#Arkhaven INFOGALACTIC #Castalia House
Happy Valentine’s Day! This hs to be one of the great radio live calls of all time. The woman’s cri de coeur is hilarious.
“What kind of people are you?”
Even an award-winning cruelty artist has no choice but to take off his hat to the hosts. They played it PERFECTLY.
Charlotte Allen writes a remarkably clear-eyed article on the evolution of Game and its social significance for American civilization:
[I]t’s a fair signal of impending social chaos when the prevailing female attitude is dissatisfaction, either mild or intense, with the workaday Joes—the good-provider beta males—whom one has already married or, in the era before the sexual and feminist revolutions, would be planning to marry because chasing alphas in bars was not a respectable option for the female middle class.
One would have to be either blind or socially autistic to fail to see the signs of economic, moral, and structural disintegration at this point. Which leads one to the obvious question: where is our Juvenal?
That there are such things as Manes, and kingdoms below ground, and punt-poles, and Stygian pools black with frogs, and all those thousands crossing over in a single bark—-these things not even boys believe, except such as have not yet had their penny bath. But just imagine them to be true—-what would Curius and the two Scipios think? or Fabricius and the spirit of Camillus? What would the legion that fought at the Cremera think, or the young manhood that fell at Cannae; what would all those gallant hearts feel when a shade of this sort came down to them from here? They would wish to be purified; if only sulphur and torches and damp laurel-branches were to be had. Such is the degradation to which we have come!
If the goal is to put men off marriage, then this sort of non-stop, ribald hilarity would appear to be an excellent way to go about it:
Let’s face it: Even the best husbands need a little punishment every now and then, even if it is just to get him to treat you like the princess you really are. In her hilarious book, 101 Ways to Torture Your Husband, Maria Garcia-Kalb talks us through some clever tactics to help us learn how to make him beg for mercy….
10. Bribe him with sex , then don’t pay up
Sex is great, but the monotony of marriage tends to stifle it, so that’s why men can be lured but the bribing manoeuvre so easily, First, withhold intimacy for two weeks. Your husband will be on a “sex fast”, he’ll be thrilled by the prospect of ‘getting some’, which is when you make your offer.
“Okay honey. We can have sex tonight if you do the washing or mow the lawn (or whatever if might be that you want him to do).”
Your man will immediately agree and get the chore done. When he comes around to “collect” his reward, tell him that the office is closed and he will have to come back tomorrow. Lick it up a notch by wearing racy underwear in bed but sleeping all night long.
The book is obviously supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, but I don’t see what is so tremendously hilarious about stating the inescapably obvious. It’s not as if men don’t know that women are unreliable when it comes to paying their debts; they are disproportionately likely to file for bankruptcy and lose their properties in foreclosure after all. This failure to understand the appeal of the unexpected is why most comediennes suck. Because they don’t actually have a sense of humor, seeing them try to tell jokes and relate amusing anecdotes is rather like watching a dog try to ride a bicycle. They just don’t seem to understand that it’s not the complaining itself that is the funny part. Now, I’m not saying this book quote isn’t funny because I find it offensive in any way, I am merely pointing out that there is nothing even remotely amusing about it. I mean, how is a woman welshing on a promise of sex any different than her telling a woman who is unemployed that she’ll pay her to clean the house for a month, followed by a subsequent refusal to pay the woman? HA HA HA HA HA! (wipes eyes) Oh dear, when you put it that way, I suppose it really IS a good one….
Now, despite the lame foundation there is a way to make it at least vaguely humorous. You see, the next morning, when our lingerie-clad princess-protagonist asks her long-suffering husband why he is so unaccountably relaxed about her failure to deliver on the promised erotic acrobatics the evening before, he shrugs and replies laconically.
“I was sorry to hear that your office was closed, but fortunately your sister’s offers 24-7 delivery.”
Of course, any man who is dumb enough to fall for the blitheringly transparent “I find it sexy when men do [insert unpleasant task that woman doesn’t want to do]” routine is a hopeless Gamma who eminently deserves whatever hell the women in his life are going to put him through.
And the female descent into invisibility. An aging British woman laments the inevitable:
As every woman of a certain age comes to learn, there is a point when you become invisible. People stop paying you attention. No doubt evolutionary biologists have explanations for this. But we know, unless we choose to ignore it, that there is all too much truth in the words of the old song: keep young and beautiful if you want to be loved and — which is part of the same thing — if you want to hold on to whatever power you had in your prime.
This female invisibility is nothing more than the natural and obvious consequence of completely failing to develop an attractive personality or interests outside of yourself. It’s also something for which no man is likely to feel the even the slightest bit of sympathy, since only the Alphas don’t know what it’s like to have been invisible to the opposite sex and they’re not inclined to be overly concerned about how an old woman not worth bagging happens to feel. As we can also see from what Roissy describes as The Wall, female invisibility actually proceeds in stages; what Ms Marrin is describing is merely the final stage in a long process which begins when the average woman hits her peak beauty somewhere between 25-27. How quickly the decline takes place depends upon the individual woman’s genetics, commitment to fitness, and diet, but it’s a natural and unavoidable process.
Of course, all this does is place the older woman on an equal footing with virtually all men, wherein she must earn social visibility through merit. However, it is difficult for those who have never had to develop their personalities or their minds, but have gotten by on their superficial attributes instead, to begin to do so after a lifetime of neglect. I once asked one of my philandering friends why he can’t seem to be content for long with any of the very beautiful women with whom he is always involved. (He’s a smart and very successful guy, definite Alpha.) His answer was that once the novelty of the new wore off, he inevitably discovered they never had anything interesting to say, which caused them to first become boring, and then downright burdensome.
But beauty does not necessarily preclude being interesting. My recommendation to women who don’t want to gradually decline into invisibility is to develop a genuine interest in things outside one’s self and one’s social circle. The fading of the superficialities may be inevitable, but the concomitant social invisibility doesn’t have to be. Just as the male athlete has to accept that his time in the spotlight is one day going to come to an end and his fans will turn their attention to younger, more capable performers, the attractive woman has to accept that the enjoyable experience of basking in the immediate arousal of the men around her will also cease in time.
What a woman does about this, either in anticipation or in response, depends entirely upon what a woman wants out of life. There is no correct answer. I’m not saying that a woman shouldn’t enjoy her moment in the sun while it lasts anymore than an athlete shouldn’t exert himself to the utmost of his potential. But I am saying that the sun will go down on your beauty, usually sooner than later, and graceless denial of the inevitable is never attractive to anyone.
The most popular fraternity on campus is inviting you to a rush party on a Greek-dominated campus. You’re assured that there’s a very good chance that you’re in. Do you:
a) Show up, be excited, and join. Both Alphas and Betas will answer this way, as being sought by the best group only confirms their self-regard. The Alpha, however, will likely be an officer at some point in the next four years. Remember, you can’t be at the top of the social hierarchy without being a part of it.
b) Show up, be nervous and join. This is the Delta answer. Who wouldn’t want to belong to the most popular fraternity on campus? And yet, the Delta is quite conscious of the difference between “probably” and “definitely”.
c) Show up, make an ass of yourself, and be rejected. This could be either Alpha or Gamma. Alphas are always in competition and Gammas constantly sabotage their efforts to reach their goals because they want them so badly. Desperation is seldom attractive.
d) Don’t show up and don’t join because fraternities are lame organizations for insecure people. The genuine Gamma answer. Gammas always engage in preemptive rejection. Even if they have given up trying to belong to the popular set, deep inside they would still very much like to. If you see a guy wearing a GDI sweatshirt, he’s definitely a Gamma.
e) Don’t show up and don’t join because you forgot. This is the Sigma answer. The real Sigma doesn’t feign indifference, it truly doesn’t matter to him. While I was quite pleased to be invited to rush by Delta Upsilon, it wasn’t a big deal one way or another and I just completely forgot about it. They invited me back anyhow, but by that time I was over the idea. Remember, Sigmas aren’t only strange, they tend to be unpredictable.
f) Don’t show up because you suspect a joke being made at your expense. Omega baby! It’s amazing how incredibly narcissistic losers can be. And yet, it’s not entirely impossible. Paranoia doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you and no one knows better than the Omega how cruel people can be.
g) Show up and give one of the brothers a blow-job in the bathroom. And that would be Lambda, obviously.
I have a great deal of respect for Roissy’s analysis of the female psyche. Even the mere terms he applies, in addition to being hilarious, provide tremendous insight for the average, clueless man who finds himself bewildered by the behavior of women around him. After all, what man could possibly assign much importance to the logical conclusions of a woman’s “rationalization hamster”. And many of the techniques he recommends will significantly increase the average man’s ability to get off on the right foot with women regardless of whether a casual encounter or marriage is the goal.
However, it must be kept in mind that Roissy’s social construction of Game is intentionally limited in two ways. The overly simplistic division of men into Alphas and Betas is the natural result of his laser-like focus on scoring vs not scoring. Either you score or you don’t score; scoring is Alpha and not-scoring is Beta. QED. And this singular, binary focus also leaves out the many other applications of the male social hierarchy that have nothing to do with women, much less sex. Note that this is not a criticism of Roissy’s construct or his conclusions, but rather a tangential expansion of it. Whereas in Game there are only Alphas who score and Betas who don’t, except for the Betas who learn the secret of becoming synthetic Alphas, I have come over time to view things in the following manner:
Alphas – the male elite, the leaders of men for whom women naturally lust. Their mere presence sets women a-tingle regardless of whether she is taken or not. Once you’ve seen beautiful married women ignoring tall, handsome, wealthy, and even famous men because that ugly old troll Henry Kissinger walked in the room, you simply can’t deny the reality of Alphadom. Example: Captain Kirk, Big from Sex in the City. Suggestion: Do you see a scoreboard? Right, so relax already!
Betas – the lieutenants, the petty aristocracy. They’re popular, they do well with women, they’re pretty successful in life, and they may even be exceptionally good-looking. But they lack the Alpha’s natural self-confidence and strength of character. They’re not leaders and they’re not the men to whom women are helplessly drawn. Most men who like to think they’re Alphas because of their success are actually Betas. Most Betas won’t change their game because they don’t really have any need or reason to do so. This is probably the easiest social slot in which to find yourself, since the Beta enjoys many of the benefits of Alphadom without being trapped in the Alpha’s endless cycle of competition. Example: Brad Pitt Suggestion: Have some compassion for the less naturally fortunate. Try to include them once in awhile.
Deltas – the great majority of men. These are Roissy’s Betas. Almost all of you reading this are Deltas despite the natural desire to believe that you are a brave and bold Alpha snowflake notwithstanding. Deal with it. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being a Delta, it’s just a simple statistical and observable reality. The sooner you accept the truth about yourself, the sooner you will be able to control your unconscious inclinations and modify your behavior in a manner that will help you achieve your goals. I’ve gone out of alphabetical order here because delta symbolizes change, which most Deltas are capable to some extent. Hence the synthetic alpha instruction set known as Game. Example: Probably you. Suggestion: Never forget that there are plenty of girls on the girl tree.
Gammas – the obsequious ones, the posterior puckerers, the nice guys who attempt to score through white-knighting, faux-chivalry, flattery, and omnipresence. All men except true Alphas will occasionally fall into Gamma behavior from time to time, this is the behavior and attitude that Roissy is attempting to teach men to recognize and avoid. The dividing line between a Gamma and a Delta is that the Gamma genuinely believes in the Gamma reality to the very core of his soul whereas the Delta is never truly comfortable with himself when he behaves in this manner despite being thoroughly indoctrinated in it by his culture. Example: Probably you if you’ve found yourself complaining about your lack of female companionship over the last two years. Suggestion: Remember that the statement “all are fallen” applies to women too. She isn’t any more naturally pure or holy or ethereal than you are.
Lambdas – the gays. They have their own social hierarchy. They can fill any role from Alpha to Omega, but they tend to play the part rather than actually be it because the heterosexual social construct only encompasses the public part of their lives. Example: Neil Patrick Harris. Suggestion: Straights will be more tolerant if you keep the bathhouse behavior behind closed doors.
Sigmas – the lone wolves. Occasionally mistaken for Alphas, particularly by women and Alphas, they are not leaders and will actively resist the attempt of others to draft them. Alphas instinctively view them as challenges and either dislike or warily respect them. Some Deltas and most Omegas fancy themselves Sigmas, but the true Sigma’s withdrawal from the pack is not a reaction to the way he is treated, it is pure instinct. Example: Clint Eastwood’s movie persona. Suggestion: Entertain the possibility that other people are not always Hell. The banal idiocy is incidental, it’s not intentional torture.
Omegas – the losers. Even the Gamma males despise them. That which doesn’t kill them can make them stronger, but most never surmount the desperate need to belong caused by their social rejection. Omegas can be the most dangerous of men because the pain of their constant rejection renders the suffering of others completely meaningless in their eyes. Omegas tend to cluster in defensive groups; the dividing line between the Omega and the Sigma is twofold and can be easily recognized by a) the behavior of male Betas and Deltas and b) the behavior of women. Women tend to find outliers attractive in general, but while they respond to Sigmas almost as strongly as they do to Alphas, they correctly find Omega males creepier and much scarier than Gamma males. Example: Eric Harris Suggestion: Your rejection isn’t entirely personal. Observe the difference in your own behavior and the way the Betas act. And try not to start off conversations with women by sharing “interesting facts” with them.
I’m not claiming that this hierarchy is science or incontrovertible fact, it’s merely the lens through which I tend to view the current sexual-social hierarchy. I think it is a little more broadly useful from a theoretical perspective than the Game construct, even if it is less immediately applicable from a tactical point of view.
Retha wonders how a Christian woman can appeal to men:
I find the comments interesting. I am a Christian woman in my mid thirties. When I was young, I did not look out for a man – was too busy doing ministry work in my spare time to look for boyfriends. For that reason or some other reason, men did not approach me for dating/ courtship either. My attitude about marriage was “If we can serve God together, I may consider marrying some day. Otherwise – no way.”
I now realize that I actually want to marry and have kids, but I don’t even know how to meet men. I want to ask the Christian men here: What- except effort with my looks- can I do to be at all the kind of woman that a man who love God will want to marry?
One thing that Christian women often fail to understand is that a single-minded devotion to Jesus will drive away most men almost as effectively as a feminist woman’s narcissistic devotion to her education and career. This is true of Christian and non-Christian men alike. It’s not that men don’t respect your devotion, it’s just that they tend to consider you off the market as a sort of Protestant equivalent of a nun. You’re basically telling them that they will never be as important to you as they would be to pretty much any other woman, so it should come as little surprise that they tend to pursue those other women in preference to you.
After all, what sort of man wants to build a life with a woman who makes it unmistakably clear that his wife’s priority will always be others, not her marriage? I suppose it’s possible that you might theoretically meet a man who puts the same emphasis on ministry to others that you do, but if you consider how many men go seriously into ministry, it’s pretty clear that the odds are stacked against you. It’s about as realistic as the girl with the MBA who will only consider marrying a CEO. The fact is that there just aren’t very many of them.
So, what can you do. First, you can’t simply wave off the looks aspect. That’s the single most important element of a woman’s attractiveness to men, not so much where you rate on the 1-10 scale, but rather what sort of signals you are using your appearance to send. Most women make it very clear that they dress to please other women, not men, so if you do the opposite you will definitely stand out. I’m not talking about “going to a nightclub on Miami Beach” clothing, as much as I personally like that style, but rather wearing your hair long and down, wearing clothes that flatter most of whatever assets you happen to have, ignoring whatever the latest styles are, and paying far more attention to what the men around you happen to think looks good on you than you do to what your female friends tell you. Unless you’re trying to attract a woman, don’t dress in order to please them and their neurotic insecurities.
On the behavioral side, try to be aware of the presence of men in your vicinity. Don’t huddle with other women in public places like a herd of musk oxen trying to defend themselves; if you’re with a group of women, sit a bit back from them and scan the crowd occasionally to see who is checking out your group. Don’t look away from men who look at you. If a man is looking at you and you want to give him a shot, meet his eyes directly and smile. If he’s interested, he’ll approach you, if he’s not, he’ll smile politely, nod, and turn away. If he looks away quickly, he’s probably a gamma and may or may not approach you; if he does he’ll do so in a shy, hesitant, and overly polite manner that will make you want to kick him. Regardless, you’ve given the “all clear” signal, that’s all you really have to do. Be friendly and straightforward, and don’t be afraid to talk about your faith. If nothing else, it will protect you from all the players.
As for meeting men, I strongly suggest taking up a hobby or two that is male dominated. You’ll meet lots of men at martial arts studios, gaming stores, sports bars on game nights, car shows, and the free weight room. Set aside one evening a week to adventure into alien territory and you’ll meet more new men in a month than you have in the last year. I’ve never quite understood how people try to meet the opposite sex in places that the opposite sex never goes. If you’re hunting ducks, you don’t go to the desert, after all.
Now, you are who you are. You’re not going to change that now. But if you present yourself in an attractive and open manner, refuse to let yourself be a bitch or a wallflower, and content yourself with men who are in your physical and social league, you should be able to find what you are seeking. The Bible even says “seek and ye shall find”, so the question you have to ask yourself is if you have really been seeking or not.
I found the juxtaposition of these two Telegraph articles to be more than a little amusing. First is one Becky Pugh expressing an all-too-typical female opinion on the wisdom of settling for a husband rather than holding out for the Sex in the City dream of a tame Alpha who is chastened by the near-loss of the precious snowflake he almost permitted to get away:
Time and again, Sex and the City’s Carrie Bradshaw could have walked off into the sunset with kind, wholesome Aidan. But she didn’t. Instead, she valiantly endured years of pain while she listened to her instincts and waited for Mr Big. She was right: just look at them now (as far as we know they are living happily ever after, which is where we left them at the end of the first movie). Like Jane Eyre and Carrie Bradshaw, most women would rather wait for Mr Right, and risk ending up alone, than settle for dependable, passionless Mr Second Best…. it’s easy to see how the temptation to skip down the aisle with Mr He’ll Have To Do Because He Is The Only Impregnator Available To Me is a strong one. But, even so, Gottlieb’s watershed age of 30 is fantastically mean.
I note, with a straight face marred only by the occasional twitch to indicate the degree of silent inner mirth I feel, that Jane Eyre and Carrie Bradshaw are both fictional characters and it just may possibly be sub-optimal for a woman to base her relationship philosophy upon them. Can you even imagine what women would say if a man wrote a column recommending men to base some of their most significant life decisions on the lifestyle choices of Aquaman and the Green Lantern? And if she thinks Ms Gottlieb’s watershed age of 30 is “fantastically mean”, one wonders how she’ll describe the latest scientific research on age and fertility.
While they may continue to produce eggs throughout their 30s and 40s, the reservoir of potential eggs from which they are taken has shrunk to almost nothing, it suggests. As the body chooses the best eggs from the reserve, the likelihood is that the quality of the eggs will suffer as you get older increasing the difficulty of conception and the risk of an unhealthy baby….
It shows that on average women are born with 300,000 potential egg cells but this pool declines at a much faster rate than first thought. By the age of 30 there is only 12 per cent left on average and by the age of 40 just three per cent. Dr Hamish Wallace, the co-author, said: “Our research shows that they are generally over-estimating their fertility prospects.”
If there is one thing that a single woman between the ages of 18-25 badly needs to understand, it is this: there are plenty of girls on the girl tree. They make new ones every day. And it probably wouldn’t hurt that single woman to keep in mind that while there will always be men who will be interested in her, the social status and perceived quality of those men will begin to decline drastically somewhere between the age of 25 and 30. Ask a gamma male; they all know that a woman at 30 is much more in play for them than she was five years before. In fact, that’s precisely the sort of thing they rely upon in order to land a halfway-attractive woman.
In which we are amused by feminist complaints about t-shirts expressing improper thoughts of which Women Do Not Approve:
The woman in the ‘Annie Hollywood’ t-shirt (produced by ‘Blood Is The New Black’) looks as though she has been roughed up. She appears disheveled and exhausted, her image reminiscent of a crime scenes photo. The other two women have a strip across their eyes, suggesting a loss of identity and dehumanisation. Their semi-naked bodies are pimped through a t-shirt.
The designs are not iconic. They’re not retro (even if adapting a Roxy Music album cover). They’re not art. What we are seeing here is the glamourising of abuse, the suggestion of sexual aggression, a hint that women want to be treated roughly.
Somehow, I seem to have ended up on an Australian feminist mailing list… I can only suspect Jamie. But the best part about the email was the comment that accompanied the link: “This is really appalling and deserves attention. Could they even be charged with inciting violence? I’d be interested in a legal opinion.”
You can always trust a woman to attempt criminalizing opinions with which she disagrees. No, you insanely cretinous would-be fascist, those t-shirt makers cannot reasonably “be charged with inciting violence” anymore than the makers of t-shirts featuring Che Guevara and Mao Tse-tung can. And what did you expect the male reaction would be to the feminist attempt to transform every form of sex that falls short of explicit written consent confirmed by ex post facto notarization by a third party into rape anyway? If rape has become a joke to men; it is only because women, specifically feminist women, have made it so. For example, it would take a heart of stone not to find vast amusement in Amynda’s tale of her terrifying “near-rape” experience that involved neither rape nor actual sex.
It is simply absurd to pretend that no doesn’t often mean yes. There is an abundance of evidence proving otherwise. And there’s a word for men who take women at their collective word with regards to matters of sex, romance, and love. The word is “lonely”. Or, if you prefer, “loser”. Women aren’t particularly attracted to nice men who treat them well, they’re primarily attracted to bastards who don’t give a damn about them, who simply want to nail them and nail them hard.
I don’t agree with everything that Roissy and the players write about Game; I find their interpretation to be a synthetic and subject-limited form of Alpha. But Roissy is nevertheless dead-on correct with regards to what pushes the average woman’s buttons.* This, of course, is exactly why a man wearing an “offensive” Roger David t-shirt is much more likely to score than a man wearing a female-approved Take Back the Night one.
And if you don’t find the tagline “Blood is the New Black” funny, well, there’s clearly something wrong with you.
* NB: On behalf of women who don’t understand the concept of “average”: yes, we already know and acknowledge that there are women who belong to the statistical minority. The group in which you personally happen to fall is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Science proves that the average woman quits trying to stay in shape once she get married:
It is widely known that women tend to gain weight after giving birth, but now a large study has found evidence that even among childless women, those who live with a mate put on more pounds than those who live without one. The differences, the scientists found, were stark. After adjusting for other variables, the 10-year weight gain for an average 140-pound woman was 20 pounds if she had a baby and a partner, 15 if she had a partner but no baby, and only 11 pounds if she was childless with no partner…. There is no reason to believe that having a partner causes metabolic changes, so the weight gain among childless women with partners was almost surely caused by altered behavior.
A recent British survey showed similar conclusions, as 22 percent of new brides put on an average of 21 pounds in their first year of marriage. Which shouldn’t be surprising, given that “More than half said they no longer worried about their appearance and weight after their big day.”
Basically, if you’re not marrying a gym bunny, there’s a pretty good chance she’s going to pork on you the moment she gets that ring. On the other hand, if you see a slender, attractive woman over the age of 30 with a child at the beach in Europe, you can be almost certain that she has between two and four more. For some reason, the chubbos tend to have only one child, occasionally two, while the slender ones average four. But I have no idea whether this is the result of being disciplined, being too busy to sit around and eat, or some combination of the two. Regardless, I’m sure some evolutionary enthusiast can concoct a fairy tale to explain it.