Comments to Steve Sailer:
* The alpha/beta continuum with regards to dating doesn’t overlap a whole lot with other traits. The alpha example is usually a tall good looking banker type – but in my experience, tall and good looking is enough, and banker doesn’t help much if you don’t have the other two. The most successful guy I know in the dating field has been that way since he was 18, and has played catch and release with the hottest women during phases when he was in college or a ski bum or an engineer. But in other fields of endeavor – career wise, or even intellect he’s fairly average. Likewise, I know top-MBA types who just fail around women, and when they do get one hold on for dear life.
Game really isn’t much more than trained machoism. It’s a sign of the pendulum swinging back. It’s not OK any more to share your feelings – let them guess. It’s OK to deflect probing questions from a woman. It’s OK to puff yourself up as much as you can, to dress sharp instead of grunge, to toot your own horn a bit. That’s a good lesson for most men these days.
* That’s one of the best pieces of journalism I’ve read in a long time by someone not surnamed Sailer. She really ties together a lot of the various concerns of the HBD sphere–the pernicious effects of the feminist movement, the efficacy of Game, the overarching relevance of evolutionary psychology–and she even hints at the dysgenic effects of this new mating system. It is a fantastic synthesis bordering on the profound.
If I could be so presumptuous as to offer Ms. Allen some career advice: Forget about the dissertation in medieval and Byzantine studies! You could do a lot more good with your time on earth by chronicling the degeneracy of modern America.
* The quality of man has deteriorated and women are chasing after a smaller number of acceptable men.
Men need to reclaim the moral lead of our country.
Men need go to church and put the video games down. Men need to wear suits and call their elders sir.
This is how men behave in a reverent society, but this is out of fashion.
* Ignoring the very real disinvestment (and lack of reproduction, effectively with late marriage if at all) of beta males is puzzling from the HBD crowd. The very same folks who argue, persuasively, that average IQ and genes matter, want to pretend that massive selecting out of various traits in the Middle and Working class White population won’t have any effect. Or that massive selection FOR the various traits associated with successful reproduction: low future time orientation, low self-control, high libido, and so on won’t have an immediate and massive effect.
That’s pretty funny. People here like to pretend that “the Black Ghetto just happened” or was always that way, when the truth is that Black negative success behaviors become super-charged over time, just as British lower class White behaviors did, for the same reason: unrestrained female hypergamy, leading to both social and genetic outcomes associated with violence, lack of education, and poverty.
It is not feminism or cultural marxism that caused female hypergamy. Rather, it was technology (cheap reliable contraception) plus anonymous urban living (no “calling women sluts” by a tight knit social group) and vastly improved female living standards and social freedom (in itself, a net plus) that caused the Whiskey-geddon and Cultural Marxism and feminism as side-effect justifications for the already existing negative outcomes.
NOTHING in life comes without a catch. This is one of them, simple as that. Since it is driven by technology that can’t be outlawed, and permanent deep social changes, we will simply have to live with White working and middle classes acting pretty much like Black Ghetto people, as already has happened in Britain’s White working (and now Middle classes).
* What are actual, real-life College girls saying?
1. They don’t adjust downward. Female hypergamy is hard-wired and even when there is a man shortage they want the top 20%.
2. Women don’t find “sharing” a barrier — they find it validation. The woman whose boyfriend slept with five of her friends, could easily date someone else. She chose validation of the most successful because it meant other women felt enough of him to sleep with him. Women don’t mind sharing, since they do indeed share, as long as the guy is “Alpha.”
3. Women let cheating by Alphas slide as long as its not too humiliating.
4. The non-top 20% of guys are locked out, EVEN with favorable gender ratios.
* Christian girls are no different than any other. They WANT a relationship. But they want it with the most Alpha guy in the room. Which means, in effect:
A. The most commanding, socially dominant presence.
B. The most playful, bantering, cocky-arrogant behavior, basically Tucker Max.
C. Preferably fame or some sort of marker that denotes superior social status to other men.
Even a tall, good shape and intelligent guy in say finance or marketing, but working in a cubicle, at age 25 could easily spend 5-6 years basically celibate. The College girl that goes home with Tucker Max, does so because he’s a minor celebrity that plays the room. How many guys does that account for? The guys building their career, can spend a good deal of time alone, because they lack the ability to dominate a room. Just going over and saying hi won’t cut it when women AUTOMATICALLY only want the top 20% THAT OTHER WOMEN WANT. [This is basically the subtext of “500 Days of Summer.”]
On the margins, a few guys who study Game can basically make a personality do-over to fake the perception that other women want them. But will have huge difficulties like Strauss and Mystery and others in maintaining that facade over a relationship. At best, a few beta types marry women who despise them as provider “Kitchen Bitches” and end up with one designer yuppie baby, followed by a quickie divorce, if that. Increasingly, women are choosing single motherhood, with sperm donors or anonymous hook-ups over even THAT.
Older guys don’t have a clue. The WS article cites: “A survey reported in the New York Daily News around the time of the film’s release revealed that the typical female resident of Manhattan, who marries later on average than almost every other woman in the country, has 20 sex partners during her lifetime. By way of contrast, the median number of lifetime sex partners for all U.S. women ages 15 to 44 is just 3.3, according to the Census Bureau’s latest statistical abstract.” To be realistic, add about 7-10 for the Manhattan women, and about 3-4 for the women in the rest of the nation. Given that women typically under-report partners (and men over-report them).
Women, per the WS and NYT article, don’t date. They have sex first, “to lock it down” with the Alpha stud, who is desired by other women, and then they HOPE to have a relationship. So a decent, average guy is screwed if he is not in the lucky 20% that other women want. This has significant consequences.
First, it cements male under-achievement and lack of investment or caring in society. Women and children are something for the stud Alpha male. Second, it pretty much guarantees a wave of single motherhood. Mating success with only 20% of the men is a guarantee of replicating the Black Ghetto in White America. As Steve here has noted extensively (quoting Obama’s biography), under Segregation and before the sexual revolution, even the Black ghettos were places where kids could safely play. As Dalrymple notes, in East London in his 1950’s childhood, doors were routinely unlocked and he played outside.
[Women’s idea of “Alpha Male” is different from men’s. Bill Gates, General Petraeus, Mack Brown, and Peyton Manning are men’s ideas of Alpha males: leaders of men, who achieve difficult tasks and form successful patronage networks. Women’s ideas of Alpha males are: the Situation, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and guys from the “Bachelor.” Defined solely by how many women find them arousing. There can be overlap, such as Tom Brady, but generally the two are distinct.]
feminists and women find PUA “rape” because it allows a Joe Average guy to successfully impersonate a guy that 50 other women slept with, and thus validated as worthy.
That is their only beef. That women would sleep with a guy who is not a true “Alpha” that is, desired by other women.
Its akin to calling “rape” a woman getting breast implants (which are themselves silly and stupid) and “tricking” a man into sex, but there it is. More evidence as if it was needed of women’s deep-rooted hypergamy getting out of control.
“Rape” extended to tricking a woman into thinking more women find the guy hot than actually is the case.
* Resentment has been the foundation of the 20th century’s most powerful political and social movements. Perhaps Roissy or one of his followers can write the masculinist equivalent of The Feminine Mystique, What is to be Done?, The Little Red Book (Quotations from Chairperson Roissy), or Mein Kampf. I, for one, look forward to the social transformation caused by righteous, for once and for a change, resentment.
* A few random thoughts about “Game”:
A) To the extent that “Game” simply* reminds Y-Chromosomers that they need to start acting like men again, and especially that they need to make it clear to their women just who it is who wears the pants in the relationship, “Game” is a good thing.
B) And, in that sense, “Game” is merely a tool, and, like all tools, can be used for good purposes or for evil purposes: A hammer can be used to build a house, or it can be used to bash your thesis advisor’s brains – the choice is yours.
C) What these guys like Devlin & Roissy need to realize is that women have no inherent sense of morality, and that if they are not taught morality [by the men in their lives, like Devlin & Roissy], then they will never learn morality [and the purposeless fornication will go on and on and on and there will be no live births and the population will collapse and the civilization will go extinct].
D) In that regard, I would be shocked if “Game” were not vastly more successful on the daughters of broken marriages and single mothers [DEM] as opposed to the daughters of intact families [GOP] – I’d like to think that GOP Dads have prepared their daughters to be able to mount a [more than adequate] defense [and even counter-offense] against these kinds of techniques. [Along those lines, if I were a GOP Dad and the father of 15/16/17-year-old girls, or even girls in college, then I would REQUIRE them to read Roissy, if for no other reason than to study the enemy and its techniques.]
E) Finally, one last note about the pervasive androgenousness [and outright homosexuality] of the actors in the Superbowl commercials – the other day it dawned on me that, from T99/Whiskey’s point of view, the androgenous guys represent the betas, and the players on the field represent [or actually ARE, in real life] the alphas.
And then you have to ask yourself: Okay, who is pushing this pervasive agenda, and towards what end are they pushing it?
*On the other hand, to the extent that “Game” could be seen Jewish & Catholic sadistic misogyny seeping its way into WASP social mores, it represents a profoundly corrosive influence on our culture. But, again, that’s the sort of thing that GOP Dads need to prepare their daughters for, before those daughters leave the nest.
* Monogamy is no longer de rigueur. Hypergamy is common as dirt. Imagine a world of irrelgious open marriage polygamy–this is basically today’s dating market where a handful of high-status males (call them “alpha” or whatever) get most of the tail and the rest of the pack are going home empty handed to play on the xbox before breaking out the porn.
*Game* is an adaptation to this environment, a means of dealing with and attracting libidinous and hypergamous women. Casting dispersions at young men who latch on to *game* is….stupid. They’re on the front lines and they know the tactics. If a guy on the front lines says that simply walking up to a girl and asking her out is only slightly more effective than putting a sign reading “kick-me” on his back, I’m inclined to believe him.
These guys didn’t create the world we live in, they’re adapting to it.
…and lastly….the screamer of all comments was something akin to, ‘if these guys want nice girls they should go to church.’ I think the PUAs would probably agree that church is a fertile playground, but not in the way the commentor imagined.
* A few observations: Now that many young people meet up in singles bars and have one-night-stand-sex, it really does allow the top 10-20% of men the opportunity to sleep with several women per month while in their twenties.
Things were this way back in the seventies also, but most of those women did eventually tuck-it-in and marry a regular guy in later on the decade or early in the next decade. Now many of these gals don’t and become cougars. Also many of the second-tier men do not want to risk marrying a mid-thirties female who has been a barfly for 10 years. He knows what the financial risks of divorce for him are (half his retirement savings, half his equity in his home, child support if they have a kid, alimony). In years past, the men in the middle-third and lower-third of the attractiveness scale could indeed go out and build a successful life, and they knew there would be women single in their later twenties or early thirties who would be available just as his best qualities were beginning to show, and he could safely marry one despite her past knowing she did eventually want a stable family and especially kids.
These days, however, a woman is just as likely to marry him, have some other guy’s kids that she is cheating on him with, and divorce him so she can take part in the “divorce-theft-bonanza” that our laws put there for her, and continue to be a bar-cougar (with the help of a lot of plastic surgery) or woman on several internet dating sites still trolling for the thrills that just a few alphas were willing to give her when she was 22. Lots of these kinds of men deeply resent the financial risk they have to take to marry older women who have “been around the block” a little bit.
Tom Piatak, earlier in the thread, mentioned church girls. He is right there, they probably are the best investment of all, and a young man would do well to show up at church and church singles groups to snag a young woman brought up with morals, even if he personally didn’t believe in the Bible’s authenticity. He could fake it, sitting in church-grinning once a week for a good-girl who will be a great mom is worth it.
Final thought on the current situation:
As long as the state gives the kids to the woman, and makes the man pay for it. As long as the state basically promises food and shelter to women in need (how many homeless women do you see? Women’s shelters, housing programs, food-stamps, AFDC, etc all are guarantours of females with children primarily), women don’t really *need* men financially, and therefore are “free” to behave as they want to…………..which is often pretty bad.
But dont worry Whiskey, the non-hispanic white birthrate is still 1.9 children per female in the USA (but down to 1.54 in Canada), the meek shall indeed inherit the earth because the religous are experiencing replacement-level birthrates, even if the swpls are not. As Sailer has noted, who wins the future is who shows up for it. We will still have plenty of churches in 2075, but not nearly as many white hipsters.
* Protestant culture is very heavily invested in line three of the Beatitudes.
When you grow up in a small WASP town, and then head off to the big city for the first time, observing the cruelty [and outright sadism] with which Jewish & Catholic guys treat their women is simply shocking.
Anyway, that’s the ugly side of “Game” – when it goes beyond merely asserting your masculinity and keeping a firm upper hand with your woman, and instead degenerates into a really ugly mysogynistic nihilism.
