Zero in the heterosexual market encompasses much more than
the Omegas, but generally that is what one thinks of when at that lowest of
numbers. Instead any man who is not actively involved with women romantically, sexually,
or in pursuit of a relationship is a zero as well.
The first subset who score at zero heterosexual sexual
market value (SMV) are zero not by choice. This group consists of Omegas who
are social outcasts for whatever reason. The lone weirdo comes to mind but also
encompasses those with severe physical or mental handicaps. The second subset
is homosexual men who of course do not participate in the heterosexual market.
The second set which is where this post focuses: men who are
Zeros by Choice (ZBC). This group is actually quite large, but very fluid in
nature as there are many temporary members.
Rebellion
The ZBC subset who rebel against the market are made of up
men who are frustrated, bored, angry, or disappointed. Some examples:- A man who recently divorced or had a hard breakup and swears off women for a while
- Japanese herbivores
- Western MGTOW supporters who explicitly support the movement
- Frustrated men who give up but have no affiliation with any movement
- Men who are bored with the women around him and take a break
They key distinctions for this group are they get out of the
market for negative reasons rather than positive ones and they chose to leave without
being forced out. Sometimes this is a permanent move, but most of the time it
is temporary and they decide to re-enter it at some point.
Higher Calling
The other ZBC subset is men who find a greater purpose in
life which completely consumes them, sometimes for a lifetime. Examples:- Religious callings like celibate priests or monks
- Career focus
- Personal introspection and improvement (typically temporary)
Rather than being angry, frustrated, or bored this group
finds that something else replaces the need for female companionship and
becomes their focus. Outside of religious vows this is almost always temporary
except perhaps in workaholics whose dedication to their life’s passion simply
pushes away any women unintentionally.
A good example is JJ Watt who intentionally didn’t have a
girlfriend and hinted he wasn’t even dating for the first year or two of his
career. Football completely consumed him and he didn’t want the distraction. As
odd as it may seem, at that time a Gamma who ranks a two had a higher SMV
because the Gamma was participating and not sitting it out. You have to be in
the game to have a rank, or otherwise you default to zero.
Joe Montana is not a NFL Quarterback
Joe Montana is one of the greatest football players of all
time, a hall of famer, and arguably even the greatest NFL QB of all time, but
he’s not an NFL quarterback as he’s not currently playing in the league. He has
no current contract or team and he will produce no stats for 2016 because he’s
not playing. It’s a tautology, but players are people who play. If your rank is
zero in the market place you are no longer playing. Perhaps you once were the
Joe Montana of the sexual market and have more notches on the bedpost than
anyone, but if you choose not to participate anymore you are a zero. Being in a
monogamous relationship with a woman is participating, it’s not just about
numbers.
The Importance
The most important aspect of game is honesty. You simply
cannot improve your game if you are not honest about where you currently sit in
the market. “I could have banged 10 chicks last year, if I wanted to.” May be
true however unlikely, but if you turned down every opportunity and aren’t
playing anymore you certainly aren’t an Alpha. “I used to date a lot of women,
but now I don’t. I’m a Beta.” Nope. You aren’t a Beta, you are a ZBC. Even if
you aren’t looking to improve your game and are happily ZBC don’t lie to
yourself.
ZBC Can Contribute
A Catholic priest probably can’t help you much when it comes
to meeting girls at a club, but they can give good marriage advice. If you are
a former player who is now sitting it out then you can still help those who are
playing. Maybe some guys can learn from your mistakes or success so it’s not
like you have nothing to say, just don’t say you are something you are not. 
33 comments:
excellent post
Interesting, but this post kind of reminds me of a fantasy football statistical nerd out. Or a longwinded diatribe about the importance of slugging percentage : )
Not that it's not dead on, but it all boils down to the fact that you need to play to win. Women don't just fall into your lap, that only happens in SJW feels based SciFi/Fantasy novels where human dynamics are never taken into account.
No aggression = not participating / Not participating by "choice" = not participating
Interesting dissection. Nice table.
this post kind of reminds me of a fantasy football statistical nerd out
Yes, so much of the Manosphere/Game blogosphere reminds me of this. The lists and obsessive classifying. It's off-putting after a while.
Where are the Gammas?
Gammas who are actively participating have a score higher than zero. Gammas who aren't participating have a zero score.. just like everyone else who isn't participating.
he’s not an NFL quarterback as he’s not currently playing in the league
This statement has a lot of assumptions. Past presidents in the US are still called "Mr. President" even though they aren't the active president, as one example. Most people would consider Joe Montana a quarterback as that is his defining life characteristic.
Are you no longer a mountain climber if you don't currently climb mountains, even if you reached the peak of Mount Everest? Do you lose that status once you return from the peak and leave the mountain? How recently must the climb have been for you to be considered a mountain climber?
I would have to think more on the implication of the message here, but this is a key underlying point that should be examined.
he’s not an NFL quarterback as he’s not currently playing in the league
This statement has a lot of assumptions. Past presidents in the US are still called "Mr. President" even though they aren't the active president, as one example. Most people would consider Joe Montana a quarterback as that is his defining life characteristic.
Are you no longer a mountain climber if you don't currently climb mountains, even if you reached the peak of Mount Everest? Do you lose that status once you return from the peak and leave the mountain? How recently must the climb have been for you to be considered a mountain climber?
I would have to think more on the implication of the message here, but this is a key underlying point that should be examined.
Why do you need to write "heterosexual" several times? I would think I came to the right place.
@ Brad
Game is not played in the history books. Mr. President is but an honorary title perpetuated for individuals with too much ego. Sure most ppl would consider Montana a great player. The guy must have a reservoir of cool stories but he hasn't scored any touchdowns recently. His current score is zero and some other young buck is getting all the action.
Your achievements can't be taken from you. But someone who just lost all his money, however much, is poor. Let's hope he pulls a "from rags to riches" and gets a high score.
those with severe physical or mental handicaps
This is an interesting subgroup to consider. I don't know that they are truly a zero in terms of SMV. By definition they are out in the left tail someplace. Within their own subgroup though they seem able to met and relate to other members of the opposite sex and have relationships, live together, and sometimes reproduce.
I guess that's even more of a slap in the face to the Omega.
Hmm. So since I took a long break from dating to work on myself, I'm ZBC. But then how do I discuss progress? I think I've worked my way up to at least low delta, judging by all the other areas of my life, and that's meaningful to me.
@ SciVo
For crying out loud are some of you illiterate ... or aspy. And I've only ever had 2 years of English in high school. I guess the only reason I feel compelled to respond is because it's one of the few places I can practice it. Read the fucking post, man and stop stressing about minutiae. And use some common sense.
I think Delta Man has a good point, but there's a third group. Call them Zero By Market (ZBM). A ZBM is trying, but he gets little or no traction. Usually due to a combination of factors.
One factor that doesn't get discussed is the local dating market. Ask anyone who's served in the military, they'll tell you there are some bases that are fine for a married man with a family - but a nightmare if you're single. You see quality men who would be a prime catch elsewhere staying single for lack of opportunity. ZBMs.
I think Delta Man has a good point, but there's a third group. Call them Zero By Market (ZBM). A ZBM is trying, but he gets little or no traction. Usually due to a combination of factors.
Those would be the omegas. Some of them are trying (or more correctly, they THINK they are trying). Even elliot rodgers, the quintessential omega, got some game lessons from a well-meaning family friend.
The high-value but currently off-market individuals, like JJ Watt, may currently have a zero SMV personally, but their existence still affects the SMV of others playing the game.
Just as the '5 minutes of apha" phenomenon affects womens' ability to connect with lower value men later in life, the mere existence of super-alphas colors womens' perception of the men available to them.
I mean it doesn't matter if he is technically off the market or not, in a practical sense he will never be a sexual market option for the average 6 special snowflake. but they don't recognize that. So these off the market alphas still factor into how women perceive a particular man to fit on the SMV scale.
Those would be the omegas. Some of them are trying (or more correctly, they THINK they are trying). Even elliot rodgers, the quintessential omega, got some game lessons from a well-meaning family friend.
@Double E
No, I think Hammerli280 is referring to men who are living in total sausagefests for whatever reason (military service, employment, bad luck, etc.). A man in a sausagefest locale wouldn't necessarily be an Omega any more than a fat cow living there would be a 10.
Hmm. So since I took a long break from dating to work on myself, I'm ZBC. But then how do I discuss progress? I think I've worked my way up to at least low delta, judging by all the other areas of my life, and that's meaningful to me.
It's good to have self confidence and congrats on making progress.
The true test is how other people react to you. If you've made it to Delta, women might not be throwing themselves at you, but they won't be repulsed by your mere presence either. Or, you can evaluate how other men react to you. If the nearest Alpha doesn't seem like he wants to rip your head off every time you open your mouth, that's a good sign too.
@ Rek
Of course he's making a distinction between the epistemology and ontology, but then it's useful to have different terms or a modifier to signal the distinction, for efficiency.
@ Jack Amok
Thank you for your response. A friend that I consider an alpha actually accepted me as a housemate for six months, and we got along fine. I think it's time for me to start trying again. Thanks again.
@Double E
No, I think Hammerli280 is referring to men who are living in total sausagefests for whatever reason (military service, employment, bad luck, etc.). A man in a sausagefest locale wouldn't necessarily be an Omega any more than a fat cow living there would be a 10.
Yeah I mean I guess the whole concept depends on how you view market value being affected by whether the item is currently actually ON the market or not.
When you say a house is worth $200k, it doesn't mean it has to currently be for sale. You are just recognizing that if it were on the market it would fetch that price. You wouldn't say a house is worth $0 when it is not for sale.
If Chris Hemsworth goes to a village in Africa with no women for a week, is he a zero on the SMV scale for that week?
@ Double E
How about "abstract" and "practical" as modifiers? CH would still be an abstract alpha in a sausagefest, and Sir Galahad could've been a practical alpha in Castle Anthrax if his comrades hadn't been so determined to save him from peril.
It seems like a Zero by Market would fall under the Higher Calling category. If your vocation is the military and you spend a hardship tour in let's say Greenland or some concreted over Pacific atoll. Maybe your job went overseas without you, and you're dedicating your funds to keeping your roof and stuff while scrambling for a new career with training, apprenticeship, whatever; once things stabilize, then there's money and time for working game. Maybe you're an engineer on an oil rig off the Saudi coast. Pretty simple.
Of course he's making a distinction between the epistemology and ontology, but then it's useful to have different terms or a modifier to signal the distinction, for efficiency.
Epistemology and ontology ... bla bla bla ... for efficiency? Really. Loser! I do not wish to antagonize anyone by being a bit blunt, but I am also hard, very hard, on myself. What good do you think this obsessing will have. Any over-concentration and over-indulgence on trivialities will permanently hinder any progress you or anyone might hope to make.
Score is a function of SMV, that's it. Not the other way around. And SMV is a man's demonstrable and successful ability to attract, seduce and willingly retain a woman. As long as one is not desqualified from the SMP, a rank can be appointed. Leonardo DiCaprio is a super alpha and I am not, full stop.
CH's hierachy Alpha/Beta and Vox's are one and the same thing. But whereas the former relies solely on sexual prowess, the latter crosses over into the social market place and presents a more rebust model. But, and this is really my point, Vox's hierachy has opened the door to exercices in self-appointment with people getting stuck in contemplative analysis, hoping in the progress to magically make it to the next echelon. I don't think this has ever been his intention.
Vox's hierachy only works if one can honestly look at his lack of achievements and shortcomings and comprehend strenghts of higher value male to act and become a "better version" of oneself. Self-criticism as a preamble to action, not to meditation. For this reason I believe CH's dichotomy serves most readers better. You are either getting some or not, your score is either 0 or not, for whatever reason.
The sexual function is what is considered the norm amongst men which is why most will marry/reproduce...the idea of giving it up for something greater was also pointed out from Jesus after he explained adultery. But there were levels to it. The ones who were born that way (physical handicaps), made that way by men (either physical castration, divorce/state meddling, or they gave it up for their job), and those who gave it up to focus on God (the highest form of sacrificing it).
"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." Matt 19:12
This is a good discussion about when a man is in it out of the market, but be careful not to look for loopholes in order to lie to yourself about your own personal status.
Watching the commenters on Delta Man's posts: those of you mocking him and failing to read the OP and discern his purpose are losing credibility fast. It is quite obvious to everyone of your low moral character and lack of reading comprehension. This blog has been repeatedly described as helping those of lower SMV to reach higher levels: omega to delta, delta to beta, beta to alpha. Reading comprehension, folks.
CH's hierachy Alpha/Beta and Vox's are one and the same thing. But whereas the former relies solely on sexual prowess, the latter crosses over into the social market place and presents a more rebust model.
It can't be the same thing. One looks purely at the sexual domain, while one looks at both the sexual domain and the social domain. 1D vs. 2D. They're both used to describe the same thing, which allows mapping from Vox's system to the CH system, but not the reverse.
From what I gathered from other genxers is a great deal of risk-fails, mental exhaustion and unwillingness to bend too much of precious time/resources to what might lead to their pain or failure. Valid anxieties but hurtful to the overall man.
It can't be the same thing.
I do understand the distinction you are making. My point still holds they are one and the same thing. Both being descriptive hierarchies (1D vs. 2D) of mating success, one is just a bit more complex. Since mating success is the real focal point I believe this deliberate overlapping isn't really an issue worth debating.
Vox's scale does however offer great self-imporevement/therapeutical value.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.