ve dropped the ‘ism’. Big difference. And true selfishness is more self-ish-ness. Again, completely different. A higher level of self-ish-ness is what’s in order. The truth is, all stems from the individual. “Isms” are designed for mass hypnosis. The reality is we are all selfishly motivated. We are made that way, but it’s not a bad thing in and of itself. In fact, there is no other way to be. All for oneself and oneself for all is really the same thing. You see a very dark world and no, I’m not blind to it. Yet I choose to look to the future we are wanting to create, else it will never get here. I repeat, it will never get here. But I’m not waiting for anyone else to look at what we have created, but choose to live there to a greater and greater degree as I’m capable.
I got 43 matches on ‘ism’. We have statism, feminism, communism, liberalism, socialism, and capitalism in just this post. Are most of you political science majors? LOL Guess I’m in the wrong ‘hood again.
The point I’m trying very VERY hard to make here is that we need to really mind our own business a lot more and don’t tell me that if they go on welfare it’s going to reduce your standard of living somehow, because it really does not. That, Mr. Smith, is a load of bullshit. That’s just more passing the buck if you’re not as prosperous as you think you should be and wanting to blame someone, ANYONE for that reality. If that were the case then we’d all be poor and there are a lot of rich people in this country and it is not the welfare mother’s fault that you or any of us is not one of them!!l
Uh well apparently you didn’t get my post. I am talking about the epitomy minding my own business. I’m saying: don’t criticize a slut. Mind your own business. If she wants to have superficial relationships, fine. Maybe she has a big clitoris and doesn’t require the pair bonding and committment of a more feminine female.
But the thing is, is that anytime a woman has a child that she can’t support, that money then comes out of the government. It either comes out in welfare subsidies, or it goes to providing public services to a family that pays no taxes, and it creates inefficiencies in the market by setting aside more land for public housing. Damn straight it affects me.
Leave the religious moralizing at home. I’m talking SPECIFICALLY in economic and public policy terms.
There still exist places where women and men shun promiscuity, and those places have tight communities where people do not act selfishly as pure individuals.
Yeah it’s called Saudi Arabia. Be careful what you wish for. Tight communities, like, for example, in Iraq, is why they aren’t able to create a functioning society or democracy because people are so blindly loyal to their tribes. Also why Kenya is breaking down too.
John:
“Damn straight it affects me.”
It affects you because you choose to let if affect you and I do not.
“Leave the religious moralizing at home. I’m talking SPECIFICALLY in economic and public policy terms.”
It’s not religious moralizing at all. It’s about being free and when you get down on people for ‘holding you back’ in some way, you’re not free and you’re using them as some kind of excuse. You’re talk about ‘creating inefficiencies in the market” as though there were a finite limit on what’s available That type of thinking never enters my mind. It doesn’t relate to me and my life because I don’t choose for it too. You think that’s naive? It’s leading edge thinking actually.
I don’t get into “economic and public policy” at all. It seems too limiting in personal terms. Like I said…I’m in the wrong neighborhood where I have little in common with the locals. But it’s fun to veer outside my territory sometimes to mix it up a bit.
Ha!! Everyone is a ‘player’, which is a female term of convenience. Women ‘play’ men, the only difference is, they call it ‘dating’.
I’m sure there’s even a blog out there somewhere which draws the connection between The Big Nag (feminism) and men being played like violins.
For example: Somewhere women figured out that men are enamored of ‘equality’ and hold it as a high principle and cherished belief, and that they could thus use it against men just by claiming what they wanted was ‘equality’. But as soon as women got that, they moved the goalposts and redefined what equality was. So ‘equality’ (selective equality actually) is just a manipulative game women play against men to get what they want, to get MORE from men.
[...] welfare state and female economic emancipation have eliminated women’s need for a “provider,” [...]
Some points:
1a) Men who date foreign women often also date American women. It is not either/or.
1) Men who date foreign women (no such thing as a mail order bride) are often alpha males who are resourceful enough to travel extensively (often movie producers and Silicon Valley execs who fly to Moscow for 4 day weekends) – although the former Soviet Union is a lot richer these days and men who don’t speak Russian will face a lot of rejection they wouldn’t have faced 5 years ago.
2) Glad to see two guys mentioning the IMBRA law, which everyone should consider the ultimate feminist power grab and which they should be mentioning more often in an attempt to finally get someone to challenge the law – in court the Tahirih Justice Center openly said that they fully intended to have the court justify that the Commerce Clause justified having *ALL* men who use dating sites to be background checked by federal mandate.
A liberal judge upheld IMBRA (the plaintiff was a dating site that actually wanted the law to be upheld because it is profitable to hinder men and women from actually meeting) based on the phrase “buying a gun can be regulated by background check…more reason to also regulate online dating”.
Never mind the fact that 1984′s main warning was that the government might start interfering in male/female relationships and “disclosing” things about the male to the woman that might make her “reconsider”.
A Republican judge denied a restraining order on IMBRA (plaintiffs also wanted to lose because the law profited them but they wanted to make a show to their customers that they *tried* to stop it) saying:
“There is no fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner”.
So where is the outrage from people here?
No alpha male would let those judges words stand…except that these men are CEOs and VPs trapped by Google into not sullying their names…while the beta male retirees who could challenge IMBRA won’t precisely because they are beta and are OK with being background checked and otherwise ordered around by the fems.
But still…where is the outrage that IMBRA says you can’t talk to a woman without fem/gov approval?
Is everyone here so lower class economically that you cannot imagine flying to Europe or Asia?
Or are you caught up in precisely the one thing the feminists want you to believe, which is that a macho Alpha male doesn’t *need* to go overseas?
Nonsense! An Alpha Male would be on the first plane to Rio if he had the money and time, which an Alpha Male will, actually, have.
Which is not to say he wouldn’t also appreciate US women and do well dating them and making friends for life with the best of them.
Dating Foreign women –
It’s the same Entitlement attitude you get from American women in the press and everywhere else. Twisted.
After they’ve F***ed all the alphas in their 20′s, they want to find a nice beta who’ll be easy to control and settle down. Or a nice, desperate Alpha, desperate because his options are limited. So they do as much as possible to socially and legally limit his options.
Game upsets them. So does dating foreign women.
Vengeance is delicious.
As these hot girls’ dating values drop like stones, the males’ dating values go up.
Who wants a dried-up, thoroughly used, kinked-out ex-party girl when she’s 30-40? After she’s been pounded by all the Alphas in her social circles? And on vacation? What the hell?
The female reaction is pure competition-killing and bitterness at disillusionment. The alphas used their pussies during the Golden years, and the women didn’t realize that then they were done, these women would just be trash.
Nothing’s more satisfying to this former Beta and all of his Beta friends to see the same women who scorned us, now being 35, single, and still trying to impress the Alphas – who are still, ten years on, f***ing 22-26 year old girls. It’s sad and pathetic and wonderful.
These are the women who hated Betas more than anyone. And now they have to hunt for them.
While wiser Betas better ourselves and sleep with hot 27 year-olds. And marry them.
Or, … get ourselves foreign girlfriends, who, by and large, haven’t misspent their salad years riding every Alpha dick in town. Nice women, who have actual social values, haven’t filled their noses with coke and been pwned by every player they ever met. No one’s perfect, but we have options left. And they do their best to limit our options.
Sweet justice. It’s absolutely awesome.
One of the best examples of this dynamic is the “Sam & Diane” character arc in the sit-com Cheers.
Sam is the ultimate alpha, doesnt give a shit, always shagging chicks, then meets Diane and she knows him from the beginning and tries to “tame” him.
One great episode is where Diane finds a gorgeous camel-hair overcoat…and she begins fantasizing over who the owner would be.
Then she finds a pipe, then she finds other things that lead her to get all wet as she fantasizes who this mysterious coat owner could be….
Sam of course doesn’t give a shit…and plays along with it…
Then the owner comes by and he’s a Herb: glasses, academic etc.
She plays along hoping she’ll feel attraction for the guy….Sam eats it up….
So she wants the smart, sensitive, pipe-smoking, well-dressed natty academic….but she’ll only fuck Sam.
Art imitates life.
Found some:
Well-written….
Bingo….FOUND IT: Someday My Prince Will Come…. Watch the whole episode, but last bit is the kicker…
This I think sums up the post.
This theory is spot on… the term is “Alpha Proxy”.
Substitutions for Alphas.
At therawness blog he’s got an article that really breaks this down. Excellent read.
http://therawness.com/myth-of-the-middle-class-alpha-male-series
Women are the more compassionate sex.
At least there is the second amendment to ensure that the weak aren’t going to go down without a fight. Many working class and underclass people are increasingly refusing to vaccinate their children for fears of some sort of “depopulation” program.