Alpha Mail: the dancing gamma

I have to confess, I'm not exactly sure what to make of this email:

I was at dancing recently, and took some video. Watching my body language, I was horrified. I thought I'd stopped pedestalizing women. But my facial expressions said otherwise.

Now, the Gamma, he pedestalizes women from a position of weakness. He thinks they are greater and better than him, or pure and virginal, or nonsense like that. I have had no such illusions for quite a number of years. Gamma is the White Knight. So, in my mental frame, I wasn't pedestalizing women.

Now, we go to your description of the Omega. You characterised him as having deluded self grandeur. Now that makes sense. You can put a woman on a pedestal from the opposite direction. Roissy teaches that you might have to use anti-game on the uglies, the women who are more than 2 SMP points below you. The grandiose Omega assumes he is a TEN, and the women are FIVEs at best... He puts them on a pedestal because he thinks he is so darn superior to them!

Same end result; pedestalization. Women don't want to be treated like China dolls, they want just enough roughness to know that you COULD rough them up... but that you in control of yourself, and can control them. Whether Gamma or Omega, pedestalization deprives them of those vagina tingles of feeling off-balance, but safe and secure.

This entire email smacks of Gamma overthinking and socio-sexual incoherence. While the Omega does tend to overrate himself, I don't think the concept of putting someone on a pedestal because they are inferior to you makes any sense at all. Indeed, the rampant misconceptions of Game run amok are one of the very reasons I started Alpha Game, in order to lend some coherence to the various contradictory concepts floating around. So, to be clear, "putting women on a pedestal" means viewing them as intrinsically superior to men on some basis by virtue of their sex. This may mean a belief that women don't lie, that women don't like to have sex if they are not in love, that women are more pure, noble, and innocent, or another of any number of ideas that diverge from the reality of observable female behavior.

As to the topic of dancing, it is a tricky matter. Most men and women are bad dancers and look a little ridiculous when they are dancing, the difference is that most men realize they are bad whereas most women not only think they are pretty good, but tend to consider themselves to be in a position to criticize the mediocre male dancers. (Now bite that lip and swing that bottom on the two-beat, baby!) What this amounts to is that a man should generally avoid dancing unless he is out on the floor with a woman who is a very good dancer, which means, counterintuitively, that she is not likely to be critical of him. (For some reason, very good dancers tend not to be critical of other people's dancing, probably because compared to them, practically everyone is pretty bad.)

For all that they talk about it, it doesn't appear that most women are attracted to men who are good dancers on the basis of their dancing. I have a friend, a classic beta and high quality wingman, who is a very good dancer. He is a master of all the Latin dances and is a known fixture at the salsa nights in the various city nightclubs. But aside from being a fun mutual pursuit with his current girlfriend, a dedicated tango enthusiast, I've never seen it do him any good with American women. They even appear to be a little put off by his ability, as if they see it as somewhat effeminate for a man to dance well if he does not have the requisite dark skin to excuse it. If you think about it, women don't tend to have the same positive reaction to hearing a man is a dance instructor that they do to a personal trainer, a tennis instructor, or even a yoga teacher. It may not hurt, but it doesn't help.

Anyhow, as with most things for men, the best approach to dancing to either master it or not mess with it.