Banned in Loveshack.org

[evan12]

I do however encourage you or others to sign up. Some of those guys there sorely need some masculine presence, there's just too much femininity over there.

The only website that allow TRP posters is Quora, I enjoy reading some very strong RedPills opinions there. I wouldnt waste anytime on these websites , at the admins will ban you eventually.

 

[user43770]

I guess if you really wanted to help some poor saps over there you could send them PMs?

 

[rjc149]

Attraction isn't a choice. Any attempt to change your character to appeal to a woman's emotions is a supplication to her frame and coming from a place of scarcity. Rather your goal should be to become the best version of yourself and put that out into the world, accepting whatever comes back. Anything else is needy. Coming from abundance means she has to qualify herself for your time and attention, not the other way around. Adopting beta characteristics(sacrificing self respect) to keep a woman around will only lose her respect and cause you to harbor resentment if she doesn't give you what you're after. A woman will naturally want to be around a man that radiates abundance because he enjoys her company but let's her come and go as she pleases. The 'IDGAF' attitude is arguably the one more in touch with reality and the one capable of facilitating the deepest emotions because there is no fear of loss. Uninhibited unconditional passion for another.

No, attraction is not a choice. Striving to become more attractive is, however.

It really depends on what you want. If you want just spins plates and maintain a revolving-door harem, then not giving a fvck about what your woman thinks or feels is a perfectly functional strategy. If she starts disconnecting, next the stupid b!tch and replace her. That’s the correct attitude right?

Your disdain for “beta traits” and your equating it with neediness and the sacrifice of one’s self-respect indicates that you have adopted, or are prescribing, a rigid, unbending red pill view of both women and relationships. Alpha/beta = black/white to you. You are one or the other. That’s a mindset I am challenging.

Becoming the best version of yourself, being a man on your mission, gracefully accepting that most women will come and go from your life and thus having an abundance mindset, does not mean you must emulate some caricature silverback alpha "I got three b!tches just like you waiting on my c0ck" persona. The alpha/beta dichotomy is not black and white. It’s not a totality. Everything in life sits within a spectrum.

We are in different life phases I believe. You are in a phase of life where you want to pursue sexual gratification with as many willing mates as possible. Totally acceptable. I was once, not long ago, of the same mindset. I am in a phase of life where I want to have higher quality, more meaningful relationships with worthy women. Having some beta characteristics in order to keep her emotionally engaged doesn’t mean castrating oneself and become a weak, spineless supplicating little *****. It means making the effort to make her feel heard, understood, and loved. It means accepting some of her influence at times to maintain a healthy partnership. It means giving a fvck about how she feels and what she wants. I have driven some wonderful women out of my life by adhering too closely to some red pill dicta of alpha male behavior, because I was scared of losing them by appearing "too beta." Adopting a red pill alpha persona to avoid betatude by a wide margin comes from a fear mindset. It's inauthentic. If being a good and loving partner for your woman threatens your masculinity, you’re a weak, insecure poser b!tch. It’s that simple.

 

[Spaz]

No, attraction is not a choice. Striving to become more attractive is, however.

It really depends on what you want. If you want just spins plates and maintain a revolving-door harem, then not giving a fvck about what your woman thinks or feels is a perfectly functional strategy. If she starts disconnecting, next the stupid b!tch and replace her. That’s the correct attitude right?

Your disdain for “beta traits” and your equating it with neediness and the sacrifice of one’s self-respect indicates that you have adopted, or are prescribing, a rigid, unbending red pill view of both women and relationships. Alpha/beta = black/white to you. You are one or the other. That’s a mindset I am challenging.

Becoming the best version of yourself, being a man on your mission, gracefully accepting that most women will come and go from your life and thus having an abundance mindset, does not mean you must emulate some caricature silverback alpha "I got three b!tches just like you waiting on my c0ck" persona. The alpha/beta dichotomy is not black and white. It’s not a totality. Everything in life sits within a spectrum.

We are in different life phases I believe. You are in a phase of life where you want to pursue sexual gratification with as many willing mates as possible. Totally acceptable. I was once, not long ago, of the same mindset. I am in a phase of life where I want to have higher quality, more meaningful relationships with worthy women. Having some beta characteristics in order to keep her emotionally engaged doesn’t mean castrating oneself and become a weak, spineless supplicating little *****. It means making the effort to make her feel heard, understood, and loved. It means accepting some of her influence at times to maintain a healthy partnership. It means giving a fvck about how she feels and what she wants. I have driven some wonderful women out of my life by adhering too closely to some red pill dicta of alpha male behavior, because I was scared of losing them by appearing "too beta." Adopting a red pill alpha persona to avoid betatude by a wide margin comes from a fear mindset. It's inauthentic. If being a good and loving partner for your woman threatens your masculinity, you’re a weak, insecure poser b!tch. It’s that simple.

There's no such thing as alpha or beta men.

But there's dominant and passive men where both personalities can learn masculinity.

 

[Epic Days]

There's no such thing as alpha or beta men.

But there's dominant and passive men where both personalities can learn masculinity.

Yep

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

I have a different idea of what an alpha is from what you've described. This is the second time someone has assumed a definition different than what I hold in mind, which makes me think there's a more appropriate word. Maybe masculine is it.

It really depends on what you want. If you want just spins plates and maintain a revolving-door harem, then not giving a fvck about what your woman thinks or feels is a perfectly functional strategy. If she starts disconnecting, next the stupid b!tch and replace her. That’s the correct attitude right?

Being completely abundant is not about not caring or ignoring your partner or other people in your life. On the contrary there are no thoughts from the ego, no manipulative agenda, no fear of expressing vulnerabilities, because there is no need for validation. Coming from abundance involves no demands or hostility. A relationship is seen as a hindrance, a set back, because locking down a girl is the last thing on a abundant man's mind. There's no malice or insecurity.

Your disdain for “beta traits” and your equating it with neediness and the sacrifice of one’s self-respect indicates that you have adopted, or are prescribing, a rigid, unbending red pill view of both women and relationships. Alpha/beta = black/white to you. You are one or the other. That’s a mindset I am challenging.

You're assuming a lot about my character here, and you're incorrect. Allowing a woman to come and go is not rigid. Being unmovable and allowing a woman to completely melt into me, body, mind, and soul, is not limiting or rigid. It's the exact opposite, it gives women the opportunity to indulge completely because they identify with the comfort I exhibit in my own skin. Its the mentality that will only attract a complete woman that is secure enough in herself to release completely. An insecure woman will be intimidated or become angry or demand backflips. You seem to think those are the only ones that exist, or at least the only ones you're interested in. This is evident by your willingness to change and compensate for her insecurities.

Becoming the best version of yourself, being a man on your mission, gracefully accepting that most women will come and go from your life and thus having an abundance mindset, does not mean you must emulate some caricature silverback alpha "I got three b!tches just like you waiting on my c0ck" persona. The alpha/beta dichotomy is not black and white. It’s not a totality. Everything in life sits within a spectrum.

You're absolutely right, and this must be some sort of stigma you associate with the word alpha. We clearly have different ideas of what that is, so use the word masculine if you like. A confident, abundant man can only seem like a brute to someone without those qualities. It's a humble confidence, there's no need to flaunt or flex nuts, because there is nothing to prove.

We are in different life phases I believe. You are in a phase of life where you want to pursue sexual gratification with as many willing mates as possible. Totally acceptable. I was once, not long ago, of the same mindset. I am in a phase of life where I want to have higher quality, more meaningful relationships with worthy women.

Another inaccurate assumption. I would love to have a deep and fulfilling relationship with one person(or multiple). I also have a standard in mind, and I'm not willing to lower that standard to have a relationship sooner. I have no problem meeting people and nothing deeper forming simply due to incompatibility or bad timing or a partners insecurities, I also have no problem going to my grave alone. I am much more happy to do that while upholding myself to the standards I believe in that supplicating to women. My desire for a full relationship with another is not more important to me than my principles for a fulfilling life. This level of self respect is rare, but at the same time extremely self sustaining, contagious, and allowing of high social and emotional acuity. I'll continue to meet girls, have fun, and uphold what I believe in. If that means walking or letting her walk, it's completely ok with me. And not out of some kind of pent up resentment or fear, rather the opposite, from openness and unconditional love. A woman coming from her own abundance doesn't care how many women I'm seeing. She's living in the moment like me, and she'll allow me the freedoms I allow her. Even if a woman is a bit possessive it works to my benefit because she's the one who will be chasing and qualifying herself.

Having some beta characteristics in order to keep her emotionally engaged doesn’t mean castrating oneself and become a weak, spineless supplicating little *****. It means making the effort to make her feel heard, understood, and loved. It means accepting some of her influence at times to maintain a healthy partnership. It means giving a fvck about how she feels and what she wants.

A woman will engage emotionally or she won't. The same goes for me. In no way is there a lack of listening, loving, or understanding when both are coming from abundance. It seems as I have a different definition for alpha, you have a different definition for beta. There is nothing wrong with putting in effort, as long as it's unconditional. One simply has to remain aware of any conditional behavior creeping in and creating resentment.

I have driven some wonderful women out of my life by adhering too closely to some red pill dicta of alpha male behavior, because I was scared of losing them by appearing "too beta." Adopting a red pill alpha persona to avoid betatude by a wide margin comes from a fear mindset. It's inauthentic. If being a good and loving partner for your woman threatens your masculinity, you’re a weak, insecure poser b!tch. It’s that simple.

What you're describing is fake confidence, or sure a poser biitch. It's funny that you call this alpha behavior when it's actually weak and something I would attribute with being beta. There is no worry about losing a woman by appearing 'too beta'. A man does not think twice about expressing his vulnerabilities when asked. A man isn't being vulnerable by talking about his vulnerabilities if he isn't validated by others. He can talk about his weaknesses openly and comfortably because he is self validated. In fact expressing those things is a gift and an opportunity for the other to come closer. It's also a gauge to see if respect exists where it should. Personally I don't bother talking about it unless she asks, and even then I have fun being mysterious about it and making her work for it. And if there is no respect then I feel no fear, no remorse, and no pain. I simply know the limits of the relationship in that moment. I may choose to leave or I may choose to simply withhold that info and keep her at arms length. Some men never bring up their weaknesses because they never think about them or aren't aware of them. Some don't bring them up out of fear. The truly masculine are aware of them and tend to not talk about them unless asked, because it's not a big deal and not anyone else's problem. it's a natural facet of any man working to better himself, and therefore nothing to be ashamed of.

When you're proud of yourself and own yourself completely there is nothing to prove and no need to worry about keeping a woman. It's not being a douche, it's the most complete you can be, and it naturally attracts women. Filtering out those that aren't genuine or complete themselves is also easy as long self respect and therefore awareness isn't compromised.

I think we have similar ideas and are misunderstanding each other due to differing definitions. This is the misunderstanding I referred to earlier. But I want to be clear you're not talking about supplicating out of fear, or supplicating at all.

 

[Spaz]

I have a different idea of what an alpha is from what you've described. This is the second time someone has assumed a definition different than what I hold in mind, which makes me think there's a more appropriate word. Maybe masculine is it.



Being completely abundant is not about not caring or ignoring your partner or other people in your life. On the contrary there are no thoughts from the ego, no manipulative agenda, no fear of expressing vulnerabilities, because there is no need for validation. Coming from abundance involves no demands or hostility. A relationship is seen as a hindrance, a set back, because locking down a girl is the last thing on a abundant man's mind. There's no malice or insecurity.




You're assuming a lot about my character here, and you're incorrect. Allowing a woman to come and go is not rigid. Being unmovable and allowing a woman to completely melt into me, body, mind, and soul, is not limiting or rigid. It's the exact opposite, it gives women the opportunity to indulge completely because they identify with the comfort I exhibit in my own skin. Its the mentality that will only attract a complete woman that is secure enough in herself to release completely. An insecure woman will be intimidated or become angry or demand backflips. You seem to think those are the only ones that exist, or at least the only ones you're interested in. This is evident by your willingness to change and compensate for her insecurities.




You're absolutely right, and this must be some sort of stigma you associate with the word alpha. We clearly have different ideas of what that is, so use the word masculine if you like. A confident, abundant man can only seem like a brute to someone without those qualities. It's a humble confidence, there's no need to flaunt or flex nuts, because there is nothing to prove.




Another inaccurate assumption. I would love to have a deep and fulfilling relationship with one person(or multiple). I also have a standard in mind, and I'm not willing to lower that standard to have a relationship sooner. I have no problem meeting people and nothing deeper forming simply due to incompatibility or bad timing or a partners insecurities, I also have no problem going to my grave alone. I am much more happy to do that while upholding myself to the standards I believe in that supplicating to women. My desire for a full relationship with another is not more important to me than my principles for a fulfilling life. This level of self respect is rare, but at the same time extremely self sustaining, contagious, and allowing of high social and emotional acuity. I'll continue to meet girls, have fun, and uphold what I believe in. If that means walking or letting her walk, it's completely ok with me. And not out of some kind of pent up resentment or fear, rather the opposite, from openness and unconditional love. A woman coming from her own abundance doesn't care how many women I'm seeing. She's living in the moment like me, and she'll allow me the freedoms I allow her. Even if a woman is a bit possessive it works to my benefit because she's the one who will be chasing and qualifying herself.


A woman will engage emotionally or she won't. The same goes for me. In no way is there a lack of listening, loving, or understanding when both are coming from abundance. It seems as I have a different definition for alpha, you have a different definition for beta. There is nothing wrong with putting in effort, as long as it's unconditional. One simply has to remain aware of any conditional behavior creeping in and creating resentment.





What you're describing is fake confidence, or sure a poser biitch. It's funny that you call this alpha behavior when it's actually weak and something I would attribute with being beta. There is no worry about losing a woman by appearing 'too beta'. A man does not think twice about expressing his vulnerabilities when asked. A man isn't being vulnerable by talking about his vulnerabilities if he isn't validated by others. He can talk about his weaknesses openly and comfortably because he is self validated. In fact expressing those things is a gift and an opportunity for the other to come closer. It's also a gauge to see if respect exists where it should. Personally I don't bother talking about it unless she asks, and even then I have fun being mysterious about it and making her work for it. And if there is no respect then I feel no fear, no remorse, and no pain. I simply know the limits of the relationship in that moment. I may choose to leave or I may choose to simply withhold that info and keep her at arms length. Some men never bring up their weaknesses because they never think about them or aren't aware of them. Some don't bring them up out of fear. The truly masculine are aware of them and tend to not talk about them unless asked, because it's not a big deal and not anyone else's problem. it's a natural facet of any man working to better himself, and therefore nothing to be ashamed of.

When you're proud of yourself and own yourself completely there is nothing to prove and no need to worry about keeping a woman. It's not being a douche, it's the most complete you can be, and it naturally attracts women. Filtering out those that aren't genuine or complete themselves is also easy as long self respect and therefore awareness isn't compromised.

I think we have similar ideas and are misunderstanding each other due to differing definitions. This is the misunderstanding I referred to earlier. But I want to be clear you're not talking about supplicating out of fear, or supplicating at all.

Think along the lines of dominant and passive men.

Stop thinking about Alpha or Beta men, it simply doesn't exist because it's a lie based on illusions.

A dominant man cannot assume all the traits of a passive man no matter how he tries, he will come off as a fake.

Same goes with the passive man.

Which makes it actually a waste of time since it's not their natural inclination and it gets worse for those who thinks they're Beta, they then go over compensating by acting all Alpha.

What both dominants and passives can do however is to acquire masculinity.

Masculinity is just a code of conduct for men.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

Think along the lines of dominant and passive men.

Stop thinking about Alpha or Beta men, it simply doesn't exist because it's a lie based on illusions.

A dominant man cannot assume all the traits of a passive man no matter how he tries, he will come off as a fake.

Same goes with the passive man.

Which makes it actually a waste of time since it's not their natural inclination and it gets worse for those who thinks they're Beta, they then go over compensating by acting all Alpha.

What both dominants and passives can do however is to acquire masculinity.

Masculinity is just a code of conduct for men.

This seems like semantics. An alpha is typically more dominant, a beta is typically more passive. Is this something you read or did you come to the conclusion yourself?

 

[Spaz]

This seems like semantics. An alpha is typically more dominant, a beta is typically more passive. Is this something you read or did you come to the conclusion yourself?

Albert Einstein is considered the "Alpha" in the field of physics

I don't think anyone can dispute that.

But his nature is inherently passive, he's an intellectual.

Micheal Jackson is considered the "Alpha" in music.

But he's passive by his very nature, an expressive personality.

I could go on but you get my drift.

If you'd like to talk about Wolves and Gorilla's social structures and then apply it with humanity, I'm not really interested.

 

[Epic Days]

Think along the lines of dominant and passive men.

Stop thinking about Alpha or Beta men, it simply doesn't exist because it's a lie based on illusions.

A dominant man cannot assume all the traits of a passive man no matter how he tries, he will come off as a fake.

Same goes with the passive man.

Which makes it actually a waste of time since it's not their natural inclination and it gets worse for those who thinks they're Beta, they then go over compensating by acting all Alpha.

What both dominants and passives can do however is to acquire masculinity.

Masculinity is just a code of conduct for men.

Passives striving to be “Alpha” are wasting their time in the literal sense. It doesn’t lean to their strengths.
Dominant men can sometimes be a detriment to himself. Especially if he is seeking a “relationship”. There are dominant skills that he needs to build on.

“Alpha” is highly contextual. But this doesn’t help a man grow when he divides men via Alpha/Beta.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

Albert Einstein is considered the "Alpha" in the field of physics

I don't think anyone can dispute that.

But his nature is inherently passive, he's an intellectual.

Micheal Jackson is considered the "Alpha" in music.

But he's passive by his very nature, an expressive personality.

I could go on but you get my drift.

If you'd like to talk about Wolves and Gorilla's social structures and then apply it with humanity, I'm not really interested.

Like epic said it's way pretty contextual. Albert Einstein also always had women. How would we determine whether he was alpha/dominant/masculine or not in terms of relationships or women? I don't think making correlations to animal social circles is productive so I'm with you there.

My take is we all have an ideal man in mind. The ideal varies slightly but for me it's a man that works to all virtues and away from all vices, constantly striving for self improvement. I subscribe to the idea of alpha/dominant/masculine being my natural energy and beta/passive/feminine behavior to be a detriment, in all aspects of my life.

 

[Spaz]

Like epic said it's way pretty contextual. Albert Einstein also always had women. How would we determine whether he was alpha/dominant/masculine or not in terms of relationships or women? I don't think making correlations to animal social circles is productive so I'm with you there.

My take is we all have an ideal man in mind. The ideal varies slightly but for me it's a man that works to all virtues and away from all vices, constantly striving for self improvement. I subscribe to the idea of alpha/dominant/masculine being my natural energy and beta/passive/feminine behavior to be a detriment, in all aspects of my life.

Then state what is alpha to you.

And then state what is masculinity.

 

[EyeOnThePrize]

Then state what is alpha to you.

And then state what is masculinity.

That's just it, those terms are interchangeable to me. I don't think there are any negative qualities to either. Basically what I've described above and what I describe in all my posts and what I strive for. A mountain of a man that works for something larger than himself and focuses on facilitating boundaries in all relationships to allow for the comfortable engagement of all emotions.

 

[user43770]

This seems like semantics. An alpha is typically more dominant, a beta is typically more passive. Is this something you read or did you come to the conclusion yourself?

I've noticed this before with spaz, just never called him out on it. He takes known truths and then re-words them to make them seem like his own ideas.

If you, prize, have anything original to say, he will belittle you in some fashion and then use your exact thoughts at a later date. I've seen him do it with things I've said in previous arguments.

His entire life is sosuave. How else could he post dozens of times a day? His "purpose" is to post on sosuave.

 

[user43770]

Albert Einstein is considered the "Alpha" in the field of physics

I don't think anyone can dispute that.

But his nature is inherently passive, he's an intellectual.

Micheal Jackson is considered the "Alpha" in music.

But he's passive by his very nature, an expressive personality.

I could go on but you get my drift.

If you'd like to talk about Wolves and Gorilla's social structures and then apply it with humanity, I'm not really interested.

You're getting into situational alphas. All of this sh1t has been covered before in the manosphere, but I bet you know that.

You're just clever enough to steal other people's ideas and try to make them your own. Like nobody would notice.

We are always talking about the sexual market place on this forum, bud. Not intellectual alphas... Obviously.

I think @EyeOnThePrize was pretty clear with what he intended to say.

 

[Spaz]

You're getting into situational alphas. All of this sh1t has been covered before in the manosphere, but I bet you know that.

You're just clever enough to steal other people's ideas and try to make them your own. Like nobody would notice.

We are always talking about the sexual market place on this forum, bud. Not intellectual alphas... Obviously.

I think @EyeOnThePrize was pretty clear with what he intended to say.

It still doesn't matter what you think.

To me u r worse then useless.

 

[Spaz]

That's just it, those terms are interchangeable to me. I don't think there are any negative qualities to either. Basically what I've described above and what I describe in all my posts and what I strive for. A mountain of a man that works for something larger than himself and focuses on facilitating boundaries in all relationships to allow for the comfortable engagement of all emotions.

When words are assigned a meaning it has power.

Do you now understand why I asked you to clarify its meaning EyeOnThePrize?

 

[user43770]

Do you now understand why I asked you to clarify its meaning EyeOnThePrize?

Yeah, because you didn't have an answer, boy.

When words are assigned a meaning it has power.

So we should obviously just come with our own meanings for words?

To anyone with any salt, you're just proving the fact that @EyeOnThePrize knew what he was talking about, and you just HAD to chime in with your superior beliefs...

 

[Spaz]

Yeah, because you didn't have an answer, boy.



So we should obviously just come with our own meanings for words?

To anyone with any salt, you're just proving the fact that @EyeOnThePrize knew what he was talking about, and you just HAD to chime in with your superior beliefs...

You still sound useless.

 

[user43770]

You still sound useless.

You want to talk about the similarities between alpha/beta and dominant/passive?