Women are Devilish Wh0res

[Rollo Tomassi]

I do agree with a lot of the Jungian position. We all do have a "dark side " or a "shadow". However that does not mean that we have permission or a license to allow it to lead our actions.
There are great sources of personal energy and motivation rooted and available in our shadow side, but there are also the drives to misuse them to do evil.

As odd as it will sound coming from me, I detest Jung. There has never been a more potent advocate for AFCism in the history of psychology than Carl Jung. Feminist wallowed in his theories like pigs in sh!t in the late 60s and early 70s, and still do today. In fact every romantic comedy ever produced finds it's roots in Jungian ideology. He's personally responsible for the anima / animus "theory" that popular culture swallowed wholesale in order to uniquely identify better with the feminine (which of course got him laid by his patients quite a bit back in the day).

That said, I don't subscribe to the 'shadow self' notion of Jung. I do however see a primal, instinctive nature in humans that is counterbalanced by aspirations to a higher sense of self. What Jung would melodramatically call the evil side or shadow self is really a mischaracterization of our biological impulses and our reactions to their prompts. Every sin we can commit finds its root in exactly this conflict, and not just in the behavior, but in the desire to act out that behavior. This was my point in the Desire Dynamic thread.

In my previous post I stated that I believe it's healthier to understand this conflict, recognize it, accept it and maintain a balance rather than unrealistically leaning to either extreme. There are equal dangers in leaning too far to the animalistic, instinctive hedonism, carelessly as there are in rigidly clinging to an untenable, guilt-wracked moralism. The one leads to excusing personal accountability for behavior as unavoidable (the devil made me do it) and the other leads to self-righteous, ultimately hypocritical self-loathing.

However, the classic social convention is such that we're expected to deny and repress that primal side and strive for the heady moral side. I'm not saying that doesn't have merit, but it makes that primal side "evil" or "shallow", and by that, it's just this aspiration to be honorable (and avoid seeming 'shallow') that's turned to the uses of manipulative persons to accomplish their very same primal agendas (i.e. "If you weren't so 'shallow' it wouldn't matter how fat I am and you'd do the right thing and marry me and adopt my illegitimate children") . It also casts the primal nature as something evil or twisted when in fact this part of our humanity is very useful and can be positive when channeled productively. A fireman running into a burning building to save a child may do so from a sense of duty and dedication, but he's still got to tap into that primal energy and say "ƒuck it, here we go!" before he goes in.

As an aside here, I've always found it really contradictory that on one hand we'll say "never base your estimates of a woman on her words, but rather her behavior" and in the same paragraph type that evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience. Behavioral and Evolutionary psychology are cut from the same cloth, they both look for answers based on the behavioral characteristics of their subject (in this case the genders). Attaching the word 'evolution' to anything is going to stir the sh!t pot as it is, but the principle of it is applying what we do know about behavior, biology, and the their past interconnections historically, and then postulating how they apply now. Of the various schools of psychology Behavioral and Evolutionary are easily the most scientifically grounded, yet they get lumped into the same distrust that cognitive, psychoanalytic and humanistic have earned.

 

[Nutz]

Here we go guys....

http://digg.com/d1vzWf
http://www.askmen.com/dating/heidi_200/211b_dating_girl.html

Finally, guys are starting to understand that women are not virginal princess we're raised to believe.

 

[SXS]

Put the Nazi and the Buddhist on a deserted island, give the hungry Buddhist a gun and see if he doesn't shoot the Nazi in the head for the last scrap of life giving food.

Base conditions change, core motivations do not.

You better come with a better argument than that to try to prove your point homie.

I think you should try a better argument to try to prove your point. In some religions like Budism, they purposely keep themselves without food for weeks to exercise restraint. Heck, in some religions people purposely not only give up food or sex but give up their lives in prol of some value or belief. You americans should know this by now...

 

[STR8UP]

Good post Rollo.

This touches on a number of points that I have been trying to get across here.

1) The primal nature of humans that is balanced by the higher sense of self.

Most of us do agree in this concept, but we disagree in the order from which it is best viewed. My take- primal self > higher self. Although both have profound influence, nature always trumps nurture.

2) The healthy way thing to do is to understand it, accept it, and find your own balance within the confines. My biggest issue with all of this is that too many men do not bother to ask themselves questions. And many of those who do start to ask questions don't like the answers they find because it threatens to dismantle the very core of hope that they cling to that enables themselves to get through life.

3) The fact that when most folks preach of this evil, selfish, primal side, what they are actually doing is attempting to impose their own personal selfish agenda at your expense.

I also find it interesting how people can so easily dismiss evolutionary psychology when you can't go through ten minutes of the day without seeing it in action. I guess there are people out there who worship the devil, follow cult leaders to their own death, and murder in the name of religion, so I guess the blindness shouldn't surprise me.

 

[ketostix]

One point is, I don't totally separate the primal side as "evil" and the higher self as the "good side". I don't see animals behaving as evil. Most of what humans do that I would classify as good or bad are nothing like other animal primal behavior and aren't even that well connect to basic urges. I mean sure you can make the connection but it's throwing out 90% of human behavior and most of the brain structure. I mean animals aren't jealous, enviousness, dishonest, malicious etc and every other bad thing we could attribute to human behavior. I just see it's a matter of a lot more conscious and subconcious activity in the higher brain areas and decision making. I just see humans very effected by their enviroment and adaptable to their enviroment. Most of human behavior and sexual behavior is social and societies and cultures differ.

 

[Jeffst1980]

Too much to comment on.....

When we refer to them as "devilish wh0res" it is simply a way to help bring equilibrium to an otherwise one-sided culture.

The problem is that men ARE labeled as "idiot savages". And society says that's OK. You and I both know that's not the case, but that is how men are thought of and how we are portrayed in the media.

Calling women "devilish wh0res" provides some balance. It wakes people up. Or at least makes them think about things a little.

The problem is that this is the same rationale that started this mess--only last time it was the feminists that demanded "reparations" for a patriarchal society. I'd like to think we're above the name calling, and I think we owe it to ourselves to avoid the traps set for us by a society that is ready to label any male empowerment talk as misogyny.

Besides the quality woman thing that we'll never agree on, you had a lot of good points in the OP, but it took some digging past the "shock factor" to get to them, and I think that's going to confuse a lot of readers that ultimately DO have some power to affect society. Remember--social norms are little more than the conventional wisdom of the times, and it is impossible to ignore the modern media's influence on such. We have an audience in the hundreds of thousands on this site, and we are sharing ideas on a subject that hits close to home for all--the potential to enact real change is there, it just will take some time. Already, there are some whispers of a change in perception of "modern women"--look at how fast Sarah Palin became a pariah. Let's take things seriously and make this site beyond reproach--remember that change is best cloaked in civil language.


Now, with all that aside, I don't have any problem with evolutionary psych--I find it interesting and truly do see its validity when applied to humans IN GENERAL. I'm just against its use as a deterministic science that applies to individual cases. Sometimes, a fat, out of shape guy can bag a hot wife that isn't motivated by wealth. Sometimes, a woman married to a high status alpha will cheat with an AFC because she feels emotionally connected to him. These surely are outliers from the behavioral model, but there shouldn't be any compulsion to explain every individual cases. Crazy things happen when you're a human!

 

[jophil28]

Now, with all that aside, I don't have any problem with evolutionary psych--I find it interesting and truly do see its validity when applied to humans IN GENERAL. I'm just against its use as a deterministic science that applies to individual cases. Sometimes, a fat, out of shape guy can bag a hot wife that isn't motivated by wealth. Sometimes, a woman married to a high status alpha will cheat with an AFC because she feels emotionally connected to him. These surely are outliers from the behavioral model, but there shouldn't be any compulsion to explain every individual cases. Crazy things happen when you're a human!

Ah, thanks Jeff. Finally the voice of reason.

The problem with the evol psych approach to behavior is that mostly it is a speculative collection of appealing ideas which pose as science just because the proponents say so.
I agree that it does have some value as GENERAL comment. It does offer more pieces of the puzzle and SOME may fit.
However, applied in isolation ( separated from behaviorist considerations) ,it is a poor predictor of individual behavior.

 

[KontrollerX]

"remember that change is best cloaked in civil language."

Unfortunately not always true.

I have copied and pasted some of the most eloquent non offensive worded Pook posts on other relationship forums and I did it for the benefit of the emasculated gentlemen among the herd and the harpies, the feminists and plain old regular chicks thought the posts were loaded to the brim with misogyny and bad advice.

Power is taken by boundless determination and force not by being kind.

So spread our site's message in whatever tone you want guys be it eloquently or loaded with vulgarity.

The only people who will hear your message anyway and take the time to understand it are truth seekers and guys that are genuinely open minded who never had our knowledge presented to them before.

Women who don't seek this forum out and are not cool chicks like Penkitten, Plaything, WaterTiger, Cinamon and others are almost always going to find misogyny in just about any posters posts here if they are suddenly presented with such posts be the posts from a morality crew member or the most anti moral player DJ you can imagine because what we are saying here threatens their stranglehold on social power and control over men and it also threatens their ego on what they think they know about men and why their own relationships succeeded or failed.

Everything we say here is opposed to what these women have heard for years about men from Dr. Phil, Oprah and women's magazines and degenerate MTV.

What we say will come across offensive no matter what very similar to how if a neo Nazi were to eloquently praise Adolf Hitler people would immediately label that guy scum even though he delivered the message with grace.

Hate would be levelled at that guy because despite the eloquence the message was delivered in Hitler stands for mass murder and evil in the minds of Americans and evil, wrongness, callousness, misogyny, ignorant macho bullsh!t among other negative shaming terms are what most women that I exposed to some of Pook's famous posts thought about what he had to say despite him saying it so eloquently and with such grace because the true knowledge of what men are and what we desire and how we must live our life to benefit and protect ourselves are inherintely opposed to radical feminism and even women that don't consider themselves feminist's are so indoctrinated by this garbage that what Pook had to say completely goes against what these women were brought up and brainwashed to believe was right which is why they reacted so negatively to the Pook posts I copied and pasted. They thought their feminist brainwashing was what equaled good in the world and Pook's counter message being so foreign and alien to them equaled all that was evil as a natural conclusion to their reading so foreign a message for the first time.

Examples of what men really want that differs from the radical feminist agenda...

-Traditional gender roles
-Man leading the woman in the relationship ie wearing the pants as nature intended
-The woman taking the man's last name should they get married (this can be shamed by feminists as a minor issue that could be avoided if desired but if you think about it marriage and living life together is anything but minor and if a woman really loves a guy she should have no problem taking his last name as that is tradition which men value NOT taking the woman's last name or combining last names as they are doing in insanely radical cultural marxist parts of the country)
-Morality and unwritten rules- means a lot to most men while feminism encourages amorality and finds rule following the behavior of silly little immature boys that don't know any better

If Jophil comes along I'm sure he can fill in the rest but there's just a sample.

 

[Hooligan Harry]

Ah, thanks Jeff. Finally the voice of reason.

The problem with the evol psych approach to behavior is that mostly it is a speculative collection of appealing ideas which pose as science just because the proponents say so.
I agree that it does have some value as GENERAL comment. It does offer more pieces of the puzzle and SOME may fit.
However, applied in isolation ( separated from behaviorist considerations) ,it is a poor predictor of individual behavior.

One needs to generalise when we are looking at the collective! Its not posing as science because people "say so". It is based on studies conducted at universities and research institutions.

Its easy to discount ANYTHING when applied in isolation. Lets look at your own example! Right here you say...

Women replicate their mother's lives and will treat men like mom treated her father . IF her mom was a tryrant ,your girl will be a controlling,domineering bytche. IF dad was a couch dwelling pvssy, she will seek another of the same type for a husband. IF her father was a benevolent leader who loved his family, then that kind of man feels just like home to her

My mother is a traditional housewife who brings my father his slippers at night and runs his bath for him after a hard day. Does not argue with him in public. My father runs the ship. Works hard, put food on the table and calls the shots. She makes sure the dinner is on the table and that we were in bed at night.

My sister is a self entitled princess who treats her husband like utter ****. She swears at him, belittles him in front of people. He works 12 hour days, and comes home to screaming kids sometimes. She is the opposite of what my mother is and her husband is everything my father is not, despite being raised in that environment.

Does that mean I am going to completely ignore the influence upbringing or culture has on a person? Of course not. To do so would be borderline retarded.

The problem here is that people DONT LIKE what evolutionary psychology has to say. They DONT LIKE to accept the fact that superficial things outside of their control can impact on their own desirability (looks). They DONT LIKE the fact that money or power is like an aphrodisiac to women.

So they deny its validity and continue to live in this fvcking matrix where the steak tastes better.

Its absurd to think that people condemn Feminism because it rejects the natural order of things, yet at the same time reject the very science itself that confirms the natural order of things simply because it does not pose the view that strokes their own ego.

My point stands. If evolutionary psychology were a crock of sh1t, then a womans period would have no effect on her emotions. Same could be said for when they go through menopause or they are pregnant. Likewise, if her mother was a crackhead and her father molested her, chances are she is going to be screwed up.

 

[jophil28]

The problem here is that people DONT LIKE what evolutionary psychology has to say.

You are forcing unfounded conclusions into this debate. It is not about personal likes or dislikes, it is about whether ev psych deserves to be known as "science" with the status and credibility that follows that inclusion.
I say NO.

You say whatever you think.

 

[SXS]

1) The primal nature of humans that is balanced by the higher sense of self.
Most of us do agree in this concept, but we disagree in the order from which it is best viewed. My take- primal self > higher self. Although both have profound influence, nature always trumps nurture.

Who can say what is human nature and where to find it ? Theres little or nothing that can be called human nature outside of culture and socializing. When we talk about culture, people tend to think that culture is something unnatural or outside of biological boundaries. But we are only able to devolop and absorb culture due to our biology. There is no way to separate what is cultural and what is biologic in our species, as those two things developed together in the evolutionay proccess. There is no place on the planet where you can find humans without culture.
For example, there was an topic out here talking about a good % of men in a certain African who are rapists.
That is an obvious example of how culture model your impulses. While you and me would like to have as much sex as we want, we probably would not go to the extreme of raping. That is due to our values given by culture.
Other example: In my country is very common to lose your virginity with your cousin. I am sure that most americans would find this disgusting, but it is so connected to our culture since the colonial times, that the word cousin in portuguese is "prima", which means "first". My first sexual experience was with one of my cousins.
Another example: I am sure you guys and all men in the USA can get all the sexual satisfaction they want from any women, or even any prostitute. There is not much of logical reason why anyone would want to get married. And yet, even with a very high rate of divorce people still get married, and they will continue to do it, due to values given by culture, as culture doesnt change overnight.

I guess there are people out there who worship the devil, follow cult leaders to their own death, and murder in the name of religion, so I guess the blindness shouldn't surprise me.

Yeah, my friend, people jump to their own death for many reasons, their values and beliefs go first, their life go second. While we all do have a instinct of preservation, things like that do exist in many cultures of the world. It would be not uncommon to a japanese to cut his own belly because he "lost his honor", a muslim to volunteer to his death for his religion, a marxist to kill or die for his ideology, a soldier to give his life for his nation, or a buddhist to starve to death.
Each culture usually does have a high number of beliefs and values, who, obviously, exist not for the beneficial of the individual,(since for example, a soldier who dies in a war does not gain any advantage for himself), but THE GROUP AS A WHOLE, be it a nation, a religious group or an ideology do benefit from it.

 

[SXS]

You are forcing unfounded conclusions into this debate. It is not about personal likes or dislikes, it is about whether ev psych deserves to be known as "science" with the status and credibility that follows that inclusion.
I say NO.

An exact science it is not, since it doesn't fit the model. It could be a human science or, in some areas, an experimental science.

 

[Jeffst1980]

KontrollerX--you make some good points and may be 100% correct, but I can't help but feel that if VH1 can make Mystery into a cuddly pop culture guru, then there's hope for us. I think it's all in the delivery of the message and making it personal.

Pook is a God to us, but to those uninitiated with this stuff he may as well be my grandfather. Now, if you had Pook's words coming out of George Clooney's mouth in a romantic comedy starring Anne Hathaway, I think it would sufficiently blunt the impact and start to desensitize those clinging to the P.C. "Matrix" model.

The packaging move that allowed a show called "The Pickup Artist" to air without controversy was to refocus the attention away from the real point of the show (essentially a commercial for venusian arts) onto the warm and fuzzy stories of lovable rAFCs that just want to get a girlfriend. They were such sympathetic figures that for one to argue that they were studying how to "trick" girls into bed would come across as extremely cynical.

I think first and foremost there needs to be more strong, intelligent masculine role models in the public eye. Whether or not you agree with his politics, I think the case can be made that Barack Obama conducted himself in an extremely refined, alpha manner throughout the election, and that this is what ultimately clinched the election for him. When the tide of public opinion is in your favor, you are permitted much more than the average man.

The big challenge would then be to reformulate divorce laws so men aren't given the short end of the stick by default, and so children can be raised by dads as well as moms. Generation Y is pretty much already riddled with neuroses, but hopefully future generations will be able to incorporate the pro-individual message of Gen Y with a more grounded sense of natural living and simplicity that directly contrasts the current climate. Change would best be realized at the family level--stable families tend to produce stable children.

For now, just the message that men don't have to take s#it from AWs is a huge step in the right direction. If we could get more men to find it in them to walk away, we could prevent a lot of tumultuous marriages and thus their troubled offspring that would grow up to emulate them and perpetuate the cycle. So, I suppose in that respect, getting the message out there by any means possible is still an improvement over the status quo.

 

[Warrior74]

Bytches ain't shyt but hoes and tricks.

 

[STR8UP]

More good stuff from everyone. Top notch as usual for Kontroller, especially.

If I would have branded this thread with a more PC title, do you think it would get as many hits? Doubt it.

What's with the sensitivity? I don't get you guys. We're in OUR locker room here. We can speak freely and call women b!tches and h0's all we want.

I penned a thread a couple of weeks ago on perspective. I proposed that the vast majority of guys who haven't experienced what high status or tight game does to women really do not know women. Another thing that can really open a man's eyes is DIVORCE. To watch a formerly sweet creature turn into a pitbull looking to rip your throat out in the courtroom HAS to have a profound impact on a man. At least the smarter ones learn enough from the experience that they don't repeat it.

I don't claim to have the tightest game or the highest status in the world, but I've seen what both can do to women. The power of these secret weapons gives you the key to unlock the inner vault. You go from broke, depressed, low self esteem loser that women want nothing to do with, to a guy that has three women fighting over him at a party, and you begin to see how much you have been lied to your entire life.

Man, at times I feel like I've long outgrown this place.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

and you begin to see how much you have been lied to your entire life.

The most damaging lies are the ones you tell yourself. These are the most difficult to spot.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I have copied and pasted some of the most eloquent non offensive worded Pook posts on other relationship forums and I did it for the benefit of the emasculated gentlemen among the herd and the harpies, the feminists and plain old regular chicks thought the posts were loaded to the brim with misogyny and bad advice.

I understand where you went in this post, and I've made the mistake of dropping the most innocuous of my own threads in Love Shack as well, but I don't think that either sugar coating or bellowing the message is going to change anyone's mind regardless. After that experience I came to this conclusion; you cannot TELL people anything, you have to lead them to your point. Particularly when your goal is to get them to question their own ego-invested beliefs. You have to gradually, progressively infect that person with your message in order to prompt them to critically think. You can make better impact when people are emotionally distressed too. This is how religion works.

I realize that sounds horribly manipulative, but there are ways to change minds that don't involve overt presses to influence people.

 

[Colossus]

Bottom line- you view my breed as a burned, bitter, pessimistic defeatist, which couldn't be further from the truth.

BOTTOM BOTTOM line- alpha's enjoy the king's ransom, betas foot the bill.

The good news for YOU is that you can (to an extent) choose whether you want to be an alpha or a beta. The good news for ME is that you and many others will probably choose the beta route.

No offense, I just think you are looking at yourself as a person who fits into a certain mold so that's the territory you defend, rather than realizing that you can mold your form.

Posturing? It is what it is man. You can be the guy at home wondering where your girlfriend is at, or you can be the guy WITH the girlfriend (or wife or sister or mother...whatever).

Str8up I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to everything you write, but I cant help but chuckle when you implicitly refer to yourself as an "alpha".

First of all, you make a lot of presumptions about me in general, and perhaps I do of you as well. What do you know of how I conduct myself with women?? I dont come on here and post long threads about AW's or 20 year olds or why all women are hors....because I dont care what everyone has to say about my affairs and Im not out to proselytize borrowed views. I'd rather make my own decisions--right or wrong-- than consult with a forum or adopt the philosophy of some guy and his blog. I never wonder where my gf is or sweat about someone else snatching her away whilst I dream lazily in chump-land. Know why? Because I am confident in the way I conduct myself and I own my domain. I never spend one second of my day wondering whether I'm an alpha or beta, or posturing to convince other males I have the biggest balls, or stewing over an online insult.

I post here because I enjoy helping guys out and giving feedback, not to convince anyone else of my views or that they are "the way".



I think this "alpha" thing as it realtes to seduction and DJ philosophy is an excellent teaching tool, but most of the guys in the seduction community who preach the alpha doctirine with their fist on the pulpit are, indeed, posturing.

Do you remember what the alpha is in the animal kingdom?? THE STRONGEST MALE. Period, end of story. The alpha male has earned and continually defends his position because, quite simply, he breaks the necks of all who challenge him, lest he lose his position and be banished from the group. The alpha is defined in physical terms, and in the behavior he elicits from others.

You get these seduction twerps who start pulling a steady stream of tail and all of a sudden they fancy themselves alpha. Or guys like you, who have a lot of experience and seem to get a lot of attention from dubious women, coming on here and beating your chest saying you have seen what few men have. If I saw you on the street and decided to come over and toss you in a dumpster, would you still be an alpha?? I bet you wouldnt feel like one for a few days. A lot of this is all in your mind. I understand what you are saying that choosing the right midset can dramatically change the field with women, and I agree; but "alpha" is relative, my man.

I actually dont dislike you--believe it or not-- and I think you have some good insight to offer...I just dont agree with all of your views. And you're right, it's awfully hard NOT to see you as a bitter, quasi-misogynistic survivalist when you post things like this. I know part of it is just your writing style and an attempt to elicit some response, which is fine, but if you try to imply your own ego-invested beliefs are 'the way'....well, maybe next time I'll just smile and check the sports news.

 

[Nutz]

You just contradicted yourself.

I never wonder where my gf is or sweat about someone else snatching her away whilst I dream lazily in chump-land. Know why? Because I am confident in the way I conduct myself and I own my domain. I never spend one second of my day wondering whether I'm an alpha or beta, or posturing to convince other males I have the biggest balls, or stewing over an online insult.

...
Do you remember what the alpha is in the animal kingdom?? THE STRONGEST MALE. Period, end of story. The alpha male has earned and continually defends his position because, quite simply, he breaks the necks of all who challenge him, lest he lose his position and be banished from the group. The alpha is defined in physical terms, and in the behavior he elicits from others.

So you don't worry about guys "stealing your girl" because you're alpha and don't have to worry about it? Um, in the same breath you say alphas do have to be concerned and continually defend their position. So which is it? Passive dominance because you are alpha, or active defense to maintain dominance as the alpha male?

 

[STR8UP]

First of all, you make a lot of presumptions about me in general, and perhaps I do of you as well.

I presume that most guys who haven't experienced the "spectrum" of behavior that women are capable of lack the proper insight to form an accurate opinion of them, and my presumption of you is that you haven't been in that position. Most guys your age haven't. Aren't you still in school?

Seriously, I think we would get along great over a beer, and I think that you too have some valuable insight to offer, but when it comes to stuff like this there is no substitute for life experience. It's easy to work your way halfway out of the matrix, find a decent girl, and assume that's all there is to it. And maybe for you that is all there is to it, but for the vast, vast majority of men the mating and dating landscape is a minefield to be navigated with skill and precision.

I think this "alpha" thing as it realtes to seduction and DJ philosophy is an excellent teaching tool, but most of the guys in the seduction community who preach the alpha doctirine with their fist on the pulpit are, indeed, posturing.

Do you remember what the alpha is in the animal kingdom?? THE STRONGEST MALE. Period, end of story. The alpha male has earned and continually defends his position because, quite simply, he breaks the necks of all who challenge him, lest he lose his position and be banished from the group. The alpha is defined in physical terms, and in the behavior he elicits from others.

This is off topic, but for the record, an alpha male human being living in the year 2009 in America can't be compared to an alpha male from a few hundred years ago, let alone an animal.

You get these seduction twerps who start pulling a steady stream of tail and all of a sudden they fancy themselves alpha. Or guys like you, who have a lot of experience and seem to get a lot of attention from dubious women, coming on here and beating your chest saying you have seen what few men have.

You seem to have an issue with the alpha label.

No matter how you define "alpha", at the end of the day an alpha is essentially the guy who has the highest social standing within a group and as such is afforded the most mating opportunities.

Can a "seduction twerp" be considered an alpha? He mimics alpha behavior as a means to an end, but probably lacks the social alliances to earn the title.

I don't "claim to see what few men have" (as you put it), to brag. I say this from the recent realization that I'm sitting here trying to prove a point to people whose opinions on women have been formulated from a sheltered POV.

Point is, my views seem to closely correspond with the views of many of the guys who have seen women through the lens of a PUA or a male with status.

I stand by my point. If you haven't witnessed the behavior of women firsthand from the perspective of a guy who has "game" (either natural or learned) OR from the perspective of a man with high social status (which elicits the same behavior as game because it pushes the same buttons) YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW WOMEN.

And you're right, it's awfully hard NOT to see you as a bitter, quasi-misogynistic survivalist when you post things like this.

It's easy to see "hate" when you are conditioned to shun the mere mention of the darker side of human nature.

I know part of it is just your writing style and an attempt to elicit some response, which is fine, but if you try to imply your own ego-invested beliefs are 'the way'....well, maybe next time I'll just smile and check the sports news.

Lets not get into ego investments. That's where I CAME from....not where I am going.