There were 141 male responses and 14 female responses. In order to more meaningfully calculate the income and partner averages, I threw out the top five and bottom five male outliers and the top and bottom female outliers.
First, the men. Their average age is 37.8 years (median 37) with an average annual income of $74.8 ($65k) and 7 (3) lifetime sexual partners. 76% are religious, 24% are not. 49% are married, 51% are unmarried, and 14% have been divorced. Most of the divorced men remain unmarried.
As for the women, their average age is 36 (median 36.5), their average annual income is $31k ($22.5k), and they have had an average of 6 (4) lifetime sexual partners. 86% are religious, 14% are not. 50% are married, 50% are unmarried, and 14% have been divorced.
Conclusions:
1. The 80/20 rule is largely substantiated. Even if the outliers aren't included, the 20% (27) most sexually successful men had sex with 617 of the 921 women involved, or 67% of them. But since the Alphas and Sigmas tend, by definition, to be outliers, it's necessary to include them here even though we didn't in attempting to determine what is average. Including all 10 outliers meant that the 28 most sexually successful men had sex with 1099 of the 1447 women, or 76%. So, in the interest of precision, it should probably henceforth be described as the 75/20 rule, wherein 20 percent of the men are having 75% of the sexual encounters.
2. The ALPHA cutoff point is readily apparent when looking at the data. Interestingly enough, this is the same 15+ partner point that the Centers for Disease Control uses when it divides men into various groups based on the numbers of partners.
3. Women were significantly more pro-marriage than men. 86% of women were either satisfied with their marriage or interested in getting married versus 63% of men. In general, divorced and irreligious men were the most likely to be anti-marriage. Younger men were very slightly less likely to be pro-marriage, but the average difference between the pro- and anti-marriage camps was only one year. To the extent that the "marriage strike" exists, it appears to cover the full range of male ages.
4. Monetary success does tend to correlate with sexual success for men. The average income of the 28 ALPHAs, who had an average age of 38, was 50% higher than the average at $112k. The average income of the male virgins, whose average age was 31, was 16% lower than the norm at $63k. Now, obviously the additional seven years was an advantage in providing more time to increase income and gain sexual experience, though not enough to account for the full disparity. And yet, money is clearly not the only determinant since there are ALPHAS with no income and virgins with very high incomes. Still, throwing out just one outlier on both ends would make the correlation even stronger.
5. Despite the explanations previously provided, many respondents still appear to have a hard time understanding what a Sigma is. A Sigma is neither a male loner nor a unique and precious snowflake, but is probably best understood as the introverted variant of the Alpha. If a man is not in the 15+ category, then it should not be hard to understand that he is very, very unlikely to be at the apex of the socio-sexual hierarchy, barring serious religious devotion from a very young age. So, while it is remotely possible for there to be a male Sigma with 0 or 1 partners, there are none with more than 1 or less than 15.
6. There is a noticeable difference between the Alphas and the High Alpha players. The obvious dividing line there is around 40+ partners. So, there is the all-important distinction which many women have requested. Any man with more than 30+ historical partners should probably be assumed to be a ruthless player intrinsically unfit for a long-term relationship as 62% of the men in this category were anti-marriage; only the male virgins, at 66%, were more strongly anti-marriage. Compare to this the 80% of alphas in the 15-30 partner category who were pro-marriage; all of those in this category who were anti-marriage were irreligious and most were divorced.
7. There is a correlation between female income and greater partner count. Women with 8+ partners averaged $70k income. Women with 0-4 partners averaged $34k income.
More as I continue to sort through the data.
62 comments:
I think a better way to calculate ALPHA would be number of partners divided by (currentage - 13).
That way age and ALPHAness won't be conflated.
I can explain further, but I think you got it from the first sentence.
For this kind of data, it's better to look at medians rather than averages.
I've added the medians. They're not substantially different than the averages, with the exception of female income.
This most certainly has been addressed before, but I've missed it:
Isn't the socio-sexual heirarchy more dependent on other's perceptions of partner count rather than actual count?
In other words, wouldn't strong rumors of a person's relationships be sufficient for them to achieve rank? I know a couple of guys who consistently, without saying a word, project a much higher body count than I believe they have.
Now, their actual numbers probably qualify them as alphas anyway, but I was wondering if there is any element of (non-self generated, obviously) rumor or reputation that enhances rank without the deed.
In a sense this King A person is right that the sigma category ends up being a disservice to people with a tendency for conceit. But, of course, since he always poisons the well, few people will want to discuss the nuances thereof when the issue is brought up.
It has nothing to do with the sigma classification per se and more to do with the human tendency to identify themselves with whatever is perceived to be desirable. When Roissy first brought Game to many people's attention, they were all stumbling over themselves to declare themselves alphas. ESR was a particularly amusing example of that, and I recall a typical IT guy trying to describe himself as a "stealth alpha" because he was competent at fixing computers.
This tendency is especially pronounced because those who are of lower rank or are outcasts understandably like to think it is them who is rejecting society rather than the other way around. Now, I don't care if someone wants to describe himself as the Ultimate King Giant Penis or the Alphiest Alpha, the only problem is that if you are a typical Gamma or Delta who decides he is a Sigma on the basis of being introverted or disagreeable, you're never going to improve your status in the hierarchy.
Fine, perhaps you don't want to do so. But you're both missing the point and the opportunity for change. And that's why using hard numbers rather than perceptions is useful. Even though the guy with N=2 whose two happen to be two Victoria's Secret models is without question higher rank than the guy with N=100 comprised of slightly overweight college girls at Podunk University.
It has nothing to do with the sigma classification per se and more to do with the human tendency to identify themselves with whatever is perceived to be desirable.
At least the alpha category has two objective measures: How much you manage to dominate other people socially, and how much quality tail you get. Sigma takes the other measure out of the picture. It is easier to explain to oneself how one is really a sigma, it's just that for some snowflakey reason you don't want those girls. But you totally could get them if you wanted.
It's harder to explain how you accidentally come short in TWO measures.
the sigma category ends up being a disservice to people with a tendency for conceit
AWCA
Can someone with a strong (religious) conviction that racking up a body count is unwise, yet who has stumbled a few times, correctly identify himself as Sigma if the social aspects fit?
It appears your answer is no, meaning that the "sexual" in "socio-sexual" takes precedence. Correct?
A little help in defining:
In an unfamiliar small town bar I happened upon. I was sitting at the bar alone with my beverage of choice for that evening. The bartender and her two friends were just discussing a friend's call about how she "was going to cut her wrists/try to kill her self"...again, evidently. Overhearing this I quickly stepped up and said "tell her to cut up and down, not side to side". They all loved my comment. One of the girls owned the bar and bought my drinks all night long, until I went home with her.
From a Sigma with an honest well over 30 count.
Fun stuff
Can someone with a strong (religious) conviction that racking up a body count is unwise, yet who has stumbled a few times, correctly identify himself as Sigma if the social aspects fit?
It is of course theoretically possible, but in the vast majority of cases, probably not. A man who can't even control himself is unlikely to be able to control others effectively.
I can't read minds. I don't observe most people's behavior. But I simply haven't ever met anyone that I would consider an alpha or a sigma who isn't either a) a socially dominant player to whom women are visibly drawn, or b) an intensely religious individual.
To a certain extent, this info is about as reliable as self-identified Christians. There should be a qualifier for those claiming 35 to 40 plus conquests. Have they had/have an STD. Yes, I know almost all will have claimed to only have slept with high quality upper-middle class white women, but whose to say those ladies never went slumming on a few occasions. And spare me the I always use a condom nonsense. Crabs, the drip, Derek Jeters Simplex 2 self identification would help separate the true players from the posers.
Additionally, the Sigma traits of 1. bringing in girls from outside your core social group's dating circles, that on one else has ever met and 2. the natural ability to agitate and intimidate an Alpha are the keys, in my opinion to even considering yourself a Sigma.
Any comments on tying this basically around a single factor, sexual partners, just as wrong as using the left-right spectrum in politics?
I realize that even the supposedly "religious" are quite loose in that area today, but what role does religious conviction play?
What about for someone, such as myself who is definitely "shy" in some cases, but not others. Looking at it as a linear spectrum seems to not be sufficient to tell us more than a caricature of how things work.
Any comments on tying this basically around a single factor, sexual partners, just as wrong as using the left-right spectrum in politics?
Not at all. The only problem is that there isn't an easily quantifiable metric for the social aspect.
Look, it's not that difficult. There aren't very many alphas, just like there aren't very many rock stars and CEOs. It's pretty simple. If there is even the slightest modicum of doubt that you are not X, you are not. Period.
All these bizarre rationalizations of this that or the other thing are absurd. I can tell who the alpha is in about two seconds of watching a group in operation. It's that obvious.
It doesn't matter what you are, only what you can become. Go ahead and appoint yourself King High Alpha or Grand Pooh Sigma if you like. But you're not going to fool anyone except yourself, and more importantly, you're not going to change your behavior for the better.
This snowflaking isn't just ego, it's also the desire to avoid the effort that change requires. I understand that. I could, theoretically, modify my behavior to become an alpha. But it would damn near kill me and it would make me miserable.
So know thyself. Ruthlessly.
To a certain extent, this info is about as reliable as self-identified Christians. There should be a qualifier for those claiming 35 to 40 plus conquests. Have they had/have an STD.
Absolutely. But it's an informative starting point. And very good point on the STDs too. Some of the alpha players I knew used to joke about playing STD bingo.
Anon,
It was an anonymous survey. If you brag about how many women you sleep with, well, it kinda defeats the purpose of bragging if you don't leave your name. And what do battle wounds (or STD's, as you call them) have to do with rank? If you get the clap once, it doesn't change your ability to score. If you get the clap twice, well, that's a round of applause. Genital warts? Nonsense, you're just ribbed for her pleasure.
But seriously, aside from the lethal diseases which are sure to lower ones motivation to get laid (staying alive and keeping all body parts attached would probably take precedent), take some antibiotics, wait a week, and get back to boning. Catching siphyllis doesn't doom your dick to purgatory anymore.
That, and yeah, wear a condom next time.
All these bizarre rationalizations of this that or the other thing are absurd.
It's the Cult of Self-Esteem.
Remember, people, irrational self-confidence does not mean that you should buy your own bullshit.
Part of the reason I ask is that I am trying to "know myself." I don't fit any of the neat categories in the list, mostly because I have never pursued sex outside marriage for its own sake, having a strong conviction that that was not fitting with God's call on my life.
The thing that gets me thinking more is that I am told my father, who seemed quite an alpha, being both an effective salesman and Christian evangelist, was very shy growing up. I know he preferred to be alone at many times, but generally fit right into social situations.
I have not felt the same, being very much of a loner, but I see many of the traits in him in myself and I wonder if I need to just kick myself to be more outgoing when needed.
Knowing myself is a lot harder than it may seem. Perhaps I am missing it (and you have accused me of that in the past), but I still don't find it simplistic, which is how I see those categories.
Mar 10:31 But many that are first will be last, and the last first."
For a Christian, delta is a perfectly fine place to be. Of course, improving oneself (which is arguably our duty) might incidentally lead to a rise in status, but there is no reason whatsoever for a Christian to place his status as the ultimate goal.
I find the data fascinating. A sample size of 155 is larger than some funded academic surveys. As you anticipated, Vox, #6 is of particular interest to me. I am going to post that finding if you don't mind, I think it will spur great discussion.
It doesn't matter what you are, only what you can become. Go ahead and appoint yourself King High Alpha or Grand Pooh Sigma if you like. But you're not going to fool anyone except yourself, and more importantly, you're not going to change your behavior for the better.
I love this. Women often are guilty of deceiving themselves about their SMV, which just guarantees they will not see improvement in their results. Why bother? Much better to be ruthless, as you say, and identify what you can start to do right now to improve your SMV.
It will be interesting to see if the data shows a bell curve, or a bimodal distribution. A quick look seems to show distinct bimodality in several areas.
Self-identified alpha. My count was 21, but only because handjobs etc were ruled out (for good reasons). This exercise was embarrassing for me, as I am now a committed Christian and don't look back with fondness at my behavior.
Most of my count was racked up between marriage 1 and 2 (now), because once I am in marriage, I stop consummating the flirtations. A few before marriage one. STD's are not necessarily reliable indicator, as protection is a pretty good safeguard if used consistently. One hot girlfriend had herpes and I made sure to used protection and be thorough in cleaning. And got tested myself afterwords, to make sure. The strippers also were high risk.
For Susan, I'd say that if I weren't a Christian, I would never, ever have remarried after my first one.
The other irony is that my salary doubled after my second marriage, so the prime scoring time period was not dependent on economic status, but rather ability and confidence.
Last note: my upbringing and the consistent Christian message is to be more Delta, not alpha. To some degree, I am not comfortable to self-identify as alpha and actively work to throw some beta in the mix to keep faithful to my beliefs. Too much alpha may provide too many opportunities to fall from my vows. It is fun sometimes to deliberately throw some beta behavior in and watch the interest level drop in some new acquaintance.
What did you do with all the males whose responses showed they misread the question and rated themselves on a 1-10 scale rather than by socio-sexual status?
I didn't read all the responses, but I noticed a number of them showed that rating.
Average salary is much higher than I would have anticipated.
Also shocked that bjs counted. Clinton be damned!
To those suggesting that the Last Shall be First some how means that Christians should be striving for less alpha and more delta...
I should remind you that the Biblical Definition of Meekness is not weakness. It is Power restrained. In order to be Meek... you must have some power to retrain in the first place.
Jesus could've summoned 10,000 angels to take him off that cross and lay waste to the whole Roman Empire. That is power. But He did not use it. That is meekness.
Using number of partners is bunk.
I'm definitely a sigma but have had fewer than 15 partners because I married young.
All of those were top shelf and hot as hell. I hate the dating scene as much as I hate crowds.
When I found a woman that could cook and let me screw her 27 times in a 48 hour stretch I married her.
Problems solved.
I don't get what you are saying, Nate. Meekness is what? More beta? Or not? A virtue, or not?
I don't agree you need to have power to be meek. I've been meek most of my life; what do you know about it? :)
Can you clarify?
I was talking about meekness to a friend of mine the other day. I characterized it much like Nate did.
Being meek does not preclude the use of lethal force to solve a problem it only precludes lethal force as a primary choice in solving a problem. You use lethal force only when it is righteous and wise to do so, you actively seek peace with your neighbor.
Athor Pel
Nate: I wonder what you'd have said of the John the Apostole.
Actually, no, I don't.
"Gay."
---
Peter shall remain Peter and John shall remain John.
Before you guys go slamming Nate you should do a word study on the original Greek word
http://concordances.org/greek/4239.htm
Athor Pel
Meekness is not more beta. Meekness is power restrained... not a failure to recognize that one has power. it is also not power restrained at all times. As Athor pointed out... Jesus was retrained at times, and at other times He was not.
As for John the Apostle... Why would you think that I would call one of The Sons of Thunder gay?
I specifically said delta. What is usually called beta includes gamma and omega, whereas delta excludes those possibilities. Since Vox's beta and alpha are leadership positions, it is obvious that most people cannot be in them. Or else there would be nobody to lead.
Also, I didn't use the word "meek" at all, so it is irrelevant. The fact that many first will come last doesn't mean that all first will come last.
And I'm sure you can see the difference in personality between John and Peter, Nate. Both types are needed. I know you well enough to tell that if I used some of the words John did, you'd have some of your favorite words in store for me. Apart from the obvious one, "Nancy" comes to mind.
I did think it hilarious how many people reported themselves as Alpha and Sigma. I thought you would throw out the data as bunk.
What did you do with all the males whose responses showed they misread the question and rated themselves on a 1-10 scale rather than by socio-sexual status?
Ignored it. I was mostly curious to see how people would self-report. Although, as it happens, the writer did ask me for some data concerning that in an email today. So, it could prove useful after all.
Marrku
I realize you didn't use the word meek specifically. Never the less, the last shall be first is always corroborated with The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth.
Just as you have obviously fallen for some churchianity myths about weakness... so to have you fallen for some churchianity myths about John.
Jesus did not call Peter and James the Sons of Thunder. It was John and James. It was not sarcasm. John and James were fiery speakers.. given to out right shouting.
None of the 12 were nancy boys Markku. They were all rough men. John was certainly no exception. Given Jesus' nickname... it is more likely that he was among the roughest.
Would it be reasonable to expect a higher alpha representation here than in the general population? Since people tend to defend their failings instead of seeking to fix them, I'm imagining hordes of losers finding this blog, snorting disdainfully, and moving on to Facebook-stalk their homecoming queens, while alphas find a sympathetic environment and stick around to converse with their own kind and mentor interested learners.
I always thought the Sons of Thunder was a reference to their digestion as opposed to their oratory skills.
This and other game websites seems like they would bore alphas (or as, I think they are more accurately described, members of top tier friend groups). For the most part they repeat the same advice ad nauseum. And why on earth would a man already swimming in cat seek advice on getting more?
If indeed sigmas and alphas exist in great enough quantity to even merit categorization, they are still exceedingly rare. I've experienced most social situations accessible to an American man, and the idea of a male friend group having a leader is as foreign to me as a player without a pack. Of course, both of these types of men are absolute staples of fiction(Lord Flashheart, anyone?)
Why would an alpha (or sigma) visit here?
Try reading Badger's blog and how men should not blab about their thoughts to women.
How many alphas or sigmas have alpha or sigma male friends who they can talk with about their thoughts on a frequent basis? I'm not discussing most of this kind of thing with my wife. My son is too young. My father sometimes. Most of my male friends are too beta to relate, or I don't see them often enough to hash these things out.
Alphas who have married can still be interested in discussing matters, and also keep from going beta and risk losing their relationship.
Alphas who are swimming in pussy? The naturals think game is stupid crap and don't visit. The self-made are always looking for tips to improve and stay on top of their game.
Simple
I tend to agree with Climber. When Vox first started writing about game I blew the whole thing off. Over time I gained an academic curiosity for it, and eventually began to pull for this trying to improve things.
Now I am not here that often. But I do check in from time to time. He'll I even contributed once.
Good Lord, pretend alphas pretending they pretend to be beta, fake sigmas repeating their ridiculous claims even after Vox more or less clarified neither he nor anybody else cares about their self identification. Sure we get it number or partners can be deceiving, but as much as you want to pretend you boned the Toothfairy while the Easter Bunny Watched and Jacked it, it still only matters what is inside you, people.
Interesting analysis.
"When I found a woman that could cook and let me screw her 27 times in a 48 hour stretch"
"let" you screw her? Your choice of language alone says that you are not the sigma you claim to be.
"I've experienced most social situations accessible to an American man, and the idea of a male friend group having a leader is as foreign to me as a player without a pack."
This indicates you're simply not paying attention. All male friend groups have a leader. You're not the leader, and you don't like the idea that there is a leader, so you pretend there is not one. Gammaish behavior.
The way to determine the leader in any group is to watch as the stories are told. If the Alpha is not the one telling the stories, the stories are being told to him. Oh sure... friends say they are talking to the whole group... but if you watch they focus on one idividual more than the others. Another cue... when in a discussion... you will notice that the tangents that actually get followed up on are the ones either brought up by 1 person... or that that same 1 person starts the follow up.
all groups have leaders. There cannot be a group without a leader. First among equals applies.
"all groups have leaders. There cannot be a group without a leader. First among equals applies."
Not in my experience. And being among the 40+ I make an unusual gamma. Of my high school peer group, every one of us was royalty at some point. All of us were recognized football players. There were no leaders, as who among such a group would follow?
This whole idea appears to be written by men who have very little understanding of male dynamics. Or, more precisely, an understanding acquired from always being on the outside looking in.
And of course, you have the difficulty of comparing the low tier group alpha with the high tier group...whatever you people call him. High tier group guy gets more and better tail. Period.
aside - people who weren't high school royalty likely can't categorize themselves as alpha
*now, I will concede that there are leaders in work and sport environments (with official title of course). I'm speaking solely of social situations.
This whole idea appears to be written by men who have very little understanding of male dynamics. Or, more precisely, an understanding acquired from always being on the outside looking in.
No, you're just clueless about social dynamics, just like the college girls who say there were no cliques in their high school. Note that those who are on the outside of a social group can usually categorize it much more accurately than those who are in it. Instead of snowflaking about your little group of football royalty, consider some of the other groups. Who were the alphas of those groups?
Also, on most football teams, the quarterback and the defensive captain, who is usually a defensive end or a linebacker, are the alphas. Now, are you seriously going to suggest that all of the guys in your group dated the same number of equally hot girls? Just look more closely at whomever the women were most inclined to flock.
Not that he needs my agreement, but Nate is correct. We have long misunderstood meekness. Jesus was already given as an example, but I believe Moses was indicated as the meekest man on the earth, yet he was very confrontational, both when killing the Egyptian early in his life and later when leading the entire nation out of captivity.
====
I realize the focus of this is on sex, but it would still be good to have more discussion of these categories not just in terms of sexual conquests.
And isn't much of that really a symptom of our modern "free love" time rather than a true underlying principle?
Players may have been players throughout history, but the risks were definitely greater for most.
"Just look more closely at whomever the women were most inclined to flock."
And that's the funny bit. The guy who did head and shoulders above the rest was prone to extreme betaness. Moping, pining, etc. He was, however, really really ridiculously good-looking (as zoolander would say). Now, maybe he was so good looking as to not need game. Is that a thing? Otherwise not variation save perhaps for the qb. But he was a quiet guy who went with the flow socially.
But still, even if I were to concede that all groups have leaders and followers, surely one must recognize that high tier gamma,delta,etc do better than low tier alpha, beta. Which of course brings their very categorization into question.
t14...
You're missing the point in epic fashion. There is no such thing as a high tier gamma. if you put a group of alphas together.. they will work out a pecking order... but they'll still all be alphas.
and again... you keep talking about your vast experience... but then focus only on your own myopic high school experience.
Sad really.
I mean... its time to get past high school already. Most of us were over high school months before we graduated.
it's obvious that t14 win the city championship and scored 4tds in the final game at polk high...
High school has the least variables and is a social sitatuation the largest number of people will have had experienced. And the social dynamics of a law journal or a firm are just dull
For the sake of brevity my two key points are this 1) in my experience the quality of your pack has far more influence on your social sexual success than your relative rank in said pack and; 2) men, especially men in social situations, are (generally speaking) intensely individualistic. This intense individualism cuts against the forming of any actual hierarchy.
*and dear god I didn't play offense!
High school is a quite unique institution and something not repeated in real life, in the same way.
Vox,
I've had 1 partner for sex, but a high number for oral favors provided me (religion prevented me from having sexual intercourse, but not as many blow jobs as I could get before meeting my wife).
Many men I've known become visibly irritated with how many women I've, to quote one of them, "pissed" on, and not for sex, but for what is only and singularly my gratification.
Any thoughts on how that figures in?
I'm another example of #7. I have a salary above $70K and have had more than 8 partners (not much more and most occurred before I was 20. Any thoughts on the cause for the correlation?
#7 struck me as odd, because IIRC, men supposedly don't care how much money women make or how successful they are in a career. But as I thought about it, I realized that women who deliberately wait for marriage to have sex are frequently the same women who prioritize family over career, or don't want a career at all. I suspect that accounts for the correlation.
Every time the conversation turns to men's behavior toward each other, I find myself trying again to figure out a math class I taught. 12 guys headed for a very physical job, so most of them were buff, macho, and constantly competing. Is it possible for the alpha to be quiet and aloof? Is it possible that they didn't always follow his lead when he did something different from the group? Is it possible that the alpha was passive-aggressive? Is it possible the hierarchy changed frequently? Those guys were such a puzzle to me.
I don't know if anyone is still following this thread, but I have a contribution about high partner count and STDs. I was in the Philippines for two years in the late 70s. I had sex with two or more different women every week. I estimate that to be more than a hundred. I almost never used a condom—only if the girl insisted. I never got a genital STD. I took a healthy whiz and washed up after each encounter. Actually, many of the girls would wash me up afterward themselves. They really spoil a man for American women. I did get genital warts on my upper lip. I treated that with OTC fever blister medication and they went away. My goal was to get bar-girls to give it to me for free. My tactic was to bring them off with oral sex. Which was something they were not used to. I was reasonably successful.
Some of you may know the military acronym, PCOD, (pussy cut off date). That's the last date a guy could go out on the town and be assured of completing a course of antibiotics that cleared up the STDs that were common then, before shipping out for the states. That was about 14 days IIRC. I observed this precaution but did not have to take any antibiotics.
I have been married now for over 25 years. I don't know if I would be considered an Alpha, Sigma or what. I have noticed women giving me the eye from time to time, but I never follow up on it. It would hurt my wife's feelings.
Yep, I was completely redundant... oops.
- the 21/F
Song of the Omega--
Game theory makes me feel as if I am a human somehow adrift in a simian species. Yes I have met the types of monkey identified by these Greek letters. I am indifferent to them so I am an Omega-- probably. If there were a lower greek letter I would be that.
I have had sex with enough of these grasper hypercunt women to realize something was badly wrong with my instincts. By the grace of god I met a few human women to keep me from giving up totally. Here I am 22 years married with kids. One human ,one socio market place high value super cow. The latter dreams of geek dom due to her family upbringing.
I noticed your correlation of income and female sex partners. Maybe human girls make more money than apes?
Huh. May have just lost a post under the boxingalcibiades handle. Let's see if this goes through -- high-20s partner count, serious geek. I'm guessing that the high count isn't any indication of righteous studliness, but that given the 7/6 close number between sexes, that most people are hooking up a few times in high school and college, figuring out more or less who they like, who they don't like, and what they want from life, and moving from there with a dedicated partner (or else being quite lonely).
Christ. Not my best comment night.
Having been on the outside for a long time (academic and roleplaying nerd); I'm good looking and not shabby with women at all, but my high number is almost purely a reflection of having moved a lot due to avocation and been pulled through circumstances with lots of particularly attractive, intelligent, and available women. All of that shut down *rapidly* once I started living a more conventional life with conventional demands (when you can get laid but consider it a notably less interesting or effective use of your time, the standards have changed). Outside of nerdy hobbies, there's nothing all that unusual about me, so anecdata aside, I would expect that the relatively higher count for Sigma types has less to do with raw "pull" compared to Alphas and more to do with living a notably less predictable and more circuitous sort of life. So, yeah, high 20s-ish here, *maybe* low-30s if I dredge up some forgettables, but had I met my wife (who's about the best match for me I can possibly imagine) earlier, my count would be far, far lower.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.