I hadn't realized The Mate-Guarding Hand was a thing, or even that it was a tell of... insecurity I guess? I'm a kinesthetic learner, and generally a touchy-feely kind of guy. I also have a bit of possessiveness, I think. I'm inclined to think that those aren't necessarily Gamma/lower Delta things, but I'm unsure.Because Man is a rationalizing animal, we need to be careful about what actions we justify and how we justify them. "I think my bad habits aren't necessarily bad habits because they are mine" is not an effective approach to life.
Am I missing something essential in regards to the whole 'Mate-Guarding Hand' thing, or is that a part of my personality I need to work on?
Being possessive and touch-feely are intrinsically Gamma attributes. The fact that they come naturally to BT is as irrelevant as the fact that cowardice or lack of height comes naturally to other men. It just means that BT has to work harder to overcome those particular instincts than other men.
Mate-guarding is fearful and insecure behavior. Being touchy-feely is feminine behavior. Being possessive is antithetical to the Alpha's abundance mentality. The Alpha doesn't guard his mate(s), he dares them to leave because he knows, and they know, that he can replace them with someone as good or better in short order.
Far from standing there with his hand possessively guarding her, the Alpha is on the other side of the room, talking to a younger, hotter girl; in a properly ordered relationship, the woman mate-guards the man.
46 comments:
Exactly. They will accuse you of being "cold and uncaring," or some other such nonsense, so be prepared for that. If you honestly, truly don't give a fuck, it may be challenging to articulate in a way that doesn't make her think you're a sociopath.
Also, if you are talking to that hotter, younger, tighter girl at the other side of the room, be prepared for some potential drama, as I found out last weekend. If a couple of young women start fighting over you, stand back a bit and smile at the drama unfolding in front of you.
'Because Man is a rationalizing animal, we need to be careful about what actions we justify and how we justify them. "I think my bad habits aren't necessarily bad habits because they are mine" is not an effective approach to life.'
That's true for everyone.
VD:
It certainly makes more sense spelled out in this post. Thanks.
"I think my bad habits aren't necessarily bad habits because they are mine"
I just don't have the best sense of "this is an alpha thing and this is not". I think all the faux Alpha/Sigmas in fiction, especially those popular with Delta/Gamma, certainly doesn't help in being able to spot it. It's not a natural, easy thing, I'm guessing precisely because I'm a Delta/Gamma.
That said, I do remember reading something a long while ago about alternating Alpha/Beta (Beta in the sense of how the rest of the manosphere uses it) depending on how the LTR is. If DHV is needed, then Alpha, but if reassurance is needed and it's not a shit test, then Beta. So if I'm remembering that right, should Mate-guarding hand ever come out and used as a tool of reassurance?
If it's sexually possessive, sure. But mechanical security is something good, in the right conditions. And I'd want to know more about that touchy-feely thing. Is it just moodiness? I go into natural highs and lows, but then I take the world along for a ride. Sometimes I am really touchy-feely, just wouldn't expect it, or that it will last.
If he is sexually sensitive about his woman, have him flirt with waitresses while she is there. She might say something like, "Hey, I'm right HERE!". At which point he needs to wink at her, and carry on with the waitress. Eventually, as my women learned to do, they just sex me when I get home to make sure. Or even, as some, learn to appreciate my... talents. Right on the spot. I've had female servers get a bit unhappy at a good tip. Just like certain other women though, you don't pay them for their service. You pay them to go away.
I really like my seemingly crazy little life. I really do.
I think many Gammas mistake their possessiveness for the way they see Alphas grab their women and dominate them. But there's a big difference between Alpha possession and Gamma possessiveness. An Alpha demonstrates his possession of his woman and his confidence in it. He projects to her, "You're mine, and I could bend you over right now and you'd love it." A Gamma's possessiveness is based on his insecurity and his constant efforts to keep the relationship going. It projects, "I'm constantly worried that you're going to leave me."
So how does that translate to touching? The Alpha's touching is dominant, playful, and primarily sexual. It's a reminder that she is his, and that he's thinking about possessing her body. It comes in small doses, as if he knows she can only handle so much, and he's confident that she'll come get more soon anyway. (If a woman isn't finding an excuse to touch you fairly often, she's not that into you.)
The Gamma's touching is hesitant and questioning. It's primarily non-sexual, because he's rarely sure that she wants it (an Alpha assumes she always does, or he just doesn't care). Instead of being a reminder that he owns her, it's a question: "Do you still like me best?" He does a lot of it, because he has no confidence in the power of it, so he tries to make up for quality with quantity. And if he's touching her, it's almost impossible for her to be banging anyone else at that moment.
... in a properly ordered relationship, the woman mate-guards the man.
Always pay attention to her actions and listen with your eyes. Ninety percent of what a woman tells you, won't be coming out of her mouth.
When she shoots the blazing laser eyes at another woman, you will know she is yours.
@ Cail
Yes it's mostly a heart matter. The insecure guy has a weak heart and it shows, the jerk has a cold heart and it shows. If women are given the choice between these two...the jerk to the woman appears to have more of a confident heart than the insecure guy by miles...but in the end it's still not the type of guy a woman really wants.
Cataline,
Add to that, if the woman in the wrong blazes back or ignores her and continues, the man is an alpha. No shame for dames, not on some things. Yum!
Woman perceives the hunky jerk with the cold heart as a challenge and its her job as a woman to warm it. This is Chicknip 101.
I say it's more 'birds of a feather, flock together'.
Women love a challenge.
Obviously...they love the guy that doesn't see them as #1. The challenge to them is to see if they can get the guy to change his mind on that.
A guy with a warm secure passionate heart can be just as much a challenge as a guy with a cold secure jerk heart.
Jerk heart > dork heart
Pure passionate heart > jerk heart
OT: Harassment for waiting...the new SJW frontier. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/15/video-of-university-adviser-accusing-student-of-harassment-touches-a-nerve/
jerk heart > glee club heart
Women don't love jerks. While that works for PUA's, in some situations, it's a short run thing. Usually useful on lessor women. Nor do women like challenges. They love strength, surety, and being fully utilized... controlled... feeling safe. But she can't produce that, it has to be acted upon her.
I don't think most of you know what the fuck you are talking about. Most men just don't like the idea that women could give a shit about them. Especially attractive women. To a degree, they don't care for alpha types, it's just the best bet for their hormones. It's quite impersonal unless he makes it personal. And women don't understand much, especially about themselves or their reactions, or even their feelings. Living in a delicate world of pain and pussy hurt, they look for someone who mostly ignores that, and might even get to who, not just what, they are. The rest is fantasy, revision, making it up as they go, and such.
I feel almost slimy just getting close enough to write this. It's like talking about people who have succeeded in life amongst a group of hairy, nasty smelling, thieving, whoring Occupy people. Sniveling little shits can't handle the real truth, nor work, just sit and bitch.
Women love the challenge of a stoic, seemingly impenetrable man.
They love the callous jerks and badboys.
If they want emotion and drama in a man, they just get a GBF.
Don't be a GBF.
Btw, I like the FIFA World Cup reference in the title of this post. I'll never forget watching that match.
"Women don't love jerks. While that works for PUA's, in some situations, it's a short run thing."
I believe women don't care one way or the other, and aren't even aware if a man is a jerk most of the time. What do you really consider a jerk? A guy who displays social dominance in an inappropriate way. "Appropriateness" is basically a male standard of correct hierarchical behavior that women don't understand or care about. All they see is the social dominance.
Pretending that there's an abundance of women and letting females guard you: that really sounds 'Alpha' lol
'What do you really consider a jerk?'
Trying to forcibly impose your will upon others. The gamma and the player both share this trait. Basically they fight their version of reality with each other. They think they get the woman that way without considering she has some free will in the process too.
Everybody has free will...you can be whatever you want. A whipped puppy, a player, a jerk, a bully, a passive aggressive, a nice guy, a gamma, a gentlemen, a sperg...but you also get the resultant responsibilities with it too.
Women don't love jerks.
They may not love them, but they certainly love having sex with them. "Jerk" is a female sexual attractant. Deal with it or not, but it's observably true.
I don't think most of you know what the fuck you are talking about.
This coming from the guy who says "yum" every other post like a 15-year old try-hard girl? Doom, seriously who are you trying to kid?
A guy with a warm secure passionate heart can be just as much a challenge as a guy with a cold secure jerk heart.
To a woman, in the sense that it attracts her and makes her want to rise to the challenge? I used to tell myself that too. It's not true.
Quiz for everyone: What is Gavin McInnes' sociosexual rank?
@ Corvinus...he spoke the truth in one setting and didn't apologize for it. That's masculine behavior.
@Cail...It is true. I included secure for a reason.
Being possessive and touch-feely are intrinsically Gamma attributes.
From my time in the field, my judgment is that there are certain appropriate times to do kino, but for the most part, keeping your hands to yourself seems to make her want you more. In addition, kino seems more special to her if you keep it sparse.
@Doom
Women love men who are interested in their own projects (or "mission"). Women do not want to be the center of a man's life. They enjoy it when he has his own things to do.
Why do you think women go for men when the men aren't paying any attention to them? And why do you think they lose interest when the men do make the women the center of their lives?
Also, there's an alpha way to be a jerk, and an AFC way. The alpha way is -- again -- simply the man doing what he wants to do without letting her bend him. (The Fall of Man wouldn't have happened if Adam had been a jerk in the alpha sense.) The AFC way is to act bitter, snarky, and insulting in a passive-aggressive manner. It's a bit difficult to describe, but I've become able to judge a man's sociosexual rank is based on how he acts like a jerk.
Doom:
You have to understand that, among these Game fanatics, ALL women qualify as 'lesser women.' Like the male feminists they really are, they can't compete in a SMP unless it's been dumbed-down to the lowest common denominator.
A real Alpha would do exactly what you describe: act upon a woman to produce strength, security, a sense of being controlled &c. But Game isn't really about producing Alphas---just more of playing the same feminist mind games and calling that 'empowerment.'
Women don't love jerks.
Six of one, half-dozen of another. True, women don't love jerks because they are jerks. Women just love guys who are self-confident. Jerks usually come off as self-confident, and a guy who is self-confident can easily come off as a jerk because he doesn't pay attention when some milquetoast mid-wit starts yammering at him about all they way's the mid-wit thinks the self-confident guy is screwing up.
I don't think most of you know what the fuck you are talking about.
There are certainly people here who fit that description. I wouldn't say a guy with a successful marriage and a good looking wife of many years is one of them, but hey, everyone's got an opinion.
@ Corvinus...he spoke the truth in one setting and didn't apologize for it. That's masculine behavior.
@Earl
I read up on him. Apparently, he was an atheist and a hipster trend-setter, but became a Catholic a few years ago.
I rule him a Beta, who had moved up from Gamma over the past decade (hipsters and atheists are usually Gamma). His behavior on Hannity's show had a strong Sigma streak, but the last self-deprecating crack he made, as well as his Gamma history, would appear to disqualify him from being Sigma.
I haven't been able to find a picture that is undeniably of his wife, unfortunately.
'It's a bit difficult to describe, but I've become able to judge a man's sociosexual rank is based on how he acts like a jerk.'
Well it's based on where he places his importance or heart if you will. Plus the perception of how others view him can be skewed too. What seems like confident jerk behavior to one guy might seem like weak insecure behavior to another.
'I read up on him. Apparently, he was an atheist and a hipster trend-setter, but became a Catholic a few years ago.'
That would make the truth start coming out of him more. But even if he wasn't completely perfect at it, he managed to get it out there.
Here's some more Gavin.
Doom:
You have to understand that, among these Game fanatics, ALL women qualify as 'lesser women.' Like the male feminists they really are, they can't compete in a SMP unless it's been dumbed-down to the lowest common denominator.
Uh... what? We're "male feminists"? That's a good one.
And in this day and age, when the vast majority of women have taken multiple cawks since they've turned 16, yes, women are low-quality.
That's called the human condition. And the solution is to learn to deal with it rather than deny it.
A real Alpha would do exactly what you describe: act upon a woman to produce strength, security, a sense of being controlled &c. But Game isn't really about producing Alphas---just more of playing the same feminist mind games and calling that 'empowerment.'
Hohum, another Game h8r who knows jacksh!t what he's talking about. And your idea on what a "real Alpha" is sounds a little bit off.
Hmm... what other type of man tends to call themselves "the real Alphas"?
In that video Gavin seemed flustered with that exchange. Now that's what I would call jerk behavior.
What Corv said.
I think his beard flustered her.
And what about her snide remark at the and about his seersucker jacket?
I swear, she was going to say something about White men.
Vox,
Piss off about yum. I've actually never heard a girl say that. And peer pressure means shit to me. Yum! It might sound girlish, I suppose. But as I've said, I've not heard a female child use that term. And I wouldn't care. Don't care if you like it or not.
As to like to screw jerks, I suppose if that is the best she can find, it works. But I haven't really seen that myself. I've not had to resort to it, I suppose is what I am saying. Though that may depend on how you define the term. I'm not buying either. When women do go with jerks, it's always seemed fake, all the way around. As I suggested, it's the best she can find at the time she wants a little. Not a love thing.
Corvinus,
It isn't being a jerk to have other, even higher, priorities, than taking care of your woman or here wants. That's just the way it should be. Nor do I want her swarming over my life, so long as her sex is mine. I won't even bug her about it, simply find another who will... or will back off on the other side, if she can't take a hint. or in the day. If I choose a wife today, I will merely implicate the possibility to keep that in check, by separation if she's a clingon, or by ostentatious flirting if she is drifting.
Eric,
Fair enough. I know there is a difference, I just... like to do reality checks. Sometimes, I am sure, I am quite out of step. But then, what works for one definitely doesn't work for all, or even every time. And I don't have to be "in step", I feel no need. If comparing notes can be entertaining, interesting, perhaps informative. Dance that jig, learn new steps, or just go have a beer. Hey.... batter, batter, batter.... Swing!
That's just the way it should be.
Oh, cruel world! Why can't things just be the way they should!
@Fogey
1) McInnes is, after all, an ex-hipster. But instead of hipster, she got Duck Dynasty.
2) My guess: she was flailing, looking to find some way of insulting him, and pretty much randomly latched onto dissing his jacket.
3) Some fellow at Heartiste's blog claims she was Dessie Dackson's lover.
@Doom
Yeah, but when women complain about their "jerk" boyfriends, it often refers to this exact behavior you're describing. You may not consider it being a "jerk", and I don't even really do either, but women and AFCs do, and they unfortunately govern the popular usages of terms like "jerk" and "nice guy" due to their (heh) demographic weight.
As with the term "beta", it's quite obvious that "jerk" means different things to different people, and even sometimes to the same people (especially women) at different times.
Jack,
Don't be a wiseass. I wrote "how it should be", then went on to explain how I make it so. Not a bitch unless you don't do a damn thing about it. If I don't like something, I might bitch, but only until I can fix it. Wait, check that. I'll still annoy about it until it gets fixed in peoples heads around me that pulling some chains isn't worth the fucking effort. Wanna wrestle, we can do that all day. You'll lose, or at least get tired of playing, because I simply will not relent.
The world isn't cruel, I am. Yum! You fucker.
Glad this devolved into a pissing contest. Thanks for this. So brave.
Piss off about yum.
The next time I see you post "Yum!" on either blog, your comments will be deleted for the next week. And for the love of all that is good and holy, stop talking about yourself all the fucking time, nobody gives a damn about your exploits. They strike more than a few people as the entirely imaginary deeds of a try-hard.
If you just want to strike poses and brag about all the yummy pussy you've slayed, go do it at the Chateau. This isn't the place for it.
Uhrm? Perhaps I didn't understand the question. I suggested what I have done. I also suggested I didn't think most people were giving him good information. Maybe I went overboard, but I didn't see it as bragging. Then again, with children, I suppose you have to treat them as children. He'll never get out of hell at that pace though. Not my problem, you are right.
No worries about "grounding" me. I'll fix that myself.
@ Corv ~ I'd heard of him, but up until a few years ago I hadn't read anything by him. Apparently he's written some books. He's become more interesting to me in recent years. His behaviour on that segment was very excitable. Like all conservatives, when he made some particularly politically incorrect points he came across as a little kid uttering a swear word for the first time. (This is something I've even seen in Alt-Right and WN circles). I can't tell if it's lack of confidence, or thrill of the chase.
Her seersucker jacket remark was random and made her look petty. Not her finest performance, But still, would bang.
Some fellow at Heartiste's blog claims she was Dessie Dackson's lover
That was moi.
The world isn't cruel, I am.
C-R-U-E-L is not how you spell delusional. But why did I use the "Oh, cruel world!" wisecrack? Because the whole "that's how it should be" argument is so fucking Gamma. Jerks shouldn't be dating the cheerleaders, it should be guys who will "take care of her." And it doesn't matter that you think you've gone on to "explain how I make it so" because a) your ramblings are incoherent, and b) to the extent I can make any sense of them, you're still assuming your tactics work without any evidence that they do.
Again, don't be a fool and try to lecture men like Vox and I who have (in my case, 19) years of successful marriage under our belts with wives who are still thin, still want to look pretty for us, and who are excellent mothers to our children (hopefully Vox will forgive me for assuming the last about Spacebunny).
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.