The manosphere is producing unresponsiblie adult men

[zekko]

If you faked it, it wasn't your shyness that was helping, it was your faking. So in essence you weren't the "shy guy", you were the "shy guy that was faking because he knew something".

Well, I'm certainly not recommending being shy as a strategy lol! That was a demon I had to face down and deal with. I had self esteem issues pretty much throughout my 20s, probably because of the social difficulties I had when I was younger. But everybody knew guys were supposed to be confident, so I always faked it.

Now, if you were saying that you were only shy with girls, but confident/dominant with other men......then yes that is a formula for success with women. Because THEN they will interpret you as being aloof/indifferent to them specifically.

Funny you say that, because for me, dealing with shyness was a progression. Initially I was shy with almost anyone, then I got over shy around males but I was shy around girls. Then I got over being shy around women, but I was still shy around the hot women. The attractive girls were the last hurdle. But there was a point where I was confident with the guys but not with the women, like you say. And getting laid was never really a problem, outside of one really bad dry spell I had.

this is what gets me. why do i care so ****ing much? I don't want to **** the girl. I"m not jealous of the guy. I do feel bad for the momma, but that's not it either. I care on a male / female relationship level. Like, the **** ain't right level. It's like i want to grab the chick and show her rollo's blog or some **** lol.

I'd file this under "it's not my problem". She's 18, she's gonna fvck up and do stupid things. Besides, she's not your kid. If you help her set up her business I'd say you've done more than enough.

Tommy Lee....scrawny, drug addicted and now in his 40s and still banging hot chicks

I forgot to bring this up earlier. I'm calling for Tommy Lee to be disqualified, since he is well known for having a huge member. I've never seen his infamous video with Pamela Anderson (nor am I interested), so I have no direct knowledge. But he has a reputation for having a huge weiner, so that in itself ill get him laid IMO. Lol.

I think I can see where the impression that the lesson is to become irresponsible. Because it sure as hell sounds like being responsible looks a lot like the path of the exemplified betas.

People can disagree about their overall impression of the manosphere. But I don't see how people could not understand that some guys might find encouragement to be irresponsible in the manosphere, whether that effect is intended or not.

Also, I don't agree with your examples of "unattractive" celebrities. Contrary to what some guys believe, being "scrawny" is not a negative for most chicks, provided you have attractive facial features.

I think it's difficult for men to judge the attractiveness of other males. What is attractive to women is not necessarily what is attractive to men. There are guys who have baby faces, and that's one thing. But there are guys who have the square jaw, large hands, and other masculine features which may not appeal to men, but signal dominance to women. So the dominance is built right into their look, which they may find attractive.

 

[Lexington]

That's not always the case. Rich famous men often pair up with non-rich and famous women. But it's just ridiculous to conclude that because the woman is rich and famous that the man being rich and famous weren't factors. Unless the man wasn't rich and famous, then it absolutely was a factor.

Fame and wealth would be factors if the woman herself did not possess those things. As you said, women want to date up. But in the examples I gave you, some of these women dated/married guys who had less fame and fortune than they did. As far as wealth/fame were concerned, the playing field was level so other factors must have sealed the deal for the guys.

A guy making $150k might be attractive to most women but a girl making $150k or more isn't going to be impressed.

Maybe, but PUA also gives non-verbal advice that I think is poorly explained or even flat wrong.

Which PUA? There are many different PUA sources. I agree there are some that give bad advice, but that could be said for just about anything. There are medical journals that give bad recommendations. There are cookbooks that give bad instructions. That doesn't invalidate all medical journals or all cookbooks.

Things like don't smile,

Perhaps don't smile too much. But I've also read lots of advice that says to smile a lot.

spread your body out

This helps to establish presence and convey that you are at ease. It's certainly better than being withdrawn and timid.

get up close in people's face etc

Most of the stuff I've read say you start getting into her space after you have established some degree of comfort. I don't think many people are advocating getting right up a girl's face right away.

or throw a remark to a girl at a 45 degree angle over your shoulder.

Which source said this? Perhaps this was stated somewhere but you make it sound like this PUA Gospel or something. Most pickup websites encourage people to go out in the field and experiment. Some tactics works and others don't. See what works for you.

I know there are some sources that advocate extreme specifics including canned openers and routines. But there are also sources that focus more on having the right vibe and mindset.

I knew PUAs that would try to use "confident/dominate" body language that they read and they just look weird and annoying and put people off. I know, you'll say PUA isn't wrong, "you're just not doing it right, bro!" How can you argue with that?

And I've seen guys use confident/dominant body language and see guys pull at the club. Pickup is pretty mainstream now and if you go to any decent club, you will see guys using pickup tactics. Some of these guys learned these behaviors naturally, but I'm sure some guys have also read up about game.

OK, but as Zekko said that's been around as long as dirt-Be confident, be outgoing, talk to girls.

I'm not claiming that PUAs invented any of this stuff. Like I said before, pickup is the study of what works towards the goal of picking up women. A lot of this is simply emulating naturals.

But of course, not everyone is a natural. If that were the case, websites like this wouldn't exist. Most of us came here because we wanted to improve in our dealings with women.

Well, I would dispute that a guy with less than 1% success rate has to be incredibly socially inept. Where does PUA game fall into here? Your paragraph is just riddled with vague qualifiers.

Pickup doesn't even factor into this particular example. I think that a guy would have to be incredibly ugly, poorly dressed or very socially inept to have a less than 1% success rate. If an average, well-dressed guy can't do 10 approaches and get at least some success with an HB6 or better, then I think he's got some real issues.

But I agree a lot of it is "chance".

And pickup is to a large degree making chance work in your favor. A huge amount of pickup material has to do with getting over approach anxiety and disregarding rejection.

That's my whole point, a guy with a certain level of fundamental attractiveness, social aptitude, playing the numbers game will get some success. That's what a majority of men in the world are doing, without a thing to do with PUA/game.

I'd say that the majority of guys aren't playing the numbers game. The majority of guys hope destiny will take care of things. Most guys only pursue women when they get clear IOIs. Go to any bar and take a look at how many guys are just standing there with their drinks in their hands ogling the women.

I can tell you that before I ever discovered these forums and others like them, I did maybe 5 cold approaches my entire life. I don't think I'm all that different from a lot of guys. Imagine how much better many guys' sex lives would be if they did 10 approaches every time they went out.

But you just throw things out there. Maybe a guy who is a 9 only has a much less than a 5% chance of bagging a HB9 and a male 7 has less than a 1%.

I think your numbers are very pessimistic. An M9 would only have success with less than 5 HB9s if he did 100 approaches? This guy would have to be very socially awkward to have results that terrible.

HB9, M7 and M9 are kind of arbitrary terms. Women generally rate men either hot or not.

Agreed. And what they consider hot or not varies considerably. Some girls will only date scrawny, skinny jean wearing hipster types. Others will only date tatted up tough guys. Others are only interested in clean cut, sharp dressed professional gentlemen. One girl's M7 is another girl's M2.

I don't see this much variation among guys. For most guys, if a girl isn't deformed, is reasonably slim, has breasts, curves and is young, they would fvck her.

I believe most all men have a much lower success rate with women than you are claiming for all girls let alone 9's. I believe that men generally date down and women date up, and that it is really hard for a man to raise his rating without good looks/appearance. You can disagree.

Everybody (both men and women) want to date up. The problem is that there are only so many people "up" there. I know a lot of women do overrate their SMV these days but at the end of the day, they will pair off with their best available option.

OK but your analogy is bad to begin with. Just about every guy can and knows how to get fit.

And yet they don't all get fit. In fact, most adult males are overweight and a very significant percentage of them are obese. They don't get fit because they lack the drive, discipline and dedication necessary to succeed.

But even hard working fit guys have trouble attracting women.

I never said it was easy.

Unlike many other endeavors, hard work doesn't always get good results with women.

Yeah and people who study their asses off don't always get good grades. But working hard can and often does lead to success with women.

OK, but my observation and experience with most guys and game is that their results were mostly from working the numbers game harder and lowering their standards.

Our observations vary somewhat in this regard.

Sometimes a few guys do really well, but they had a lot of unapplied natural potential with looks/appearance and had decent success with women beforehand.

And much of game is realizing your full potential. I don't believe most guys come close to actualizing their full potential.

Again, I'm not claiming that with the right game any guy can go and fvck the chick on the cover of SI Swimsuit Edition. But I do think that a lot of guys are far from reaching their full potential with regards to women.

Most people are far from reaching their full potential in many aspects of their lives. Most people didn't earn the very best grades they could earn in high school or college. Most people aren't in the very best career that they could be in if they really dedicated themselves. Most people aren't nearly as fit or healthy as they could be.

I guess you just have a more pessimistic view of things than I do. Maybe it's cliché, but people can achieve some pretty impressive things when they truly dedicate themselves towards a goal. We can't be great in every single endeavor, but if we make success with women an important priority in our lives, we can certainly achieve it to a large extent.

Anyway, I will say this has been an interesting discussion

 

[Lexington]

Rock/pop starts, no matter how unattractive, will always have legions of hot women ready to hop on their c0cks. If Mr. Bean was a rock star, he'd be banging supermodels too. And it's got nothing to do with dominance either. You should read the book "Dirt" by the Motley Crue. It explains the concept of rock star appeal to women quite well.

Also, I don't agree with your examples of "unattractive" celebrities. Contrary to what some guys believe, being "scrawny" is not a negative for most chicks, provided you have attractive facial features. Sure, there are women who prefer the roid monkey Jersey Shore look, but they are in the minority. Other than Lil Wayne, all of the guys that you've listed above would be considered attractive by most women.

Yeah but these guys were dating women who had equal or more fame and wealth than they did. They wouldn't have been mesmerized by the wealth and fame like most girls would.

 

[Bokanovsky]

Yeah but these guys were dating women who had equal or more fame and wealth than they did. They wouldn't have been mesmerized by the wealth and fame like most girls would.

Guys like Axl Rose and Tommy Lee were absolutely huge back in the day. We are talking about chart-topping bands at the height of the rock music era. These guys were literally treated as gods. The women they dated may have been models, but they were still several rungs below them on the social ladder. For women, it's always about dating up. And once you're dating a platinum-selling rockstar, you've pretty much reached the top in terms of social prestige, from a woman's perspective.

There's more to rockstar and movie star appeal than fame and money. Bill Gates is famous and rich, yet I doubt he's making a lot of panties wet. Sure, gold diggers would gladly marry him for his wealth, but given the choice between George Clooney an Bill Gates, I bet you that 99% of women would rather marry Clooney, even though Gates is much wealthier.

 

[Zarky]

All that really matters when you approach or interacting with a female is if you can get attraction or not. That's mostly dependent on your looks/appearance IMO rather than game /personality.

Wait a minute, now you're saying it's mostly dependent on looks. Before you said it was essentially completely dependent on looks. Which is it?

 

[The_411]

Wait a minute, now you're saying it's mostly dependent on looks. Before you said it was essentially completely dependent on looks. Which is it?

Does it really matter? All things being equal the guy with better looks with fare better. He can get away with a lot more crap and act more beta and still get numbers whereas the guy who isn't as good looking has smaller margin of error.

It's just a bell curve game or lack thereof just moves one up or down the curve as does money, power status etc.

 

[Zarky]

Does it really matter? All things being equal the guy with better looks with fare better. He can get away with a lot more crap and act more beta and still get numbers whereas the guy who isn't as good looking has smaller margin of error.
etc.

Of course. With all other things being equal. You could just as easily say that about anything desirable.

All other things equal, the richer guy will fare better.
All other things equal, the more fashionable guy will fare better.
All other things equal, the funnier guy will fare better.
All other things equal, the more confident guy will fare better.

My point is proven yet again I'm not saying that looks don't matter at all. I'm saying that they matter some, just as all other things matter some as well.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Of course. With all other things being equal. You could just as easily say that about anything desirable.

All other things equal, the richer guy will fare better.
All other things equal, the more fashionable guy will fare better.
All other things equal, the funnier guy will fare better.
All other things equal, the more confident guy will fare better.

My point is proven yet again I'm not saying that looks don't matter at all. I'm saying that they matter some, just as all other things matter some as well.

Looks don't just matter some and just the same as all things. Guys of truly equal looks would have about equal results even with differences in fashion, humor etc.

Before you went off in a tangent, the whole point originally was how much does looks/appearance matter vs game/personality. Looks/appearance matters before anything else can matter such as confidence, humor etc. Extraordinary money and status is a whole separate thing.

Attraction doesn't work like straight addition- start out with subpar or average fundamental looks, just add some more money (short of being independently wealthy), more fashion, more humor, more confidence and voila you suddenly become attractive. That's not to say they aren't at all necessary and don't help, but they won't make a guy attractive who isn't already. Your fundamentals of how you look, body, face, body language matter most in creating attraction.

 

[zekko]

I probably shouldn't say this, but I just thought of another angle on the "responsible male" vs. "bad boy" argument. Take a look at the other thread on the Mature Man board that has been drawing a lot of activity:

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=205269

Bible Belt and Lexington got into a bit of a dustup on here. Here we have Lexington, a respected surgeon, obviously a man who has been responsible in his life and invested in his future. And we also have Bible Belt, who has been in a weak place financially, had been depending on his girlfriend's money to help maintain his lifestyle, trains in MMA, and wants to fight his fellow poster. I'd say he represents a pretty good picture of a bad boy.

Now who do you think is getting better women? Read the thread and it should become obvious.

This is a prime example of why I give no credence to those who claim being a "bad boy" is the ultimate way to attract women.

 

[backbreaker]

I never thought of bible belt as a bad boy but you make a good point. he has bad boyish traits.

Let's look a little more closely.

Remember to use Bad-boy and "responsible" under the lens of relativity.
Bible, at 37.....is dealing with a woman of a similar age who is now looking more for financial security. Her needs and desires have changed. We are no longer talking about the younger women. She will still likely be turned on by Bible more than the responsible guy, but she will still go with the person who ultimately gives her the financial security she is looking for so that she can bear children.
Lexington, at 28, is a high candidate for future provisioning if he is a surgeon. But, if you read his posts, you can see that does not mean he is not a "bad boy". He has no problem telling people what he thinks, including Bible. Quite simply, Lex does not pull punches. One could strongly argue that he is the embodiment of both Alpha and Provider.

you're proving zekko's point for him. that's exactly what he's trying to say.

if you took off the screen names of BB and lex and just put their attributes in a post 95% of the forum would equate BB with a bad boy and 95% would equate Lex with a future beta male and (according to this forum) they are the polar opposite


what zekko is saying is that, Lexington proves that one can be responsible and be an alpha male. one can hold done a job, better himself and not be a chump / still get laid

he is also saying that, being irresponsible, spending time partying, and not not giving a **** about his career.. i know enough about BB to know he could have been a lawyer and chose not to, does not equate to notching hot women. Most would agree that if BB had other plates other than his GF or had the ability to get other high quality plates, he would not have taken his girlfriend back. What zekko is saying is, contrary to sosuave myth, BB's irresponsibility is the reason why he is going back to his current GF.

What we are saying is that the forum.. no, hte manosphere is, rather intentionally or unintentionally is telling people to be like BB, and we just had a 16 page thread about how much BB is blowing it by going back to his GF but the only reason he's going back to her is because he doesn't have any other options. Do you see the irony?

I think zekko just checkmated this discussion.

 

[Bokanovsky]

Bible Belt and Lexington got into a bit of a dustup on here. Here we have Lexington, a respected surgeon, obviously a man who has been responsible in his life and invested in his future. And we also have Bible Belt, who has been in a weak place financially, had been depending on his girlfriend's money to help maintain his lifestyle, trains in MMA, and wants to fight his fellow poster. I'd say he represents a pretty good picture of a bad boy.

Now who do you think is getting better women? Read the thread and it should become obvious.

Just because someone is into MMA/martial arts does not make him a "bad boy". I know a few guys who are into MMA and they are all chumps. Being a bad boy is more about your state of mind than being into stereotypical mucho sh!t. Typical characteristics of a "bad boy" include disregard for laws and authority, willingness to take risks, impulsiveness and a general "I don't give a f*ck attitude" towards everyone and everything, including women.

Bible Belt certainly does not strike me as that kind of person.

 

[Lexington]

Guys like Axl Rose and Tommy Lee were absolutely huge back in the day. We are talking about chart-topping bands at the height of the rock music era. These guys were literally treated as gods. The women they dated may have been models, but they were still several rungs below them on the social ladder.

Regarding Axl Rose and Stephanie Seymour, I didn't realize she already had a kid with another rock star before she met Axl. Apparently, Axl sued her for assaulting him. So I guess she wasn't quite as high on the SMV scale as I thought.

But as for Pam Anderson and Tommy Lee, I don't think she was several rungs lower than he was. They got married in the 90s. This was after Kurt Cobain and the grunge movement was in full swing and hair metal bands' time had passed. This was also when Baywatch was the hottest show on TV and Pam Anderson was the hottest starlet on the show.

She was mixing and mingling with A-list actors. I'm not saying that Tommy Lee is an ugly guy, but if looks were so important, there were plenty of handsome leading man actor types available to her I'm sure. There were other factors besides Tommy Lee's looks and fame/wealth (of which she had more) that attracted him to her. His bad boy rocker image, his partying/fun-loving nature, his confidence, his game etc. all probably were major factors.

If, as Stagger Lee thinks, looks were all-important Pam Anderson had better looking and wealthier/more famous guys available to her.

For women, it's always about dating up. And once you're dating a platinum-selling rockstar, you've pretty much reached the top in terms of social prestige, from a woman's perspective.

A platinum-selling rockstar from an era that had been rendered extinct by grunge/alternative. I'd say that if anything, being yesterday's news (especially a trend that has just passed) makes you less attractive.

There's more to rockstar and movie star appeal than fame and money. Bill Gates is famous and rich, yet I doubt he's making a lot of panties wet. Sure, gold diggers would gladly marry him for his wealth, but given the choice between George Clooney an Bill Gates, I bet you that 99% of women would rather marry Clooney, even though Gates is much wealthier.

I agree, but I think Pam Anderson could have had a George Clooney type over Tommy Lee. Again, Tommy Lee isn't a bad looking guy but she had better options from a purely looks and fame/status standpoint.

 

[Lexington]

Lexington, a respected surgeon

Anesthesiologist, not surgeon. We're the ones surgeons depend on when they fvck up

This is a prime example of why I give no credence to those who claim being a "bad boy" is the ultimate way to attract women.

First off, I don't think many people here would classify BB as a "bad boy." Being in a bad place financially and practicing MMA does not a bad boy make.

There is nothing that says a bad boy cannot be rich or have his sh*t together. One could argue that Elon Musk (billionaire founder of PayPal, Tesla Motors and Space X) is bad boy. Sir Richard Branson (billionaire owner of a conglomerate that seems to be into everything) could be considered a bad boy.

I don't think anybody here is promoting the idea that one should become dependent on women for financial security or that one shouldn't go out there and make money. No one is encouraging anybody to not give a fvck about their career. Quite the contrary, I read plenty of Manosphere posts encouraging people to pursue money.

People are encouraging people to adopt "bad boy" traits to be sure (I certainly do) but that doesn't mean you have to become an irresponsible, loser. There are undeniably some things about a "bad boy" that makes women's panties wet. We can take the good without the bad.

The baddest dudes on the planet are probably rocking $4000 suits and flying around on private jets. These are the guys that are truly influential and dominant. Some tough-guy alchie might be well known on his block but these suits have politicians on speed dial and are probably influencing decisions that will affect you and millions of people. Now that is influence.

 

[Lexington]

95% of the forum would equate BB with a bad boy

People called Bible Belt a lot of things in that thread, but no one was calling him a "bad boy."

95% would equate Lex with a future beta male and (according to this forum)

Hey man, NOT cool!

one can be responsible and be an alpha male. one can hold done a job, better himself and not be a chump / still get laid

I agree 100% with this. I don't think anyone is disputing this including Danger.

I don't think we disagree on a lot here. The only thing we disagree on is whether the Manosphere is promoting irresponsibility or not. I really don't think it is.

If we asked most people in the Manosphere who they admire, I guarantee you very few people would say they admire broke or irresponsible people. They'd almost certainly all list successful businessmen, influential politicians (e.g. Benjamin Franklin), respected athletes and great warriors.

I could see how some people could misinterpret some examples that Manosphere writers provide but it's not the objective of most folks in the Manosphere to promote irresponsibility and not pursuing success. The exception to that might be the MGTOW folks if you even consider them part of the Manosphere.

 

[The_411]

You can take from the manosphere what you want. I don't know that they're promoting anything other than tellling men to acknowledge the inequity of marriage for men, women have agendas, and women are predispose to lie, cheat, steal.

As for looks v game etc. It's not a static equation. Part of becoming good with women is knowing your audience and best players are able to pre-select their targets knwoing what they'll respond.

That being said a fat balding guy has much smaller margin for error than the 6' + guy with an athletic build rock hard abs and a deep voice. If you don't think that this is the case then yes you are deluding yourself. However; it doesn't mean you can't do well with women it jsut means your game needs to be tighter.

I'm with Lexington in saying game is about realizing your potential. The better game the more you are realizing your potential.

 

[backbreaker]

Danger,

What sosuave myth are you talking about? At 37 BB's girlfriend is EXACTLY what we say happens here. She spent her relatively hottest years with the "bad boy" (assuming BB is a Bad Boy) only to leave the moment she wants to have a baby.

Guess where she is going to go? To the nice-guy beta.

Rings completely true to me with what is spoken about here. The problem is, like I mentioned in my post, is that you and Zekko are not applying necessary context. HER AGE.

the point being discussed isn't why she left BB, if that were the case you would be correct. the point is that as a bad boy, bible belt's only option is an overweight woman who stopped putting out, even though she as you said, wants a baby. now that i think about it, that doesn't add up lol. why would she stop putting out if she wants a child. anyway, because he has no other options, he schemes to get back this woman.

the point being made isn't that she left him because he's a bad boy. the point being made is that as a bad boy, he has no options and because he really doesn't have anything going for him, no self esteem to be alone, so thus is forced to make ti work with a woman who recently dumped him.

you could argue that BB is not a true bad boy,i don't know too many bad boy lawyers lol and i would agree with you, but for the sake of this discussion BB has a lot of traits that this forum and the manopshere in general, praises, which are synonymous with what the manophere dreams as an alpha male.

1. he doesn't support women financially
2. he doesn't have a career
3. he spends all his time working on martial arts


Now it's not for me to say rather these traits are things that are right or wrong, but the are all facts.

Now, before you say that i'm pulling **** out of my ass in regards to what the manophere says is and is not alpha male here are some quotes from this very forum

I am totally not interested in being a white knight provider. I'm also not interested in being flashy trying to impress people. I'm more interested in building the pile bigger and building an empire. So I guess no women for me eh?

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2037624&postcount=7

Alpha fux, beta bux, omega dux. Being a nice (no giney tingles) guy is a great way to go to the friendzone for exploitation and extortion!

Attraction (nerd working at Google possibly making 6 figures) is not arousal (Serial killer drug dealer). Women have fingered themselves to the Boston terrorist, but when was the last time you heard of a woman fingering herself to Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates? Probably never. But they do for George Clooney, Brad Pitt, hell even for most other serial killers! Women lust for these types, and cry to beta males (friends) about them not being wanted by said celeb or serial killers. Of course, beta gets led around on false hope thinking he has a chance.

a moderator no less.

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2035956&postcount=12

But @ OP men mature in the relationship because the woman is sucking all the childlike fun out of him. - At least thats what I see anyway

so we have a mod saying that a man that is in a relationship with a woman is obviously a boring guy for no other reason than he's in a relationship. so to be cool you have to be single and not have any responsibility

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2055926&postcount=5

Right? People have been conditioned that they must "grow up". Growing up simply means becoming a more predictable consumer/debt accumulator. When you can predict peoples behaviors then you can drive society however you wish. You are functioning in society's best interests which may not be compatible to your own best interests.

Once a girl has a child... she is now a mother and a woman. That is TOTALLY different to the girl you once knew. When that baby comes out of her... she might as well be dead.... That girl is no more....

First of all... a woman who has a child will always love that child more than her husband... you are now no#2... sorry boy.....add a second kid and you are now her no#3..... down you slip.... add a nanny or house keeper and you're beneath her too... since the nanny is vital to your baby momma's care of the children and YOU ARE NOT ... not so much boy.....

sorry.......


down you slip......

children need constant attention, care, birthday parties, Christmas presents, school concerts... she loves her kids more than she loves you.... children NOT a husband makes a woman complete.....

Did you enjoy your childhood and school years ?

nah... pretty mundane and crap right..... well guess what.... she did.... and she's happy to be back in all that childish world, because in truth.... she thinks much like a child does... but she's also a mother.... she's your mother now..... you are roped to school functions, other kids birthday parties, minding the kids and all manner of tedious and mundane chores....

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2052646&postcount=1

this is actually the post that made me start this thread. now, per the poster here, kids in themselves are obviously tools used by women to control men, and there is no reason that a man should ever want a child and if he does he's a BETA male.

on a side note what gets me about the guys arguing against kids is that they all say "well now she doenst love you more than than she loves the child". get what id on't love my wife more than i love my child either and i'm crazy about my wife. if someone put a gun to my head and made me chose between my wife and my child my wife would be getting her last rites. Which in turn makes me wonder if that person has kids and if they do, i pray for them because they are being neglected emotionally.


Back to my point Danger. I'm not saying that men can't be alpha males, DJs whatever you want to call it and have jobs. **** i like to think i'm pretty ****ing DJish and i am all about my career. I don't have to look any further than my own life and my relationship with women / my wife.

I am not saying that men can't be fathers and be DJs, again, see above. I also know for instance rollo, warrior, both have daughters. i onsider both to be dJs of the highest regard

I am not saying that anyone that has money is a BETA male. again, myself.

so do not tell me that i don't get it and that i don't understand what the manosphere is saying or is about.

I'm saying that the manosphere is producing irresponsible men because they aren't taking the time to show the difference, or differentiate between one or the other.

you can't have PROVIDER without having the word BETA in the same sentence, as my post above i quoted showed. You cant be career minded for no other reason than that's what you think you should be doing, if you are career minded according to the manosphere, it's because you want to use money to attract chicks. If you want kids its because women want them not because you want them. Have you eve rseen the word alpha provider in the same sentence? that's pretty much exactly hat lex is. that's what I am. there is nothing BETA about me and i pay all the bills here. What about DJ dad?

why does the word provider even have a negative stigmatism in the first place? lol i know why. but i want to here the answer.

If we agree as a whole that women like men who are alpha males, and alpham ales are leaders of packs, and leaders of packs generally are more powerful or make more money than their counterparts (in general), how come that same alpha male is now a BETA male when he finds a woman he likes and puts a ring on her finger?

the answer, is because somewhere along the line, we stopped being in the business of molding alpha males and started changing the barometers of what an alpha male is to make it easier to associate with the avg manosphere reader, rather than telling them the cold hard truth; the reason they aren't getting laid is because well, they suck.

and don't tell me we aren't saying it because i just quoted us saying exactly that above


I've said this before. I got the motivation, courage and all that **** to start my first business, from this very site. That's the sole reason i put up with the **** i put up with, the sole reason i keep coming back, because a handful of people on the internet changed the path of my life and gave me courage to be a man. That's why i'm so admiant about this issue because we have stopped doing that. When i was told look, you aren't responsible for what you did up until now, you were conditioned wrong but we are going to reprogram you and now you are responsible for your life. Now, 10 years late,r we are telling anyone who tries, is a not a true alpha male and if you by chance do hook up with a smoking hot woman who likes you, it's not because you are cool it's because you sold out

the people who are doing good are those who seem to be able to "keep what they need and leave the rest". Because "the rest" will leave you bitter , broke and HBless.

if hte manosphere is about realizing ones self worth than we should get back to that. I'm not saying there aren't some good points. But the message right now is quite distorted.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I probably shouldn't say this, but I just thought of another angle on the "responsible male" vs. "bad boy" argument. Take a look at the other thread on the Mature Man board that has been drawing a lot of activity:

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=205269

Bible Belt and Lexington got into a bit of a dustup on here. Here we have Lexington, a respected surgeon, obviously a man who has been responsible in his life and invested in his future. And we also have Bible Belt, who has been in a weak place financially, had been depending on his girlfriend's money to help maintain his lifestyle, trains in MMA, and wants to fight his fellow poster. I'd say he represents a pretty good picture of a bad boy.

Now who do you think is getting better women? Read the thread and it should become obvious.

This is a prime example of why I give no credence to those who claim being a "bad boy" is the ultimate way to attract women.

I agree with you. Some people can keep twisting what the definition of a bad boy is or isn't but Bible_Belt is representative of typical real life bad boys.

Back to what I said form the beginning according to PUA,

If you're a (attractive) guy that gets girls you must be by default a bad boy and alpha

If you're a (unattractive) guy that doesn't get girls you must by default not be a bad boy and not alpha.

Or

A male with bad boy behaviors that gets women="Bad boy"

A male with bad boy behaviors that doesn't get women=loser, creep, borderline criminal etc.


Bad boy/alpha is just a label applied to any guy who gets girls regardless. There's not really objective standards of behavior or mentality. It's really just a label applied to results with women. A better label would be womanizer, player, Don Juan, Casanova, hot guy, even philanderer etc. And it would really mean the same thing without the irrelevant "bad boy" connotation. It's mostly just semantics.

 

[The_411]

Danger,






the point being discussed isn't why she left BB, if that were the case you would be correct. the point is that as a bad boy, bible belt's only option is an overweight woman who stopped putting out, even though she as you said, wants a baby. now that i think about it, that doesn't add up lol. why would she stop putting out if she wants a child. anyway, because he has no other options, he schemes to get back this woman.

the point being made isn't that she left him because he's a bad boy. the point being made is that as a bad boy, he has no options and because he really doesn't have anything going for him, no self esteem to be alone, so thus is forced to make ti work with a woman who recently dumped him.

you could argue that BB is not a true bad boy,i don't know too many bad boy lawyers lol and i would agree with you, but for the sake of this discussion BB has a lot of traits that this forum and the manopshere in general, praises, which are synonymous with what the manophere dreams as an alpha male.

1. he doesn't support women financially
2. he doesn't have a career
3. he spends all his time working on martial arts


Now it's not for me to say rather these traits are things that are right or wrong, but the are all facts.

Now, before you say that i'm pulling **** out of my ass in regards to what the manophere says is and is not alpha male here are some quotes from this very forum



http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2037624&postcount=7




a moderator no less.

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2035956&postcount=12




so we have a mod saying that a man that is in a relationship with a woman is obviously a boring guy for no other reason than he's in a relationship. so to be cool you have to be single and not have any responsibility

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2055926&postcount=5






http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2052646&postcount=1

this is actually the post that made me start this thread. now, per the poster here, kids in themselves are obviously tools used by women to control men, and there is no reason that a man should ever want a child and if he does he's a BETA male.

on a side note what gets me about the guys arguing against kids is that they all say "well now she doenst love you more than than she loves the child". get what id on't love my wife more than i love my child either and i'm crazy about my wife. if someone put a gun to my head and made me chose between my wife and my child my wife would be getting her last rites. Which in turn makes me wonder if that person has kids and if they do, i pray for them because they are being neglected emotionally.


Back to my point Danger. I'm not saying that men can't be alpha males, DJs whatever you want to call it and have jobs. **** i like to think i'm pretty ****ing DJish and i am all about my career. I don't have to look any further than my own life and my relationship with women / my wife.

I am not saying that men can't be fathers and be DJs, again, see above. I also know for instance rollo, warrior, both have daughters. i onsider both to be dJs of the highest regard

I am not saying that anyone that has money is a BETA male. again, myself.

so do not tell me that i don't get it and that i don't understand what the manosphere is saying or is about.

I'm saying that the manosphere is producing irresponsible men because they aren't taking the time to show the difference, or differentiate between one or the other.

you can't have PROVIDER without having the word BETA in the same sentence, as my post above i quoted showed. You cant be career minded for no other reason than that's what you think you should be doing, if you are career minded according to the manosphere, it's because you want to use money to attract chicks. If you want kids its because women want them not because you want them. Have you eve rseen the word alpha provider in the same sentence? that's pretty much exactly hat lex is. that's what I am. there is nothing BETA about me and i pay all the bills here. What about DJ dad?

why does the word provider even have a negative stigmatism in the first place? lol i know why. but i want to here the answer.

If we agree as a whole that women like men who are alpha males, and alpham ales are leaders of packs, and leaders of packs generally are more powerful or make more money than their counterparts (in general), how come that same alpha male is now a BETA male when he finds a woman he likes and puts a ring on her finger?

the answer, is because somewhere along the line, we stopped being in the business of molding alpha males and started changing the barometers of what an alpha male is to make it easier to associate with the avg manosphere reader, rather than telling them the cold hard truth; the reason they aren't getting laid is because well, they suck.

and don't tell me we aren't saying it because i just quoted us saying exactly that above


I've said this before. I got the motivation, courage and all that **** to start my first business, from this very site. That's the sole reason i put up with the **** i put up with, the sole reason i keep coming back, because a handful of people on the internet changed the path of my life and gave me courage to be a man. That's why i'm so admiant about this issue because we have stopped doing that. When i was told look, you aren't responsible for what you did up until now, you were conditioned wrong but we are going to reprogram you and now you are responsible for your life. Now, 10 years late,r we are telling anyone who tries, is a not a true alpha male and if you by chance do hook up with a smoking hot woman who likes you, it's not because you are cool it's because you sold out

the people who are doing good are those who seem to be able to "keep what they need and leave the rest". Because "the rest" will leave you bitter , broke and HBless.

if hte manosphere is about realizing ones self worth than we should get back to that. I'm not saying there aren't some good points. But the message right now is quite distorted.

But is it really manosphere's responsibility to make that point?

If a guy is so easily influenced by a blog then that's a "you" problem.

As for not having a career being synomynous with being an alpha I don't think anyone has suggested as such.

I don't agree that marriage and Alpha status are mutually exclusive. What I do agree with is that if you're not getting laid enough it's a "you" problem.

Our biological imperative is to mate. Make no mistake there are many more distractions and barriers being raised which just ups the ante. These barriers are the new survival of the fittest test.

 

[zekko]

what zekko is saying is that, Lexington proves that one can be responsible and be an alpha male. one can hold done a job, better himself and not be a chump / still get laid

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. And this: Why can't the manosphere hold up more people like Lex as examples? Why can't the manosphere offer us any positive role models? Instead we get serial killers and deadbeat dads. Those are the real men that women really go for. What can we learn from them?

Just because someone is into MMA/martial arts does not make him a "bad boy".

No, but the fact that he kept threatening to beat Lex up was pretty consistent with the image.

You are, like Zekko, making the mistake of assuming Lex is Beta simply because he has a good future or job.

I want to point out that I never used the words Alpha or Beta in my post. I said Responsible Male and Bad Boy. I never said Lex was beta - you're making that connection because the manosphere is constantly equating being responsible with being beta. I don't agree with that. If you don't agree with it either, then great, we are in complete agreement.

You both complain about the "black and white" version of events, but YOU TWO are the one's who are applying it in black and white. You are too focused on one item and not paying attention to all of the other variables and how they are playing into the situation.

Look, we are all smart enough to know that things exist beyond the black and white. But there is a significant segment of the manosphere that either does not get it like we do, or they straight up believe the more black and white version. See below:

Now, before you say that i'm pulling **** out of my ass in regards to what the manophere says is and is not alpha male here are some quotes from this very forum

Nice collection of quotes there, BB. I have no doubt that if we wanted to spend the time, we could find enough similar quotes from this forum (glorifying dirtbags) to fill a document the size of the DJ Bible with them. Either Danger never reads these posts or he looks the other way when he sees them. I have an overall positive view of the manosphere (as do you, since you credit it with your getting your sh!t together), but I can't pretend that these rather large pockets don't exist.

this is actually the post that made me start this thread. now, per the poster here, kids in themselves are obviously tools used by women to control men, and there is no reason that a man should ever want a child and if he does he's a BETA male.

Usuallly I see suggestions that if you want a wife you're a beta. You didn't see this said so often five years ago, it was more about where you wanted to go as a person. Now if you want to marry you're a beta faggot.

I don't want to have children (I'm a little old for that now), but I think it's a perfectly natural thing for a man to want to have a family. Just as natural as "spreading your seed". It's a shame that the odds are so heavily stacked against such men now.

We still mold alpha males, but the difference is, you want alpha males who also submit to the feminine imperative. Or to state, you want Alpha's who will still be providers.

Problem is, the cat is out of the bag and men are waking up to the fact they are being taken advantage of.

Again I state, if women can tear up their end of the social contract, men too have the same right.

So what do you mean when you talk about men tearing up their end of the social contract? If you mean not marrying a chick so you don't have to provide for her, that's fine. If you mean live on the dole so you don't have to pay taxes into the system that supports feminists, that just makes you a parasite.

I think a responsible man should least stand on his own two feet. I guess if you just go out and get a sh!tty job so you can support yourself, that's okay, for now. I think you're asking to be in trouble later in life financially if you take this trek though. I do agree with your argument about incentives. I understand why guys might not want to try, but that still doesn't make it a good idea.

I think, as BB thinks (and as you and Lex have done) that you should put in the effort to make something of yourself - not so that they can pay into the feminist-supporting system, because it's in our best interest as individuals. We can reap the rewards. And coincidentally or not, you don't see the four of us complaining about how we can't get any women either. And we're not even douchebag ex-convicts.

 

[CollegeLife]

1. Bible Belt is not what I would consider a "bad boy", especially given his reaction to a lower SMV woman leaving him.
2. Once again from the top, she wants a child, but with a person who is financially secure.

---

She left him because she wants a baby with a better financial provider. This is all covered in "Schedules of Mating" from Rollo.

All of the qualities you list above are NOT Bad-Boy, they are Beta. Optionless Beta.

---

This is where you are taking things "too extreme". The manosphere states that bad-boys have alpha male traits and this is why they attract women.

You and Zekko twist this to say, ALL bad-boy traits attract women. This is fallacious logic at it's finest.

I think most readers of the manosphere has the ultimate goal of "being Alpha" and most understanding to be Alpha means to trigger real attraction in the woman, to be being desired - To be wanted; Not needed.

When the example of Betas always share some trait of responsibility in the description. And many of the Alpha examples have little or none. Even while those posts explores dominance or confidence or something other trait, patterns are still noticed.

You are correct none are said directly. Plenty of manosphere posts involves advice that implies a requirement of some kind of trait of responsibility to follow through. Sosuave calls to self-improve health, wealth and mind. The problem is much of the improvement tend to require the same traits that is always described with beta example and share much of the same life course.

Again, you misapply. Since when do we count a couple of posters on ss as "the manospere"? And I don't see where they are defining alpha male, LET ALONE the fact that the entire manosphere still argues on the definition of Alpha.

Let's be honest, BB was probably alpha at one point, but now he has limited future prospects and went complete beta on this girl who is looking to start a family with financial security and a provider.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE MANOSPHERE SAYS HAPPENS. EXACTLY.


One poster's opinion does not make the manosphere.

Well, one poster is not the manosphere, but does that mean he doesn't reflect it? I did linked to a number of Heartiste posts (and that guy is pretty central) and some ReturnofKings that had similar form. Even the line "Alpha fuks, beta buxs" is from Heartiste that backbreaker quoted from the moderator.

We still mold alpha males, but the difference is, you want alpha males who also submit to the feminine imperative. Or to state, you want Alpha's who will still be providers.

Problem is, the cat is out of the bag and men are waking up to the fact they are being taken advantage of.

Again I state, if women can tear up their end of the social contract, men too have the same right.

The problem is, you are holding men in an attempt to keep that at the social contract, and they (and the manosphere) are saying "fvk you" to that notion.

That's actually a tangent. The question is not why the general populace are dropping out, the question is if the manosphere is telling men to drop out. And I can see the impression even if the main voices of the manosphere don't advocate that and gives overt advice that implies doing stuff to the opposite.

While contradicts with much of the overt manosphere advice to self-improvement, the impression possible fits to the impression even as you said that it is misunderstanding. You just noted a lot of reasons men are generally dropping out, what reason we shouldn't follow if we can't be pull off the other archetype? When many of the traits to improvement is also used as part of the example of betas, when many alpha examples seems to be or do the opposite, and then posts about so-so institution is now working against you, it may imply against taking such improvements even as the next manosphere post overtly says go move out of your parent's house.

I mean let's say you want to become a doctor. That's means many of the traits of responsibility and provider traits too. But if viewing such traits of making our only desirable in the late 20's at best and seemingly by reasons of options than change in real taste, it undermines such motivation even if you want to do go that path for reasons not to attract women.

I think every men wants to desired, wants women to feel attraction. If all the example of the beta, the anti-attractive, always include such traits even not overtly told to don't have those, then it makes those traits also hesitative at best. Even if other advice and goals in life requires such traits.