A Pride of Alphas
An Enigma of Sigmas
A Wing of Betas
A Force of Deltas
A Creep of Gammas
A Stalking of Omegas
A Mince of Lambdas
Of
course, the list above refers to the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy. We still
need terms to distinguish Roissy's binary sexual hierarchy.
A Conceit of ALPHAS (Alphas and Sigmas)
An Orbit of BETAS (Betas, Deltas, Gammas, Omegas)
43 comments:
An Approach of PUA's.
A Pod of Feminists.
An Horror of Trannies.
A Petard of White Knights.
A Borg of Feminists.
An Absence of MGTOWs
A Denial of tradcons
An oven of neo-cons
A singular sigma. They don't travel in packs.
A singular sigma. They don't travel in packs.
That's exactly why, when we postulate a group, it's an enigma.
A herd of women
A team of men
A tragedy of feminists
A quake of fat chicks
A brigade of white knights
That's exactly why, when we postulate a group, it's an enigma.
I should have read the posts in chronological order.
A Force of Deltas... I laughed. What happened to an Embarrassment of Gammas?
I like the term "gaggle", as in a flock of geese. It works even better as a gaggle of women. It's even onomatopoetic.
A Force of Deltas... I laughed. What happened to an Embarrassment of Gammas?
Someone suggested a Creep of Gammas and I thought it worked better, given the customary female reaction to their advances.
No, it's clearly a Charge of White Knights.
A trample of trolls.
An enigma of sigmas is so bletchly cryptic.
Can deltas force anything?
That said, a creep of gammas is perfect (bunnificent!).
Can deltas force anything?
The point is that there are so many of them.
A clowder of sigmas or a dowt of sigmas.
An Alpha star
Beta Orbiters
Female black hole
Everything gets sucked into it
Supernova explosion of orgasmic force
Alphas burn bright
Betas are cold pieces or rock in nothingness
Markku said...
Can deltas force anything?
The point is that there are so many of them.
Worthy of note. When too many Deltas get the sense that they have been sold out, it's time for a society to look out.
The amusing thing is that after Lambda, Delta is the most neglected category here, even though they represent the overwhelming majority of men. But that's exactly the problem. The group is so large, that it doesn't have any specific character and therefore there's nothing to talk about.
Gammas are so target rich:
A warren of gammas
A scalzi of gammas
A squee of gammas
A crawlspace of gammas
A snowflake of gammas
A buzzkill of gammas
A quidditch of gammas...
Markku...A swelter of deltas?
Markku, that's exactly the Delta's problem. He doesn't rock the boat, he doesn't turn it, and he doesn't hold it back. He supplies just enough steady rowing power to keep the boat going, in which case he won't be noticed. Gammas and Omegas get noticed in the negative, Alphas and Betas in the positive. Sigmas... in both.
There is no collective term for such as I, for there are no men like me.
...Come now, you knew I would say it.
To flesh out the metaphor, the Alpha is standing at the bow, deciding where to go. The Beta is at the tiller cheerfully steering where the Alpha says. The Gamma grumbles to himself about why they should go another way, and then clumsily paddles out of sync with the Deltas. The Omega manages to hit himself on the head with the oar and ends up unconscious on the deck. The Sigma might suddenly row harder than anyone else, steering the boat slightly off course, before disappearing over the side, coming back with a fish which he proceeds to gut and eat raw.
A Swish of Lamdas?
A Roissy of Alphas?
A Tad of Gammas?
A Luck of Lambdas
A Pluck of Omegas
A Cluck of Gammas
A Duck of Deltas
A Buck of Betas
A Sigma or an Enigma of Sigmas
An Alpha @#$& or a Cluster@#$& of Alphas
"Scalzi" is to gammas, what "Smurf" is to smurfs.
Observe-
"I scalzied my pants!"
"He really scalzied that one up!"
"Angel food cake flavored vodka? I'll take just a scalzi of that."
"Those conflict-free jade butt plugs are scalzi-tastic!"
http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1bx09t/wife_is_leaving_me_for_another_man_advice/
Why Christians need game, example 368236
This is a textbook case.
To further understand this model, can this be considered a relational hierarchy?
Socio A / Sexual B
Example: Alpha/Alpha, Alpha/Sigma, Alpha/Beta, Alpha/Delta, Alpha/Gamma, Alpha/Omega, Alpha/Lambda, etc.
I still don't know which pool I am swimming in while attempting to navigate. I'd rather not declare India when I land in America.
I don't think so, Desertnomad.
Alpha/Alpha, for example would be Alpha. He's dominant in both arenas. So that's fine.
Alpha/Sigma makes no sense, however, as sigma is a form of alpha.
Alpha/Beta would likely be a Beta - a guy who is socially dominant but trails along with an alpha to catch his cast-offs.
Alpha/Delta would just be a popular delta.
Alpha/Gamma? Eesh. No. That's just the Dungeon Master. He doesn't really control the world.
Alpha/Omega? There's Jesus, and that's about it.
You are really mangling things in your mind if you think the hierarchy model works like this.
It is much better to use two factors instead. Assign a number to social dominance, and then the other to number and quality of sex partners.
Don't get the broad general ranks mixed up with "success" levels of the two factors.
Vox has also mentioned that the difference between Alpha and Beta isn't merely a quantitative difference in N. It is related to the reason of the man's sexual success. Alpha's success comes from the inside. Even if stripped from his looks and wealth, he will still be dominant. Beta's success is external, such as good looks. Take that away, and he is just a Delta at best.
Also Betas are often people who don't have the innate alpha "need" to be #1, rule the world, etc.
Lots of betas are really successful with women. They really belong in the "Alpha" category above per Roissy's hierarchy.
To further understand this model, can this be considered a relational hierarchy?
No.
And the evergreen "A flog of bloggers".
Crusader
That's why I was surprised Vox put his Betas in with Roissy's Betas. I thought per the original classification they were more to the Roissy Alpha
A "pitcher" of Alphas?
A "catcher" of Betas?
A "swallow" of Deltas?
A "I-ain't-getting-laid-in-this-lifetime-or-the-next" of Gammas?
A "Send-these-pathetic-wastes-of-good-oxygen-to-populate-Mars" of Omegas?
...Could work.
You are really mangling things in your mind if you think the hierarchy model works like this.
It is much better to use two factors instead. Assign a number to social dominance, and then the other to number and quality of sex partners.
Don't get the broad general ranks mixed up with "success" levels of the two factors.
That is what I thought to have articulated. However, as VD confirmed, it is not so at any rate.
I would have to say Omega, maybe Gamma, but I partially fill out only sometimes damaged and not at the party. I consider myself emotionally guarded and dislike large parties though I'm invited to them.
Sexually 0, and Socially I don't know how to metric that aspect, 1?
I'll keep camping until I can find my way out of the arid and into an oasis.
VD,
Is there a Christian Alpha's equivalent of the enfeverished moment of sexual passion that non-Christian Alphas/Betas use to clench the ever-open-arms invitation to the cozy foxhole of seemingly qualified gals? I've started observing a pattern where 8's are effortlessly intrigued, am engaged by, but eventually wander to beta orbiters willing to put out a lay once they realize I'm not willing to seal the deal on the spot.
After they wander they're obviously no longer qualified for so much as a second thought, but is there a tool as efficient as pushing the honeybomb detonator? Or am I forced to wait for a chick so hooked on my Alpha musk that she's willing to play for the goods? On occasion, after traditionally successful game, I've caved in and taken home the prize but I know I'm asked to play by different 'rules'.
Is a Christian Alpha relegated to a sour mix of Alpha-tude and Beta-dom for their unwillingness to pound a highly desirable pooch when the opportunity arises? Will a Christian Alpha always lose out to a non-Christian Alpha all things being equal? It sure feels that way by the traditional-Game measuring stick, and it seems every hottie is on the cock-carousel until their tickets run out regardless of self-proclaimed denomination.
A Carousel of Alphas
But let's not forget the wymyn!
A Waddle of Landbeasts
An Annoyance of Feminists
A Wither of Childless Spinsters
A Regret of Divorcees
How about a Scare of Omegas
Desertnomad, to understand where you are going wrong, you need to stop thinking of the hierarchy terms as values.
For example, a delta can be extremely happy and successful (by his own metric) as such, and might feel unwanted stress in the role of alpha. A relatively contented follower, if you will, especially if he's found a good long-term match. (Now, the decreasing ability of deltas in finding long-term matches is another problem altogether.)
In other words, delta is not empirically "worse" than alpha. Some folks really are going to find purpose and contentment at their "alloted" station in the hierarchy.
Frankly, while omega is fairly difficult and embittering for most men, it is not for all. I know a very clever and content omega who takes great pleasures in the joys of this world, has done some fairly incredibly "behind the scenes" work, makes good money, contributes to society, loves his cats (yes), and has a small number of occasional but long-term friendships that sustain him.
I don't believe he's ever been on a successful date, much less had a girlfriend. He would, as far as I can tell, rather go fruitless than accept the somewhat nasty fruit of gammadom, or the confusion of deltahood. Alpha and beta are a world so separate from him they may as well be a different species.
Admittedly, he's a snowflake - the happy omega - that's why I can think of him so easily. I really haven't ever met one so well adjusted and secure in his place at the bottom. However, my point is that the SS hierarchy is a general ranking of pecking order, but it isn't necessarily of life quality. Think of an alpha in stress mode. The explosion is spectacular. The average alpha survives it just fine. A guy like "Ed" would literally die of an aneurysm.
However, the two components are qualitative. So, you can't really say "Oh, I'm a social omega, but I score well with quality women, and thus a sex alpha." You could say, "I'm not perfect socially, but I'm decent at attracting good-looking, semi-virginal women, and therefore...a beta."
or
"I'm well liked and a leader of men, but when it comes to women, I'm okay, but a little lost and therefore...a beta."
However, you can't possibly describe either of these characters as beta/alpha or alpha/delta on the duality you propose. It ends up being a muddle.
I don't think I'm explaining your gap very well. I understand where you are coming from, but it is simply a misapprehension. The hierarchy as explained to the right may be in need of review.
There also needs to be a collective term for all the snowflakes who think they are special and separate from the hierarchy. Perhaps:
A Dusting of Snowflakes
A Blizzard of Snowflakes
A Delusion of Snowflakes
A Denial of Snowflakes
Denial of Snowflakes works.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.