# Why are guys so beta nowadays?



## Potatooesunshinerays (Dec 26, 2017)

In dating guys literally, no one of them has a personality. like totally no one is faking it.
I'm almost done with this dating thing because every guy is more fake than the previous one.

This guy just said " giving her pleasure is what gives me pleasure" what level of doormat are you.


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

They masturbate too often, squandering their testosterone on Internet porn.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Same thing can be said about women. In most cases men approach women, in most cases women are there waiting, in some regions they just pick making it difficult to really see things in the short term. People get nervous too, and sometimes people try to be too pleasing, too soft, too "whatever you want my queen" just to get your attention. On the other hand (years later as a man) it becomes boring when women just pretend dating to become a situation where men must prove them something, impact them, convince, etc.

Pleasure? I enjoy what you can consider the full spectrum of men-like-from-women but nothing gets me going so fast like seeing a woman getting pleasure, I'm a giver, this doesn't mean I'm a pleasure giver always or that I just live for that. Was dating this woman who flirted and wanted us to have sex (see what I did there? that's being mature, I didn't say "she wanted to have sex with me", it's about two), well then on the bed she smiled and invited me to convince her... WTF? yes "convince me" ha ha, Oh dear, put your clothes on and I left. She cried, damn adults don't have time for that kind of games, nobody is doing nobody a favor. I see some people confuse kindness with dumbness, pleasure giving with submission, submission with having no soul, etc.

So don't confuse sexual style preference to absence of personality or character, while that can happen, quick judging only reveals fails to get to know people, not their problem, but actually yours (this is pretty common on women, hope you don't take it the wrong way, and take it as it is), many expect men to impress them, well that can happen when both are very young, immature, things get really interesting as both get older, in fact many men prefer dating older women (and totally unrelated to mommy stuff).


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

enjoy your lack of orgasms with the 'alpha' guy you'll find xD


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

This morning I heard a lot of squeaking noises for almost 30 minutes straight. I thought it was coming from downstairs but it was really the next door roommate. I heard what sounded like a female gasping in combination of the bed squeaking. Either they were having sex or someone was bouncing up and down on the bed for 30 minutes. But the key here is that it was 30 minutes straight. A person cannot be doing it for that long unless they have some sort of dysfunction that prevents them from ejaculating in a timely manner or if they are total beta males who try to keep going after their body is done. At that point, they are physically injuring and hurting themselves. It's only 25% pleasure and 75% pain at that point. Total beta male.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> This morning I heard a lot of squeaking noises for almost 30 minutes straight. I thought it was coming from downstairs but it was really the next door roommate. I heard what sounded like a female gasping in combination of the bed squeaking. Either they were having sex or someone was bouncing up and down on the bed for 30 minutes. But the key here is that it was 30 minutes straight. A person cannot be doing it for that long unless they have some sort of dysfunction that prevents them from ejaculating in a timely manner or if they are total beta males who try to keep going after their body is done. At that point, they are physically injuring and hurting themselves. It's only 25% pleasure and 75% pain at that point. Total beta male.


Your comment comes as something very, very interesting. Sometimes you can talk with a religious person and turns out everything is arguable from their standpoint, even if someone looses, dies, etc, "it was due to X reason" and it's a winner (depending how the person needs this to work on the big scheme of his beliefs. 

A guy having sex with a woman for 30 minutes straight. Ok, you say total beta male because he is like what? denying his own pleasure? putting her pleasure first? and a million of other reasons. The funny thing is, to some women that's an alpha male, someone who can control himself for hours with no orgasm just to satisfy a woman. I had people explaining me this as their conclusion of a true alpha male... this is very interesting because the same way many women say that a true alpha male can take shit forever without complaining, because that's being a man. I guess paper and words can be very elastic huh?


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> enjoy your lack of orgasms with the 'alpha' guy you'll find xD


Exactly what I was referring to on the previous quote, how some women can call that being a powerful man because basically can endure (and endure abuse too), and yes some men believe this too when they are instead of being alpha, they are like a tool in there. This is (as the example of a religious guy) what can ruin a thread because it would jump from extreme to extreme as diff arguments that make no sense because they refer mostly to what the person saying those words wants them to mean.


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

Potatooesunshinerays said:


> In dating guys literally, no one of them has a personality. like totally no one is faking it.
> I'm almost done with this dating thing because every guy is more fake than the previous one.


I can say the same about most women I've met. :O

Many persons are like this to me:




Endless social exhausting knocking and no one is home.


----------



## Warp11 (Jul 13, 2016)

I don't think deriving pleasure from someone else's pleasure makes you a doormat. Unless you're this guy...








Reciprocity is the key to a balanced sex life.


----------



## Amine (Feb 23, 2014)

It's not good to have men in charge. Men don't like to spend money and buy shit.


----------



## Manuscript (Feb 12, 2017)

SkyRacerX said:


> I don't think deriving pleasure from someone else's pleasure makes you a doormat.


The OP is suggesting that their date was being fake / deceptive by claiming to care more about his partner's pleasure than his own, and would prefer that he would assert his own desires rather than try and change his image to impress her. The OP was not particularly coherent and went with a confused version of the alpha/beta concept to get this across, but there's a valid point buried underneath.

It brings to mind how Valeria Solanas, who literally wanted to kill all men, bemoaned how "[a man is] incapable of zestfully, lustfully, tearing off a piece, but instead is eaten up with guilt, shame, fear and insecurity". The argument is that men ought to be actively taking joy in their partners' bodies rather than feeling anxiety over their sexual performance or their ability to give pleasure, which paradoxically disrupts their capacity to do so.

Apparently I'm bored enough to wander into this wasteland of a sub-forum and try to turn a random venting post into something vaguely interesting. I don't actually know anything about sex anyway, but I can throw a citation at you.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

changos said:


> Your comment comes as something very, very interesting. Sometimes you can talk with a religious person and turns out everything is arguable from their standpoint, even if someone looses, dies, etc, "it was due to X reason" and it's a winner (depending how the person needs this to work on the big scheme of his beliefs.
> 
> A guy having sex with a woman for 30 minutes straight. Ok, you say total beta male because he is like what? denying his own pleasure? putting her pleasure first? and a million of other reasons. The funny thing is, to some women that's an alpha male, someone who can control himself for hours with no orgasm just to satisfy a woman. I had people explaining me this as their conclusion of a true alpha male... this is very interesting because the same way many women say that a true alpha male can take shit forever without complaining, because that's being a man. I guess paper and words can be very elastic huh?


When it comes down to it all, it is just a matter of arbitrarily picking the who is right and who is wrong. See, I have heard females say that they think guys are not performing if the guys do not last long enough. On one hand, I want to say that's kind of a judgemental attitude for the girl to say that (isn't having fun with it a good way of looking it instead of competitively?) On the other hand, maybe the guy is selfish and only cares about his own pleasure and ignores her desires. Who is more right? I think it's arbitrary to choose between the two. Either person could be painted as either a victim or a perpetrator of some vile act just by shifting the perspective. It can be argued either way.


----------



## CaboBayCaptain1297 (Mar 19, 2016)

They grew up with Nickelodeon, which loves Beta Male X Alpha Female relationships;

- Betty and Howard

- SpongeBob and Sandy

- Timmy and Vickie

- Sam and Freddy


----------



## Deprecator (Aug 21, 2017)

Potatooesunshinerays said:


> In dating guys literally, no one of them has a personality.


Probably because you're so timid and shy that you only feel comfortable enough to accept dates from betas who go on and on about poetry, anime and wage gap myths. 

Someoneon like myself on the otherhand... women here openly concede that they are super afraid of me and are so insecure about their infriority that they refuse to talk to me. After all, I don't mind pointing out why they're being irrational or how often they contradict themselves... actions that no beta male feminist could ever hope to pull off.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Any wise female humanoid would say Alpha male fuck(s) (21-28), and beta bucks (28-38), as beta males are usually_ sexually or socially inept_ compared to female-specimen(s) within the same bracket. Only an alpha male can keep up with the pysiology - high-functioning socially adept brains/(social complexities] of a female-humanoid between ages (21-28), as Alpha males are biologically designed to appeal to feminine-technique. Due to feminine technique (e.g., socially sauve), the alpha appeal(s) to, he is less likely to have deep/interesting personality (similar to most female-specimens - who due to feminine-essence lack deep personalities or any personality at all without masculine energy present [either creating it (ex; "men in charge") via the male or encouraging it via influence). Personality is not needed for reproductive fitness. 

Intelligent male beta specimen(s) settle for a nice alpha female, and start a family or long-term relation. As beta women (have already been impregnated by gamma men and/or are demonstrably inept for long-term relations). Female specimen(s) attempted to chain an alpha male will never be pleased outside of coital-affairs (&) reproductive instinct. Only the beta male adapts due to higher IQ. Also, not just a fat-pocket, but also a sharing mentality. It is possible to train the beta-male further in marriage. Refusal to adapt result(s) in divorce. Alpha males share selfishly - beta male specimen(s) share selflessly. You would want a selfless male-humanoid for long-term and a selfish male-humanoid to appease the females natural sexual instincts.


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

Lack of role models, poor parenting, lack of masculine culture, liberal brainwashing and so on.


----------



## sherlock8311 (Feb 16, 2018)

People wanted rid of masculinity as it was classed as toxic. So we are left with these specimans.
As long as women dont breed with them, they will be wiped out.
Not sure why in this day and age, when abortion is allowed, why they are born in the first place.
Who in their right mind wants to produce flawed beta offspring?????


----------



## Senah (Oct 17, 2017)

As an alpha female I am only attracted to alpha males, so those are what I find and date exclusively. They are certainly out there. I think geographic location has something to do with it, and how women present themselves and pursue men has something to do with it.



Potatooesunshinerays said:


> In dating guys literally, no one of them has a personality. like totally no one is faking it.
> I'm almost done with this dating thing because every guy is more fake than the previous one.
> 
> This guy just said " giving her pleasure is what gives me pleasure" what level of doormat are you.


Perhaps the men you choose or you let choose you is affecting who you end up with. I would say that your "no one of them has a personality" statement means that likely this has to do with something you are doing, less about what the current status of all men out there is. 



Grandmaster Yoda said:


> A person cannot be doing it for that long unless they have some sort of dysfunction that prevents them from ejaculating in a timely manner or if they are total beta males who try to keep going after their body is done. At that point, they are physically injuring and hurting themselves. It's only 25% pleasure and 75% pain at that point. Total beta male.


I disagree. My partner is completely alpha. Just for the usual pairing attributes, google Aries male and Sagittarius female and look at how the sexual relationship is characterized. This is completely accurate. Maintaining control over your partner's pleasure can be a huge turn-on for an alpha male partner (and for the female partner if she is confident and into it). Thirty minutes is well within reason if both partners are adept. I would say everyone is different in what they like, but partners comfortable with each other (2 ENTPs for example, Sag and Aries) - this is very normal. In fact, the beta version of slowly looking into each others eyes and whispering sweet nothings for 30 minutes would be a no go in the bedroom for either partner male or female in this dynamic.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> This morning I heard a lot of squeaking noises for almost 30 minutes straight. I thought it was coming from downstairs but it was really the next door roommate. I heard what sounded like a female gasping in combination of the bed squeaking. Either they were having sex or someone was bouncing up and down on the bed for 30 minutes. But the key here is that it was 30 minutes straight. A person cannot be doing it for that long unless they have some sort of dysfunction that prevents them from ejaculating in a timely manner or if they are total beta males who try to keep going after their body is done. At that point, they are physically injuring and hurting themselves. It's only 25% pleasure and 75% pain at that point. Total beta male.


are you being sarcastic? cause it seems like sarcasm to me but idk


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Senah said:


> I disagree. My partner is completely alpha. Just for the usual pairing attributes, google Aries male and Sagittarius female and look at how the sexual relationship is characterized. This is completely accurate. Maintaining control over your partner's pleasure can be a huge turn-on for an alpha male partner (and for the female partner if she is confident and into it). Thirty minutes is well within reason if both partners are adept. I would say everyone is different in what they like, but partners comfortable with each other (2 ENTPs for example, Sag and Aries) - this is very normal. In fact, the beta version of slowly looking into each others eyes and whispering sweet nothings for 30 minutes would be a no go in the bedroom for either partner male or female in this dynamic.


astrology bullshit aside
why is romantic sex "beta"?


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> are you being sarcastic? cause it seems like sarcasm to me but idk


These guys were definitely doing it. It was ridiculous how obvious it was.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

sherlock8311 said:


> People wanted rid of masculinity as it was classed as toxic. So we are left with these specimans.
> As long as women dont breed with them, they will be wiped out.


Yeah, I think this pretty much sums it up. It's difficult to do anything resembling traditional masculinity without it being taken as if you're against egalitarianism or something. But then certain beta-like behaviors are interpreted as the new, progressive way to be manly/have sex appeal.

Exhibit A: 










Remember this song? It's interesting that a feminist wrote it... it seems to be nostalgic towards traditional gender roles/chivalry dynamic. 








changos said:


> Pleasure? I enjoy what you can consider the full spectrum of men-like-from-women but nothing gets me going so fast like seeing a woman getting pleasure, I'm a giver, this doesn't mean I'm a pleasure giver always or that I just live for that.


Yeah same, and I was thinking along the same lines, what does that have to do with being a doormat? But I think the interpretation another poster gave clarifies that statement:



> The OP is suggesting that their date was being fake / deceptive by claiming to care more about his partner's pleasure than his own, and would prefer that he would assert his own desires rather than try and change his image to impress her.


( @Manuscript ; too lazy to quote after the fact)

Could also be the OP is conflating the two (thinking that getting pleasure from partner's pleasure = being fake and trying to impress).


----------



## Senah (Oct 17, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> astrology bullshit aside
> why is romantic sex "beta"?


Astrology was used as a description of what the OP was referring to as alpha which is dominant. Sexually, when someone is not dominant that is usually characterized as beta. The romantic style of sexual contact I was describing is usually described as beta. For an alpha female the male taking that role would be usually described as beta. Not saying it is good or bad, but that would be how it was characterized IMO and seemingly by the OP.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Remember this song? It's interesting that a feminist wrote it... it seems to be nostalgic towards traditional gender roles/chivalry dynamic.


Yes, feminist. And quite interesting lyric, she is a very good singer and song writer, not to mention the many times she supported Peter Gabriel (the importance is both are very social singers, not just music). I remember reading the meaning of the song (supposedly by herself) and was quite interesting, I used to tell feminist... haters? about it and how it contrasted, a feminist that was moving strings on social circles vs feminist nobody knows (that's the person I was talking about) and was mostly complaining about everything. Cool song, part of my library.

Back to the original post, there are times where older men act like that when the date is not interesting (this is unrelated to the original poster, I have no clue how your date was, so take it as unrelated, just related as a common response that can happen).


----------



## Ultio (Nov 22, 2016)

Because women forgot to be feminine and turned into spoiled brats. 

There will come a day when women have to work because men won't.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

You guys are actually using the terms "alpha" and "beta" as if they mean something. I feel sorry for the men who try hard to be "alpha" and the women who try their best to date these "alpha" males.


----------



## Mone (May 22, 2017)

Men forgot to have character, to be the man and women forgot to be caring and gentle to their men...


----------



## Ronney (Jul 17, 2016)

I'd get pleasure out of seeing the original poster being tied up naked and covered in oil.
Maybe she would get pleasure from that.
Would i be a doormat ?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Senah said:


> Astrology was used as a description of what the OP was referring to as alpha which is dominant. Sexually, when someone is not dominant that is usually characterized as beta. The romantic style of sexual contact I was describing is usually described as beta. For an alpha female the male taking that role would be usually described as beta. Not saying it is good or bad, but that would be how it was characterized IMO and seemingly by the OP.


When someone is not dominant in sex, they are submissive, not beta. It may have nothing to do with their lives outside of sex, or their social hierarchy. Ever heard of femdom? You're talking out of thin air just to feel better about yourself here.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> These guys were definitely doing it. It was ridiculous how obvious it was.


I mean about your conclusions xD


----------



## sherlock8311 (Feb 16, 2018)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Yeah, I think this pretty much sums it up. It's difficult to do anything resembling traditional masculinity without it being taken as if you're against egalitarianism or something. But then certain beta-like behaviors are interpreted as the new, progressive way to be manly/have sex appeal.


Ive seen Beta;s and soyboys and had the misfortune of working in the same office as them (actually not too bad, as never had reason to have anything to do with them), but gotta say the kind of girls/women attracted to them are not the type of girls/women that Im attracted to myself.

The type of girls/women I am attracted to and that are attracted to me, the beta's and soyboys seem to find repulsive so its winners all round really.


----------



## Manuscript (Feb 12, 2017)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Remember this song? It's interesting that a feminist wrote it... it seems to be nostalgic towards traditional gender roles/chivalry dynamic.


To some extent it's a matter of simple attraction to masculine traits. But the lyrics are about the simple lifestyle as much as the rugged man, which lends itself to an economic interpretation. That lifestyle is no longer viable for many people which naturally makes it seem more romantic. In itself, "I WILL WASH THE DISHES" is not a romantic lyric, lol. But it's all tied together. I think a lot of women are attracted to a man who wants them but doesn't need them, who are willing to act on their passions but are also secure and fulfilled in themselves. The traditional male archetype embodies a lot of that. Or something. He's not something that concretely exists, though.

I've noticed that both radical feminists and conservative women share a belief that men haven't 'upheld their side of the bargain', that women have taken on a larger share of responsibilities without proportionate rewards. The former think it's all a sham to begin with. The latter are looking for one decent man who will do the job. Like I was being edgy by quoting Valeria Solanas because I don't care for the discourse around this topic, but it's funny how the one woman who actually wanted to kill all men actually thought about them.

And I'm totally a beta soyboy cuck whatever, but it's not a game I care about playing so...



Red Panda said:


> When someone is not dominant in sex, they are submissive, not beta. It may have nothing to do with their lives outside of sex, or their social hierarchy. Ever heard of femdom? You're talking out of thin air just to feel better about yourself here.


Not what you were talking about, but I have seen some of the same complaints from dominant women about submissive men. Like, a lack of self-respect but not respecting them either. Being into the male fantasy of being pathetic and shameful but still getting the attention of an attractive woman, rather than the female fantasy of the woman holding the power and doing the objectification.


----------



## L P (May 30, 2017)

sherlock8311 said:


> *soyboy*


I died laughing.


----------



## master of time and space (Feb 16, 2017)

Potatooesunshinerays said:


> In dating guys literally, no one of them has a personality. like totally no one is faking it.
> I'm almost done with this dating thing because every guy is more fake than the previous one.
> 
> This guy just said " giving her pleasure is what gives me pleasure" what level of doormat are you.


This is not a doormat position!

Consider this

In our ideal coitus, be it heterosexual or homosexual, the other is also an end for me, in so far as I desire to give him or her enjoyment. What gives me enjoyment is not just the sexual enjoyment that I draw from the other, or even pride in my power to give enjoyment to the other, but the fact that the other takes enjoyment through me. In this light, even a very trivial act—like having sex with a prostitute: one does not frequent prostitutes to give them sexual pleasure.


----------



## isfpisfp (Sep 10, 2017)

i'm really alpha. like 99% of isfps


----------



## Senah (Oct 17, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> When someone is not dominant in sex, they are submissive, not beta. It may have nothing to do with their lives outside of sex, or their social hierarchy. Ever heard of femdom? You're talking out of thin air just to feel better about yourself here.


Just wow. 

It's amazing you don't see the irony here, especially with your comment of "Ever heard of femdom?"

I have taken the time to respond to you, and ever comment from the start to me has been dismissive, derogatory, accusatory, and basically malicious. 

The OP was talking about alpha and beta males, and I am responding with my opinion that when you are interacting with alpha males, that personality is strong and dominant. In fact, this is the definition:



> al·pha male
> noun
> the dominant male animal in a particular group.
> "two of them trotted over to greet the alpha male, a black wolf with a graying muzzle"
> a man tending to assume a dominant or domineering role in social or professional situations.


You are substituting submissive for beta, but in the example even in the definition, they are talking about dominant and submissive behavior. In the bedroom, the alpha characteristics do often continue. Not always, but often alpha males are looking for a challenge or aren't going to notice very submissive people in my opinion. They may not respect them.

In terms of the romantic issue, in fact you are the one who assigned "better or worse" characteristics to that dynamic. I am the one who said very specifically that one dynamic wasn't good or bad, that they were just different, something that I believe. When you talk about femdom, sure there are alpha males who want to be controlled by women as a relief measure. But in general I would not say that this is the majority of alpha males in the majority of spheres in their lives. Nor would this be how you would attract them. 

And thanks but I don't need to post on PerC to feel better about myself. I feel just great. I wish everyone felt great.


----------



## sherlock8311 (Feb 16, 2018)

Lord Pixel said:


> I died laughing.


Soyboy's like their switches and smiles:

https://m.imgur.com/a/W0Ugk


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Senah said:


> Just wow.
> 
> It's amazing you don't see the irony here, especially with your comment of "Ever heard of femdom?"
> 
> ...


...
you were the one who explicitly defined dominant behavior in sex as alpha, therefore substituting sexual behaviors of dom/sub with alpha/beta to begin with

in reality, sexual dominance and submission have little to do with alpha/beta characteristics, in fact often these two are reversed and you can have 'alphas' who like to be sexually sub and 'betas' who want nothing more than to dominate the female sexually
not to mention the many people who fluctuate in between the two behaviors

romantic sex has probably nothing to do with any of that, but is a different sexual/emotional preference altogether that may overlap categories, possibly mostly based on the stage of a relationship rather than anything else

I didn't assign any personal value to romantic sex at all, you did in the first post of yours I quoted since for some reason you want to categorize it as 'beta' because it's not your preference


----------



## Ronney (Jul 17, 2016)

sherlock8311 said:


> Soyboy's like their switches and smiles:
> 
> https://m.imgur.com/a/W0Ugk


Soy is high in plant based estrogen. That can be good for a dudes masculinity. So Soy boy is kinda like lady boy but the tits are smaller :laughing:


----------



## sherlock8311 (Feb 16, 2018)

Ronney said:


> Soy is high in plant based estrogen. That can be good for a dudes masculinity. So Soy boy is kinda like lady boy but the tits are smaller :laughing:


Small tits, flaccid dicks. Soy Boys really are going to develop into Cuck Gods.


----------



## Haba Aba Daba Aba (Mar 8, 2015)

Are you attracted to guys who complain about women's personalities and who bemoan the lack of quality women in the world? 

What are the alpha male's criteria of evaluation for selecting a woman?


----------



## jtour (Oct 26, 2017)

Sensitive new age type children think they're special, way better than the men of old, those savage brutes who were <gasp> misogynists and unenlightened thugs.

In other words, they're young, wrong, illiterate, and dumb, except for possibly some technical acumen.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Potatooesunshinerays said:


> In dating guys literally, no one of them has a personality. like totally no one is faking it.
> I'm almost done with this dating thing because every guy is more fake than the previous one.
> 
> This guy just said " giving her pleasure is what gives me pleasure" what level of doormat are you.


I'm not really sure you know what beta means, because nothing you said even relates to beta.

And for the last part. I'm gay--I'm a versatile top, and I just like being in control. However, it's because of that, that I get turned on when I turn them on. I like being in control of their pleasure, and that's what causes me to be more active in bed, and do more different things, because I get off on them getting off. In that way, I can be a bit dominant.

So that line itself doesn't really mean much in terms of beta and alpha.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

If I had to guess there are more betas because the population size has increased, and everyone can’t be an alpha 

I think I saw this topic on Maury Povich once, it was women with just a ton of class flailing their hands around saying things like...
“Where all the good man be at” 

Oh yeah my teenage daughter and her girlfriends twirl their hair and discuss “like why boys totally suck” too

I know when I wanna attract a man
My first instinct in a mating call, is bitching about where all the good men be at


----------



## Whatevs (Oct 17, 2016)

This reminded me of Katt Williams! :laughing:


----------



## Sandstread (Jun 4, 2017)

Its cause you confuse the rest of sociosexual hierarchy into betas. they are not. and not all women get to be fucked by an alpha during their lives. Theyd like to, theyd even adore him and all of that, but the alpha will just become way too slippery for low character females that reflect any disresonance from a caring, mature, healthy, wise, strong, dominant woman. If alpha females are selective, Ive observed A males to be that a thousand times more. I dont know exactly why this occurs, but A males usually have at least 10-15 A females in line, while A females rarely have more than 2-3 A males shes EVER known.

As well said between the obs of the two ladies here having a conversation, betas are a more common group of men. And its great. Hadnt there been betas historically, who wouldve provided for the tribes. Those men are the pilars of a social structure. A men just engage in 3 things: Hardcore protection, mating and admin. The betas need that to survive and Alphas need betas to provide for the club. As a compensation betas get to marry what ever the Alpha doesnt find perfect for him. But for a beta a female alpha leftover (usually age orientated thing) is more than ideal.

Very nice dynamics indeed. So, 89.9% of man jerk off or go to prostitutes. 10% of men fuck 99% of women, while the alpha promille will only fuck the cream of the cream, the 1% of all women. Those are generally really young women when the relationship starts, such as 17-18 tops +-1 years usually with exteremely long term intentions. These are usually the very peaks of mating potential meeting eachother. Males in 29-39 females under 20. Dont ask me why, I didnt invest this set up, but thats how it works. Maybe its cause women at that age find men at their own ages a bit rootless. Or too boyish so they go for older me to feel safe, it seems. Lots of factors for sure.

Anyway the women who have slept with alpha males will not ever again even think about betas, gammas, omegas, lambdas or sigmas. Nothing lesser will ever make their heart feel it. And thats really fantastic.

Long live mother nature!


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

Potatooesunshinerays said:


> In dating guys literally, no one of them has a personality. like totally no one is faking it.
> I'm almost done with this dating thing because every guy is more fake than the previous one.
> 
> This guy just said " giving her pleasure is what gives me pleasure" what level of doormat are you.


because enough women eat it up.
_
*nom nom nom*_


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

sherlock8311 said:


> Ive seen Beta;s and soyboys and had the misfortune of working in the same office as them (actually not too bad, as never had reason to have anything to do with them), but gotta say the kind of girls/women attracted to them are not the type of girls/women that Im attracted to myself.
> 
> The type of girls/women I am attracted to and that are attracted to me, the beta's and soyboys seem to find repulsive so its winners all round really.


ha... so there's something positive to all this.

True, women that crush guys with their pointy high heels (literally or metaphorically) are kind of a thing now. So uh, let opposites attract as they do.


----------



## isfpisfp (Sep 10, 2017)

women are naturally drawn to me because i look like ashton kutcher, but who wants to date a woman anyway, when there are so many of them around


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

sherlock8311 said:


> Soyboy's like their switches and smiles:
> 
> https://m.imgur.com/a/W0Ugk


lol all the soyboy talk is reminding me of guys like this:


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

I think the OP has abandoned her thread.......





Owell, best of luck finding someone super Alpha


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Senah said:


> @Red Panda It is an interesting study. The comments I have about it I think are echoed by the study authors - that the study participants are self-selected and that they do not believe they represent the general population. Beyond that they are likely much more comfortable with sex, more likely to experiment with it, and to defy sexual norms. I don't know that that invalidates the findings, but it does hint to bias, as the authors suggest. I would also say that, as others mention with similar studies, just because someone says on a questionnaire that they have a rape fantasy doesn't mean that when given the opportunity they want to be raped, or that they choose to act that fantasy out in their sexual lives. They didn't correlate these with things that are actually happening or with personality traits, which would have been interesting.


All of these suggest that the connection with alpha/beta-ness is flimsy at best, exactly because the amount of men who wanted to dominate was still quite high, which suggest it's irrelevant to social standing but a different thing altogether. 



> In terms of the OP's original post when she said that she feels like the guy's statement of "giving her pleasure is what gives me pleasure", I read it differently then you did I guess. You seemed to interpret the statement to mean that she is disparaging any partner that says that he likes when his partner responds pleasurably to the things he does. That she doesn't want any guy that will please her sexually. I interpreted it to mean that she disliked what could be interpreted as an inauthentic parroting of the current "sensitive male" archetype. Meaning perhaps (my read of the situation, perhaps not even hers) that he derives his pleasure _from_ giving her pleasure, instead of asserting himself into the situation and seeing them as partners who both deserve pleasure. Leading to a situation where he doesn't get pleasure himself during the experience, but rather from what he does to her. In fact, it creates an almost co-dependent dynamic where she is then in charge of his pleasure due to that. And to be honest, I would certainly roll my eyes if a guy said that to me, because I would feel like he was feeding me a line that was socially acceptable. That doesn't mean that I don't want a partner or am disparaging of a partner that cares that I am enjoying myself - I certainly want that as well. However, to me statements like that do seem...well, eye-roll worthy.


Exactly because of the variety of interpretations of what she says, to me shows she put little thought into expressing her idea to begin with. 



> In terms of alpha vs. beta and romance. Well, I think you point out something valid about my argument that I don't know how to fully defend. I suppose that I tend to associate, via the characterizations in society and on the internet, a certain social behavior with alphas and betas. When I look at the courting and relationship and even sexual interactions described in most things I have read, to me alphas of both sexes are more objective focused and less process focused. Betas are more process and less objective. When I am in a bar and I see a group of guys and there is one central male that could be identified as alpha and a few other guys who are more beta, to me it is more likely that the alpha guy will just come over and talk to me without a plan even, and in my experience there is a lot less flattery and minutiae as he relies on his looks/prowess/dominance to attract me. A more beta guy will likely plan what he is going to say, be shier, try to connect on an emotional level and open up more emotionally about himself. This would continue into the relationship and romantic arena. I also think that alpha or dominant personalities in modern culture know that they are dominant, and that associated with that is generally less emotionality. So, I think this often carries over into relationships. That is my experience personally and watching interactions with friends.


I think you can understand that the subjective interpretation of that behavior is kinda instinctual and related to your preference rather than something objective. The guy who approaches you first, may equally be just a case of a narcissist jerk who just wants to have sex, without any real character. So we find ourselves in a conundrum, is Alpha the guy who's a confident, assertive and competent leader who cares about others and elevates them or the guy who is confident in himself and can seduce almost any woman but may be a total dickwad otherwise. Also, often enough the Alpha is portrayed as a guy with no flaws really, if we take the first definition I just mentioned, but reality is different. I think the labels of alpha/beta only serve to put walls between people and even undermine one's self-growth, because if you believe yourself to be either of those then you box yourself into something it's hard to get out of, psychologically. 



> I also think that I have probably with undue emphasis used my interactions on PerC to read into this and assign alpha and beta roles to personality groups and utilized their comments in romantic matters as fuel for this topic. For example, when I look at posts by ENTJs and ENTPs who are usually very dominant or considered alphas in many situations vs posts by INFPs (I was reading through them on their thread and there were several about being betas and how this affects romantic relationships) - most of the alpha seeming personalities eschewed romance in relationships and most of the betas thrived on or valued romance. This has seemed pretty consistent as well in threads about sexual relationships in general for people who seem to identify with beta traits vs those who identify with alpha traits. I don't know how accurate this is, I suppose, in the wider population. It does mesh with my personal experience, reading, and exchanges here. But, it is also something I might need to rethink in terms of external validity.


I really don't see the connection between alpha/beta-ness and romance, not as an objective thing for sure. That's because romantic feelings give meaning to a relationship that can't be reached with a plain sexual encounter and most people do seek those as well, unles they don't know better (i.e. the study had ~90soemthign% of women and 88% of men wanting romantic feelings). But also I suspect there's an issue of lack of definitions here on 'romance'. I'm more inclined to believe that the 'romantic' sex you described is actually a minority of cases because sex is very visceral, but it can be passionate/emotional (tho not romantic) or detached and more physical depending on the people. 

I think in the cases of ENTs it's more likely they don't want to, or even can't fully express their emotional state to the forum unless they specifically set out to do it, which is probably rare. So they'd be more likely to just take a more 'shallow' approach in talking about it VS the F types who want to explore their emotional nature more readily.


----------



## Steelight (Mar 15, 2017)

Potatooesunshinerays said:


> In dating guys literally, no one of them has a personality. like totally no one is faking it.
> I'm almost done with this dating thing because every guy is more fake than the previous one.
> 
> This guy just said " giving her pleasure is what gives me pleasure" what level of doormat are you.


I don't think there's anything "beta" about enjoying pleasuring a woman. Because so many guys seem incapable of doing that, a guy knowing he can do that is seen as an accomplishment, something to be proud of, and something that makes his woman more likely to stick around. I certainly get pleasure out of pleasuring a woman. Doesn't mean I don't wanna get my nut off too....just means I enjoy the fact that she enjoyed it too. Feels kinda shitty if the woman is left feeling unsatisfied. If anything, THAT'S "beta".

I only read the original post, but you sound like one of those women who complains about a guy being "thirsty" because he politely held a door open for you.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Dead thread, that's because it's a beta thread, wait for the final version hahaha

I remember working at X place with a major population being women. It was... funny and a disgrace at times, in this topic in particular, many times women discussed the first day of the week how A, B, C, D, E failed to impress her. It was like they go out on a dominant position waiting to be entertained, and OMG they failed, they fail because I'm so good!!!

It was saddening because it was mostly pride and entitlement. It was funny because at the end you could see, they held themselves in such high value but nobody wanted to buy. As usual it was a great show of evasion, where something didn't go as they planned and guess who is to blame? men. On the men side there were fails too but this was funnier, even... healthier, that's why we men grew up more used to being beaten, while women are more influenced on the concept that "you are great and you will be accepted, you will get what you want".


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

Wanting to please a woman sexually is beta??

Gurl, just no.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

Deprecator said:


> Probably because you're so timid and shy that you only feel comfortable enough to accept dates from betas who go on and on about poetry, anime and wage gap myths.
> 
> Someoneon like myself on the otherhand... women here openly concede that they are super afraid of me and are so insecure about their infriority that they refuse to talk to me. After all, I don't mind pointing out why they're being irrational or how often they contradict themselves... actions that no beta male feminist could ever hope to pull off.


I thought you told me they are scared of you because of the halloween mask you wear 24/7??? 

but yea, I saw it once, and it is pretty scary ;D


----------



## jtour (Oct 26, 2017)

Hellena Handbasket said:


> Wanting to please a woman sexually is beta??


No it isn't.

People have confused affirmative consent with sexual power-thrusting and pussy-licking.

I like beta fish and would like to eat one, for fun, out of someone's aquarium.

That is all.


----------



## Kataro214 (Jan 10, 2018)

Potatooesunshinerays said:


> This guy just said " giving her pleasure is what gives me pleasure" what level of doormat are you.


um.. ^ this is what I say and it's the genuine truth. I guess I'm a doormat ._. but at least I'm not fake! so I'll just be a happy doormat, I guess ;3


----------



## Cal (Sep 29, 2017)

Why are guys so beta nowadays?


----------



## Rydori (Aug 7, 2017)

I'm omega, I do my own shit and crush alphas and betas.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

I will be so happy when all of these wolf pack terms are no longer trendy. Wolves have very specific hierarchies that humans don't, and until we assemble ourselves as such, the ranks don't apply well to the human world.

Anyway, here is a relatively endearing article about the life of an actual beta wolf named Matsi. He sounds like he bore a good mixture of self-respect and assertiveness while not being aggressive and controlling (as far as wolves go). He even stuck up for - well, the literal underdog. A human male like him would probably be very much to my personal taste.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Brick said:


> I'm omega, I do my own shit and crush alphas and betas.


What is a 'gamma' in your opinion and what agenda was the word invented for?

Next time a person tries to call themselves 'alpha', just say to them "I don't recognize your alpha status which has always been the traditional way of refuting them, its all just talk and subjective opinions. You got nothing to back it up". Then maybe cite "This is a Democracy so we have no need to recognize your status, get out if you don't like it." or something.

If somebody calls you "Beta", say to them "Prove it, you have nothing to back up your claim." or "I object."


----------



## marybluesky (Apr 23, 2012)

Potatooesunshinerays said:


> In dating guys literally, no one of them has a personality. like totally no one is faking it.


So you prefer them faking being personable? 



Potatooesunshinerays said:


> This guy just said " giving her pleasure is what gives me pleasure" what level of doormat are you.


 If you hate this behavior because you smell hypocrisy, then I understand.
Otherwise I can't see this obsession with "alpha male" and calling a guy names when he cares about his partner's pleasure. To me such a phrase, if said genuinely, is a very positive sign. It talks of sympathy.


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> This morning I heard a lot of squeaking noises for almost 30 minutes straight. I thought it was coming from downstairs but it was really the next door roommate. I heard what sounded like a female gasping in combination of the bed squeaking. Either they were having sex or someone was bouncing up and down on the bed for 30 minutes. But the key here is that it was 30 minutes straight. A person cannot be doing it for that long unless they have some sort of dysfunction that prevents them from ejaculating in a timely manner or if they are total beta males who try to keep going after their body is done. At that point, they are physically injuring and hurting themselves. It's only 25% pleasure and 75% pain at that point. Total beta male.


What the hell is 'beta' about being able to last more than 5 minutes in bed?


----------



## edge magic (Jan 1, 2017)

Wrong post.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> This morning I heard a lot of squeaking noises for almost 30 minutes straight. I thought it was coming from downstairs but it was really the next door roommate. I heard what sounded like a female gasping in combination of the bed squeaking. Either they were having sex or someone was bouncing up and down on the bed for 30 minutes. But the key here is that it was 30 minutes straight. A person cannot be doing it for that long unless they have some sort of dysfunction that prevents them from ejaculating in a timely manner or if they are total beta males who try to keep going after their body is done. At that point, they are physically injuring and hurting themselves. It's only 25% pleasure and 75% pain at that point. Total beta male.


Sex and the associated organs are not items in a roleplaying game with a fixed durability and wear and tear.
Since *you where on the other side of a wall*, your assumtions about not only the physical properties,
but also the relational properties of the people involved, borders on the absurd.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

HAL said:


> What the hell is 'beta' about being able to last more than 5 minutes in bed?


It doesn't sound so great. If it took you 40 minutes to masturbate, you would probably have some sort of problem. If you put a partner in there that's the only change. Females care about how long males last. If they say someone lasts 5 minutes then that is saying he finished so it was good for him. But not good for her because it wasn't long enough for her to orgasm. So he should find a way to extend his process either by controlling himself during the process or I think much more likely he just continue normally after having "finished." After a male orgasms, he experiences a refractory period in which pleasure from stimulation goes away. During this time, if a male keeps going it will not be pleasurable, in fact it will probably hurt. I recall that my roommate bragged about making his girlfriend orgasm multiple times. However, he also said that he was feeling sore. If you are hurting yourself to pleasure someone else that is hardly dominant "alpha male" behavior to me. 
It is just as OP said,


> giving her pleasure is what gives me pleasure" what level of doormat are you.


Beta male behavior in that case.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Red Magician said:


> Sex and the associated organs are not items in a roleplaying game with a fixed durability and wear and tear.
> Since *you where on the other side of a wall*, your assumtions about not only the physical properties,
> but also the relational properties of the people involved, borders on the absurd.


I said "If." But it does seem as though you need a reading on the matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractory_period_(sex)


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I said "If." But it does seem as though you need a reading on the matter.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractory_period_(sex)


I will read your past again.



> A person cannot be doing it for that long unless they have some sort of dysfunction that prevents them from ejaculating in a timely manner or* if* they are total beta males who try to keep going after their body is done. At that point, they are physically injuring and hurting themselves.


If you cannot see why your if is irrelevant,
then I don't have time to waste to educate you.

Besides your putdown clearly indicates that this will be a dirty affair,
I don't really care to join you down on that level.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Red Magician said:


> I will read your past again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm very cautious about explaining myself for two reasons:
1. The Batman isn't effective if everyone knows that he is Bruce Wayne.
2. People usually misinterpret explanations or shoot them down as well as if there is some debate going on, and then they create enemies out of people for no good reason. Not worth it.


----------



## MycologyQueen (Mar 3, 2018)

this thread is annoying. The alpha male and beta male aren't based in any substantiated science. This theory doesn't even hold true in natural wolf packs, only captured ones, displaying a large discrepancy between our understanding of the social norms in a natural wolf pack and the reality. The tired angle of "beta" and "alpha" males just furthers antiquated misogynistic views. 
They don't exist because they never really did. The most secure and successful males don't feel the need to act like apes and control their wives. That's weak behavior I have only encountered from underachieving males with large egos and no self esteem. They never lasted long with me.


----------



## Flamme et Citron (Aug 26, 2015)

Gen Z has been raised in a weird political and cultural environment of extreme political correctness, overprotection and social media mob justice and peer pressure. That's the type of environment that fosters a weak character. If you're a gen Y woman like me, you've been dating guys in their 20s, 30s or maybe even 40s. But if you're a 15 year old girl and all you have available to you are 15 year old meek soyboys who are the product of PC culture, it's entirely possible that the offerings are genuinely poor.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Here's an idea, they should make it legal to hit people who try to enforce 'traditional gender norms' on men, just kind of annoying just as it should be to hit bullies/jerks at the same time which everybody used to do in old societies. Those who don't support them can be safely classified as a non-regressive or genuine feminists. Whereas those who do should not be protected as they go against those principles and hold us back. 

These people are not 'feminists' at all yet the 'manosphere' insists they are part of it, why not prove them wrong by saying we will decline to protect them? Revolutionaries often use some form of hitting or force to achieve suppressing the emotions/feelings of their opponent and ensure only they can express them in order to have things in society run their way.

Punching jerks who like to put people down is socially appropriate and I do not give any care if they are male or female. They both deserve to be punched either way. It resolves the situation quickly without a fuss and immediately ends the conflict.

An antifa member/guy happened to hit one of them at a time and did not care if it was male or female, her face became 'deformed' and therefore she 'lost value' in the sense of traditional gender roles. "There you go, alpha male" lol would have been a fitting line or 'alpha male' could have become a good satirical nickname for a punch if it became more widespread.

E.g. *"(Name) started calling me names for supposedly not being a 'real man' so I gave her face the 'alpha male' and its bruised all over"

"Danny was annoyed by some bitch calling him a 'beta' and shaming him for supposedly being not manly enough, he gave her the alpha male and she never bothered Danny again."*

The ideology you support(Along with how its affecting everybody around in the present moment) matters, and not your race/gender/anything else/orientation because it partly determines who you actually are as a person. Many of these sorts I meet actually become angry at me because of personality clashes before even 'knowing' me, we even get into massive arguments/screaming matches so I don't care("You gossiping little shit" and more).

Thoughts @Riven? Maybe we can encourage those like male nurses to do this against women who shame them for being 'not masculine' as well as men who do it(Give them a couple of 'alpha males' to the face)?


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

Knight of Order said:


> Here's an idea, they should make it legal to hit people who try to enforce 'traditional gender norms' on men, just kind of annoying just as it should be to hit bullies/jerks at the same time which everybody used to do in old societies. Those who don't support them can be safely classified as a non-regressive or genuine feminists. Whereas those who do should not be protected as they go against those principles and hold us back.
> 
> These people are not 'feminists' at all yet the 'manosphere' insists they are part of it, why not prove them wrong by saying we will decline to protect them? Revolutionaries often use some form of hitting or force to achieve suppressing the emotions/feelings of their opponent and ensure only they can express them in order to have things in society run their way.
> 
> ...


I actually agree with you on this. If someone is bullying you, it's okay to hit them. "Violence is never the answer" is such BS really. So what, are you expected to just ignore the people who make your life miserable and pray to god that they stop? Like that works. That being said, I'm against using violence as the answer to everything, especially when the person hasn't done anything to harm you. It's okay to punch a bully, though, its not okay to punch people who have different opinions or something like that.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Hanged Man said:


> I actually agree with you on this. If someone is bullying you, it's okay to hit them. "Violence is never the answer" is such BS really. So what, are you expected to just ignore the people who make your life miserable and pray to god that they stop? Like that works. That being said, I'm against using violence as the answer to everything, especially when the person hasn't done anything to harm you. It's okay to punch a bully, though, its not okay to punch people who have different opinions or something like that.


Historically people who reject being put into hierarchies have naturally used force against those that tried to do so against them as a means of sending a message or challenging the claim of 'superiority' anyway. This is why in the past people who wanted to form hierarchies needed to hire lots of soldiers to do it.

Resisting or not recognizing a hierarchy has often been associated with the term "You don't agree? Fight then."

Rulers used to kill/execute or punish those with what the manosphere would label a 'gamma' attitude in favor of allowing more 'submissive' minded people to exist and rewarding them for being that way, thankfully democracy has allowed them to increase in numbers again.

There is no such thing as "If you resist it will be 10x worse", "Slaughter all who resist" or "If one of you do it then all of you will perish" anymore.

Its just a shame there is no 'Jerk removal service' anymore or ability for us to 'Remove Jerk'.


----------



## jtour (Oct 26, 2017)

Hanged Man said:


> I actually agree with you on this. If someone is bullying you, it's okay to hit them.


Well, in all states of my country, the US, it is contrary to law to physically assault someone who hurts your feelings. There are exceptions, such as I'm allowed to kill someone who points a gun at me, in general. 

You're supposed to wait until the "bully" physically makes contact, and then subdue the aggressor until they stop threatening your life. Then you can spit on them, maybe kick them a few times, as long as nobody sees you, as you walk away and report the defective lying unconscious on the street, from the comfort of your own home. Or not.

Or, you could run away or something, I guess, or blow your rape whistle.

You'll need a lawyer, however, for the civil lawsuit which is likely to ensue, at the least.


----------



## Noctis (Apr 4, 2012)

Potatooesunshinerays said:


> In dating guys literally, no one of them has a personality. like totally no one is faking it.
> I'm almost done with this dating thing because every guy is more fake than the previous one.
> 
> This guy just said " giving her pleasure is what gives me pleasure" what level of doormat are you.


Why are girls generalizing guys overtly nowadays?


----------



## jtour (Oct 26, 2017)

Noctis said:


> Why are girls generalizing guys overtly nowadays?


Are you being microaggressed? Do you feel marginalized? 

Oh, the answer is that "guys" under the age of thirty are either criminals, or at least backwoods-types, or they are cleaner than broke-dick dogs.

So, by "overtly" generalizing, it's possible girls are expressing dissatisfaction.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

jtour said:


> Well, in all states of my country, the US, it is contrary to law to physically assault someone who hurts your feelings. There are exceptions, such as I'm allowed to kill someone who points a gun at me, in general.
> 
> You're supposed to wait until the "bully" physically makes contact, and then subdue the aggressor until they stop threatening your life. Then you can spit on them, maybe kick them a few times, as long as nobody sees you, as you walk away and report the defective lying unconscious on the street, from the comfort of your own home. Or not.
> 
> ...


The governments like to protect people who hurt others psychologically and make it so that there are no consequences and its safe to be a jerk to/put down others.

In the past there were consequences and it was not as safe to put down other people or more risky.

Claims that cannot be backed with force or a military(people with weapons to outmatch your opinions) should not be taken seriously.


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

Me reading most of the comments here:










I personally find the terms "alpha" and "beta" absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Women or men who like to pick on those they deem as 'weaker men' are cowards who would not be able to back up their claim without the government protecting them.

If anybody tries to call you 'beta' or whatever simply reject the claim and tell them to prove it. If they fail to do so then their claim is false.

Any claim including of whether somebody is 'beta' or 'alpha' cannot be taken seriously for sure if there is no force and they have no hired soldiers backing them.

The answer is to legalize punching of women and men who are cowards that like to pick on men who don't support traditional gender expectations. Just as it should be ok to punch Nazis or White Supremacists.

An antifa guy last time gave one of them quite a punch and he did not care whether she was female or not, he just did it then the alt-right guys started screaming 'you hit a woman111 blah blah'.



Sylas said:


> The slang name for these guys is "beta orbiter soy boys". They don't try to be male any more but seek pleasure in the easiest ways possible, be it mimicking women to get on their good side or watching porn at the slightest whim. As a result their testosterone levels drop and they stop resembling anything male. Try looking for conservative guys or guys who identify with conservative views. They usually try to uphold more traditional gender behaviors.


Another reason why duel culture needs to come back, because of people like yourself. I being the righteous, extremely intelligent/high iq and morally high standard person I am will not allow you to harm the innocent/vulnerable.

Western Enlightenment notions of masculinity are inferior and would not have stood long if it was not for your government's protection of you along with any supporters. Funny how you only have the freedom to judge people safely with the protection of your so-called government. As old before enlightenment says a claim not backed by force or military cannot be taken seriously.

The fact is you are weak and cannot stand up for yourself so you like to put others down and into labels. Tell you what the so-called 'gammas' like George Soros are bringing about the downfall of your society for their own gain and they are winning lol according to you.

I spit on your sides' claims unless you have force to back it up(This is proof according to natural law) or ability to kill/maim those who challenge you.

I was raised in pre-enlightenment feudal values and I am not 'conservative' or 'liberal'. Many of my Muslim friends(We get along great despite neither of us being the same religion, but what we share in common is our upbringing) also disagree with your notion that 'men need to hide their emotions' and if you tried saying it to them something not pleasant would happen.

So what are you going to do about these 'gammas destroying your society' for our own benefit?


----------



## sherlock8311 (Feb 16, 2018)

Knight of Order said:


> Women or men who like to pick on those they deem as 'weaker men' are cowards who would not be able to back up their claim without the government protecting them.
> 
> If anybody tries to call you 'beta' or whatever simply reject the claim and tell them to prove it. If they fail to do so then their claim is false.


WRONG. WRONG. WRONG

You have already lost by paying them attention. Do not react. Just carry on doing what you were doing, as though they were not there.
Indifference is the greatest response.

Indifference is actually classed as an Alpha Trait. Therefore by being totally non-reactive, whilst they are reaction seeking, you are technically more Alpha than they are.

Why let there view affect you so much? Does it matter that they think you are Alpha/Beta?


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

sherlock8311 said:


> WRONG. WRONG. WRONG
> 
> You have already lost by paying them attention. Do not react. Just carry on doing what you were doing, as though they were not there.
> Indifference is the greatest response.
> ...


Being 'non-reactive' is slave mentality and choosing to allow yourself to get beaten, majority of countries with wars and revolutions don't follow this. Men in countryside villages within Africa or the Middle East and they are pretty much the opposite of your beliefs. Try putting somebody down there and they will follow you home.

Nope not according to natural laws if you go back to say times such as 1050 A.D. Pre-Enlightenment masculinity is superior to modern western masculinity. Men were more easily offended than now in those times and fights constantly broke out from those who were interested in protecting their face.

Actually have you read about duels during the Middle Ages or the many wars which happened by men who chose to protect their honor and challenge the claims of those that called them inferior?

Duels were banned because they caused population decline. But many men killed jerks who put them down in duels did you know? Or if lucky they yielded and stopped if 'somebody drew first blood'.

If you wanted to put somebody down in old masculinity or call a behavior 'not manly' then it was 'prepare to have your claim challenged'.

@sherlock8311, this was the way things have always been before 'modern industrial civilization'. If you are going to make a claim or decide somebody is 'less manly than you' then you had to prepare for challengers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel#Renaissance_early_modern_period


----------



## sherlock8311 (Feb 16, 2018)

Knight of Order said:


> Nope not according to natural laws if you go back to say 1250 AD. Pre-Enlightenment masculinity is superior to modern western masculinity.
> 
> Actually have you read about duels during the Middle Ages or the many wars which happened by men who chose to protect their honor and challenge the claims of those that called them inferior?
> 
> Duels were banned because they caused population decline. But many men killed jerks who put them down in duels did you know? Or if lucky they yielded and stopped if 'somebody drew first blood'.


Im talking about today. I do agree life would be a lot easier if duelling was bought back.

People would have to think before they opened their mouths.

But in todays age, I find indifference the best. If its done properly, the person you are being indifferent to, will actually start to doubt their own existence. Its awesome.

Some people mistake free speech as obligation for others to listen, and they dont understand that there is no obligation. Its these people I like to practice my indifference on. And the beggars and various other scum that infest our world like cancer.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

sherlock8311 said:


> Im talking about today. I do agree life would be a lot easier if duelling was bought back.
> 
> People would have to think before they opened their mouths.
> 
> ...


Its not natural and goes against nature's laws then.

I hear that those in Africa/The Middle East are highly emotional for some reason.

My point is I do not acknowledge the 'alpha' of western masculinity, I want old masculinity of emotional men who ruled what you call 'the dark ages' to return and abolish the enlightenment(This includes conservatives) for a less competition and pack mentality orientated society like we had before the enclosures.

If a man cried in old masculinity everybody had to think before calling him 'not manly' for it because that would mean having to back your claim through a duel.


----------



## sherlock8311 (Feb 16, 2018)

Knight of Order said:


> @sherlock8311, this was the way things have always been before 'modern industrial civilization'. If you are going to make a claim or decide somebody is 'less manly than you' then you had to prepare for challengers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel#Renaissance_early_modern_period


Im actually not bothered if someone is less manly or more manly. However there are certain traits and character habits that if I internalised I would not be the man I want to be. So I reject them, and I am under no obligation to view them as good traits. As for the people themselves, Im not really that fussed what they do, one way or the other.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

sherlock8311 said:


> Im actually not bothered if someone is less manly or more manly. However there are certain traits and character habits that if I internalised I would not be the man I want to be. So I reject them, and I am under no obligation to view them as good traits. As for the people themselves, Im not really that fussed what they do, one way or the other.


Did you know for example if a man cried in old masculinity everybody had to think before calling him 'not manly' for it because that would mean having to back your claim through a duel? This is why they found it secure to do 'show emotion' often and in public, if you called their behavior 'not manly' there was a high risk chance of a duel happening.

Also are you aware that the men of old society who conquered and etc to become the kings or their descendants wore wigs, makeup and jewelry? They were invented for/by them mainly and did not come to be 'for a specific' gender until this time.

If we could go back to the old type of society before enclosure which was less based on competition or pack mentality then none of this would be an issue.

Again @sherlock8311 Notions of masculinity are subject to change however are you aware also? In our society with the 'alpha/beta' stuff they are essentially nothing but hypocrites who like to put others down to make themselves feel better.

In an old or natural society these people would be crushed and there would be no room for hypocrites trying to tell you what or what you are not free to do for being a biological male. There were absolutely no hypocrites in pre-enlightenment culture which was absolutely amazing, howcome so? Men in old times were also worse at STEM than those today, hence it was called 'the dark ages'.

If a bully-victim relationship escalated it would eventually end in a duel most likely(Not all were lethal).


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

jtour said:


> Common misconception, that regular masturbation inhibits normal production of testosterone.


There may be no difference in testosterone levels, but the fact remains that quitting masturbation causes a state known as "t-buzz" - an increase in energy and joy. It's based on my personal experience, as well as experience of many other men. Google "wet dream forum" if you doubt. I'm not a member of this community, but it's been an inspiration for me.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

There are rumours going around that autism spectrum is related to exposure to high testosterone, and relates to an 'extreme male/masculine' mind that 'lacks feminine qualities'. Does this mean you believe then that autism spectrum is related to 'alpha/true male' qualities? I don't see these traditionalists trying to say that if this is true that its caused by 'more exposure to testosterone before being born'.


----------



## intjew (Mar 9, 2018)

lulz


----------



## jtour (Oct 26, 2017)

intjew said:


> lulz


Now, now, there's nothing hilarious about hearing some retarded bullshit about men jacking off, presumably to images of women, and yet remaining limpdick soyboys.

It's very serious.


----------



## intjew (Mar 9, 2018)

blame the parents bro


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

Potatooesunshinerays said:


> In dating guys literally, no one of them has a personality. like totally no one is faking it.
> I'm almost done with this dating thing because every guy is more fake than the previous one.
> 
> This guy just said " giving her pleasure is what gives me pleasure" what level of doormat are you.


When I show girls my personality they bitch about how I'm not conforming to the social feminist standards of 2018, that might be one of the many reasons why.


----------



## jtour (Oct 26, 2017)

ENTJudgement said:


> When I show girls my personality they bitch about how I'm not conforming to the social feminist standards of 2018, that might be one of the many reasons why.


I'm pretty sure those aren't girls.

They're either ladybois, or the kind of "woman" wh, when you spread them open, they just lie there like a piece of moldering meat somebody found at the dock.

Not an actual adult woman, in other words -- either a gender trailblazer, or a confused child.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Wow those guys are almost as beta as your topic.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

IDontThinkSo is the alpha-est of all the alpha males. If he thinks you're beta, there's no escape for you.

This thread needs to die already. It's almost cringey now. Not that it wasn't from the beginning...


----------



## AdverseYaw (Mar 7, 2018)

Because women are having unrealistically high standards when dating men. Since some men have no redeeming quality nor lives up to any of the woman's preferences or standards, he tries to compensate for this by being overly nice. Like, going out of his way for the woman and becoming her doormat. Unfortunately, niceness is inversely proportional to assertiveness (which is an alpha trait women are attracted to), and women don't find this attractive.


----------



## Sandstread (Jun 4, 2017)

@AdverseYaw

"Someone who is assertive behaves confidently and is not frightened to say what they want or believe". 

So attractive, sure. But. This is also a sigma and lambda trait. Alphas are just a bit more than that. And at least 1mil time more rare to find.


----------



## bananaskin (Jan 31, 2018)

living in a patriarchal society, i honestly wish guys were more beta or at least respected women in some way. most guys are 'alpha' and it's draining because they are sexist, don't respect women and care mostly about themselves which isn't a fun or exciting trait for the long run anyway!


----------



## Noctis (Apr 4, 2012)

jtour said:


> Are you being microaggressed? Do you feel marginalized?
> 
> Oh, the answer is that "guys" under the age of thirty are either criminals, or at least backwoods-types, or they are cleaner than broke-dick dogs.
> 
> So, by "overtly" generalizing, it's possible girls are expressing dissatisfaction.


XD You certainly know how to brush the fence with a broad brush, young lady, lol. What sweeping generalizations you make XD


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

AdverseYaw said:


> Because women are having unrealistically high standards when dating men. Since some men have no redeeming quality nor lives up to any of the woman's preferences or standards, he tries to compensate for this by being overly nice. Like, going out of his way for the woman and becoming her doormat. Unfortunately, niceness is inversely proportional to assertiveness (which is an alpha trait women are attracted to), and women don't find this attractive.


Some beautiful women have gone after me in hopes of making me an aggressor. One of them wanted me to slap her face in bed. I've never been a fan of aggressive behavior. That's not the way of a scientist.


----------



## DarkSideOfLight (Feb 15, 2011)

Good for me as I'm both alpha and an asshole  have a bloody personality that most people can't deal with and that's perfect bc it helps me to filter out people like nothing else in the world.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

DarkSideOfLight said:


> Good for me as I'm both alpha and an asshole  have a bloody personality that most people can't deal with and that's perfect bc it helps me to filter out people like nothing else in the world.


I'd snug up on ya.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)




----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

bananaskin said:


> living in a patriarchal society, i honestly wish guys were more beta or at least respected women in some way. most guys are 'alpha' and it's draining because they are sexist, don't respect women and care mostly about themselves which isn't a fun or exciting trait for the long run anyway!


This is satire right?



DarkSideOfLight said:


> *Good for me as I'm both alpha and an asshole * have a bloody personality that most people can't deal with and that's perfect bc it helps me to filter out people like nothing else in the world.


No you're neither.

There's enough in the above few lines that betray you as someone who either has a false sense of superiority or just thinks that a self-assertion of certain personality traits would be taken on their word.



Mick Travis said:


> Some beautiful women have gone after me in hopes of making me an aggressor. One of them wanted me to slap her face in bed. I've never been a fan of aggressive behavior. That's not the way of a scientist.


#r/thathappened 

I love this thread.


----------



## bananaskin (Jan 31, 2018)

Reap said:


> This is satire right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


no it isn't satire..why would it be satire? i don't know where you live but where i live, my society is sociologically considered 'patriarchal'


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

bananaskin said:


> no it isn't satire..why would it be satire? i don't know where you live but where i live, my society is sociologically considered 'patriarchal'


I don't know where you live, but if it's not in the middle east, a certain province of Indonesia, rural parts of South Asia, then you're probably ok.


----------



## bananaskin (Jan 31, 2018)

Reap said:


> I don't know where you live, but if it's not in the middle east, a certain province of Indonesia, rural parts of South Asia, then you're probably ok.


South Asia but not in the rural parts and yeah I am okay and all but my society still highly favours men as in there's so much men can get away with easily yet women would be criticised and called names like sl** etc and men in general are very 'alpha' here as well.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

bananaskin said:


> South Asia but not in the rural parts and yeah I am okay and all but my society still highly favours men as in there's so much men can get away with easily yet women would be criticised and called names like sl** etc and men in general are very 'alpha' here as well.


Hey. I'm from South Asia so I understand you better now. 

Yeah, I get what you're saying totally. Unfortunately, I think you have it sort of the other way around. 

I think that generally desi guys are stunted in their development because they're smothered by their mothers ... and they project an aura of capability that they actually lack. Most desi uban men I know lack very important life skills, are dependent and probably couldn't feed themselves until you put their naan or roti directly in front of them. Especially urban desi guys. 

I can see your problems though ---- What you said does apply so I agree with you - except that it's not beta men you should look towards, but your average Joe who is mildly ambitious, but has key life skills and isn't dependent on his mother at the age of 30.


----------



## bananaskin (Jan 31, 2018)

Reap said:


> Hey. I'm from South Asia so I understand you better now.
> 
> Yeah, I get what you're saying totally. Unfortunately, I think you have it sort of the other way around.
> 
> ...


Oh wow, hi.. and yeah I can perfectly understand what you're trying to say too and that's pretty good advice for when I have to get married which isn't too soon. And maybe I feel that way because I'm still nineteen and surrounded by guys who are still young and immature at times. Also, it's just that girls often get objectified before marriage (as in when they are in relationships with guys) as I have seen that happen a lot.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

Reap said:


> #r/thathappened


Don't be jealous. It would be petty to post photos of these beautiful women. My 2nd wife, an alpha, destroyed them anyway.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Mick Travis said:


> Don't be jealous. It would be petty to post photos of these beautiful women. My 2nd wife, an alpha, destroyed them anyway.


You're just a walking meme aren't you lmao.

I'm out but thanks for the laughs.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

Reap said:


> You're just a walking meme aren't you lmao.
> 
> I'm out but thanks for the laughs.


I don't do memes.


----------



## isfpisfp (Sep 10, 2017)

let me just say that i have yet to meet a beta isfp male


----------



## Laguna (Mar 21, 2012)




----------



## Ranger (Feb 25, 2017)

Potatooesunshinerays said:


> This guy just said " giving her pleasure is what gives me pleasure" what level of doormat are you.


Doormat? Oh come on... :shocked:
It can be very pleasurable if a lady is pleased with you, expressing it sincerely. As long as it comes out naturally and not some weird shit.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)




----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Ranger said:


> Doormat? Oh come on... :shocked:
> It can be very pleasurable if *a lady* is pleased with you, expressing it sincerely. As long as it comes out naturally and not some weird shit.












Stop. Seriously. Stop. This act has gotten old and no one is impressed. People who talk like this are the joke of the internet and many don't even realize it. 

If a guy doesn't know what he wants and bases everything he wants around what a woman wants then he's a doormat and the girls who think that way about them are absolutely right. 

Yes, of course, sexually satisfying women is something men like to do and should like to do, but there is definitely something wrong with you if you think that all of your pleasure lies in her pleasure and you make it sound / seem like that's *all *that matters. It's extremely easy to come across that way during - or even believe that. 

Nope. _Generally _women are looking for equals. Men who know what they want as much as know what women want. 

BTW, what's up with the "lady" talk. Yeah, it's a word that's used for women, but some women also like being called whores in the bedroom (yeah, ok don't call them that in normal conversation - unless that's what get them going, but how would you figure it out if you never even open yourself up to the possibility of considering that they're devils in the sheets!) 






Fucking love this song.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)




----------



## Ranger (Feb 25, 2017)

@Reap I like the way go from spitting at it to be confirming (somewhat) it. h: And it doesn't just boil down to sex imo. It's just lame if it happens to be the icing on a cake, like you said.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Ranger said:


> @Reap I like the way go from spitting at it to be confirming (somewhat) it. h: And it doesn't just boil down to sex imo. It's just lame if it happens to be the icing on a cake, like you said.


I didn't confirm it obviously. What if your chick likes anal and you don't. If you engage in that act just because it pleases her then you're a doormat. 

Same applies to non-sex related acts. 

What kind of a man finds pleasure in everything a woman finds pleasure in if not a doormat? How can someone go through life not being able to find difference between their likes and shaping their entire plethora of likes around someone else.

That's either a lie or a delusion.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

What the fuck is this thread.


----------



## Ranger (Feb 25, 2017)

Reap said:


> I didn't confirm it obviously. What if your chick likes anal and you don't. If you engage in that act just because it pleases her then you're a doormat.
> 
> Same applies to non-sex related acts.
> 
> ...


Well obviously we are speaking of different things, I was merely saying that I can see myself being rewarded by pleasing a lady. Giving it a different perspective.

You are speaking of an absolut cock of a man.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Reign of Order said:


> Its not natural and goes against nature's laws then.
> 
> I hear that those in Africa/The Middle East are highly emotional for some reason.
> 
> ...


 This is why nobody can take anything you say seriously.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Reign of Order said:


> Here's an idea, they should make it legal to hit people who try to enforce 'traditional gender norms' on men, just kind of annoying just as it should be to hit bullies/jerks at the same time which everybody used to do in old societies. Those who don't support them can be safely classified as a non-regressive or genuine feminists. Whereas those who do should not be protected as they go against those principles and hold us back.
> 
> These people are not 'feminists' at all yet the 'manosphere' insists they are part of it, why not prove them wrong by saying we will decline to protect them? Revolutionaries often use some form of hitting or force to achieve suppressing the emotions/feelings of their opponent and ensure only they can express them in order to have things in society run their way.
> 
> ...


 You literally are saying that it is all right to permanently deform someone who is only speaking to you. What are you even talking about.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

There's beta, then there's Buzzfeed Beta...so beta, you're Omega XD


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

Well the alpha version had limited access :/


----------



## LeSangDeCentAns (Apr 10, 2018)

They put chemicals in the water that turn the freakin frogs gay.


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

Sigma males, represent!


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

I don’t know if they’re anymore beta than they have always been. But the media likes to portray men as having no guts(balls). All the new tv shows have the ball breaking alpha wife with the yes dear husband. Checking first if he can go out with the ogres


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Makes me think of this
Empowerment/Sexism: Figuring Female Sexual Agency in Contemporary Advertising

* *






> THE VENGEFUL WOMAN AND REVENGE ADVERTISING
> 
> Closely related to the midriff is the figure of the vengeful sexy woman who has become another standard character in advertising, a novel way for advertisers to move away from representations of women as ‘dumb’ or ‘unintelligent’ to being constructed as powerful, feisty and in control. Revenge adverts put the supposed love–hate relationship between men and women – the ‘battle of the sexes’ – centre stage. At the innocuous end of the continuum, adverts for Volkswagen lamented ‘if only everything in life was as reliable as Volkswagen’, and compared men unfavourably with cars, while Renault adverts cheekily suggested that ‘size matters’. A humorous tone is also found in a television campaign for Fiat Punto. It showed a young, good-looking, heterosexual couple driving through a European city. The woman (who is driving) glances at her boyfriend every so often and notices that he is staring out of the window at every attractive woman he sees in the street. Getting evidently ever more irritated by this, she finally stops the car, winds down the window, and proceeds to passionately kiss a handsome male passer-by. This, the advert tells us, is the ‘spirito di Punto’, a spirit that is perhaps a hybrid of feminism, revenge fantasy and sheer joie de vivre.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Conscience Killer said:


> You literally are saying that it is all right to permanently deform someone who is only speaking to you. What are you even talking about.


What about honour and keeping face though? And where does it say 'permanently deform'? This is also the old and traditional natural way of saying "Your claim is not valid".

If you've ever heard of the notion "A claim that cannot be backed by force is a joke." in the old traditional ways?

This can work for these people. Also on the other hand what I talk about is based on AntiFa’s methods for fighting social-darwinist ideology.


----------



## In Betweener (Mar 24, 2018)

Funny enough, in Socionics, ENFjs fall within the "Beta" quadrant. And as a proud "Beta" male, I must say, I fuxx a lot. Being "beta" hasn't hurt me one bit. If anything, it's helped!


----------



## LeSangDeCentAns (Apr 10, 2018)

Reign of Order said:


> This can work for these people. Also on the other hand what I talk about is based on AntiFa’s methods for fighting social-darwinist ideology.


Listen to your masters.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Reign of Order said:


> What about honour and keeping face though? And where does it say 'permanently deform'? This is also the old and traditional natural way of saying "Your claim is not valid".
> 
> If you've ever heard of the notion "A claim that cannot be backed by force is a joke." in the old traditional ways?
> 
> This can work for these people. Also on the other hand what I talk about is based on AntiFa’s methods for fighting social-darwinist ideology.


 Concepts of 'honor' and 'keeping face' are outdated and frankly, stupid. If you have to _use_ force to back up your claims, your claims are invalid. Obviously 'punching a literal Nazi' is not the same thing as 'punching someone who insulted your masculinity.'


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Conscience Killer said:


> Concepts of 'honor' and 'keeping face' are outdated and frankly, stupid. If you have to _use_ force to back up your claims, your claims are invalid. Obviously 'punching a literal Nazi' is not the same thing as 'punching someone who insulted your masculinity.'


My problem is that I have worked out these people essentially support to or are linked to social-darwinist ideology advocating for implementation of ‘survival of the strongest instead of the most righteous (which is a form of literal evil). 

Anybody who subscribes to such a thing because of the fact they intend to do harm on groups of people in their heads already (It can range across any movements) needs to be immediately re-educated, imprisoned or executed depending on level of threat they pose before they can cause more innocents to suffer or be hurt by wanting evil.

Nazi Germany was based on ideas of ‘rooting out the weak in society’ (especially among the males) and borrowed ideas from Herbert Spencer which advocated this. If there was an arrest of the terrorists who subscribed to it in Germany then Hitler would never have risen to power, the Holocaust would never have happened.

Notions of honour prevent people from becoming immoral or hypocrites. If you can use them to uproot those who support a social-darwinist ideology then it’s worth using.

Many - all people who support gender standards for men have social-darwinist ideals and beliefs technically. I found out it was interlinked by observing/encountering their views eventually.


----------



## LeSangDeCentAns (Apr 10, 2018)

^ evil af.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Reign of Order said:


> My problem is that I have worked out these people essentially support to or are linked to social-darwinist ideology advocating for implementation of ‘survival of the strongest instead of the most righteous (which is a form of literal evil).
> 
> Anybody who subscribes to such a thing because of the fact they intend to do harm on groups of people in their heads already (It can range across any movements) needs to be immediately re-educated, imprisoned or executed depending on level of threat they pose before they can cause more innocents to suffer or be hurt by wanting evil.
> 
> ...


 OK, but do you literally not understand that _killing Hitler_ is different than _punching someone in the face who said something that hurt your feelings_? You're suggesting that if you don't randomly punch people in the face who you disagree with, that you're permitting terrorists to slaughter six million innocent people. Which is an absolutely retarded and extremely offensive perspective.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

I don't punch people in the face. 

I've observed that it's very repressed males that have never had a healthy outlet for their aggression that advocate violence (they may or may not even engage in it themselves, but they seem to hold it up as some sort of ideal to look up to). 

I don't care to call this any of the alpha/beta/sigma BS that seems to be on a lot of people's minds these days - for reasons I don't even understand tbh. Personally, I'm a huge pacifist, but give me a pair of gloves and put me in a boxing ring with an opponent under controlled conditions and we'll duke it out and then have a drink afterwards because that's what you do. I'll go for a drive. Take a walk. Clear my head. Get a punching bag. Furiously read something to flesh out my perspective. Channel the anger into something constructive. 

A lot of my good online friends are now basically people I started off disliking and after several heated exchanges we learned to respect one another's differences and are now fast friends. You can dislike someone's views, but that says absolutely nothing about them as a person at all. 

People who hold _shared morality_ as some sort of standard for all of humanity in and of itself are much too dogmatic and it's really hard to reason with them so eventually they become background noise. I wouldn't mind eventually coming to good terms with them too, but sometimes you can tell when someone else thinks ill of you so you just move on.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Conscience Killer said:


> OK, but do you literally not understand that _killing Hitler_ is different than _punching someone in the face who said something that hurt your feelings_? You're suggesting that if you don't randomly punch people in the face who you disagree with, that you're permitting terrorists to slaughter six million innocent people. Which is an absolutely retarded and extremely offensive perspective.


Nope their ideas promote evil and suffering deliberately plus consciously. Literally the entire basis of their ideology is to make certain groups of people suffer or be eliminated from society.

If they had their way they would do the same thing as Hitler or similar to other fascist countries, they’re basically like ‘Hitler and gang before his-their lucky rise to power’. The only way to deal with them is as antifa says.



Smegma said:


> ^ evil af.


Caring to prevent the suffering of innocents is rather the opposite of evil. Allowing it to spread and doing nothing would be closer.

If you do nothing in the face of evil it will be allowed to cause suffering or kill. The same case if you refuse to retaliate then disperse a tribe of cannibals who destroyed a settlement.


----------

